PREVALENCE, TREATMENT, AND SURVIVAL OF BURNED WILDLIFE PRESENTING TO REHABILITATION FACILITIES FROM 2015 TO 2018.

In recent decades, wildfires have increased in frequency and geographic scale across the globe. The human health implications and ecological succession after wildfires are well documented and studied, but there is a lack of empirical research about the direct effects of wildfires on wildlife. Recent wildfires have demonstrated the need to better understand animal burn injuries and innovations in veterinary burn treatment. An online survey was distributed to wildlife rehabilitation facilities internationally to collect baseline information about the number and type of burned wildlife cases admitted, treatments used, and survivorship of wildlife affected by wildfires. Approximately 80% (n = 49) of all respondents (n = 61) reported admitting cases of burned wildlife from 2015 to 2018. Respondents included facilities from six different countries and roughly 43% of facilities reported having a veterinarian on staff. Electrical burns were most commonly reported with 89% of respondents stating that they had seen electrical burns while 38% of respondents reported seeing wildfire-source thermal burns in wildlife patients. Respondents were asked about their frequency of use of different treatment methods. Bandages, colloid fluids, and opioids were used at significantly higher rates at facilities with veterinarians compared with facilities that did not report having a veterinarian; however, survival of burned wildlife patients did not significantly differ based on the factor of having a veterinarian on staff. Long-term and short-term complications were commonly reported for wildlife burn patients; 88% of facilities reported scarring, 81% reported alopecia, and 61% reported sepsis. Burned animals admitted to facilities were reported to have equal odds of dying and surviving. Burn care recommendations have changed considerably in recent decades. This study provided a unique opportunity to compare contemporary recommendations in human medicine with current methods used in wildlife rehabilitation facilities to identify potential areas of further investigation and improvement for wildlife medicine.

Expert judgment and uncertainty regarding the protection of imperiled species.

Decisions concerning the appropriate listing status of species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be controversial even among conservationists. These decisions may determine whether a species persists in the near term and have long-lasting social and political ramifications. Given the ESA's mandate that such decisions be based on the best available science, it is important to examine what factors contribute to experts' judgments concerning the listing of species. We examined how a variety of factors (such as risk perception, value orientations, and norms) influenced experts' judgments concerning the appropriate listing status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Experts were invited to complete an online survey examining their perceptions of the threats grizzly bears face and their listing recommendation. Although experts' assessments of the threats to this species were strongly correlated with their recommendations for listing status, this relationship did not exist when other cognitive factors were included in the model. Specifically, values related to human use of wildlife and norms (i.e., a respondent's expectation of peers' assessments) were most influential in listing status recommendations. These results suggest that experts' decisions about listing, like all human decisions, are subject to the use of heuristics (i.e., decision shortcuts). An understanding of how heuristics and related biases affect decisions under uncertainty can help inform decision making about threatened and endangered species and may be useful in designing effective processes for protection of imperiled species.