|
What Good is Wildlife Rehabilitation?
Some years ago, I had a discussion with a woman in the
Public Relations department of the US Forest Service. She told me she was a
little envious of the work that we do because it was so "white hat" - i.e.,
non-controversial, seen as good and important work by all. Hah! Although I
can appreciate the difference between public perceptions of wildlife
rehabilitation and the Forest Service (hounded by the "big government" image
and bound to upset one interest group or another with many of its
decisions), our work is not universally supported. Ironically, the nay-sayers
are often conservationists and biologists.
Although I have come up against this issue several
times in the past, it surfaced for me most recently when I was interviewed
for a couple of articles. One for Horizon Air's in-flight magazine was about
raptors and rehabilitation in the Northwest; one was for a Cornell University newsletter on the pros and cons of wildlife rehabilitation. Questioning the value of a person's life work is likely to raise some
hackles, and it definitely did mine!
Locally, we rehabilitators are quite lucky to have an
excellent relationship with the conservation groups in the area (an
especially close one with Lane County Audubon). Biologists from the federal
agencies (Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Forest
Service), even the State Police and Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife,
have many, many times transported birds from all over the county to
rehabilitators. The Corps and Forest Service have both helped us more than
once return or foster young in wild nests - climbing trees, building nest
platforms, even climbing a ladder balanced in a boat...! CRC bands its
released birds courtesy of BLM, we occasionally get fish from the ODFW
hatcheries, and other food from the State Police evidence locker after the
prosecution of a poaching case. We do campground presentations and
participate in other educational events for the Forest Service, which has
also awarded us a grant for our education programs in each of the last seven
years.
The fact that this mutual respect and cooperation were
not universal, however, was brought home to me one spring when I attended a
breakfast meeting of biologists working for various agencies. I was asking
for assistance finding a great horned owl nest into which to foster a young
orphan. Whew!
Although many were receptive, one at least was quite
vocally opposed: because (1) great horned owls were common birds that have
caused problems with other, less common species such as spotted owls and
peregrine falcons; (2) he insisted climbing to a nest for such a reason
would be illegal, constituting harassment under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act; and (3) wildlife rehabilitation was a waste of time and resources
anyway.
In a subsequent one-on-one discussion, I assured him
that US Fish & Wildlife has said that fostering is a legitimate reason for
bothering nesting birds. (Biologists "bother" nests all the time, mind you,
to monitor, count, band, check food remains, etc., but that's "science," and
rehabilitation is not -- science serving a "greater" good somehow.) When
pressed on the "common species" argument, the biologist admitted that he
could see the value of rehabilitation for species such as spotted owls or
goshawks but considered our time wasted working with red-tailed hawks,
screech owls, and others whose populations are doing fine in the
human-altered landscape. I pointed out that I would be unlikely to have a
fully-functioning wildlife facility for the one goshawk that has been found
locally in 15 years, if I weren't also working with the more common
species. Nor would I have the experience to address the problems the rare
ones might have, if I hadn't worked with hundreds of others. It's also
unlikely that a member of the public finding an injured goshawk or peregrine
falcon would know we existed, if we weren't also there for the sharp-shinned
hawks or kestrels hitting their window.
This "specism," however, is only one aspect of the
argument against wildlife rehabilitation on the part of some members of the
scientific community. Another is the concern that we are working with
individual animals, having either no impact on the species' population as a
whole (yet utilizing resources that would be better spent protecting habitat
or population research) or, worse, having a negative impact by potentially
returning to the wild an individual that "natural selection" was removing as
unfit. Well, even a non-"ologist" such as I can tell you that they can't
have it both ways. Either rehabilitation has no impact because we are
primarily working with species whose population is so large that whether all
the rehabilitated individuals lived or died would make no statistically
significant difference OR we have as much chance of making a positive impact
as a negative one. Personally, I and most rehabilitators would agree that
even the millions of animals with which we have collectively worked probably
have made no statistically measurable impact on most species. Of course, I
do have a friend in Arizona who rehabilitated one of the California
condors recently released at the Grand Canyon...!
Rehabilitators have made a difference to millions of individual animals,
however -- why is that not important? The ultimate specism, of course, is
anthropocentrism ("considering human beings as the most significant entity
of the universe," according to my very old Websters Collegiate Dictionary.) Despite the vast overpopulation of humans these days, any of us would stop
to help a child injured beside the road.
Why not the raccoon,
squirrel, hawk or eagle?
To me, the fact that so many humans care about injured
or orphaned wildlife is what pulls me out of the depression I fall into
whenever I consider the fact that our own population has just passed the six
billion mark. Which takes me to one of the strongest arguments for wildlife
rehabilitation, in my opinion: the very fact that rehabilitators and
rehabilitation facilities exist is an affirmation to members of the public
finding an injured animal that caring about wildlife is appropriate. Most
state wildlife agencies cannot respond to the public's demand that injured
wildlife be helped; in fact, there are many instances where a wildlife
agency's response is to kill an animal that might otherwise be saved. That,
in turn, does no good for the agency's public image and is probably one of
the reasons rehabilitation is tolerated; few agencies embrace it fully,
though this is changing. We have made definite strides towards being
considered partners in conservation.
This fact is not at all restricted to the United
States, North America, or even the developed countries. Being on the
Internet, I get e-mail from all over the world.
My favorite recent case was an architect in Turkey who found an injured
sparrowhawk (an accipiter like our sharp-shinned hawk, not known for its easy care in
captivity). He took photographs and sent them electronically so I could
identify the bird; I did my part for Greco-Turkish relations by introducing
him, via e-mail, to a rehabilitator in Greece more familiar with the
indigenous species; on our advice, the architect constructed appropriate
short-term housing to protect feathers and feet, found live food (quail)
for the bird in the markets of Istanbul and got him, finally, to eat. Between the three of us we got that bird successfully rehabilitated and
released! There is also wildlife rehabilitation going on in Mexico and
Belize, Thailand and throughout Africa.
There are people everywhere who care about their
native animals. Thanks to the Internet, these people no longer have to work
in isolation, re-inventing the wheel with each new species or type of injury
they see. The Turkish architect plans to spend his vacation at the
rehabilitation facility in Greece, to learn more. If he has the interest
and time to establish a rehabilitation effort in Turkey, it will spread. Spreading conservation values will help decrease incidents like his, where
he had to convince the grocer whose window the sparrowhawk hit not to keep
or sell the bird as a pet. In Greece, education of children has become a
priority, involving whole schools, even villages, in the release of birds
found nearby, so that the next generation will be less likely to shoot the
many birds that come through on migration.
Wildlife
rehabilitators are also in a prime position to monitor circumstances that
might evade the scientific community:
for example, a rehabilitator in Connecticut turned in the first confirmed
case of West Nile Virus in the state. West Nile Virus is a zoonotic disease
which has been recently documented for the first time in the Western
Hemisphere; it is spread by mosquitoes and effects birds as well as people. The virus has been concentrating in New York, and has so far affected 17
different bird species, as well as causing an encephalitis in humans. Scientists have expressed a great deal of concern that birds migrating
through New York could spread the virus down south, where mosquitoes are
active longer. Rehabilitators can help monitor this, if appropriately
informed. [This article was first written in 2000 - West Nile Virus is now,
at the end of 2004, found throughout most of North America, the Caribbean,
and points south.]
After an initial panic on the part of public health
authorities,
rehabilitators have been responsible for helping to
slow the spread of rabies in the epizootic outbreak in the Middle Atlantic states. Rehabilitators have been whistle-blowers in
flagrant violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by identifying large numbers of gunshot or poisoning victims coming from a
specific area.
Rehabilitators have been instrumental in getting lead
shot banned at federal wildlife refuges,
due to the high number of lead poisoned waterfowl and raptors that were
coming in for help. Locally, rehabilitators
help contain the cyclical outbreak of canine distemper in the raccoon population, which also affects fox and coyotes, weasels and
mink, and, obviously, domestic dogs. Rehabilitators are uniquely positioned
to monitor and report new and continuing outbreaks in diseases, such as Coot
and Eagle Brain Lesion Syndrome (vacuolar myelinopathy), avian cholera, and
botulism. Rehabilitators providing information on non-target victims of
products such as Rid-a-Bird have resulted in the product being outlawed in
most states.
Certainly saving habitat and other large scale efforts
should continue to be high priority. However, equally important is showing
the public what they can do as individuals. Sometimes the global situation
can be so disheartening that providing small individual, local actions can
help keep apathy at bay. Creating backyard habitat with native plants that
produce food and shelter for wildlife, keeping cats inside and dogs on
leashes, avoiding the use of barbed wire or making it more visible, making
windows safer for birds, eliminating the use of pesticides or herbicides,
restricting pruning and landscaping to the non-nesting season ... there are
many individual actions that can be taken that add up to respecting the
needs of, leaving room for, and learning to live with wildlife. We also,
obviously, encourage saving individual birds that hit the window or animals
that are found beside the road by taking them to a licensed rehabilitator. People taking these steps will naturally care about the wider spaces, the
bigger picture because they have seen the value of it in their own backyard;
they have had the privilege of saving that baby squirrel, or seeing that owl
return to the wild. Certainly, rehabilitators are not alone in fostering
this "think globally, act locally" attitude toward habitat and wildlife. However, for people who do not subscribe to birding or conservation magazines, the local rehabilitator is an important resource.
By the way, the only objection to wildlife
rehabilitation I have heard addressed by the general public was a concern
that we were "interfering with nature" or that we should "let nature take
its course." They are perhaps thinking we are out there rescuing the
antelope from the cheetah or the squirrel from the hawk -- the nature "red
in tooth and claw" that they see on nature documentaries. The truth is we
very rarely see animals injured in a natural predator/prey situation unless
a human intervenes, which we definitely don't encourage. We almost always
have to euthanize the victim of such an attack because of the severity of
its injuries; thus the "savior" has probably caused the death of two
animals, since the predator now has to go catch another one!
Yes, we may occasionally rescue a naive young predator
who just does not yet have it together and is simply starving. For these,
we are providing a second chance --but if they are truly genetically weaker,
a second chance is probably not enough to keep them in the gene pool long
enough to contaminate it.
For the most part, the vast majority of animals
finding their way to rehabilitators have been injured or orphaned because of
human-related problems. What rehabilitators are doing, most of the time, is
trying to redress problems caused by humans and our lifestyle -- our cars,
windows, power lines, traps, fishing line... our thoughtlessness or
carelessness or failure to consider the impact of our actions on the other
99% of the earth's inhabitants. Those who think eagles should "learn" to
discriminate against perching on power poles, for example, or stop hunting
beside the road, should remember that such natural selection may take eons. It doesn't have much of a chance of working when humans keep changing the
playing field. One thing rehabilitation is doing, in those areas where it is
regulated, is keeping animals out of the hands of the well-meaning but
ignorant public. Untrained people have fed cows milk to every mammal, and
even birds, or tried to raise baby raptors on hamburger, have smuggled
potentially rabid animals into new areas or released imprinted birds or ones
not able to recognize their natural food. In many places, licensed
rehabilitators have to pass tests, meet continuing education requirements,
have their facilities inspected, and have to build those facilities to
certain standards.
There are, of course, still good and bad
rehabilitators, just as there are good and bad scientists. Gone are the
days, for the most part (although I have a few recent horror stories I could
share) when scientists would shoot 3,000 broadwing hawks in order to examine
their stomach contents; or cut down nest trees to count screech owl eggs. Most science tries to be as non-invasive as possible, I hope. Not all
rehabilitators have chosen to invest in their own continuing education and
some might be using outdated techniques or inadequate diets. They may not
all have the funds for adequate housing and some might be releasing animals
before they are ready. Some rehabilitators may not have the ethics to see
that non-releasable wild animals have a right to euthanasia (or may let
their personal death issues get in the way) and might be keeping animals in
captivity that would be better off put to sleep. Some rehabilitators may
still deserve the 'bunny-hugger' label and might not be capable of taking
the steps necessary to keep young animals from habituating or imprinting on
humans. These are the cases that get thrown in our face by biologists who
object to wildlife rehabilitation.
However, the vast majority of wildlife rehabilitators
are active seekers, constantly striving to improve their ability to meet the
needs of the animals entrusted to their care through better information,
more networking, better diets, better housing and conditioning, better
medicines and surgical techniques as more veterinary schools devote class
time to wildlife medicine. As the public becomes educated (often by
programs presented by rehabilitators), they become more demanding. Most
regulatory agencies are finding that the public insists that injured or
orphaned wildlife receive care. My only concern is that people causing
problems for wildlife (poisons, windows, cats, barbed wire, oil spills) must
not be allowed to think their responsibility ends by finding help for the
injured; they must also take responsibility for preventing further
problems.
In summary, I think wildlife rehabilitation does both
quantifiable and non-quantifiable "good." Quantifiable are the numbers of
animals helped, suffering eased, the number returned to the wild. Also
countable are the number of phone calls -- each one an opportunity to
educate the public -- about "nuisance" animals as well as injured or
orphaned, many providing a chance to tell people when not to intervene, as
well as when it is appropriate. We know how many finders want to be present
at a release, but cannot know how saving the life of this one animal impacts
the rest of their lives.
We can count the number of people attending
educational presentations, but not the number of hearts that have been moved
by the true stories we tell, nor the future actions that have changed
because of them. We can count the number of dollars raised by a local
school for "their" mascot falcon but not the next step that might be taken
to start a recycling center at the school, to have a class "adopt" an acre
of rainforest, or to have one child go on to study biology or electrical
engineering and be instrumental in making power poles and lines safe for
raptors.
We cannot count the
good that comes from fostering the idea of caring for a living being that
you also have the power to destroy.
Louise Shimmel
|
|
