Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T00:40:08.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting the likelihood of release of injured and orphaned woodpigeons (Columba palumbus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

A Kelly ,
C Halstead ,
D Hunter ,
K Leighton ,
A Grogan  and
M Harris
A Kelly*
Affiliation:
RSPCA, Wildlife Department, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
C Halstead
Affiliation:
Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
D Hunter
Affiliation:
RSPCA Stapeley Grange Wildlife Centre, London Rd, Stapeley, Nantwich, Cheshire CW5 7JW, UK
K Leighton
Affiliation:
RSPCA East Winch Wildlife Centre, East Winch, Norfolk PE32 1NR, UK
A Grogan
Affiliation:
RSPCA, Wildlife Department, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
M Harris
Affiliation:
Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Very little is known about the fate of the large numbers of injured and orphaned wild animals taken to wildlife rehabilitation centres in the UK each year. We reviewed the reasons for admission and outcomes for 2,653 woodpigeons (Columba palumbus), 68% of which were juveniles, brought to an RSPCA wildlife rehabilitation centre in Cheshire, UK over a five-year period (2005-2009). Reasons for admission varied with the most common reason for adults and juveniles being ‘injury (cause uncertain)’ and ‘orphan’, respectively. Twenty-one percent of adults and 16% of juveniles had been attacked by cats. Sixty-five percent of adults and 37% of juveniles were euthanased on admission or within the first 48 h to prevent further suffering. Only 14% of adults and 31% of juveniles were released back into the wild. The remainder were either euthanased or died despite treatment more than 48 h after admission. Body condition on admission was not a good predictor of the likelihood of release, but age, weight on admission and severity of symptoms were significant factors. A reduction in the median number of days in care for those birds euthanased more than 48 h after being admitted was recorded for 2007 to 2009, possibly due to the introduction of radiography for all birds on admission. Leg-band recovery data for 15 birds revealed post-release survival ranging from 21-2,545 days (median = 231 days) compared to 1-2,898 days (median = 295) for non-rehabilitated birds.

Keywords

animal welfareColumba palumbuspost-release survivalRSPCAwildlife rehabilitationwoodpigeon
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 523 - 534
Copyright
© 2011 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.)

References

BirdLife International 2004 Birds in Europe: Population Estimates, Trends and Conservation Status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. BirdLife International: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A 1995 Fear and fearfulness in animals. Quarterly Review of Biology 70: 165–191CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlstead, K 1996 Effects of captivity on the behavior of wild mammals In: Kleiman, DG, Allen, ME, Thompson, KV and Lumpkin, S (eds) Wild Mammals in Captivity pp 317–322. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Cheyne, SM 2007 The role of reintroduction in gibbon conservation: opportunities and challenges. In: Lappan, SM, Whittaker, DL and Geissmann, T (eds) The Gibbons: New Perspectives on Small Ape Socioecology and Population Biology. Springer: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Cousquer, GO, Dankoski, EJ and Patterson-Kane, JC 2007 Metabolic bone disease in wild collared doves (Streptopelia decaocto). The Veterinary Record 160: 78–84CrossRefGoogle 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: 287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A 2005 Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Second Edition. Sage Publications: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Garland, L, Harris, S and Baker, P 2003 An Evaluation of the Ethics and Implementation of Wildlife Rehabilitation. RSPCA, Annual Progress Report. RSPCA: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, DW, Reid, JB and Chapman, RA 1993 The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991. T and AD Poyser: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Goldsworthy, SD, Gliese, M, Gales, RP, Brothers, N and Hamill, J 2000 Effects of the Iron Baron oil spill on Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor). I. Post-release survival of rehabilitated oiled birds. Wildlife Research 27: 573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, PJ, Inglis, IR, Isaacson, TJ and Fryday, SL 2003 Woodpigeon Columba palumbus movements in eastern England: Woodpigeons range over greater areas during winter than summer with winter dispersion greatest in the first two winters following fledging. Bird Study 50: 33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglis, IR, Isaacson, AJ, Smith, GC, Haynes, PJ and Thearle, RJP 1997 The effect on the woodpigeon (Columba palumbus) of the introduction of oilseed rape into Britain. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 61: 113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council 2010 http://www.iwrc-online.org/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Joys, AC, Clark, JA, Clark, NA and Robinson, RA 2003 An investigation of the effectiveness of rehabilitation of birds as shown by ringing recoveries. BTO Research Report No 324. British Trust for Ornithology: Norfolk, UK.Google Scholar
Kelly, A and Bland, M 2006 Admissions, diagnoses, and outcomes for Eurasian Sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus) brought to a wildlife rehabilitation center in England. Journal of Raptor Research 40: 231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, A, Goodwin, S, Grogan, A and Mathews, F 2008 Postrelease survival of hand-reared pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus spp). Animal Welfare 17: 375–382Google Scholar
Kelly, A, Scrivens, R and Grogan, A 2010 Post-release survival of orphaned wild-born polecats (Mustela putorius) reared in captivity at a wildlife rehabilitation centre in England. Endangered Species Research 12: 107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, JK 2003 Introduction: wildlife casualties and the veterinarian. In: Best R, Cooper JE and Mullineaux E (eds) BSAVA Manual of Wildlife Casualties pp 1–5. British Small Animal Veterinary Association: Gloucestershire, UKGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, JK and Sainsbury, AW 1996 Ethics of interventions for the welfare of free-living wild animals. Animal Welfare 5: 235–243Google Scholar
Leighton, K, Chilvers, D, Charles, A and Kelly, A 2008 Postrelease survival of hand-reared tawny owls (Strix aluco) based on radio tracking and band return data. Animal Welfare 17: 207–214Google Scholar
Martell, M, Redig, P, Nibe, J, Buhl, G and Frenzel, D 1991 Survival and movement of released rehabilitated bald eagles. Journal of Raptor Research 25: 72–76Google Scholar
Molony, SE, Baker, PJ, Garland, L, Cuthill, IC and Harris, S 2007 Factors that can be used to predict release rates for wildlife casualties. Animal Welfare 16: 361–367Google Scholar
Morris, PA 1998 Hedgehog rehabilitation in perspective. The Veterinary Record 143: 633–636Google Scholar
Murton, RK 1965 The Woodpigeon. Collins: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Naef-Daenzer, B, Widmer, F and Nuber, M 2001 Differential post-fledging survival of great and coal tits in relation to their condition and fledging date. Journal of Animal Ecology 70: 730–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringsby, T, Saether, B and Solberg, E 1998 Factors affecting juvenile survival in House Sparrow Passer domesticus. Journal of Avian Biology 29: 241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, CPJ and Harris, S 1995 The condition and survival after release of captive-reared fox cubs. Animal Welfare 4: 281–294Google Scholar
Russon, AE 2009 Orangutan rehabilitation and reintroduction. In: Wich, SA, Utami, SS, Mitra Setia, T and van Schaik, CP (eds) Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation pp 327–350. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Sharp, B 1996 The post-release survival of oiled, cleaned seabirds in North America. Ibis 13: 222–228Google Scholar
Slater, PS 2001 Breeding ecology of a suburban population of Woodpigeons Columba palumbus in northwest England. Bird Study 48: 361–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S, Harradine, J and Batley, J 1995 Farmers, Woodpigeons and Woodpigeon Shooting. British Association for Shooting and Conservation: Wrexham, UKGoogle Scholar
Snow, DW and Perrins, CM 1998 The Birds of the Western Palearctic (Concise Edition). Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Teixeira, CP, Schetini de Azevedo, C, Mendl, M, Cipreste, CF and Young, RJ 2007 Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering stress. Animal Behaviour 73: 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, CV, Peach, WJ and Browne, SJ 1997 Survival Rates of Rehabilitated Guillemots. British Trust for Ornithology: Thetford, UKGoogle Scholar
Willock, C 1995 The Book of the Woodpigeon. White Lion: UKGoogle Scholar
Wingfield, JC, Hunt, K, Breuner, C, Dunlap, K, Fowler, GS, Freed, L and Lepson, J 1997 Environmental stress, field endocrinology, and conservation biology. In: Clemmons, JR and Buchholz, R (eds) Behavioral Approaches to Conservation in the Wild pp 262–276. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar