~~Pages in this section~~
             
Euthanasia
The following articles are written on the subject of euthanasia. This is
a hard subject for rehabbers and non-rehabbers alike to deal with.
Hopefully, the following will help you as you think through the subject and
consider the decisions that are made.
Contents:
as written in the IWRC 1AB manual
"Our goal is to rehabilitate these animals, but our challenge is to treat
them responsibly, regardless of how it may hurt us personally. We must
recognize our limits and learn from them. We must forgive ourselves and
share our experiences and knowledge. We must show compassion to other
rehabilitators. We must realize we are not responsible for life as we
find it, we are only responsible for how we live it. Every time we accept
another animal for rehabilitation, we accept the risk that we may have to
accept death. It is very hard to admit that the best you may be able to
give this animal is a painless death. Euthanasia is part of our ethic,
and it is part of our responsibility of caring as wildlife rehabilitators."
by Charlie Kaiser, California
I feel that there is a very blurred line between when to keep an animal as a
non-releasable and when to euthanize it. It will move back and forth with
many different factors. I don't feel there's any one set of criteria we
can use, at least not in our situation. Unfortunately, we will never be
able to look at the situation from the animal's point of view. We'll
never know if that Red-tail Hawk with one wing would rather be dead or on
display being well cared for (in our minds).
Much of the decision is based on "curb appeal" (to borrow a real estate
term). A Robin with a broken leg will probably not get quite the chance
that a Great Horned Owl will. An animal that people don't get a chance to
see very often, and one that is spectacular-looking to boot, will usually
get more of a nod towards life in captivity than one we see in our yards
all the time.
Many educational programs may look at which animal is more likely to cause
the recipient of the program to remember the message. In such a case, an
owl will be much more likely to be remembered than a finch. Does that
make this criteria for keeping an animal alive valid? To some humans,
yes. To others, no. As long as there are different people in the world,
there will be differences of opinion on such a call. I feel that this
criteria is valid, but only with other factors considered.
Then there is the factor of commonality vs. rarity. If an animal is rare,
such as a Peregrine Falcon, I think we all give it more of the benefit of
life. If the animal is common, we may be more inclined to euthanize. Is
there anyone among us who hasn't thought, in the middle of baby season,
"it's just another finch"? I'm not saying that we don't try our best to
save them all, but how many finches with broken wings can we keep as
non-releasables?
Some animals are more disposed to a life in captivity than others, both on
a species level and on a personal level. A box turtle is probably more
likely to adapt to life in captivity than an adult-caught Goshawk, for
example. Within a species, certain individuals are more likely to accept
a life in captivity than others.
We have both a wildlife hospital and an educational facility in the same
location. When we get a non-releasable animal such as a raptor, we do not
automatically turn it into a display animal. The animal spends some time
being acclimated to being around people, and is watched closely by very
experienced individuals who are extremely perceptive about what the
animals are feeling, at least by what they show externally. If the animal
shows a willingness to coexist with humans, it then moves on to a training
phase. If it chooses not to become comfortable around people, then we do
not force it to participate. We will give it the gift of euthanasia. The
same goes for the training phase, and even beyond. We recently put down a
Harris Hawk that we had in the program for a couple of years, because it
gradually decided that it could not accept what we wanted it to do. It
was not willing to be handled and glove fed, and was very nervous most of
the time, even after focused work by our best handlers. Rather than make
the bird miserable, we gave it the gift. That bird is now free and
happy. It's not worth it to make an animal obviously suffer just to be a
display animal.
There is always a certain amount of stress for a captive wild animal.
I feel that there is a balance that needs to be struck between the need to
educate people about our environment and wildlife.. using these animals
as ambassadors.. and the deep inner feelings that the animal has. If the
animal can be kept active and interested in life, then the trade off may
be worth it. After all, how many amimals can one captive animal save?
Just recently, we lost one of our Great Horned Owls. He came to us as an
imprinted baby. He lived with us for 24 years and 9 months, smashing
records for the oldest GHO in captivity. During his lifespan, he probably
was seen by hundreds of thousands of people, either on display at the
museum, in one-on-one encounters in the park where we exercise the birds,
or at school programs or other educational programs and events. How many
owls lived a full life in the wild because of him? We'll never know, but
if it's one or more, I think it was worth it. I personally can't count
the number of kids I spoke to with him on my glove who I KNOW made a
higher connection with that animal because they were able to see him up
close and personal. If one percent of them don't grow up to shoot an owl
someday, then that's a great reason for the owl to have lived a life in
captivity, because he was dead otherwise.
Many people don't agree with me on this subject, and I respect their
opinion. What we do at our facility might be the wrong thing somewhere
else. In some people's eyes, what we do at our facility is wrong. Some
feel that there should be no captives. I feel that as long as these
captive animals are accepting their lot in life, and as long as they can
be ambassadors for their species, providing people with a glimpse of the
natural world they might otherwise never see, then we should give them the
chance. I don't feel, however, that a miserable animal makes a good
ambassador. It is better to give them their ultimate freedom.
 Go Back To Main Menu
| 
