Each year, tens of thousands of animals across Minnesota are taken in by wildlife rehabilitators after suffering injuries, illness, or conflicts with humans.
The Raptor Center at the University of Minnesota’s College of Veterinary Medicine (CVM) plays a leading role in this effort, admitting more than 1,000 birds annually. In addition to lifesaving care, The Raptor Center advances research, education, and conservation of raptors, setting a standard for avian rehabilitation.
When the Migratory Bird Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) sought insight into how rehabilitation contributes to conservation, The Raptor Center was a natural partner. Dr. Juli Ponder, CVM professor and former Raptor Center director, notes that the field still lacks basic data.
While helping an individual animal is important, understanding how that work supports species preservation and ecosystem health is key for effective conservation.
The USFWS commissioned Ponder to produce a report identifying knowledge gaps and tools for improved data collection on avian rehabilitation’s impact. She collaborated with Dr. Michelle Willette, senior veterinarian at The Raptor Center, and CVM residents Drs. Janice Mladonicky and Margaret Sirolli to conduct the assessment.
“We needed to take a systematic look at what the existing research tells us in order to know where to go from here,” Ponder says.
Flying blind
The team reviewed published research on post-release outcomes of rehabilitated birds to evaluate both direct impacts and indirect contributions to conservation. What stood out most was the lack of data.
Rehabilitation efforts are largely volunteer- and donor-driven, and the cost of post-release tracking is high. So it wasn’t surprising that most research focused on birds rehabilitated after oil spills. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, passed after the Exxon Valdez spill, requires polluters to fund environmental impact research, resulting in a concentration of data in this area.
The team also found no consistent definition of what counts as a successful rehabilitation. Some studies looked at survival over varying timeframes, while others focused on whether released animals contributed to reproduction. Despite these inconsistencies, studies reported benefits in post-release survival and a range of indirect impacts.
These include ecosystem monitoring, insights into biology and disease, and contributions to public health and education. “These indirect benefits—to animals, people, and the environment—demonstrate the interconnectedness of the health and welfare across species,” Willette says.
One key recommendation is standardizing terminology and data collection. Wildlife rehabilitation in the U.S. is a patchwork of government agencies, nonprofits, and volunteers, with regulations varying widely by state and federal jurisdiction.
“With the number of animals going through wildlife rehab centers each year, these reports have the potential to offer us a rich source of data,” Ponder says. “If we can integrate data across centers, we would have a wealth of information we don’t have.”
Willette adds that as the science matures, wildlife rehabilitation can also help reduce human-wildlife conflict, inform policy, and support broader conservation goals.
