On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Peggi Rodgers wrote:

> OK, I'm back on an unemotional footing today so here goes!
>
> At 07:55 AM 7/22/96 -0700, Tom wrote:
> >
> >And isn't
> >> the main benefit of rehabbers and rehab centres is to educate the public in
> >> the need to consider wildlife?
> >>
> >> Now this is an interesting supposition...I can see how a
> > rehab facility could possibly be a teaching tool, but
> > most of them are so busy they don't have time to conduct
> > any kind of outreach..
> >
>
> Actually, Tom, nearly all facilities have an education program. We have a
> volunteer who goes to, primarily, elementary schools (we do work with older
> children but the interest tends to differ with teenagers) with live,
> nonreleasable animals, and teaches the children about that, and other
> animals, the environment, how we all fit together in it, what we can do to
> help maintain and/or replace it, and the like.
>
> It's very structured and well presented. We present to the staff of the
> local humane society and any other group that requests our presence. We
> have ads on TV and radio. There is quite a bit of education going on.
>
Peggi--

I like this aspect a lot..and as I raised the point in other
posts, I still pose the question whether full time activity
of this sort for the people involved in rehabbing, wouldn't be more
helpful in the long run than the rehabbing effort itself? As I said
earlier, I'm still trying to get a handle on this one..

[snip..]

If someone finds a birds nest, for instance, we
> usually advise they replace it in the tree (as Mike did on his own). If
> they find a bird that's fallen from the nest we advise them to replace it
> rather than bring it in.
>
perhaps Mike's suggestion that he might have been responsible for
relacing the gene for poor nest building was tongue in cheek.

> The problem is that there are alot of old wives tales out there. The
> biggest being that if you handle a baby bird the parents will "smell" your
> scent and abandon it. This, of course, isn't true (unless you happen to
> find a vulture). But most people believe it to be gospel. These are the
> kinds of things we try to correct.
>
I have heard that one, but in reference to baby seals on the beach.

> I think you'll find that nearly all facilities and licensed rehabbers offer
> this kind of information and education to the public.
>
don't know about that...the education in this area seems low
profile and every time I've been to MacLeary, everyone there is
burned out and busy...

I talked to a local vet who tells me people are still bringing him hawks
> that have been shot..
> >
> And he will continue to receive these as long as people are under the
> mistaken impression that raptors and mammal preditors are responsible for
> loss of domestic cattle and sheep. Sometimes it seems that no matter how
> hard to try to impress people with the fact that the domestic kills are just
> a small part of a preditors diet, they simply refuse to believe it; feeling
> the only way to solve the problem is to kill all the preditors.>
> But that's another soapbox.
>
I don't think it's another soapbox at all..it's part of the
discussion.. i.e., wouldn't we be better off spending our time
and resources on educating kids so they don't grow up to be
hawk shooters...

It's a difficult concept for people to grasp...it's so much
easier to respond to an emotional initiative...remember that
what started me down this road was a discussion with a
colleague biologist who, when I lamented 80 % of raptors and
passerines don't survive their first year, informed me that
80 % of everything doesn't make it..that's how it works..
That doesn't necessarily mean we should throw up our hands
and give up..but what it does signal to me is a serious
examination of cause and effect. i.e., if injured birds
and other animals are needing attention, then perhaps rather
than spend the time and allocation or resources with treating
the symptoms (the injured birds) we can reallocate the time,
energy, resources, money, whatever, to the problem--lack
of understanding on the part of the populace regarding the
importance of how it all hangs together and depends on
habitat preservation etc..I still don't see a rationale
other than Dennis' suggestion that it makes rehabbers
feel good to do it, that makes a lot of sense to me..and
I agree with Dennis and others, that if rehabbers want
to do it, and it makes them feel good, then it's okay
for them to do it..however, I also add that it doesn' t
change, or satisfy to any degree, my original question
about the possibilty of realigning resources to deal with
the problem (lack of education) than getting sidetracked
with the symptoms...injured birds..it's a tough one. There
are few of us who could resist coming to the aid of an
injured bird.

Let's see..

I drive an injured Pine Siskin 50+ miles roundtrip to the
rehabbers who tell me it's probably a goner anyway..
so I wonder... hmmmm-mmmmmm...

the result:

one dead bird
more exhaust pollution in the environment
wear and tear on my car
bucks out of pocket for fuel, wear & tear
1 1/2 hours of my life invested in the project

hmmm-mmmmmm...

What if I ignored the bird, sent $10 to Black Hills
Audubon or Mike Waller for Zoo outreach to schools,
and picked up trash on the highway for an hour? :)

Tom