At 07:58 AM 5/13/99 -0700, Jacki Bricker wrote:

>2. That having been said, Scott, I do want to mention that any wildlife
>rehabilitator worth their salt does not display preferential treatment of
>one species over another.

Thank you for pointing out that the Wildlife Care Center at Portland
Audubon is run by people "not worth their salt".

(the center has a native-species only policy except for squirrels,
which it brokers out to individuals interested in doing squirrel
rehab)

It is your OPINION that "real rehabbers" don't display preferential
treatment towards native species.

While it may be your opinion, it is not fact that all rehabbers
agree with your opinion.

You're digging yourself in so deep I'm not even going to offer
to lend you a shovel...

> It's not our right to play God, and decide who is
>"worth" saving and who isn't.

Then we shouldn't rehab at all, should we? Because by rehabbing,
we are deciding that the rehabbed animal should live, rather than
die - i.e. rehabbing is playing God, by your definition.

Walk the talk, if you believe the talk - stop rehabbing.

[snip]

>3. However, as a side note, I do want to add that people of western European
>decent have been introduced into this area; the same as scotch broom,
>starlings, and house sparrows (and, I might add, are more damaging per
>capita to the native environment). If you're advocating not assisting
>introduced species, does that also mean that you wouldn't help an injured
>Caucasian person?

Native Americans are an introduced species as well.

Animals aren't people, anyway.

> In my opinion, it's the right and ethical thing to do.

Thank you for finally inserting that all important word - "opinion".

To state that your opinion is authoritative is yet another way to
play God, and since you claim that playing God is bad, do take care
when you insist on having special insight into what is right and
what is wrong.




- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net