With the Gulf Oil spill in full swing, there is lots of discussion about the efficacy of cleaning oiled birds. The cleaning process is pretty stressful. Many species of birds don't take well to the whole event and, despite being given a full bill of health (npi) by the vet before release, will die within days. Others may last weeks, and still others will never reproduce again.
Cleaning birds is costly. It would, undoubtedly, be a cost savings (money, time, energy, debri etc) if the oiled birds were simply euthanized and composted.
Should we attempt to save birds simply for humanities sake?
Surely if it's an endangered or rare species there is greater argument to clean a bird, but what about gulls and shags and what-not?
Edited, Jun 15th 2010 6:06pm by Elinda
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Saving the Birds
Saving the BirdsFollow
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
***** the birds. Save the shrimp!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I heard they are going to stop selling shrimp by the count and start selling them by the weight... 10w30 anyone?
Quite simply no, we should not waste any time or resources to clean animals. It is counter-productive and impractical.
Quote:
Should we attempt to save birds simply for humanities sake?
Realistically, probably not.
It might be better to just declare open season on any animals caught in the oil.
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
Since there is no way of knowing if the bird will die or become barren, I don't see why we shouldn't still fight to save them. If any are living, it's my opinion that we have a responsibility to do all we can to save them, since this is completely and totally our fault that this is happening.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Since there is no way of knowing if the bird will die or become barren, I don't see why we shouldn't still fight to save them. If any are living, it's my opinion that we have a responsibility to do all we can to save them, since this is completely and totally our fault that this is happening.
At what cost?
Dropping one lit match = cost and time efficiency
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Since there is no way of knowing if the bird will die or become barren, I don't see why we shouldn't still fight to save them. If any are living, it's my opinion that we have a responsibility to do all we can to save them, since this is completely and totally our fault that this is happening.
Srsly, it's impractical to think we should attempt to save every animal that gets caught in friendly-fire. How many animals die on our roadways every day? We could prevent that ya know with just some fences. Also, we could have road-side animal ambulance service to attempt to save some of our furry friends before they head to the eternal highway in the sky state...but we don't cuz it would be impractical.
Triage the birds I spose. Some with only light oiling might be fine, but if they're totally oiled, I'd as soon seen them quickly killed.
What about the turtles, otters,...,....?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Since there is no way of knowing if the bird will die or become barren, I don't see why we shouldn't still fight to save them. If any are living, it's my opinion that we have a responsibility to do all we can to save them, since this is completely and totally our fault that this is happening.
At what cost?
Whatever it takes, IMO.
Elinda wrote:
They flew into the oil.
And...?
Elinda wrote:
Srsly, it's impractical to think we should attempt to save every animal that gets caught in friendly-fire. How many animals die on our roadways every day? We could prevent that ya know with just some fences. Also, we could have road-side animal ambulance service to attempt to save some of our furry friends before they head to the eternal highway in the sky state...but we don't cuz it would be impractical.
Triage the birds I spose. Some with only light oiling might be fine, but if they're totally oiled, I'd as soon seen them quickly killed.
What about the turtles, otters,...,....?
Triage the birds I spose. Some with only light oiling might be fine, but if they're totally oiled, I'd as soon seen them quickly killed.
What about the turtles, otters,...,....?
Impractical and not very cost efficient, sure. But I still feel that we have a responsibility to these creatures since we ****** up their eco-system.
Who's washing the birds?
If it's private non-profits like Greenpeace or the Audubon Society then the only real question is whether it's more humane to end the birds' lives quickly or if they stand a legitimate chance if they're cleaned. After all, they're the ones supplying the volunteers and Dawn dish soap. If it's government funded (Fish & Wildlife?) then I guess that's another question.
If it's private non-profits like Greenpeace or the Audubon Society then the only real question is whether it's more humane to end the birds' lives quickly or if they stand a legitimate chance if they're cleaned. After all, they're the ones supplying the volunteers and Dawn dish soap. If it's government funded (Fish & Wildlife?) then I guess that's another question.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Since there is no way of knowing if the bird will die or become barren, I don't see why we shouldn't still fight to save them. If any are living, it's my opinion that we have a responsibility to do all we can to save them, since this is completely and totally our fault that this is happening.
At what cost?
Whatever it takes, IMO.
Elinda wrote:
They flew into the oil.
And...?
Elinda wrote:
Srsly, it's impractical to think we should attempt to save every animal that gets caught in friendly-fire. How many animals die on our roadways every day? We could prevent that ya know with just some fences. Also, we could have road-side animal ambulance service to attempt to save some of our furry friends before they head to the eternal highway in the sky state...but we don't cuz it would be impractical.
Triage the birds I spose. Some with only light oiling might be fine, but if they're totally oiled, I'd as soon seen them quickly killed.
What about the turtles, otters,...,....?
Triage the birds I spose. Some with only light oiling might be fine, but if they're totally oiled, I'd as soon seen them quickly killed.
What about the turtles, otters,...,....?
Impractical and not very cost efficient, sure. But I still feel that we have a responsibility to these creatures since we @#%^ed up their eco-system.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
But we're not them creatures so how can we possibly know how they would like us to proceed? We can't. In more cases than not, they'd probably just like us to go away and leave well enough alone.
I suppose it's possible that a seagull would rather end up suffocating or drowning in an ocean of oil, but it seems to me that if, after a couple of stressful hours, they can go back to living their life, they'd probably be ok with that. I mean, if an animal is willing to gnaw it's own foot off in an effort to get free of a trap instead of just laying down and "leaving well enough alone," then I imagine an animal would like to live past it's being trapped in oil.
But, hey, that's just me.
Resources should be pointed at recovering the overall ecosystem in the area and helping the humans affected first. Cleaning up the animals is simply a lower priority. If there is time to spend on that too, fair enough, but I'd say that humanly killing them is probably the best path. Elinda's suggestion to triage them makes sense, but in most cases the time could probably be better spent.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Since there is no way of knowing if the bird will die or become barren, I don't see why we shouldn't still fight to save them. If any are living, it's my opinion that we have a responsibility to do all we can to save them, since this is completely and totally our fault that this is happening.
At what cost?
Whatever it takes, IMO.
Thank Bob you don't get to make fiscal policy. Talk about losing sight of the forest through the trees. Please tell me there is at least a small section inside that addled, atrophied brain of yours that understands just how stupid that entire premise is.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Elinda wrote:
But we're not them creatures so how can we possibly know how they would like us to proceed? We can't. In more cases than not, they'd probably just like us to go away and leave well enough alone.
I suppose it's possible that a seagull would rather end up suffocating or drowning in an ocean of oil, but it seems to me that if, after a couple of stressful hours, they can go back to living their life, they'd probably be ok with that. I mean, if an animal is willing to gnaw it's own foot off in an effort to get free of a trap instead of just laying down and "leaving well enough alone," then I imagine an animal would like to live past it's being trapped in oil.
But, hey, that's just me.
Read this.
Oh and here is the story I listened to this morning.
Edited, Jun 14th 2010 8:32pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Are they endangered? If not, no. If yes, who else would be willing to help? If it's just us, no.
It's a shame that everything has to die, but it's life.
It's a shame that everything has to die, but it's life.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Thank Bob you don't get to make fiscal policy.
I agree. I never said it would work in practice. Just that it was my opinion.
Moe wrote:
Talk about losing sight of the forest through the trees. Please tell me there is at least a small section inside that addled, atrophied brain of yours that understands just how stupid that entire premise is.
Nah, I'd hate to change your opinion of me.
Elinda wrote:
As an individual, the seagull may choose to live, but if policy in general says we must save birds at all costs, who's to pay those costs? It could be the gull population or it more like the local eco-system that pays.
As a rule, I'm usually in favor of taking responsibility for our @#%^-ups as a human race. As I said, it is my opinion that we fix this sh*t and try to save as many animals as we possibly can.
Edited, Jun 14th 2010 1:46pm by Belkira
You save more animals by spending more time saving the ecosystem and less time saving individual animals, especially as they might very likely die soon anyway, and have a huge chance to be barren either way.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Sir Xsarus wrote:
You save more animals by spending more time saving the ecosystem and less time saving individual animals, especially as they might very likely die soon anyway, and have a huge chance to be barren either way.
I'm having trouble understanding why it has to be one or the other, and not both.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
You save more animals by spending more time saving the ecosystem and less time saving individual animals, especially as they might very likely die soon anyway, and have a huge chance to be barren either way.
I'm having trouble understanding why it has to be one or the other, and not both.
Limited resources.
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
Iamadam the Prohpet wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
You save more animals by spending more time saving the ecosystem and less time saving individual animals, especially as they might very likely die soon anyway, and have a huge chance to be barren either way.
I'm having trouble understanding why it has to be one or the other, and not both.
Limited resources.
and to be clear in my opinion the limiting factor is time. Money is also an issue, but just mobilizing people to get out there and actually be helpful is a huge logistics nightmare. Edited, Jun 14th 2010 1:53pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Iamadam the Prohpet wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
You save more animals by spending more time saving the ecosystem and less time saving individual animals, especially as they might very likely die soon anyway, and have a huge chance to be barren either way.
I'm having trouble understanding why it has to be one or the other, and not both.
Limited resources.
and to be clear in my opinion the limiting factor is time. Money is also an issue, but just mobilizing people to get out there and actually be helpful is a huge logistics nightmare. Edited, Jun 14th 2010 1:53pm by Xsarus
I admit that I have stopped reading about this spill because I'm tired of hearing about it, but from what I understood we were already doing both, so I don't see why that has to change.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Nah, I'd hate to change your opinion of me.
You really never could with lines like this, Pollyanna.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
You save more animals by spending more time saving the ecosystem and less time saving individual animals, especially as they might very likely die soon anyway, and have a huge chance to be barren either way.
I'm having trouble understanding why it has to be one or the other, and not both.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Nah, I'd hate to change your opinion of me.
You really never could with lines like this, Pollyanna.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
You save more animals by spending more time saving the ecosystem and less time saving individual animals, especially as they might very likely die soon anyway, and have a huge chance to be barren either way.
I'm having trouble understanding why it has to be one or the other, and not both.
Bully for me, then.
Recent Visitors: 605
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (605)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Saving the Birds
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC