Questions always arise during oil spills about the value of caring for affected wildlife. The Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico is no exception.

Some argue that caring for individual oiled animals does very little for populations or ecosystems, and that few animals survive. Others say we have a moral obligation to repair human-caused damage to the environment. If approached pragmatically, rehabbing oiled animals can produce extremely positive results.

Even in the best of circumstances, many oil-affected animals will die in the rehabilitation center. However, due to the evolution of professional oiled rehabilitation organizations over the past 30 years, survival is much higher than in the past. For spills that my organization, the Oiled Wildlife Care Network, manages for California, we successfully release, on average, 50 to 75 percent of the live animals collected.

It is difficult to assess how long rehabilitated oiled animals survive once they are released into a clean environment. Birds are banded to track them, but fewer than 1 percent of banded birds are found. But by using radio tracking, we have found that birds survive much better after release than previously thought. In certain species investigated, there are no discernible differences after release in survival and behavior between oiled and non-oiled birds.

Some argue that because many young animals do not normally survive to adulthood, only adult animals should be rehabilitated. Others argue that rehab efforts should focus on endangered species, and individuals from more abundant species should not be collected during spills. My organization collects all oiled wildlife that can be safely captured for these reasons:

-- Oiled wildlife are considered evidence during legal investigations;

-- Animals can receive the best care possible instead of suffering untreated;

-- Caring for the birds provides training and research opportunities and allows us to evolve care protocols.

-- Professional wildlife rehabilitators are best prepared to take on the societal responsibility of caring for the wildlife, otherwise it will certainly be done in the bathtubs of caring individuals. This would not be the best practice for either the person or the animal.

Some say wildlife rehabilitation funds should be redirected to conservation efforts. Oiled wildlife response is certainly costly at times, but oil spills, by their very nature, are expensive. For example, wildlife recovery accounted for less than 5 percent of the response costs to the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Yet spending less to clean and feed oiled wildlife will not necessarily free funds for other environmental restoration. In the United States, the spiller is responsible for the costs of both spill response and environmental restoration costs. Wildlife rehabilitation provides data to assign a monetary value to the damage to the environment. In this way, wildlife rehabilitation enhances the collection of post-spill funds for environmental restoration.