Ben shifted from a diurnal (daytime) schedule in the sanctuary, to a more evenly distributed one in the soft-release cage.
Ben shifted from a diurnal (daytime) schedule in the sanctuary, to a more evenly distributed one in the soft-release cage.

Although a shift to a completely nocturnal schedule would be optimal, with the disturbances from feeding, it made sense that Ben could not make a complete shift. Fortunately, however, I observed that the “quality” of the day and night time captures was not equal; Ben moved much more actively at night, flying from branch to branch and onto the sides of the cage.

Statistically, no significant peak activity period was detected in the soft-release cage. However, the activity cycles of the owl in the Sanctuary and the Soft-release enclosures still remained significantly different from each other.

Ben was still a capable hunter, and was still sensitive to the activity of other animals around him.
Ben was still a capable hunter, and was still sensitive to the activity of other animals around him.

Ben was captured on camera successfully eating insects it had caught, and hunted the frog successfully on its second try. It spent about 10 minutes attempting to kill it by pecking at it and stretching it, due to the perhaps thick and rubbery skin of the frog, but not once did the frog leave its grip. After this time had passed, the owl began eating it, but remained attentive to outside movements. I took this as a positive sign that the owl remained alert and had not become desensitized due to human exposure. Additionally, during dark hours, the owl appeared to remain more often on the lower branch, rather than on the higher branch, where it typically was in the day. I took this to reflect its instinct to hunt at night.

The cages received disruptive visitors.
The cages received disruptive visitors.

We were reminded that as great as the soft-release method could be, we had to do our due diligence in ensuring the safety of the specimen within the cage, and to bear in mind that even without human disturbances from sanctuary guests, soft-release cages were not disturbance-free rehabilitation areas. 11 events of opossum visits were recorded, not likely as predators of the owl, but as individuals looking to get their hands on the chicken being neatly provided for the owl. A simultaneous soft-release project conducted by Alturas had recently suffered from an event of predation as a puma had ripped the cage wiring apart to grab the kinkajou inside, which did no longer feared to approach larger mammals after having been inside the sanctuary for so long.

Ben shifted from a diurnal (daytime) schedule in the sanctuary, to a more evenly distributed one in the soft-release cage.
Ben was still a capable hunter, and was still sensitive to the activity of other animals around him.
The cages received disruptive visitors.
Ben shifted from a diurnal (daytime) schedule in the sanctuary, to a more evenly distributed one in the soft-release cage.

Although a shift to a completely nocturnal schedule would be optimal, with the disturbances from feeding, it made sense that Ben could not make a complete shift. Fortunately, however, I observed that the “quality” of the day and night time captures was not equal; Ben moved much more actively at night, flying from branch to branch and onto the sides of the cage.

Statistically, no significant peak activity period was detected in the soft-release cage. However, the activity cycles of the owl in the Sanctuary and the Soft-release enclosures still remained significantly different from each other.

Ben was still a capable hunter, and was still sensitive to the activity of other animals around him.

Ben was captured on camera successfully eating insects it had caught, and hunted the frog successfully on its second try. It spent about 10 minutes attempting to kill it by pecking at it and stretching it, due to the perhaps thick and rubbery skin of the frog, but not once did the frog leave its grip. After this time had passed, the owl began eating it, but remained attentive to outside movements. I took this as a positive sign that the owl remained alert and had not become desensitized due to human exposure. Additionally, during dark hours, the owl appeared to remain more often on the lower branch, rather than on the higher branch, where it typically was in the day. I took this to reflect its instinct to hunt at night.

The cages received disruptive visitors.

We were reminded that as great as the soft-release method could be, we had to do our due diligence in ensuring the safety of the specimen within the cage, and to bear in mind that even without human disturbances from sanctuary guests, soft-release cages were not disturbance-free rehabilitation areas. 11 events of opossum visits were recorded, not likely as predators of the owl, but as individuals looking to get their hands on the chicken being neatly provided for the owl. A simultaneous soft-release project conducted by Alturas had recently suffered from an event of predation as a puma had ripped the cage wiring apart to grab the kinkajou inside, which did no longer feared to approach larger mammals after having been inside the sanctuary for so long.

show thumbnails