On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Peggi & Ben Rodgers wrote:
> 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.

Actually, one of the largest rehabbing efforts ever (the de-oiling of
otters and birds after the Valdez oil spill) was followed. Glen Van
Blaricom told me that despite the *millions* of dollars spent de-oiling
(surely there's a better term for it than that?) otters, most of them died
anyway. The reason being that they (and seabirds) which live in cold
waters live right on the edge of hypothermia their whole lives. Their
fur/feathers, if working properly, keep them warm. But if the tiniest bit
of surface area is exposed (as happens when oil mats the fur/feathers),
their bodies rapidly cool down to deadly temperatures, despite the fact
that 95% of their coat may still be an effective barrier. Seabirds
undoubtedly faced a similar fate after being cleaned and released.

That's just one case. The point being that in most cases, by the time a
critter lets you catch it, it's very far gone. That is, like the Valdez
critters, they are at the end of their ropes, and died after cleaning
anyway. The other side is that you may be releasing critters (such as
young hawks) which were meant to be selected against anyway. Probably
they never really figured out how to hunt, and will just starve after
release anyway.

Surely there are exceptions. But for the most part, it's likely that the
majority of re-habbed critters were unfit for one reason or another, and
were meant to die. Hey, nature is brutal, things die.

Anyway, there is more to be said, especially about population sizes and
rehabilitated animal contributions (or lack of contribution) to them. And
the cost-benefits of such ventures (maybe the money would be better spent
trying to protect healthy animals' homes). But I got work to do.

-------------
Michael R. Smith
Univ. of Washington, Seattle
whimbrel at u.washington.edu
http://salmo.cqs.washington.edu/~wagap/mike/mike.html