In response to:

>From: ivan & dana shukster <shukster at mail.awinc.com>

>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?
>

You have by far provided, without lengthy explanation, the clearest
response to the "us vs. rehabbers" discussion I have been witnessing on
Tweeters these last few days.

Education was the ONLY reason I got involved with wildlife rehabilitation
at Portland Audubon, and only because it was some means, albeit slight, to
attempt connection with the public concerning living with urban wildlife.
For many reasons, the consistent habitat conservation issues presented in
the traditional advocacy style have not always reached the general target
audience. In many situations, the general public has a more "acquisitive"
versus "inquisitive" attitude towards nature and wildlife in nature.
Attempting to generate understanding re the cold hard facts of nature to a
family group with "their" pet scrub jay, which, for example, may be a
non-thriving juvenile, is not an easy task, but we always made the attempt.
We never squirmed around the issues of euthanasia in regard to starving
juveniles loaded with parasites, or irreparable wing fractures, etc. etc.
(I no doubt assume you have all heard this before)--when these individuals
were brought to the rehabilitation center. We also never "guilded the
lily" with the public either--if they found injured wildlife in the wild,
without evidence of human cause (fishing line, car hit, small child
removing wings with scissors( I kid you not), that kind of thing), my
policy was that they be politely requested to leave that animal in the
wild, and given reasons why we thought this appropriate. (I set myself up
here for stories from all of you concerning just how this was not the
treatment you received at the Wildlife Care Center--I can only hope you
understand I am going for generalities here--please be merciful) There is
no way anyone can "bend" the public "to their will," but over time, I
actually did feel that some of this education was successful (for those of
you who wish success stories, contact me).

I left the program because I no longer had the energy to devote to a 14
hour a day, 7 day a week job--and this is what it was--work, not an
avocation. I agree, the past reputation of wildlife
rehabilitation--putting time and energy into isolated members of a larger
population for personal feelings of "doing the right thing," has caused
major damage to the groups of people out there who are trying to educate
the public about nature and natural history. The responsibility lies with
the permitting agencies--state and federal--to make some attempt at
regulating the numbers of people out there with permits to rehab one robin
a year. (Having worked with one of those agencies for eight years, I
realize how hard that is to do, but there are materials and methods that
help streamline the situation.)

I was reluctant to jump into this (five very intense years of balancing two
communities of conservationists has left some initial scar tissue, so I
apologize for the length of this response), but wanted to note the benefits
of hands on education--many people out there may not realize the scope of
contact that is made through such programs.