Comments on: Should We Just Euthanize the Gulf’s Oil-Soaked Birds?

By: Melissa

Melissa — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:07:51 +0000

Not sure if this is possible but if we can somehow get their DNA while the marine and wildlife is being cleaned – which is still crucial in the event that even two live to procreate..perhaps there’s hope that we can reintroduce them in the future.

I’m having a really hard time fathoming that humanity has just destroyed such a huge percentage of wildlife..this is truly the most depressing time of all of our lives and I just don’t see improvements being made in our lifetime or perhaps during what’s left of humanity’s existence on this planet. Forcing oil to the bottom of the ocean will only make things worse as there’s no way for the oil to dissolve or wear away when it’s so far from the sun and the elements…many of the ocean’s creatures rely on what resides along the bottom for survival. In this case, out of site is not out of mind.

By: Kristind

Kristind — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:53:50 +0000

Mark on #4 SAID IT BEST! I agree!!! BP caused this mess. BP can pay for this and all the other problems their negligence has cost the US and the wildlife.

By: Roselyn

Roselyn — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:56:33 +0000

Do not euthanize. Let’s use a little logic. A generation or two after Exxon Valdez spill, so much damage to the local marine life that POLAR BEARS ARE THREATENED. The long-reached effects of demise of a few species impacts ALL OTHER SPECIES ON THE PLANET. We MUST save enough individuals/variant dna of each species to maintain and thrive wild populations. Pray that some individual birds saved will be added to the mix of dna in captive populations–zoos, sanctuaries and such.

By: JRobin

JRobin — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:53:02 +0000

Can we refrain from the name calling, insults and bigotry? It contributes nothing to solving the problems. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but we can be civil about it.

By: lucas

lucas — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:58:50 +0000

Oh, I see. So we can’t save endangered state birds because of human error but we can accept illegal immigrants and their litters, who provide NOTHING for this country but junk trucks and crammed one-bedroom apartments. NICE!

By: Eliza Strickland

Eliza Strickland — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:48:58 +0000

JJ- I see where your confusion came from. The Wikipedia page mentions that the brown pelican was removed from The International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of endangered species in 1988, presumably because of healthy populations in Peru and elsewhere. However, the brown pelican was listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act until last year, because the population in the Gulf had a real tough time coming back. Here's the official page from the US Fish & Wildlife office, which says that the pelican was delisted on 11/17/09. -- Eliza, DISCOVER online news editor

By: aki

aki — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:34:04 +0000

The video clip I saw of rescuers trying to save the pelicans involved a team in a small motor boat following one individual bird around in the water “until it ran out of energy and could be scooped up”. How much gasoline is being used by those boat motors in this effort? How much gas is being used to fly them or drive them to Florida? I agree that if this looks like the end of the brown pelicans then effort should be spent to save enough individuals to re-start the population, but the amount of oil and gas and human effort being used to save a single individual bird seems better spent sucking up the oil on the surface or putting out more booms, or whatever techniques can be used to get rid of the oil.

By: Katharine

Katharine — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:53:45 +0000

Pelican sweaters?

By: Idlewilde

Idlewilde — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:21:35 +0000

The birds should definately be cleaned. Even if one only in a hundred survives-we have to try, because that one bird matters.

I hope that the birds’ beaks are being sealed between feedings on their day or two of rest, so that they won’t end up ingesting oil.

By: Bee

Bee — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 04:46:46 +0000

I suppose the thing to do would be to take a DNA sample, clone them, and let the oily ones die. More realistically, maybe do more targeted research on how to improve their survival rate.

By: mark

mark — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 03:06:01 +0000

Cost is not an issue, as BP shall be getting the entire bill. If there is a reasonable chance of saving the oiled birds, they need to spend the money.

It’s a false dichotomy that we can fix the birds or the habitat; we have lots of people in this country, so we can work on both.

Why not loan the birds out to zoos for a while until the habitats are ready for them?

By: JJ

JJ — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:31:27 +0000

According to Wikipedia, the Brown Pelican was removed from the endangered species list in 1988 as a result of banning DDT and other toxic pesticides in the late 1970s. The species has since returned to least concern status over the last 20 years. I’m not sure where the rumor started that the Brown Pelican was recently removed from the endangered species list, unless it refers to a sub-specie native to the Southern US.

By: Brian Too

Brian Too — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 23:33:37 +0000

Weren’t the brown pelicans just recently taken off the endangered species list? I’d think that, given the size of the oil spill, we’d want to save any individuals we can. Thousands are likely to die anyway and the spill may just push them back to endangered status.

AFAIK, in a situation like this you don’t release the animals. You hold them in captivity until their habitat is reasonably safe and then release them. That may take a year or two.

By: Doug Watts

Doug Watts — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:47:29 +0000

Part of the argument for euthanizing could be that time would be better spent on saving habitats or endangered species as opposed to cleaning doomed birds.

That’s not an argument. It’s an excuse. And it’s also illiterate. How do you save “habitats” during a giant oil spill?

What a moronic story.