We Can Self Regulate The Wildlife Rescue Industry Now, In A Way That's Nationally Recognised - Perhaps Even Eventually Supported / Endorsed - By The UK Government Itself…
I have just discovered that there is really NO reason why we can’t make a difference, here & now, to wildlife always getting the care that they deserve.
In fact, I have just found out that ‘self regulating’ is not just a universally recognised voluntary practice BUT, more than that, it’s even a government endorsed ‘recognised’ way of industries being regulated long term…
Even earlier this summer I wouldn’t have expected to be writing this blog post but, last month, I had a very informal but very enlightening chat with a legal expert who specialises in regulation / self regulation and it flagged up some really interesting opportunities that I hadn’t been aware of before.
In 2021, when meetings began to develop some form of ‘self regulation’ (what became the ‘Wildlife Care Badge’) it was always thought of as a temporary measure: at best its structure/procedures would be a big success that the UK government could then build on as the basis for their own new legislation & regulation of the Wildlife Rescue Industry.
I very much assumed - and I think that others around me were led to believe the same - that ‘self regulation’ of the Wildlife Rescue Industry was always a temporary measure, until the UK government stepped in and implemented all of the animal welfare protections that were required.
But we were wrong. Not only is self regulation not always a ‘temporary’ measure, but actually, it can be preferred, even by the government themselves, to ‘official’ legislation, as a ‘long term solution’.
Here’s why…
Did you know (I didn’t, until last month) that the UK government backs all sorts of voluntary self regulation schemes?
While ‘self regulatory bodies’ - like the WCB - don’t have the formal standards of a statutory body, we have more flexibility and more adaptability to keep improving (we are less strangled by bureaucracy). That can be a big strength of self regulation that’s universally recognised, even by governments.
I’ve been made aware that the UK government will sometimes prefer a proven self regulation scheme to actual statutory legislation as they have so many competing priorities and such limited resources. If they can be convinced that a scheme (like the WCB) is actually doing what the government would like to see happening, they could actually CHOOSE for the scheme in question to do it for them AND support it.
What does this mean?
It simply means that we could have a BIG impact here & now, in widely & quickly improving standards in the Wildlife Rescue Industry, without holding ourselves back by thinking that it’s a bit of a ‘hobbyist’ set of temporary measures, until ‘someone official’ steps in to do it ‘properly’. In fact: we can be - we already COULD be - THE ‘official organisation(s) making it happen’.
Why do I think that this is important?
I think that this is important because we could be inspired - with this new awareness - to start working together more, to more quickly ensure that wildlife ALWAYS get to Rescuers who can genuinely help them, here and now (instead of waiting for others, like the government, to fix problems for us).
Government legislation can be slow to come into being (due to limited time & resources & even changing staff posts within government departments) and it comes with its own set of issues, namely - and sometimes especially - enforcement issues.
The UK - in England, Scotland & Wales - has an enforcement problem with animal welfare laws, simply due to strained resources: it’s across the board, impacting farm animals, lab animals, illegal hunts, raptor persecution, badger baiting & more. This means that, UK wide, laws protecting animal welfare aren’t being made to matter, despite the best of intentions.
In comparison, I think that the WCB could be a highly successful ‘preventative’ long term solution: not simply relying on a ‘stick’ to enforce regulation/licensing with - when laws are ignored - but as a way to unite the industry to really work together to create immediate change, right now, so that wildlife casualties & orphans are always & only getting to those Rescuers who are set up to really help them.
So, what does ‘self regulation’ need, to succeed & be of proper service to those within an industry?
LET’S START WITH WHAT THE WCB THINKS THE END GOAL SHOULD BE….
All wildlife casualties across the UK to be helped/treated/served in such a way as to align with these basic rights...
The right to only be taken (to lose their power and independence) into a Rescue/Vets Practice when it is strictly necessary in order to try and save them or because they will not survive without intervention or because they will have a terrible death when a kinder, easier death could be offered.
The right to only be treated by someone (be that a Rescue or an independent Rehabber) who has suitable premises and a minimum level of knowledge to offer a high welfare environment and to give that wildlife casualty/orphan the greatest chance possible to survive/get better/grow into an adult (this necessitates a Rescue/Rehabber having either Vets on site or a good working relationship with a local Vet).
The right to be treated as an individual creature and a unique case (just like we humans always expect to be treated by our hospitals and doctors) - seeing what treatment suits them as an individual, giving them every chance possible - with only their welfare in mind.
So what does any form of ‘self regulation’ need, to have an impact?
FIRST… First & foremost (leading on from UK law enforcement issues): does it have sufficient teeth & can it enforce the standards that it’s standing for?
SECOND… Does the self regulation structure/scheme have a recognised worth: does it really stand for what it says it does? Does it have kudos?
THIRD… It’s really important that there’s some substance to it. Eg. WHAT are the standards required & HOW are they checked? [To see more on what is meant by ‘substance’, scroll down to see examples from the WCB].
FOURTH… The body that administers the self regulation structure/scheme must be credible & trustworthy. There must be no conflict of interest within the organisation.
FIFTH… Public transparency is key, as is transparency of process: the self regulation structure/scheme must be transparent so that it too - while it regulates others - is ALSO accountable.
As an example of what could meet these 5 requirements, I think that the WCB does, in the following ways…
FIRST… The WCB has ‘teeth’ in the following ways: the plan was always that it’s a strong enough regulatory structure to PREVENT wildlife going to people who can’t really care for them. It does this because, if enough Rescues come together to become WCB Holders, and the public and Vets are educated to only hand animals to proven places, animals won’t go to inexperienced rehabbers anymore: the structure works.
[It’s also important to note that no one is targeted or bullied or hurt through this kind of structure: no one is ‘named and shamed’ for being an unproven Rehabber, they just simply don’t get animals given to them. Then, if they get up to the standards to become WCB Holders, they DO get animals given to them. Everyone wins, I think!]
Instead of the current chaos in the Wildlife Rescue Industry (anyone at all being able to set up a Rescue overnight and take in animals and then a constant cycle of almost every Rescue reporting other Rescues to the RSPCA & Police to try and get them shut down, which has never worked) the WCB regulatory structure could STOP wildlife going to unproven places altogether.
[THIS MEANS THAT THE WCB STRUCTURE COULD EVEN BE SAID TO HAVE MORE TEETH THAN GOVERNMENT BODIES, IF THEY DON’T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO ENFORCE OFFICIAL LEGISLATION]
SECOND… The success of the WCB relies on the recognised worth & standard of the Badge we’re giving out: does it really stand for what we’re saying it does - does it have kudos? I think that it does because the WCB is very simple: if you meet the standards you get the Badge, and if you don’t, then you don’t. [Sometimes WCB Holders don’t continue to meet the standards required, over time, and WCB Holders have been asked to step down as WCB Holders. The WCB does what it says it does.]
THIRD… Substance: how are standards actually checked and proven? In the case of the WCB, that’s the Badge Policy of Standards that need to be met, proven by exams - created by wildlife experts - that need to be passed / annual vet visits of premises with reports / welfare checks throughout the year & annual renewals of the Badge.
FOURTH… Is the WCB trustworthy? Are there any conflicts of interest? The answer…. The WCB works hard to avoid any conflict of interest because the WCB doesn’t charge a membership fee to WCB Holders: they either meet the standards or not. If, very rarely, a WCB Holder finds their standards dropping (not working enough with a Vet or not keeping on top of paperwork, for example) there’s no financial complications if they step down as WCB Holders.
As to being trustworthy: it’s important that a self regulatory structure also feels a safe place. The WCB has been offering mentoring & support to Rescuers, to help them to achieve the WCB welfare standards required, confidentially, since the WCB began. It isn’t all about assessing new WCB Holders: it’s also about everyone working together and supporting one another to BE the best they can. Check out our new ‘support scheme’ too.
WCB Holders are also provided with Wildlife Care Advisors & mentoring should any welfare weak spots come up, to immediately help to rectify any issues - and this is done confidentially - and should a WCB Holder not take improvements on board, they’re not publicly named & shamed, they quietly remove themselves from being WCB Holders and the WCB holds the door open for them for any time in the future when they might want to be supported to return and hold the standards that we require.
FIFTH… Public transparency is key. The WCB encompasses a lot of different people: WCB Holders themselves & veterinary & rehab supporters & advisors. The WCB Grants are publicly applied for and voted for and awarded & there are constant bits of feedback on ways for the WCB to improve too. Sometimes, if WCB Holders think that another Badge Holder needs more support, they anonymously ask the WCB Advisors to contact the Badge Holder to provide that support, and they know whether it has happened or not. WCB Holders want the WCB to actually stand for what it says it does, otherwise it’s meaningless to have it, so the WCB is kept very strictly to account by the WCB Holders themselves, first & foremost.
But it doesn’t HAVE to be the WCB…
It DOESN’T have to be the WCB who - here and now - puts in place the structure, time & work to meet these requirements. It can be any organisation who wants to have the quickest impact possible, for the sake of wildlife. It could be a united and coordinated effort to implement the type of licensing that’s seen for wildlife care in the USA for example, which is similar to the WCB but even better, and could be a structure that, I think, it would make sense to bring into play across the UK, to best enable wildlife casualties & orphans to get the care that they deserve. *[Scroll down to the bottom of this post, where I’ve shared some info on US licensing / regulations].
In conclusion…
What I wanted this blog post to present was simply the idea that we have OPTIONS and to open up a broader discussion about these options: we have officially, government recognised options to self regulate the industry here & now, in ways that will matter immediately and that CAN be built on. We can do this in such a way that if/when government legislation eventually & formally comes in, it could be…
A. A pre-proven structure, building on the back of what was voluntarily done before (which can also only benefit the government departments in question, as a lot of research & trial & error will have been done for them)…
Or even…
B. A way for official legislation, when it comes in, to even be helpfully supported by ongoing self regulatory efforts. It doesn’t even have to be an ‘either/or’ situation…
As the BBB National Programs organisation puts it: “In industries where government oversight is extensive – such as financial services, pharmaceuticals, freight rail, and insurance – the idea of industry self-regulation may seem unnecessary or redundant. But in practice, industry self-regulation is not a substitute for government action; it is a strategic complement. And when done right, industry self-regulation enhances compliance, accelerates innovation, and builds public trust.
[…] We have seen firsthand how independent self-regulatory systems can fill gaps, respond faster than regulatory processes, and promote ethical standards that go beyond what the law requires. And I have noticed that some of the most effective self-regulatory models operate within industries already governed by robust legal frameworks – so-called “highly regulated industries.””
NOTES…
USA Wildlife Regulation (Massachusetts example)…. Here’s some info sent over from Rehabbers over there, and quoted from…
“Massachusetts wildlife rehabbers are governed by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife). Mass Wildlife is the primary state responsible for licensing, regulating and monitoring wildlife rehabilitators in the state, ensuring rehabilitators comply with regulations regarding the care, treatment and release of sick, injured or orphaned wild animals.
In order to become a rehabber, one must undertake an examination and pay a small fee of $10 to MassWildlife. The exam has to be taken at an onsite facility in person, and cannot be taken online. The pass rate needs to be at least 80%, and once the exam has been taken and passed, you request the permit.
Passing the exam is the first step, facilities must be examined and further licensing is required for federally protected species.
It is advised to have completed at least 100 hours with a 'mentor' in a rehab facility, who is an already licensed rehabber, before even applying for the exam.
All rehabbers require facilities that reflect the species they are working with, a relationship with a veterinarian, and to provide the details of the veterinarian.”
Quote source: https://bbbprograms.org
