Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2):309–324, Fall 2020 • digitalcommons.usu.edu/hwi Case Study Caring for the circle of life: wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care
Donna J. Perry, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Graduate School of Nursing, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01655, USA [email protected] Jacob P. Averka, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Graduate School of Nursing, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01655, USA
Abstract: In the United States alone, there are >5,000 state-licensed wildlife rehabilitators in addition to a multitude of other wildlife caregivers across rehabilitation and sanctuary settings. Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care provide a unique lens from which to explore human– wildlife interactions. We examined the experiences of wildlife caregivers within a continuum of acute veterinary services, community-based rehabilitation, and sanctuary care to gain insight into wildlife caregiving and its implications for human–wildlife coexistence. Between 2016 and 2018, we completed in-depth interviews with 15 wildlife caretakers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire, USA. In addition to the interviews, we observed 197 unique human–animal interactions during wildlife care. The overarching paradigm that emerged from our research was what we refer to as “caring for the circle of life.” Embraced within this paradigm were 5 themes: (1) entering and persevering in the circle of care; (2) honoring natural processes; (3) knowing and being known by the wild creature; (4) extending the circle of care; and (5) fulfillment. Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care, in addition to providing medical assistance to animals in need, advance knowledge about individual species and contributes to increased public awareness regarding wildlife conservation and human–wildlife coexistence.
Key words: caregivers, conservation, human–wildlife coexistence, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, wildlife, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife sanctuary
Wildlife holds different meanings for property damage, loss of livestock, and threats people across cultures and epochs (Manfredo to public health and safety (Patterson et al. 2008). Human–wildlife interactions can range 2003, DeStefano and Deblinger 2005, Conover from negative to positive on a continuum from 2019). Wildlife are also harmed through human conflict to coexistence (Frank 2016). Human actions such as lethal control methods that may development has increasingly encroached upon cause increased animal suffering (Way 2007) as wildlife habitats (DeStefano and Deblinger well as broader environmental destruction and 2005). However, human alteration of natural habitat loss (Chivian and Bernstein 2008). environments has led to imbalances in wild- Frank (2016) emphasized that to develop an life populations, which wildlife managers have understanding and practices leading to conser- sought to address through a variety of strate- vation, there is a need for more research focused gies (Messmer 2000). Concomitantly, as wild- on describing the factors that contribute to life populations have increased in response to enhanced human–wildlife coexistence. Human protection, so have human–wildlife conflicts coexistence with animals has been reported as (Messmer 2000). being an essential component of healthy and The phrase “human–wildlife conflict” applies sustainable ecosystems (Chivian and Bernstein to any negative interactions between humans 2008, Messmer 2020). and wildlife, “either real or perceived, eco- Recent studies indicate cultural trends that nomic or aesthetic, social or political” (Messmer could support coexistence. Research on atti- 2000, 100). Such conflicts can have adverse con- tudes toward wildlife in the United States sug- sequences for both humans and wildlife. The gests that modernization changes are influenc- negative impact of wildlife on humans includes ing a shift in value orientation from domina- 310 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2) tion, in which wildlife are viewed as further- ing the welfare, respecting the wildness, and ing human interests, toward mutualism, an maintaining the dignity of each animal in life egalitarian and harmonistic perspective (Teel and in death” (Miller 2012, v). It is critical that and Manfredo 2010). Public interest in wildlife wildlife rehabilitators understand and value is growing, as reflected in increases in wildlife the wild nature of animals (Bordewieck et al. tourism (Manfredo 2008, Knight 2009, U.S. Fish 2015). Approximately half the animals that are and Wildlife Service 2016). brought into rehabilitation cannot be saved However, research on human–wildlife coex- (Kidd et al. 1996), and euthanasia is sometimes istence is challenged by the natural separa- the most humane option (Miller 2012). For tion between humans and free-living creatures. wildlife with treatable injuries, the goal is to Despite living in a shared world, human–wildlife provide care in a manner that fosters successful relations exist across a boundary (Perry 2016), release back into the wild (Guy et al. 2013). Data which limits opportunities to examine human– on release outcomes are limited (Mullineaux wildlife interactions. Wildlife rehabilitation and 2014). However, studies with specific species, sanctuary care create a bridge across the human– such as orphaned black bears (Ursus america- wildlife boundary. Moreover, wildlife care illus- nus), suggest that rehabilitation can be success- trates the moral view espoused by Ricard (2014), ful at fostering self-sufficiency in natural habi- who locates the human–animal relationship in a tats following release (Smith et al. 2016, Myers shared capacity for suffering and calls for a com- and Young 2018). passionate ethos toward all beings. Some animals that are found to be non-releas- Wildlife rehabilitation is defined as “the treat- able may be placed in sanctuary or educational ment and temporary care of injured, diseased, and settings (Miller 2012, Guy et al. 2013). Wildlife displaced indigenous animals, and the subsequent sanctuaries provide lifetime care for animals to release of healthy animals to appropriate habitats meet their physical, psychological, and social in the wild” (Miller 2012, ix). The term “wildlife” needs within “specialized habitats in which refers to “non-domesticated amphibians, reptiles, wild animals can experience a relatively high birds, and mammals” (Massachusetts Division of quality of life” (Doyle 2017, 58). Although sanc- Fisheries and Wildlife 2016). tuaries cannot duplicate life in the wild, they In the United States, permits to conduct can provide natural environments that reduce general wildlife rehabilitation are managed stress and encourage species-specific behaviors by individual states while federal permits are for captive wildlife (Doyle 2017). required to care for migratory birds (U.S. Fish Research in wildlife rehabilitation has pri- and Wildlife Service 2003). Wildlife rehabilita- marily focused on management of animal tors, also called rehabbers, have varying educa- injuries and disease such as rehabilitation and tional backgrounds, which can range from vet- release practices (Guy et al. 2013) and factors erinary medicine to more generalized education. influencing successful release (Grogan and However, there are standardized requirements Kelly 2013). There are few studies focusing on by each state in order to obtain a wildlife reha- caregiver experiences. One study of motives bilitation permit. For example, in the state of for entering wildlife rehabilitation found that Massachusetts, a rehabilitator must pass a writ- the majority of wildlife caregivers had pets ten examination and have adequate facilities for during their youth and an interest in animals care (Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and since childhood (Kidd et al. 1996). Caregivers in Wildlife 2016). In the United States alone, there this study cited that reasons for continuing the are >5,000 state-permitted wildlife rehabilitators work included a love of animals and desire to (National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association help them, providing hands-on care, and con- 2015). Rehabilitators work in collaboration with tributing to the environment. Similarly, a study a multitude of other wildlife caregivers across on rehabilitation centers found that organiza- rehabilitation and sanctuary settings. tional missions included both animal welfare The Wildlife Rehabilitator’s Code of Ethics and conservation (Guy et al. 2013). maintains that “a wildlife rehabilitator should Our aim in this study was to explore the strive to provide professional and humane care experiences of wildlife caregivers. We focused in all phases of wildlife rehabilitation, protect- particularly on caregivers’ interactions with Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care • Perry and Averka 311
Table 1. Sample interview questions for wildlife rehabilitators, 2016–2018, New England, USA. 1. How did you come to know that you wanted to become involved in wildlife care or rehabilitation? 2. When you have a new animal to care for, how do you get to know that animal? a. (probe) What sorts of questions are you asking about the animal? b. (probe) What is important for you to know? How do you go about getting that information? 3. Do you feel that any of the animals that you care for know you as an individual? a. (probe) What sorts of behavior make you know that they know you? 4. Can you share any particular stories about an animal that you felt particularly close to or had a particularly meaningful experience with? 5. How has doing this work influenced your views about wildlife and human–wildlife relations? 6. How has this work been meaningful to you and your life? wildlife and their reflections on those experi- Methods ences to gain insight into wildlife care and its Research design implications for human–wildlife coexistence. We used transcendental method, formally We used transcendental method, an interpretive identified as Transcendental Method for phenomenological approach (Perry 2013), with Research with Human Subjects, a qualitative qualitative interviews and observation within phenomenological approach based on the phi- settings that reflect the continuum of wildlife losophy of Bernard Lonergan, to conduct our care. Our study was guided by the theory of research (Perry 2013). Lonergan’s philosophy transcendent pluralism, which is grounded in emphasizes the role of inquiry and knowl- mutually evolving human and ecological dig- edge within human decisions. We conducted nity (Perry 2015). Within this framework, each the interviews using a flexible guide (Table human or nonhuman animal is viewed as hav- 1) aiming to explore the interiority of human ing dignity, or value. Dignity encompasses the experience and the questions, knowledge, and good of each being’s unique existence (value decisions that flow from that experience. In in being) as well as its development (value in this approach, interview questions are placed becoming) through which it realizes its capac- in a developmental context to explore how a ity and contributes to the larger ecological person’s background has shaped their cur- whole (Perry, in press). rent experience and how the knowledge and decisions emanating from that experience Study area shape subsequent development. We utilized We conducted our interviews and observations Lonergan’s reflective process of authentic sub- in Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire, jectivity, which entails being attentive, intelli- which are states in the New England region. gent, reasonable, and responsible throughout New England is comprised of 6 states in the the study (Perry 2013). Northeastern United States (additionally includ- We employed strategies for research trust- ing Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont). worthiness proposed by Lincoln and Guba The New England area stretches from the south- (1985). Credibility was achieved through persis- ern Canadian border to Long Island sound, and tent observation, prolonged engagement in the its variable landscape of high mountain ranges, field, triangulation of interview and observa- valleys, plateaus, rivers, lakes, and seacoasts tion data, and peer debriefing. Transferability supports diverse species of wildlife (DeGraaf was obtained through purposeful maxi- and Yamasaki 2001). We collected data between mum variation sampling and thick descrip- 2016 and 2018 at multiple locations including an tion. Dependability and confirmability were acute care wildlife veterinary hospital, 6 com- achieved through maintaining an audit trail, or munity (home-based) wildlife rehabilitation a record of key reflections and decisions. The organizations, and a wildlife sanctuary park. principle investigator (PI) utilized reflexivity 312 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2) through self-reflection and journaling about were written in free form and focused on the insights into the research. The PI was a wildlife human–animal interaction during caregiving, rehabilitation volunteer who became a certified including actions taken by the caregiver, the rehabilitator shortly after the study conclusion. spatial relationship between the human and The study was approved by the University of animal, and associated animal behaviors. We Massachusetts Medical School’s Institutional conducted interviews and observation during Review Board (H00011449; October 7, 2016). all seasons, although only 1 acute care obser- vation was scheduled during the busy spring Data collection “baby season” to avoid overwhelming staff. We used a purposive sampling approach with maximum variation (Creswell and Poth Data analysis 2018) to seek participants with a broad range The PI transcribed the interview audiotapes of wildlife care experiences. This included a verbatim and conducted analysis. Each inter- variety of settings as well as education, profes- view was read line by line with topical codes sions, and species cared for. Inclusion criteria assigned to key participant declarations. A were wildlife caregivers with 6 months or more Microsoft Word document was created for each experience, age 18 or greater, and ability to code, which included interview responses and speak English. Participants were recruited for observation data. Triangulation was achieved interviews on an ongoing basis by the PI via by comparing interview and observation data email, telephone calls, and notices at the facili- to note similarities and divergences. The data ties. Community rehabilitators were recruited for each code were then reviewed and summa- from a statewide listing. Informed consent rized. The PI read and re-read the data to grad- was obtained from each participant by the PI. ually combine similar topical code summaries We provided a $25 gift card to participants for and develop the final themes. In this process, remuneration, which was communicated in the 56 initial codes (such as “animal cognition,” recruitment materials and consent form. “helping animals,” and “respect”) were synthe- The sample size in qualitative research needs sized into the final 5 themes. This is a process to be large enough to provide a richly textured of moving from concrete data to higher levels view but one “that permits—by virtue of not of abstraction and interpretation (Perry 2013). being too large—the deep, case-oriented anal- Data analysis was an iterative process and ysis that is a hallmark of qualitative inquiry” ongoing analysis informed subsequent inter- (Sandelowski 1995, 183). We interviewed 15 views and observation. wildlife caregivers to reach horizonal satura- tion. Horizonal saturation is consistent with Results qualitative sampling approaches but also We conducted 15 face-to-face interviews reflects Lonergan’s cognitive philosophy (Perry averaging 1 hour. Participants had a range of 2013). Horizonal saturation entails an under- 1–60 years of wildlife care experience (Table 2). standing of the participants’ horizon of knowl- About half of the interviewees were involved edge and concerns and is determined by the in the observation sessions, although other staff researcher during data collection and analysis. were also engaged in care during observation Horizonal saturation cannot be determined in times. We observed approximately 197 human– advance, as interaction with participants entails animal interactions with 39 species (Table 3) expansion of the researcher’s own horizon of through formal facility-based observation ses- knowledge. sions (5 at acute care center and 5 at sanctuary) We collected data over a 17-month period as well as 3 informal home-based observation between 2016 and 2018. Interviews and observa- sessions. Observation sessions ranged from a tion were conducted by the PI with supplemen- half hour to 5 hours. Human–animal interaction tal observation notes recorded by the research was defined as the co-presence of human(s) and assistant. Observation was primarily non-par- animal(s) within a physical space in which each ticipant although some participant observation has potential awareness of and impact upon the activities were done such as assisting with ani- other. We observed a range of human–animal mal feeding or enrichment. Observation notes interactions including: (1) entering or standing Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care • Perry and Averka 313
Table 2. Interview demographics of wildlife rehabilitators (N = 15), 2016–2018, New England, USA. Gender Male = 6 Female = 9 Age Mean = 49.3 Range = 26–78 Highest education level High school 4 Associate 2 Bachelor’s 6 Doctoral 3 Years of wildlife care experience Mean = 18.1 Range = 1–60 Setting/type of animal carea Acute rehabilitation 4 Community rehabilitation 7 Sanctuary 4 Employment status as wildlife caregiver Employed 7 Volunteer 6 Both 2 aSome participants had prior experience in another area.
Table 3. Species observed during human–animal interactions for wildlife care (N = approximately 197 human–wildlife interactions observed.), 2016–2018, New England, USA. Bird Mammal Reptile American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) American beaver (Castor canadensis) Painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) American kestrel (Falco sparverius) American black bear (Ursus americanus) Spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) American robin (Turdus migratorius) Bobcat (Lynx rufus) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis) Barn owl (Tyto alba) Cougar (Puma concolor) Barred owl (Strix varia) Eastern coyote (Canis latrans) Black vulture (Coragyps atratus) Eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) Canada goose (Branta canadensis) Fisher (Pekania pennanti) Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Moose (Alces americanus) Eastern screech-owl (Megascops asio) Raccoon (Procyon lotor) Herring gull (Larus argentatus) Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) White-footed deermouse (Peromyscus leucopus) Mute swan (Cygnus olor) White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Ringed-bill gull (Larus delawarensis) Rock pigeon (Columba livia) Snowy owl (Bubo scandiacus) Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 314 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2)
“I had always found wildlife as a child. And I didn’t really know that there was a community that cared for them…And as soon as I knew, that was it. I was like, ‘Oh, I’m all in.’ So, just loving animals, all my life. And wildlife especially.”
Some participants conducted wildlife care as part of a job that required formal education, such as veterinary medicine, while others had varying backgrounds. Senior staff educated newcomers within facilities. Community reha- bilitators working out of their homes were often isolated, although they could obtain advice from veterinarians or other rehabbers. Much of the knowledge came through hands-on experi- ence over time. Strained rehabilitation capacity. Numerous participants bemoaned the limited resources Figure 1. Study themes within the overarching for wildlife rehabilitation. This resulted in 2 paradigm of “caring for the circle of life,” superim- posed on a photograph of a medicine wheel, which inter-related problems: inadequate funding represents Native American teachings of balance and insufficient personnel. Expenses included and healing within the circle of life, 2016–2018 food, medication, supplies, and enclosures. The (photo courtesy of D. Perry). community rehabbers largely worked as volun- teers and had to use their own money or solicit near enclosures, (2) assessment and/or physical donations. examination, (3) medical treatment, (4) feeding, Meeting wildlife needs became particularly and (5) enrichment activities (such as providing challenging during baby season in spring and food-based puzzles for cognitive stimulation). summer when there were droves of orphaned We identified 5 themes: (1) entering and perse- and injured “animals flooding in.” One par- vering in the circle of care; (2) honoring natural ticipant noted that even within the entire sys- processes; (3) knowing and being known by the tem of caregivers, “there’s always going to be wild creature; (4) extending the circle of care; and more animals that have injuries, illnesses, or are (5) fulfillment. Together these themes comprised orphaned than we can ever possibly deal with.” an overarching paradigm of “caring for the circle The work took a personal toll. During the of life” (Figure 1). Themes are described below. busy baby season, community rehabilitators Illustrative quotations representing the data are struggled to keep up with frequent feedings, reported verbatim with removal of extraneous often unable to leave their homes due to the words such as “you know.” Italicized words constant need. One rehabilitator described a indicate areas of emphasis within the tone of typical scenario: participants’ responses. “It’s very common here to have 50 baby Entering and persevering in the circle raccoons [Procyon lotor]…And then some- of care body brings two litters of five each…they There were 3 dimensions of this theme: the haven’t eaten in a couple of days; they path to wildlife care, strained rehabilitation have to be warmed up; they’re dehydrated. capacity, and a network of collaboration. They’re terrified. They’re starving but they The path to wildlife care. Many participants don’t want you to touch them…But you’ve recounted growing up with extensive exposure to still got 50 that need to be fed. So, you’re animals and/or the outdoors. For several individ- going to have to dribble milk into 10 uals, the decision to engage in wildlife care was screaming babies without aspirating them influenced by a love of animals since childhood. to keep them alive…And while you’re Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care • Perry and Averka 315
doing that…somebody brings you a fox ting you want hands off as much as possible. [Vulpes vulpes] that they just hit with their We would do what we needed to do and then car. With all the insides on the outside.” we’d leave them alone.” Participants described both physical and men- Participants described wildlife care as “exhaust- tal boundaries between themselves and wildlife. ing.” Even after baby season was over, many ani- Physical boundaries included covering cages mals were overwintered for release the follow- with towels so the animals did not view people ing spring, and injured animals kept arriving. passing. Caregivers wore masks when working One participant expressed concerns about some with some animals, such as owls [Strigiformes], rehabilitators burning out. Several caregivers con- to prevent imprinting. Emotional boundaries veyed a strong sense of responsibility for helping had to do with “holding back” to avoid getting wildlife as “a lifelong commitment.” attached to animals. This involved keeping the A network of collaboration. Participants collabo- well-being of the animal foremost in one’s mind rated with numerous individuals to help meet and “knowing that it’s for the best.” One rehab- the challenge of limited resources. This included ber reflected on this challenge. strong relationships with local veterinarians. Community members also helped through vol- “Yeah. It’s hard. Like the snowy owl [Bubo unteering with animal care, assisting with proj- scandiacus]…I could sit in there for hours ects, providing a location for wildlife release with this bird just watching him. He’s so and/or donating supplies and money. Members beautiful. But I try to; I say, ‘No! This guy’s of the public were often the initial finders of going to be released. Wild as possible.’” injured animals. A few participants discussed cooperative relations with hunters, such as some One rehabber noted that the need to maintain who helped build enclosures. boundaries could sometimes make it difficult to retain volunteers because some people had the Honoring natural processes mistaken idea that they would be able to “pet Participants described their relationship and play with the animals.” with wildlife as one of respect. Respect meant Boundaries were also important for human honoring natural cycles and “not meddling.” safety. When entering an animal’s space, it was Dimensions of this theme included: maintain- critical to be attentive to cues that could indicate ing boundaries, minimizing wildlife stress, tenseness or agitation. Caregivers did not enter meeting developmental needs, the cycle of life the enclosures of some animals, such as cougars and death, and release. (Puma concolor). Unlike pets, who are trained Maintaining boundaries. In caring for wild not to bite, wild animals need to scratch and bite animals, certain boundaries needed to be main- for survival. Safe handling required “avoiding tained to reduce animal stress and avoid habit- the pointing parts.” Learning how to handle an uation to humans. The relationship between animal safely involved knowing its natural his- caregiver and animal varied based on the spe- tory as a species. One caregiver described being cies, where the animal would eventually live (in cautious around a beaver (Castor canadensis). “It the wild or in a sanctuary setting), developmen- could bite you. It’s a beaver. It could hurt pretty tal needs, and the caregiver themselves. The bad. It eats trees.” In contrast, another caregiver most important determination was whether noted that duck (Anas platyrhynchos) bites usu- the animal would be released back into the ally didn’t hurt because they had flat bills. wild. Caregiver interactions with non-releas- While the boundaries described above were able sanctuary or educational animals fostered fairly consistent across rehabilitation facilities, familiarity so that the animals would be at ease there were subtle cultural and individual dif- with human presence. However, rehabilitators ferences across settings. For example, while working with releasable wildlife emphasized some facilities resembled pre-schools with the importance of preventing the animals from stuffed animals and toddler toys, other rehab- becoming habituated to humans because that bers preferred more natural play objects that would inhibit successful release. “We want to animals would find in the wild, such as sticks. keep them as wild as possible. In a rehab set- Some participants reported that they did 316 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2)
attentive to signs of animal stress such as rapid breathing. Covering the animal’s head with a towel during procedures could help keep it calm. Caregivers tried to decrease noise and use slow, calm, methodical movements. Activities were clustered together to reduce interactions with people. Sanctuary settings, in contrast, reduced stress by fostering familiarity with people because human interactions would be part of the ani- mal’s future life. This was especially important for animals viewed by the public as part of educational displays. Having consistent care- givers and procedures was helpful. One par- ticipant noted, “You get into a pattern with each Figure 2. Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) animal…so they know what to expect when I in rehabilitation at Medicine Mammals, Wendell, come in. And I feel like they’re going to be less Massachusetts, USA. As orphaned animals mature, they are typically moved to outdoor enclosures situ- stressed if I stick to that routine.” ated in natural environments with reduced exposure Meeting developmental needs. Some rehab- to humans and designed to promote natural activi- bers emphasized the developmental nurtur- ties such as climbing (photo courtesy of D. Perry). ing needs of orphaned babies. However, while baby animals might be nurtured during feed- ing, rehabilitators were careful not to handle the animals more than necessary. They also dis- tanced themselves as the animals grew older. As animals matured, they naturally became more fearful of or aggressive toward humans, and it was important to recognize that as a nor- mal stage. One example was with a species “like possums [Didelphis virginiana]. They’re going to be cute and fun for a little while and then they’re going to start opening their mouths and showing you their teeth and growling at you. Figure 3. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) in rehabilitation at Medicine Mammals, Wendell, Massachusetts, And that’s a good response.” USA. Wildlife stress in captivity can be reduced by For many rehabbers, an important milestone having areas for retreat within larger enclosures. was when the animals were moved to an outside Small enclosed habitat boxes reduce the territory an animal must defend and provide a sense of enclosure. This transition was designed to foster safety (photo courtesy of D. Perry). independence in preparation for release. At this point, human interaction was limited to provid- have feelings of attachment and being -“emo ing food, water, and cleaning the cage. Some tionally connected” to some of the animals in of the rehabbers located outdoor enclosures their care. Attachment tended to occur toward away from the house and road traffic to prevent animals that “we have for a long time” and unnecessary exposure to humans (Figure 2). those that have “come through great adver- Small boxes for retreat within enclosures pro- sity.” This seemed to be more common in the vided wildlife with a sense of safety (Figure 3). sanctuary setting where animals were placed Participants noted that some animals would for lifelong care. naturally “wild up” on their own. Certain prac- Minimizing wildlife stress. Stress in captivity tices could assist with this process, such as hav- could trigger physiologic changes that resulted ing habitat enclosures with natural climbing in animal death. This was of particular concern materials. If juveniles seemed to be growing in the acute rehabilitation setting with newly too friendly, some facilities used mild hazing admitted wildlife. Caregivers needed to be such as banging on raccoon cages. “If you’re a Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care • Perry and Averka 317 raccoon and you come to associate people with for the ones that we really think we’re good things and you go approach people you going to be able to get back out into the unfortunately are going to have a pretty short wild. Unfortunately. Everybody else is lifespan. And you’re gonna get shot.” euthanized. Which is unfortunate. But A few participants noted the need to assist that’s the reality of the situation.” young predators to hone their hunting skills through placing dead prey (such as roadkill) in In some cases, a non-releasable animal an enclosure. Some rehabbers used live prey, might be transferred to an educational facil- although participants had varying views as to ity. However, such spaces were limited. Less whether live prey was necessary. common species had a better chance of finding Caregivers also provided enrichment activi- a permanent home. Limited space meant that ties for wildlife. This included approaches to animals who might have flourished in an edu- foster natural behaviors, such as putting water- cational setting were instead euthanized. fowl in a tub to swim and providing cogni- Although wildlife death could be “emotion- tive stimulation through food-based puzzles. ally draining,” participants tried to put it in Caregivers in the sanctuary setting noted the perspective by reasoning that after “horrific” effectiveness of their techniques through- for injuries, euthanasia was “a kindness.” mal evaluation of animal behavior. Participants emphasized that companionship “I just try to…rationalize in my mind, ‘His from other animals of the same species could help wing was never going to heal. He was never to reduce stress. Companions were particularly going to be able to fly. So ultimately, he was important for orphaned baby animals to meet never going to be happy…this is better for developmental needs and prevent imprinting him.’” on humans. For example, baby raccoons would learn through “fighty-bitey play.” Rehabbers Release. The ultimate goal of wildlife reha- would transfer animals between facilities so that bilitation is for release “back out into the they could “raise them all with at least one other wild.” Ideally the release site should be “in a of their kind.” In sanctuary settings, animals were familiar environment where it knows where placed with conspecifics whenever possible. its food and shelter is.” Sometimes caregivers However, this needed to be done carefully, as provided a “soft release” in which the animal animals might view a newcomer as a territorial was let go near the rehabilitation facility with threat and respond aggressively. temporary food provision. Animals were usu- The cycle of life and death. Participants described ally released in late summer or early fall to give a deep respect for the circle of life. One dimen- them time to find food and shelter before the sion of this was valuing both predator and prey winter. Readiness was assessed through mea- as necessary for a balanced ecosystem. “I’m sures including weight, mobility, flying skill, equally happy to care for a fox or a cottontail and ability to catch live prey. Many participants (Sylvilagus floridanus). I want them both out there noted that an animal’s behavior would “tell to do what they’re supposed to do.” you when they’re ready.” A second dimension of the cycle of life and death related to “sad stuff,” or caring for ani- “So you feel really proud of them when mals who died. In the acute setting, euthanasia they start to get feisty, when they start to get was generally done when animals had non- unmanageable, when they start to get really releasable injuries, a poor prognosis, or unre- hard to pick up and give treatments to, and lievable suffering. During the slow season, staff just be a royal pain in your behind because might provide care to an animal even if it had they’re acting like their own wild selves.” a “long shot.” But in the busy spring and sum- mer, a strict triage system was needed: The moment of release could bring mixed emotions of “happiness. And sadness,” as well “...in the summer when I have a billion as a feeling of “accomplishment.” One partici- patients and not enough people to take pant described the moment of release with a care of them, we can only realistically care sigh of joy, “Ooohhh! It’s really great.” 318 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2)
Knowing and being known by the wild come near me.’” Another participant described creature using the animal’s own sounds. “I will make This theme included 4 dimensions: attentive- their noises…So I don’t talk human. I try to ness to what they are showing you; communi- mimic what they do…So I talk their language.” cation; knowing individual characteristics, and Some individuals used physical communi- animal knowledge of individual humans. cation such as a sanctuary caregiver who was Attentiveness to what they are showing you. In observed to lightly pat a bobcat (Lynx rufus) acute rehabilitation, the physical exam was crit- that had sidled up next to the worker during ically important because, “In wildlife medicine feeding. The bobcat seemed to solicit and enjoy we have almost no history whatsoever. Most the patting. animals are brought in to us because they have Knowing individual characteristics. While come in contact by happenstance with a per- each species had some common behavioral son.” In sanctuary settings, repeated interac- traits, participants also noted characteristics tions over a long period gave caregivers insight that varied within species. Adjectives used to into the animal’s behavior and personality. describe individual animals included “clever,” “The long-term behavior takes some time. And “growly,” “shy,” and “grumpy.” One raccoon that’s the only thing that can really give it to you was “feisty” while another had more “sweet- is time. Time and interaction.” Regular caregiv- ness.” Insights into animal characteristics ers could notice subtle cues that might indicate included embodied knowing. “The more that a problem. One participant emphasized: we handle the animals…you get to know little quirks like, this one likes to turn and bite your “You have to always be looking to see what stomach when you’re holding it.” they’re showing you…‘Cause some of these Participants indicated that differences in things are really subtle and it’s easy to miss personalities were important to assess because them…Sometimes it’s just like, their eyes they provided clues as to how to best interact can look different when they’re sick. You with that particular animal. just see it in their eyes. And that’s it…” “We get some herring gulls (Larus Communication. Participants reported differ- argentatus) that have a sense of humor… ent types of communication with wildlife. It there are herring gulls that I tease. Because was critical to understand the body language of they like it. There are herring gulls that particular species to assess for stress or aggres- are angry and I let them be angry…If you sion. It was also important to be aware of the have herring gulls that are shy, well then meaning that one’s own body language would you leave them alone. It’s just this innate hold for a particular species. For example, one human response to the responses that rehabber noted that looking directly at a coyote we’re interpreting from those animals.” might be perceived as a threat whereas yawn- ing signaled nonaggression. There was a wide range of beliefs and prac- While some participants avoided talking tices among participants and settings regarding to wildlife during care, many individuals naming individual animals. Some community described using some sort of verbal communi- rehabilitators did name the wildlife. One partici- cation. A number of caregivers emphasized the pant advocated that naming animals allowed for importance of using “calm, safe, quiet noises.” more individualized plans of care. In the acute A couple of rehabilitators used musical com- veterinary setting, names were generally not munication through humming or singing. “I used, although identifying marks with differ- get them in an area where it’s quiet and I let ent colors of nail polish were put on littermates them just calm down…And I sing to them. I to distinguish them for treatment. One site only sing to them all the time.” named long-term educational animals. Another Caregivers came to know common sounds site had names used “in secret” among staff but used by the species they cared for. One rehab- did not provide the names to the public. ber interpreted a raccoon vocalization, “Oh, The cultural influence around not naming ani- that’s a grumpy sound…That means, ‘Don’t mals was evident during observation of team dis- Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care • Perry and Averka 319 cussion at a facility in which a caregiver described brought wildlife into care were due to human a bird saying, “We call her Cutie,” but then looked actions, typically rooted in lack of understand- a bit sheepish and reverted to the species name. ing. For example, many raptors were admitted Despite a policy of not naming animals, we did with internal bleeding due to eating prey that observe the occasional use of names during care had ingested rodenticide poison. Even well- such as, “Good job, Tiny!” This inconsistency was intentioned human actions could result in harm. explained by a participant: Baby animals, such as fawns (Odocoileus virgin- ianus), were sometimes mistakenly thought to “We always tell our interns…we don’t ever be orphaned and “kidnapped,” when in reality name patients. They come in and they get a the mother was probably close by foraging for number…But they always get nick names. food. Some caregivers attributed human -mis Like that goose [Anatidae] that was released understanding about wildlife to reduced expo- this morning; we’ve been calling him sure to the outdoors in contemporary society. ‘Gramps.’ Ever since we found out⸻‘cause This resulted in “a certain ignorance about how he has a band⸻he is quite elderly for a the natural world really works.” goose. He’s like 9 years old now.” Wildlife caregivers viewed public education as an important part of their role. Participants The rationale for not naming animals was emphasized the need to educate people about typically because it was believed to foster healthy interactions with wildlife and to impart anthropomorphism and might give the public a realistic understanding about wild animals the erroneous impression that the animals were that avoided the extremes of viewing them pets. Some participants preferred to educate the as either “pests” or “pets.” Participants also public using the proper species name. However, tried to dispel fears toward particular animals. a caregiver noted that members of the public “Probably the biggest thing I do is to get people seemed to be more interested in learning about not to be fearful because – humans fear what the animals as individuals rather than hearing they don’t know. And by giving them the infor- scientific information about the species. “They mation they get less fearful.” One individual, want to know about that animal. Not bobcats. who cared for a vilified predator species, some- Or fishers Pekania[ pennanti]. But that fisher or times invited family and friends to view the that bobcat.” animals while they were still babies. “To appre- Animal knowledge of individual humans. ciate them…any exposure to them, to harbor a Although a few participants felt it was “hard to love. And a caring.” tell” if animals recognized individual caregiv- One participant advocated practical strat- ers, many participants described interactions in egies toward 3 “common problems.” These which the behavior of an animal led them to be included: (1) “educate people about turtles certain that it recognized and knew individual [Testudines] that breed in the spring; they’re humans. This usually occurred when animals going to be crossing roads in areas of swamps, had been under care for an extended period of marshes, where there’s ponds…Try to get peo- time, particularly in the sanctuary setting. “If I ple to slow down”; (2) “get people to not use were bringing a group of people around…some rodenticides indiscriminately so we don’t have of the birds will turn their heads and be a little as many rodenticide toxicosis”; and (3) “get more attentive towards me…they recognize hunters to switch from lead-based ammo to the voice…” Even in the acute rehabilitation copper-based ammo.” setting, in which strict boundaries were main- Education about wildlife also had a broader tained, some wildlife seemed to display care- vision, as expressed by a participant who giver recognition. emphasized the need for public exposure to wildlife care. “We need stewards of natural Extending the circle of care places. We need stewards of habitats. And The 2 dimensions of this theme were: the need wildlife populations. And you can’t create for public education and ambassador animals. stewards when you don’t have interaction and The need for public education. Participants knowledge.” lamented that many of the problems that Ambassador animals. Some participants cared 320 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2) for animals who could not survive in the wild Several participants felt they were help- due to physical limitations yet seemed very ing the larger ecology. One reflected, “These content in sanctuary settings. Non-releasable animals belong to the world. And I put them wildlife in sanctuaries could enhance public back in the world.” While the long-term fate education as “ambassadors for their species.” of animals after release was often unknown, This provided an opportunity for the public some animals, such as eagles (Haliaeetus leuco- to see wild animals up close to gain a realistic cephalus) and bears, were released with bands understanding of the animals, habitat needs, or trackable collars, and participants knew and healthy human–wildlife interactions. that the animals were alive and breeding many years later. Some caregivers reflected that their Fulfillment work contributed to the knowledge base of Participants found fulfillment through mean- the evolving field of wildlife rehabilitation. A ingful connections with wildlife and people and rehabilitator recounted how the knowledge he through helping animals and the larger ecol- gained from working with 1 species was being ogy. These dimensions are described below. applied to assist a related endangered species. Meaningful connections with wildlife and people. One participant reflected that the experience Participants described meaningful connections of being a wildlife rehabilitator gave her deeper with wildlife that developed through care dur- insight and compassion. ing extended illness, unique relationships, and bonds of trust. One participant described caring “Probably very deep, profoundly, the cycle for a fox whose neurological condition eventually of life and death…They don’t all live… required euthanasia, yet still was meaningful. it’s not easy. But if you’re going to do this you have to be able to deal with that “A small gray fox…not completely but part of it…I think it just gives me a better substantially blind. It had been car-hit we understanding and compassion for the think. It was relatively young…And I spent limited time too. That they’re here. And almost a year with him…Winter came; he whenever somebody does pass, part of my wouldn’t even seek shelter…So on my way prayer is, ‘Come back. Come back as what home every night, I’d grab him. I put a little you were. We need you.’” hinge door on the front. I’d bring him in the box and shut it. And in the morning on the Discussion way in I’d let him out.” The overarching theme of “caring for the cir- cle of life” emerged in several ways. First, the In addition to the joy of working with ani- phrase was expressed verbatim in several inter- mals, several participants also commented that views. Participants expressed a deep respect for they found meaning through connections with the circle of life within the natural world. They other staff and community members. valued both predator and prey and appreciated Helping animals and the larger ecology. that all animals had a “job to do.” While sad- Participants found purpose and fulfillment dened by animal casualties, caregivers viewed through helping animals with care that humane euthanasia as a way to relieve suffer- enabled the animal to eventually “go back ing and part of the cycle of life and death. This outside,” to have “a good life” in captivity, or is consistent with Kidd et al.’s (1996) study in have a “peaceful” death. Several participants which rehabilitators developed coping mecha- noted that their experience as wildlife care- nisms to deal with euthanasia. Study partici- givers fulfilled a longstanding desire to help pants also sought to work in harmony with animals. natural cycles. Finally, these caregivers drew the broader public into the circle by educating “It has completed my world. I feel like I others about wildlife and the role of humans in am doing what I was born to do…So, for the natural world. me my work is fulfilling…the fact that that The theory of transcendent pluralism views animal got set free because I helped is…the 3 types of outcomes from human action. These best feeling in the world really.” are: the physically sensible effect, which reflects Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care • Perry and Averka 321 an outcome that can be perceived in the exter- goal shifted toward creating natural conditions nal world; the self-constituting effect as realized for animals who would require lifelong care in one’s own development, and the transforma- among humans. This is consistent with Doyle’s tive effect through influence on the -develop (2017) emphasis that true wildlife sanctuaries ment of others. The findings provide examples provide captive animals with a natural and of these outcomes within the field of wildlife fulfilling life to the extent possible. Participants care. The visible effect was realized through did report a deeper relationship with animals tangible results in accordance with each ani- in sanctuary settings, which is congruent with mal’s capacity. Caregivers witnessed releasable zoo research findings that some zookeepers animals that were healed and returned to the perceive attachments and even bonds involv- wild, sanctuary animals that were content in ing mutual benefit with the animals under their their surroundings, and deeply wounded ani- care (Hosey and Melfi 2012, Hosey et al. 2018). mals relieved of their suffering through eutha- Study participant experiences underscore the nasia. The self-constituting effect was attained insufficiency of resources to care for injured through gaining personal knowledge and skills and orphaned wildlife whose misfortune often and doing work that “makes me a more com- arises from human actions. Many animals passionate person.” The transformative effect are euthanized due to the disparity between was accomplished through educating others. need and resources. At a time when human- Participants noted that public education was ity is faced with an environmental crisis that greatly enhanced by ambassador animals and includes the projected extinction of numer- thus rehabilitated animals themselves con- ous species, the findings support the need to tributed to transformative processes. Further increase resources for wildlife care. Bowman, research would be helpful to quantify these as reported in Foley (2020), discussed the outcomes and assess their correlation with spe- effects of the 2019–2020 Australian wildfires on cific wildlife care practices. wild species and noted that wildlife were likely Dignity is a core value of wildlife rehabilita- going to need significant human intervention tion (Miller 2012). In the theory of transcendent to survive. “We’re living in the Anthropocene pluralism, dignity is comprised of interwoven and it calls into question the idea that nature value in being and value in becoming (Perry can self-assemble.” 2015). The findings suggest that dignity as Wildlife typically come into rehabilitation value in the being of wildlife occurs through when natural processes have been disrupted, recognition of each animal as good in itself, such as when human-placed toxins enter the as worthy of care and, if need be, a humane wildlife food chain. The results suggest that death. But the dignity of each animal is also human–wildlife coexistence is fostered when valued in its becoming, which reflects fulfilling humans act in harmony with natural processes. its own capacity as a wild creature. One of the This requires a deeper human understanding etymological meanings of “wild” is from the of the natural world. Wildlife rehabilitation Old English “wilde,” meaning, “in the natural and sanctuary care can contribute to this under- state, uncultivated, untamed, undomesticated, standing and broader human–wildlife coexis- uncontrolled” (Online Etymology Dictionary, tence through public education. https://www.etymonline.com/word/wild). Our results align with prior studies that Wildlife caregivers in this study expressed found rehabilitators viewed their work as hav- a deep respect for the wild nature of animals ing both animal welfare and conservation aims and a goal to “keep them as wild as possible.” (Guy et al. 2013) and that the role includes Practices aimed at minimizing human contact public education (Siemer et al. 1991). Siemer to enhance chances for successful existence in et al. (1991) have proposed that wildlife reha- the wild. Putting aside one’s own desires for bilitators are uniquely positioned to enhance animal interaction to maintain the animal’s wildlife management education due to their wildness required a certain self-transcendence. interest and regular interaction with the public. This limited retention of some volunteers who Findings from this study indicated strong pub- wanted more hands-on interaction. lic interest in and concern for wildlife, suggest- When return to the wild was not feasible, the ing a receptivity to education. 322 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2)
Future areas of research are needed to were anecdotal experiences, which supports advance best practices in this field. While calls in the literature for further research on wildlife care practices were largely consistent release outcomes (Mullineaux 2014). This could between participants, there were some subtle be particularly helpful for testing long-term differences that merit future study. Some varia- outcomes with different approaches to care. tions in care practices were due to different Given the limited resources for wildlife reha- developmental stages of an animal (juvenile vs. bilitation along with its community-base, such adult) or animal capacity (releasable vs. requir- research would require funding and might ben- ing lifelong care). However, some differences efit from community–academic partnerships. in practice seemed to reflect organizational Community involvement in wildlife care culture or individual caregiver characteristics. facilities described by study participants For example, some participants placed a stron- reflects Frank’s (2016) call to engage communi- ger emphasis on nurturing needs and physical ties in conservation practices that foster positive contact with orphaned baby mammals (such as human–wildlife interaction. Some community raccoons) in the early stages of care. Although it rehabilitators described collaborations with is clearly important to avoid habituating wild- local hunters, and 2 participants self-identified life to humans, research with human infants as hunters. Indeed, the wildlife sanctuary in this has shown that early skin-to-skin contact study was operated by the state fisheries and (called kangaroo care) has important physio- wildlife agency. This suggests wildlife care as logical and psychological benefits (Association a space in which different stakeholder groups of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal might find common ground. This is an impor- Nurses 2016). It would be helpful to explore best tant area for further research, as management approaches to balance developmental nurtur- of human–wildlife conflicts is often impeded ing needs for orphaned wildlife while avoiding by disagreement among different human stake- habituation to humans. There were also differ- holders (Madden and McQuinn 2014). ences in caregiver beliefs and institutional prac- Wildlife care occurs at the intersection of tices regarding whether to name animals, which human–wildlife conflict and offers insight into holds implications for public education. Further possibilities for coexistence. Animals that come research could explore the impact of naming into care have often suffered from human dis- animals on human attitudes toward wildlife. ruptions to natural cycles, such as being hit by Research to explore mechanisms for com- cars while foraging for food or being harmed munity-based euthanasia would be helpful, as by toxins that poison the natural food chain. access to timely veterinary services for eutha- Caregivers assist with healing individual ani- nasia was a challenge for some. It could also be mals by honoring the wild nature of each crea- beneficial to explore different models of care. ture and helping to restore it within its natural For example, participants mentioned that the cycles. But a fuller healing requires repairing need to maintain strict boundaries in rehabili- the ways in which humans have disrupted tation sometimes hindered volunteer recruit- underlying ecological patterns. This requires ment. Animals designated for educational human understanding of the natural world and placement brought enjoyment through rare integration into its processes. opportunities for closer interaction. It could be helpful to explore whether mixed settings with Management implications both rehabilitation and educational animals The study was limited in its focus on New might enhance staff recruitment and retention England and may not be applicable to different by allowing a closer relationship with some of geographic regions. It was also limited by the the animals. Expansion of educational animal inability to communicate directly with wildlife placement sites could also reduce euthanasia to gain their perspective. A strength of the study burden with potential benefits to both human was its breadth of scope using maximum varia- caregivers and wildlife. tion sampling in settings ranging from acute vet- While several of the rehabilitators in this erinary care to community rehabilitators and a study cited instances of long-term follow up as wildlife sanctuary as well as triangulating data demonstrating successful release, some of these from interviews and observation. Wildlife care Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care • Perry and Averka 323 holds value both for its contributions to animal DeStefano, S., and R. D. Deblinger. 2005. Wildlife welfare as well as its potential to enhance coex- as valuable natural resources vs. intolerable istence through expanded public understand- pests: a suburban wildlife management model. ing of healthy human–wildlife interactions. As Urban Ecosystems 8:179–190. such, wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care Doyle, C. 2017. Captive wildlife sanctuaries: defi- are an important dimension of wildlife man- nition, ethical considerations and public per- agement and offer opportunities for collabora- ception. Animal Studies Journal 6:55–85. tion between stakeholders. Wildlife caregiving Foley, M. 2020. ‘Starvation event’ shows wildlife involves human–animal interactions in which may need human help to survive. The Sydney the mutual dignity of both human and creature Morning Herald, Nine Entertainment Co., North may be realized. Ultimately, coexistence with Sydney, New South Wales, Australia,
life. 2.13: Wildlife rehabilitation. Massachusetts treat all beings with compassion. Translated Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, by S. C. Kohn, 2016. Shambhala Publications, Massachusetts, USA,