Home » Archives for Kai » Page 3

By Kai

Executive Director of The IWRC, Kai is interested in public policy, organizational culture, perceptions of wildlife, and all aspects of human/wildlife interactions. She lives in the hills of Oregon, USA.

Ulrike Streicher: Primate Veterinarian in Vietnam

One of IWRC’s fabulous volunteers is Dr. Ulrike Streicher DVM, a wildlife veterinarian and currently Courtesy Research Associate at the University of Oregon. Dr. Streicher has spent many years in Southeast Asia rescuing and rehabilitating a variety of wildlife and will be sharing some of her story through a series of blogs with us. Enjoy the first segment on her time in Vietnam, a country that was then and still is now an epicenter for illegal wildlife trade.

I started my wildlife career in Vietnam in 1997 as the zoological advisor of the then newly established governmental wildlife rescue center at Soc Son near Hanoi. In 1992 the country had issued its first laws to protect wild animals. Shortly after they realized that through this step they ended up with lots of animals confiscated from illegal keeping and trade, which they needed to take care of. Responding to this need, the Vietnamese government opened an all species rescue center near Hanoi in 1996. Having no technical capacity to deal with the incoming load of animals, the government looked for an international zoological advisor and through a couple of lucky coincidences I ended up in this position. It was a challenge to say the least.

Having little more than four cages, we received up to 4000 kg of animals in a single day.  Macaques, bears, civets, pangolins, porcupines, monitors, turtles, snakes and birds arrived in an endless row and in large numbers. To provide very basic emergency veterinary care, ensure at least roughly species appropriate husbandry and prevent disastrous releases was the entire scope of my work. But still the majority of animals died. After nine months I wrote an open report about the situation at the center and the incoming wildlife trade to the government. The intended project duration was one year, but we decided that lots had to change in the way the law was implemented before it would make sense to continue this project.

At that time there were no wildlife veterinarians in Vietnam, and I had over the last year already acted as on call veterinarian for the Endangered Primate Rescue Center (EPRC) at Cuc Phuong National Park, a rescue center run by Frankfurt Zoological Society. So I left Soc Son and moved to the national park and for the coming eight years I worked as the center’s veterinarian. In 1998, it was home to about 40 langurs and gibbons, most of them representatives of species kept nowhere else in the world.

Vietnam is home to 25 different primate taxa and more than 70 percent of them listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Taxa as Endangered or Critically Endangered. The goal of the center is to establish a captive breeding population with trade confiscated representatives of these rare species and later on release captive-bred offspring into the wild in order to re-enforce depleted wild populations. The EPRC focuses its attention on the large group of leaf eating primates of the country – the langurs. Langurs are very sensitive primates and notoriously difficult to keep.

Wildlife Officer holding gibbon while Dr Streicher administers first aid.
Emergency wound care in the field during a confiscation.

They feed solely on leaves and seeds, which they digest in their large stomachs with the help of bacteria.  There was little experience with their keeping and veterinary care, and only very few species had been bred in captivity. On my arrival, the available veterinary equipment consisted of a box full of donated drugs, syringes and instruments and a quarantine building was under construction. So I had the opportunity to set up a proper veterinary station and establish the necessary protocols. Aside from langurs, the center cared for gibbons and the nocturnal lorises. We received about one animal per month, confiscated from hunters or traders by the authorities. The primates were often severely injured from traps or by hunting dogs, and had spent days or weeks in the trade or on transport. After capture they had received either no or entirely inappropriate food and usually no water. The most difficult part of work was to treat the inevitable metabolic problems and re-establish functional digestion. The stress of being separated from their groups was also considerable.

Red shanked douc langur (Pygathrix nemaeus) with chain and rope around neck with injuries to right hand eating a vegetable.
Red shanked douc langur (Pygathrix nemaeus) before confiscation.

In particular the colourful douc langurs kept dying within days after their arrival. Adult females initially almost never made it; not an ideal start if one intends to set up a captive breeding population as the center aimed to. I started to conduct regular necropsies and this helped us learn from each failure and the survival rate increased over the years dramatically.

Having no television, Internet, or telephone left us all with lots of time; night came in the tropics shortly after six all year round and evenings were long. The head of the rescue center was a passionate scientist, and always encouraged others to study wherever there was an opportunity. A result of these long evenings, I ended up writing a PhD on pygmy lorises. After all, they were awake and studying them was a great way to fill empty evenings, and to date they remain probably my favourite primate species. In contrast to the langurs, lorises pose no major veterinary challenge, but they were until recently a poorly known species. These nocturnal animals weigh only between 250 and 350 g, live largely solitary, feed among other items on gum and insects, display hibernation and torpor, have a venomous bite and are a very specialized primate. Their cute appearance makes them a popular item in the wildlife pet market and local beliefs assign various medicinal properties to their different body parts. I implemented the first monitored release of pygmy lorises and the nights spent in the forest observing these secretive animals were very special. Aside from the work in the primate rescue center, I assisted a number of other projects in the country, which dealt with the rehabilitation and placement of confiscated wild animals.  As the awareness and law enforcement in the country slowly increased, so did the number of confiscated animals requiring care. Training local staff in the handling of animals and basic rehabilitation methods was an urgent need, so there was always a lot to do. I had to find funding for the veterinary work myself, and for many years it was generously provided by the Eva Mayr-Stihl Foundation.

Stay tuned for more blogs from Dr. Ulrike Streicher!

Close up image of face and shoulders of red shanked douc langur (Pygathrix nemaeus) eating leaves
Red shanked douc langur (Pygathrix nemaeus) eating while in care at rescue center.

Board President Sue Wylie shares tidbits about her life with wildlife

 

Sue in green scrubs examining a gull.
Sue Wylie

Please share an early/childhood experience that was pivotal to your personal relationship to wildlife.

I have always preferred being outdoors and loved nature. My parents brought me camping every weekend May to October starting at the age of two weeks until I was a teen. My most memorable moment was when I was 8 years old seeing my dad jumping out of the car to capture an injured Canada goose that was running in one of the fields. He captured the bird, brought it to the car and plopped it on my mom’s knee (she was less than amused). We then found a facility to care for the bird.

How did you initially become involved with IWRC and why did you choose to become involved on a board level?

Eight years ago I came onto the board as its youngest member at that time. My goal as a board member was to represent new rehabilitators in the best way that I could. This gave the board a fresh perspective on what novice rehabilitators were facing and what services and programs were most needed from IWRC for those in the field.

Describe a specific area of interest or a particular passion within the scope of IWRC’s mission.

One of my main interests is focusing on animal welfare and the science behind rehabilitation to ensure that we are respecting the wildlife that we are caring for and that they are surviving once we release them. As Development chair, I have the opportunity to promote IWRC and sensitize people to the work that we do.

Describe a skill that you have that has been surprisingly useful to your work as a wildlife rehabilitator? (or as an IWRC board member?)

I actually love working with people. I enjoy coordinating projects, working in teams and encouraging others to get involved. It can be a lot of fun!

Describe a project or accomplishment that you consider to be the most significant in your career.

For my career, I would say becoming President of IWRC has been my biggest accomplishment. It honestly has been an amazing experience that has allowed me to meet many great people as well as contribute to the rehabilitation community. As Executive Director of Le Nichoir, I’m also proud of the construction of our new wild bird conservation centre based in Quebec in 2016.

If you could choose, who would you have as a mentor?

That is a hard question because I have had many important mentors in my life, but I’d have to say, definitely David Attenborough. I just love his accent!

If you were to do something else professionally, what would it be?

I would either work with children with learning disabilities or in wildlife enforcement. These are two things that I hold close to my heart. Helping animals and people in need is very important to me.

If you could be a wild animal, which would you be?

A chimney swift.

What excites you so much that it keeps you awake the night before?

Waiting for chimney swifts to be brought to Le Nichoir in July. I literally dream about it!

Describe any companion animals that you share your home and life with.
I shared my home with Touli, a crested gecko.

Recent Journal Abstracts Issue 36(1)

The full papers can be found in the Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 36(1), available to all IWRC members.

Strategies for captive rearing and reintroduction of orphaned bears

John J. Beecham, I. Kati Loeffler, and Richard A. Beausoleil

Abstract: Placing orphan bears in captive-rearing facilities and releasing them back to the wild is a management option that has been used for decades. This option has conservation implications that extend beyond obvious welfare benefits, including public support for management programs, maintenance of genetic diversity, and restoration of bear populations. However, the method is infrequently used because of concerns about survival, ethics, and that captive-reared bears may become involved in conflict with people. As a result, many orphaned bears are unnecessarily euthanized. The objectives of captive-rearing and reintroduction are to liberate animals with the necessary physical condition and life skills to survive in the wild, avoid conflicts with humans, and minimize disease and genetic risks to indigenous wildlife populations. Approaches to achieve these objectives vary among rehabilitators, geographic areas, and bear species. We identify components of captive-rearing and reintroduction practices that can be applied across the range of ursids. Releasing orphaned bears back to the wild is a defensible management alternative, and we advocate for agencies to implement the proposed strategies.

Trends in wildlife intake at a rehabilitation center in Central Alberta: A retrospective analysis of birds, mammals, and herptiles, from 1990 through 2012

Dawn Doell and David A. Locky

Abstract: Using patient data from the Wildlife Rehabilitation Society of Edmonton,
we assessed reasons for admission, overall success of rehabilitation, and compared temporal trends with human population growth in the region. Over the survey period 13,375 individuals from 271 species were admitted. These included 11,637 birds (87%), 1,727 mammals (13%), and 11 herptiles (<0.1%). Outcome data were not reliably collected from 1990 through 2007 so it is not possible to provide a valid rate of the rehabilitated animal release for those years. However, starting in 2008 outcome data was collected for the majority of animals with the average release rate of 45.7% from 2008 through 2012. There was a strong relationship between Edmonton’s population growth and the annual intake of wildlife (R² = 0.84, F = 104.6, P = 0.001). This study provides an overview of wildlife intake trends from 1990 through 2012 and is the first known published retrospective of wildlife intake in Alberta.

Practicing Wildlife Rehabilitation Within Legal Restrictions

BIO  Dr Elizabeth Mullineaux BVM&S, DVM&S, CertSHP, MRCVS

Liz is director at Capital Veterinary Services, science advisor at Secret World Wildlife Rescue, and a veterinary surgeon with Vets Now. She is also an active member of the British Veterinary Association and editor of numerous BSAVA Manuals, including Wildlife Casualties.
This post is a revised version of the paper Liz presented at the 2014 BWRC Symposium.

Legislation affecting the care of wildlife can be a minefield for both vets and rehabilitators, risking prosecution for both if not followed correctly. Legal responsibilities are not always clearly outlined in all countries, so it is important to familiarize yourself with the relevant legislation that might apply. For example, in the United Kingdom (UK), the main pieces of legislation to be most concerned about are the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (as amended 2002) (VSA), Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2014, and the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Remember, that there are many others affecting both animals and people associated with wildlife centres and this should be considered when writing centre policies and guidelines. Here are a few key areas to consider for those caring for British wildlife, although they are applicable in most places around the world:

Veterinary surgeons

You need to have good veterinary involvement with the wild animals you care for. In most countries only vets can legally diagnose medical conditions, prescribe drugs, carry out surgery and have animals legally under their medical care. It is important to have a good relationship with your vet and best to have one main veterinary practice that is responsible for the animals at your centre. You may occasionally involve other vets, but you still need a main veterinary practice. If you don’t have a vet on site, then your main practice vets need to visit on a regular basis, ideally at least once a week. These visits also allow them to understand how you work, know what animals are on site and provide general advice. If you chose to employ a vet, then remember you will need adequate facilities in which they can work and you will still need to provide 24/7 veterinary care for your centre, which may mean employing a second vet or making use of an additional local practice. Have a written policy (formally agreed upon with your vet) for triage and first aid treatment of admitted animals that don’t immediately see a vet. If your vet allows you to make any decisions about treatments, these need to be written down clearly in a policy. Ensure that anything written follows the law, and remember only vets can ‘diagnose’ and ‘prescribe’ so avoid using these terms. Make use of the telephone (or email) to get veterinary advice, and document all correspondence. This advice is usually free and helps ensure that you (and your vet) cover yourself legally when making decisions and that the best treatment is provided.

Veterinary nurses

In the UK a Veterinary Nurse is a professional person with appropriate qualifications and training that is registered with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS). Relevant qualifications from overseas may allow RCVS registration (e.g. some North American ‘tech’ qualifications). Veterinary nurses may be employed by vets, volunteer at wildlife centres, or be employed by centres. In all instances, even if you employ them, a Veterinary Nurse’s work must be under the direction and supervision of the centre’s vet. Veterinary nurses in the UK receive little formal training on British wildlife (these species are not in the RCVS occupational standards). Legally this means that they are not suitably trained to carry out ‘Schedule 3’ procedures under the VSA on wildlife species and must receive this training first from the vet who is responsible for them. The British Small Animal Veterinary Association Nursing Merit Award in British wildlife was the first attempt to formally fill this knowledge gap for veterinary nurses. Vet nurses are not ‘mini vets’. Specifically, they are not legally able to make a diagnosis (e.g. based on an examination, x-ray, or laboratory report), prescribe medication, induce anesthesia using gaseous anesthesia, or perform surgery that enters body cavities. They are allowed to take blood, administer intravenous fluids, give medication and suture minor wounds, however all these must be ‘under the direction’ of a veterinary surgeon. Wildlife centres should have an agreed and written policy for veterinary nursing activities. If they employ a veterinary nurse, they should ensure that both job descriptions and employment contracts make it clear where duties start and end. RVNs are legally liable for the work they do and should have professional indemnity insurance.

Wildlife centre policy

In general, it is important for you to have written policies regarding all the activities at your centre. It is useful to have an admissions policy that allows animals to be signed over to you, which can protect you legally in terms of ‘ownership’ and at least helps finders to appreciate that the animal is now your responsibility. It is important to agree which of your staff can do which tasks (e.g. give medication) and keep records of this. Ensure that adequate training has been provided for any tasks performed, record this training and ensure that it is kept up to date. Ensure that there is a policy for any storage of drugs left on site and who has access to these. Drugs should always be in a locked cabinet with restricted access. Records of drug use should be kept. Agree on a written policy with your vet regarding euthanasia of animals, including: which cases, under what circumstances, and how euthanasia is to be performed. Any phone conversations or emails regarding euthanasia of individual animals should be carefully recorded. Keep good records of each animal, the treatment they receive and their progress.

Records help to protect you legally, allow the progress of individual animals to be monitored, and allow for reflection on the success (or not) of treatments. Lastly, have good written policies for people (staff, volunteers and members of the public) and for the maintenance of the site itself. Common areas of litigation against centres relate to health and safety and waste disposal.

While these are some important guidelines, it is vital to research and understand the current, relevant legislation to wildlife rehabilitation in your country and ensure that your operation is always acting within the law.

Research Byte: Post release survival of rehabilitated Eurasian badger cubs (Meles meles)

BIO  Adam Grogan

Adam is on staff at the RSPCA, IWRC Board Vice President, Vice Chair of The Mammal Society for Britain and Ireland, and on the Executive Committee of the British Council for Wildlife Rehabilitation (BWRC). He has experience surveying and radio-tracking a number of mammal species, including badgers (Meles meles), polecats (Mustela putorius), mink (Neovison vison), and water voles (Arvicola terrestris).

This post is a summary of the paper Adam presented at the 2014 BWRC Symposium.

The RSPCA has been interested in the survival of rehabilitated wildlife for over 10 years and has conducted a number of post-release projects on a variety of species. This is a brief summary of a radio tracking project investigating the survival of released juvenile badgers after being reared in captivity in artificial groups.

There is little known about rehabilitated badgers post release. Prior to 2013, the RSPCA radio tracked four groups of badgers and found poor survival rates for the fifteen animals collared. In all four groups, the badgers dispersed into different areas. Of the collared animals, nine were known to have died, either as a result of road mortality or failure to thrive. The radio signals were lost for the remaining animals except one, who was tracked for an excess of 200 days before she shed her collar. During this time, she had settled in to a local, wild badger group near to where her artificial badger group was released.

In early 2013, another group of rehabilitated badger cubs was ready for release. A site was offered from the West Surrey Badger Group (WSBG), which they had monitored extensively for a number of years. An artificial sett (or badger den) was also available and so with the enthusiastic support from the landowners, plans were drawn up to release the badgers in summer of 2013.

Juvenile badger (Meles meles) peaking out of an artificial sett. Photo credits: Jan Reen
Juvenile badger (Meles meles) peaking out of an artificial sett. Photo credits: Jan Reen

The WSBG examined the suitability of the site by checking the artificial sett and other setts close by for signs of use by resident badgers and found no visible signs of badger presence. An electric fence was installed around the artificial sett, putting in bowls for water and straw for bedding. The five cubs, 3 males and 2 females, were released into the sett in July 2013.

For the first two weeks, the WSBG conducted morning check visits and evening feeding visits. Unlike previous releases done in late autumn, these badgers were active right from the start and were out the first night. They had one encounter with the electric fence; dug a dung pit; polished up all the food that had been carefully scattered about and hidden under logs and stones; dug a new entrance directly into the back of the sett; and dragged in the straw that had been left outside for them.

A camera trap was set up to record activity occurring when observers weren’t present and found that all five badgers were exhibiting normal species-specific behavior. The electric fence was removed at the end of the 2-week settling-in period, which coincided with the arrival of a student from Swansea, Owen Bidder, who tracked the badgers at night for the next two weeks. The badgers were now free to explore their new environment.

Camera trap image of juvenile badgers (Meles meles) in a soft release enclosure.
Camera trap image of juvenile badgers (Meles meles) in a soft release enclosure.

After one night, only one badger was still sleeping in the artificial sett, while the other four were all in an empty sett 100 metres up the hill. Within days they had discovered another sett about 100 metres down the hill away from the artificial sett.

WSBG members continued to provide food and water during the summer although the amount offered was reduced as time went on. During the first two weeks, Owen reported increased exploration by the badgers, finding and exploiting more setts in the area. Early on, one badger lost his transmitter, which was found detached from the collar on a footpath almost a kilometer from the release site. Over several weeks the badgers discovered a total of 8 setts that the WSBG knew about in the area, as well as one sett that had not been recorded previously. All of these setts were empty as far as the WSBG knew.

While badgers did disperse, often two or three were found in one sett and on the odd occasion, all four. Some mating behavior was recorded on camera before the electric fence was removed so some alliances may have developed while they were still in the enclosure. They seem to regularly move from sett to sett, sometimes using a different sett each day. One badger moved off to the sett that was previously unknown to the WSBG, about a kilometer from the release site. Since he seemed to have selected a permanent home, the WSBG set up a camera and discovered that he was with an un-collared badger that they believe to be a local resident.

The badgers were tracked until late December 2013, which is when the transmitters all seemed to stop transmitting. The cameras have been deployed a few times since and have recorded some activity so now the RSPCA plans to use different equipment to see if the badgers are still present. All the badgers were fitted with microchips, so a feeding station with a chip reader and data logger will be set up to hopefully record the badgers coming and going.

What have we learnt?

  • After 18 months of captivity, rehabilitated badger cubs can quickly start a natural wild life.
  • When released they will find and utilize existing local setts.
  • They may disperse from the release groups or remain together.
  • They may integrate with local badgers provided there are only a few around.
  • It is well worth rehabilitating orphaned cubs.
  • It is a rewarding thing to do.

Lets #GetTheLeadOut of Our Wildlife

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Let’s Get the Lead Out of Our Wildlife

Eugene, OR August 24, 2015

This month The International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council (IWRC) published a position statement advocating for the elimination of lead released into the environment via lead based ammunition and fishing tackle. Effective alternatives, such as steel shot, copper bullets, and tungsten fishing weights, are available in North American and European markets and becoming more widely accessible elsewhere.

Raptors and scavengers, including vultures, condors, and eagles are unintentionally poisoned when they eat the remains of animals hunted using lead ammunition. Loons and swans directly consume lead shot or fishing tackle while feeding. Changing to non-lead ammunition and fishing tackle can prevent scavenger poisonings and decrease the chance of aquatic poisonings. Because of lead shot and sinkers left in the mud of ponds and rivers, stopping future use will not completely resolve the poisoning of water birds.

The World Health Organization has listed lead exposure as unsafe at any level. Even sub lethal levels may cause immunological and neurological problems, biochemical and behavioral changes, and physiological disorders that may affect immune response and reproduction. Over 500 peer-reviewed papers demonstrate the deleterious effects of lead on wildlife.

“Wildlife rehabilitators are the first responders of the lead toxicity epidemic and we need to relate what we are experiencing every year”. IWRC Executive Director, Kai Williams comments. Ms Williams sits on the HSUS Lead-Free Wildlife National Advisory Council, along with hunters, scientists, and biologists.

END
###

Media Contact: Kai Williams director@theiwrc.org @malkahkai @theiwrc 866-871-1869 x1

Twitter hashtag: #GetTheLeadOut #leadpoisoning

Lead Poisoning Position Statement https://theiwrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/lead-statement.pdf

Photos (click individual photos for captions and version downloadable by press. Use only with this story)

About The IWRC (The International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council)

The IWRC is a 501c(3) nonprofit organization that provides science-based education and resources on wildlife rehabilitation to promote wildlife conservation and welfare worldwide. IWRC was founded in 1974 and has spent the last 41 years helping wildlife by training and supporting wildlife caretakers through our peer reviewed journal, classroom and online courses, standards, and manuals. IWRC training programs include course topics such as basic wildlife rehabilitation skills, nutrition, pain management, parasitology, and have been taught in over 10 countries.

Conserve Wildlife, Generate Energy

World Migratory Bird Day Poster featuring Siberian crane flying in front of drawn energy power sources and map of worldLast Saturday, May 9th was World Migratory Bird Day (2015 theme Energy: make it bird friendly) and International Migratory Bird Day (2015 theme Restore Habitat, Restore Birds).  Why there are different themes and names for the Eastern and Western hemisphere’s is a different topic and one beyond my scope. But there is a link between the themes. Many rehabilitators have seen the results of wildlife tangling with power generation sources International Migratory Bird Day Poster featuring vertical drawings of birds in grassland, mashland, backyards, and mangroves. Restore Habitat, Restore Birds – electrocutions, burns, amputations, and habitat destruction. This is frustrating and often heartbreaking. Wildlife rehabilitation has a role to play in improving the conservation quotient of renewable energy.

 

Wildlife rehabilitators routinely collect data on animal intakes. By recording and reporting intake locations and reasons for intake, we can help scientists and policy makers discover if a given energy collecting device impacts local wildlife. Do you live near or receive wildlife from a traditional or renewable energy source? Contact your wildlife permit officer and ask if they would like you to submit reports on intakes from that region.

Not all power generation is created equal. The enormous Ivanpah solar farms, in California’s Mojave desert, use heliostats to generate concentrated solar power. The site was in the news last year as a “death ray frying birds”1. Not good. But that certainly doesn’t mean solar power is bad. The US Fish and Wildlife Service provided the Ivanpah farm with suggested mitigation methods to prevent bird deaths2 and the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB) embraces the creation of photovoltaic arrays on existing human built structures and ground built arrays in non-sensitive habitat areas3.

The path to creating and maintaining wildlife friendly energy is planning, proper placement, risk assessment, mitigation, and continuous monitoring4. In Spain, shutting off wind farms during migration reduced mortality of griffon vultures by 50% and only caused a 1% loss in energy production5. A small solar farm in Germany chose a location that had previously been a gravel pit. The farm includes wetland and grassland habitat and permeable borders to allow small mammals, ground birds, and amphibians to transit safely6.

Rooftop solar array with Oregon oak in background Photo: Kai Williams

In my home (aka IWRC’s headquarters) I put in a rooftop solar array of 48 photovoltaic panels that will provide up to 12 kilowatts of energy per hour – which covers all of IWRC’s on site energy needs! This home-based system is one more small step to renewable energy and one that fits with what the World Wildlife Fund terms harmony with humans and nature7.

Plaque reading Lane Electric net-metered photovoltaic generation site

Resources

http://www.worldmigratorybirdday.org/energy

http://migratorysoaringbirds.undp.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/factsheet%20Solar%20Partner%20new%20logo%20PR.pdf

  1. Sweet C. The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project. WSJ Online Article. 2014 Feb 13.
  2. RenewableEnergyWorld.com. Preventing Bird Deaths at Solar Power Plants, Part 1. Renewable Energy World. 2014 Sep 11 [accessed 2015 May 13]. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/09/preventing-bird-deaths-at-solar-power-plants-part-1
  3. Trouvilliez J, Zurita P. Solar Energy Policy Briefing. 2014 Dec.
  4. Birds and Solar Energy within the Rift Valley/ Red Sea Flyway. BirdLife International Migratory Soaring Birds Project Solar Energy Guidance.
  5. Opinion: Renewable Energy – How to Make It More Bird-Friendly | Inter Press Service. [accessed 2015 May 13]. http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/05/opinion-renewable-energy-how-to-make-it-more-bird-friendly/
  6. Science For Environment Policy. Wind & solar energy and nature conservation. European Union; 2014. Report No.: Brief 9.
  7. Archambault A. Solar PV Atlas: Solar power in harmony with nature. Denruyter J-P, Mulder L, editors. WWF; 2012.

Wild Within – A book review

official high-res book coverMelissa Hart’s Wild Within is an engaging text that loosely intertwines the stories of her work with Cascades Raptor Center and her quest for an adopted child. Melissa sneaks in snippets of natural history and wildlife rehabilitation ethics, bringing this little known profession to a popular audience. The text provides a new volunteer’s view of wildlife rehabilitation, making it a valuable read for the seasoned professional as well as the general public.

One section which mentioned a volunteer storing human food in the carcass freezer, never a good idea. But overall the book portrays wildlife rehabilitation responsibly; an expert author’s skills applied to the passion of wildlife rehabilitation, penning the successes and failures of this emerging field in wildlife conservation.

 

What’s your favorite wildlife rehabilitation memoir?

Jay Holcomb

Jay Holcomb: 1951 – 2014

 

On June 10th the wildlife rehabilitation community said farewell to Jay Holcomb, executive director of International Bird Rescue.

Fly free. Photo credits: Robert Elko
Fly free. Photo credits: Robert Elko

The first evidence of Jay and IWRC getting together is in March 1974 Board meeting minutes, noting his attendance at that meeting, but not his status. Jay’s association with the organization started before IWRC was even incorporated (this happened later in 1974). Its not clear from the records when Jay officially came on the board, but he was there by 1977 and spent at least 12 years on the board. Jay was president from 1981 to 1983 and again from 1988 to 1991.

Jay’s first tenure as president began auspiciously with the lovely editorial you see below, reprinted from Volume 5(3) of the Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation and featured again in the soon to be published Volume 34(2). Jay maintained his strong relationship with IWRC through four decades and countless changes to the field. Most recently he stepped in to participate in the 2011 Symposium when the scheduled International Bird Rescue speaker was called out to the Rena Spill in New Zealand.

Jay’s influence was felt far and wide; demonstrated by the diverse award acknowledgements he received, from NWRA’s lifetime achievement award in 1996 to John Muir Conservationist of the Year and Oceana’s Ocean Hero in 2010.

In lieu of flowers, donations can be made to the Jay Holcomb Memorial Fund at International Bird Rescue. IWRC extends condolences to Jay’s family, colleagues, and the entire wildlife rehabilitation community.

 

Excerpt from Jay’s 1982 President’s Message

 

Jay Holcomb, picture circa 1982. JWR 5(3).
Jay Holcomb, circa 1982. JWR 5(3).

As president of the Wildlife Rehabilitation Council*, I feel a need to share some of my thoughts on the work that we are all involved in. I have been racking my brain to find the words of wisdom I wanted to say. Instead, I should have been searching my heart, for it is love that connects me with the animals. With this in mind, I want to share these thoughts with you.

One thing all rehabers have in common is a great love and compassion for the wild creatures of the earth. This is why we work incredible hours for little or no money, suffer from physical, emotional, and mental burn-out and sacrifice our personal relationships. It is our constant energy that has nurtured the field of wildlife rehabilitation to the point of becoming a respected and acknowledged profession and a necessary service in our communities.

Wildlife rehabilitation is a pioneering field. We are one of the first groups of people giving back to the earth what many have selfishly taken for years. With every creature we release to the sky or forest, we return a little of what we’ve been blessed with: the earth with all the trimmings.

The Wildlife Rehabilitation Council was formed by a group of people who believe in the freedom for all creatures. We owe it to the animals in our care to investigate new ideas and innovative rehabilitation techniques. Sharing is the only way to maintain excellence and build a strong foundation of knowledge.

The full letter can be found in the archived Volume 5(3) and in the upcoming Volume 34(2).

*At the time this was written, IWRC was still known as the Wildlife Rehabilitation Council.

 

For additional in memoriams visit:

Jay’s Blog

International Bird Rescue

SANCCOB

Daily Breeze

Thank You Rachel Carson

Thank You Rachel Carson

A voice for wildlife

Today is the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s death. Carson brought issues of bio-accumulation and pesticide toxicity to the attention of the general public with her seminal work Silent Spring. Carson gave voice (a voice the public listened to) to disturbing emerging problems using her expertise as a biologist and notoriety as a popular science author. Thanks in part to Rachel Carson we have witnessed the amazing recovery of bald eagles, peregrines, and osprey and the resurgence of songbirds voices. We do not suffer from silent springs bereft of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.

Celebrate the voice of science; its power to provide information, knowledge, and understanding. Celebrate the people that bring the voice of science to us all, from Rachel Carson to Neil Degrasse Tyson. Celebrate the wildlife rehabilitators that are a voice for wildlife in this generation; observing, recording, and communicating.

How better to remember a hero like Rachel Carson than to acknowledge that we too can be heros.