PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Melissa Hanson
AU  - Nicholas Hollingshead
AU  - Krysten Schuler
AU  - William F. Siemer
AU  - Patrick Martin
AU  - Elizabeth M. Bunting
TI  - Species, causes, and outcomes of wildlife rehabilitation in New York State
AID  - 10.1101/860197
DP  - 2019 Jan 01
TA  - bioRxiv
PG  - 860197
4099  - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/29/860197.short
4100  - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/29/860197.full
AB  - Wildlife rehabilitation is a publicly popular though highly controversial practice. State wildlife agencies frequently debate the ecological impact of rehabilitation. Analysis of case records could inform that debate by clarifying and quantifying the causes for rehabilitation, species involved, and treatment outcomes. This information could aid in the ability of regulatory agencies and rehabilitators to make informed decisions and gain insight into causes of species decline. In New York, rehabilitators are licensed by the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and thus, are required to submit annual reports. Between 2012-2014, 59,370 individual wildlife cases were seen by licensed rehabilitators comprising 31,229 (52.6%) birds, 25,490 (42.9%) mammals, 2,423 (4.1%) reptiles, and 73 (0.1%) amphibians. We identified patterns among taxonomic representation, reasons for presentation, and disposition. Major causes of presentation were trauma (n = 22,672, 38.2%) and orphaning (n = 21,876, 36.8%), with habitat loss (n =3,746, 6.3%), infectious disease (n = 1,992, 3.4%), and poisoning or toxin exposure (n = 864, 1.5%) playing lesser roles. The overall release rate for animals receiving care was 50.2%; 45.4% were either euthanized or died during the rehabilitation process. A relatively small number (0.3%) were permanently non-releasable and placed in captivity, and 4.1% had unknown outcomes. In comparison to data from 1989, wildlife submissions have increased (annual mean 12,583 vs 19,790), as has the release rate, from 44.4% to 50.2%. Utilizing a large data set allowed us to fill knowledge gaps, which can help inform management by both the rehabilitators and the state agencies that regulate them, deepening understanding of the scope and impacts of wildlife rehabilitation.