>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.? I don't think we're in any
>position to be throwing stones at rehabbers.
>
>David Wright

David speaks to the core of one of my comments on rehabbing. Rehabbing is
done because a lot of people want to do it, and get joy from it--just like
birding. That describes a tremendous amount of human endeavors, and even
curmudgeons like me try to cultivate some understanding of this. For a
current example, why do we spend millions of dollars on the Olympics? Not
because it inherently makes the world a better place but because a whole
lot of people like it, and it's not horrendously harmful. Rehabbing is a
lot kinder and gentler than much of what we do and deserves high praise
just for that reason, even if it's not a panacea for wildlife.

I think the oil-spill example is the one that perhaps needs to be examined
with the most critical eye. It's certainly the rehabilitaton effort with
the highest--if only sporadic--profile. More popular articles need to be
written in Audubon, National Wildlife, etc. (also on TV), about the
futility of this activity and the need for turning the money that's used
for it into more environmentally sound endeavors. To my knowledge, Steve
was correct in stating that there are now people who are specialists in
oil-spill rehabbing who make a (sometime) living out of it. They are not
going to be the people who blow the whistle on it.

Dennis Paulson, Director phone 206-756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax 206-756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416