Beyond saving lives: Political ecology, animal welfare, and the challenges of wildlife rehabilitation in Costa Rica

Abstract Wildlife rehabilitation in Costa Rica is a deeply complex and often precarious endeavor, shaped by the intersection of local socio-political realities, environmental pressures, and the inherent limitations of the centers themselves. These factors not only challenge the governance of wildlife conservation but also profoundly affect the daily lives of the staff and the nonhuman animals they care for (hereafter animals for simplicity). This ethnobiology study is a doctoral pilot study but is also an extension of a longitudinal study led by the second and fifth authors that commenced in 2021. This pilot study explores the lived experiences of veterinarians, staff, and animals in two prominent wildlife rehabilitation centers in Costa Rica. Findings provide insights into the ways external socio-political-ecological forces intertwine with the everyday practices of animal care in wildlife rehabilitation centers. This research was conducted over 2-weeks in late 2024, with approximately 65 hours of participant observation and 39 in-depth interviews with veterinarians, volunteers, and staff. Through immersive ethnographic fieldwork, data were gathered through participant observation, semi-structured and unstructured interviews, and archival data. Data were recorded daily using field notes, which were later coded and analyzed. The primary focus of this pilot study was to understand the quotidian realities of resource constraints, emotional labor, ethical dilemmas, and team dynamics, while also considering the broader cultural, political, ecological, and environmental factors that shape the rehabilitation process. Three key thematic findings emerged from this ethnographic pilot study: (1) operational challenges due to resource restraints and the complexities of communication and teamwork within the centers, (2) ethical tensions practitioners face when balancing compassionate care with institutional limitations, and (3) effects of sociopolitical forces and how well-intentioned policies, while aimed at protecting wildlife, often result in unintended negative consequences for individual animal welfare. This research underscores the layered complexities of wildlife rehabilitation and suggests the need for a more integrated approach from an ethnobiology lens that accounts for institutional goals and individualized care. This study demonstrates how ethnographic findings can inform biological research in a positive methodological feedback loop, where the logical next steps should be to carry out biological research that focuses on animal behavior (ethology) and measurable indicators of stress (e.g., through cortisol analysis) to better assess animal welfare conditions at each phase of the wildlife rehabilitation process.