At 05:37 PM 5/14/99 -0700, Jacki Bricker wrote:

>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.

Thank you. I think we're on the same page, now. The code of
ethics for rehabbers skates gingerly around the issue because
there's no consensus on it.

[snip]

>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

www.audubonportland.org

>, nor do significant PR in my area.

Portland is, after all, in Oregon.

>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.

You made a statement of fact, that "no rehabilitator worth their
salt" turns away non-native wildlife. I refuted it by example.

It appears that my refutation, as well as angering you, has led
you to do some research and to learn more about wildlife rehabilitation.
Is that a bad thing?

>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.

Your personal ethics are your business, and I certainly would be
the last person to try to convince you to change them.

[snip]

>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.

I presume by this people have been bugging you in private e-mail?
Oh well...I have not, as you know.




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