Environmental groups debate whether it’s more humane to euthanize or save the wildlife impacted by the BP oil disaster in Louisiana.
The great debate is on as environmental groups and other agencies around the world attempt to find the best way to manage wildlife, specifically birds, that have been victimized by the oil spill in Louisiana. We’ve all seen the videos of poor pelicans, already endangered wading through murky water and other water fowl stuck in toxic water that reaches up to their beaks. Their fate isn’t positive, and that reality is causing the World Wildlife Fund and other groups to debate how they should manage the affect upon wildlife so they suffer as little as possible.
There are two major options as far as the WWF and the US Fish and Wildlife Service are concerned; they can try and save the birds, giving 1% of them a fighting chance at life, or they can euthanize them and not worry about efforts to preserve life. These options don’t mean that all rescue efforts would stop, but there just aren’t the resources available to get to all of the bird population suffering in the Gulf.
The debate that’s taking place about these two options is less about policy making and more about morality. Some believe that in attempting to save the birds, they’re only prolonging the suffering and death of all 99% of birds that will not survive the impact of oil. These people hold the train of thought that euthanizing them would be the more humane option. Others believe that it’s just not right to kill the wildlife when some of them might live through the ordeal.
Where’s your moral ground when it comes to this issue?
Image: GreenPeace on Flickr with a CC License