Rescue Reality Check: Who helps wildlife in Australia — and why it matters

Wildlife rescue is widespread across Australia. Image by xiSerge from Pixabay.

When Australians spot a distressed animal, many don’t just walk by. A new nationwide survey shines a light on who steps in, what they try to save, and why they make that call — revealing some surprising gaps between what people believe about wildlife rescue and what actually happens.

Led by Gloeta Massie with colleagues from UQ and RSPCA Queensland, the study surveyed 492 adults across every state and territory between August 2021 and May 2022. Nearly six in ten respondents said they had rescued a wild animal in the previous 12 months — evidence that wildlife rescue isn’t a niche activity but something many Australians do. Yet most people misjudge the scale and outcomes: 63% underestimated how many animals are rescued nationally each year, and 68% overestimated how many rescued animals ultimately survive and are released.

Belief and behaviour don’t always line up. Almost half of respondents (44%) held self-contradictory views — for example, saying they didn’t want wild animals to suffer while also nominating certain species they wouldn’t rescue. Snakes topped that list (33% wouldn’t rescue them), with smaller groups unwilling to help bats or animals labelled “feral” or non-native. These tensions matter because they shape which animals get help and which don’t.

What people think about rescue also predicts what they do. Respondents who believed mammals are the most commonly rescued group were significantly less likely to have performed a rescue than those who correctly identified birds as the most frequently rescued. And when asked how to prioritise care when multiple animals need help, those who favoured treating endangered species first were less likely to have rescued than those who prioritised the most ill or injured — pointing to a divide between outcome-focused and welfare-first mindsets.

Some demographics mattered; others didn’t. Gender, age cohort and where people spent their childhood (Australia vs. elsewhere) were associated with different odds of having rescued wildlife, but housing situation, metro vs rural location, education level, political leanings, and religion were not. That means rescue participation cuts across many of the lines that often divide public opinion, creating an opportunity for broad, inclusive outreach.

Rescue isn’t automatically a net good: it can expose animals and people to risk (injury, stress, disease), and well-intentioned “rescues” — like picking up a healthy fledgling — can do harm and strain limited resources. The team argues for better public guidance on when to intervene, clearer triage principles, and smarter communication about day-to-day threats (like vehicle strikes and pet attacks) that quietly drive huge rescue volumes. In short: educate for the common cases, not just the headline-grabbing crises.

This first national snapshot of Australians’ rescue knowledge, beliefs and actions provides a baseline for change. Targeted education — especially on recognising when not to intervene, emphasizing that welfare applies to all species, and realistic survival expectations — could reduce harm and channel help where it’s most effective. Supporting the largely volunteer rescue sector with training and consistent protocols would benefit both animals and the people who care enough to stop and help.

Massie GN, Kuskoff E, Paterson MBA & Fuller RA (2025) To the rescue? A nationwide survey of the who, what, and why of wildlife rescue in Australia. Biological Conservation, 309, 111275.