treating wildlife

Re: treating wildlife

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:04:59 GMT

[quote user="Tony Knapp"]I have always found the arguement that it is wrong to treat wildlife because they do not wish to be treated, or find treatment stressfull/distressing an odd one, there are plenty of domestic animals that dislike intensly being in a kennel, or just being in the consult room, I would not say it is in their best interest to euthanase them to spare them a disstressing event, so why does that arguement work in wildlife?[/quote]

Different level of stress probably.

Having said that, temperament does come into it with domestic animals. I have had cases, such with lymphoma, where the option of aggressive chemotherapy is removed due to the distress it would cause the dog to be hospitalised.

Re: treating wildlife

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:18:37 GMT

I asked once before on this forum: what actually is the point of treating a seriously injured or sick wild animal, of a species that is not in danger of extinction?

Re: treating wildlife

Mark Rowland — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:18:35 GMT

They dont always thank you either.

where i saw practice they had a fox in with a femur fracture. It was pinned and the fox put in one of their outside kennels for collection the next day. Overnight it removed its dressing, pulled out its own pin, escaped from the kennel and over a 6 foot wall never to be seen again, leaving just the pin and some dressing material in the kennel.

Re: treating wildlife

Tony Knapp — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:11:32 GMT

I do want to stress that I said one aim, not THE one aim, I don't think it is ethical to do it if, chances of survival and/or release are poor, suffering would be excessive (treatment of any animal in many cases involves a degree of suffering, it is a judgement as to whether we think it is worth that cost), I merely put foward that one benefit of treating wildlife is that it allows us to gain practice and experience.

I have always found the arguement that it is wrong to treat wildlife because they do not wish to be treated, or find treatment stressfull/distressing an odd one, there are plenty of domestic animals that dislike intensly being in a kennel, or just being in the consult room, I would not say it is in their best interest to euthanase them to spare them a disstressing event, so why does that arguement work in wildlife?

Re: treating wildlife

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:03:20 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]our only disagreement is I think both pigeons and corvids can live happily in captivity whilst you don't[/quote]

Not strictly true in my case - it depends on individual circumstances. On the whole, if I have an injured bird brought in, of any species, it's prognosis is so poor that euthanasia is usually kindest. Yes, an occasional one may survive, but does that offset the very many who suffered for a while before dying anyway?

Having said that, some species that are brought in very young or (unusually) uninjured may adapt well. The other exception can be exhausted swifts that are grounded, which may do well with appropriate care.

Re: treating wildlife

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:10:28 GMT

I'm with David and Gillian Experimenting on wild animals is totally morally (as well as legally ) wrong Gillian I'm totally with you on that-our only disagreement is I think both pigeons and corvids can live happily in captivity whilst you don't

Wynne

Re: treating wildlife

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:48:48 GMT

An animal, any animal, should only be subjected to a procedure if it is that animal's own best interest. Otherwise, you need a license!

Re: treating wildlife

David Mills — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:07:22 GMT

[quote user="Tony Knapp"]

So with that in mind is it wrong to attempt to treat wildlife with one aim being to gain the experience?

[/quote]

Yes, it is completely ethically unjustifiable. They are not experimental animals. Practice on cadavers if needs be.

Re: treating wildlife

Tony Knapp — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:30:14 GMT

Reading the original thread this came from I'm suprised nobody has brought up one of the original issues, is it ethical, even dubiously, to use wildlife for "practice"?

Gaining experience in alot of techniques and species that aren't your average small animal cases can be a challenge, even if you do see birds or rodents or reptiles etc, unless you already are a specialist or work at a specialist practice you are unlikely to find owners willing to fund your first attempt at certain procedures and/or species.

So with that in mind is it wrong to attempt to treat wildlife with one aim being to gain the experience? Or course the other aims involving minimal suffering, conservation (in some cases), release and long term survival.

Re: treating wildlife

Mark Rowland — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:27:06 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[/quote]

This serves only to confirm to me how far removed the college are from the worries and problems that the general practioner has to wrestle with.

Re: treating wildlife

J G Wray — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 07:21:48 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]I know a gentleman down south who is a gamekeeper. He was watching one evening as it got dark and a white transit van pulled up. A chap got out and released six foxes from individual cages. They were all dead by the next morning. A number of them had clearly been neutered. They had no idea how to survive in the wild. No fear of humans.[/quote]

This may not be entirely accurate. Around here, down south, an hour from London, vans arrive and release urban foxes of the same gender in small groups in a single field. There is usually the agreement of that landowner. They head for the nearest bright (uraban) lights. If they cross farmed land, near pheasant rearing areas they have a short life, because they do not use cover - they don't know how. The local wildlife rescue is conflicted on whether its resources should be used to nurse these foxes, when injured, for local release.

Foxes, by the way, are an ever present worry for RCVS. The Archbishop of Canterbury lives a couple of hundred yards away and has the second largest private garden in Central London. It has had a fox visitng for years and Archbishop Carey put arrangements in place for it to have access to food...RCVS have wrestled for years with the problem of what happens if this fox or its replacement, needs veterinary attention. This was even brought up in early discussion about the content of A and B modules of the Cert AVP (GP) - the bit where you need to demonstrate a passing knowledge of how to deal with any species under any circumstance. Perhaps these requirements should now guide action for wildlife injury in general.

JGW

Re: treating wildlife

Gillian Mostyn — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:37:26 GMT

squirrels are extremely territorial so new additions are not likely to survive once adult.

I'm not really fussed about the legalities of it as we don't have red squirrels- simply the welfare aspect.

Re: treating wildlife

vs0u — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:05:41 GMT

I used to work with a nurse that was very keen on squirrels. She used to take them all home with her (they were mostly uninjured babies than well meaning MOPs had brought in (actually most of them had probably been told to by the RSPCA!)). They used to play in her monkey puzzle tree, eat all sorts of nuts and seeds and luxury fruits she bought them, and sleep in her garage in knitted berets. Some were with her for months before disappearing off, who knows where... Maybe they didn't survive eventually but hard to see that they were that much worse off than if they were pts initially. No red squirrels left round here anyway so releasing greys not likely to do much harm even if illegal.

Re: treating wildlife

Utlendigur — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:24:45 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]We were taught, in the dim and distant past when I went to vet school, that unless a bird can be fixed in such a way that it is 100% functional, it should be euthanased not treated, as it would be unlikely to thrive and probably die a lingering death if released... in particular the beak, wings, and claws need to have full function. Moreover, handling and treating wildlife causes it a great deal of distress, so the default position was that unless you can be pretty sure the bird will return to full function, you euthanase it. [/quote]

Not arguing with this at all but it reminded me of a case. I xrayed a dead peregrine (RSPCA, I think, wanting to know whether it had been shot - it had) but the xray also showed a long-healed and remodelled femoral fracture. There was quite a severe malunion, so I doubt the fracture had had any veterinary intervention, yet this bird was in good condition and had obviously (amazingly) continued to be able to hunt using one leg while the fracture healed.

Re: treating wildlife

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:08:22 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]

I happened to be in Pittenweem some weeks ago, when a large number of rescue and wildlife groups were trying to save a whole pod (16, I think) of pilot whales that got stranded. I'd always thought if you can refloat them and point them out to sea, you're ok... but apparently, they follow the lead female, and if her orientation's gone wrong for whatever reason, she'll just keep coming back and the rest of them will follow her so the prognosis is poor even if you do manage to refloat :0( Last I heard, they'd succeeded in getting about half of the pod back to sea, but I don't know if they stayed there.

[/quote]

Makes the point, rather, that what you do with cetacean strandings depends very much on the circumstances. Round the Wales coast, most (not all) "strandings" are sick animals that have come ashore to die and would rather be left in peace to get on with it.

People forget that wild animals are wild animals, not domestic animals that don't happen to be tame.( And they've all been watching Free Willy or Flipper or something.)

Re: treating wildlife

Nixthevet — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:13:01 GMT

I think that your approach seems very sensible and fits with the advice of the like sof the RSPB for birds and other wildlife trusts for non-avian species.

That being said I am not sure I could wield the needle at an uninjured litter of fox cubs or a baby grey squirrel...but i'm just soft!Injured is a different story.

Hedgehogs do seem to do ok though and I will give some of the injured ones a chance. What I don;t see the point of is vets who want to pin crow legs, bind pigeon wings for weeks etc. The survival rates are horrendous IN captivity let alone when the malnurished, perhaps semi-imprinted/tame creature is released.

Re: treating wildlife

Lorna McHardy — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:53:03 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I can't quote anything, and I might be wrong, but I believe that even all that valiant cleaning of oiled seabirds after the Torrey Canyon and other incidents was largely a waste of time.

Stranded cetaceans - it depends on species and also on body condition and on the general circumstances, but often not the kindest thing to try and refloat. You try explaining that to The Public.

[/quote]

Re: treating wildlife

Lorna McHardy — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:45:37 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

I had a very cute baby grey squirrel brought in recently. Many of the nurses and receptionists wanted to try to hand rear it for realease! I euthanased it and faced a lot of anger - they were all cheesed off for days. These decisions aren't always popular.

[/quote]

You've just reminded me of that litter of baby foxes brought in by a member of the public who said he'd found these dogs... the nurses immediately took them in and started hand-rearing and nobody in the practice realized they were foxes for a few days... and no, the decision was not even remotely popular.

Re: treating wildlife

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:32:24 GMT

I can't quote anything, and I might be wrong, but I believe that even all that valiant cleaning of oiled seabirds after the Torrey Canyon and other incidents was largely a waste of time.

Stranded cetaceans - it depends on species and also on body condition and on the general circumstances, but often not the kindest thing to try and refloat. You try explaining that to The Public.

Re: treating wildlife

Gillian Mostyn — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:18:35 GMT

Agreed - wildlife should be euthanased unless very good rehab and subsequent release are both available and feasible. Anything else is not in the best interest of the individual animal. I don't agree with bringing any kind of sentimentality into the decision - afterall, I'm not sure any animal would agree to a period/lifetime of captivity and stress just because someone feels they 'should try' or feels too guilty to PTS.

Re: treating wildlife

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:57:38 GMT

Micheal Re foxes I heard from a mid Wales farmer (who I trust ) about a whole lot of foxes that sudenly appeared around his farm No fear of humans,and both fatter , and finer coated than the natives They had no idea how to fend for themselves He shot them,and said he felt almost sorry to do so (this was a sheep farmer ) because they were such sitting ducks

With pigeons/corvids the ones we've discussed are obviously not fit for release-so if it was euthanasiaor release I would euthanise These species are so easy to tame that if someone is prepared to keep them I see no reason why they shouldn't be treated I admit I'm a bit hazy about the legal aspects my understanding is that's illegal to keep British wild birds in captivity, but pigeons are the same species as tame ones so I would imagine it would be legal as feral as opposed to truly wild-and with corvids-if illegal you're in good company

Wynne

Re: treating wildlife

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:38:51 GMT

Lorna - I think worthy of its own discussion, without fear of causing offence.

My take is similar to yours - unless it can be mended and put back to normal function then I euthanase. Hedgehogs are one of the few creatures that often make it out alive because worming and feeding up they can often be released. I don't begrudge them a few tins of cat food.

I am maybe a bit more harsh on 'vermin' than some. I am not going to spent time and effort rehabilitating a crow/rabbit/fox/squirrel/pigeon* just to release it to be shot! Seems rather self defeatist. (the Yorkshire Dales are plagued by rabbits, I shoot thousands per year). It is actually illegal to treat and then release a grey squirrel.

I know a gentleman down south who is a gamekeeper. He was watching one evening as it got dark and a white transit van pulled up. A chap got out and released six foxes from individual cages. They were all dead by the next morning. A number of them had clearly been neutered. They had no idea how to survive in the wild. No fear of humans. I can't see how catching, neutering and releasing urban foxes is a good thing in any way - I'm sure the vet involved has done these animals a real disservice. I have heard of many similar anecdotal stories, but this came from the horses mouth, so to speak.

(*will treat racing pigeons have rung the repatriation service a few times. Have even been offered payment for treatment!)

Re: treating wildlife

Malcolm Ness — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:51:02 GMT

I agree completely.

I have on occasion repaired fractures in less common birds of prey (goshawk, little owl etc) with the expectation of ultimate return to function and release and only when suitably experienced/knowledgable rehab was in place. I have also operated on a couple of red squirrels, again for later release.

Our only other regular recurring wildlife issue is surface living seabirds (guillemots, puffins) that, after a lengthy on-shore storm get washed onto the beaches and exhaust themselves trying to swim back through the breakers. We will sometimes have 10 or more brought in - we feed them up on fresh whole fish and wait for the weather to change. Can't know for sure how they do in the long term but they set off into the (now calm) sea with a will.