http://owcnblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/deepwater-horizon-day-14/While this could be construed as a Chinese proverb or a troubling Philosophy 101 test question, it is not. It can be defined in a number of ways – price per animal for consumption, cost associated with purchase within the pet trade – but the inherent worth of the animal to the ecosystem in which it lives is a more difficult concept to establish. What about tourism that this species might bring to a region? Branding and marketing based on this as a “flagship” species for a certain area? Use of these animals for protection of habitat for other less cuddly macro- and microvertabrates (and, yes, I too think they are cuddly). These are concepts that are challenging to establish in a quantifiable manner.
We are forced to address these questions within the spill community through a number of different fronts. As I blogged on before, the Natural Resource Damage Assessment phase of a spill places monetary costs onto a spiller to return the environment back to pre-spill conditions. This requires a determination of the net value of resources (such as sea turtles) and a monetary cost of returning these resources back to “normal”. However, the issue that more frequently raises its head during oil spills is the cost of conducting oiled wildlife rehabilitation efforts versus the results that come from this activity. The spectre of the “$15,000 per sea otter” during Exxon Valdez still raises its head even 20 years later. Many state that these funds should be redirected toward population-level restoration and conservation efforts versus individual animal care. Even during this spill, critics have stated that wildlife response efforts are “not cost effective and the animals usually die” or that a more effective method would be to institute immediate euthanasia to those impacted species during spills to limit costs and animal suffering (Google if you do not believe me).
I cannot argue the fact that oiled wildlife response is expensive. The establishment, staffing and supplying of 8 regional facilities to care for wildlife (birds, mammals, and turtles) for this response is likely to be very costly when it is all said and done – especially if compared on a “per-bird” or “per-turtle/mammal” basis (or at least I hope it is, as that will imply low animal numbers). But it needs to be understood that oil spills, by their very nature, are expensive. Case in point: this spill is reported to have cost BP more that $350 million dollars as of yesterday – I can guarantee you that only a minute fraction of that is going towards wildlife care. Another example where wildlife care efforts were considered excessive (the genesis of the $15,000 otter) was the Exxon Valdez oil spill, yet wildlife recovery and care accounted for less than 5% of the overall costs of the response. Wildlife care efforts are often the most frugal of any activities within a spill, with the bulk of manpower often coming from volunteer (or “paraprofessional”) assistance, facilities designed and constructed with economy in mind, and all efforts approached in a manner that would make MacGyver (or, for the more recent folks, the MythBusters – my personal idols) proud. Yet this is the aspect of a response that resonates most with the general public. (MORE)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
