Well, I get the feeling I'm outnumbered here!

That aside, I'd like to address a couple of points. First: There
seems to be a great deal of discussion regarding the "saving oiled animals"
thing. This is a very small part of rehabbing. I, for one, have never
seen an oiled animal let alone rehabbed one. I still maintain that it's
not the rehabilitation of these animals that is causing the problem. The
problem is greed on the part of the oil companys who WILL NOT spend the
money to transport their product safely. Additionally, and emotionally,
how can you all say that this is a natural event and therefore anyone
trying to save these unfortunate creatures is working against nature. I've
never heard of a natural oil spill. What we're trying to do is offset the
negative effects on the environment created by people and industry.

Secondly, not everyone wants to give to human-related charities. I'm
sorry, folks, but I believe humans have a far better chance of taking care
of themselves that do the animals we work so hard to displace (my aspestos
underwear is on so fire away). Could the money be better spent in
protecting habitat? Yes, I would say, definitely, yes. But we're not
talking huge quanities of bucks here. Willamette Wildlife works on less
per year (all donated by the way) than we would consider a living wage.
Realistically, how much "protection" would that buy? Where can you even
purchase an acre for less than $50,000? In addition to all of that, there
are people who feel that animals are far more worthy of support,
protection and rehabilitation than are people. In other words, they like
animals better. Therefore, I don't believe the rehab funds are
inappropriately directed.

Just how natural is it for a mother duck to cross the road and get hit by
a car, thereby orphaning her whole brood? The thing is, animals don't
understand how to deal with human-made obstacles. This includes cars,
windows, dogs, cats, etc.

Like I said the last time this came up. We rehabilitate animals that are
rendered injured or orphaned mostly due to human causes NOT natural causes.
And, from a more emotional point, why not try? What does it really hurt?
We're artifically enlarging the avian population with our feeders and we're
artifically decreasing the population with our way of life. Does it even
out? Who knows?

Do all the birds one rehabilitates thrive and do well? I doubt it. I
work primarily with waterfowl and I figure there's probably a large
percentage of them who fall prey to hunters in the fall. Does this mean I
shouldn't save them? Somehow I don't think Fish & Wildlife and Ducks
Unlimited would think so.

But I guess what I really can't understand, and what quite frankly
surprises me to hear you guys say, is how money donated for any cause an
individual believes to be important is misdirected.

Peggi