Comments on: Are Animal Victims of the Gulf Coast Oil Spill Better Off Dead?

By: lucky phyllis schaffner

lucky phyllis schaffner — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:59:21 +0000

Some help to the animals is better than no help at all!

By: Donna H

Donna H — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:31:04 +0000

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.

By: Kevin Marshall

Kevin Marshall — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 23:16:48 +0000

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?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:40:18 +0000

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.

By: Kevin Marshall

Kevin Marshall — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:21:57 +0000

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.

By: fencesitter

fencesitter — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:53:49 +0000

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.

By: Kari V.

Kari V. — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:28:18 +0000

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!

By: Erin Morelli

Erin Morelli — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:15:14 +0000

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.

By: m

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:01:11 +0000

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.

By: Jen Smith

Jen Smith — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:54:05 +0000

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.