Content uploaded by Erin F. Baerwald
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Erin F. Baerwald on Nov 04, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
in this issue
Growth response of captive Olive Ridley sea turtles to diet variations
Assessing bat injuries at wind energy facilities: Can they be mitigated?
Injured raptors: A multi-year review of what brought them to the clinic
Saving a member of a protected species: Amputation surgery on a sambar deer
Up for Discussion: Fees for rehabilitation permits?
INTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REhAbILIATION cOuNcIL
Volume 30, Number 2 2010
REhAbILITATION
WILDLIFE
journal of
Incidence and Management of Live and Injured Bats at Wind
Energy Facilities
Brandon J. Klug and Erin F. Baerwald
Introduction
Although concerns about the environmental impact of wind energy have historically
considered bird fatalities, recent studies have shifted the focus to bats (Johnson et al.
2003, 2004, Kunz et al. 2007, Arnett et al. 2008). Relatively high numbers of bat fatali-
ties have been reported at some wind energy facilities in various landscapes globally
(Ahlén 2003, John-
son et al . 2003, Dürr
and Bach 2004,
Joh n s on 20 05,
Arnett et al. 2008).
In North America,
fatality rates vary
across the conti-
nent, with reports
of fatality rates as
high as 63.9 bats
per turbine per year
(Fiedler et al. 2007).
Primarily, three
species of migra-
tory, tree-roosting
bats appear to be
affected: hoary bats
(Lasiurus cinereus),
silver-haired bats
(Lasionycteris nocti-
vagans), and eastern
red bats (Lasiurus
borealis) (Johnson
2005, Arnett et al.
2008). e major-
ity of these fatalities
occur during fall
migration (mid-July
through September) (Arnett et al. 2008).
e published literature on post-construction fatality monitoring at wind energy
facilities contains little information on the occurrence of live and injured bats. Between
2001 and 2004, in reports with documented live-bat occurrences, live-bat discovery
rates varied between 0.6% (Arnett 2005) and 4.0% (Fiedler 2004). Discovery of live
bats on the ground at wind turbines can be frequent; in 2004, researchers found 9
live bats within a 6-wk period at a single site (Arnett 2005). Currently, no published
information or guidelines are available that specifically pertain to the documentation
and management of live and injured bats found at wind energy facilities.
During our study on patterns and causes of bat fatalities at wind energy facili-
ties, we found numerous live and injured bats. In this paper, we examine patterns of
WILDLIfE REHABILITATION AND CONsERvATION
IN YOUR PRACTICE: As wind energy
becomes more prevalent, rehabilitators
can expect to be called upon to provide
assistance and expertise. This article
provides useful information on which
species are commonly impacted by wind
turbines, the types of injuries sustained,
and possible treatment protocols.
ABSTRACT: Little information exists
about finding and managing live bats
injured at wind turbines. Our study
examines field methods for finding, and
successfully treating and releasing, bats
and humanely euthanizing those that
are terminally injured. Our discovery rate
of live and injured bats was greater at
turbines searched daily than at turbines
searched weekly, and immediate in-field
rehydration proved essential in success-
ful treatment. This information can be
used to assist in mitigating bat fatalities
at wind energy facilities through the
timely discovery, treatment, and release
of live bats.
KEY WORDS: bats, fatalities, injuries,
live and injured bats, Lasiurus cinereus,
Lasionycteris noctivagans, wildlife reha-
bilitation, wind turbines
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Brandon J. Klug
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
Phone: 403–220-3561
Email: bjklug@gmail.com
J. Wildlife Rehab. 30 (2): 11–16
© 2010 International Wildlife
Rehabilitation Council
Volume 30 (2) 11
Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus).
live-bat occurrences at our study site and suggest methods for
conducting searches at wind energy facilities to increase the
likelihood of finding live bats. We also discuss field methods
used to evaluate and manage live and injured bats for successful
release or humane euthanization. Traumas sustained by bats
from encounters with wind turbines are potentially unique and
complex (e.g., Baerwald et al. 2008), and seriously injured bats
should be euthanized. Several methods exist to euthanize a bat
and we discuss those we employed in the field.
Methods
We conducted our study at three wind energy facilities in
south-western Alberta, Canada in 2006 and 2007. All three
facilities were in mixed agricultural and native grasslands. Two
sites contained turbines with 80-m diameter rotors on 65-m
monopole towers (n = 39 and n = 2 turbines, respectively). e
third site consisted of a single turbine with a 90-m diameter
rotor on a 67-m monopole tower. We conducted carcass searches
at 40 turbines from 15 July through 30 September 2006 and
at 42 turbines from 15 July through 30 September 2007. Of
the 42 turbines, we searched 32 turbines once a week and 10
turbines daily. To search the turbines, one searcher held the
end of a 45-m rope attached to the base of the turbine and
another searcher held the end of a 7-m rope
attached to the first searcher. Starting with
the ropes fully extended (i.e., to 52 m from
the turbine base), both searchers walked in
a spiral around the base of the turbine. e
rope lost 14 m of length with each rota-
tion (i.e., the circumference of the turbine
tower), thereby creating transects 7 m apart
(see Baerwald 2008).
When we found a live bat, we immedi-
ately immobilized it and transported it to
our vehicle for assessment and treatment.
We examined bats for obvious physical
trauma such as hemorrhaging, broken
or severed wings, and open lacerations.
We made a subjective decision to treat or
euthanize bats depending on the severity
of the injuries present. Injuries rendering
a bat suitable for euthanization included
wing amputations, compound fractures,
fractures occurring too close to a joint
to allow for stabilization, open lacera-
tions, abdominal evisceration, and spinal
fractures. We promptly euthanized bats
meeting these criteria by way of cervical
dislocation or an overdose administration of
inhalant anesthetic (isoflurane; Halocarbon
Products Corporation, River Edge, New
Jersey, USA). For the latter method, we
followed the procedures outlined by Lollar
and Schmidt-French (2002).
We immediately rehydrated all bats
considered suitable for treatment. In 2006,
we provided drinking water orally via an
eyedropper. In 2007, we initially delivered
a mass-specific amount of lactated Ringer’s solution (LRS)
via subcutaneous injection as per Lollar and Schmidt-French
(2002) and then offered a 50% Pedialyte
®
(Abbott Nutrition,
Columbus, Ohio, USA) solution orally. After immediate rehy-
dration, we placed bats in small cloth bags, out of direct sunlight
and in a cool location, with adequate ventilation. On hot days
(≥25°C), we placed the bags in an open cooler containing an ice
pack wrapped in cloth. We took caution not to place the holding
bags directly on the ice pack. Every 2 hr following our initial
assessment, we checked the condition of the bats and delivered
fluids accordingly; we offered water orally if bats showed signs
of improvement and repeated the delivery of LRS subcutane-
ously if signs of dehydration and unresponsiveness persisted.
Eastern red bat (Laziurus borealis).
Photo © fabriCe sChMitt. used with PerMission.
Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans).
Photo © kevin sMith. used with PerMission..
12 Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation
TABLE 1. Date, species, injuries sustained, and fate of each of the 26 live bats found during studies at wind energy facilities in southern
Alberta in 2006 and 2007.
We followed this schedule of treatment until we could return
to our field station.
We re-examined the condition of bats at our field station.
We noted injuries not previously detected and documented the
incoming mass of each bat. We continued fluid replacement
therapy and provided water freely to those showing signs of
improvement and the ability to accept water orally (in 2006
and 2007), or delivered further treatments of subcutaneous
rehydration, using LRS, if signs of dehydration persisted (in
2007). We then transferred the bats to larger, more-permanent
enclosures if their condition permitted; bats with minor skeletal
injuries, such as bruised joints, remained in the cloth bags to
reduce mobility and the risk of further injury. Bats remained
at the field station in seclusion where we continued to monitor
their condition until release.
We handled all bats in accordance with protocols approved
by the Canadian Council on Animal Care and the University
of Calgary Animal Care Committee, as well as in accordance
with research permits granted by the Fish and Wildlife Division
of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. All personnel
involved in our research were given rabies pre-exposure prophy-
laxis. In an effort to reduce stress on the animal, we completed
all assessments, treatments, and measurements quickly (usually
within 5 min) and with minimal disturbance to the bat. We
used information provided by Lollar and Schmidt-French
(2002), as well as by the National Wildlife Rehabilitators
Association and International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council
(Miller 2000), to determine diet and feeding schedules and to
ensure that housing was adequate for all bats in our care. In
dealing with minor injuries, we continued to follow protocols
laid out by Lollar and Schmidt-French (2002). We took bats
that were ready for release to a site close to our study area and
released them shortly after sunset, in pairs if possible.
Results
We encountered 1,033 bats during the two years of our study.
Of those, we found 26 (2.5%) alive (Table 1). We found signifi-
cantly more live bats at turbines searched daily (n = 16) than at
turbines searched weekly (n = 8) (Fisher’s Exact test, P = 0.008).
Our discovery rate of live bats was significantly greater at daily
DATE SPECIES OBSERVED INJURIES FATE
2 Aug 06 Lasiurus cinereus None Flew away
6 Aug 06 L. cinereus None Treated, released 4 days later
11 Aug 06 L. cinereus Both femurs fractured, Treatment attempted, died in care 3 wk later
elbow laceration
13 Aug 06 Lasionycteris noctivagans None Treated, released 3 days later
13 Aug 06 L. noctivagans Compound wing fracture Euthanized (cervical dislocation)
13 Aug 06 L.noctivagans Compound wing fracture Euthanized (cervical dislocation)
14 Aug 06 L. noctivagans None Died on site, cause unknown
17 Aug 06 L. cinereus None Treated, released 2 days later
24 Aug 06 L. cinereus Compound wing fracture Euthanized (cervical dislocation)
29 Aug 06 L. cinereus None Treated, released 3 days later
30 Aug 06 L. noctivagans Wrist bruised Treated, released 3 days later
9 Sep 06 L. noctivagans None Treated, released 2 days later
6 Aug 07 Myotis lucifugus None Died on site, cause unknown
12 Aug 07 M. lucifugus None Treated, released 2 days later
13 Aug 07 L. cinereus Compound wing fracture Euthanized (isoflurane)
15 Aug 07 L. cinereus Amputated wing Euthanized (isoflurane)
17 Aug 07 L. cinereus Compound wing fracture Euthanized (isoflurane)
24 Aug 07 L. noctivagans None Treated, released 5 days later
25 Aug 07 L. noctivagans None Treated, released 4 days later
29 Aug 07 L. noctivagans None Treated, released 5 days later
29 Aug 07 L. cinereus Elbow severely bruised Treatment attempted, died in care 2 mo later,
cause unknown
31 Aug 07 L. noctivagans None Treated, released 3 days later
3 Sep 07 L. noctivagans None Died on site, confirmed barotrauma
5 Sep 07 L. noctivagans Fractured phalanges Treatment attempted, died in care 6 days later,
cause unknown
8 Sep 07 L. noctivagans None Treated, released at start of following season
10 Sep 07 L. noctivagans None Treated, released at start of following season
Volume 30 (2) 13
(4.0% of 400 total bat discoveries at turbines checked daily)
than at weekly (1.2% of 633 total bat discoveries at turbines
checked weekly) (χ
2
1
= 7.98, P = 0.005). Outside our regular
search effort, we found two live bats while driving past turbines
not scheduled for search that day. We found the majority (n
= 22) of live bats within 35 m of the turbine base (mean =
21.1 ± 2.8 m); this equates to 84.6% of live bats found within
less than half (45.3%) of the total search area. Two species of
migratory bats comprised 92.3% of the live bats we found—14
silver-haired bats (53.8%) and 10 hoary bats (38.5%). e
remaining two bats were local, nonmigratory little brown bats
(Myotis lucifugus).
Only eight (30.8%) of the live bats we found had visible
signs of skeletal damage or considerable soft tissue trauma. We
observed one or more of the following injuries: wing fractures
(n = 7), wing amputation (n = 1), leg fractures (n = 1), and open
abdominal wounds (n = 1). A lthough not statistically significant
(Fisher’s Exact test, P = 0.211), the rate of obvious external
injury was higher in hoary bats (50.0%) than in silver-haired
bats (21.4%). We did not observe any such external injuries in
the two little brown bats. We euthanized three bats by cervical
dislocation in 2006 and three bats by administration of iso-
flurane in 2007. Of the 18 bats with no obvious sign of injury,
three died on-site due to undetectable injuries or complications.
One of these bats, a silver-haired bat, had blood in the nose and
mouth; histological examination at the University of Calgary
showed rupture of nearly all alveoli in both lungs (Baerwald et
al. 2008), symptoms consistent with barotrauma.
We attempted to treat 16 of the 26 live bats we found.
All of the live and injured bats we assessed showed minor to
severe signs of dehydration such as papery wings, lethargy, and
wrinkly skin (Lollar and Schmidt-French 2002). Upon both
oral and subcutaneous rehydration, bats showed improve-
ment in alertness and activity levels. However, subcutaneous
injection of fluids resulted in faster recovery times; signs of
dehydration typically decreased within 30 min of subcutane-
ous rehydration therapy, compared to the several hours that
was typical of oral rehydration. It was uncommon (n = 2) for
a bat to require multiple injections of LRS before regaining
the ability to drink. Complete recovery time ranged from 2 to
5 days, the exception being two silver-haired bats found late
in the season (mid-September) during inclement weather and
released the following May (Table 1). We successfully released
13 (81.3%) of the bats we attempted to treat, the majority
(n = 11) of which were released within 5 days and required only
rehydration therapy for recovery.
Discussion
It is not certain how long an injured bat can remain alive after
being grounded by a wind turbine, but many factors, including
dehydration and predation by birds, mammals, and insects,
imply that the time frame is as little as 1 day. is study suggests
that searching turbines daily results in the discovery of more live
bats than does searching each turbine once per week. We found
two bats by driving by turbines not scheduled to be searched
that day, which suggests that in areas where ground vegetation is
low (e.g., harvested cropland), live bats can be found simply by
having a daily presence on the site, driving slowly, and making
an effort to look for them. Given that the majority of live bats we
found were within 35 m of a turbine base, to increase the chance
of finding live bats we suggest extending any search transects to
at least that distance. If resources are limited, and discovery of
live bats is a priority, then searchers could limit their searches to
encompass this 35-m radius. However, this distance may vary
depending on turbine height and rotor diameter.
Assessment of a live bat—and the decision to treat or
euthanize it—remains largely subjective. We chose to euthanize
any bat with injuries that would severely impede its ability to
fly or forage successfully, or diminish the bat’s quality of life.
Due to our limited resources in the field and our inability to
handle traumas in a sterile environment, our criteria for eutha-
nization were broad. However, bats with wing fractures can be
successfully rehabilitated and released in other situations with
adequate resources (Hofstede et al. 2003). In the first year of
this study, the discovery of live bats was unexpected and, thus,
we were unequipped to deal with euthanization by any means
other than cervical dislocation. is and other methods of
nonchemical euthanization are discouraged because they have
relatively high failure rates and induce undue pain and stress
on the bat; even cervical dislocation can cause pain and delayed
effects in some instances (Lollar and Schmidt-French 2002).
Consequently, in 2007, we used an excessive dose of isoflurane
to induce humane death (Lollar and Schmidt-French 2002).
is method is preferred and recommended, as it is easy to
carry out, results in no excess stress on the bat, and does not
use a controlled substance (such as pentobarbital sodium; MTC
Pharmaceuticals, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) which may be
difficult for some researchers to obtain.
Dehydration appeared to be the immediate threat to sur-
vival for bats without severe injuries. In most cases, bats that
are unable to fly due to injury or illness require rehydration
(Lollar and Schmidt-French 2002). At our study area, ambient
temperatures reached in excess of 30°C during the months of
peak migration (mid-July through mid-September). Dehydra-
tion can be exacerbated when crops are harvested and bats are
subjected to direct sunlight. We found prompt rehydration and
cooling to be crucial in the treatment of injured bats. Most of
the live bats we encountered showed little sign of injury and
required nothing more than rehydration therapy to recover.
In 2007, we implemented subcutaneous rehydration as the
initial means to deliver fluids, and this method proved to be
faster, easier, and more reliable than oral rehydration. Attempts
to rehydrate a bat orally, one that is unable to drink on its
own, can result in failure and the risk of drowning if forced
or done improperly; these procedural issues are avoided with
subcutaneous rehydration therapy. However, we realize most
14 Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation
personnel conducting fatality surveys lack the proper training
and experience to perform such a task. erefore, we feel oral
rehydration remains an adequate, safe method for the delivery
of fluids to a dehydrated bat—if properly done.
ere were cases in which a bat was seemingly uninjured
but still died. Internal injury can be difficult to identify, and
treat appropriately, in the field. e extent of blunt-force trauma
in bats resulting from collisions with turbine blades remains
unknown. To complicate the situation further, barotrauma
is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities
(Baerwald et al. 2008). Gasping, inability to breathe, blood in
the airway, and lethargy are indicative of barotrauma, but are
difficult to assess and pinpoint (when induced by barotrauma)
without histological examination; in many cases, injured bats
show no clinical sign of barotrauma. Nearly half the bat car-
casses discovered in our study had no fatal external injuries, but
over 90% of those necropsied had internal injuries consistent
with barotrauma (Baerwald et al. 2008). Such internal injury
may go unnoticed and, consequently, the bat may die unex-
pectedly. is was evidenced in the necropsied silver-haired
bat that died before showing any signs of injury and was later
found to have extensive tissue damage in the lungs. To date,
treatment of this type of decompression trauma in bats has not
been addressed.
e impact of turbine-related mortality on bat populations
is unknown, but has the potential to be considerable. Bats have
unique life histories relative to other mammals of similar size.
ey reproduce slowly, bearing one or two pups a year depend-
ing on the species, and can live over 30 years in the wild (Barclay
and Harder 2003). is slow life history makes bat popula-
tions susceptible to novel causes of mortality. Little knowledge
exists about population sizes of migratory bats, or about the
proportion of bats killed while migrating through wind energy
facilities. Assessments have reported migratory-bat fatalities in
the hundreds to the thousands at some sites in North America
(Arnett et al. 2008). As the wind energy industry continues to
grow (American Wind Energy Association 2008, Canadian
Wind Energy Association 2008), and bat fatality monitoring
becomes more common, we can expect more discoveries of live
and injured bats at wind turbines.
For personnel conducting fatality surveys, it may be nec-
essary to obtain permits for handling live wildlife as well as
carcasses. Our research, including the handling and treatment
of live bats, was authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Division of
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. To our knowledge,
the legal issues surrounding the handling of live wildlife have not
been addressed during other industry-led fatality surveys because
discovery of live animals was not expected. e risk of exposure
to rabies should also be addressed; all personnel expected to
handle live bats should receive rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis,
and those expected to handle only bat carcasses should wear
gloves at all times. Under no circumstances should treatment of
live and injured bats be attempted by the general public.
Our experiences suggest that live and injured bats can be
properly managed if personnel involved in fatality surveys at
wind energy facilities are authorized to handle live bats and are
prepared to rehydrate suitable individuals and euthanize those
with terminal injuries. In regions where bat rehabilitation is
legal, and the facilities are available, the potential to rescue and
release a substantial number of bats exists. Kunz et al. (2007)
projected that the annual bat fatalities in the mid-Atlantic
Highlands in 2020 could be between 33,000 and 111,000.
If our live-bat discovery rate of 2.5% holds true, then 825 to
2,775 live bats could be found. If our treatment success rate
of 50% is achieved, then 413 to 1,388 bats per year could be
treated and released in this region. Since cumulative impacts
of turbine-related fatalities on bat populations are unknown,
it is important to implement a variety of mitigation strategies,
including those aimed at treating and releasing suitable live
and injured bats. However, given that conducting daily car-
cass searches and effectively treating bats may be costly, such
efforts should be complimentary to other mitigation strategies
at high bat-fatality sites. Primary efforts should remain focused
on operational strategies, such as low wind-speed shut downs,
which have been successful in significantly decreasing bat fatali-
ties (Baerwald et al. 2009).
Acknowledgments
We thank J. Carpenter, K. Jonasson, and B. McKnight for their
assistance in the field and help with the treatment and release
of the bats. We also thank R. M. R. Barclay, M. Holder, M.
J. Pybus, and two anonymous reviewers for comments which
improved this manuscript considerably. We are grateful to the
staff at the Pincher Creek Veterinary Clinic for providing us
with professional advice. Funding was provided by grants from
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada to R. M. R. Barclay, and by TransAlta Wind, Enmax,
Suncor, Alberta Wind Energy Corp., Shell Canada, Bat Con-
servation International, the North American Bat Conservation
Partnership, and the Alberta Conservation Association.
Literature Cited
Ahlén, I. 2003. Wind turbines and bats—A pilot study. Final
report. Dnr 5210P-2002-00473, P-nr P20272-1. Swedish
National Energy Administration, Esklistuna, Sweden.
American Wind Energy Association [AWEA]. 2008. AWEA
home page. http://www.awea.org. Accessed 16 August
2008.
Arnett, E. B., K. Brown, W. P. Erickson, J. Fiedler, T. H. Henry,
G. D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R. R. Kolford, C. P. Nicholson,
T. O’Connell, M. Piorkowski, and J. R. Tankersly. 2008.
Patterns of fatality of bats at wind energy facilities in North
America. Journal Wildlife Management 72(1): 61–78.
Arnett, E. B. (Tech. ed.). 2005. Relationships between bats
and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: An
assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatal-
Volume 30 (2) 15
ity, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final
report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative.
Bat Conservation International.
Baerwald, E. F. 2008. Variation in the activity and fatality of
migratory bats at wind energy facilities in southern Alberta:
Causes and consequences. MSc esis. University of Cal-
gary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 108 pp.
Baerwald, E. F., G. H. D’Amours, B. J. Klug, and R. M. R.
Barclay. 2008. Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatali-
ties at wind turbines. Current Biology 18(16): 695–696.
Baerwald, E. F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R. M. R. Barclay.
2009. A large-scale mitigation experiment to reduce bat
fatalities at wind energy facilities. Journal Wildlife Manage-
ment 73(7): 1077–1081.
Barclay, R. M. R., and L. D. Harder. 2003. Life histories of
bats: Life in the slow lane. In: Bat ecology, T. H. Kunz, and
M. B. Fenton (eds). University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Illinois, USA, pp. 209–253.
Canadian Wind Energy Association [CWEA]. 2008. CWEA
home page. http://www.canwea.ca/. Accessed 16 August
2008.
Dürr, T., and L. Bach. 2004. Bat deaths and wind turbines—
A review of current knowledge, and of the information
available in the database for Germany. Bremer Beiträge für
Naturkunde und Naturschutz 7: 253–264.
Fiedler, J. 2004. Assessment of bat mortality and activity at
Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, Eastern Tennessee. MSc
esis. e University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee,
USA, 166 pp.
Fiedler, J., T. H. Henry, R. D. Tankersley, and C. P. Nicholson.
2007. Results of bat and bird fatality monitoring at the
expanded Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, 2005. Tennessee
Valley Authority.
Hofstede, H. M. T., J. Miller, J. M. Ratcliffe, and M. B. Fenton.
2003. A healed fractured radius in a flying big brown bat
(Eptesicus fuscus). Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 26 (4):
4 –7.
Johnson, G. D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind-energy
developments in the United States. Bat Research News 46(2):
45–49.
Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. F. Shep-
herd, D. A. Shepherd, and S. A. Sarappo. 2003. Mortality
of bats at a large-scale wind power development at Buffalo
Ridge, Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 150(2):
332–342.
Johnson, G. D., M. K. Perlik, W. P. Erickson, and M. D.
Strickland. 2004. Bat activity, composition, and collision
mortality at a large wind plant in Minnesota. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 32(4): 1278–1288.
Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A. R. Hoar, G. D.
Johnson, R. P. Larkin, M. D. Strickland, R. W. resher,
and M. D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy
development on bats: Questions, research needs, and
hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
5(6): 315–324.
Lollar, A., and B. Schmidt-French. 2002. Captive care and
medical reference for the rehabilitation of insectivorous
bats, 2nd Edition. Bat World, Mineral Wells, Texas,
USA.
Miller, E. A. (ed.). 2000. Minimum standards for wild-
life rehabilitation, 3rd Edition. National Wildlife
Rehabilitators Association, St. Cloud, Minnesota, USA.
77 pp.
About the Authors
Brandon J. Klug studied at the Uni-
versity of Calgary, receiving a Bachelor’s
degree in zoology. He has extensive
experience in animal rehabilitation
through years of work in wildlife
rehabilitations centers and veterinary
clinics around the Calgary area. He is
currently a graduate student at the University of Calgary,
studying toward a Master’s degree in ecology and evolution-
ary biology.
Erin F. Baerwald has a Bachelor’s degree
in conservation biology from the Univer-
sity of Alberta. As a graduate student,
she studied the issue of bat fatalities at
wind energy facilities and successfully
defended her Master’s thesis in July
2008. She is now a PhD candidate,
studying migratory bat biology, at the
University of Calgary, Department of Biological Sciences,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
16 Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation
