Dealing with all the components and derivatives’ –fur, bone, scales, meat, etc – of wild creatures which were captured or confiscated is relatively simple for the government from a logistical perspective. When live animals are concerned things get far more complex.
The illegal trade in’dwell’ wildlife entails a massive number of species, all which need expert care. Following seizure, creatures will probably be highly stressed and in bad health, therefore they must be put in proper housing fast.
Difficulties housing creatures
But, finding facilities together with the skill to care for all these traumatized animals is hard, and locating such facilities with accessible housing is much more of a struggle. When asked what their primary reason was for denying critters, 41 percent of respondents cited lack of distance, 16 percent a lack of proper facilities and 13 percent a scarcity of funds.
Pressures on rescue centers are compounded by numerous different facets. These include recent movements by several EU member countries to prohibit the use of wild animals in circuses, a current EU regulation invasive alien species and the EU Zoos Directive which has resulted in the closing of a variety of substandard zoos, the consequence being more wild animals will need to be placed in rescue centers.
Chronic deficiency of financing
Given that the pressures faced by rescue centers and the critical role they play in encouraging enforcement efforts, an individual may presume that everything possible would be done by member countries to operate with and encourage them. But, we’ve discovered a chronic lack of funds along with inconsistent application of regulations and laws, are making life much harder for rescue centers, resulting in an inefficient use of their scarce rescue capability.
The transportation of captured or confiscated animals — notably from 1 nation to another — necessitates compliance with many animal health and trade regulations. Regrettably, these are usually interpreted differently from member nations, leading to time-consuming government. Oftentimes, authorities put restrictions on animals in the maintenance of rescue centers which could endanger animal care and the effective utilization of enclosure area. When seizures do occur, a lack of understanding amongst the government may result in ineffective application of the legislation, resulting in animals being returned to the first owner.
Perhaps the most vital problem for many rescue centers in the absence of government financing. It’s fairly normal for rescue centers to get little if any funds from governments. Where financing is provided, it is frequently delayed while court proceedings occur. Regardless of this, some member countries have developed consistent and fair protocols for providing financial aid to rescue centers, and such versions have to be replicated across the EU.
We consider EU member states must develop National Action Plans and offer detailed protocols for the seizure, transportation, and financing for the long-term maintenance of rescued wildlife.
The EU can, and should, provide advice on best practices to member nations, promote co-ordination and make sure they provide rescue centers with all the levels of funds needed to adequately encourage the government in their job.
The wildlife rescue community in Europe is a very important resource which authorities depend on if combatting wildlife offense and animal abuse. It’s time for a renewed commitment from the member countries and the EU to guarantee they are recognized as such and given the assistance that they want.