SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Thousands of seabirds are washing ashore off the coast of Oregon and Washington, stripped of their natural protection from water and cold air. The birds are feeling the effects of a large bloom of red algae, known as Akashiwo sanguinea. A similar phenomenon occurred off the California coast in 2007 and some of the birds are being sent to California to be treated.
The birds need to be rinsed and dried in order to help them build back their natural waterproofing. Most of them also need to be fed large quantities of fish because their condition has made it impossible for them to hunt. A number of private organizations along with federal and state agencies have stepped up to help treat and transport the birds. The response is similar to the aftermath of an oil spill, but unlike that kind of manmade disaster, there is no one to blame and, therefore, no company to pick up the tab. The effort depends on a lot of volunteer hours and organizations willing to adjust their budgets and step up fundraising once the crisis is over.
Do you live on the coast? Have you seen birds and algae foam washing up onshore? What is the best response to something like this? How much effort should private, state or federal agencies put into saving seabirds? What can we learn from this algae bloom and its affect on seabirds?
GUESTS:
- Tom Banse, Regional correspondent for OPB News
- Raphael Kudela, Professor of the Ocean Sciences Department at University of California Santa Cruz
- Jay Holcomb, Director of the International Bird Rescue Research Center
Tagged as: animal welfare · climate · ocean
Photo credit: Penelope Chilton/COASST
-
Have Marbled Murrelets been found?
-
I fully support this humane effort to save the birds! It is immaterial that the cause is algae rather than an oil spill. The birds' suffering is the same.
I am happy to finally see my tax dollars used toward something that I personally consider important.
-
Compassion for suffering animals is demonstrated by the volunteers and the donations coming in. Compassion should also be a component of our tax dollars when volunteer systems are overwhelmed. Those who can't volunteer or donate should be proud to have some portion of their tax dollars used in this compassionate way.
-
I volunteer at Chintimini Wildlife Center in Corvallis, OR and know how important it is to receive help. We are a 501c non profit and rely on the help of our community to support us; financially and with animal care and transport. In order for people to continue enjoying the wildlife that graces our lives we must be willing to help out in any way possible, even if that means using our tax dollars to help out. It costs thousands of dollars a year to feed and care for injured wildlife, and when natural "disasters" such as this algae bloom disable such a large number of animals rehabers need all the help we can get. Every animal plays a crutial role in maintaining balance in our ecosystem and I personally feel we should be able to rely on state or federal agencies to help out if there is a need.
-
Are these birds tagged or fitted with monitors of any type? Is there an estimate how many are lost at sea?
-
This reminds me of the debate over the demise of the kelp forests off the Southern California coast back in the late 60's. It was that mans influence was at fault or change in ocean temperatures. It was proven by Dr Wheeler North that the actual cause was the loss of the sea otter population and the susequent explosion of the sea urchin population. After years of commercial fishing of the sea urchins for the Japanese market they are now endangered.
It is prudent to go slowly and get the right answer before making big plans like carbon credtits.
-
For years American taxpayers have seen millions of their dollars spent fighting wildfires, predominately in California. Fires are a natural process that nature needs to protect the health and ensure the endurance of its forests. Continually fighting these fires only leads to bigger and bigger fires every year, as we continue to prevent nature from running its course. Following in these footsteps by fighting algal growths will merit the same affect, algal growths will continue to boom unless we allow nature to run its course.
-
Not being a taxpayer myself, I probably don't have as strong opinion on the issue as many adults. However, it's important to understand the distinction between cleanup and prevention, especially in this case. In a broader sense, I don't mind my pseudo-tax dollars being spent to help birds recuperate, and prefer it to the war, but that's not to say I don't value the issue of climate change or the economy over it. Let's just say that the "root" of the problem is more important - if I could spend tax dollars to directly sanction ExxonMobil, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
-
Being from an Oregon coastal town myself, I feel that tax payer dollars would be appropriately spent on this cause. Tourism is a major source of business for the Oregon coast, and for the beaches to not be aesthetically pleasing and potentially dangerous, is a huge blow to business. With tourism down in fall/winter, the coastal economy is shaky as is, and with the development of this crisis occurring, this issue needs to be viewed as very serious. While cleaning the birds is important, an equal level of funding should be spent on determining the cause of the algae bloom.
-
Comments are now closed.
We are an AP Environmental Science (APES) class. The following are our opinions/responses to this issue:
* They can do whatever they want as long as they don't use taxpayer's dollars.
* Well, I would rather my taxpayer's dollars go to helping the seabirds than to something like the war.
* The volunteer response to the bird crisis seems sufficient, and I feel tax dollars would be better used in an attempt to research the cause of the algae bloom, and whether it was a direct reflection of a chemical inbalance due to people caused pollution, a response to global warming, or an entirely natural occurrence.
* There are also economic factors to consider. Coastal towns rely on tourism to bring in money. If this is the case, should it be the responsibility of the people on the coast/locals to take care of this, or is this something that calls for the support of the federal/state/local government? What should be the deciding factor in who is responsible?