Characterizing trends in human-wildlife conflicts in the American Midwest using wildlife rehabilitation records

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 11;15(9):e0238805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238805. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Human-wildlife conflict is difficult to measure, but the analysis of records from wildlife rehabilitation facilities has shown potential as a technique for characterizing human impacts on wildlife. To examine the value of wildlife rehabilitation records for characterizing local human-wildlife conflicts and prevalence of select wildlife diseases, we reviewed 45,668 records representing over 280 species admitted to a wildlife rehabilitation facility over a 10-year period (2005-2014). We identified the most frequently recorded causes of admission for commonly admitted species, and evaluated how causes of admission may vary across taxa throughout the year. Our analyses support the value of wildlife rehabilitation facility data for characterizing some pressures from human-wildlife conflict and select disease trends for certain taxa, as well as utility for informing topics to emphasize in local conservation education efforts. For example, orphaned neonatal wildlife accounted for the largest proportion of admissions to this facility, and highlights a opportunity for conservation education regarding when wildlife is truly orphaned and requires professional intervention. Additionally, domestic dog attack cases accounted for a proportion of admissions comparable to that of domestic cat attacks, demonstrating a need for the conversation surrounding the impact of domestic pets on local wildlife to expand to include dogs in addition to cats.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Animals, Wild*
  • Conservation of Natural Resources*
  • Humans
  • Records*
  • United States

Grants and funding

This study was funded by the Otterbein University Vernon L. Pack Community Service Research Fellowship (awarded to RBL), the Otterbein University Student Research Fund (awarded to RBL), and the Otterbein University Faculty Scholarship Development Committee (awarded to AY). https://www.otterbein.edu/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.