Wild animal rehabilitation is the treatment or care of injured, sick or orphaned animals before releasing them back into the wild. Every year, millions of animals pass through wild animal rehabilitation centers (WRCs) around the world. 

Sadly, not all animals make it. Many die within WRCs — either because they’re euthanized or otherwise die in captivity. According to the authors of this study, there’s often a lack of evidence on what works and what doesn’t when it comes to caring for wild animals.

With limited resources and many animals to care for, it’s important for WRCs to understand how to focus their time, funding, and other expertise most effectively. Such insights can also improve public education around wild animal rescue and rehabilitation.

In this study, researchers analyzed 10 years’ worth of admissions and outcome data (from 2012-2022) recorded at one U.K.-based WRC. The data for each animal included the following:

• Class (birds, mammals, or reptiles and amphibians) 
• Species (e.g., European hedgehog, Mallard duck)
• Age: Orphan (young and dependant), juvenile (young but independent), or adult 
• Reason For Admission (e.g., injured, poisoned, orphaned, caught by a cat or dog, natural causes)
• Final Outcome (euthanized, died in captivity, or released)

Overall Admissions Trends

Over 42,000 animals arrived at the center over the study period, mostly young (juveniles and orphans). Birds were the most common class (69%) followed by mammals (30.5%). Less than 1% were reptiles and amphibians. Just under 200 different species were admitted — European hedgehogs were the most common, making up 14% of all admissions.

More animals were admitted in summer (49%) and spring (26%) than in winter (7%) and autumn (18%). The authors claim this is likely due to increased breeding in the warmer months, as well as fewer human-animal interactions in colder months. As such, they argue that securing more help for the warmer seasons may enable WRCs to save more animals. 

Reasons For Admission

The most common reasons given for admission were “orphaned” animals (28%) and “injured” animals (25.5%). Less than 1% were “poisoned” or “polluted,” which the authors believe is because such cases are often deadly. Only 3% of animals were admitted for “natural causes” (e.g., starvation or disease) — the authors point out that such naturally-caused problems are common among animals in the wild, however they may not be a major reason why people bring wild animals to WRCs. 

Human-caused trauma made up a sizable 36% of admissions at the WRC being studied. These included, among other cases, animals who were caught by a cat or dog, injured as a result of a gunshot or car/building collision, affected by oil spills, or electrocuted by power lines. The authors call for more public education so we can learn how to mitigate our impacts on the wild animals who share our environment. 

Outcomes

The authors found that outcomes were better for orphaned  animals than injured ones: 60% of orphans were eventually released, while more than 60% of injured animals were euthanized.

Over the ten-year period, just over 18,000 animals (43% of all admissions) were released back into the wild. 37% were euthanized (a procedure that’s often emotionally difficult for vet professionals and rehabilitators to accept, leading to potential compassion fatigue). Finally, around 19% died in captivity without being euthanized. Birds were more likely to be euthanized and less likely to be released than mammals.

Over time, unexpected natural deaths in captivity declined while the proportion of euthanized animals rose. The authors guess that this is due to more staff training and formalized protocols for examination, triage, and euthanasia at the center. The proportion of animals released to the wild didn’t change much over the 10 years.

Key Limitations And Takeaways

One major limitation of this study is that nearly one-third of all animals in the database had other or unknown reasons for admission, making it difficult to learn from their cases. The results were also limited to a single WRC in the United Kingdom. Finally, the authors were unable to track how released animals fared in the wild (e.g., whether they survived and for how long), which would help WRCs understand the best strategies to use to increase their animals’ chances of survival.

WRCs in the U.K. (and to an extent elsewhere) can use this information to plan ahead and train their staff, paying close attention to the types of animals most likely to be admitted, their reasons for admission, and the time(s) of year they’re most likely to receive an influx of animals in need.  

For animal advocates, public education on how to reduce human-caused injuries to wild animals is important. For example, in the U.K., advocates can encourage cat and dog guardians to supervise their animals when outside and teach people how to avoid harming the species that are commonly brought to WRCs.

Finally, advocates should be aware that euthanasia (and wild animal death in general) can have negative psychological impacts for veterinarians and rehabbers. It’s important to support the people who work directly with vulnerable animals and ensure they have the resources they need to take care of their emotional health.