Found Kestrel with broken wing (1 Viewer)

[timwootton]

IMO I think its very different from asking advice over the internet about an ID or Photo technique - the difference is between the life of the bird and a possible tick/good pic -

No - it absolutely is not.
This Forum is an excellent source of advice and assistance. There have in the past been many pleas from bewildered and helpless folk asking 'what to do with an injured bird' (I well remember one last year where a young guy had in his possession a horned grebe - oh, we had some fun on that one! - not).
If you post a querie about, for instance, a gull ID and JanJ answers it, you are likely to say, ok that's that ID sorted. Why?, because he appears to know what he's talking about, has an excellent track record and, more importantly, can back up his assessment with obvious knowledge and access to excellent manuscripts.
If there are members on Birdforum who have a similar level of expertise in diagnosing bird injuries, can explain why an injury has happened and give a coherant explanation of the likelihood of successful rehabiliation and then offer advice as to what is the likely best course of action - then I see no reason why that advice shouldn't be available to those that need it, when they need it. Indeed, it has been shown in the past that Birdforum is a place where people seek this information.

And the advice to :
"STEP 4: Gently pick up a bird whose injuries are more serious and put it into a box or paper bag lined with soft tissues. Poke holes in the lid of the box or bag so that the bird can breathe."
Is all well and good, as is - contact a vet, re-habber, Prime Minister or whatever - but boxes lined with tissue paper aren't readily available on remote moorlands or off-shore islets, and mobile phones do not always give the service we might expect of them. However if you have already gone through likely (awful) scenarios such as diagnosis and treatment of injuries, as part of your 'Birding Skills' - then you will be in a better position to make the correct decision regarding a given set of circumstances.

Sorry Matt - I too wait for good news of the kestrel.

 

[KnockerNorton]

all a good excuse to have a close look at dead birds, or pay more attention when carving a chicken, so you know what bones are where and how they move/feel normaly.

 

[pygmy falcon]

I suppose people's perception of the Educational aspect with animals is different with everyone. I worked with Ed. raptors for several years, and while there were a few that did not do well in captivity, the majority of the birds that we had, did very well. Some people disagree that birds in captivity that aren't 100%, is a bad thing for these birds, and that's fine, people are entitled to their opinions. I personally think that it's better than having perfectly healthy, able to survive in the wild, birds in captivity for Education.

 

[pygmy falcon]

2)For all those who believe that it is more humaine to take a bird to a vet to euthanize then I would like to say that being stuck in a box for hours handled several times then a car journey, a sit in a vets (that even our pets smell a problem with) and finally another examination by a vet before they humainly inject the bird is all far more distressing for the bird than making a decission insitu and dispatching the bird there and then by hand. I do sympathise that not everyone has the courage or are able to make this dicision though. Its just what i would do, and did do befor becoming a rehabber. The vet is humaine but you must think of the time in captivaty as being a stress factor.

You still have to consider the legal aspect of things. Everywhere else, it seems to be legal, but if you live in the US, you need to consider the fact that it is illegal to even take in a wild bird, let alone euthanize it. I'm not going to condemn or condone what a person decides to do in an area where it is illegal, but thought I'd point it out again, anyway.

Most birds have very weak, if any, olfactory sense, so the 'smell' of a vet's office isn't a problem. Any of the vet clinics I've ever worked at, if a wild animal came in, in need of immediate euthanasia, we would take care of it right away. It's kind of a liability to have wildlife sitting in the waiting room with everyone else, so it's usually taken care of pretty quick...in my experience, anyway.

 

[amelia1730]

At the risk of being shouted at for being 'girly' can I ask - if I was at home and needed to euthanase, would drowning be humane? Not sure how long it would take though - a minute or so?? I know I would want to do the right thing but I couldn't hit a living creature, inside a bag or out.

(Post 119 very helpful)

 

[level seven]

would drowning be humane? Not sure how long it would take though - a minute or so??

I think you've answered your own question......

 

[nickderry]

Drowning is absolutely out of the question I'm afraid, though I can understand why it'd be preferred to avoid a hands-on approach, the time the bird would take to drown is too long, all that time it is panicking to get out of the water. Bash to the head can be instant, no matter how unpleasant it is to the person having to do it, the bird won't even know what hit it.

 

[deborah4]

KN:


Thanks for the first aid advice which I have cut and pasted and saved - I must say it makes the whole question of suggesting euthanasia over the internet a little more palatable if it is discussed in the context of what we can do to hopefully in order to avoid making a wrong diagnosis and euthanising unnecessarily or making a situation more serious with badly administered first aid (leaving aside the obvious need in Jonathan's scenario of squashed rear ends, holes in the head etc! And the personal/subjective views of whether the efforts of rehab is 'right' or not for birds on the basis they might not be able to be released/or die in the interim process - the first is obvious, the second may be subject to personal points of view)

So:

1. I will create a bird first aid box, if I am likely to move to an area where it would be difficult to contact a vet/RSPCA - in the UK I doubt whether that would occur tbh, but just in case and just in case I do manage to contact 'experts' but have to treat the bird on their advice at home as it would be too distant for someone to pick up. I don't drive, but perhaps it would be a good idea for birders to keep emergency cardbox box/towel/masking tape, gloves, water dispenser, etc in their car as well as phone numbers of people they trust to give good advice in an emergency situation. I will also ensure in my rucksack on any birding trips, I have a cloth, gloves and masking tape and telephone nos..

2. I will source the author you mentioned and read up on how to assess/treat any injuries that wouldn't be obviously life threatening if I took the bird into my own care (in the absence of immediate help from a professional)

3. I will of course, not with hold from putting any animal and bird 'out of its misery' if a situation arises that Jonathan described earlier - I'd rather not discuss how I would do that but I would make darn sure it was very quick, decisive and took immediate effect.

TIM:

IF you can draw up a few diagrams to illustrate KN's advice on how to assess and treat an injured wing (including skeletal diag.) that would be very helpful indeed.

KN; The reason I asked about OBS wasn't for blood pressure but for temperature - which would help determine presence of infection would it not? (I'm thinking here of a scenario where one has treated a minor wing injury but the bird potentially could die a few days later as a result of an untreated infection) ALSO, you didn't seem to give any advice about how to assess if a bird has internal injury .... what about ribcage injury, damage to internal ear etc? ... things a vet would probably pick up fairly quickly.

 

[Jos Stratford]

STEP 5: Do not give food or water to the injured bird.

In my humble opinion, unwise advice.

STEP 6: Call for professional help. Do not try to treat an injured bird yourself unless you are a veterinarian or are licensed to handle wild birds.

Disagree, a modicum of experience of handling birds, or a good dose of common sense, can go a long way. Also remember, already pointed out, this is a global forum and, in the greater part of the globe, veterinarians will not be interested and animal rehabbers will be absent.

 

[lulie]

I suppose people's perception of the Educational aspect with animals is different with everyone. I worked with Ed. raptors for several years, and while there were a few that did not do well in captivity, the majority of the birds that we had, did very well. Some people disagree that birds in captivity that aren't 100%, is a bad thing for these birds, and that's fine, people are entitled to their opinions. I personally think that it's better than having perfectly healthy, able to survive in the wild, birds in captivity for Education.

I agree that having perfectly healthy able to survive in the wild birds in captivity is not good. I infact would like to see no birds in cages. I was trying to suggest that a totally wild bird or mammal in captivity is never relaxed, it may be doing well, ie eating ect but they are always in some way distressed. On the other hand a human reared or imprinted bird or mammal is always much more relaxed around people when used for education.
Where I worked we had a cage of non releaseable spotted eagle owls, a common species often hit by cars. I euthanized about one a week. When you have 5 dejected looking owls in one cage it is inapproprate to add more for 'educational' reasons. Its too easy an excuse for trying to save these birds.
On the other hand a wood owl that had come to us as a chick that had been hand raised by someone but kept too long and had become human imprinted therefore unable to survive in the wild but tame was a much better choice for an ambassador animal.
This bird flew freely around and delighted many a visitor, where as the spotted eagle owls where left to their quiet corner.
i realise we will probably differ on this point, but just wished to make myself clear that I didn't mean healthy birds removed from the wild for the sole purpose of education. If they can be release they should be.

 

[Jos Stratford]

... putting any animal and bird 'out of its misery' .... I would make darn sure it was very quick, decisive and took immediate effect.

Wasn't our Dr KN's initial suggestion fitting? :-O

 

[deborah4]

The 'ADVICE' STEPS aren't mine btw ... I just cut and pasted the advice given on BF in the sticky about what to do with injured birds .... if people with more experience feel these need to be amended which is quite possible following the response by some of you, then admin needs to be contacted so you can amend the BF advice in the best interests of helping injured birds.

BTW: KN

What about diagnosing DISLOCATION of the carpal joint? Presumably this could also result in a dragging wing/out of shape?

 

[deborah4]

Wasn't our Dr KN's initial suggestion fitting? :-O

IMO, no, because I personally wouldn't have taken that action with the Kestrel in question as I believe I would have tried to save it even if it did mean resulting in captive life -

My comment about fast sudden euthanasia was for the scenario Jonathon pointed out - as I did earlier, ie. a bird or animal half squashed on the road or something like.

 

[deborah4]

I personally think that it's better than having perfectly healthy, able to survive in the wild, birds in captivity for Education.

If a bird is in captivity for other reasons than that fact it is a rescued but lame bird, then I'm afraid I'd have to go a few steps further and say, I don't believe any bird should be in captivity, including small caged birds, falconers birds, racing pigeons etc - that's a very personal opinion and I know there are members of this Forum who subscribe to one or the other some of whom are contributing to the thread and many members have pet birds, so don't want to diss anyone - I'm afraid this includes birds hand reared for captive purposes despite any arguments that someone might lob on the basis 'they've never known any different' - not sure how long a memory birds have anyway!

 

[dantheman]

I think you're missing the point. Things don't "quietly die with dignity", they die because they either starve, get dehydrated, or stress overwhelmes them, or their injury prevents them being alive by causing organ failure. That's how people die too, but they're full of palliative drugs at the time and don't feel it.

Maybe I am. I'm not a great believer in progress I guess. (Not saying I wouldn't take the drugs if I was in the situation).

I was thinking more of the wider spectrum of wildlife/animals in general. eg nestlings die all the time due to poor weather -parents can't find the food. Parents killed. They go into a state of 'suspended animation' I believe eg Swifts etc??, or resting at least between feeds. They don't even know they've succombed. I may be wrong . . .

Some pet owners, if their animal is dying, but seems comfortable ( - operative word) allow them to die quietly.

A wild animal, injured, holes up, licks its wounds, makes it or doesn't make it. I guess that's the kind of dignity I'm thinking of. It doesn't get carted off to be dealt with somewhere, or get its neck wringed and put in a bin bag to go to landfill.

None of those scenarios are quick or nice (birds are vertebrates like us, and we know a lot about birds and stress), and all take time. Sometimes days.

Until we can communicate with birds or any other animal, we cannot know what they feel, even dogs or chimpamzees. But we can make good inferences:

Pain in Birds (can't vouch for this, don't know the journal)


Author: Gentle, M.J.

Source: Animal Welfare, Volume 1, Number 4, November 1992 , pp. 235-247(13)

Publisher: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Abstract:

For the detection and assessment of pain in animals both behavioural and physiological measurements are necessary. Cutaneous receptors which responded to noxious stimulation (nociceptors) have been identified in birds and have been characterized physiologically in the chicken. Following cutaneous nociceptive stimulation the chicken showed cardiovascular and characteristic behavioural changes consistent with those seen in mammals and indicative of pain perception. Following major burn trauma (partial beak amputation) there was behavioural and electrophysiological evidence for a pain-free period lasting several hours. This pain-free period was followed by pain-related behaviour with both anatomical and physiological evidence for long-term chronic pain.

While pain has been assessed following nociceptive stimulation and following trauma the painful consequences of chronic disease have not been investigated. Spontaneous degenerative joint disease is widespread in certain strains of intensively reared poultry, and while we do not know what effect joint degeneration has on the joint capsule receptors, recent work has shown in the joint capsule of birds there are similar receptor types to those found in mammals and it seems likely that joint degeneration in birds may be accompanied by painful sensations.

Experimental work has clearly detected painful conditions in birds but the alleviation of pain with analgesic drugs is not possible at present because analgesic agents have not been systematically investigated in birds.

Comparing pain in birds with mammals it is clear that, with regard to the anatomical, physiological and behavioural parameters measured, there are no major differences and therefore the ethical considerations normally afforded to mammals should be extended to birds.

But even in fish, which are more primitive (and a good journal):

The evidence for pain in fish: the use of morphine as an analgesic .
Applied Animal Behaviour Science , Volume 83 , Issue 2 , Page 153
L . Sneddon

This paper discusses the evidence for pain perception in fish and presents new data on morphine analgesia in fish. Recent anatomical and electrophysiological studies have demonstrated that fish are capable of nociception, the simple detection of a noxious, potentially painful stimulus and the reflex response to this. To prove pain perception, it must be demonstrated that an animal’s behaviour is adversely affected by a potentially painful event and this must not be a reflex response. The present study examined the acute effects of administering a noxious chemical to the lips of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to assess what changes occurred in behaviour and physiology. There was no difference in swimming activity or use of cover when comparing the noxiously stimulated individuals with the controls. The noxiously treated individuals performed anomalous behaviours where they rocked on either pectoral fin from side to side and they also rubbed their lips into the gravel and against the sides of the tank. Opercular beat rate (gill or ventilation rate) increased almost double fold after the noxious treatment whereas the controls only showed a 30% increase. Administering morphine significantly reduced the pain-related behaviours and opercular beat rate and thus morphine appears to act as an analgesic in the rainbow trout. It is concluded that these pain-related behaviours are not simple reflexes and therefore there is the potential for pain perception in fish.

Cheers for that KN.

Anglers (and I know this isn't a fishing forum) are working on the principle that fish don't feel pain or that it doesn'y matter. Interesting. So yes, draw conclusions is fair in some respects, although I'd assume (may be wrong) that that part of the fish would be particularly sensitive to foreign substances/poisoning - they taste/smell with that portion of their anatomy.

On the chicken front, fair enough, although I think that the amount of pain felt will obviously relate to the amount of nerve endings in the area; the bill with its internal olfactory functions is going to be highly sensitive, and once the initial cauterisation numbing effect has worn off - yep, pain felt.

Not totally sure what that proves however. Not sure how many pain/sensory endings there are in the wing area.


Pain and suffering obviously are going to occur in birds, I guess it would be a bit silly to argue not or want to establish it was the case.

The degree of how much does have some relevence, but will differ eg in fledglings, different types of injuries etc. (However in a FULL discusion and analysis of care, treatment (including euthanasia) and handling of injured/abandoned birds it would have to be looked into at an early stage - working on incorrect assumptions could possibly follow otherwise).

There may be fuller significant work done on eg stress involved in fledglings starving to death etc etc. (Experiments like this etc all a fair bit distasteful if you want to stop and think about it of course . . . ). Anyway, moving on.

 

[dantheman]

Partially guilty of not keeping up on this thread.

dantheman thinks they should be left in a hedgerow as his "preferred option...if appropriate". I can't think of any circumstances when this would be appropriate though.

In that posting, the 'preferred' part was tongue-in-cheek, referring back to a previous YL Gull thread. Maybe should have put a smiley . . .

Although I think it an argument which has 'some' credence.

But probably not if

a) the animal has been caught already, taken into custody.
b) its a bird like a Kestrel with an injured wing.
etc

Examples where it could be appropriate;

a) a common pest which will provide food for someone else in the food chain.
b) mortally injured reptiles etc - don't know how to despatch them.
c) mortally injured creatures which are about to be food for another creature.
d) creatures which are apparently going to 'slip away' anyway. (eg baby mice as mentioned, ill/unconscious creatures etc)

Maybe I'm just particularly cruel and heartless!

On the other hand, happy to be wrong on some (all) of these, as I am in an obvious minority, and no vegan buddhists/animal spirit believers etc have come wading in with their arguments why something should not be despatched.

 

[dantheman]

To be honest, i think that all of that is highly personal to you and, as such, not really capable of being extrapolated, and again takes things into the emotive side of things which is where we've just left. The ethics are fairly straightforward - 'something should generally be done'. Nobody is forcing anyone to kill anything, and as such nobody is handing out baseball bats. It is purely advice, and advice can be taken or not taken. What you *think* of the advice in terms of your moral compass is not really the point, as that tiptoes towards doctrine. The morality or ethics of killing are not at question here, it's what the best course of action that we're discussing. Killing is one option, and the techniques and circumstances are being discussed. If your girlfriend could do it or not isn't the issue, as she could take it someone who could (a vet, a farmer, a neighbour, Monty Panesar)

Obviously you (and others on this thread) have been through some sort of process (consciously or not), where this is all sorted, the objectives and action clear in your mind. Fair enough. I feel that for many others, this won't be the case. I am merely trying to post up scenarios in which other less- informed persons could have cause for concern. The ethics and morals side of are relevent, although we can of course agree do differ on this one. (And the thread is moving on anyway, no need to dwell :t: )

As long as those proposing a quick end to a life realise that posting it without an explanation or apparent symapthy could cause problems (it did offend one poster on the YL Gull thread, others here, as evidenced by the ensuing discussion.)

This thread is highly instructive and interesting and should be going a long way towards allaying fears people may have.

Appreciate we have moved away from some of these issues, fair enough, do not sdesire to keep going over old ground. This is a wide subject. A whole can of worms in fact opened up*. (And which one would YOU save??)

(*Whole new areas - Falconry centres, rescue centres etc etc)

On the other hand, some may still have reservations, that viewpoint needs respecting/ accounting for (delete as appropriate). Appreciate it is advice given, how it is given also has some relevence.

(I wouldn't particulry trust Monty Panasar with the bat on this one . . . the ball maybe Actually not sure I'd trust the great british public either, if the current Big Brother dross are anything to go by . . . )

 

[Robert / Seattle]

A whack on the head is quick and easy to administer. ..

And, in this country at least, illegal.

And, on this particular bird, unnecessary*.

If the bird is a candidate for recovery*, even with the ability for future flight and self-reliance compromised, it can be of great use as an educational "ambassador" with school children and the like. Can't tell you how many "flightless" raptors are now touring the educational circuit and enabling the kind of insight and appreciation in children that pictures simply fail to communicate.

 

[Jos Stratford]

And, in this country at least, illegal.

And, on this particular bird, unnecessary.

Of the two sentences, the second would be of more relevance to me.

Regarding the first, if I had fully satisfied myself that the bird was suffering unduly and this was not something that could be remedied, then I would not necessarily abide by a law that states I could not act humanely.

 

[Jos Stratford]

If the bird is a candidate for recovery*, even with the ability for future flight and self-reliance compromised, it can be of great use as an educational "ambassador" with school children and the like. Can't tell you how many "flightless" raptors are now touring the educational circuit and enabling the kind of insight and appreciation in children that pictures simply fail to communicate.

I would question this. Agreed there is educational value of captive birds being used to encourage interest, but I would have thought it better to use a bird captive bred and without fear of constant and close human contact. I would imagine being carted around schools, admired by over-enthusiastic children, etc, could be a constant source of trauma to a previously wild bird.

(a hundred gauking schoolkids would freak me out, wouldn't fancy being the bird with its primarly mode of movement amputated)