August 2008
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 certainly prevented the extinction of several bird species killed by commercial hunting in the early part of the last century. Now, few people talk of getting rich by collecting bird feathers or eggs. The birds are now facing an even greater threat, loss of habitat by human intervention. Southern California once had two hundred miles of contiguous wetlands, but now almost every species is in a state of continuous decline. There just isn't enough connected open space to maintain a viable population. Surviving wild animals are being forced into suburban and urban life in greater numbers. In addition to loss of habitat, many animals are accidentally killed and injured by human contrivances and pollution every day.
Michael Novacek, a paleontologist, is senior vice president and provost of the American Museum of Natural History. He wrote this article in the Washington Post THE SIXTH EXTINCTION It Happened to Him. It's Happening to You. He is the author of "Terra: Our 100-Million-Year-Old Ecosystem -- and the Threats That Now Put It at Risk." Extinction of as many as half of earth's current species by the middle of this century is underway.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act does nothing to mitigate the twenty-first century problems, but its Draconian language does a lot of harm. The law doesn't allow possession, transportation, or treatment of injured or disabled wild animals without a license. This has spawned a new genre of political activist organizations called "animal rehabilitators." One organization will control a wide area, since government agencies and private veterinarians won't touch a wild animal. It is, after all, illegal. The basis for licensing is corrupt, since the first step to obtain a rehabilitator license in California is to get a statement from the existing animal rehabilitation agency saying that another is needed. It's like requiring permission from Wal Mart to build a new Target store! The existing agency has autonomous control of what they do.
It can be difficult to find, and even more difficult to deal with a wildlife organization. They present the appearance and management of a large political fund raising and publicity agency, with little interest in animals. In fact, These agencies have a small number of unpaid volunteers who struggle to do what the ordinary person would think would be the main mission of such an agency. If you are in the situation where wild animals are being killed on a daily routine, or actually have an injured animal in hand, you probably won't be able to figure out what to do. The agency's web site or monthly publication won't tell you what to do. If you call the "emergency" phone number, nobody will answer for weeks. If you call the business office, a subordinate employee will answer but refuse to give any information. These animal rehabilitation and rescue agencies only alienate and intimidate the general public.
There are no government agencies, investors, or clients who will come forward to complain about bad service. The rehabilitators do whatever they want. They don't need to communicate with the public to tell people how to use their services. They don't need to support their volunteers by giving them telephones, space on the web site, or public service advertising that would tell how they operate. We need a new name for "non-profit" organizations. You can't help make a profit if you have a company where employees work for free and people give you money for nothing, and the government gives you an exclusive license so nobody can compete with you.
The result is that most reasonable people will dispose of an injured animal elsewhere, rather than driving across the county to a "care center" knowing that nobody is there, because they don't answer the telephone.
That was my experience in the winter of 2005.
Many wild animals, when considered as individuals, fall into tragic situations caused by human activity. Our sense of fairness and morality gives great appeal to the very small effort on our part that would help one survive. Everyone knows that many common bird species have been reduced in numbers by 85 to 95 percent, and will certainly become extinct. Unfortunately this law prevents the great many people who would be willing to keep a disabled animal on an individual basis where this would be otherwise workable. Reasonable people will and should always view these animal and environmental activists with suspicion, and question their motives. People shouldn't allow special interest groups, animal activists, and other politicians to profit from the certain demise of wild animals.
Thoughtful individuals around the world who happen to pick up and care for injured or crippled wild birds, live in secrecy and fear that the animal they try to save will be confiscated and killed by the government. Whether the individual is aware of the laws and political hierarchy involved doesn't matter, the impact is the same. Tata, the world's oldest crow is an example of your tax money at work. Once in a while, a success story shines out, but anyone who devotes his life to wild birds will have a miserable life. If you are thinking of donating to a non profit organization, first sign up to be a volunteer as I did, and find out how the organization works and what it really does.
Index: