[BCNnet] FW: Trailside....

[Jane & John Balaban]

FORWARDED WITH PERMISSION

-----Original Message-----
From: Jill Anderson [mailto:jilla@uic.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:44 PM
To: balx2@comcast.net
Subject: Trailside....

Hi Jane,
I share your concerns about Trailside Museum. From my experience and 
observations, it appears that  an inordinate amount of resources (time, 
money, supplies) is spent on the rehab of nuisance species such as 
raccoons, opossums, rabbits and squirrels.
Valued and limited resources are also spent on the rehab of "common" 
species such as robins, and non-native species such as house finches and 
house sparrows.
As a designated rehab facility, Trailside must accept these animals when 
they are brought in. Because of a limited budget, Trailside is primarily a 
Rehabilitation Center, and to a lesser extent, a Nature Center.  This is a 
different situation than at other Nature Centers, such as Little Red 
Schoolhouse or River Trail Nature Center. Because these latter Nature 
Centers are not burdened with rehab responsibilities, they are able to 
provide quality community education and programming within their budgets.

My personal belief is that community education has a far greater impact on 
the next generation (see Chicago Wilderness's article on Conservation 
Psychology) than "saving" an individual squirrel or rabbit. In fact, a 
focus on the latter - without education - may send an incorrect message 
about how best to protect and preserve our natural habitats.
As an example: Trailside rehabbed and released an immature mute swan last 
Spring. The swan was released in good health to the pond behind Trailside. 
The community immediately rushed in to throw bread at this "exotic" 
species. The swan ate the bread to the exclusion of "natural" food, and 
died. A post-mortem examination concluded that the swan died of starvation.
Such incidents lead me to believe that community education is a better way 
to spend the allocated Trailside budget, rather than exhausting the budget 
on the rehab of nuisance, non-native, or common species.
There are some who maintain that a rehab facility is NEEDED in the near 
Western Suburbs. The reality is that the majority of animals brought to a 
suburban nature center are EXPECTED to fall into one of the 3 categories of 
nuisance, common or non-native species, because these are the kinds of 
animals most commonly encountered in the suburbs.
Trailside does occasionally receive an animal requiring rehab that does not 
fall into the above 3 categories. When endangered species DO arrive, the 
staff is limited in their resources to help.

It would make more sense for Trailside to transport the occasional rare, or 
endangered species to the nearby Brookfield Zoo, which is due south of the 
facility and owned by the FPDCC. That is because Trailside staff, despite 
quality training, is poorly equipped to rehab animals from ANY category, 
due to serious budget and staffing deficits.
Regardless of who manages the Trailside budget, the types of animals 
brought to the facility will remain the same.
While the life or death of one robin will not alter the future of American 
Robins as a species, I appreciate that the rehab of that particular robin 
means the world to that particular robin (and to the human rescuer).
I have personally brought in dying blue jays at the peak of the west Nile 
virus epidemic and begged they be given "a chance", so I am not immune to 
the tragedy or plight of individual birds.
But my persistence, which siphoned staff resources, made no difference to 
blue jays on a larger scale (in fact, the birds died in spite of rehab 
efforts).

If money were no object, I think the rehab of common species would be a 
benign and humane gesture. I worry that the rehab and release of nuisance 
species is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE to the overall health and ecodiversity of the 
forest preserves, however.
For these reasons, I believe the Trailside proposal should be considered 
thoughtfully, and the budget should be examined closely. .
  Before a decision is made, I hope the Board obtains data from Trailside 
that can be used to guide their decisions. Key questions would be: How many 
nuisance animals are rehabbed at this facility, and at what cost and 
outcome? How many endangered species are rehabbed at this facility, and at 
what cost and outcome? On a more specific level, the Board should know how 
much it costs, on average, to rehab a squirrel. Or a raccoon.
There is a lot of money at stake, because rehab is such an expensive 
endeavor, and it is right to ask the question, "does it meet the goals and 
mission of the FPDCC?"

(As an aside: Trailside gladly accepts donated materials, such as old 
towels, for use in their rehab efforts.)
Jill  Anderson
River Forest IL