Wildlife Rehabilitation Crisis in Ontario?

Blaring headlines on websites, petitions, various electronic mailing lists, and discussion groups all shout that there is a wildlife rehabilitation crisis in Ontario. What crisis? 

There is not, and never has been, a wildlife rehabilitation crisis in Ontario. These insufferable bulletins, emails, press releases and petitions that periodically make their way to the surface are akin to an abscess in a wild animal’s body. Beneath the skin it sits and festers and eventually, if there is no treatment applied, the abscess erupts. It’s messy, it’s putrid, and it stinks. Perhaps it is time to treat this abscess with a therapeutic dose of the truth before it bursts again.

There have been many different sources for this distribution of misinformation. One of the newer groups tries to tug at the heart by creatively using the words ‘baby’ and ‘wildlife’. Regardless of what names these groups give themselves, most imply that they represent the rehabilitators of Ontario. Commentary from them reads as if they were a union representing dues-paying union members who agreed to give up their own voices.  

The claims made in these inflammatory articles are hardly ever substantiated and until recently, seldom challenged. What appears to the uninformed public as factual is often no more than innuendo using skillfully chosen words taken out of context. Sensationalism does the trick and is often used to suit their needs.

And what about the public? Therein lies the problem. The public may only know what they are told or what they read and see, particularly if it’s a subject they are not familiar with—if it said so on the Internet or in the newspaper, it must therefore be true. So, if all the public hears and reads is that the sky is falling, pretty soon you’ll see them walking around with umbrellas shielding their heads, eyes furtively cast skyward because they are convinced that the sky IS falling. Others will be in an outrage because, good grief, the sky is falling- and the government isn’t doing anything about it.

It is time to better inform the public and help them understand that wildlife rehabilitation and all that goes with it, is not in a state of crisis.

The issue that appears to be at the crux of these protestations is the demand for the reinstatement of humane and responsible wildlife rehabilitation. They go further to say that the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) regulations₁ deny humane care for wildlife and are responsible for having eliminated the majority of wildlife rehabilitation in Ontario. In order to reinstate something, it would first have to have been removed. As we all know, responsible wildlife rehabilitation has not been banned nor removed from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, so it’s anyone’s guess precisely what is in need of being reinstated. 

Some of these comments are insulting to those who have continued to provide rehabilitation services for native wildlife because the claims imply that the work we all do for native wildlife, is inhumane and irresponsible. The MNR regulations and practices₂ mentioned here do not deny care humane care for wildlife, nor have they eliminated the majority of wildlife rehabilitation in Ontario. 

It is equally mystifying to read that hundreds of wildlife rehabilitators across the province surrendered their authorizations in protest or were eliminated. Hundreds? Omigosh! That’s news to all of the authorized wildlife custodians and their hundreds of registered foster care givers and volunteers. Statistically, the number of authorized wildlife custodians in Ontario has remained relatively stable over the years. That is not hyped-up theory.

A sad fact is that there will likely never be a sufficient number of authorized wildlife custodians in Ontario. The primary reason for this is the cost of rehabilitation. Either we pay out of pocket for our expenses, or if part of a larger group, focus a good deal of our resources and energy on fundraising to meet those needs. Time and space are two other deterrents to rehabilitation.

A large part of our work as professional and ethical custodians entails making decisions to euthanize. We know of no single facility anywhere in Ontario (or North America for that matter) that has unlimited capacity, housing, supplies and funding for wildlife rehabilitation. As unpleasant as it can be, decisions to not accept more animals into care, or to euthanize rather than risk substandard care are not easy ones to make. These types of decisions were also made in the past by some of those who are no longer in the profession. When those centres or facilities filled up, they also closed to new intakes and directed people to take the animals to the nearest humane society or animal control facility for humane euthanasia. We don’t fault those who have to make such choices, because we all have to make them. The problem is how quickly some forget that they were also required to do so by the limitations that affect us all.

When the profession of wildlife rehabilitation was legally recognized in the new Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, it essentially grandfathered in everyone who was engaged in the (then illegal) practice of wildlife rehabilitation. It didn’t matter what type of care you provided, what knowledge you possessed, or what, if any, training you may have had. As long as you registered with MNR in that first year, you received an authorization. 

Conditions of operation for authorizations followed when numerous well known and experienced groups, who had operated for years providing free services for sick, injured, or orphaned native wildlife, and others who provided educational opportunities for wildlife rehabilitators in Ontario collectively worked to raise the bar and helped to implement better standards of care for wildlife. Those who now seemingly stand on the sidelines and complain were also invited to be part of the process. 

In those early days as well as today, conscientious wildlife rehabilitators and wildlife centres maintained an open door policy with the MNR to continue to implement best practices in wildlife rehabilitation. When the arbitrary and unreasonable 1 km from point of origin release restrictions were in place, there was unanimous opposition to that specific condition, from all authorized wildlife custodians. At that time, we all called for a release standard similar to that of the NWRA/IWRC Minimum Standards, as did those who are currently protesting the regulations. The result? Release distance conditions now meet universally accepted NWRA/IWRC Minimum Standards. It appears that regardless of what conditions or regulations are in place, a pocket of individuals will continue to object to them.

Another gross misconception being touted as the truth is that single orphans cannot be combined and rehabilitated with other single orphans. It is important for wildlife to be raised with conspecifics and the current conditions do indeed permit that. If two single orphans originate within separate 15 km circumferences and the two areas intersect, these two single orphans can indeed be raised together and released together within that intersected area. 

All too often, we hear from the protesters that where orphans were found is not ‘suitable’ habitat for their release. It stands to reason that if their mothers were able to find suitable habitat, food and breeding partners, and managed to give birth, that a 15 km distance from their origin has more than sufficient space and resources to support the offspring. No one advocates returning an orphan to the middle of a busy street when it is ready for release, but within that 15 km radius, suitable habitat can be found. We have to refrain from imposing our will on nature. Wild animals have learned to adapt, and we too must do so.

Attempting to work together to resolve differences and to discuss best practices does not necessarily mean that everyone is in total blind agreement with each other or with the MNR every step of the way. We can be equally certain that the MNR does not necessarily agree with us every step of the way either. For example, many authorized wildlife custodians were outraged when Premier Dalton McGuinty used a human-habituated whitetail deer as part of his re-election campaign to appear as a ‘good guy.’ The Premier personally delivered the deer, complete with photo op, to the people who illegally had it in their possession and created this aberration of nature. He returned the deer to them so they could keep it as a pet and continue to feed it cheese curds.

It’s apparent we have a Premier who has no real concept of what wildlife rehabilitation encompasses and believes it is perfectly acceptable for the public to possess wild animals as pets. That’s quite the message he delivered to the public—just play dumb and we’ll let you keep whatever you want as a pet. Wildlife custodians know that wild animals belong in the wild and should not be kept as pets Should a wildlife custodian go to the MNR and say ‘Ooops, I accidentally habituated  this wild animal to me, I guess I just didn’t know any better so can I get a permit to keep it?’ The answer would unequivocally be – no! 

Unknowingly, some of you may pass on these misleading bulletins and petitions to friends and colleagues, much like electronic SPAM in email chain letters. You may not realize that what you read and are passing on, may be distorted. We encourage you to remain objective and first verify the information if you are unsure. If you have questions or concerns about conditions or regulations, use your own voice to express them to the MNR. That option has always been available to you. 

When you see or have been sent something that you personally know is not accurate; use your own voice and do not be afraid to speak up. If you read that the work you do is being called inhumane and irresponsible, let them know in your own opinion that this is false. Our work and profession includes educating the public about wildlife, and we should correct any misinformation. By all means, take every opportunity available to you and let the folks you interact with daily, know that the majority of wildlife custodians and centres do not receive government funding, and depend on compassionate donations from the public. These are facts that the public needs to realize and accept. 

One thing we know for sure—each of you, the 100 plus authorized wildlife custodians and your 100’s of volunteers and registered foster care givers who continue to do an exemplary, humane, responsible, professional, and outstanding job for native wildlife in Ontario, make an invaluable contribution, and deserve kudos and respect for your work. 

We honour each of you and wish you a very successful rehab season in 2008!   

OWREN Board of Directors

©2008 Ontario Wildlife Rehabilitation and Education Network

Published in the OWREN Network News newsletter

©January 2008.  Issue 32

www.owren-online.org

Footnotes:

₁   ‘Conditions of Operation’ for a wildlife custodial authorization are not the same as ‘Regulations’. A search of the Ontario Government website should provide you with a clearer definition of the language used. Your local MNR district office can also provide you with a better explanation of these terms. 

₂   The policies, procedures and conditions for a wildlife custodial authorization, can be found at:

        http://tinyurl.com/68veol