I'll try to write this as unambiguously as possible to appease Mr. Baccus.

Required caveat:
The opinions expressed herein are my own, and I am not attempting to act
as the spokesperson for, or representative of, any particular
organization.

I get the impression that most of us-myself included-are feeling saturated
at this point by the turns this debate has taken. In that vein, I'm
going to try not to perpetuate it beyond this response. But I did think
that Michael brings up an interesting point about standard codes of
ethics. And I wanted a chance to reply to it.

All I can do is speak from my own breadth of experience regarding codes of
ethics and practice when caring for wild animals. What else CAN I do?

Typically, licensed rehabilitators follow adapted versions of the standard
of ethics outlined by the National Wildlife Rehabilitator's Association.
For those of you who care to see it, it's located at:
http://www.nwrawildlife.org/whoweare/ethics.asp. Admittedly, there is
some room for interpretation. I call your attention to the following
excerpts:

* A wildlife rehabilitator should respect other rehabilitators and persons
in related fields, sharing skills and knowledge in the spirit of
cooperation for the welfare of animals.
* A wildlife rehabilitator should place optimum animal care above personal
gain.
* A wildlife rehabilitator should work on the basis of sound ecological
principles, incorporating appropriate conservation ethics and an attitude
of stewardship.
* A wildlife rehabilitator should conduct all business and activities in a
professional manner, with honesty, integrity, compassion, and commitment,
realizing that an individual's conduct reflects on the entire field of
wildlife rehabilitation.

There are sections in this code of ethics that refer to "sound ecological
principles" and "appropriate conservation ethics." However, the standard
of ethics also mention "the welfare of animals," a "responsible concern
for living beings," and say that one should act "in a professional manner,
with honesty, integrity, compassion and commitment." I would also like to
point out that the NWRA does not at any point make specific references to
the native vs. non-native debate specifically.

As you can see, there is room for organizations to make different
interpretations of how those ethics manifest behavior and policy. Until
the other day, I was not aware of any rehabilitation
organization (caveat: that was not specialized to one variety of animal)
that made discriminating policy decisions based upon the species of wild
*animal* organism. Please note that I am not referring to viruses,
microorganisms, mosquitoes or dandelions, as that is not within the scope
of my experience or expertise!

However, after doing some research on the web in my (ha ha) free time, I
did find reputable rehabilitation centers that did specify that they
concentrate on native organisms. The Ohio Rehabilitator's Association
(http://www.ohiofund.org/OWRA.htm) was one of them.

By the same token, I have never had any experience with, or knowledge of,
the Portland, Oregon facility. They don't have a webpage, nor do
significant PR in my area. So how could I have known about them to begin
with, let alone their position on non-indigenous species? For goodness
sakes, be reasonable here.

In my experience, I have been taught and trained by organizations that do
not discriminate between native and non-native species. Admittedly, when
I first came to Bird Rescue of Huron Valley, and saw that they were
hand-raising starlings, I was somewhat taken aback. My mother had
instilled in me a stong bias against the species. But the rationale for
their policies ultimately shaped my own: every living being has value and
deserves respect. Everyone is equal. I grew to appreciate and agree with
those values. Hence, I defend them to this day.

My ethic is borne from my own feelings about living beings. We can argue
about minutiae until the next millenia, but ultimately, the point others
have made still stands: We all draw a line somewhere, it's just the
location on the spectrum that differs.

That's not to say that I don't comprehend rationales for people who
believe otherwise. I am not trying to impune anyone who has educated and
thoughtful opinions that are different from my own. Nor am I trying to
impune rehab facilities that have good and responsible ethics at heart.
Regardless, I spoke initially based upon my own experience and exposure.
I do not apologize for having said it, although I do regret that I
apparently misled Michael Hobbs.

Lastly, I try not to dictate that my attitudes affect others', except
where they cross into illegal behavior. Point in fact: If you're
poaching, you can bet your butt that I'm going to do something about it.
Whatever is in my power, in fact, without endangering myself or others.
But if you're hunting legally and with the proper permits, while I may
DISAGREE with the action, I'm not going to take personal measures against
you. Again, that line may move around (the makah whaling decision serves
as an example), even on my own personal spectrum.

I see no point in debating the "hunting vs. eating domesticated,
slaughtered meat" issue ad nauseum. I'm not interested in inquiries about
whether I consume meat, wear leather, or have or want children, for that
matter. It's irrelevant. I brought up the former to serve as an example.

In any case, I hope that explains somewhat where my initial post came
from. If you wish to discuss this further, please email me privately, as
I do not want to wear out my welcome on this list.

-Jacki Bricker
Woodinville, Washington


-----Original Message-----
From: TWEETERS-owner at u.washington.edu
[mailto:TWEETERS-owner at u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Hobbs
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 2:55 PM
To: Tweeters
Subject: Re: An opinion on opinions

I have to agree with those who said the opinion sounded like fact. I
inferred that there must be something to back up the statement. MY
thoughts, when I read the declaration, was that there was probably some
kind of governing body - the "American Association of Wildlife
Rehabilitators", or somesuch, who accredited the centers, and that "any
rehabbers worth their salt" would have meant "any which had been
accredited". I presumed the Association dictated
the policy in question. That was how I interpreted the statement.

It was a surprise to me that this had been a judgemental opinion upon
those who believed differently.

As for MY OPINION, there is no reason why people should not play god.
People created problems by introducing species. That was playing god. It
is therefore perfectly ethical to DO SOMETHING to alleviate those
problems, even if that means killing animals (humanely).

== Michael Hobbs
== Kirkland WA
== hummer at isomedia.com