Evaluation of Animal Rescue Activities in Tekirdağ City, Turkey

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 98 - 106, 31.08.2021

Mehmet Yardımcı

https://doi.org/10.30704/http-www-jivs-net.941665

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the response readiness for disasters based on the current animal rescue activities performed in Tekirdağ city. The material of this research contained the data of the animal rescue operations in Tekirdağ in 2019 and 2020. Results showed that a total of 2201 (82.7%) animals were saved in 2663 operations while 251 (9.4%) animals couldn’t be saved in 2020. The average intervention time was around half an hour. The majority of the animals (2118; 79.5%) were released to nature while some of the others were handed over to the owner (24; 0,9%), delivered to the local veterinarian (31; 1.2%), to the shelter (35; 1.3%) or Forestry Waterworks (1; 0.04%). Nothing was done to the rest (454; 17.1%) because they were not found, inaccessible or found dead. This study emphasizes the need for a standardized monitoring system with appropriate data routinely collected from all rescue groups. International standards should be adopted by providing correct information to the rescue teams of each district. In this context, readiness, response and recovery stages should be first developed at the local level and applied to large events for better incident management.

Keywords

Animal rescue, disaster, emergency, fire-department

References

• Anonymous (2021). Population of Tekirdağ Districts (Tekirdağ İlçeleri Nüfusu). https://www.nufusu.com/ilceleri/tekirdag-ilceleri-nufusu (accessed 29 April 2021)
• Aslım, G., & Biricik, H.S. (2018). Evaluation of “animal rescue” in Turkey. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 65, 15-19.
• Darroch, J., & Adamson, C. (2016). Companion animals and disasters: The role of human services organisations. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 28(4), 100-108.
• Every, D., Due, C., Thompson, K., & Ryan, J. (2016). Conflicting Perspectives on Nonhuman Animal Rescues in Natural Disasters. Society and Animals, 24(4), 358-382.
• Farmer, A.K., DeYoung, S.E., & Wachtendorf, T. (2016). Pets and Evacuation: An Ongoing Challenge in Disasters. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 13(4), 13.
• Glassey, S. (2010). Recommendations to enhance companion animal emergency management in New Zealand, Wellington: Mercalli Disaster Management Consulting.
• Glassey, S. (2020). Lessons from USA summit can help protect animals and people. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 35(1), 16-17.
• Holcer, N.J., Jeličić, P., Bujević, M.G., & Važanić, D. (2015). Health protection and risks for rescuers in cases of floods. Arhiv za Higijenu Rada i Toksikologiju, 66, 9-13.
• Irvine, L. (2006). Animals in Disasters: Issues for Animal Liberation Activism and Policy. Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal, 4 (1).
• Knight, A.P. (2009). Elements of a disaster plan for animals. Veterinary disaster response. (edited by) Wingfield WE, Palmer SB, Wiley Blackwell, Iowa, USA, ISBN: 978-0-8138-1014-0
• Lesch-Hollis, A. (2008). Thoughts on protecting veterinary responders following natural disasters. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 232(8), 1131.
• McCarthy, M., & Taylor, M. (2018). Animal emergency management in South Australia: a case study of the Sampson Flat bushfire. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 33(2), 60-65.
• Romero, F., Espinoza, A., Sallaberry-Pincheira, N., & Napolitano, C. (2019). A five-year retrospective study on patterns of casuistry and insights on the current status of wildlife rescue and rehabilitation centers in Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 92, 6.
• Swana, J.L., Carvera, A., Correac, N., & Nielsen, C.K. (2019). Wildlife rescue and relocation efforts associated with the Panama Canal Third Locks Expansion Project. Tropical Zoology, 32(2), 58-79.
• Thompson, K. (2018). Facing disasters together: how keeping animals safe benefits humans before, during and after natural disasters. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), 37(1), 223-230.