• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Pigeon with broken wing? (1 Viewer)

cschnurr

New member
We found a bird about the size of a small pigeon that appears to have a broken wing. My wife put it in a cage we had but we don't know where to go from here.

Sadly I must leave on a business trip early in the morning and she is taking medication that prevents her from driving.

We live in Erie, Colorado, does anyone know of a bird shelter nearby?
 
Hi, cschnurr,

On behalf of the admin and moderator staff at BirdForum, a warm welcome!

In doing a Google search for bird rehab/rescue shelters in your area, the only one listed is one that I believe is only for parrots. Their URL is:

http://www.featheredfamily.com/

I couldn't find a phone # readily on their website, but they may be listed in your local phone book so that you could ask if they take injured birds other than parrots.

I'd also suggest a look in the yellow pages for a local vet who might be able to help you. Some vets or pet hospitals will also offer to pick up injured animals for treatment.

Good luck and please let us know how things work out!
 
Welcome cschnurr and thanks for caring so much about the poor bird.

I hope the information Katy gave you will be of some help. If you get a moment on your return from your trip, please let us know how the bird is doing.
 
Hi cschnurr,

Nice job grabbing up this poor guy.

You know, a vet near you who sees birds would probably treat this wild bird. You'd probably have to *pay* for this, but, before you did, you'd at least know how much it would cost and could make up your mind, then. If you didn't want to foot the bill, you could still try for a shelter (or, I'm sorry to suggest, put the bird down).

A vet active in treating pet birds is going to be very skilled. More importantly, if he says he's going to treat the bird then he'll treat it.

I took a bird to a rescue once, and even made a sizable donation while I was there, to cover the cost of treatment. The rescue said that they administered antibiotics, but the bird died anyway. Later, I found out that many rescues don't try very hard when it comes to non-exotic, non-threatened birds. Mine was a robin. So, I became suspicious about the course of treatment my "rescue" really received. I'm not saying I was lied to, but then again... In any case, it's always possible that a rescue might decide that its resources are better spent on token gestures for common birds, and real efforts only for threatened birds.

The upshot of all of this is that, should I come across an injured wild bird again, I'm going to take it to a vet, and not to a rescue.

In the U.S., any vet can by law treat most wild birds. Raptors require a special license for veterinarians to treat, but many veterinarians who specialize in pet birds have this license because they treat zoo specimens or rescue birds as well. In any event, if you call the office, you'll be told whether you can bring the bird in or not.
 
RationalParrot said:
... In any case, it's always possible that a rescue might decide that its resources are better spent on token gestures for common birds, and real efforts only for threatened birds.

The upshot of all of this is that, should I come across an injured wild bird again, I'm going to take it to a vet, and not to a rescue.

I think that a blanket condemnation of bird rescue centers is extremely unfair to those rescue centers that are funded by/founded by/run by vets, or specially trained rehabbers supervised by vets. One bad experience does not warrant such a sweeping generalization.

The problem that cschnurr is more likely to run into is that pigeons (if, in fact, that's the species they're dealing with here) are (1) a non-native and therefore not protected a species under US law and (2) as such will more than likely not be treated by vet or rehabber alike. This has nothing to do with the vet/rehabber in question but rather with the status of the bird. Which may be reprehensible from an animal rightist perspective but which is, nonetheless, a realistic point of view considering the limitations of time and resources rescue centers and vet clinics may have available at any given point.

For instance: If a small rescue facility has one volunteer to cover a 12-hour "shift", are they going to call in that volunteer to look after a pigeon and then have no one to call to cover the Steller's jay or the brown pelican or the golden eagle that requires care? It doesn't matter how large a donation you throw at some of these smaller centers, if they don't have the people-power available, the fact is some birds, particularly the "common" ones (by which I assumed you meant exotics), are not going to get the care we wish they could have.

From personal experience of dealing with bird rehabbers (raptors, marine birds), it's much kinder to tell the clients who "rescued" the bird that it simply died rather than burden these kind-hearted but uninformed souls with the decision-making process the rehabbers must go through to weigh which bird gets the benefit of their efforts and which doesn't. It's not a matter of tokenism or ripping off the public (although I'm sure there is just as large a percentage of crooks in bird rescue as there are in any other business endeavor). It's a matter of limited resources vs. the abundance/status of the injured animal. Sad but realistic.
 
Hi Katy,

Hmmnnn... I said that many shelters don't work hard for "non-threatened, non-exotic birds". (And by "common", I meant "common".)

You say:
It doesn't matter how large a donation you throw at some of these smaller centers, if they don't have the people-power available, the fact is some birds, particularly the "common" ones (by which I assumed you meant exotics), are not going to get the care we wish they could have. [end quote]

I didn't even go so far as to say I was lied to-- though I did wonder-- but you said:
From personal experience of dealing with bird rehabbers (raptors, marine birds), it's much kinder to tell the clients who "rescued" the bird that it simply died rather than burden these kind-hearted but uninformed souls with the decision-making process the rehabbers must go through to weigh which bird gets the benefit of their efforts and which doesn't[end quote]

So, though it *seems* from your first paragraph as if you disagree with something I've said, in fact you do an admirable job of detailing and suppporting my worries.

Indeed, if the original poster was in any doubt from my post, your post should help him understand that if he's concerned enough to do something about this bird with the broken wing, a shelter is not the best course. And contrary to what you say, nearly any vet who treats pet birds would treat a wild pigeon with a broken wing. Whether he'd do it for *free* is another matter, but then I said that a person would likely have to pay for the treatment for a rescued bird brought to a vet.

Lest I seem negative overall about shelters, I'm not. I am, of course, glad that they do the work they do. I do understand that they have limited means and make decisions about which birds to save and which to let die (or even to euthanize). Though to I am only an "uninformed but well-meaning soul"-- LOL-- like any adult I actually do understand the meaning of limited resources, and that there aren't enough means in the world to save every injured bird.

In fact, I can even be told the truth about all of this. Despite your claim to the contrary, if a shelter misleads or even lies to someone who made a substantial effort, and left a sizable donation, to save a particular bird, the shelter is thinking of *itself* and not the person in question. The shelter volunteer just doesn't want to have to explain why she's not going to do much to help this bird, expectations to the contrary, and probably doesn't want to see any donation go out the window, either.

Shelters do a lot of good, and the people there spend more time helping injured birds than I do, to be sure. Don't think that I'm overlooking that in anything I say above. But dishonesty is not called for, and certainly it can't be justified for *my* own good!

I'll also reiterate that if anyone wants to make sure an individual non-exotic, non-threatened wild bird is actually treated, taking the bird to a vet is the best thing to do. A shelter is best reserved for those cases of unusual birds, or cases in which a person just doesn't want to pay for a bird's treatment but would like the bird to have some, small chance for survival anyway.

As I said, though, when I come across an injured wild bird again, I'm bringing him to the vet, not to a shelter.
 
RationalParrot said:
Hi Katy,

Hmmnnn... I said that many shelters don't work hard for "non-threatened, non-exotic birds". (And by "common", I meant "common".)
"Common" has no meaning whatsoever when you're talking about a species' status. Species are "abundant," "threatened," "endangered," "vulnerable," etc., etc. Did you mean "commonly occurring"? In which case, that would apply only to your specific area as one person's "common bird" is another person's "rarity." It has nothing to do with the status of that particular species.


You say:
It doesn't matter how large a donation you throw at some of these smaller centers, if they don't have the people-power available, the fact is some birds, particularly the "common" ones (by which I assumed you meant exotics), are not going to get the care we wish they could have. [end quote]

I didn't even go so far as to say I was lied to-- though I did wonder-- but you said:
From personal experience of dealing with bird rehabbers (raptors, marine birds), it's much kinder to tell the clients who "rescued" the bird that it simply died rather than burden these kind-hearted but uninformed souls with the decision-making process the rehabbers must go through to weigh which bird gets the benefit of their efforts and which doesn't[end quote]

So, though it *seems* from your first paragraph as if you disagree with something I've said, in fact you do an admirable job of detailing and suppporting my worries.
I wasn't trying to debate with you, just trying to make the point (perhaps clumsily) that for reasons of species status and limited resources, rescue centers and vet clinics have to make choices, and they usually make those choices based on the status of the species brought to them. If it's an "exotic," which in birding parlance means a non-native (which in the US means, for the most, part pigeons, starlings and house sparrows), it's less likely that these three species, for example, will be treated.


Indeed, if the original poster was in any doubt from my post, your post should help him understand that if he's concerned enough to do something about this bird with the broken wing, a shelter is not the best course. And contrary to what you say, nearly any vet who treats pet birds would treat a wild pigeon with a broken wing. Whether he'd do it for *free* is another matter, but then I said that a person would likely have to pay for the treatment for a rescued bird brought to a vet.
I don't know how many vets or rehabbers you've dealt with, but in southern California and even where I am now in a much less populated area, none of them I've worked with will take either of the three exotic species mentioned above. They all want to, being animal lovers, but we shouldn't be surprised when they can't if what we have in our hands is an exotic. I'm not defending or condemning; just stating the reality of the situation we bird lovers and the vets/rehabbers face on a daily basis.


Lest I seem negative overall about shelters, I'm not. I am, of course, glad that they do the work they do. I do understand that they have limited means and make decisions about which birds to save and which to let die (or even to euthanize). Though to I am only an "uninformed but well-meaning soul"-- LOL-- like any adult I actually do understand the meaning of limited resources, and that there aren't enough means in the world to save every injured bird.
That comment of mine you quoted wasn't directed at anyone but at the general public who truly believes they're doing wildlife a favor by "rescuing" them. I suspect this is more true in the marine mammal world than it is in the birding world where more birds than, say, seals are rescued. You'd be dumbfounded at the number of people who see a sea lion or harbor seal pup on the beach and take it home to put in a bathtub thinking their mothers have abandoned them! It's good-hearted ignorance of pinniped behavior that prompts this effort (mothers out of necessity leave pups on beaches for hours to go hunt and will return to nurse). Birds are in a different category, of course, where if you see a featherless chick on the ground, it's pretty obvious something out of the ordinary has occurred and we naturally want to help.


In fact, I can even be told the truth about all of this. Despite your claim to the contrary, if a shelter misleads or even lies to someone who made a substantial effort, and left a sizable donation, to save a particular bird, the shelter is thinking of *itself* and not the person in question.
So by the same reasoning, if "your" bird dies, would you want your "sizable donation" back? If I make a blood donation for my friend who's having surgery, that doesn't mean that pint of blood goes to that particular person. It means it's going into the blood bank to replace whatever blood my friend has used or will use.

Again, I'm not trying to defend or condemn a vet's or rehabber's practice, but it seems to me that it's kinder to simply tell someone that the bird died rather than burdening them with the rationale behind *not* being able (or deciding not) to save the bird. Maybe you personally want all the gory details of what the vet or rehabber did to save "your" bird. Most people don't. Give the professionals some credit *and* the benefit of the doubt. If you find a practice that you think is ripping you off, do something about it. But to imply that something nefarious is going on just because you suspect it is doesn't make it so and it most certainly doesn't apply to every other similar facility.


The shelter volunteer just doesn't want to have to explain why she's not going to do much to help this bird, expectations to the contrary, and probably doesn't want to see any donation go out the window, either.
Well, that cynical view is certainly your prerogative.


Shelters do a lot of good, and the people there spend more time helping injured birds than I do, to be sure. Don't think that I'm overlooking that in anything I say above. But dishonesty is not called for, and certainly it can't be justified for *my* own good!
Again, this is a cynical perspective to assume that what the shelter may be telling you "for your own good" isn't anything other than what they do because the general public for the most part doesn't want the gory details. I'm not being simplistic here. Medical personnel who treat animals know that most folks just want to know that the patient is doing well or not doing well. You are obviously the exception that proves the rule.


I'll also reiterate that if anyone wants to make sure an individual non-exotic, non-threatened wild bird is actually treated, taking the bird to a vet is the best thing to do. A shelter is best reserved for those cases of unusual birds, or cases in which a person just doesn't want to pay for a bird's treatment but would like the bird to have some, small chance for survival anyway.
Again, you're using terms that make no sense to describe birds. What is a "non-exotic, non-threatened wild bird" in the US (since this whole thread started with a US-based rescue)? ALL birds except exotics are federally protected, and some under the ESA have additional status designations such as "endangered", "threatened", etc.. And what the heck is an "unusual bird"?

What statistics can you cite that say a vet is categorically better than a "shelter" for dealing with rescued birds? And how does that extrapolate to apply to areas that are too small to support vet clinics or pet hospitals but have a shelter/rehabber/rescue person/facility available?


As I said, though, when I come across an injured wild bird again, I'm bringing him to the vet, not to a shelter.
And again, your prerogative. I just wish you wouldn't wholesale condemn an entire strata of bird care in this country based on what you suspect might have been an obfuscation to allegedly cover up a possible misuse of your financial generosity.
 
Look, lest we get too far afield, here again is the point. If the original poster, or anyone else, comes across an injured bird and wants to help that bird, he needs to be careful about taking the bird to a shelter. Shelters, or wildlife rehab centers, often don't do very much to help common species of birds. Rather than treat the birds aggressively, the rehab people may just let the birds die, euthanize them, or make only token efforts. Furthermore, shelters are not often forthcoming about this fact, and indeed they may mislead about it.

Note that Katy agrees with all of the above. She adds further claims-- that the shelters are being kind to people in misleading them, that there's nothing wrong in giving people the idea one will help birds and then secretly allowing them to die, that shelters have only limited resources and so sometimes devote them only to less common birds, that it is not widely known that seals sometimes leave their pups on the beach, along with some extremely bad vocabulary advice. Whatever one thinks about all of this, the fact remains that taking a pigeon with a broken wing to a shelter may only ensure euthanasia, not treatment. So, however unkind it might be for me to disillusion anyone about all of this, be warned.

As far as what to do to treat birds, many vets who treat pet birds will treat wild birds, at least in the U.S. If you don't believe me, ask the avian vets nearby for yourself. Note that the fact that a bird is non-native-- as opposed to exotic-- does not mean that a veterinarian "can't" treat the bird. If anything, the fact that a bird is non-native would make it easier to treat, at least in the U.S. Most pet birds are non-native species, and of course they are treated at the vet. Native birds are protected in the U.S., so that it may not be strictly legal for a person to capture and incarcerate the bird, even as a means to seeking treatment. But speaking for myself, I wouldn't leave a bird that would otherwise die. I doubt that one would be prosecuted for this-- certainly a vet is unlikely to turn one in, and even if she did it's unlikely anyone would bother prosecuting one for a sincere rescue attempt-- but you never know.

In any case, a vet is more likely to treat a common species successfully than a shelter, assuming you're going to pay for it. As far as the cost goes, bear in mind that if you don't pay it, someone else will have to-- whether that's the vet or a rescue center or someone else. So, it's not necessarily unfair for a vet to ask you to pony up. If you don't want to pay the cost-- and who can afford medical treatment for every injured wild bird?-- you can decide what's appropriate after that.

Good luck to the poster and the pigeon. What has happened with that bird, anyway?
 
And MY point was, back up your claims that shelters/rehab centers are inherently more dangerous to rescued birds than are vets. Let's see some data. Otherwise, this is simply your opinion which isn't worth any more than mine is.

Anyway, fictitiously attributing words that I didn't say, dragging in the irrelevant issue of "pet birds," not answering the questions I raised, and deliberately mis-using or ignoring basic birding terminology is completely counter-productive to a healthy discussion of the pros and cons of "to rescue or not to rescue," so I'm bowing out of this thread.

Oh, BTW, "exotic" means "non-native" and not just in the birding world. Look it up.
 
Katy Penland said:
And MY point was, back up your claims that shelters/rehab centers are inherently more dangerous to rescued birds than are vets. Let's see some data. Otherwise, this is simply your opinion which isn't worth any more than mine is.

Oh, *that's* your point? Funny, because what you *wrote* was to agree that it was unlikely the pigeon would be treated at the shelter, something you then went on to explain in terms of the limited resources of shelters. Maybe that's the "bird parlance" again, though.

Sheesh.

Look, anyone reading this thread can decide for herself whether it's worth worrying that shelters won't put much effort into a pigeon's treatment. But, for what it's worth, here's my warning-- and Katy's too, though she seems to have forgotten she wrote it-- often shelters don't!

The same is true for many common native bird species, too.

Not that I'm claiming this rationing itself is bad-- I'm not taking any stand on that. But if someone is serious about saving a particular bird he might want to know what the bird is in for at a shelter, is all. And a shelter might not be immediately forthcoming about this situation, something which I do criticize.


katy penland said:
Oh, BTW, "exotic" means "non-native" and not just in the birding world. Look it up.

Actually, what you'll find in any respectable dictionary is at least one entry specifying "extremely unusual", or something to that effect, for "exotic". And I don't have to look that up! :D In fact, if you had looked, you could have saved yourself the time of expressing bewilderment that I could have used "exotic" in that way. (None of this is to deny that there is a sense of "exotic" meaning "foreign".)

As far as there being no such thing as a common bird species, you really need to let the rest of the birding world know about this. I'm sure all of my guides contain huge numbers of misprints! :D
 
I work at a well known rescue center, we dont do pigeons, starlings or euro house sparrows.

sorry, they (starlings/euro house sparrrow) are aggressive and take away immportant nesting areas of other native species.

in a baby bird season when we have limited money and limited volunteers the last thing we are going to do is spend time and money on non native birds.

yet there are a few people that take the sparrows and pigeons, since they are not protected under any law. (as far as I know)
 
Broken Wing Pigeon! Help!

Hi,
I found a broken winged pigeon and I don't know what to do! I can't take him inside due to my cats! Please tell me if there is any shelter close by in Los Angeles, CA area!

thank you ,
Sema
 
Look, lest we get too far afield, here again is the point. If the original poster, or anyone else, comes across an injured bird and wants to help that bird, he needs to be careful about taking the bird to a shelter. Shelters, or wildlife rehab centers, often don't do very much to help common species of birds. Rather than treat the birds aggressively, the rehab people may just let the birds die, euthanize them, or make only token efforts. Furthermore, shelters are not often forthcoming about this fact, and indeed they may mislead about it.

I'm sorry RationalParrot that you feel the way you do, but do not be quick to judge shelters and rehabbers unless you have volunteered at one of these non-profit organizations. First of all, good rehabilitators have an experienced "wildlife" vet as their clinical consultant. Euthanasia is not treated lightly. Remember the volunteers that help wildlife hospitals/shelters are people just like you, and care about the animals that come through the door every day.
Wild animals are not domestic pets and need to be respected and treated according their individual needs. Meaning, they have to be able to fully functional when they are released back into the wild (not half functional). They also are not meant to be caged, and held for long periods of time if possible. Sometimes that window is very short and a judgement call has to made on behalf of that animal's overall well being. All options are exhausted before that call is made, and an experienced rehabber/shelter/ "wildlife" vet can evaluate that situation quickly for the sake of the animal.

I take offense when someone claims that shelter people/police have no compassion. They don't indiscriminately kill animals/pets because it's policy. I know officers that will go out of their way to drop an injured animal off to the appropriate rescue organization and they are greatful to have other options.

As for treating common birds vs 'special birds', they are all treated the same. One bird is no different from another when it is an incoming patient.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top