A Cost/Benefit Analysis of Oiled Wildlife Response

Massey, J. Gregory; Hampton, Steve; Ziccardi, Michael H.

doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2005-1-463

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Financial records on managing wild birds are scarce, even more so for rehabilitating confiscated wild birds. However, unlike our case, the accounts for rehabilitating and releasing oiled wildlife on a per-bird basis started with a minimum of USD 1,600.00 (107), regardless of the construction costs, and volunteer work. These were excessively higher than our costs, greatly due to the medical expenses for injured birds, a category we did not include.…”

Section: Financial Costsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Those were just a few songbirds kept at a high level of care that is unsustainable for large numbers of confiscated passerines. Also, unlike the study of oiled birds ( 107 ), in which one-half of the total costs paid for staff, we estimated our labor costs based on the minimum wage. We worked from the construction to the post-release monitoring phase.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rehabilitation and release of confiscated songbirds into the wild: A pilot study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Songbirds are currently the most prevalent animals in illegal trafficking in Brazil and other countries, so they are often confiscated, and this poses legal, ethical, and conservation challenges. Returning them to nature requires complex and expensive management, a topic that is sparingly addressed in the literature. Here, we described the processes and costs associated with an attempt to rehabilitate and release confiscated songbirds into the wild. A total of 1,721 songbirds of several species were quarantined, rehabilitated, and released, primarily on two farms located within their typical geographical distribution. Health assessments were performed on samples from 370 birds. Serology revealed no antibodies against Newcastle disease, and Salmonella spp. cultures were negative. Real-time polymerase chain reactions detected M. gallisepticum in samples from seven birds. Atoxoplasma spp. and Acuaria spp. infections, sepsis, and trauma were the top causes of bird death. About 6% of the released birds were recaptured, within an average period of 249 days after release, and at a mean distance of 2,397 meters from the release sites. The majority of these birds were found with free-living mates within or close to fragments of transitional ecoregions with native or cultivated grasslands, and native groves/forests, and shrublands. However, eucalyptus plantations with rich understory regeneration provided a suitable environment for the released forest species to settle, since they were recaptured during the defense of these sites. Over half of the recaptured birds presented behavioral profiles with both dominant and tame traits. Birds with dominant traits are more likely to settle in habitats and face the live decoys during fieldwork, whereas birds with tame characteristics tend to accept close contact with humans. Ultramarine grosbeak (Cyanoloxia brissonii), the least common species among those released, at the release sites showed an almost 2-fold recapture rate in the shortest mean distances from the release sites. This suggests less territory competition, perhaps a major factor of bird re-establishment here. The total per-bird cost was USD 57. Our findings suggested suitable survival and re-establishment of confiscated songbirds in the wild, when managed as we describe.

show abstract

Section: Financial Costsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rehabilitation and release of confiscated songbirds into the wild: A pilot study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The cost of cleaning and rehabilitating oiled wildlife, although not insignificant, has often been incorrectly overestimated (see Estes 1998 andresponse by Jessup 1998). In fact, the cost of wildlife rehabilitation is typically a very small percentage (0.01-5.9%) of the overall oil spill response cost (Massey et al 2005). Importantly, under the oil spill response framework in the United States, funding for response to oiled wildlife does not come from the same source as funding for postspill restoration (Jessup 1998).…”

Section: Financial Considerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life and Death: How Should We Respond to Oiled Wildlife?

Henkel

Ziccardi

2017

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is ongoing public debate about the best course of action to take when wildlife are affected by oil spills. Critics of wildlife rehabilitation suggest that the cleaning and release of oiled animals is a waste of resources focused on individual animals (not populations); thus, the most responsible course of action is to immediately euthanize affected animals. These critics claim that survival of rehabilitated animals is poor, and that the funds spent on rehabilitation would benefit wildlife more if spent on other conservation efforts. In this opinion piece, with a focus on birds, we review reasons for engaging in a coordinated response to oiled wildlife that includes cleaning and rehabilitation. The reasons for responding to oiled wildlife in any capacity include ethical, human safety, and legal aspects. Our rationale for proposing that responders attempt to rehabilitate wildlife, rather than planning on immediate euthanasia, includes financial, scientific, and additional ethical reasons. Financially, costs for wildlife rehabilitation are typically a very small portion of overall oil-spill response costs, and are typically independent of postspill enforcement and funds used to restore injured natural resources. Scientifically, we review recent studies that have shown that animals cleaned and rehabilitated after oil spills can often survive as well as nonoiled control animals. Ethically, some people would consider individual animals to have intrinsic value and that we, as consumers of petroleum products, have an obligation to reduce suffering and mitigate injuries associated with such accidents. For these reasons, we suggest that, although humane euthanasia should always be considered as an option for animals unlikely to return to normal function after rehabilitation, response to oil spills should include a coordinated effort to attempt wildlife rehabilitation.

show abstract

Morbidity, outcomes and cost-benefit analysis of wildlife rehabilitation in Catalonia (Spain)

Molina‐López¹,

Mañosa

Torres-Riera

et al. 2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere are few studies of careful examination of wildlife casualties in Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers. These studies are essential for detecting menaces to wild species and providing objective criteria about cost-benefit of treatments in those centers. The release rate is considered the main outcome indicator, but other parameters such as length of stay at the center and a cost-benefit index expressed as number of released animals per euro and day, could be used as reliable estimators of the rehabilitation costs.MethodologyA retrospective study based on 54772 admissions recorded from 1995–2013 in the database of the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Torreferrussa (Catalonia, NW Spain) assessed the morbidity, outcomes and cost-benefits of the rehabilitation practices.ResultsThree hundred and two species were included: 232 birds (n = 48633), 37 mammals (n = 3293), 20 reptiles (n = 2705) and 13 amphibians (n = 141). The most frequent causes of admission were: 39.8% confiscation of protected species (89.4% passerines), 31.8% orphaned young animals (35.3% swifts, 21.7% diurnal raptors and owls) and 17.4% trauma casualties (46.7% raptors and owls). The highest proportion of releases was found in the captivity confiscation category [87.4% passerines (median time of stay: 12 days)], followed by the orphaned category [78% owls (66 days), 76.5% diurnal birds of prey (43 days), 75.6% hedgehogs (49 days), 52.7% swifts (19 days) and 52% bats (55 days)]. For the trauma group, 46.8% of releases were hedgehogs (44 days) and 25.6% owls (103 days). As regards the cost-benefit index, the trauma casualties and infectious diseases had the worse values with 1.3 and 1.4 released animals/euro/day respectively, and were particularly low in raptors, waders, marine birds and chiroptera. On the contrary, captivity (4.6) and misplacement (4.1) had the best index, particulary in amphibian, reptiles and passerines.Conclusions/significanceCost-benefit studies including the release rate, the time of stay at the center and the cost-benefit index should be implemented for improving management efficiency of the Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers.

show abstract

A Cost/Benefit Analysis of Oiled Wildlife Response

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Rehabilitation and release of confiscated songbirds into the wild: A pilot study

Rehabilitation and release of confiscated songbirds into the wild: A pilot study

Life and Death: How Should We Respond to Oiled Wildlife?

Morbidity, outcomes and cost-benefit analysis of wildlife rehabilitation in Catalonia (Spain)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About