Peggi--

Well, since I started this thread, maybe I'll try to respond
to your concerns..


On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Peggi Rodgers wrote:

> 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.

I don't think there's a disagreement here...we all probably agree
the oil companies aren't spending enough money on safety..
What's that go to do with attempting to *de-oil* oiled waterfowl?
As Scott Richardson noted, it's more or less in vain as the
animals don't survive in any numbers that lead us to believe
emulsifying them is helping them...we may, in fact, be prolonging
their agony..


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.
>
..again, you lost me here..doesn't matter how the oil got on
the birds..and whether it's natural or not natural...the question
was *Is it worth it to soap 'em up and throw 'em back..?*
Dennis pointed out in his response to my post that it was the
belief of the rehabbers that they were doing good that mattered
to the rehabbers..if it makes you feel good and you really believe
you're making a significant contribution with your effort, than
by all means, keep on doing it..all many of us said was that we
questioned the overall effectiveness of that effort...the money
involved in that is a related matter, but one has to ask--from
a rational base-- are those dollars well spent. I said when I
posted that I was unsure and that I wanted to see some discussion
of this thought-provoking notion of whether rehabbing is
worthwhile enterprise..I think we're succeeding with that as I
see the arguments flash back and forth across the screen.



> 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).

no problem here...

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.

It'd be interesting to run those numbers out on a national
basis and see how much is spent on rehabbing...my guess is
we might be talking huge bucks if it would be possible to
combine all those funds...

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.
>
hmmm-mmmmm... I think I'll leave that one alone.. :)


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.

again...what does it matter how the animal is injured?
If it needs fixing and you have the time, initiative and
inclination, than try and fix it...but do it because you want
to do it, realizing that it might not make a difference...

> 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?
>
now, this is interesting... I wonder if it's true...
I think most people I know feed because they want the birds
to come in so they can observe them...I know folks who feed
all summer for that reason..they like the birds around their
yard...I wonder if that does contribute to the bird pop..i.e.
*artificially enlarging*... good point...something to
ponder.


> 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.
>
Well, Fish 'n Wildlife would have a problem justifying
budget allocations if there weren't any fish 'n wildlife.. :)

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.
>
I suppose we can donate to anything we want to..what the
heck..I didn't get the sense from prior posts that misdirected
money was the issue..it's certainly part of the issue..
What I think we've got going is one of those *Does the Emperor
have any clothes or not* arguments... those who feel compelled
to help are going to intervene and those who feel intervening
is fruitless are going to feel compelled to raise the issue
of how effective a response that is to the situation..as I
said earlier, I don't know if I've driven to MacLeary for the
last time..but, maybe I'll come to that in light of the thinking
this thread has stimulated. I guess if some of us want to
help, then they'll do it..but, they probably shouldn't count to
heavily on convincing those who think helping is
unnecessary, expensive and ineffective of their altruistic
motivation...it you choose to intervene, then you'll have to take
your lumps..

This is a really interesting thread..it has brought out a lot
of good information and although it may not have changed a lot
of our beliefs, is certainly has confronted our bias..I found
this to be a stimulating interchange and I thank all who
have contributed..

Tom
+++
Don's suggestion of getting involved in banding was a good
one. When I spent a day up on Diamond Point counting hawks, I got
to see an adult female Sharpshin up close..it was simply
breath-taking and I can see why someone would want to do
that..and you've got the data recorded to back up what you're doing..