BP accused of killing endangered sea turtles in cleanup operation

[kpete]

Source: Guardian UK


BP accused of killing endangered sea turtles in cleanup operation

Environmentalists press Obama administration to put a halt to BP's 'burn fields' to dispose of oil from the Gulf spill


A Kemp's Ridley turtle rescued from the BP oil spill is cleaned up at the Audubon Nature Institute

Conservationists and wildlife experts have accused BP of indiscriminately burning alive endangered sea turtles and other marine creatures in 500 sq mile "burn fields", as it tries to dispose of oil from its leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

The killing of the turtles – which once teetered on the brink of extinction – has outraged environmentalists, and could put BP into even deeper legal jeopardy.

Environmental organisations are demanding that BP stop blocking rescue of the turtles, and are pressing the Obama administration to halt the burning, and look at prosecuting the oil company and its contractors for killing endangered species during the cleanup operation. Harming or killing a sea turtle carries fines of up to $50,000 (£33,000).

"It is criminal and it is cruel and they need to be held accountable," said Carole Allen, Gulf office director of the Sea Turtle Restoration Project. "There should not be another lighting of a fire of any kind till people have gone in there and looked for turtles." Government scientists are also pressing BP to post wildlife experts as turtle spotters on its cleanup vessels to try to rescue the animals before the oil is lit – or at the very least give them access to the burn fields.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/25/bp-accused-of-killing-turtles

[BeFree]

1. Hell yeah

Couldn't find an American newspaper to cover this, eh?

How come Obama has allowed one turtle to be burned alive?
There are many here making excuses for Obama, can they find one for allowing burning turtles alive?

[The Stranger]

2. Seize BP and sell off its assets.

It's the only way.

[Braulio]

18. Can't do it

Not only is it fairly impractical, it's also impossible. BP is a British company. At best the US government can seize the US based assets. And there's no legal basis to do so. All BP has to do is declare bankrupcy of its US subsidiary, and the US government won't be able to touch it.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

3. Hooray for them - now Obama had better respond to this quickly -nt

[EFerrari]

4. This story has been around at least for a week.

It's too late for our federal government to act quickly.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

5. then why $%# did Obama ignore this?

I'm sorry I didn't know this was old news...I try to read every thread on this matter but missed this-- that an official complaint was issued to the Obama Administration. Why didn't he do something? Are his hands tied? What his young daughters must think of him for allowing the animals, fish and birds to perish in such a cruel manner...
:cry: this is all very hard to take

[juajen]

6. Malia for President!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

7. lol

i deserved that - but I do imagine what conversations are taking place over this matter in the privacy of the the Obama household these days...

[EFerrari]

12. I know.

:(

[TheMadMonk]

8. One might point out that if the oil is thick enough to burn, then any animals...

...within the burn zone are almost certainly so compromised that their survival chances are near enough to zero as makes no matter. And realistically, the burning of what can't be captured/recovered IS very much the best of a lot of very bad options. This unfortunately, means a certain number of animals will die in brief searing agony. However, to put it in perspective, 99% plus of these animals will die regardless, in significant pain, over several hours or days.

Yes, attempts should be made to humanely euthanase when and where such animals are spotted, but attempting to rescue them should be very, very low priority.

Harsh yes. Cruel? Not in my books. Cruel is six guys all holding guns, surrounding a screaming horse with a broken leg, doing nothing, because they have been told they WILL be prosecuted (under animal cruelty laws no less) if they act. Instead they must wait while the vet trudges back to his vehicle and returns with his "humane" bolt gun.

How strange is it, that I can be prosecuted for doing, or not doing exactly the same thing, euthanasing a badly injured animal, depending on whether or not that animal is classified as game, livestock, domestic or protected and the method I use, also dependant on classification.

Cruel is playing silly buggers with impossible to change events in order to score cheap points.

And on a related note. Stupid as well as cruel is allowing ludicrous (in the circumstances) regulation to get in the way of doing something sensible. What is this (now old) BS about cleanup workers trampling eggs and nests? WTF were the nests and eggs still doing there?

The moment those nesting sites came under threat by the oil, those eggs and any chicks should have been in incubators and fuck the Prime Directive.

[pitohui]

10. abt the nest eggs trampled (yr right abt the turtles, don't take me as a naysayer)

i can only speak to the least tern nest/eggs trampled on grand isle, the location was not right on the beach of grand isle, it was more toward the exxon fields area, if you're from there and know these birds you can picture it, otherwise i'm at a loss

there was no reason to move/put the least terns in incubators because they were never in danger from oil, they got run over from contractors vehicles basically


they just needed to rope off/flag the nests

captive breeding for some species of birds works well, for some it works v. poorly -- i don't think we have much evidence that it works well w. shorebirds/seabirds (we have a lot of good experience w. the parrots and the birds of prey but for some kinds of birds captive breeding simply doesn't work or we don't know how to make it work)

i agree w. yr point re the turtles tho -- they're just using this to jerk emotions, the turtles were lost either way

i'm sick of the emotion jerking

[TheMadMonk]

11. Obviously, all else being equal, the best choice is usually to cordon...

off and leave well enough alone.

However, I think it's safe to assume that in a lot of similar cases, if the oil is close enough to warrant cleanup, it's close enough to adversely affect the adult birds. Certainly some of the pictures I saw a little while back were of nestlings fouled by oil from their parent's feathers.

Everything would have to be judged on its merits, but FFS err on the side of good faith, not some dickhead bureacrat's idea of fucking best practice. Nor dithering about, hoping against hope that the bad stuff won't happen 'just here'.

Captive breeding is, yes, problematical. But we're not breeding here. Incubation and husbandry are fairly damned mature sciences and even at their worst, a damned sight more reliable than rehabilitating an oiled bird.

We might also consider a few more worst case scenarios. How many facilities can cater for whole pods of dolphins or can be converted to do so. Wholesale capture and temporary (or permanent) relocation of as many top of the food chain species as is humanly possible. Bank on losses. Hope and work for the best. Sperm whales might be a little large, but look into it anyway.

Oxygenation projects. Rent some Russian nuclear subs and use the reactors to power whacking great aquarium bubblers. Even establish air flames inside the oil plume.


In situations where there are no precedents, rules are as much a hinderance as a help. Look at how BP is using the letter of the law regarding personal protective equipment to completely circumvent the intent of that selfsame law. Or a lustrum ago, when FEMA turned away water, food, and other offers of help after Katrina. Enough shallow draught vessels were on offer to evacuate every remaining person in NOLA in less than 48 hours, and enough accomodation stood offshore to house them.

You could almost swear that the intent here is to fuck up the gulf so badly that there is no point in preventing or even rigorously mangaging drilling operations there in the future.

[wordpix]

14. you last comment: unfortunately, too many have the "it's polluted, so pollute some more" philosophy

unfortunately. :puke:

[pitohui]

9. can;t fucking win for losing

don't do a burn, you're killing the turtles, for they can't live in a fucking oil pudding, do a burn, and you're killing the turtles, put off doing the burn to collect some turtles and now you're screwing w. the livelihoods of god knows how many fishermen and shrimpers because you care more about turtles than human beings...seriously they can't win, everything they do is wrong

i'm glad i don't work for bp is all i can say because they're fucked whatever they do

you do realize if it was exxon, they'd fry the turtles and then tell you to sue the broke drunk guy for the money?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

16. are you kidding? I hope so

They could at least allow wildlife rescue teams to attempt to save the turtles, fish & other creatures from the sargassum before TORCHING it.

(TWIMC - The group doing the burns is "O'Brien Response Management", of Houston, subcontracted by BP).

[Nihil]

21. Sad but true.

This is a no-win situation - especially for the wildlife ...
:-(

[HCE SuiGeneris]

13. I am so reluctant to click on threads with such sad and disheartening news, but

this information HAS to circulate.

K&R :cry:

[Braulio]

19. Turtle Soup

Turtle soup is sold all over the world. If a few turtles are being cooked by a burn (and I suspect they are very few indeed) then this isn't such a big deal. I bet there are more turtles dipped in boiling water in US restaurants than are burned in a controlled burn every day.

[Pavulon]

20. Yeah and lots of people get shot in the face every day too

pretty sure you are not volunteering right?

[wordpix]

15. Hello Obama Admin? You need to adddress this immediately

A week of burning turtles is a week too much :grr: DO SOMETHING

[w4rma]

17. They don't want people in there because they don't want descriptions and pictures coming out. (nt)