…, then we shall need each other. Part 2

Posted on by R.F. in Wildlife Rahbilitation

As it now still happens that non-professional individuals find orphaned wildlife and try to raise it, we are often confronted with sick animals due to wrong upbringing. But what is often the case, that they bring the wildling to us, to release it as they themselves often failed in their attempt to release the animal back. This failure has different reasons, sometimes it is just the emotional attachment to the raised animal, sometimes they see that the animal is not fit for the wild yet, and often sadly the animal has an emotional attachment to the human-foster parent, which means it is imprinted.

And this is then when the hard work starts for us, which sadly often doesn’t get much acknowledgment. To train a wrongly raised animal to be fit for release costs a lot of time, resources and nerves. These animals need to be kept in enclosures, without any human contact, they need to have contact to their own species. They must be trained to find the appropriate food, show fear towards predators (including humans!) and how to find shelter.

But all of this is only possible after a strict behavioural assessment, which tells the rehabilitator if the animal is actually able to enter the learning process.

This assessment includes: How does it react to human voices, presence, approach – in different stages of moods (fed or unfed, etc.) How close can a human get to the animal; can you chase it away from its seat?              Does it accept food from the human?    How does it respond to calls of its own species? To calls of different species?  Does it express fear to humans, conspecific?               How does it react in new situations?               How does it feed?

These are just a few points that are recorded and determined. A full physical exam is performed as well.

We recently had a case of a crow that was raised by a private individual. The crow was approx. 1.5 years old and probably all its life in captivity. Unfortunately, the person was not able to give us more information about the life of the crow, other than that it likes dry dog food. The person tried to release it before, but the crow refused to leave that persons arm.

The first assessment was very unnerving, as the crow did not leave our side after its “foster-parent” left. It sat on our shoes or, if offered, on our arms. It showed signs of malnourishment as the joints and toes were deformed. Also, all its flight and tail fathers were destroyed and therefore the crow was not able to fly at all. But it did not show any wanting to fly anyway. We did not record any vocalization from the crow. We offered it a cage with food and toys (such as sticks, pinecones, etc.) to get adjusted to the new location and situation. The crow was very stressed, and we hoped it would calm down eventually.

The following days the crow showed no signs of improvement. It did not eat any of the offered food, it did not want to be alone in the cage but when it was released out of the cage it still showed clear signs of distress. The crow continued to sit on anyone’s shoes but showed obvious signs of fear when a hand approached. It did not want to be touched but did not want to be left alone either. The only food it took was dry dog food, and only if it was offered by hand (which it feared). The deformities in toes and joints were uncomfortable and the birds showed signs of pain. Unfortunately, the feather deformities were due to self-destructive behaviour probably due to stress and boredom. When ignored it began to prune and bite the feathers vigorously until they broke.

It was like the crow knew that it was not meant to be with humans but has forgotten (or never learned) to be a crow either.

With all these negative points it was hard to watch. The physical examination was not great due to the deformities, the behavioural assessment was catastrophic.

There was no chance to release the crow as it was now. To isolate it in an aviary would lead to more feather destruction and there was no way in introducing it into a family of crows, as it showed no signs of recognition of a conspecific.

In cases like this, it is difficult to decide what is the right choice. If it was clearly communicated to the public that wildlife care should be only done by professionals, we might not have to deal with situations like this. These decisions are tough for the animal and tough for us.

All possible decisions have to be considered and it has to be the best possible outcome for the animal. The decision has to take into account what is best in both the short and long term. And we must also keep in mind what this decision means for others. If a rare aviary space is taken up by the crow, what other animal will not get this chance? The space that aviaries take up is also a loss of possible space for free-living wildlife. We already take so much from nature, is it then fair to build more and more, particularly for non-releasable, non-breeding wild animals. Also, there is the matter of food, in this case crows eat meat, so is it ok to use the meat (the life) of other healthy animals to feed on just for the sake of being in a cage forever. Should we not invest our resources (limited resources) more considerately and with the best possible outcome in mind?

It is sometimes difficult, and it seems harsh to think like that, but working in wildlife rehabilitation every day, you have to stay as objective as possible.

As I am of the opinion that wildlife should not be kept in cages, unless for conservation or foster-parenting, and as I want to see a wild animal living and thriving and not just surviving (for just the sake of being alive), I don’t support the idea of keeping imprinted wild animals in captivity, especially a stressed, sick and unhappy one like the crow in this case.

But if you tame me… Part 1

Posted on by R.F. in Science, Uncategorized, Wildlife Rahbilitation

Despite the worldwide quarantines and lockdowns, work in wildlife centres has not stopped. Animals still get injured and sick, and now that it is springtime, the first orphaned animals are arriving at our centre. The only difference for us is that we have even fewer resources than before. We have to make sure our volunteers stay healthy and safe. Gloves, face masks and disinfectant are now needed for corona patients, so it is hard to buy them anymore, and as the economy is not very stable in these times, people are not able to donate money.

But our work continues and we do our best to keep it going as professional wildlife centres are needed. We can not expect the knowledge, resources and professionalism of private individuals to take care of injured, sick or orphaned wildlife. Often well-intended acts end in tragedies, for humans and the wild animal.

I already stressed before, that even the quietest wild animal is stressed in human care. We might not see it, hear it or notice it in any way but they are stressed. As wild animals are not domesticated, they are not, even if they are raised by humans, bred and genetically modified to live in captivity and close proximity with humans. Through domestication, humans changed wild animals to be more manageable for human use and to be more suited to learn how to interact and communicate with humans.

As we raise orphaned wildlife regularly in wildlife centres and often, as there are not many foster animal-parents available, these orphans are raised by humans. We all know how fast young animals, across all species, learn and adapt. And sometimes these orphans think of us humans as their parents or kind, especially if they are raised alone and with frequent interactions with humans.

 Imprinting is the term we use in these situations. Konrad Lorenz was one of the first researchers to show the effects of imprinting, and I am sure a lot of you have seen pictures of him with a clutch of geese following him around. Usually, a young animal imprints on their own species, as they see, hear and feel their parents and siblings. This process helps them to know which species is their own kind, which species is safe to interact with, and how their future mate should look, sound, smell and so on. We can differentiate social imprinting and sexual imprinting. A nonhuman animal can be social with its own species and humans but show sexual behaviour, if given a choice, only to its own kind.

When and how this imprinting happens is different in every species. We don’t know much about our wildlife yet, and therefore not how the orphaned animals are affected by being raised in close proximity to humans.

Many centres apply different strategies for preventing the human-imprinting process. Some use hand-puppets in the shape of the parents to feed the young ones, others feed the orphans in darkness.

All rehabilitators usually avoid any close contact and any human voices around the nonhuman animals. It is always preferred to have more than one individual of a particular species, to simulate the presence of siblings if the species allows it (obviously species where only one offspring is raised, would not be used to having siblings around, and it might end in a fight, like a lot of eagles where the older hatchling kills the younger one). But studies suggest that even having a sibling there is not necessarily enough to prevent developing tameness or a positive relationship with the human feeding them, which might lead to sexual imprinting.

Raising an orphaned wildling is quite a science. And still, we don’t know enough to prevent human imprinting and as we lack the ability to recheck our released animals, due to a lack of resources, we can not see if they successfully mate with their own species.

Further studies are needed to determine what is the best approach for raising orphaned wildlife, especially songbirds as here the methods to prevent imprinting are very limited. We can not feed them in the dark, there are too many species for which to have individual puppets and sometimes siblings are not available.

To be continued…