Search for: All records

Rescue, rehabilitation, and release (‘rescue-rehab-release’) of wildlife is an increasingly widespread practice across ecosystems, largely driven by habitat loss, wildlife exploitation and a changing climate. Despite this, its conservation value has not been realized, in part due to the scarcity of what has been termed “the 4th R”, research. Similar to conservation breeding and headstarting, rescue and rehabilitation entails close association of humans and the wildlife in their care over impressionable and extended periods. However, unlike these interventions, rescue and rehabilitation require an initial, and sometimes sustained, focus on crisis management and veterinary needs which can impede the development of natural behaviors and promote habituation to humans, both of which can compromise post-release survival and recruitment. In this perspective, we discuss the pathways toward, and implications of, behavioral incompetence and highlight opportunities for testable interventions to curtail negative outcomes post-release, without compromising the health or welfare of rescued individuals. We propose that practitioners ‘switch gears’ from triage to fostering behavioral competence as early in the rehabilitation process as is possible, and that research be implemented in order to develop an evidence-base for best practices that can be shared amongst practitioners. We focus on four mammalian species to illustrate specific contexts and considerations for fostering behavioral competence by building on research in the conservation translocation literature. Finally, we discuss a way forward that calls for greater cross-pollination among translocation scenarios involving extended time under human care during developmentally sensitive periods. 

Over the last decade, there has been a remarkable increase in scientific literature addressing human–wildlife interactions (HWI) and associated concepts, such as coexistence, tolerance, and acceptance. Despite increased attention, these terms are rarely defined or consistently applied across publications. Indeed, the meaning of these concepts, especially coexistence, is frequently assumed and left for the reader to interpret, making it hard to compare studies, test metrics, and build upon previous HWI research. To work toward a better understanding of these terms, we conducted two World Café sessions at international conferences in Namibia, Africa and Ontario, Canada. Here, we present the array of perspectives revealed in the workshops and build upon these results to describe the meaning of coexistence as currently applied by conservation scientists and practitioners. Although we focus on coexistence, it is imperative to understand the term in relation to tolerance and acceptance, as in many cases these latter terms are used to express, measure, or define coexistence. Drawing on these findings, we discuss whether a common definition of these terms is possible and how the conservation field might move toward clarifying and operationalizing the concept of human-wildlife coexistence.