Fox Cub Broken Leg

[Farplace]

We just do the best we can, case by case. I don't know if we have done the best for this cub. We did what was thought to be the best at the time. This is what wildlife rescue is all about/ Always hard.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Farplace

We just do the best we can, case by case. I don't know if we have done the best for this cub. We did what was thought to be the best at the time. This is what wildlife rescue is all about/ Always hard.

Do you know of any kind of follow-up studies from your place or others, that indciates that such a prolonged and complicated intervention 'works', as in gives the animal a normal life?

[Kayleigh]

Originally Posted by Farplace View Post
We just do the best we can, case by case. I don't know if we have done the best for this cub. We did what was thought to be the best at the time. This is what wildlife rescue is all about/ Always hard.

This is what rescue centers are there for to save wildlife where they can and if some of the wildlife can be returned to the wild and live out its life naturally where it would otherwise die in pain through injury then they do a good job.
Life in the wild is a chance and giving them that chance is worth it.
A lot of the hedgehogs that get looked after through the winter if they are too small to survive on their own would perish if they were not taken in and fed up then released in the springtime..

So keep up the good work FP..

[mbaldw]

Originally Posted by RKB

Do you know of any kind of follow-up studies from your place or others, that indciates that such a prolonged and complicated intervention 'works', as in gives the animal a normal life?

Nothing recent, as far as I know, RKB. I've asked several rescue organisations about whether they ever follow up on their releases and the answer (as I'm sure Farplace will confirm) is no, because they don't have the time or the resources. There have been numerous studies tracking cubs (some that were held in captivity first), but I'm only aware of one study looking at the fate of rehabilitated fox cubs in Britain. Between 1989 and 1992, Bristol Biologists Charles Robertson and Stephen Harris monitored the fortunes of 251 fox cubs reared and released by a wildlife hospital (the RSPCA, I think, but it's not specifically mentioned in the papers). They recovered 90 of the cubs and the results of the study were published in two papers to the journal Animal Welfare during 1995.

In essence, Robertson and Harris found that cub survival was poor, with many dying in road traffic accidents shortly after release. They found that 52% of the cubs died within four weeks of release (most, 24%, during the first week), compared to 8% of their comparable wild population of 61 apparently orphaned cubs that were tagged and released without further interference. More than half the foxes (55%) that died were killed on the roads and it seems that this high level or mortality was a result of many more erratic movements by the released cubs. During this 'erratic phase' they crossed more roads than wild cubs do while foraging in an established home range; they also crossed unfamiliar areas, where they didn’t know the safe travel routes. The authors suggest that this naivety to the dangers of vehicles, and a tendency to travel along roads, increased their risk of dying.

Interestingly, it was the males that seemed to fare worse than females, apparently being more stressed by captivity (I wonder if Farplace or anyone else has noticed something similar?). The authors wrote:

"It was concluded that captive-rearing is a problematic process for foxes, and contrary to predictions they face severe problems in adapting following release."

"The captive-bred cubs used in this study still showed high levels of stress, social suppression of reproduction, and reduced cub growth even though they were reared as individual litters with their parents."

It wasn't all bad news though:

"...three out of five vixens recovered after their first breeding season had reared cubs, a comparable proportion to first-year wild-reared foxes (Harris & Smith 1987). Thus released female cubs that survived were able to integrate into the breeding population; whether the same applies for males is less clear because the effects of stress were more marked than for females."

Generally, I think the concern tends to be the length of time taken to treat severe mange infection or broken limbs in wild-caught animals and the fact that hospitalistion is often necessary. I know most wildlife charities will only bring in a patient if absolutely necessary. When the fox is removed, there is the possibility that its home range will be usurped by another animal (other studies have found this to happen within a fortnight) and it will be returned to find it no longer has a territory. I can certainly see the problem, although I'm inclined to think that the formation of family groups in many urban areas makes this less likely. Rearing and releasing cubs is, of course, different and releasing them into an area (whether they were found there or not), is arguably no different to a subadult dispersing into a new territory.

The question, I guess, is whether you consider some chance of survival better than no chance at all?

Cheers,
Marc.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by mbaldw

The question, I guess, is whether you consider some chance of survival better than no chance at all?

Cheers,
Marc.

Thanks for that. I think there's been a study of oiled seabirds too. But I don't recall anything on e.g. hand-reared birds. Your question is above is basically one of sentimentality, as there is no conservation benefit for hand-rearing e.g. fox cubs or blackbirds. And the impact of their release on wild juveniles also has to be considered (competition). When you consider the time and resources involved, it is difficult to rationalise that it's 'worth it' in terms of the outcome (the vast majority die). So the cost and effort per individual that survives must be phenomenal.

But, you can't tell people what to spend their time and money on. And there's no basis for thinking that if people didn't donate money to e.g. St Tiggywinkles or Farplace's organisation then it would go to something like RSPB instead (where it might pay for culling some foxes?!). If we could somehow weigh up the amount of distress or suffering involved per successful outcome (which you might define as an animal still alive x months after release), then that might give a much better/worse picture.

I do question the ethics of some places that rescue and release non-native animals, like Muntjac and Grey Squirrels, which conservationists are trying to eradicate in order to help native species, as there's clear conflict there. But generally I think it comes down to a welfare question - does it make enough difference to justify the distress and suffering experienced during handling and also after release?

[N0z]

Dam that fox cub is awesome and to OP, keep up the good work

[Farplace]

thank you. She's fantastic!