Wildlife rehabilitation is a publicly popular practice, though not without controversy. State wildlife agencies frequently debate the ecological impact of rehabilitation. By analyzing case records, we can clarify and quantify the causes for rehabilitation, species involved, and treatment outcomes. This data would aid regulatory agencies and rehabilitators in making informed decisions, as well as gaining insight into causes of species mortality. In New York State, the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has licensed rehabilitators since 1980 and annual reporting is required. In this study, we analyzed 58,185 individual wildlife cases that were attended by New York rehabilitators between 2012 and 2014. These encompassed 30,182 (51.9%) birds, 25,447 (43.7%) mammals, 2,421 (4.2%) reptiles, and 75 (0.1%) amphibians. We identified patterns among taxonomic representation, reasons for presentation to a rehabilitation center, and animal disposition. Major causes of presentation were trauma (n = 22,156; 38.1%) and orphaning (n = 21,679; 37.3%), with habitat loss (n = 3,937; 6.8%), infectious disease (n = 1,824; 3.1%), and poisoning or toxin exposure (n = 806; 1.4%) playing lesser roles. The overall release rate for animals receiving care was 50.2% while 45.3% died or were euthanized during the rehabilitation process. A relatively small number (0.3%) were permanently non-releasable and placed in captivity; 4.1% had unknown outcomes. A comparable evaluation in 1989 revealed that wildlife submissions have increased (annual mean 12,583 vs 19,395), and are accompanied by a significant improvement in release (50.2% in the study period vs 44.4% in 1989) (χ2(1) = 90.43, p < 0.0001). In this manuscript, we aim to describe the rehabilitator community in New York State, and present the causes and outcomes for rehabilitation over a three-year period.

24 Wildlife rehabilitation is a publicly popular though highly controversial practice. State wildlife 25 agencies frequently debate the ecological impact of rehabilitation. Analysis of case records could 26 inform that debate by clarifying and quantifying the causes for rehabilitation, species involved, 27 and treatment outcomes. This information could aid in the ability of regulatory agencies and 28 rehabilitators to make informed decisions and gain insight into causes of species decline. In New 29 York, rehabilitators are licensed by the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 30 and thus, are required to submit annual reports. Between 2012Between -2014 individual wildlife 31 cases were seen by licensed rehabilitators comprising 31,229 (52.6%) birds, 25,490 (42.9%) 32 mammals, 2,423 (4.1%) reptiles, and 73 (0.1%) amphibians. We identified patterns among 33 taxonomic representation, reasons for presentation, and disposition. Major causes of presentation 34 were trauma (n = 22,672, 38.2%) and orphaning (n = 21,876, 36.8%), with habitat loss (n 35 =3,746, 6.3%), infectious disease (n = 1,992, 3.4%), and poisoning or toxin exposure (n = 864, 36 1.5%) playing lesser roles. The overall release rate for animals receiving care was 50.2%; 45.4% 37 were either euthanized or died during the rehabilitation process. A relatively small number 38 (0.3%) were permanently non-releasable and placed in captivity, and 4.1% had unknown 39 outcomes. In comparison to data from 1989, wildlife submissions have increased (annual mean 40 12,583 vs 19,790), as has the release rate, from 44.4% to 50.2%. Utilizing a large data set 41 allowed us to fill knowledge gaps, which can help inform management by both the rehabilitators 42 and the state agencies that regulate them, deepening understanding of the scope and impacts of 43 wildlife rehabilitation. 44 45 HANSON ET AL. WILDLIFE REHABILITATION IN NEW YORK STATE 3 46 Introduction 47 Ethical questions and skepticism over the ecological benefits have fueled debate on 48 rehabilitative treatment of wild animals [1,2]. The value of rehabilitation for individual animals 49 is also controversial, with little knowledge of release rates, and some arguing that stressors 50 placed on animals undergoing care at the rehabilitation facilities may be as traumatizing to the 51 animal as the inciting event [3-5]. In contrast, advocates urge that the need for rehabilitation 52 often arises from anthropogenic causes, and humans therefore have a moral obligation to rectify 53 their impact [6]. In addition, rehabilitation provides people with close contact with wildlife, 54 potentially increasing knowledge of wild species and factors contributing to their declines, which 55 can have positive impacts on local biodiversity conservation [6]. 56 Without basic quantifiable information, this debate has been left at a standstill. Here, we 57 report large-scale epidemiologic data to provide a foundation for understanding the scope and 58 potential impacts of wildlife rehabilitation. 59 Wildlife rehabil...

No abstract