On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, David Wright wrote:

> There are arguably better uses for the money spent each year on
> rehabbing, but much money is spent *birding*? Wouldn't that money
> be better spent buying habitat, etc.?

David--

I'm not sure that really addresses the argument I posed
in my original post...I was questioning the effectiveness
of rehabbing and what, if anything, the spin off good
was, as a result of the energy and resources
that go into that. There have been several posts since
then which address the various aspects of interfering
with the natural process to *save* the injured bird..
It really looks to me like it's questionable in terms
of the good that effort does. As Dennis pointed out
it makes the rehabbers feel good..just like it made
me feel good to drive that Pine Siskin to MacLeary..whether
or not it was helpful to the Siskin remained to be
seen...the news wasn't good when the rehabber checked
it out..chances are it died anyway.. So, perhaps
Dennis' point about it making us feel good is
accurate, but I don't think I see, so far, a cogent and
succinct argument that justifies it other than people
want to, or are compelled to, do it. I just puzzled
over whether the effort was worth it in terms of birds
successfully returned to the environment and I don't
yet see a convincing rationale that sways me to think
so. As I said, I'm still puzzling over this one..I
don't think I could ignore an injured bird, but I
would think about the circumstance in light of the
new information and the discussion I've seen back and
forth on the net. And, maybe I've made my last trip
to MacLeary..I don't know for sure.


I don't think we're in any position to be throwing stones at rehabbers.
>
I don't think we're throwing stones at rehabbers..they
do what they do out of a commitment to being of assistance
in what they perceive to be, a need. Some of us are simply
asking the question, "Who benefits by this action?" And, I
think there's substantial evidence in some of the posts
I've seen to answer.."the people who do it..and not necessarily
the birds they do it for"..(which becomes *do it to* in some cases)

It's a hard question and it needs discussion and rumination
and lots of interchange...sometimes it takes a little heat
to get some light..

Tom