Quality of Life, Release, Placement and Euthanasia
by Sigrid Noll Ueblacker
In her paper on Quality of Life, Katherine McKeever describes so eloquently her thoughts on captive life. Her last paragraph has remained etched in my mind from the day I read it for the first time:
“But right at the beginning there is something you should know, even if it breaks your heart. For all your long hours, and the physical effort, and the expense, and the arguments with others over your priorities, and even your genuine affection for this creature, you have come to love, there will be one thing missing from its life. And if you leave the cage door open, it will opt for that one thing above all others that were provided, and it will walk out of the door to freedom, and its death. Because this is the way of all wildlife.”
Our responsibility as rehabilitators is to care for injured and orphaned wildlife with one goal in mind: to release mended, healthy animals into the wild breeding population. Young animals must be raised as independent members of the wild population, psychologically well-balanced and suited for survival on the day of release. Injured wildlife must be mended well enough to live freely with no impairments.
The successful release of any captive creature is conditional – so many factors must be considered. We must own an understanding of the animal’s biological needs based on the natural history of that animal. This understanding helps us determine whether or not an animal really should be released, and if so, the most appropriate time for release and choice of habitat. It helps us judge the animal’s ability to forage/hunt and thus, survive. The “Minimum Standards for Wildlife Rehabilitation”, page 50, provides guidelines for release conditions.
If we have carefully followed the criteria, we can celebrate a job well done. I feel good about a release when I am secure in the knowledge that I did my homework. If we fail to follow the guidelines, we have failed our trust: the life of the animal may be wasted; our time and energy may also be wasted, as well as that of supporting donors, volunteers, and staff.
Wildlife does not have many options when admitted for rehabilitation. Animals may die of their injuries. They may be placed in an educational or breeding program. Hopefully they will be released, but they may have to be euthanised. In the “Minimum Standards for Wildlife Rehabilitation” numerous methods of acceptable and humane euthanasia are listed on page 51 trough 55.
When considering euthanasia, we need to examine our own motives carefully. Some people find that performing euthanasia is very difficult. They would rather let some one else do these jobs. Many of us have received hopelessly injured animals from others, animals that should have been destroyed immediately, rather than passed on. Ultimately, such creatures have to endure days of needless stress and suffering, and we have to do the “dirty” job.
Euthanasia is another form of release – a release from pain and fear, from unwanted and stressful captivity. Keeping this in mind makes it a little less difficult. It is never easy, and it shouldn’t be, when we care about our animals. Usually, after a few days when strong emotions have subsided, I know, deep in my heart, that I made the right choice.
On rare occasions we may have the opportunity to place an un-releasable animal with an educational or breeding project. Suitable candidates for such ventures are uncommon. Most wildlife never fully adjust to captivity. Wild creatures always remember freedom, and they often mask their misery for the duration of their confinement. Personally, I cannot look an un-releasable eagle in the eye and send him to a place where he will be living alone in a 20×20 foot “chamber,” simply to educate the public. There are worse things than death. Living in cramped isolation is one of them. Educating the public about our magnificent wildlife should never take precedence over the quality of life of any creature.
Acceptable facilities for placement are rare across the nation. My own criteria are strict. I will place only a well-adjusted candidate with a facility that equals or surpasses my own. Making this judgment requires research. We are obligated to gather as much information as possible about the facility under consideration before placing an animal. Making this judgment also requires a high level of commitment to the animal’s well-being, an intimate understanding of the animal, and empathy. This commitment may, indeed, be taken as an emotional involvement, which brings me to the last point that I wish to address.
Many publications direct us to treat wildlife with respect, dignity, and suitable medical attention. We are also encouraged to avoid allowing ourselves to become emotionally involved with our patients. There are plenty of human physicians who also follow this protocol. However, I would not want to be the patient of a doctor who has no compassion and shows no involvement. Nor can I stay up the better part of the night trying to save the life of an emaciated or ill bird, and not become emotionally involved. If we open our hearts and allow these wondrous creatures to touch us, very often they also respond, even the most hopeless cases. Losing our patients despite all our efforts, either to death or euthanasia, then comes with a high price to pay. And in my opinion, that price is just right.
With love and appreciation to my daughter Elke who helped with this paper
Comments are closed.