There was a huge oil spill on the coast of France quite a while back (70s? 80s?)? I remember everyone fretting about the shell-fish and fishing industries as well as the water-fowl at the time, and many predicting that they would never recover. Turns out that most forms of sea life and water fowl in the area recovered within a year.
So, with that completely unsupported evidence, I say, with the confident authority possessed only by the ignorant... ********** the birds, they'll get over it".
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Saving the Birds
Saving the BirdsFollow
Deathwysh wrote:
There was a huge oil spill on the coast of France quite a while back (70s? 80s?)? I remember everyone fretting about the shell-fish and fishing industries as well as the water-fowl at the time, and many predicting that they would never recover. Turns out that most forms of sea life and water fowl in the area recovered within a year.
So, with that completely unsupported evidence, I say, with the confident authority possessed only by the ignorant... "@#%^ the birds, they'll get over it".
So, with that completely unsupported evidence, I say, with the confident authority possessed only by the ignorant... "@#%^ the birds, they'll get over it".
I find these words enlightening.
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.
Right now, I don't care if people want to spend their time and their money to clean birds. That being said, out top priorities should be to stop the leak first, then do whatever we can to clean up the water and beaches. We'll keep more birds alive by solving the problem, than by just treating the symptom of the problem.
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
Right now, I don't care if people want to spend their time and their money to clean birds. That being said, out top priorities should be to stop the leak first, then do whatever we can to clean up the water and beaches. We'll keep more birds alive by solving the problem, than by just treating the symptom of the problem.
I'm pretty sure that the people capable of stopping the leak and the ones willing to donate their time and money to clean up the animals affected by the oil are two different groups of people. I don't think Procter & Gamble would be spending any money they didn't spend on Dawn Dish Soap instead on undersea technology.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
Right now, I don't care if people want to spend their time and their money to clean birds. That being said, out top priorities should be to stop the leak first, then do whatever we can to clean up the water and beaches. We'll keep more birds alive by solving the problem, than by just treating the symptom of the problem.
I'm pretty sure that the people capable of stopping the leak and the ones willing to donate their time and money to clean up the animals affected by the oil are two different groups of people. I don't think Procter & Gamble would be spending any money they didn't spend on Dawn Dish Soap instead on undersea technology.
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
Yeah, I get that. But lets say that P&G had to choose between bird cleaning donations and some product they had that would help clean the water after the spill is fixed. Where should our resources go? If we have to pick one or the other, do we fix the cause, or do we just try and save what we can from the consequences?
But why force a decision? Let the people capable of doing one choice do that, let the ones capable of the other do it.
And I'm pretty sure when it comes to man-power that the clean up can handle a lot more, and a lot less skill required. There's only so many people you can shove in a control room or a think tank before it gets kind of useless.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Quote:
But why force a decision? Let the people capable of doing one choice do that, let the ones capable of the other do it.
Quote:
And I'm pretty sure when it comes to man-power that the clean up can handle a lot more, and a lot less skill required. There's only so many people you can shove in a control room or a think tank before it gets kind of useless.
To be honest, I don't know what the best thing to do is. I love animals. I get in trouble at work for feeding he pigeons. Its just that, if it comes to resource allocation, I'd rather fix the problem, not the effects. If we can do both, great.
Put them on a spit and light them up.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
Yeah, I get that. But lets say that P&G had to choose between bird cleaning donations and some product they had that would help clean the water after the spill is fixed. Where should our resources go? If we have to pick one or the other, do we fix the cause, or do we just try and save what we can from the consequences?
P&G didn't set out to make duck soap, they just lucked into the fact that their dish soap is good at washing oily ducks. I don't even know if it's better at washing oily ducks than Palmolive or Ivory. If there's money to be made in a better oil dispersant and P&G has the facilities to grab some of that cash, you can be assured that they're working on it.
No one ever did have an answer to who is washing the ducks. As Tirith pointed out, unskilled 22 year olds aren't really qualified to do much besides wash ducks* so as long as they bring their own detergent they might as well have at it. The only question there was the one in the OP -- if it does the birds more harm than good to be cleaned rather than immediately put out of their misery.
*"Well, there are rocks. Thousands and thousands of rocks."
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
Yeah, I get that. But lets say that P&G had to choose between bird cleaning donations and some product they had that would help clean the water after the spill is fixed. Where should our resources go? If we have to pick one or the other, do we fix the cause, or do we just try and save what we can from the consequences?
P&G didn't set out to make duck soap, they just lucked into the fact that their dish soap is good at washing oily ducks. I don't even know if it's better at washing oily ducks than Palmolive or Ivory. If there's money to be made in a better oil dispersant and P&G has the facilities to grab some of that cash, you can be assured that they're working on it.
No one ever did have an answer to who is washing the ducks. As Tirith pointed out, unskilled 22 year olds aren't really qualified to do much besides wash ducks* so as long as they bring their own detergent they might as well have at it. The only question there was the one in the OP -- if it does the birds more harm than good to be cleaned rather than immediately put out of their misery.
*"Well, there are rocks. Thousands and thousands of rocks."
Anderson Cooper was going around on-site at some of the bird cleaning facilities yesterday. I wasn't really watching, but I picked up a little bit of it here and there. He was interviewing a member of a group that was cleaning birds, specifically, Pelicans at the time. IIRC, the group was an avian protection agency of some sort. The member said that part of the controversy on bird cleanup was due to a New York Times article which cited a 1% survival rate for the birds. That figure, the member said, was based on older cleanup methods, and was wholly inaccurate. He didn't give a new estimate, however.
For what it's worth.
Just read this article at The Huffington Post. It seems to me that there are people saying it helps, and people saying it doesn't. I've read that the survival rates are fairly high, and one website was claiming 50-80% survival rate. As for the not breeding again thing, I'm not sure how that matters, really.
Apparently, the brown pelican, which is being affected by the spill, was just taken off of the endangered species list last year.
Also, it looks like BP is paying for the recovery.
I say again, I see no problem with trying to save the birds we can.
Apparently, the brown pelican, which is being affected by the spill, was just taken off of the endangered species list last year.
Also, it looks like BP is paying for the recovery.
I say again, I see no problem with trying to save the birds we can.
Ah ha... here's a little information:
So the base operation is paid for, funded by BP (the article mentions earlier how there's BP officials there to cheer and film each released clean bird) and they work with Fish & Wildlife. And have a bunch of volunteers.
If BP is footing the bill, it's probably worth noting that incinerating a pile of oily euthanized birds makes for shitty public relations footage.
Some site or another wrote:
Experts from Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, based in Delaware, are in charge of the bird rescue efforts in the gulf. They are joined by the International Bird Rescue Research Center (IBRRC) from California. The two are the only wildlife rescue groups in the country with the chops to deal with a disaster of this scope.
They, contracted by BP and working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, run the rehabilitation centers set up in four coastal states. Their OSHA-trained rehabilitators, veterinarians and extended response teams train volunteers how to catch, handle, clean and care for damaged birds.
They, contracted by BP and working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, run the rehabilitation centers set up in four coastal states. Their OSHA-trained rehabilitators, veterinarians and extended response teams train volunteers how to catch, handle, clean and care for damaged birds.
So the base operation is paid for, funded by BP (the article mentions earlier how there's BP officials there to cheer and film each released clean bird) and they work with Fish & Wildlife. And have a bunch of volunteers.
If BP is footing the bill, it's probably worth noting that incinerating a pile of oily euthanized birds makes for shitty public relations footage.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
If BP is footing the bill, it's probably worth noting that incinerating a pile of oily euthanized birds makes for shitty public relations footage.
I also read that it takes $600-$750 to clean each bird, for what it's worth.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
If BP is footing the bill, it's probably worth noting that incinerating a pile of oily euthanized birds makes for shitty public relations footage.
I also read that it takes $600-$750 to clean each bird, for what it's worth.
That is in-f'ucking-sane. Spread some rat poison and burn the carcasses. No way should BP have to foot that bill. It's simply caving to some moronic animal lobby.
F'uck PETA. F'uck them right in their f'ucking asses.
470 birds x $700 each = $329,000
In the PR war against footage of a burning pile of oil-soaked birds, that's probably pretty cheap. It's got little to do with PETA and a lot to do with your average television viewer.
In the PR war against footage of a burning pile of oil-soaked birds, that's probably pretty cheap. It's got little to do with PETA and a lot to do with your average television viewer.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
470 birds x $700 each = $329,000
In the PR war against footage of a burning pile of oil-soaked birds, that's probably pretty cheap. It's got little to do with PETA and a lot to do with your average television viewer.
In the PR war against footage of a burning pile of oil-soaked birds, that's probably pretty cheap. It's got little to do with PETA and a lot to do with your average television viewer.
Who has been inundated with "Save the Whales!", "Buy dolphin safe tuna!", and "ZOMGt3hsp0ttedOWL!!!!111" for decades thanks to groups like PETA.
F'uck PETA.
Wasn't there one time during that Exxon spill back in the 80's they spent a lot of money cleaning up some sort of sea lion only to watch them get eaten by a whale after returned to the wild?
Hi
fronglo wrote:
Wasn't there one time during that Exxon spill back in the 80's they spent a lot of money cleaning up some sort of sea lion only to watch them get eaten by a whale after returned to the wild?
It was a sea otter, and it got eaten as it was swimming out when they released it (to great fanfare & a big ceremony, by the way).
Hrm. Otter soaked in petroleum and then dish soap.
I'm sure that didn't sit well in Willy's belly.
I'm sure that didn't sit well in Willy's belly.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I don't particularly care about the lives of individual animals, just the species as a whole. In an ideal world, they'd be able to euthanize the doomed ones for a fraction of the cost of cleaning, and redirect all possible money to environmental cleanup. Ensuring the vitality of the lowest forms on the food chain (plants, algae, microbes, plankton, etc) would, I imagine, have an equal or greater effect than treating the problem from the top down.
Unfortunately, I also agree that it would never play from a PR perspective.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
If BP is footing the bill, it's probably worth noting that incinerating a pile of oily euthanized birds makes for shitty public relations footage.
I also read that it takes $600-$750 to clean each bird, for what it's worth.
That is in-f'ucking-sane. Spread some rat poison and burn the carcasses. No way should BP have to foot that bill. It's simply caving to some moronic animal lobby.
Rat poison? Just light the whole mess and burn *all* of it off. What do we get? Pre-cooked bird and 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.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
fronglo wrote:
Wasn't there one time during that Exxon spill back in the 80's they spent a lot of money cleaning up some sort of sea lion only to watch them get eaten by a whale after returned to the wild?
It was a sea otter, and it got eaten as it was swimming out when they released it (to great fanfare & a big ceremony, by the way).
Well, at least there wasn't video of another otter being clubbed in the background as they saved that one.
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.
Jophiel wrote:
Ah ha... here's a little information:
So the base operation is paid for, funded by BP (the article mentions earlier how there's BP officials there to cheer and film each released clean bird) and they work with Fish & Wildlife. And have a bunch of volunteers.
If BP is footing the bill, it's probably worth noting that incinerating a pile of oily euthanized birds makes for shitty public relations footage.
Some site or another wrote:
Experts from Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, based in Delaware, are in charge of the bird rescue efforts in the gulf. They are joined by the International Bird Rescue Research Center (IBRRC) from California. The two are the only wildlife rescue groups in the country with the chops to deal with a disaster of this scope.
They, contracted by BP and working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, run the rehabilitation centers set up in four coastal states. Their OSHA-trained rehabilitators, veterinarians and extended response teams train volunteers how to catch, handle, clean and care for damaged birds.
They, contracted by BP and working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, run the rehabilitation centers set up in four coastal states. Their OSHA-trained rehabilitators, veterinarians and extended response teams train volunteers how to catch, handle, clean and care for damaged birds.
So the base operation is paid for, funded by BP (the article mentions earlier how there's BP officials there to cheer and film each released clean bird) and they work with Fish & Wildlife. And have a bunch of volunteers.
If BP is footing the bill, it's probably worth noting that incinerating a pile of oily euthanized birds makes for shitty public relations footage.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Show me a better survival rate or let them die.
Dawn soap is usable in salt water, most dish washing soap is not. Dawn is popular among sailors for that reason as cleanser. Its an unintended niche for P&G.
Dawn soap is usable in salt water, most dish washing soap is not. Dawn is popular among sailors for that reason as cleanser. Its an unintended niche for P&G.
Jonwin wrote:
SDawn is popular among sailors for that reason as cleanser. Its an unintended niche for P&G.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Recent Visitors: 331
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (331)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Saving the Birds
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC