jla@inuxd.UUCP (Joyce Andrews) (05/27/88)
It's been a busy couple of weeks at the Florida Keys Wild Bird Rehabilitation Center. We've taken in a MESS of baby birds, either fledged too soon or injured. We have some kind of fly catcher (too young to identify for sure...shows some cinnamon coloration in the tail...anyone care to try?) that is eating everything in sight. We lost one young woodpecker, and we are afraid that the bits of chicken might have been tainted. It's one of the foods that we buy right here at the local super market. The ones we buy from suppliers don`t give us the problem The baby owls are fun to feed, if you can get past the process of slicing frozen mice. Actually, the brain sections are kind of interesting...:-) Now...your input. Audabon and Fish and Game say we are keeping too many. We have sixteen pelicans with amputated wings who can never be released. We have an osprey and a broad-winged hawk that are permanent residents. We have a turkey vulture that may be permanent. A number of sea gulls have to live here forever. The powers that be say that if the bird cannot be safely returned to the wild, we should euthanize right away, even if it is otherwise healthy. In other words, don't amputate a mutilated wing...euthanize the bird. They aren't telling us we have to, just making the suggestion. We DO have a crowding problem, making it harder to rehabilitate the ones that will be able to be released. Those of us who volunteer our time are kicking the idea around...and I told them I would ask you for your input. Should we euthanize all birds that will never be returned to the wild (excluding, of course, those that can be used for education purposes or captive breeding programs), thereby freeing time for those that CAN be saved as wild birds? Or should we try to conserve life, no matter how confining? What is your opinion? -- Joyce Andrews King ihnp4!inuxd!jla AT&T, Indianapolis
john@oravax.UUCP (John Gregoire) (05/31/88)
In article <1206@inuxd.UUCP>, jla@inuxd.UUCP (Joyce Andrews) writes: > We have some kind of fly > catcher (too young to identify for sure...shows some cinnamon > coloration in the tail...anyone care to try?) Suggest you contact a local bander who should be able to key out your flycatcher. > > Now...your input. Audabon and Fish and Game say we are keeping > too many. We have sixteen pelicans with amputated wings who can > never be released. We have an osprey and a broad-winged hawk > that are permanent residents. We have a turkey vulture that may > be permanent. A number of sea gulls have to live here forever. > The powers that be say that if the bird cannot be safely returned > to the wild, we should euthanize right away, even if it is otherwise > healthy. In other words, don't amputate a mutilated > wing...euthanize the bird. ... We DO have a crowding problem, > making it harder to rehabilitate the ones that will be able to be > released. Should > we euthanize all birds that will never be returned to the wild > (excluding, of course, those that can be used for education > purposes or captive breeding programs), thereby freeing time for > those that CAN be saved as wild birds? Or should we try to > conserve life, no matter how confining? What is your opinion? > Joyce, I believe you have answered your own question. Rehab is great and you folks do a tremendous job BUT don't be trapped into running a zoo at the expense of rehabbing those you can release; that is the purpose of your efforts. For history, I can cite two excellent rehab sites, one raptor, one general, in the Md and Va areas that no longer help any birds...why?...they became inundated with unreleasable animals. Please keep up the good work for those you CAN release, turn over to captive breeding programs or to educxational endeavors. The last point is sticky in that too many rehab centers carry their "educational" birds too far in that the poor things become a travelling side show instead of being cared for ata nature center or other public education facilities. Good Luck. John