At 03:41 PM 7/18/96 -0800, Dennis wrote:
>Tom Foote shared some interesting thoughts about wildlife rehabilitation
>and wondered if it might be worthwhile to discuss the subject further.
>
Of course, you knew I'd respond! Unfortunately, I did miss Tom's remarks so
cannot comment upon them.


>
>Rehabbing doesn't help animal populations or the environment in any
>measurable way, shape, or form. I think this is incontrovertible.
>\
I don't think it's incontrovertible. You're right, it doesn't do a thing
for the environment, but you cannot say that it does nothing for the animals
in any measurable way because no one has done any tracking of released
animals (the exception being the "high profile" animals like wolves). When
I release ducks, I have no idea what happens to them. I could band them and
track them but at this point I don't. I'm beginning to think this might be
a good idea, though, to refute some of the "it's pointless" remarks.


>Because rehabbing exists, many people pick up baby animals (remember, birds
>are animals) that should be left where they are.

Dennis, people have done this for centuries. Long before rehabbing existed.
In fact, a very large portion of the population has no clue there are such
things as rehab centers. Yes, I know, the oil spill thing again. And yes,
people do know about those rehab centers. But I get calls all the time from
people who have no idea what to do with these little birds, have never heard
of Willamette Wildlife, etc.


>Because (some) animals can be rehabilitated, it takes just a little bit of
>the pressure off the causes of their needing to be rehabbed: oil spills,
>kids with BB guns, cats in yards, etc.


I don't think that's true. Oil spills are caused by the greed of the oil
companies and nothing else. If they spent the extra money to be safe, the
likelihood of spills would be reduced. No amount of animal cleaning is
going to reduce that level of greed. They just plain don't care. I will
also take exception to your other concern,that of kids with BB guns, cats, etc.

Cats are not a native species (duh, no kidding Peggi!) so they are
artificially reducing the bird population. Why not try and save the injured
bird? Is it better to let the cats decimate the bird population? Let's
face it, we cannot do much about how people monitor their pets, so maybe we
can do something about the results. Kids, however, are a different
situation. They can be influenced by their parents (or their parents can
try, anyway), but for some reason, there are alot of vicious children out
there who seem to feel that because animals don't cry out in pain, it's OK
to use them for target practice. Short of their parents intervening (you'd
be amazed at how many people deny the fact that the kid did the dirty work
even though he/she was caught in the act - "Why, Johnny didn't do it, he
wouldn't hurt a fly!" "Oh yeah, well we caught him shooting a beaver with a
.22." "You must've been mistaken, couldn't have been MY Johnny." etc.)
>
>The more extreme efforts (saving gray whales trapped in arctic ice, flying
>hummingbirds from Alaska in winter) perhaps lend themselves to ridicule,
>because the cost/benefit ratio is unreasonable. We ask questions about
>cost/benefit ratios in saving people's lives, so we ought to ask them here
>as well.
>

I do agree on this one. Besides, as someone pointed out the last time this
thread came around, this is a more natural situation, not influenced by
humans. I think what alot of people don't realize about rehabbers is that we
don't believe (I guess I probably speak only for myself, my husband and
assorted rehabbers who've said this to me) in interfering in every event.
We don't just wander around rehabbing anything that is ill or wounded.

>
>Rehabbing makes rehabbers happy, and they have just as much right to feel
>happy in what they are doing as anyone else does.

I won't say this isn't true, there is a certain amount of satisfaction in
any job you do well. However, it's also extremely tiring and dangerous.
Rabies titers must be obtained to prevent that disease, there are several
other zoonosis diseases that have no preventative shots. We're bitten,
scratched, hit, attacked and otherwise at risk from handling these animals.
It really isn't a job taken on lightly.

Besides, there is another aspect of our jobs - rescue. Many times we simply
remove an animal from a manmade trap. Such as a goose anchored by fishing
line wrapped around its leg. We remove the line and the goose goes free.

>The publicity and some of the individual animals involved in rehabbing
>contribute in some positive ways to education, to which none of us should
>object.

Oddly, this is one of the hardest parts of our volunteer jobs. Education.
People simply do not believe what they're told. I had one woman who lived
in the middle of nowhere. She called because there were baby possums in her
yard. Well, for God's sake, she left dog food out all the time for her
poodle. Of course she had wild animals in her yard. She lived in the
forest and left food out. But, when I told her this, she wouldn't believe
me. She further wouldn't believe the young possums wouldn't hurt her dog.
Heavens, next to car accidents, dog & cat attacks are the biggest cause of
wild animal injury.
>
>On the SO WHAT? side:
>
>If it ends up as a weighing of the relative merits of saving time, money,
>personal energy or other resources for other endeavors vs. trying to save
>an individual life, I doubt that our judgments can be anything other than
>subjective.

This is true. We must want to do it to justify that kind of effort.

Where I would try to inject a bit more objectivity into
>rehabbing would be for people in general to be able to more accurately
>assess the probability of saving a life vs. the efforts put into doing
>so--a triage of sorts.

>Furthermore, as is typical of human endeavors, even the rehabbers don't
>agree. Some of them euthanize animals others would save. Or, one could
>put it that some of them attempt to save animals others would euthanize.


You are very wrong about this one. Rehabbers do not decide what will live
and what will die. The decision is made by a qualified vet licensed to work
with wild animals.

Alot of your arguments hold a certain amount of validity and Fish & Wildlife
has realized this as well. This is why we're required to have a certain
level of knowledge and expertise before we are granted a license. We must
pass a state test and jump through lots of hoops before obtaining a license
and federal permit to work with migratory/endangered species. It takes alot
of dedication, which is exactly what F&W is looking for. Rehab is no place
for "bunny hugging" housewives. It's serious business.

Also, keep in mind, it's not just secretaries, lawyers and birders who do
this. There is an entire science involved in the care of wild animals.
There are vets who go through years of training and then volunteer to handle
the medical intervention on animals in for rehab.

Guess the message is too long to say this is my 2 cents worth so I'll call
it my $2 worth!

Peggi
Ben & Peggi Rodgers
Veneta, OR
prodgers at efn.org

"A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer,
it sings because it has a song"