Alabama bans rehabitation of seven species

[Kitsune]

Don't quite know my feelings but I think one comment does say something

Easterwood admits there is no overpopulation of these animals, but officials are concerned about the spread of disease. They also believe rescuing even an injured or orphaned baby of these species will interrupt the natural cycle of life and death.

Just by existing we do this

Full article
http://whnt.com/2013/09/05/wildlife-reh ... 7-species/

Wildlife Rehabbers Furious Over New State Guidelines Forbidding Rescue/Rehab of 7 Species

Posted on: 7:14 am, September 5, 2013, by Beth Jett, updated on: 07:31am, September 5, 2013

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) – Local wildlife rehabilitaters and animal advocates are furious over new guidelines handed down by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. They forbid anyone from saving or rehabilitating seven species of animals in Alabama.

Wildlife rehabbers have been expecting conservation officials to release a new set of guidelines consistent across the entire state, but these changes are not what they had in mind. (Click HERE for background information from “Survival of the Fittest”, a story done by WHNT NEWS 19 in May, 2013.)

In short, conservation officials are forbidding the rescue and rehabilitation of fur-bearing animals, including raccoons, foxes, skunks, opossums, coyotes, bats, and feral pigs.

Jud Easterwood, a wildlife supervisor based in Tanner, said his phone has been ringing constantly from people all across the country who are upset about the new orders. Click HERE to see the letter from conservation officials.

As of September 1, 2013, dozens of wildlife rehabbers in Alabama must obtain new permits to comply with the new regulations.

They must now tell anyone who calls them for help with a raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bat or feral pig, that they can no longer accept them.

Furthermore, rehabbers must euthanize such animals brought to them.

Easterwood admits there is no overpopulation of these animals, but officials are concerned about the spread of disease. They also believe rescuing even an injured or orphaned baby of these species will interrupt the natural cycle of life and death.

Rehabbers insist there is no problem with diseased animals in Alabama and euthanizing them goes against the very reasons they got into rehab work to begin with.

Janet Stratman, a rehabber with North Alabama Wildlife Rehabilitators, said “I’m not a euthanizer. I’m a rehabber. I didn’t get into this work to kill animals. I got into it to save animals.”

Conservation officials sent out letters to Stratman and all rehabbers across Alabama this week to inform them of the changes. Officials said if a rehabber has such an animal in their care, they can continue to treat them and release them into the wild. However, the rehabbers are not allowed to take on and save any more.

As of Thursday morning, an online petition started Wednesday to protest the action had more than 550 signatures on it, including those from people in France.

Easterwood sent the following statement to WHNT NEWS 19 to explain how and why the changes were made:

Several comments have been received regarding the new wildlife rehabilitation permitting process recently implemented by the Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries (WFF). This response provides some insight into Alabama’s wildlife resources and our view of the role of wildlife rehabilitation. The WFF began a review of the wildlife rehabilitation permitting process and policies during the fall of 2012. The goal was to standardize the policies and procedures across the State. The review process involved input the United States Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service permitting office in Atlanta, the National Rabies Management Program Coordinator for the USDA in New Hampshire, and an individual permitted as a wildlife rehabilitator in Alabama. Ultimately, Alabama’s wildlife rehabilitation permitting process is a state program and the final decisions were made by Department of Conservation and Natural Resources personnel. As part of the process, the WFF mission statement (“manage, protect, conserve, and enhance the wildlife resources of Alabama for the sustainable benefit of the people of Alabama”) was used to determine an appropriate course of action regarding wildlife rehabilitation. WFF firmly believes that rehabilitation of most wildlife species in Alabama is not warranted unless it is threatened, endangered or is a species of special concern. Statewide populations of most animals are at levels that do not justify rehabilitation of individual animals. Injured and/or orphaned animals are more susceptible to predators. These injured/orphaned animals are an integral part of the natural food chain. Disrupting the food chain may have unintended consequences such as causing additional mortality of healthy animals in the system. Although the rehabilitation of most wildlife species is not necessary, we approved a permitting process that would allow for the rehabilitation of animals except raccoons, foxes, skunks, opossums, coyotes, bats, or feral pigs. These species are either exotic invasive or pose significant human health risk through diseases such as rabies. The new permitting process requires permitted rehabilitators to meet guidelines established by the National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association. The recent letter to permitted rehabilitators was not as clear as it could have been on how to handle raccoons, foxes, skunks, opossums, coyotes, or bats that were being held by rehabilitators prior to September 1. The intent is for permitted rehabilitators to continue to rehabilitate these animals and release them upon their recovery. After September 1, 2013, permitted rehabilitators should 1) tell members of the public that they can no longer accept individual animals of these seven species, or 2) euthanize animals brought to them by unknowing citizens. It is our goal to hopefully educate the general public regarding the role of wildlife rehabilitation and the need to allow nature to act upon biological systems in an unbiased manner. For example, it is more appropriate for a hawk to remove an injured/orphaned squirrel as opposed to preying on a healthy squirrel. A few comments have been made about Acts 9-11-247 through 9-11-249 of the Code of Alabama. These acts have no impact on wildlife rehabilitators but to clarify these are the facts. These acts, passed in 1951 by members of the state legislature and signed by the Governor, allow sportsman associations incorporated as non-profit associations in Alabama which have a paid membership of 25 members or more to host “coon on the log” contests. These events also require a permit issued by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Since 1998, only three permits for these events have been issued. These types of events may have been popular in 1951 but in today’s society are much less common. We don’t encourage this type of activity but must issue a permit if the conditions set forth in the law are met by the permit applicants. We value the services that permitted wildlife rehabilitators provide and want Alabama’s wildlife rehabilitation program to be standardized across the state.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Why would you want to rescue and rehabilitate feral pigs anyways? It'd be like attempting to rescue the various pythons or Tegus invading Florida.

[LadyTevar]

Bats are suffering from White-Nose, so I thinkt hey should be rehabbed when possible. The rest could be considered 'varmints'.

[GuppyShark]

If they're native species, and there's no overpopulation, what's the harm in allowing kind-hearted people to nurture some back to health, especially if they have been injured or orphaned by human action.

ps that subtext about 'racoon on the log'... why not have an allowance for dog fights too?

[Simon_Jester]

All these species are also the sort of animal that might be seen as "varmints" because they tend to rummage around people's homes and cause trouble. So one possibility is that someone relatively ignorant is trying to discourage the rise of a stable fox population or whatever, in the vicinity of human homes.

Another possibility (less likely IMO) is that someone in Alabama is thinking about the increasing spread of tropical diseases and parasites, and worrying that this may extend to the animal populations and make them more of a threat in the future. I'm not saying that's valid, mind- but it popped into my head as what someone might be thinking.

[whackadoodle]

Don't quite know my feelings but I think one comment does say something

Easterwood admits there is no overpopulation of these animals, but officials are concerned about the spread of disease. They also believe rescuing even an injured or orphaned baby of these species will interrupt the natural cycle of life and death.

Just by existing we do this

Full article
http://whnt.com/2013/09/05/wildlife-reh ... 7-species/

Wildlife Rehabbers Furious Over New State Guidelines Forbidding Rescue/Rehab of 7 Species

Posted on: 7:14 am, September 5, 2013, by Beth Jett, updated on: 07:31am, September 5, 2013

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) – Local wildlife rehabilitaters and animal advocates are furious over new guidelines handed down by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. They forbid anyone from saving or rehabilitating seven species of animals in Alabama.

Wildlife rehabbers have been expecting conservation officials to release a new set of guidelines consistent across the entire state, but these changes are not what they had in mind. (Click HERE for background information from “Survival of the Fittest”, a story done by WHNT NEWS 19 in May, 2013.)

In short, conservation officials are forbidding the rescue and rehabilitation of fur-bearing animals, including raccoons, foxes, skunks, opossums, coyotes, bats, and feral pigs.

Jud Easterwood, a wildlife supervisor based in Tanner, said his phone has been ringing constantly from people all across the country who are upset about the new orders. Click HERE to see the letter from conservation officials.

As of September 1, 2013, dozens of wildlife rehabbers in Alabama must obtain new permits to comply with the new regulations.

They must now tell anyone who calls them for help with a raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bat or feral pig, that they can no longer accept them.

Furthermore, rehabbers must euthanize such animals brought to them.

Easterwood admits there is no overpopulation of these animals, but officials are concerned about the spread of disease. They also believe rescuing even an injured or orphaned baby of these species will interrupt the natural cycle of life and death.

Rehabbers insist there is no problem with diseased animals in Alabama and euthanizing them goes against the very reasons they got into rehab work to begin with.

Janet Stratman, a rehabber with North Alabama Wildlife Rehabilitators, said “I’m not a euthanizer. I’m a rehabber. I didn’t get into this work to kill animals. I got into it to save animals.”

Conservation officials sent out letters to Stratman and all rehabbers across Alabama this week to inform them of the changes. Officials said if a rehabber has such an animal in their care, they can continue to treat them and release them into the wild. However, the rehabbers are not allowed to take on and save any more.

As of Thursday morning, an online petition started Wednesday to protest the action had more than 550 signatures on it, including those from people in France.

Easterwood sent the following statement to WHNT NEWS 19 to explain how and why the changes were made:

Several comments have been received regarding the new wildlife rehabilitation permitting process recently implemented by the Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries (WFF). This response provides some insight into Alabama’s wildlife resources and our view of the role of wildlife rehabilitation. The WFF began a review of the wildlife rehabilitation permitting process and policies during the fall of 2012. The goal was to standardize the policies and procedures across the State. The review process involved input the United States Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service permitting office in Atlanta, the National Rabies Management Program Coordinator for the USDA in New Hampshire, and an individual permitted as a wildlife rehabilitator in Alabama. Ultimately, Alabama’s wildlife rehabilitation permitting process is a state program and the final decisions were made by Department of Conservation and Natural Resources personnel. As part of the process, the WFF mission statement (“manage, protect, conserve, and enhance the wildlife resources of Alabama for the sustainable benefit of the people of Alabama”) was used to determine an appropriate course of action regarding wildlife rehabilitation. WFF firmly believes that rehabilitation of most wildlife species in Alabama is not warranted unless it is threatened, endangered or is a species of special concern. Statewide populations of most animals are at levels that do not justify rehabilitation of individual animals. Injured and/or orphaned animals are more susceptible to predators. These injured/orphaned animals are an integral part of the natural food chain. Disrupting the food chain may have unintended consequences such as causing additional mortality of healthy animals in the system. Although the rehabilitation of most wildlife species is not necessary, we approved a permitting process that would allow for the rehabilitation of animals except raccoons, foxes, skunks, opossums, coyotes, bats, or feral pigs. These species are either exotic invasive or pose significant human health risk through diseases such as rabies. The new permitting process requires permitted rehabilitators to meet guidelines established by the National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association. The recent letter to permitted rehabilitators was not as clear as it could have been on how to handle raccoons, foxes, skunks, opossums, coyotes, or bats that were being held by rehabilitators prior to September 1. The intent is for permitted rehabilitators to continue to rehabilitate these animals and release them upon their recovery. After September 1, 2013, permitted rehabilitators should 1) tell members of the public that they can no longer accept individual animals of these seven species, or 2) euthanize animals brought to them by unknowing citizens. It is our goal to hopefully educate the general public regarding the role of wildlife rehabilitation and the need to allow nature to act upon biological systems in an unbiased manner. For example, it is more appropriate for a hawk to remove an injured/orphaned squirrel as opposed to preying on a healthy squirrel. A few comments have been made about Acts 9-11-247 through 9-11-249 of the Code of Alabama. These acts have no impact on wildlife rehabilitators but to clarify these are the facts. These acts, passed in 1951 by members of the state legislature and signed by the Governor, allow sportsman associations incorporated as non-profit associations in Alabama which have a paid membership of 25 members or more to host “coon on the log” contests. These events also require a permit issued by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Since 1998, only three permits for these events have been issued. These types of events may have been popular in 1951 but in today’s society are much less common. We don’t encourage this type of activity but must issue a permit if the conditions set forth in the law are met by the permit applicants. We value the services that permitted wildlife rehabilitators provide and want Alabama’s wildlife rehabilitation program to be standardized across the state.

With the exception of bats, none of the animals listed are endangered. Racoons, hogs and coyotes are all invasive pests in the Southeast. Hogs and coyotes were introduced by European settlers, and racoons are fairly recent migrants from Central America. These three have developed populations so dense as to become deadly to native species due to their egg-sucking, trash-loving natures. Understand - Georgia, Florida, S. Carolina and Alabama are all geographically diverse enough that there are many species that dwell in each of these states and nowhere else. As an example, Georgia is home to 4 monadnocks, Stone Mountain being the most famous. It is the home to four species for shrimp that exist nowhere else, several plant species, not to mention what hasn't been discovered. That's just one (relatively small) granite dome. Arabia and Panola mountains have their own species. A shell-strewn creek I played in as a child is home to an estimated 4000+ species of freshwater mussel, many of which may exist nowhere else. This is the case of almost every undeveloped waterway in the Piedmont on down. Remember, the last several ice ages skipped the Southeast U.S. That means that many shellfish, crustaceans, and reptiles can be found here and nowhere else.

Pigs, racoons, coyotes and skunks, along with rampant human development, are fucking murder to these very rare species. The aforementioned three are human-habitation (garbage, petfood, human-created habitat) loving introduced invasives. Skunks have no natural predators and as omnivores are greatly aided by garbage availability, and like the first three, feed on mollusks, crustaceans, and reptile eggs.

Native bats in the Southeast are being decimated by habitat loss, predation - primarily by domestic felines and the aforementioned pests - and disease. This has allowed other Chiroptera species to invade the environment and out-compete the native species.

Good on Alabam's WFF and any other organization that slams soft-heated fucksticks for making a bad problem worse.

Yes, yes, coyotes are native to North America. They aren't native to the Southeast, though, or anywhere else east of the Mississippi. In Georgia, fox hunters introduced them in the 1940's. They quickly spread, and have probably contributed to the red wolf's extinction in the wild, through hybridization and resource competition. In the Southeast, coyotes are heavier than in their native habitat, and exhibit different behavior, examples of hybridization. I have personally seen colonies of 50+ "coyotes", before opening fire and wiping out the colony.

[Alyrium Denryle]

With the exception of bats, none of the animals listed are endangered. Racoons, hogs and coyotes are all invasive pests in the Southeast. Hogs and coyotes were introduced by European settlers

Well you are right about the pigs. Coyotes however are native to the American Midwest, and Southwest. They migrated naturally into the north and southeastern states following wolf extirpation. With the notable exception of Georgia. However, Georgia is a state that really needs a second application of the Sherman Treatment on general principle.

and racoons are fairly recent migrants from Central America.

No, you are thinking Armadillos, which migrated naturally across the Rio Grande recently. Racoons are native to the US (unless perhaps you are talking about geological time scales, but at that point the concept of native species becomes meaningless), and have been introduced to southern canada, Germany, Japan, and the caucuses.

If your first few sentences are going to be filled with that level of ignorance, perhaps you simply ought refrain from speaking.

Pigs, racoons, coyotes and skunks, along with rampant human development, are fucking murder to these very rare species. The aforementioned three are human-habitation (garbage, petfood, human-created habitat) loving introduced invasives. Skunks have no natural predators and as omnivores are greatly aided by garbage availability, and like the first three, feed on mollusks, crustaceans, and reptile eggs.

As I have mentioned previously, racoons are native. As are for that matter skunks. Coyotes also dont really do a whole lot of ecological damage because they have basically taken over the niche left by the wolves we humans exterminated over much of the US. Of the animals listed, only the pig does any ecological damage whatsoever. The coyote is maligned for the same reason wolves were extirpated. Namely, hunters and ranchers do not like them, and wildlife services suck the cocks of both.

Predators are necessary for the continued existence of all the endemic species you list (though I will need to check your species counts, given that absolutely nothing you have thus far said has been correct), and thus as opposed to what you seem to imply, getting rid of them will actually damage the populations of aformentioned endemic species by way of ecological knock down effects. Coyotes in turn take over for wolves and keep the populations of a great many mesopredators (such as skunks) in check.

If you are concerned about the loss of say, salamander diversity in the american southeast, and the loss of turtles, I suggest you turn your attention to humans. Water pollution, mountaintop removal mining, sport-fish introduction, and house cats do more damage by orders of magnitude.

Yes, yes, coyotes are native to North America. They aren't native to the Southeast, though, or anywhere else east of the Mississippi. In Georgia, fox hunters introduced them in the 1940's. They quickly spread, and have probably contributed to the red wolf's extinction in the wild

Yeah... no. First of all, coyotes are native to areas east of the Mississippi river, not by much, mind, but their native range did extend into Illinois. Incidentally, on slightly more geological timescales, they were actually extirpated from much of the eastern US after the pleistocene.

As to the Red Wolf... What the Fuck Are You Smoking? Wolves are coyote predators. Full stop. Wolves disappear, coyote populations skyrocket. In point of fact, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources--while not stocking them, at least not anymore--does consider them a benefit precisely because they do pick up the slack for the wolves that were extirpated in Georgia by 1920, BEFORE the Coyote was ever established in the state. While it is true that the existence of coyotes has hampered reintroduction, this is because of the small size of reintroduction populations not being able to function ecologically in the face of ANY meaningful ecological stress more than it is an issue with coyotes themselves.