Kevin Marshall's America
Volunteers clean up after BP's folly. (photo by Sean Gardner, Reuters)
A recent piece from National Geographic’s website highlights the controversy erupting over the suggesting some biologists are making that it might be more humane to euthanize birds affected by BP’s colossally disastrous oil spill in the Gulf Caost than to clean and release them into the wild.
The controversy is two-fold. Firstly, from a logistical standpoint, it’s unclear if the survival rate of birds rescued and cleaned by volunteers is all that great. While some studies and numbers suggest it isn’t, others contend that the figures are outdated and lack a proper context, since they were related to oil spills in colder, harsher climates. Other biologists still maintain the survival rate likely doesn’t even approach twenty-five percent.
The bigger controversy, though, is whether euthanization is an ethically proper response regardless of statistics.
It’s an issue that extends past some of the more extreme positions adopted by many, and plenty of people who don’t necessarily fall on the side of animal activism have a strong opinion on the matter. For evidence of the fact, one need only look so far as the increased frequency of no-kill shelters in our area alone.
I do wonder, though, if the attention and resources so many direct towards this particular endeavor are coming from a genuine place. Is the controversy derived from concern and charity or guilt and a desire to be on the right side of an argument (for once)? Are we trying to make those birds’ lives better, or are we putting on the rubber gloves and goggles and spraying down a pelican to feel better about ourselves? Perhaps more importantly, at what point does concern and advocacy undermine the importance of these animals to their environment?
I’m not saying we should leave these birds to wallow in the muck of the ecological disaster created by British Petroleum, but I’m fascinated by these types of questions that I often ask myself. Perhaps it’s a byproduct of being so easy to amuse.
I’m of the opinion that we should continue to clean and re-release the birds regardless of the survival rate. But for me personally, the issue isn’t care and concern for those animals, per se. I think specific emotional attachment towards what is ultimately a symbolic image of a bird drenched in oil is the wrong response; not morally, but logistically. I don’t see cleaning them as necessary in order to improve their personal quality of life, but I do see it as a necessary step to try and maintain something resembling an ecosystem in the area ravaged by the spill. If we do nothing, it only exacerbates the problem as a whole.
As for their suffering? I’m a hopeful optimist when it comes to people in general, but I still think putting too much emotional stock in the feelings of animals we don’t keep as pets can border on an unhealthy obsession and cause us to do things – or take positions on matters – that do not allow us to see the forest for the trees and can be potentially damaging.
I am reminded of the 2005 Werner Herzog film “Grizzly Man,” which is a documentary exploring the life and tragic death of amateur grizzly bear enthusiast Timothy Treadwell, whose ignorance, naivety, and emotional attachment towards grizzlies ultimately led to his own demise and that of his companion.
At one point towards the end of the film, we see footage of Treadwell coming across the corpse of a bear cub that was killed by its own mother. Presented with the reality of life in the animal kingdom – which stands in direct opposition to his own romanticized vision of them and their role in the world – he has a complete emotional breakdown and expresses hatred towards the offending bear and love for the dead cub.
As Treadwell ends his tearful, frenetic rant, Herzog offers his view.
“Here I differ with Treadwell. He seemed to ignore the fact that in nature, there are predators. I believe the common denominator of the Universe is not harmony, but chaos, hostility, and murder.”
Strong sentiments, but ultimately more realistic than those who would grant these creatures a sense of personal dignity, purpose, and autonomy of which they are simply not capable or, perhaps, deserving.
Share it!
10 Responses to Are Animal Victims of the Gulf Coast Oil Spill Better Off Dead?
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
My personal feeling… we should help those that can’t help themselves (this goes for people too). Animals don’t have the means to remove the oil and we do, why shouldn’t we help them? And a 25% chance of survival is better than no chance at all.
It’s an absolute nightmare. 2 months of oil spilling into the ocean and no end in sight. This is going to effect the world for the next 100 years, if not longer. Birds are going to migrate south in the fall and the problem is going to escalate. I’m all for helping these birds as much as possible. It’s not their fault this world is a disaster, its ours.
I saw that article as well. What frustrated me was that neither option was a good option for the birds OR us. Either way there is going to be a lot of dead birds and the ecosystem is already irrevocably destroyed just from the oil alone (let alone the loss of birds). I see your point about people making emotional attachments, but in this case, I felt like the scientists involved were genuinely trying to figure out what would do the least damage overall. That being said, I’m no scientist, but I think cleaning the birds and releasing them, while somewhat harmful and time consuming is giving the ecosystem a better chance at some form of survival than just killing them.
Maybe I’m just having an off day, but it’s difficult for me to imagine someone simply dismissing the lives of animals, because they aren’t “intelligent” beings (referring to those at Nat. Geo. among others). I agree with Jen Smith about helping those who cannot help themselves. The disaster is destroying that ecosystem, and there will be more animals migrating in coming months. I’m going to go WAY off base and compare this to people. Many of the homeless cannot help themselves, and are in their situation because of issues beyond their control. Should we just exterminate them? It would make life easier for us rather than offering to pay for their welfare. Like I said…WAY OFF BASE!
Kari – The problem with that comparison (which I think you acknowledge?) is that animals and people are two separate beings with different priorities for (most of) us.
Man created the problem, man should be part of the solution in cleaning it up. The birds can’t clean themselves. I wonder what their food supply looks like at this point too. Sad, sad, sad.
The best you can hope for in life is a 50/50 outcome. I don’t have hard science, but its clear that oiled wildlife has less than a 50/50 chance of survival.
This is one of those indirect intangibles BP will never pay for: the loss of biodiversity(genetics) and unimaginable suffering by wildlife. How can you quantify suffering or the value of wild genetics for future generations?
The best we can hope for is a quick painless death, it’s that simple. Morality is relative, we as individuals decide if something is good or bad. In nature, you live or die, a bird cant complain or say “yo this oil sh!ts whack.” This discussion in morality is silly. The suffering inflicted by BP is infinite. Sure you can clean a bird if you catch it in time. But what happens when you release it all sick and lethargic and within 5 minutes of release it lands in another slick of poison?
Every day since this began I have been haunted by visuals of turtle’s desperately trying to breath in poisoned water or a pelican that ingests mouthfuls of poison. Or that one popular image of the tiny bird covered in literally an inch or more of poison. I lose sleep every night because of this and worry that I will carry these images with me to the grave.
As sad as it is I hope I stop caring and soon and join the apathetic masses.
Jeff – Agreed, except I’d actually argue that the things BP will never pay for actually ARE tangible. We’ll be able to see and measure the harm it’s done to that region’s ecosystem and biodiversity over time.
Whether that means financial compensation would ever be attained is anyone’s guess. I think a safe bet is now. But you’d have evidence for a case down the road.
I’m curious to see if municipalities take BP to court as well. You could definitely measure the effects it can have on local economies that are dependent on their proximity to the shoreline, right?
I say yes, clean them. Give them at least a fighting chance of survival even if only a quarter of them make it. And, as you point out, also retrieve what can be of the ecosystem. I don’t think it’s just reaction to the pics (which I find myself avoiding) but, of course, I can’t swear to that.
Some help to the animals is better than no help at all!