© Michael NewtonI’ve just signed yet another letter to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to overcome its apparent antipathy to the practice of wildlife rehabilitation, even to the detriment of the very goals it claims to have.[teaserbreak]
In Ontario, licensed rehabbers have strict rules. Most mammals brought to them are “orphaned” babies whose health is assessed over many months, thus providing significant assurance of a lack of serious disease (like rabies). Young animals, their immune systems not fully developed, simply don’t survive to be released. As well, interested and experienced veterinarians examine symptomatic animals and, as appropriate, inoculate against such ailments as distemper and rabies.
A major problem imposed by MNRF is the fact that the animals, once raised, must be released within a kilometer of where originally found. This precludes “bunching” similarly-aged babies in brood-like conditions that allow important social interactions and release in “family groups” mimicking natural conditions.
I understand, and I share the concern that moving animals a significant distance from where found could lead to the spread of disease or even genetic changes that mitigate species survival overall. But, all that we ask is that the animals be allowed to be moved far enough to be slowly released into viable habitat within the “wildlife management units” where they are found. The risk of disease in such animals is extremely low.
When rehabbers are prevented from maximizing the success of their nonprofit endeavors, the public will, too often, take on the task themselves—going underground, and without the oversight of humane and sensible laws and regulations. This increases the likelihood of the very thing we all want to avoid: contact with healthy populations of the species involved, and contact between animals with zoonotic diseases (transmittable to humans) and well-intentioned but untrained and unlicensed private individuals.
Contrast this situation with that of wildlife removal companies (WRCs). Regulations dictate that they release wild-caught animals, such as “nuisance” raccoons, to a location “in close proximity to the capture site” (with no definition of “close proximity”). Many WRCs publicly claim to move animals considerable distances, knowing that, if moved only within a kilometer (just over half a mile), many will find their way back.
As an aside, moving or killing common urban and suburban species such as raccoons, opossums, and squirrels simply makes room for more to move in, guaranteeing endless business.
Thus, between the two activities—socially responsible wildlife rehabilitation and profit-driven wildlife removal companies—the more dangerous is the less-regulated, almost non-regulated, one.
I hasten to add that there are ethical WRCs that agree with the need to license their activities, since they must compete with the “fly-by-night” operators who make no effort to fix whatever allows animals to be a “nuisance” in the first instance or check for disease symptoms.
It’s just common sense. But, so far, the bias MNRF has against helping animals and aiding wildlife rehabbers prevents the legislative change needed to protect humans and animals alike.
Keep wildlife in the wild,
Barry