'hopskotch' the one-legged seagull

[FoxtonWildlifeRescue]

Hello all

This thread is aimed mainly at fellow wildlife rehab-ers out there. We are after second opinions.

Last week we had a black headed gull admitted that was being attacked by other birds. We treated it's wounds but discovered that it has only one leg! No sign that there ever was a second leg - no stump, trauma, scar tissue - nothing to suggest that this bird ever had two legs. We think it was born this way.

Our dilemma is this - ordinarily we would never contemplate releasing a one-legged bird, however in this case, it seems that the bird has obviously been coping with it's disability as it's weight and general condition are good. I would just like to canvas other member's opinions on the matter - is it a candidate for release - or not.

Also, it is cygnet time. At this time of year they drop out of the sky after taking their maiden flight and realising that they don't know how to land properly. We have about half a dozen crash-landed cygnets that we will be over-wintering. One of them unfortunately, lost the use of one eye in the impact. Our instincts are that this will have to be a sanctuary bird but the same question applies - release, or not to release.

Cheers

[david156]

Hi.

Can't really help with the cygnets but would think the gull should be ok. I do see lots of one legged gulls whilst out birdwatching and they don't seem to struggle. I was watching a one legged redshank earlier in the year and that was fine too allthough it did look a bit strange when it was feeding!

[solus]

I'm not involved with wildlife re-hab but as a birder I've seen a number of gulls with one leg or one-and-a-stump (Possibly damaged while feeding on landfill sites of after getting tangled in tideline debrsi?) and they seem to manage with no probs. Also a one-legged Turnstone down at Padstow Harbour in Cornwall, running about just as well as its two-legged comrades. I reckon as long as the gull is healthy otherwise it would be better off being released.

Not so sure about the cygnet though - one eye is a bit harder than one leg for a bird, but anyway a Swan will probably be quite happy to live on a sanctuary lake - assuming it's a Mute Swan, of course and not a Bewick's or Whooper?!

[FoxtonWildlifeRescue]

Thanks for the responses - very helpful.

[Picidae]

Purely an 'unprofessional' opinion but I agree that gulls can survive fairly well on one leg. However, I'd be a bit concerned if that was the reason it could have been attacked in the first place - I think it would make a difference depending on it's age. A full grown adult may stand more chance of avoiding attacks maybe.

Again, agree with the cygnet being 'released' onto a sanctuary lake - one of the WWT reserves may be able to take it for you and if there's any problems with it managing in the future, it could be pinned and fed at least and be in the company of other Mutes if staff feel it's warranted. A WWT may be prepared to have the gull released on it's grounds also, with a plentiful supply of food, it may avoid being attacked over the winter months when food's a bit more scarce ie. it may 'hang around' of it's own accord if it's foraging/feeding is compromised by vision impairment. (There's usually a lot of BHG's at my local WWT anyway, they seem to like the place!) (Arundel)

[valleyforge]

Hi,

We have faced similar dilemmas in the past with birds such as these, that have permanent disabilities.

Whilst we are adamant in our resolve that a disability in any animal is normally no excuse for it to become an automatic candidate for euthanasia, there's no easy formula for deciding whether or not it will be able to cope in the wild again ... each case really needs to be examined on its own merits.

For the one-legged seagull, my concerns would centre mainly around why it came under attack ... and by whom/what. If as is quite likely, it was attacked by other gulls then it may have indeed been picked upon because of its disability. I have witnessed birds being attacked by their own kind due to their exhibiting some congenital defect ... and have assumed that there is some instinctive or cognitive response within the clan members to prevent such a (genetic) defect proliferating within the population. Most often the parent birds themseves will not nurture a malformed infant, or will physically eject it from the nest.

Interestingly enough, the same sort of response doesn't appear to manifest itself towards birds that have become injured, or have lost an appendage or limb. They may be mobbed by other opportunistically predatory species, but rarely by their own kind.

Most of the one-legged birds that we all see in the wild are therefore probably from the latter group (i.e. casualties of accident/misadventure), and I agree that they probably cope reasonably well with their disabilities.

For these reasons then, I would be reluctant to release the gull in the presence of other gulls, particularly of that same clan, at least until it was fully adult (in the case of a juvenile) and without a prolonged period of 'soft release' in a safe, monitored environment.

If indeed there exists some decree or 'fatwa' amongst black-headed gulls that this individual should not breed, then perhaps we should respect that, and keep it seperately under close protection from members of that species, although it will probably socialize well enough with other gulls and other birds of similar size and habit. The breeding opportunities for such a disabled individual are probably fairly slim in any case if it's a male, but maybe not so limited if it's a female (males being likely less picky in accepting a breeding partner).

For the cygnet, I would echo some of the other responses on this thread ... it would depend on the species, but I feel too that its best chances would be within the 'soft' environment of a WWT reserve, where it can continue to be monitored.

[Picidae]

Apologies - my last paragraph in post above should have read as follows:

Again, agree with the cygnet being 'released' onto a sanctuary lake - one of the WWT reserves may be able to take it for you and if there's any problems with it managing in the future, it could be pinned and fed at least and be in the company of other Mutes if staff feel it's warranted. A WWT may be prepared to have the gull released on it's grounds also, with a plentiful supply of food, it may avoid being attacked over the winter months when food's a bit more scarce ie. it may 'hang around' of it's own accord if it's foraging/feeding is compromised by it only having one leg and afford better protection if staff see it being attacked again. (There's usually a lot of BHG's at my local WWT anyway, they seem to like the place!) (Arundel)

(more or less what VF said actually!)

[willing to learn]

I would most certainly say it has lost as a accident. A merlin had a complete leg pulled off. It made a full recovery, and showed no signs it ever had two legs. The main problem with one foot having to bare all the weight it leaves the one foot overloaded, and bumble foot can occur. After saying this gulls spend a fair bit of time sitting on water so it might be not such an issue. But I think it would be unfair to release such a bird back to the wild. Also a weak vunrable bird is likely to pick up diseases as it loses condition and being a communal species it could in theory transfer disease through its commune.
Regards
Colin