Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
she said she expects few people would be willing to leave an orphaned animal to die in the wild or turn it over to be euthanized. Furthermore, she said, people will try to raise wild animals on their own rather than turning them over to trained rehabilitators, creating a greater risk of disease for both humans and domestic animals like dogs and cats.
"People are not going to kill these cute little animals after they see their mamas killed on the street or something," she said.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu
How incredibly ignorant and sad.
wildlife worker quoted in article:
she said she expects few people would be willing to leave an orphaned animal to die in the wild or turn it over to be euthanized. Furthermore, she said, people will try to raise wild animals on their own rather than turning them over to trained rehabilitators, creating a greater risk of disease for both humans and domestic animals like dogs and cats.
"People are not going to kill these cute little animals after they see their mamas killed on the street or something," she said.
she said she expects few people would be willing to leave an orphaned animal to die in the wild or turn it over to be euthanized. Furthermore, she said, people will try to raise wild animals on their own rather than turning them over to trained rehabilitators, creating a greater risk of disease for both humans and domestic animals like dogs and cats.
"People are not going to kill these cute little animals after they see their mamas killed on the street or something," she said.
I'm not sure if you're referring to the wildlife worker as being ignorant and sad or the new state regulation?
sorry for awkwardness on my wording. I first wrote "ignorant and sad" then put the quote and then I went back to state the quote was from a wildlife worker.
The concept of not helping orphaned or injured wild animals is what I believe to be ignorant and sad.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu
sorry for awkwardness on my wording. I first wrote "ignorant and sad" then put the quote and then I went back to state the quote was from a wildlife worker.
The concept of not helping orphaned or injured wild animals is what I believe to be ignorant and sad.
Thanks for the clarification. Let me tell you the perspective someone who's been involved wildlife management for over 25 years including 14 years of endangered species management.
Wildlife management deals with the species as a whole. It does not deal with the individual animals. When one takes what appears to be in orphan animal out of the wild, one may very well be actually taking the offspring from its mother. A perfect example of this is a fawn. The mother will hide the fawn and appear to have abandoned when that is not the case at all. In the case of real orphans, the chance of survival released back into the wild is minimal. If they are prey you have not learned escapement, and if they are predator they have not learned predation from their mothers.
Those that are primarily from the city and are used to the domesticated animals such as cats and dogs take the lessons they learned from that and try and transpose those lessons on wild animals. By doing so, they make mistakes which often result in that animals long and torturous death because it has not been a climatized to the natural environments that it belongs.
I have seen the results many of these rescue attempt falter.
They are good hearted attempts however are based on wrong assumptions. They do wildlife more harm than good as much as you may not want to hear that.
Somehow this makes me recall the scene from the movie "Tommy Boy" where David Spade and Chris Farley place an injured deer in the backseat of their car. It was definitely a funny scene but a really dumb act.
I know it's politically correct to condemn anything that Alabama does but wildlife agencies deal more with the continued survival of species and habitats and not so much individuals. In these days of tight budgets, most agencies have their hands full just trying to protect habitats instead of issuing permits for the private care of an individual animal. And too, if wildlife agencies took the time to fully incorporate animal welfare into their goals and schedules, where would they draw the line on the regulations? Which has the greater worth, a warm and fuzzy baby raccoon whose mama has been killed by coyotes or an injured copperhead that decided to crawl onto the highway to sun and got his tail smashed? Both have genes that are a integral parts of their populations.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources said Thursday that it will no longer issue permits for the rehabilitation of certain orphaned or injured raccoons, skunks, opossums, foxes, coyotes, feral pigs or bats.
Anyone who finds an orphaned or hurt animal should leave it in the wild, the agency said, and humane organizations should euthanize any of the animals they receive.
"Basically there is no biological reason to rehabilitate these animals," said biologist Ray Metzler, assistant chief of wildlife for the agency.
Removing orphaned or injured animals from the wild and nursing them interrupts the food chain and could help spread diseases such as rabies, Metzler said.
The NY Times article neglected to mention that some of these species are invasive non-native species. Coyotes are not native to Alabama. Feral pigs cause tremendous damage to the environment, destroying native plants and animals.
"Countless animals die after being hit by vehicles and in other accidents every year. "
So if the animals have that natural "food chain" thing and it's all "part of nature," where do the cars fit in that "circle of life" and "nature"?
Good question! I guess the cars have replaced the predators (like wolves, cougars, bears, etc.) that were driven out by man from populated areas and were a part of nature's circle of life. Cars take a large toll on wildlife. Around here, I see opportunistic animals like vultures, crows, etc., on the sides of the roads feeding off the fresh kill. In nature nothing goes to waste.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
