There have been many posts in the past about whether wildlife rehabilitation
has any effect on wildlife populations. Unless the species is limited by
factors other than habitat or is a species with so few members that all
individuals are critical for their genetic contribution, the consensus of
most biologists is that rehabilitation is a waste of conservation resources.

But, if you argue that rehabilitation of a native species has essentially no
effect, you can't turn around and argue that rehabilitation of a starling
WILL have an effect. The populations of starlings are controlled by large
landscape changes (loss of forest; creation of lawns, blah, blah, blah).
Rehabilitating one starling will have zero effect on starling populations.

For the people doing the rehabilitating, however, the experience can be an
educational and enjoyable. Many years ago, I rescued a baby house sparrow.
The bird was only a day or two old and had no feathers. I never released
him--he would have been socially inept--but I got a kick out of watching him
get feathers, learn to fly, and defend his territory (the house) from humans
he didn't know. He was a brave, aggressive bird, even to creatures that
outweighed him by orders of magnitude.

So, to the original poster, adopt the starling if you want the hassle, and
ignore the naysayers. Dog food is a good, more or less complete food if you
don't have any handy bugs. I like starlings, myself. They're beautiful and
melodious, and if I scorned and despised them, it would have no more effect
on their population than rehabilitating one would.

Passing soapbox back to the starling haters,
Kelly Cassidy