Animals that arrive on the shoreline alive but oiled and delibitated have a strongly reduced chance of survival, although they may live for days, weeks or even months before they die.

A wildlife response should include well designed and predefined activities that aim to take care of the welfare of the affected animals. The two alternative options for treatment are euthanasia or an attempt to de-oil and rehabilitate those animals that still have a chance of survival according to professional judgement.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a direct ending of the animal's suffering. The act itself however is not reversible and therefore contributes in an absolute sense to the total mortality of the spill.

Rehabilitation

An attempt to rehabilitate will extend the suffering of an animal, at least until the moment of successful release. The extended suffering is related to

• the external oil preventing the animal from being able to behave normally,
• the internal effects of swallowed oil or fumes that have been inhaled, making the animal sick
• last but not least the fact that the animal will be taken into captivity and exposed to the proximity of human beings and frequent disturbances as a result of the treatment that it will undergo.

These factors individually or in combination may be potentially lethal for some animals (or even sensitive species), and the animal may die in care. In addition, if the rehabilitation has not been fully completed before the animal is released, it may die some time after release. If successful, however, a rehabilitated animal may join or re-join the breeding population. This, and not only the release, should be the ultimate goal of the rehabilitation. A successful rehabilitation can help to minimise the effects of an oil spill on wildlife populations.

Euthanise or try to rehabilitate?

Especially if species of conservation value are involved, strong dilemmas will have to be dealt with from case to case. Also the fact that the public may demand that rehabilitation is undertaken (members of the public may take their own initiative to do so if they see no signs of centrally coordinated efforts).

Euthanasia as the only response option may be too narrow an approach: it would mean that there is no leeway in the case of species of conservation interest, or in other unforeseen circumstances. At the other end of the spectrum, allowing any interested group or individual the possibility to attempt the rehabilitation of any animal that they collect regardless of its species, its physical condition on arrival or its expected survival, is clearly also not an ideal solution.

In practice, having both options available and making the related decisions subject to clear guidelines, will offer the most confortable position to the officers charged with the responsibility for the wildlife response. The assessment whether or not the rehabilitation process is in the interest of the animal must be made by professional experts and based on reliable scientific evidence. Rehabilitation of oiled animals is best carried out professionally, under a central command and coordination, with clear objectives and the use of proven methodologies, by, or under the supervision of, qualified experts.