U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service biologist James A. Estes, quoted in the Dec. 31 Tribune on the cost of saving otters after the Valdez disaster, presents a curious slant on the case. Suddenly Exxon is playing the role of generous savior, with the government agency in charge casting itself as a dog in the manger with the question: Was it worth it just to save a few animals?
Estes reports that since only 222 of the threatened otters survived, rehabilitation cost more than $80,000 per animal, and that ”Exxon paid all the expenses.” Wrong.
Exxon`s foot-dragging on the cleanup, aggravating the catastrophe, is a matter of public record. Volunteers the world over strained at the leash to be allowed to enter Prince William Sound. Exxon kept them out, which suggests that all the free assistance in the world was not worth the prying eyes of outsiders into actual conditions.
When Exxon finally opened the floodgates, volunteers were told they must pay their own passage into and out of that remote region, bring their own necessary gear and be prepared to sleep outdoors, and that they would be fed two rudimentary meals a day.
Since it cost Exxon two soup kitchen meals a day for volunteers and nothing for transportation, gear or housing, how did Exxon spend $80,000 per otter to rescue the few animals that could be saved by that time?
