Globally, it is estimated that millions of animals pass through rescue facilities each year, some dying in captivity, others euthanased, and some released to the wild. There are more than 600 rescue and rehabilitation facilities in the United Kingdom, as well as individuals providing care to sick or injured wild animals. Whilst well-intentioned, their skills, knowledge, and resources may be very limited potentially compromising animal welfare at capture, during captivity, or upon release. Such welfare risks involve not just the individual but extend to others of the same species, and other contact animals. Human impacts, especially on the mental health of animal carers, can be considerable. There is currently much debate regarding the relevance of wildlife rehabilitation to conservation, especially for those species where numbers and populations are in decline.  
 
There is very limited published work identifying which animals are admitted to centres, why, and what their outcomes are. A robust evidence-base quantifying the activities of such unregulated wildlife rehabilitation providers in the UK is essential to progress care and reduce welfare harms by analysing outcomes. This present study interprets 42,800 records from a large wildlife centre in the southwest of England with direct veterinary supervision over a 10-year period and considers factors including season, species, reasons for admission and outcome. These results will guide wildlife centres and veterinary practices when planning resources and deciding appropriate species-specific staff training.  
 
Twice as many birds than mammals were admitted with very small numbers of reptiles and amphibians. Nearly three quarters of admissions were during spring and summer. Admissions included 144 bird, 43 mammal, 6 reptile and 3 amphibian species. Just nine species accounted for more than half of admissions, with hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) being most common followed by wood pigeons (Columba palumbus) and herring gulls (Larus argentatus). Orphan animals were the predominant age class, with ‘orphaned’ also the main reason given for admission. Most other admissions were the consequences of anthropogenic activities including traumatic injuries and attacks by domestic pets. Over 40% of animals across all species and ages were released back to the wild, with the study showing early euthanasia intervention reduced the number of animals dying in captivity without negatively impacting upon the numbers released. Early intervention in those animals that could not be released is key to minimising unnecessary stress and animal welfare harms. 
 
The findings clearly demonstrate the significance of wildlife rehabilitators’ skills in rearing ‘orphans’, whilst an ability to assess and appropriately treat trauma cases is of greater importance for most veterinary professionals than specialist knowledge of wildlife diseases. Wildlife veterinary education should focus upon assessment and examination, avian trauma medicine, and treating hedgehogs. Further discussion of these findings, alongside other relevant international studies will be available in the published findings. 

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/1/86