Is wildlife rehabilitation really effective ?

© Bill Settle/Pexels

Wildlife restoration, a practice that has been booming since the mid-20th century, raises questions about its true effectiveness, despite the noble intentions behind it. More and more people and organizations are recognizing the need to repair damaged ecosystems and return wildlife populations to sustainable levels. This approach, aimed at preserving and protecting species, comes up against a complex and multifaceted reality.

Despite the considerable resources mobilized for the treatment and reintegration of animals into their original biotope, the evaluation of these initiatives is slowed down by a number of technical and logistical obstacles. A state of affairs further aggravated by the absence of an exhaustive and centralized monitoring database.

Technical and logistical obstacles

Post-release monitoring is one of the cornerstones of rehabilitation, encountering major technological pitfalls, notably failure early GPS collars. These are installed on animals to allow scientists to track them after their reintroduction. A 2019 study reveals that only half of the tracking devices placed on black bears (Ursus americanus) had been kept by the animals in question. Another meta-analysis of 62 species showed that only 52% worked satisfactorily, the rest succumbing to technical failures.

A problem amplified by the rugged topography and the unpredictable behavior of animals, putting a strain on these tracking devices. Elizabeth Brunton, an ecologist at the University of the Sunshine Coast, highlights the fact that “ animals climb trees, take refuge in trunks or cavities, which compromises the integrity of the collars “.

The prohibitive cost of this equipment, around $2,500 per unit for sun bears for example (Helarctos malayanus, the smallest of bears), constitutes an additional obstacle, considerably restricting the monitoring and analysis capacities of small structures dedicated to rehabilitation.

A lack of centralized data and standardized protocols

The shortage and dispersion of data concerning rehabilitation also remain obstacles . Kai Williams, head of the International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council, highlights the difficulties encountered by small NGOs in obtaining funding, due to a lack of tangible evidence of the effectiveness of their initiatives. Rachel Avilla, co-founder of the Wild Neighbors Database Project, reveals that their system, although used by more than 1,200 centers, does not provide any field dedicated to post-release monitoring.

This lack of standardization and evidence hinders the ability of rehabilitators to identify the most effective methods. Adam Grogan, former head of wildlife rehabilitation research and policy at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, points to another challenge facing professionals in the field.

« There are many people who have their own beliefs about what works and what doesn't, and trying to convince them otherwise can be very difficult » he explains. This mosaic of approaches, devoid of a common scientific base, undermines the credibility and impact of rehabilitation programs.

The need for strengthened collaboration and ;#8217;a proactive approach

To overcome these pitfalls, better synergy between rehabilitators and researchers proves essential. Peggy Popp, an independent rehabilitator, suggests that close collaboration with academia could greatly enrich the quality and quantity of data collected. It nevertheless underlines the importance for scientists to take into account the empirical observations of professionals in the field.

The involvement of the general public in the collection of post-liberation informationcould be a promising avenue. Encouraging the reporting of incidental sightings of rehabilitated animals would help expand the database and refine the evaluation of program effectiveness.

However, even the most rigorous studies cannot overcome a fundamental problem: the scarcity of secure wild spaces for the reintroduction of threatened species. Several factors contribute to this phenomenon and get worse from year to year. Degradation and fragmentation of habitats (human activities, global warming), introduction of invasive species, pollution of water, air, soil, gaps in policies and laws, etc. This is the real fundamental problem and the real lever for action.

• The rehabilitation of wild animals and its effectiveness is today called into question.
• Post-release monitoring is complicated by numerous problems: financial, technical or logistical.
• The absence of centralized data and standardized protocols hinder the evaluation and improvement of rehabilitation methods.

📍 To not miss any news from Presse-citron, follow us on Google News and WhatsApp.

[ ]