Content area
Full Text
Abstract: In the United States alone, there are >5,000 state-licensed wildlife rehabilitators in addition to a multitude of other wildlife caregivers across rehabilitation and sanctuary settings. Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care provide a unique lens from which to explore humanwildlife interactions. We examined the experiences of wildlife caregivers within a continuum of acute veterinary services, community-based rehabilitation, and sanctuary care to gain insight into wildlife caregiving and its implications for human-wildlife coexistence. Between 2016 and 2018, we completed in-depth interviews with 15 wildlife caretakers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire, USA. In addition to the interviews, we observed 197 unique human-animal interactions during wildlife care. The overarching paradigm that emerged from our research was what we refer to as "caring for the circle of life." Embraced within this paradigm were 5 themes: (1) entering and persevering in the circle of care; (2) honoring natural processes; (3) knowing and being known by the wild creature; (4) extending the circle of care; and (5) fulfillment. Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care, in addition to providing medical assistance to animals in need, advance knowledge about individual species and contributes to increased public awareness regarding wildlife conservation and human-wildlife coexistence.
Key words: caregivers, conservation, human-wildlife coexistence, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, wildlife, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife sanctuary
Wildlife holds different meanings for people across cultures and epochs (Manfredo 2008). Human-wildlife interactions can range from negative to positive on a continuum from conflict to coexistence (Frank 2016). Human development has increasingly encroached upon wildlife habitats (DeStefano and Deblinger 2005). However, human alteration of natural environments has led to imbalances in wildlife populations, which wildlife managers have sought to address through a variety of strategies (Messmer 2000). Concomitantly, as wildlife populations have increased in response to protection, so have human-wildlife conflicts (Messmer 2000).
The phrase "human-wildlife conflict" applies to any negative interactions between humans and wildlife, "either real or perceived, economic or aesthetic, social or political" (Messmer 2000, 100). Such conflicts can have adverse consequences for both humans and wildlife. The negative impact of wildlife on humans includes property damage, loss of livestock, and threats to public health and safety (Patterson et al. 2003, DeStefano and Deblinger 2005, Conover 2019). Wildlife are also harmed through human actions such as lethal control methods that...
