Abstract
Wildlife recovery centres are widespread worldwide and their goal is the rehabilitation of wildlife and the subsequent release of healthy animals to appropriate habitats in the wild. The activity of the Genoese Wildlife Recovery Centre (CRAS) from 2015 to 2020 was analysed to assess its contribution to the conservation of biodiversity and to determine the main factors affecting the survival rate of the most abundant species. In particular, the analyses focused upon the cause, provenance and species of hospitalised animals, the seasonal distribution of recoveries and the outcomes of hospitalisation in the different species. In addition, an in-depth analysis of the anthropogenic causes was conducted, with a particular focus on attempts of predation by domestic animals, especially cats. Significantly, 96.8% of animals hospitalised came from Liguria, the region in north-western Italy where CRAS is located, with 44.8% coming from the most populated and urbanised areas of Genoa, indicating a positive correlation between population density and the number of recoveries. A total of 5881 wild animals belonging to 162 species were transferred to CRAS during the six years study period. The presence of summer migratory bird species and the high reproductive rates of most animals in summer resulted in a corresponding seasonal peak of treated animals. Birds represented 80.9% of entries; mammals accounted for 18.6% of hospitalisations; and about 0.5% of the entries were represented by reptiles and amphibians. Species protected by CITES and/or in IUCN Red List amounted to 8% of the total number of individuals. Consistent with results recorded elsewhere from Italy and other European countries, 53.9% of the specimens treated were released in nature; 4.7% were euthanised and 41.4% died. There was a significant difference between taxa in the frequency of individuals that were released, died or euthanised due to the intrinsic characteristics of species (more resistant or more adaptable to captivity than others) and/or to the types of debilitative occurrences common to each species (e.g. infections, wounds, traumas, fractures). A total of 14.2% of wildlife recovery was from injuries caused with certainty by people or domestic animals (human impact), with 54.3% of these hospitalised animals having been victims of predation attempts by domestic animals, mainly cats. The percentage of release in nature of animals hospitalised following human impact was significantly lower than overall cases (31.2% vs. 53.9%) due to the greater severity of the injuries. The percentage of animals released showed a further reduction to 27.1% amongst victims of predation attempts by pets. The work of Rehabilitation/Recovery Centres contributes to wildlife conservation. In particular, the CRAS in Genoa is a Centre with an increasing level of activity concerning the rehabilitation of species under CITES protection and/or included on the IUCN Red List. The contribution and experience of CRAS operators is critical for the success of ‘information campaigns’ aimed at limiting the number of stray dogs and cats because of their impact on wildlife. Therefore, the activity of a properly-managed CRAS can significantly contribute both directly and indirectly to wildlife conservation, resulting in important territorial safeguards for the protection of biodiversity.
Highlights
Wildlife Recovery Centres are widespread worldwide (Tribe and Brown 2000; Burton and Doblar 2004; Rouffignac 2008; Rodriguez et al 2010; Wimberger et al 2010; Molina-López et al 2011; Grogan and Kelly 2013)
There was a total of 5881 wild animals transferred to the Recovery Centre between 2015 and 2020 with the majority coming from the Liguria Region (Table 2, Fig. 1)
The work of rehabilitation/recovery centres contributes to wildlife conservation and the one in Genoa is growing in its activity concerning recovery and release of species under protection from CITES and/or the IUCN Red List, which stands at 8% (Rondinini et al 2013)
Summary
Wildlife Recovery Centres are widespread worldwide (Tribe and Brown 2000; Burton and Doblar 2004; Rouffignac 2008; Rodriguez et al 2010; Wimberger et al 2010; Molina-López et al 2011; Grogan and Kelly 2013). Rehabilitation and relocation are arguably the most intimate, intense and costly interaction that most people can have with wildlife Such activities naturally involve human intervention in the life of wild animals by raising important emotional, political and ethical issues (Tribe and Brown 2000). They need to be based on a comprehensive approach that takes into account the needs of animal welfare, its eco-ethological basis and advances in veterinary science. Wild animals are in a sentinel position as biological indicators of environmental conditions in every habitat, even in urban and suburban areas Some of their causes of debilitation and mortality can be described as “unnatural” and directly related to human activities. The activity of Wildlife Recovery Centres, can take on a triple importance: acting as a compensation system of anthropogenic impact, contributing to the conservation of animal biodiversity and guaranteeing a continuous monitoring of the general health status of wildlife (Burton and Doblar 2004)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
