Oiled Sea Birds: To Kill Or Not To Kill? What Is The Ethical Thing To Do?

[babylonsister]

This whole thing is really sad; most birds don't have a chance against these odds.

Oiled Sea Birds: To Kill Or Not To Kill? What Is The Ethical Thing To Do?


Posted on: June 5, 2010 7:59 AM, by "GrrlScientist"



Bird rescue personnel Danene Birtell (L) and Heather Nevill (R) hold an oiled brown pelican, found on Storm Island in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, that will be washed at the treatment facility at Fort Jackson, Louisiana, USA. BP has contracted bird rescue groups to rehabilitate wildlife affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The birds are examined, thoroughly washed and then allowed to recover.
Image: Paul Buck/EPA.


British Petroleum's current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is unfortunately one of many oil spill events that occur every year due to rampant corporate greed and systemic corner-cutting. These events result in the slow agonized deaths of millions of animals, birds and fish in addition to damage and destruction to entire ecosystems. After dead and dying animals wash up on public beaches, the public becomes alarmed and rushes to their aid, setting up rescue stations to clean and rehabilitate oiled birds and marine mammals. At least a few experts have openly advocated killing all oiled wildlife immediately, claiming that animal lovers are merely prolonging their distress and suffering.

"Kill, don't clean," recommends Silvia Gaus, a biologist at NationalPark Wattenmeer (Wadden Sea National Park) in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein. Unfortunately, despite some short-term success in cleaning birds and releasing them into the wild, few, if any, have a chance of surviving even for a few months, reports Ms Gaus, who has worked as a biologist for 20 years.

"According to serious studies, the middle-term survival rate of oil-soaked birds is under 1 percent," Ms Gaus explained. "We, therefore, oppose cleaning birds."

Um, hello? "Serious studies"?

Despite her blunt comments, Ms Gaus does have some experience with oil spills: she was reportedly part of the environmental cleanup team after a ship, the Pallas, grounded itself in October 1998, spilling 90 tons of crude into into the icy North Sea wintering area for Common Eiders, Somateria mollissima. That disaster led to the deaths of more than 13,000 birds due to drowning, freezing or stress.

When oiled, seabirds are vulnerable to drowning because their feathers' waterproofing qualities are destroyed and their downy feathers' insulative properties are lost, leading to either hypothermia or sometimes, hyperthermia. Oiled birds lose body weight rapidly as their metabolism increases to compensate for their falling body temperature. Sticky, oiled feathers are heavy and cannot trap air between them to keep the birds buoyant, so they cannot fly and often sink into a watery grave below the waves. Thus, birds are very particular about their plumage, and use their bills and tongues to remove debris, including oil, despite its terrible taste and smell. They sometimes ingest the oil, which causes health problems, such as ulcers and damage to internal organs that detoxify the blood.

more...

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/oiled_birds_to_kill_or_not_to.php?utm_source=combinedfeed&utm_medium=rss

[mattvermont]

1. the creatures need to be euthanized

such a drop in the bucket. As an ecologist/ornithologist, I see these icons of the damage as a peripheral
outcome. With limited resources, we need to think beyond the individual casualties, and work on entire ecosystems.

[babylonsister]

5. Sadly, that's probably the right answer.

So many forms of animal and plant life will be threatened before this is over.

[Mari333]

15. sadly, agree.

and as someone downthread says, send the bodies to the homes of BP CEOs. better yet, Dick Cheney.

[BeFree]

20. Work on entire ecosystems??

You know of such a plan?

Some have suggested that we just sit back and eventually all the oil will biodegrade.
Does that make any sense?

[undeterred]

2. I hate BP.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. +1

:grr: :mad:

[westerebus]

3. You put the animal out of its misery as quickly as possible.

Sorry, that if that sounds cold.

[Angry Dragon]

4. I will agree with you if

you will agree that the people responsible will suffer the same fate.
I feel it is only fair.

[westerebus]

31. I'll let the courts decide their fate.

Some of those people should be facing manslaughter charges for the human life lost on the oil rig.

[Xenotime]

7. Their dead bodies should be tossed on BP's door.

[DeschutesRiver]

21. It isn't cold sounding to me, and I agree.

Maybe because now I live on a ranch, where I see more complicated situations than I'd been aware of when living in/near a big city.

Stuff happens even here where there is no intentional evil causing it - and when death of an animal is inevitable, I find no humanity in letting a fellow creature continue to exist in extreme suffering and pain until it can't struggle against death any longer. Probably a philosophical thing too for me, because if I were in a state from which I could not be ultimately saved (or that the chances of a good outcome were slim to none0, I would want someone to assist me out of this world as well. When one is on the point of death or passing from this world, there is no need to prolong the pain part.

These oil contaminated animals that can't recover don't need to live out the rest of their brief lives in pain from the burn of oil and disperant. It is only the squeamish who refuse to deliver a fellow creature from a painful existence in preference to letting them die on their own from the oil we've spilled into their habitat.

Or maybe also those whose minds can't imagine or that don't care about suffering when it isn't being experienced by a fellow "human" being.

[westerebus]

32. I lived on a horse farm.

I know exactly where you're coming from. Some times you just got to do what you got to do.

[NNN0LHI]

8. Took a brave person to propose this question here at DU

I really admire you babylonsister. Yes, I do.

I agree with the above DUer. You put the animal out of its misery as quickly as possible. Its the most decent thing to do.

Thank you for posting this. Recommended with a heavy heart.

Don

[babylonsister]

14. It must be considered and acted upon as the suffering of these

birds is equally intolerable. :(

[ZombieHorde]

9. Mercy killing nonhuman animals is for the benefit of squeamish humans, not the nonhuman animal.

We tell ourselves we are putting the creature out of its misery, but really, we putting the creature out our misery. We are disturbed by the nonhuman animal's suffering.

The survival instinct of nonhuman animals is usually extremely strong. Nonhuman animals are not generally suicidal, even when experiencing horrific suffering.

[undeterred]

10. How do you know what nonhuman animals feel?

I only know for sure what humans feel, and only this particular human.

[ZombieHorde]

12. Nonhuman animals don't generally commit intentional suicide.

There is no evidence suffering nonhuman animals are suicidal, and if there was such evidence, we would have to examine the evidence species by species. We should not assume a pelican thinks the same way a dog thinks.

If you don't know how nonhuman animals feel, would you ever advocate performing a mercy killing on one?

[liberal_at_heart]

16. They may not be suicidal but they do tend to give up when they think there is no hope

A horse stuck in the mud after struggling for a few minutes will just sit and wait for death. I think animals have a more finely tuned sense of life and death than we do.

[ZombieHorde]

18. Maybe they are waiting for death, and maybe they are waiting for conditions to change. nt

[undeterred]

27. We infer things about animals from their anatomy, physiology, and behavior.

I'd advocate a mercy killing only when a painful death was inevitable. I don't think animals have the consiousnes to contemplate suicide. Primates, possibly.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Although I don't begrudge anyone for performing mercy killings,

I don't think we should kill animals for their own sake since they don't seem to want to die.

[blindpig]

26. I'm afraid you are correct, it is for us.

That said, that we have this empathy is no bad thing, not at all.

Kill Capitalism.

[ZombieHorde]

28. I agree, our empathy is good. nt

[westerebus]

34. What does euthanizing a creature in pain have to do with suicide?

[ZombieHorde]

36. If members of a species commits intentional suicide, then

those suicides would demonstrate at least some members of that particular species sometimes wish to die.

I personally believe most to all nonhuman animals want to live, and therefor euthanizing them is not in their best interest. We don't euthanize animals because they want to die, we euthanize them because we can't tolerate their suffering.

[westerebus]

37. No creature wants to die.

Despite their best intentions.

Despite their will to live.

Death is a fact of life.

To end their suffering is why you euthanize an animal.

Because they don't commit suicide, they should suffer?

That's a justification for being cruel.

[ZombieHorde]

38. "Because they don't commit suicide, they should suffer?"

Suffering is also a part of life, but in reality, we kill suffering animals to end our own suffering.

Since they don't want to die, we kill them for our own benefit, as opposed to their benefit.

[westerebus]

39. That is apparently your reality.

You are locked in a loop and it makes no sense.

At least to me.

[ZombieHorde]

40. I will try again.

Since nonhuman animals don't seem to want to be killed, even when they are suffering greatly, killing them is more for our benefit than theirs.

We do not kill them because they wish to be euthanized, we kill them to ease our own suffering, which is caused by witnessing a nonhuman animal in pain.

[Feron]

11. I think that only heavily oiled birds should be euthanized.

And those that are deemed too ill to recover.

It's ridiculous to put down a bird that would otherwise survive with a little care.

Great article by the way.

[NNN0LHI]

13. But then what do we do with those birds that might recover?

Release them back into that toxic mess and begin the process all over again? Or keep them in cages?

This is the bigger problem.

Don

[librechik]

17. I'm reminded of the ending to last night's "Breaking Bad." IOW, take no half measures

going a little way but not the whole way to a solution is no solution at all.

I say, euthanize BP.

[liberal_at_heart]

19. It's a conflict between two best of intentions. It's a tough call.

We as humans want to help animals whether it is to save their life or end their suffering. Is it our call to save or end an animal's life? Who knows? Nature is cruel. Animals eat each other. Animals get injured. Animals die. Animals kill each other competing for land just as we humans do. It's true that this disaster is man made and not natural, but in nature animals die. There inlies the dilema. Do we step in and either save them or kill them? I don't know the answer to that. I would be inclined to save them but if I saw a bird starving to death because the cleaning did not help it fully recover I would be inclined to kill it.

[flamingdem]

22. MANY experts disagree with the German's assessment. You can find other opinions

and that woman's ideas are not the only way nor is it relevant to all kinds of birds.

They're not doing all that work just for the birds to die.

There are problems when they release them near the oil however. That is stupid since they'll get re-oiled.

[BeFree]

23. well, following that German logic....

....we should just determine ahead of time all the animals that will be affected and put them out of their misery right now. Why wait till they suffer?

We humans have all the answers to life, why doesn't the rest of the world just accept that and let's get it on !!

[flamingdem]

25. Just posted a different take by the Oiled Wildlife Network "How Much is a Turtle Worth"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x540735

http://owcnblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/deepwater-hori... /

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)

[mopinko]

24. it is tempting to agree

i would, however, make an exception for members of an endangered species. if there is space available in zoos with breeding programs, those individuals should get the hail mary pass.
but otherwise, just being handled like this is just so stressful for most wild birds. frankly, i am surprised that so many of them do survive the cleaning process.

[XemaSab]

33. What about species that were delisted a few months ago

like brown pelicans?

[Peacetrain]

30. We can always hope for better things..but from everything I read after Exon

it would be more humane to euthanize them.. sad as that is

Edit to add.. it is not just the animal who has been coated in oil.. but the possible genetic damage that could be done if the animal survives (now we are talking really oil soaked animals here..not one with a little sheen to it) could hurt the entire species in an area

[Uncle Joe]

35. They should be cleaned for at least two reasons.

1. To allow us to perfect the process of cleaning, thus increasing the survival rate and perhaps preventing species from becoming extinct due to our negligence.

2. Any animals surviving oiling and cleaning will likely pass their genes on, increasing the resiliency of the species.

Ultimately I see the macro level ethical approach of cleaning to save the species as trumping that of the micro level concern regarding animal suffering.

Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.