Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T06:40:17.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A survey of wildlife rehabilitation in South Africa: is there a need for improved management?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

K Wimberger ,
CT Downs  and
RS Boyes
K Wimberger*
Affiliation:
School of Biological and Conservation Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa
CT Downs*
Affiliation:
School of Biological and Conservation Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa
RS Boyes
Affiliation:
School of Biological and Conservation Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa
*
* Contacts for correspondence and requests for reprints: Downs@ukzn.ac.za or kirstenwimberger@yahoo.com
* Contacts for correspondence and requests for reprints: Downs@ukzn.ac.za or kirstenwimberger@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The focus of wildlife rehabilitation is the survival of the individual animal, often leading to rehabilitators being in conflict with government wildlife officials, who regulate the industry and whose focus is on the security of entire wildlife communities. In South Africa, wildlife rehabilitation has been the focus of recent attention from the general public, government and academics, due mostly to the development and adoption of norms and standards for the management of primates. Our study was initiated to provide the first survey of rehabilitation centres in South Africa. Questionnaires were returned by 65% known rehabilitation centres in South Africa, including all nine Provinces, through which several thousand injured, diseased and orphaned animals pass each year. It is clear there is a need for rehabilitation centres in South Africa. However, due to a lack of scientific research on the efficacy of rehabilitation methods for care and release, and minimal post-release monitoring, wildlife rehabilitation techniques and protocols have been based on work experience and subjective intuition. In conjunction with a lack of funds, there may be negative impacts on individual animal welfare and survival, as well as on conservation efforts for wildlife communities. Similar issues have been documented in other regions of the world. In the authors’ opinion, centralisation of wildlife rehabilitation to national or provincial government is a necessity. Furthermore, it is suggested that guidelines of minimum standards should be developed in consultation with experienced rehabilitators, veterinarians and conservation scientists; to be enforced by trained and dedicated conservation officials.

Keywords

animal welfareconservationgovernmentminimum standardsSouth Africawildlife rehabilitation
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , November 2010 , pp. 481 - 499
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aitken, G 2004 A New Approach to Conservation-The Importance of the Individual Through Wildlife Rehabilitation. Ashton Publishing Ltd: England, UKGoogle Scholar
Alexander, G and Marais, J 2007 A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers: Cape Town, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Anon 2008a Wildlife Rehabilitation in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, USA. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/whealth/rehab/RehabGuide.pdf (Accessed April 2008)Google Scholar
Anon 2008b Minimum Standards for Wildlife Rehabilitation in Western Australia. Department of Environment and Conservation: Kensington, Australia. http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/community-and-education/volunteer-programs/minimum-standards-for-wildlife-rehabilitation.html (Accessed August 2009)Google Scholar
Anon 2008c The KZN Norms and Standards for Primate Management. Adopted by the Board of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife on 27 July 2008 in terms of section 5 (3) of the KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Management Act 9 of 1997. http://www.kznwildlife.com/export/sites/kzn/content/Downloads/KZNPrimateNormsD3.26.pdf (Accessed October 2008)Google Scholar
Baker, LR 2002 IUCN/SSC Re-Introduction Specialist Group: guidelines for nonhuman primate re-introduction. Re-introduction NEWS 21: 32Google Scholar
Beck, BB, Rapaport, LG and Wilson, AC 1994 Reintroduction of captive-born animals. In: Olney, PJS, Mace, GM and Feistner, ATC (eds) Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive Animals pp 265–286. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beringer, J, Mabry, P, Meyer, T, Wallendorf, M and Eddleman, WR 2004 Post-release survival of rehabilitated white-tailed deer fawns in Missouri. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 732–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borner, M 1985 The rehabilitated chimpanzees of Rubondo island. Oryx 19: 151–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BWRC (British Wildlife Rehabilitation Council) 1989 Ethics and Legal Aspects of Treatment and Rehabilitation of Wild Animal Casualties. BWRC, c/o RSPCA: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
Caldecott, J and Kavanagh, M 1983 Can translocation help wild primates? Oryx 17: 135–139Google Scholar
Carr, RD 1995 The role of nature conservation organizations in wildlife rehabilitation centres. In: Penzhorn, BL (ed) Proceedings of the SASOL Symposium on Wildlife Rehabilitation pp 5–8. South African Veterinary Association Wildlife Group: Onderstepoort, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Clark, JE, Pelton, MR, Wear, BJ and Ratajczak, DR 2002 Survival of orphaned black bears released in the smoky mountains. Ursus 13: 269–273Google Scholar
Curtis, O and Jenkins, A 2002 A delicate balance raptor rehabilitation. Africa Birds and Birding Oct/Nov: 47–49Google Scholar
Drake, A and Fraser, D 2008 Admission trends and mortality correlates for mallard ducklings at wildlife rehabilitation facilities. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 29(1): 4–14Google Scholar
Dubois, S 2003 A Survey of Wildlife Rehabilitation Goals, Impediments, Issues, and Success in British Columbia, Canada. MSc Thesis, University of British Columbia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Dubois, S and Fraser, D 2003a Conversations with stakeholders, Part I: Goals, impediments, and relationships in wildlife rehabilitation. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 26(2): 8–14Google Scholar
Dubois, S and Fraser, D 2003b Conversations with stakeholders, Part II: Contentious issues in wildlife rehabilitation. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 26(2): 8–14Google Scholar
Dubois, S and Fraser, D 2003c Defining and measuring success in wildlife rehabilitation. Wildlife Rehabilitation 20: 117–126Google Scholar
Du Toit, J 1999 A helping hand. Africa Birds and Birding 4(3): 60–63Google Scholar
Fajardo, I, Babiloni, G and Miranda, Y 2000 Rehabilitated and wild barn owls (Tyto alba): dispersal, life expectancy and mortality in Spain. Biological Conservation 94: 287–295Google Scholar
Griffin, AS, Blumstein, DT and Evans, CS 2000 Training captive-bred or translocated animals to avoid predators. Conservation Biology 14: 1317–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, B, Scott, JM, Carpenter, JW and Reed, C 1989 Translocation as a species conversation tool: status and strategy. Science 245: 477–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, B, Scott, JM, Carpenter, JW and Reed, C 1993 Animal translocations and potential disease transmission. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 24(3): 231–236Google Scholar
Gurso, J 2006 Clarifying the Certified Wildlife Rehabilitator™ Program. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 28(3): 4–5Google Scholar
Hall, E 2005 Release considerations for rehabilitated wildlife. National Wildlife Rehabilitation Conference 2005. http://nwrc.com.au/forms/elizabeth_hall.pdf (Accessed November 2008)Google Scholar
Hockey, PAR, Dean, WRJ and Ryan, PJ 2005 Roberts Birds of Southern Africa, 7th Edition. The Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund: Cape Town, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Holcomb, J 1995 The ethics of wildlife rehabilitation. In: Penzhorn, BL (ed) Proceedings of the SASOL Symposium on Wildlife Rehabilitation pp 112–118. South African Veterinary Association Wildlife Group: Onderstepoort, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
IAAWS (International Academy of Animal Welfare Sciences) 1992 Welfare Guidelines for the Re-introduction of Captive Bred Mammals to the Wild. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) 1998 IUCN Guidelines for Re-introductions. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
IUCN 2000 IUCN Guidelines for the Placement of Confiscated Animals. IUCN: Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, SK 1998 Healers of the Wild. Coyote Moon Press: Denver, USAGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, JK 1992 Wild animal welfare. In: Ryder, RD (ed) Animal Welfare and the Environment pp 139–154. Gerald Duckworth and Co Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, JKK 1993 Interventions for wildlife health, conservation and welfare. The Veterinary Record 132: 235–238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkwood, JK 2000 Interventions for the conservation or welfare of wild animals. In: Legood, G (ed) Veterinary Ethics: an Introduction. Continuum: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, JK and Best, R 1998 Treatment and rehabilitation of wildlife casualties: legal and ethical aspects. In Practice 20: 214–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, JK and Sainsbury, AW 1996 Ethics of interventions for the welfare of free-living wild animals. Animal Welfare 5: 235–243Google Scholar
Kleiman, DG 1996 Reintroduction programs. In: Kleiman, DG, Allen, ME, Thompson, KV and Lumpkin, S (eds) Wild Animals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques pp 297–305. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Kosch-Davidson, H, Mihatov, L, Mihatov, J, Fox, D, Fenton, S, Jacobs, M, Mingin, L, Shostak, J and Shostak, T 2006 Clarifying the Certified Wildlife Rehabilitator™ Program. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 28(3): 4Google Scholar
Kunz, A 1995 Management of a rehabilitation centre. In: Penzhorn, BL (ed) Proceedings of the SASOL Symposium on Wildlife Rehabilitation pp 12–13. South African Veterinary Association Wildlife Group: Onderstepoort, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, P 1999 Conservation science versus sentimentality. Africa Birds and Birding 4(3): 61Google Scholar
Lockwood, G 1995 Animal rehabilitation: involving the community. In: Penzhorn, BL (ed) Proceedings of the SASOL Symposium on Wildlife Rehabilitation pp 33–35. South African Veterinary Association Wildlife Group: Onderstepoort, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Mathews, F, Moro, D, Strachan, R, Gelling, M and Buller, N 2006 Health surveillance in wildlife reintroductions. Biological Conservation 131: 338–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Measures, LN 2004 Marine Mammals and ‘Wildlife Rehabilitation’ Programs. Research document 2004/122. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: CanadaGoogle Scholar
Miller, EA 2000 Minimum Standards for Wildlife Rehabilitation, 3rd Edition. National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association: St Cloud, USAGoogle Scholar
Reeve, NJ 1998 The survival and welfare of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) after release back into the wild. Animal Welfare 7: 189–202Google Scholar
Reynolds, E 1995 The corporate sponsor and wildlife rehabilitation. In: Penzhorn, BL (ed) Proceedings of the SASOL Symposium on Wildlife Rehabilitation pp 47–49. South African Veterinary Association Wildlife Group: Onderstepoort, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Skinner, JD and Chimimba, CT 2005 The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion, 3rd Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cape Town, South AfricaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soorae, PS 2005 Placement options for confiscated bears. In: Kolter, L and van Dijk, J (eds) Rehabilitation and Release of Bears pp 17–27. Zoologischer Garten Kőln: GermanyGoogle Scholar
Trendler, K 1995a Minimum operating guidelines for rehabilitation centers. In: Penzhorn, BL (ed) Proceedings of the SASOL Symposium on Wildlife Rehabilitation pp 1–4. South African Veterinary Association Wildlife Group: Onderstepoort, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Trendler, R 1995b The financial implications of wildlife rehabilitation. In: Penzhorn, BL (ed) Proceedings of the SASOL Symposium on Wildlife Rehabilitation pp 9–11. South African Veterinary Association Wildlife Group: Onderstepoort, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Verdoorn, GH 1995 Release criteria for rehabilitated wild animals. In: Penzhorn, BL (ed) Proceedings of the SASOL Symposium on Wildlife Rehabilitation pp 89–94. South African Veterinary Association Wildlife Group: Onderstepoort, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Visagie, R 2008 The rehabilitation of raptors in the eastern Nama Karoo during a two-year period. Gabar 19(2): 66–67Google Scholar
Waples, KA and Stagoll, CS 1997 Ethical issues in the release of animals from captivity. Bioscience 47: 115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimberger, K, Armstrong, AJ and Downs, CT 2009 Can rehabilitated leopard tortoises (Stigmochelys pardalis) be successfully released into the wild. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 8(2): 173–184Google Scholar
Wimberger, K, Downs, CT and Perrin, MR 2010 Post-release success of two rehabilitated vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops pygerythrus) troops in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Folia Primatologica 81: 96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar