1

Case 2 Final Report: Rehabilitation of An Injured Owl

Charlotta Card, Megan Dommerholt, Paige Van Rooy, Aasna Shah, Alicia Turner, Shauna Zisis

Department of Integrative Biology, The University of Guelph

BIOL 3680: Wildlife Rehabilitation: Caring for Sick, Injured, and Orphaned Wildlife

Dr. Sherri Cox

March 6, 2022
 2
Introduction + Assumptions + Intake:
On a summer day, Mr. Murphy called the rehabilitation center about a female adult barn owl
(Tyto alba) that he found on a hiking trail. Based on pictures that Mr. Murphy had provided, she was in
thin body condition and had a wing droop, thus we instructed him on how to safely transport her to us.
Once the owl arrived, we noted a prolonged skin tent over her eyelid, indicating dehydration. We took
down Mr. Murphy’s contact information and confirmed that he had not fed the owl anything (Wyman,
2021). We also asked him for the address of the hiking trail where he found the owl, as this is important
for release (Cox, 2022a; Wyman, 2021). For biosecurity reasons, we also confirmed that no other
individuals or pets had been in contact with the owl (Wyman, 2021). Since the barn owl is not a migratory
bird under the Migratory Bird Convention Act, a Canadian Wildlife Services permit was not needed to
handle the owl (Government of Canada, 2021; Miller, 2012).
Stabilization:
Following the admission of the owl, we began the stabilization process, starting with minimizing
stress. Her head was covered and barriers were used to reduce noise and exposure to visual stressors
(Cox, 2022a). We also kept her away from other animals, especially predators (Cox, 2022a). Next, we
provided her with appropriate thermoregulation, since shock and an injury made it difficult for her to
properly regulate her body temperature, within the normal range of 40.2°C and 42.6°C (Cox,
2022a).When brought into the clinic, the owl was slightly hypothermic and a heating pad was used to
provide warmth, to increase her body temperature back to the normal range. We made sure not to warm
her up too quickly and continued to monitor her temperature to ensure she did not overheat (Cox, 2022a).
Following this, she was checked for dehydration. Based on the skin tent over her eyelids and some loss of
skin elasticity, we assumed she was around 7% dehydrated (Cox, 2022c). Fluid calculations were made
based on a maintenance rate of 50ml/kg/day, and the owl’s weight of 500g (Cox, 2022c). Therefore, we
determined the maintenance rate to be 25ml/day (50ml/kg/day x 0.5kg), with a deficit of 35ml (500g x
0.07). The owl had no pathological losses. To avoid administering more than 5% of the owl’s body
weight at a time, we decided to give the deficit over a 48 hour period. On day 1, 25ml of maintenance
fluids were administered, as well as 75% of the deficit (26.25ml). On day 2, 25ml maintenance fluids
were given, as well as the remaining 25% of deficits (8.85ml) (Cox, 2022c). These amounts were also
spread throughout each day to ensure that 5% of the owl’s body weight was not exceeded, which would
be 25ml. Based on the size and condition of the owl, we decided to administer PlasmaLyte A
subcutaneously using a 25ml syringe and a 23ga needle, being very careful to avoid air sac punctures and
infection (Cox, 2022c).
Physical Examination:
Following stabilization, appropriate restraint methods were applied to perform the physical
examination. Heavy gloves were worn and the owl's head was covered with a towel the entire time,
except when that area was being examined (Cox, 2022b). Her talons and beak were also secured, to avoid
any injuries (Bush, 2001). Heart rate was checked using a stethoscope over the back, on the side of her
body (Cox, 2022b). Subsequently, the beats per minute were found to be lower than normal, likely due to
the poor state she was found in (Cox, 2022b). Respiratory rate was recorded by observing the abdomen
for rise and fall and was found to be shallow (Cox, 2022b). Temperature was recorded using a rectal
thermometer with lube, inserted into the cloaca, and was found to be back within a normal range after the
hypothermic treatment during stabilization (Cox, 2022b). Finally, the owl’s weight was recorded as 500g,
with a keel score of 1.5 out of three, indicating she was undersized but not emaciated (Cox, 2022b). The
owl was not very responsive but still somewhat aware of her surroundings. A fecal flotation, as well as a
crop swab, were performed to rule out any underlying contributors to the owl’s condition (Cox, 2022d).
While zoonotic diseases, such as trichomonas and syngamus trachea, and non-zoonotic diseases, and
ectoparasites, such as coccidia and knemidocoptes, may be present in owls, no zoonotic diseases were
found and all ectoparasites were within a normal range (Cox, 2022d).
Treatment + Fracture Stabilization:
Following palpation of the shoulder girdle and analysis of radiographs, we confirmed that the
wing droop was caused by a coracoid fracture. Symptoms such as local swelling, loss of limb function,
 3
pain, and an inability to elevate the wing vertically, were also indicative of a coracoid fracture (MacCoy,
1992). The wing was temporarily stabilized through the use of a body wrap, until surgical correction
could be implemented by the veterinarian (MacCoy, 1992). Surgical correction included the
immobilization of the wing through the introduction of an intramedullary (IM) pin at the site of the
fracture, to align the displaced bone (Ritchie et al., 1999). Prior to this, anesthesia was induced via a
facemask, through the use of isoflurane (Holz, 2003). During surgery, the owl was placed on a heating
pad, as heat loss is rapid during the administration of anesthetics (Holz, 2003). Postoperatively, Tramadol
was provided orally as pain medication for about five days, followed by Meloxicam once fluid deficits
were corrected (Scott, 2016). She was also placed on cage rest for two weeks, at which point a follow up
radiograph was taken (Holz, 2003). Callus formation and healing at the fracture site appeared to be
progressing well, leading to the removal of the IM pin in the third week following the surgery (Holz,
2003). Physical therapy and flight training began during this period, and was provided in intervals of
three days for two weeks, to test and improve wing function (Scheelings, 2014).
Monitoring + Record Keeping:
The owl was continuously monitored while she was in our care. We took note of what was
normal, abnormal, or altered following intake, in her medical record (Cox, 2022b). We monitored her
mentation, to make sure that she was bright, alert, and responsive, as well as her temperature, pulse,
respiration, and hydration (Cox, 2022b). Additionally, we recorded her feed intake and monitored her
weight, feces, urine, urates, and casting (Cox, 2022b). We made sure she did not obtain any new injuries,
and also monitored her pain and any unwanted side effects from the Tramadol and Meloxicam (Cox,
2022b). Additionally, we monitored her incision to make sure there were no signs of infection (Cox,
2022b). For the long-term rehabilitation of the owl, we kept record of her flight capabilities, to show us
how she was progressing and when she would be ready to move to the next steps in housing, and eventual
release (Cox, 2022a). This was especially important for the owl due to their nature of hunting prey.
Biosecurity:
Since the owl was injured, she was classified as a “high biosecurity risk” (Wildlife Health
Australia, 2018). Thus, personal protective equipment was worn at all times, and any clothing worn was
kept separate from personal laundry (Cox, 2022a). Anytime the owl, or any bodily material from the
animal were handled, handwashing was implemented (Cox, 2022a). All organic matter was removed
using soap and water, followed by a disinfectant, which was rinsed thoroughly and left to dry (Cox,
2022a).
Nutrition:
Assuming the owl weighed 500g, we calculated that she required 83.48 kcal/day, once trauma
had been factored into her maintenance energy rate (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2019; Cox, 2022b). We
began by gavage feeding her, the semi-elemental liquid Emeraid Carnivore Diet, as she was not stable
enough to eat on her own (Poisson & Weiss, 2016; Tabaka et al., 1996). Once she was stable enough to
voluntarily ingest solid foods, we transitioned her to a diet containing guts and meat (Tabaka et al., 1996).
The natural diet of barn owls primarily consists of small mammals that are active at night, and
occasionally birds (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2019). Once the owl’s wing injury healed, we provided
an opportunity for her to hunt for prey to help prepare her for release. We did this by providing a large
enough enclosure, and by providing whole prey throughout the enclosure that she could search for and
hunt.
Housing:
The owl was housed far away from prey, since we did not want her to escape her large enclosure.
Two perches were provided in the enclosure: one in direct sunlight and forest elements, and one in a
covered area (Miller, 2012). Having proper sized perches and minimal rehabilitator presence can help
minimize long term stress (Beck et al., 2016). The enclosure was also large enough to allow her to fly and
stretch after recovery.
Release:
Since the owl was an adult and demonstrated the ability to hunt as she would in the wild, we
conducted a hard-release within 1km of where she was originally captured (Bowers, 2016; Cox, 2019).
 4

References

Beck, K., Chamberlain, J., Elliston, E. P., Heckly, S., Poisson, K., & Wyman, D. (2016). Stress and
shock. In K. Poisson, & R. Weiss (Eds.), Wildlife rehabilitation: A comprehensive approach (1st
ed., pp. 81-87). International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council.

Bowers, V. (2016). Release criteria. In K. Poisson, & R. Weiss (Eds.), Wildlife rehabilitation: A
comprehensive approach (1st ed., pp. 259-283). International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council.

Bush, M. (2001). Physical restraint techniques and immobilization equipment. Veterinary clinics of North
America: exotic animal practice, 4(1), 193-209.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (2019). Barn Owl. All about birds.

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Barn_Owl/overview

Cox, S. (2019). Study Guide for the Ontario Wildlife Rehabilitation Exam. The Ministry of
Natural Resources and Forestry. https://files.ontario.ca/mnrf-study-guide-en-28-01-2020.pdf
Cox, S. (2022a). Unit 1: Introduction, intake, stabilization, record keeping [Course notes]. In S. Cox.
BIOL*3680 Wildlife rehabilitation: caring for sick, injured and orphaned wildlife. Courselink.
https://courselink.uoguelph.ca/d2l/le/content/671582/viewContent/2595945/View

Cox, S. (2022b). Unit 02: Physical examination, monitoring, and common drugs [Course notes]. In. S.
Cox. BIOL*3680 Wildlife rehabilitation: Caring for sick, injured and orphaned wildlife.
CourseLink. https://courselink.uoguelph.ca/d2l/le/content/671582/viewContent/2595945/View

Cox, S. (2022c). Unit 03: Fluid therapy, dehydration, head trauma, and fracture stabilization [Course
notes]. In S. Cox. BIOL*3680 Wildlife rehabilitation: Caring for sick, injured and orphaned
wildlife. CourseLink.
https://courselink.uoguelph.ca/d2l/le/content/730827/viewContent/2955586/View

Cox, S. (2022d). Unit 04: Introduction to wildlife parasitology [Course notes]. In S. Cox. BIOL*3680
Wildlife rehabilitation: Caring for sick, injured and orphaned wildlife. CourseLink.
https://courselink.uoguelph.ca/d2l/le/content/730827/viewContent/2955588/View

Government of Canada. (2021). Birds protected in Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-

climate-change/services/migratory-birds-legal-protection/list.html

Holz, P. H. (2003). Coracoid fractures in wild birds: Repair and outcomes. Australian veterinary journal,
81(8), 469–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2003.tb13362.x

MacCoy, D. M. (1992). Treatment of fractures in avian species. The veterinary clinics of North America
small animal practice, 22(1), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0195-5616(92)50016-x

Miller, E. A. (Ed.). (2012). Minimum standards for wildlife rehabilitation (4th ed.). International Wildlife
Rehabilitation Council & National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association. https://theiwrc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/05/Standards-4th-Ed-2012-final.pdf
 5
Poisson, K., & Weiss, R. (2016). Nutrition. In K. Poisson, & R. Weiss (Eds.), Wildlife rehabilitation: a
comprehensive approach (1st ed., pp. 117–140). International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council.

Ritchie, B. W., Harrison, G. J., & Harrison, L. R. (1999). Orthopedic surgical techniques. In Avian
medicine: principles and application (pp. 1138–1166). HBD International, Inc. Retrieved
February 16, 2022, from http://avianmedicine.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/42.pdf.

Scheelings T. F. (2014). Coracoid fractures in wild birds: a comparison of surgical repair versus
conservative treatment. Journal of avian medicine and surgery, 28(4), 304–308.
https://doi.org/10.1647/2013-038

Scott, D. E. (2016). Orthopedics. In D. E. Scott (Ed.), Raptor medicine, surgery, and rehabilitation (2nd
ed., pp. 165-170). CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780647463.0000

Tabaka, C. S., Ullrey, D. E., Ku, P. K., & Debar, S. R. (1996). Diet, cast composition, and
energy and nutrient intake of Red-Tailed Hawks (Buteo Jamaicensis), Great Horned Owls (Bubo
Virginianus), and Turkey Vultures (Cathartes Aura). Journal of zoo and wildlife medicine. 27(2),
187-196. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20095564

Wildlife Health Australia. (2018). National Wildlife Biosecurity Guidelines.

https://wildlifehealthaustralia.com.au/Portals/0/Documents/ProgramProjects/
National_Wildlife_Biosecurity_Guidelines.PDF

Wyman, D. (2021). Wildlife admissions. In A. Cockram, J. Favela, K. McInnis, & K. Williams (Eds.),
Wildlife rehabilitation: A comprehensive approach (2nd ed., pp. 75-79). International Wildlife
Rehabilitation Council.