At 15:17 96-07-19 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>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
>
I think that if you check with rehabbers you will see that the majority of
birds in for rehab are from human causes, either direct ( shot , hit by
vehicles) or indirect (windows, power lines)
The question is if rehab is interferring with nature are we expecting birds
to evolve to be able to avoid human structures and activities? And isn't
the main benefit of rehabbers and rehab centres is to educate the public in
the need to consider wildlife?