Les données montrent que le plus grand danger pour la faune est les gens, pas les chats.

A new study reveals that humans pose a far greater threat to wildlife than domestic cats, challenging long-held assumptions about the causes of wildlife distress and injury in New South Wales. Researchers analyzing nearly 11 years of wildlife rescue data found that human-related factors account for the majority of incidents involving endangered and vulnerable species. The study, published in the journal Animals, highlights the urgent need for targeted prevention strategies to protect Australia’s native fauna. The research, led by ecologists from the University of Queensland, examined 52,475 rescue cases involving 158 species classified as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable. These cases spanned a range of injuries and illnesses, including entanglements, collisions, and attacks. According to the findings, human activities such as road traffic, urban expansion, and improper use of nets and fences were the primary contributors to wildlife harm. Entanglement alone accounted for nearly 12 percent of the cases, surpassing the number attributed to road accidents. Dr. Kate Dutton-Regester, one of the lead researchers, emphasized that while public concern often focuses on feral and domestic cats, their role in wildlife distress is relatively minor compared to other human-induced dangers. “Cat attacks made up just 0.6 percent of the total cases,” she noted. “Dog attacks, meanwhile, were over three times as frequent.” This distinction underscores the need for shifting priorities in wildlife conservation policies. The study also revealed that 20 percent of rescued animals had unknown causes for their injuries or illnesses, raising concerns about potential undiagnosed diseases or environmental changes that could threaten entire populations. While the dataset does not capture all wildlife fatalities, only those brought into care, it provides critical insights into the main drivers of harm. Emeritus Professor Jacquie Rand, another co-author of the study, pointed out that much of the public discourse around wildlife loss has centered on cats, leading to calls for containment and sterilization programs. However, she argued that these efforts should not overshadow the broader human impacts on ecosystems. “Our findings show that addressing the larger threats posed by human activity will yield better results for wildlife conservation,” she said. Professor Rand highlighted several practical steps that could mitigate these risks. For instance, modifying garden and orchard netting to prevent entanglement of flying mammals such as gliders and bats could significantly reduce injuries. Creating and maintaining wildlife corridors might help arboreal species like koalas and possums avoid ground-level dangers such as vehicle collisions or encounters with pets. In addition, improved road design and infrastructure, including wildlife-friendly crossings and signage, could decrease the number of animals killed or injured on roads. Such interventions have already proven effective in high-risk areas, according to the researchers. Despite the efforts of wildlife rehabilitators, the survival rates for rescued animals remain low. Nearly 60 percent of the animals treated died, while only 24 percent were successfully released back into the wild. Many others required ongoing care or faced uncertain futures. The emotional toll on the staff and volunteers involved in these rescue operations is considerable, with reports of burnout and compassion fatigue contributing to a decline in the workforce. The researchers stressed that tackling the root causes of wildlife distress, not merely treating its symptoms, could alleviate pressure on rescue services and improve outcomes for both animals and humans. By focusing on prevention rather than reactive care, conservationists hope to create safer environments for wildlife and reduce the burden on existing rescue networks. The study adds urgency to the conversation around urban planning and environmental management, urging policymakers to prioritize measures that minimize human-wildlife conflict. As the findings gain traction, experts anticipate increased collaboration between scientists, local governments, and communities to implement the recommended strategies.