Rescue is defined as an act of saving or being saved from danger or difficulty. On a fundamental level, when it comes to wildlife, the term ‘rescue’ conjures up a sense of hope for the survival of the animal, the drama of the operation, admiration for the skills of human responders, and an acknowledgment of the struggles of coexistence.
Here, in India, the escalating frequency of human-wildlife interactions is undeniable. Given the inevitability of conflict with wildlife, we should look for better solutions than those which focus solely on reactive capture and relocation, which have frequently proven unsustainable, or, worse, fatal to the animals involved. Navigating the blurry lines between what constitutes a true “wildlife rescue” and “capture” can be a nuanced challenge in India.
The successful capture of animals frequently involved in conflict, such as elephants, snakes, and large carnivores, takes many complex forms, requiring chemical and physical immobilisation, alongside a balanced team of experts, each with their specific roles. Common scenarios necessitating actual ‘rescue’ include instances such as leopards trapped in open wells, elephants stranded in irrigation tanks, snakes trapped in homes, or even elephant calves separated from their herds. However, the mere presence or sighting of wildlife in areas outside our perceived notion of their ‘habitat’ does not always necessitate a “rescue”. Leopards killing livestock or elephants damaging crops do impact communities but may not always warrant a capture in the guise of rescue. The litmus test of an effective response and proactive conflict management systems is when a tense situation is mitigated without the need to capture or relocate an animal.
