Found Kestrel with broken wing (1 Viewer)

[deborah4]

Since Andy has said BF doesn't mind euthanasia and various methods of such being discussed - fair enough - it's not a subject I particularly want to discuss (and not for being 'squimish' or 'girlie') but for the reasons I mentioned before. Obviously other members feel there is a need for this information to be made known and in this manner and can't see any potential negative implications of doing so - I'll maintain my original position I think on that one. It's a shame the subject got tagged on to a post that originally was a plea for help to care for a bird while waiting for expert help to arrive otherwise it might have been a smoother ride for everyone.

As it happens, I do think the issue is very valid indeed and none of us want to be in a situation where there simply is no hope at all of getting professional help at all but faced with a dire situation - I hope all of us would be brave enough to take the right action whatever that might be, although just at what point we feel such action is necessary/justified might vary widely.

 

[danehower]

Since Andy has said BF doesn't mind euthanasia and various methods of such being discussed - fair enough - it's not a subject I particularly want to discuss (and not for being 'squimish' or 'girlie') but for the reasons I mentioned before. Obviously other members feel there is a need for this information to be made known and in this manner and can't see any potential negative implications of doing so - I'll maintain my original position I think on that one. It's a shame the subject got tagged on to a post that originally was a plea for help to care for a bird while waiting for expert help to arrive otherwise it might have been a smoother ride for everyone.

As it happens, I do think the issue is very valid indeed and none of us want to be in a situation where there simply is no hope at all of getting professional help at all but faced with a dire situation - I hope all of us would be brave enough to take the right action whatever that might be, although just at what point we feel such action is necessary/justified might vary widely.

Good call deborah4 !:clap: I would like to humbly suggest that those without expert knowledge refrain from going "Reggy Jackson" ( a famous baseball slugger for the uninitiated) on a bird that appears to be injured. :t:

 

[dantheman]

This is after all an international forum, people of all nationalities and cultural sensitivities taking part, I agree we have to be a bit careful what advice is given, and whether it is given as the 'gospel what you should do' or as just one option of many.

Obviously more people reading this thread than taking part, possibly not taking part for fear of an argument, but hey. I wonder what the 'ex-beebers' or 'garden bird feeder' forum members would make of this issue? (and not being ex-beebist I hope ).

A couple of points. I'm a bit wary of carrying on with this, but it would seem to be unresolved, it will arise again, and it doesn't appear to be a 'taboo' subject for BF. It is relating to a real scenario out there in the world of birds after all.

1) Legality. We are told on the Bird Q&A forum sometimes (ok fairly often at times) that it is a federal offence to hold captive a migratory wild bird. What is the situation with killing a migratory wild bird? Ditto the uk -if I killed eg a Kestrel (by methods under discussion), could I be open to allegations or prosecution even?

2) I can see problems with the actual carrying out of 'The Act'. The bag (plastic or natural, what about seepage or struggling . . .??), the instrument used, getting the bird into the bag in the first place, aiming and force (How many nervous townsfolk are going to get the first strike on target and hard enough? when their partners fingers are holding the sack too?). Should we be advising total amateurs to do this???

3) Where is this going to take place? On a farm maybe no probs. Small surburban garden, hmmm. What if the neighbours saw me with a bag and a club - I'd almost hope they'd call the police!
'But Officer, I had to do it, it had a broken wing'
'Lets have a look now. Hmmm broken wing, broken sternum, broken neck. I think you've been having far too much fun with that bat. You're coming down the station with me . . . '

Where would that leave you?

Or indoors. And worries of body fluids seeping etc . . .

4) Ethics/morality of euthanasia. Much as it is with humans euthanising their own kind, there are big issues with animal welfare, cruelty. Taking a life. Respect for animals. Respect for the 'spirit' of an animal (maybe other cultures like buddhism, native american religion and individuals beliefs). . . . etc

5) Disposal, possible future trauma to the 'euthanist' (especially if it didn't go to well) etc, I'm sure there are more. . .

To answer KN's main point, I'd say there are various options. Depending on the circumstances. His preferred method is only one, others may be better or worse, but there are several different aspects which all come into play on this one. Maybe we can't come up with a brilliant cover-all one except that given by Deborah4 earlier, which may also be less than ideal at times. So . . .

Waiting for a call back. And waiting. And the animal slipping away may well be one option. After all, how do we know how they feel pain, the sense of their own life going or depression. Maybe they have mechanisms which inure themselves from stress/pain as they become weaker?? I was under the impression they do . . . .

(Or my 'preferred' method (only if appropriate, mind, eg probably not an American Kestrel!!); injured animal released into hedgerow. Shelter available. It lives/it dies. It enters the food chain. It recycles in situ rather than being placed in a plastic bag and landfilled or incinerated at unnecessary cost. C'est la vie.)

At any rate, I think this is not a simple one which be solved by a simple bash over the head. Maybe the 'authorities' need to do a little more work on this one. Not wishing to be too controversial with this, hope I have partially explained what 'other's' viewpoints and stand on this one may be. I don't pretend to be an expert on any of this, but as I say, I can foresee some difficulties.

I also don't wish to carry on with this as a continuing big argument. If some of my points above are valid/invalid then so be it.

EDIT; just reread a few posts above to Andy's one . . . I'm kinda assuming this is actually a worthwhile contribution to the 'euthanasia' issue . . . This time of the morning can't be too sure . .

 

[KnockerNorton]

1) Legality. We are told on the Bird Q&A forum sometimes (ok fairly often at times) that it is a federal offence to hold captive a migratory wild bird. What is the situation with killing a migratory wild bird? Ditto the uk -if I killed eg a Kestrel (by methods under discussion), could I be open to allegations or prosecution even?

I can't speak for US law as I am not fully conversant, but in the UK you can take in and look after (even if that means killing) any wild bird except the schedule 4 species and raptors (excluding kestrel, spar, owls, buzzard). Animal welfare acts alos come into play, as in a domestic animal (once it under your control) in that you must not allow it to suffer. So if it is terribly injured then you either have to treat it, take it to someone who can, or kill it, or take it to someone who will. All promptly.

2) I can see problems with the actual carrying out of 'The Act'. The bag (plastic or natural, what about seepage or struggling . . .??), the instrument used, getting the bird into the bag in the first place, aiming and force (How many nervous townsfolk are going to get the first strike on target and hard enough? when their partners fingers are holding the sack too?). Should we be advising total amateurs to do this???

On something up to about crow sized you really don't have to worry about 'seepage' much, or what kind of bag. The idea is to have it restrained, calm (hence held in a dark bag) and to destroy the brain/essentials as quickly as you can. One blow will usually do it, but several hard ones is rapdi succession makes sure. You can't do it by halves, so have to 'commit' and give it a good whack, as emphasised earlier. It is very easy, very quick, and not rocket science. Hence pretty much anyone *could* do it, if they felt able and were sure it was the right thing to do. Most more comfortable with it can used a priest or equivalent ((Saluki) and dispense with the bag. The idea of the bag is to make it much easier for anyone without an option.

3) Where is this going to take place? On a farm maybe no probs. Small surburban garden, hmmm. What if the neighbours saw me with a bag and a club - I'd almost hope they'd call the police!
'But Officer, I had to do it, it had a broken wing'
'Lets have a look now. Hmmm broken wing, broken sternum, broken neck. I think you've been having far too much fun with that bat. You're coming down the station with me . . . '

birds are not very easy to come by, so you have quite a good defence by being in possession of it in the first place. They generally have to be injured before you can catch them. Altough it IS legal and they would have to prove that it was somehow an illegal act. You can do it anywhere where you can swing a bat/other heavy object/hammer, but clearly not in public view or in view of other birds if at all possible. No point in distressing any one/thing else.

Where would that leave you?

with a dead bird in a bag.

Or indoors. And worries of body fluids seeping etc . . .

Not really an issue. There will be a bit of blood, but birds don't have much in the way of body fluids.

4) Ethics/morality of euthanasia.

that is for each indivual's conscience, and is nothing to do with the practicalities or legalities, so lets' leave that, shall we?

5) Disposal, possible future trauma to the 'euthanist' (especially if it didn't go to well) etc, I'm sure there are more. . .

it's already in a bag, so put it in the dustbin. It's very hard for it not to 'go well', as all you have to do is hit an object in a bag with a heavy thing, several times. Can you hammer a nail in? Then you can do this.

His preferred method is only one, others may be better or worse,

Indeed, I only ever said such, and I don't use it myself because I'm used to it. But for someone stuck in a difficult situation who's never done it before, it's not a bad option at all. Clearly, getting it to a vet within a few hours is the preferred option. But that's not the only one either.

Waiting for a call back. And waiting. And the animal slipping away may well be one option. After all, how do we know how they feel pain, the sense of their own life going or depression. Maybe they have mechanisms which inure themselves from stress/pain as they become weaker?? I was under the impression they do . . . .

well that's quite a lot of wishful thinking - what if you're wrong? And it also borders on illegality by allowing an animal to suffer.

(Or my 'preferred' method (only if appropriate, mind, eg probably not an American Kestrel!!); injured animal released into hedgerow.

Now that probably IS illegal, because you're abandoning an animal and allowing it to suffer. The technicalities of the animal's wild status are unresolved as it's never been to court, but a prosecution could certainly mount a good cruelty case. You are also condemning the animal to extended suffering and possibly slow death, which is unacceptable to me at least.

Maybe the 'authorities' need to do a little more work on this one.

again, there are no authorities, just a legal framework. Nobody owns or is in control of these birds until you pick them up, and then you're the authority (responsible in law).

 

[timwootton]

Let's take all the emotion out of this euthanasia issue and we're left with a very important issue - an issue which could present itself at any time to any of us 'What to do with a severely injured or dying bird'. What has become clear is that most on this forum either cannot or will not 'do the deed' and this is, actually, more distressing to me than hearing of how it can be done.
Leaving an injured bird to its own devices is neglect and cruel, probably punishable in court. After an assessment has been made of the bird's condition - you must act quickly - it's unfair and inhumaine not to. Forget the emotion of 'baseball bats' - the principle is straighforward - kill the bird - quickly.
I appreciate how dificult this is, particularly if you've never done it before (it gets easier, but only because you get more 'professional' at it, not because you care any less about the creature). Imagine you find a red grouse on a remote moorland, it's been 'winged' by shot and is slowly bleeding to death - this is the kind of scenario where a vet will not come and you either walk away (condeming the bird to a slow and probably painful demise), carry the bird several miles so someone else can do the inevitable, or do it yourself - knowing you are doing it for the best possible reasons - to prevent suffering. Now, as a nature lover, would you rather take the responsibility, knowing you'd done the right thing, or leave a living creature to suffer? As our cousins over the pond may say - it's a no-brainer, really.
So how are you going to do it??? That's what I think the more responsible correspondents have been trying to get us to address - and we need to, because we may need to call upon this very 'skill' at any time.
I offered some advice in an earlier post - if anyone has anything constructive to add, please do, I'm all ears.
Nature isn't cruel -it just is.

 

[KnockerNorton]

Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall gives a good description of the neck-break technique, similar to yours, in this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/River-Cotta...=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217327154&sr=1-5

 

[Apodemus]

What has become clear is that most on this forum either cannot or will not 'do the deed' and this is, actually, more distressing to me than hearing of how it can be done.
Leaving an injured bird to its own devices is neglect and cruel, probably punishable in court. After an assessment has been made of the bird's condition - you must act quickly - it's unfair and inhumaine not to. Forget the emotion of 'baseball bats' - the principle is straighforward - kill the bird - quickly.
I appreciate how dificult this is, particularly if you've never done it before (it gets easier, but only because you get more 'professional' at it, not because you care any less about the creature). Imagine you find a red grouse on a remote moorland, it's been 'winged' by shot and is slowly bleeding to death - this is the kind of scenario where a vet will not come and you either walk away (condeming the bird to a slow and probably painful demise), carry the bird several miles so someone else can do the inevitable, or do it yourself - knowing you are doing it for the best possible reasons - to prevent suffering. Now, as a nature lover, would you rather take the responsibility, knowing you'd done the right thing, or leave a living creature to suffer? As our cousins over the pond may say - it's a no-brainer, really.
So how are you going to do it??? That's what I think the more responsible correspondents have been trying to get us to address - and we need to, because we may need to call upon this very 'skill' at any time.
I offered some advice in an earlier post - if anyone has anything constructive to add, please do, I'm all ears.
Nature isn't cruel -it just is.

Well said.

I've been watching this thread with interest (like many others, I think) and found it surprising that so many people seem unwilling to despatch a suffering animal. It's something that I have had to do on a fairly regular basis over the years and I assumed that anyone with an interest in wildlife would have had to do the same. Nick's account of two such incidents was moving, and showed that he cared enough to do what was needed. It is also clear (and not just from this thread), how committed Mr K. Norton (Bludger to his friends) is to animal welfare, so it is surprising how much vitriol he has attracted, although I'm sure he's capable of living with that.

 

[Storm-Petrel]

Well, after all this arguing, we still don't know what's happened to the kestrel.

 

[Jos Stratford]

invariably a vet will be at least able to advise over the phone what best to do in that situation and most rural communities have access to farming vets who could euthanise a bird humanely[/I.

Without getting dragged too deeply into this, I would point out that this is an international forum and in many parts of the world, even in 'advanced' Europe, there will be no vet available to help and/or wanting to help. When I had four White Stork chicks badly in need of treatment, having been attacked by another stork and left with gaping wounds to the necks and bodies, I went round every vet I could find open that day to try and get help. Not one was willing to even contemplate helping, insisting they did not deal with wild birds. Offering to pay whatever made no difference - if they had been a pet parrot yes, but if the country's national bird, no. I had to patch them up myself and contemplate stitching the injuries. Only two days later, when two had as expected died, but the other two showing good signs did I find help - over 150 km from where the attack occurred did, a voluntary organisation with qualified vets that were able to assist.

So, if a bird is in need of being put down, something I would be reluctant to do, but I could as a last course, then it does come to the question of how it is done. At this stage, though the language has become emotive, I do not see the technique suggested by KnockerNorton as out of place - the important issue is speed and effectiveness, though 'bashing the brains out' might seem brutal, it is certainly going to be effective ...and to my mind far more likely to be humane compared to techniques such as unpracticed persons wringing the neck or similar.

As for the Kestrel, I do not think KN's comments were out of line, the guy had received no response till then and basically what he said was true, but I have to say I would have gone down the path of trying to saving it, though completely agree it will never fly again and a captive home is going to be its end.

 

[Woody]

It is a sad fact of life that animals and birds do get injured to the point where there is no hope for their survival either in the wild or if taken into captivity. The vast majority of members here would be reluctant to take appropriate action in these cases which are, nine times out of ten, blindingly obvious to anyone with eyes to see and an ounce of common sense. The point is, reluctant or not, it seems to me that we are morally obliged to take appropriate steps to end any suffering as soon as possible. There are many methods that can be used, KN's bag and bat approach is just one, but the point is, if it has to be done, then we should all have the courage to do it as quickly and efficiently as we can for the sake of the animal or bird concerned.
I have had to dispatch birds and animals quite a few times in my life and I don't find it pleasant but at least I know I've done the right thing. Personally I've used the neck pulling and I've done it with enough force and determination to separate the two halves and know that the job is done. Or, if I have a knife with me, (and I generally do when I'm out and about, it's just part of my 'kit'), then it goes swiftly into the skull from the back of the neck. A spine/head crushing stomp from a boot will do the same job but, like the others, it has to be determined, well aimed and forceful.

That said, I am also aware that there could be times where there is an element of doubt as to the severity of the injury and there may be a possibility that the bird or animal in question could make a recovery if given appropriate care. In these cases the advice given by 'the authorities' is sound; Get the creature to proper help as quickly as possible.

Whatever the individual case we must all take the appropriate action with courage and conviction. This is my personal position and no offence or insult is intended to any individual on this forum.

Mike

 

[Motmot]

It is a sad fact of life that animals and birds do get injured to the point where there is no hope for their survival either in the wild or if taken into captivity. The vast majority of members here would be reluctant to take appropriate action in these cases which are, nine times out of ten, blindingly obvious to anyone with eyes to see and an ounce of common sense. The point is, reluctant or not, it seems to me that we are morally obliged to take appropriate steps to end any suffering as soon as possible. There are many methods that can be used, KN's bag and bat approach is just one, but the point is, if it has to be done, then we should all have the courage to do it as quickly and efficiently as we can for the sake of the animal or bird concerned.
I have had to dispatch birds and animals quite a few times in my life and I don't find it pleasant but at least I know I've done the right thing. Personally I've used the neck pulling and I've done it with enough force and determination to separate the two halves and know that the job is done. Or, if I have a knife with me, (and I generally do when I'm out and about, it's just part of my 'kit'), then it goes swiftly into the skull from the back of the neck. A spine/head crushing stomp from a boot will do the same job but, like the others, it has to be determined, well aimed and forceful.

That said, I am also aware that there could be times where there is an element of doubt as to the severity of the injury and there may be a possibility that the bird or animal in question could make a recovery if given appropriate care. In these cases the advice given by 'the authorities' is sound; Get the creature to proper help as quickly as possible.

Whatever the individual case we must all take the appropriate action with courage and conviction. This is my personal position and no offence or insult is intended to any individual on this forum.

Mike

I couldn't have written it better :t: . Now it's about time for this thread to develop in a new, possibly sticky one, about what to do if anyone finds an injured bird. We are losing lots of good info for other members not attracted to this forum or thread name imo. There are tons of members or lurkers who will never take a look at this thread and possibly will need some advice when this frequent sad situation happens in their lives.
The original advice search on this particular thread is well covered I think.
Cheers,
Eduardo

 

[KnockerNorton]

I couldn't have written it better :t: . Now it's about time for this thread to develop in a new, possibly sticky one, about what to do if anyone finds an injured bird. We are losing lots of good info for other members not attracted to this forum or thread name imo. There are tons of members or lurkers who will never take a look at this thread and possibly will need some advice when this frequent sad situation happens in their lives.
The original advice search on this particular thread is well covered I think.
Cheers,
Eduardo

do a cut/paste then, and deprive them of the entertainment value! Or throw in the PMs and put it on a new 'comedy thread'.

 

[Isurus]

Since this discussion seems to be moving in a bit more of a positive direction I wanted to throw this out there:

Birds with these sorts of injuries would undoubtedly die in the wild without human assistance. In the US and Europe a decentish number of rehabilitation centres seem to have sprung up - many are charities. Is rehabilitation and rerelease (or maintenance of recovered but unreleasable birds - perhaps for use in education programmes) of non-endangered species ever a good spend of money that could be used on habitat conservation?

Discuss.

This isn't a view I subscribe to but it is a thought that crosses my mind from time to time when I see local news stories about centres with x tawny owls with one wing/one eye etc etc.

 

[KnockerNorton]

Since this discussion seems to be moving in a bit more of a positive direction I wanted to throw this out there:

Birds with these sorts of injuries would undoubtedly die in the wild without human assistance. In the US and Europe a decentish number of rehabilitation centres seem to have sprung up - many are charities. Is rehabilitation and rerelease (or maintenance of recovered but unreleasable birds - perhaps for use in education programmes) of non-endangered species ever a good spend of money that could be used on habitat conservation?

Discuss.

This isn't a view I subscribe to but it is a thought that crosses my mind from time to time when I see local news stories about centres with x tawny owls with one wing/one eye etc etc.

can of worms.

Personally, if someone is prepared to pay for it, then let them do it. But that is why the RSPB has nothing to do with that kind of thing, as its money goes on habitat/campaigning. There is no guarantee that the money donated to St Tiggywinkles would go to RSPB if ST closed down, so if they're willing to fund it, so be it. And all of these places do seem to be charities, i don't think any tax funds go to them, so it's hard to see how they're taking money from habitat conservation.

What i do feel uneasy about is the amount of effort that eg ST puts in to saving injured muntjacs and squirrels - they have a no kill and release policy (despite the illegality of it in some cases, releasing non-native species) - but to spend x amount of money on saving a muntjac or grey squirrel when every conservationist in the land is trying to kill them as quickly as possible, seems a bit daft. It does illustrate the point though that what these charities do is not really conservation. The effect it has on helping populations is zilch (except for the very occasional rare raptor, like the recent rehabilitated kite).

 

[dantheman]

Good that we are looking at this in a rational manner.

The extra point 6) on my original post above should have been; Action taken will totally depend on the species concerned, nature and extent of injuries, and location which the bird is found/owner lives. However, I guess we are generally all in agreement on this . . . hence Jos's example of the White Storks - sure we'd have done the same. In that particular case.

A few points which have perhaps been left unanswered. Cheers for response to previous post.


To clarify; I think hardly anyone on this thread has said they wouldn't kill an injured animal. Where appropriate. Facing up to responibilities etc - sure, got to be done. I've done so, no problems. What we're exploring here is the appropriateness and some of the issues around. It ain't quite as Black and White as some would say it is.

'Vitriol that KN has attracted'- think this is maybe too strong a word to describe the healthy debating style . . . Certainly a bit of an argument started, and got a leetle personal. Both sides. . . No martyrs please . . .

Two main issues on this thread.
a) Euthanasia as a principle, its practicalities and different methods etc
Personally don't have such big issues with this. If dealt with conscientiously, properly, and rationally thought out. Used where appropriate. I have attempted to outline some alternatives which I believe have some validity in some circumstances.

b) Manner in which euthanasia was suggested in this case. Have a little more of an issue with that. No-one was offended in this case. But next time . . . I don't believe that the cool scientific approach to euthanasia is the be-all and end-all.

1) It is maybe being implied that those people wishing NOT to despatch an injured animal/bird are being emotive. To be honest I think the arguments from the pro- euthanasia lobby are a little more emotive . . . all that cruelty stuff . . .

2) Actually, whilst the ethical/moral issues have been summarily dismissed as unimportant, I think that this is maybe a little premature. We are talking about humans rescuing birds. Humans euthanaising birds. It's about humans. And a lot of humans have feelings which can't just be brushed under the carpet and ignored. Cold science does need a balance. . . (Feel I am not explaining this well. You get the drift though? . . )

3) The unnecessary suffering issue. Millions of higher order animals die every day. Some violently, relatively quickly, many slow and lingering. How painful? How stressful?
Firstly, not many things in life are totally black and white, totally clear cut. Nothing in life is simple.

4) As workers in the countryside/conservation are probably replying in the most practical strightforward manner on this thread, it should be borne in mind that probably less than 3% of the UK population is now directly involved in this farming/outdoor work. Hence my reservations in stating the euthanasia methods as an almost instant second port of call; Let's be realistic here.

(Sample size of 1; I asked my girlfriend if she would be able to 'do the deed' as described. No way she said, it would make her ill. Assist? I asked. No way again. Many others wouldn't either though . . .(Maybe one end of the fluffy bunny hugging spectrum admittedly ).)

 

[dantheman]

Now it's about time for this thread to develop in a new, possibly sticky one, about what to do if anyone finds an injured bird.

That's partly my worry . . . (Actually maybe not such a problem as KN points out.)

If it can be guaranteed that the bird in the bag method will be successfully carried out by amateur first timers 10 times out of 10, that there will be no repercussions, emotional, legal etc etc.

That mistakes won't be made on diagnosis etc etc

then fine. I actually think there is no problem with it or similar as an option, if placed as advice in a relevent time frame and full explanation of the possible consequences.

Not as first response to a plea for assistance. :t:

 

[dantheman]

Waiting for a call back. And waiting. And the animal slipping away may well be one option. After all, how do we know how they feel pain, the sense of their own life going or depression. Maybe they have mechanisms which inure themselves from stress/pain as they become weaker?? I was under the impression they do . . . .

well that's quite a lot of wishful thinking - what if you're wrong? And it also borders on illegality by allowing an animal to suffer.

I note you don't actually disagree (for once? lol ) Be nice to know what the facts are on this one still. One of the cruxes this hinges on. Any scientific papers/written and accepted information out there that we can use to make a reasoned and objective decision on??

I 'imagine' that there it may well be an evolutionary adaption to quietly dying (with dignity?) quietly . . . all depends on the circumstances and injuries again of course.

 

[pygmy falcon]

Some information for people living in the US. Granted, this is from the Colorado Division of Wildlife page and regs, but every other state has similar, if not more strict laws. I have no idea about law in other parts of the world, but here in the US, even if the bird/other animal is very injured, you can't take it's outcome into your own hands...not legally, anyway.

"All birds of prey are strictly protected by federal law. It is a violation to possess, injure, kill, harass or collect them or their young, or to possess any feathers, eggs or body parts without a permit. If you find an injured raptor, don’t attempt to capture it yourself. Contact your local Division of Wildlife office. Injured birds will be collected and taken to a licensed wildlife rehabilitator."

It also says:

"Despite the fact that wildlife is best left alone, there are instances when people pick up injured or orphaned wildlife. If this does occur, call the Division of Wildlife. It is illegal to attempt to rehabilitate injured or orphaned wildlife without state and federal permits, and the Division of Wildlife will put you in touch with a licensed wildlife rehabilitator in your area."

And:
"Special permits are required to possess wildlife in the State of Colorado, and are available only to trained rehabilitators, scientific collections, zoos and under other special circumstances. It is not legal to keep wildlife as pets. If you find wildlife, leave it alone and consider yourself lucky to get a close view. If wildlife appears sick or injured, leave it alone, keep your pets away, and call your local animal control agency or the Division of Wildlife. Special permits are required to possess wildlife in the State of Colorado, and are available only to trained rehabilitators, scientific collections, zoos and under other special circumstances. It is not legal to keep wildlife as pets. If you find wildlife, leave it alone and consider yourself lucky to get a close view. If wildlife appears sick or injured, leave it alone, keep your pets away, and call your local animal control agency or the Division of Wildlife."

And straight from the regs, themselves:
#1301 - POSSESSION
A. No person shall, at any time, have in possession or under control any wildlife caught, taken or killed outside of this state which were caught, taken or killed at a time, in a manner, or for a purpose, or in any other respect which is prohibited by the laws of the state, territory or country in which the same were caught, taken or killed; or which were shipped out of said state, territory or country in violation of the laws thereof.

#1400 – POSSESSION
A. Any person may provide immediate transportation for sick, injured, or orphaned wildlife to the Division, a licensed wildlife rehabilitator, DVM (licensed Doctor of Veterinary Medicine), animal control agency or local law enforcement agency for the purposes of obtaining animal care or treatment if instructed to do so by the individual or agency to whom the wildlife will be delivered.
B. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing the practice of veterinary medicine as defined in section 12-64-103 (10) and regulated by the provisions of article 64 of Title 12 C.R.S.
C. Wildlife possessed under authority of this chapter remain the property of the State and nothing herein shall be construed as granting any ownership interest to a licensed Wildlife Rehabilitator, Provisional Wildlife Rehabilitator or any other person. As owner, the State has the right to require a rehabilitator or any other person having possession of wildlife under authority of this chapter to immediately surrender possession of such wildlife to the Division in the case of violation of these regulations or other applicable law or whenever the Director or his designee determines it is necessary or appropriate for the welfare of such wildlife or for the protection of wildlife resources or the public.

F. Any DVM, licensed wildlife rehabilitator, full time employee of the Division, Peace Officer as defined in 18-1-901(3)(1) (1986), Animal Control Officer or anyone else authorized by the Division may euthanize injured wildlife when such person determines that no other reasonable action would be practical, humane or effective for the rehabilitation of the wildlife.

 

[saluki]

Some information for people living in the US. Granted, this is from the Colorado Division of Wildlife page and regs, but every other state has similar, if not more strict laws. I have no idea about law in other parts of the world, but here in the US, even if the bird/other animal is very injured, you can't take it's outcome into your own hands...not legally, anyway.

"All birds of prey are strictly protected by federal law. It is a violation to possess, injure, kill, harass or collect them or their young, or to possess any feathers, eggs or body parts without a permit. If you find an injured raptor, don’t attempt to capture it yourself. Contact your local Division of Wildlife office. Injured birds will be collected and taken to a licensed wildlife rehabilitator."

It also says:

"Despite the fact that wildlife is best left alone, there are instances when people pick up injured or orphaned wildlife. If this does occur, call the Division of Wildlife. It is illegal to attempt to rehabilitate injured or orphaned wildlife without state and federal permits, and the Division of Wildlife will put you in touch with a licensed wildlife rehabilitator in your area."

And:
"Special permits are required to possess wildlife in the State of Colorado, and are available only to trained rehabilitators, scientific collections, zoos and under other special circumstances. It is not legal to keep wildlife as pets. If you find wildlife, leave it alone and consider yourself lucky to get a close view. If wildlife appears sick or injured, leave it alone, keep your pets away, and call your local animal control agency or the Division of Wildlife. Special permits are required to possess wildlife in the State of Colorado, and are available only to trained rehabilitators, scientific collections, zoos and under other special circumstances. It is not legal to keep wildlife as pets. If you find wildlife, leave it alone and consider yourself lucky to get a close view. If wildlife appears sick or injured, leave it alone, keep your pets away, and call your local animal control agency or the Division of Wildlife."

And straight from the regs, themselves:
#1301 - POSSESSION
A. No person shall, at any time, have in possession or under control any wildlife caught, taken or killed outside of this state which were caught, taken or killed at a time, in a manner, or for a purpose, or in any other respect which is prohibited by the laws of the state, territory or country in which the same were caught, taken or killed; or which were shipped out of said state, territory or country in violation of the laws thereof.

#1400 – POSSESSION
A. Any person may provide immediate transportation for sick, injured, or orphaned wildlife to the Division, a licensed wildlife rehabilitator, DVM (licensed Doctor of Veterinary Medicine), animal control agency or local law enforcement agency for the purposes of obtaining animal care or treatment if instructed to do so by the individual or agency to whom the wildlife will be delivered.
B. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing the practice of veterinary medicine as defined in section 12-64-103 (10) and regulated by the provisions of article 64 of Title 12 C.R.S.
C. Wildlife possessed under authority of this chapter remain the property of the State and nothing herein shall be construed as granting any ownership interest to a licensed Wildlife Rehabilitator, Provisional Wildlife Rehabilitator or any other person. As owner, the State has the right to require a rehabilitator or any other person having possession of wildlife under authority of this chapter to immediately surrender possession of such wildlife to the Division in the case of violation of these regulations or other applicable law or whenever the Director or his designee determines it is necessary or appropriate for the welfare of such wildlife or for the protection of wildlife resources or the public.

F. Any DVM, licensed wildlife rehabilitator, full time employee of the Division, Peace Officer as defined in 18-1-901(3)(1) (1986), Animal Control Officer or anyone else authorized by the Division may euthanize injured wildlife when such person determines that no other reasonable action would be practical, humane or effective for the rehabilitation of the wildlife.

Are you suggesting that someone in the US who finds a hare with both back legs crushed and mangled by a car, a rabbit with a maggot-infested slug hole in it's side, or a bird - still alive, but with half it's skull missing - should wait until someone authorised to euthanize the poor creature comes along?

Hopefully, I'm wrong - I find it difficult to believe anyone involved in animal welfare would recommend such action.

Jonathan

 

[deborah4]

I would have gone down the path of trying to saving it, though completely agree it will never fly again and a captive home is going to be its end.

I'm very relieved to hear you say that (but wouldn't have expected anything less of you) and agree, as I pointed in a much earlier post, it's likely to end up in captivity anyway if it survived.

I just want to reiterate, that no one on this thread has advocated not doing anything to help injured wildlife but as I previously said, I think we all probably bring different value judgments as to when we deem it necessary to dispatch an injured bird - with the exception of course to the scenario Jonathan has outlined below ... and only then does this discussion regarding methods of euthanasia becomes a crucial issue for me

Are you suggesting that someone in the US who finds a hare with both back legs crushed and mangled by a car, a rabbit with a maggot-infested slug hole in it's side, or a bird - still alive, but with half it's skull missing - should wait until someone authorised to euthanize the poor creature comes along?

Hopefully, I'm wrong - I find it difficult to believe anyone involved in animal welfare would recommend such action.

Jonathon, I really don't think anyone would advocate this, regardless of their 'experience' or 'inexperience'

This is yet again another scenario - to which I responded in post 16.

This is a complex issue, and generalisations I don't think help as every situation/scenerio needs to be judged on it's own merits.