Birds and Marine Wildlife / 79- The birds had been fi tted with radio transmitters during reha-
bilitation. Two years later, researchers could account for only 10
percent of the rehabilitated pelicans, compared with 55 percent of
those in a control group, forcing the authors to conclude that “cur-
rent rehabilitation techniques are not effective in returning healthy
birds to the wild.”^52 Studies in Britain and the Netherlands report
that fewer than 20 percent of rehabilitated birds survived their fi rst
year, and in one case, less than 1 percent did so.^53 A study assessing
the outcome of sea otter rehabilitation efforts following the Exxon
Valdez spill determined that the cost of capture and rehabilitation
was $18.3 million, or $80,000 per animal.^54
Survival rates and costs raise the question, When the next spill
occurs, what should we do for the birds and animals? Should they
be put through the stress of capture and treatment, only to die soon
afterward? Despite the poor survival rates in the studies cited here,
a strong argument can be made for continued rescue activity. Cap-
turing oiled birds and wildlife and retrieving carcasses makes sense
on several levels. First, it is an animal welfare issue, and the pub-
lic demands a response. As conveyed in a statement by the IBRRC,
“The public will not stand for wildlife agencies euthanizing oiled
birds as they come ashore.”^55 Second, retrieving oiled wildlife or
carcasses reduces potential secondary impacts, such as ingestion by
birds and animals who scavenge oiled carcasses. Third, capture and
carcass retrieval can also be a public safety measure, because it min-
imizes the possibility of contact between humans and oiled—and
possibly ill or injured—wildlife. When wildlife specialists handle
oiled birds and wildlife, the public at-large is less likely to inter-
vene, even when unqualifi ed to do so. Finally, arguments against
rehabilitating oiled wildlife pose a false dichotomy of irreconcilable
positions: we either do or do not engage in rehabilitation. There is
a middle ground. Rather than rehabilitate every oiled bird, reha-
bilitators can—and many do—ask a series of questions about the
health of the individual and about the prospects of the species. Spe-
cies that are threatened or endangered or whose loss would have an
adverse affect on the population within a region would merit reha-
bilitation. Those with abundant numbers would not.