Euthanasia in Wildlife Rehabilitation and Specific Considerations for Pelagic and Diving Bird Rehabilitation

Authors

  • January O. Bill International Bird Rescue Research Center

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53607/wrb.v23.203

Keywords:

Euthanasia, euthanasia criteria, pelagic birds, diving birds, keel lesion, waterproofing, pressure sore, aspergillosis

Abstract

It is the goal and responsibility of wildlife rehabilitators to provide the best achievable care to the animals that are brought to them for help. Because of the nature of wildlife rehabilitation, by the time the rehabilitator receives the animal, its injuries and/or illness have often progressed to a state beyond a point that will enable the animal to survive when returned to the wild. If an animal cannot be returned to a normal life in the wild, the only options rehabilitators have for a non–releasable animal in their care is life in captivity or euthanasia (Miller 1993). Just as it is vital to have the skills and knowledge to successfully treat a species of wildlife, it is equally important to have the skills to evaluate the animal for euthanasia on intake. Euthanasia is often the only viable option to humanely end an animal’s pain and prevent further suffering. Therefore, euthanasia decisions based on physiological evidence and well–reasoned judgment lead to more humane treatment of wildlife in rehabilitation.

The objective of this paper is to emphasize the importance of this aspect of wildlife rehabilitation, to provide basic euthanasia guidelines, and to outline a set of specific considerations for pelagic and diving bird rehabilitation used at International Bird Rescue Research Center (IBRRC).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

January O. Bill, International Bird Rescue Research Center

January O. Bill received her BS with a major in wildlife rehabilitation from Humboldt State University. She is currently working for the International Bird Rescue Research Center as an oil spill response team member, and as the Training Coordinator.

References

Campbell, T. 1995. Avian Hematology and Cytology. Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA. Pp. 3–19.

Goodfriend, D. 1997. Considerations in Seabird Rehabilitation. Pp. 21–29 in International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council Conference Proceedings.

McKeever, K. 1993. Quality of Life. NWRA Newsline. National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association: St. Cloud, MN. 11(3):6.

Miller, E. 1993. Euthanasia, the Other Release. NWRA Newsline. National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association: St. Cloud, MN. 11(3):10–11.

Miller, E. 2001. Ethics in Wildlife Rehabilitation. Pp. 151–160 in Wildlife Rehabilitation (D. Ludwig, ed.), Vol. 19. National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association: St. Cloud, MN.

Ritchie, B., G. Harrison, and L. Harrison. 1994. Avian Medicine: Principles and Application. Wingers Publishing, Inc: Lake Worth, FL. P. 967.

Thorne, K. 1986. Is Your Bird Waterproof? Wildlife Journal. International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council: Walnut Creek, CA. 9(2):7–10.

Tully, T., M. Lawton, and G. Dorrestein. 2000. Avian Medicine. Reed Educational and Professional Publishing, Ltd: Woburn, MA. Pp. 339–363.

White, J. 1993. Current Guidelines for Euthanasia in Wildlife Rehabilitation. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation. 16(3):19–23.

Downloads

Published

2005-12-31

How to Cite

Bill, J. (2005). Euthanasia in Wildlife Rehabilitation and Specific Considerations for Pelagic and Diving Bird Rehabilitation. Wildlife Rehabilitation Bulletin, 23(2), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.53607/wrb.v23.203