This post has a backhanded pro-rehab slant. and because this thread has a
population/habitat vs. individual rehab polarization I want to emphasize
that I think habitat acquisition is incredibly important.

>> 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.?

Given all the disturbance to birds from birding it could be argued that a
dollar spent rehab(ing) is far better for wild birds than a dollar spent
birding, simply because it impacts them so little. Instead of birding we
should be rehabbing. Instead of either we should be acquiring.

Underlying much of this discussion is the assumption that doing nothing is
possible. It may be more true to assume that doing nothing is NOT an
option, at least in terms of resources. If you have a hundred dollars you
either spend it on something or you put it in the bank and let someone else
spend it. Impacts of how money or resources would be expended if not spent
on an option must be considered.

There are many, many things to spend money on that are less helpful to birds
than rehab. The fact that rehab absorbs money that might be spent on more
destructive hobbies is a plus. (It can be argued that one of the most
productive uses might be stashing money under the mattress and never
spending it. Even better might be refusing to be born.)

An important consideration is why the resources are being spent. Most of us
spend money (resources) for essentials, for pleasure, and for making the
planet a better place (tithing). Dennis' perspective would seem to be that
resources spent on rehab or on habitat acquisition are intended to meet the
same goals of making the planet a better place for wild animals. However, I
would argue that much of the money and resources spent rehabing are partly
tithing and partly pleasure. People have a powerful need to experience
nature, not just sit at home writing letters. Many of the people who
volunteer for the oiled bird recovery/rehab projects would probably have
driven similar distances to recreate somewhere if the rehab opportunity had
not occured. Tom might have driven a hour to go birding rather than take
the unlucky soul to the rehab center.

Personally there is only so much letter writing that I can take, and then it
is time to get out, often birding or kayaking. I find it hard to determine
direct benefits to wildlife from either of these activities (or most other
pleasureable activites), although there are certainly lots of indirect
benefits, and some direct negatives. I've funneled some of this energy into
stream restoration for salmon (another high resource, low payback activity).
Undoubtedly we should all work more, bird less and spend the money acquiring
habitat, but will we live in a better world if that is all we do? Personal
experience is a crucial need in this disconnected world, and it provides a
much stronger base for letter writing and monitary donation when the time
comes.

One last thought, related to oiled birds, is that rehab centers provide the
definitive word on what is not possible. It's definately better to be able
to show we tried and still a huge number died. To have 90% fatality with
best efforts would seem to reinforce the idea of prevention rather
rehabbing. It is my opinion that this message is getting out and that most
people view clean up efforts with cynicism. I think many people also view
the unmitigated impacts of oil spills as overblown by environmental types
and this is the issue that need's to be addressed.

"Value to Wild Bird Population Ranking"

1 Acquiring Habitat

2 Habitat Rehabing

3 Writing political letters
3 Rehabing
3 Being (not creating or spending resources)

4 Buying Things
4 Traveling
4 Driving to Seattle for the Yakathon
4 Birding (active disruption of birds in prime habitat without participation
in serious research)




Michael Kennedy <mikken at daka.com>
Port Townsend, WA, USA