The unit initiated a multi faceted attack on the oiled bird problem and 

 reviewed the literature, sparse as it was, and, in addition to studying 

 pathology, stress, behavior, nutritional demands, and water repellency, re- 

 examined recommended cleaning agents, and investigated new ones. Solvents 

 were eliminated early in the study as being too toxic. It was decided to 

 concentrate on easily obtainable nontoxic household detergents. The methods 

 developed emphasized thorough rinsing, early swimming, and no medication. 

 These techniques produced high release rates but the annual reports of the 

 unit (Clark 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974) fail to mention how long the birds 

 were held in captivity. 



The Santa Barbara spill in 1969 and the San Francisco Bay spill in 1971 

 called attention to the plight of the oiled bird in this country. Unprepared 

 Government wildlife agencies were unable to cope with the thousands of water 

 birds impacted in both spills. Cleaning stations and bird care facilities 

 were organized by ecology groups who recruited staff from the hundreds of pri- 

 vate citizens anxious to help the affected animals. Contradictory advice was 

 forthcoming from veterinarians, ornithologists, zoologists, and naturalists. 

 Nonsense usually prevailed. In the early days of the San Francisco spill 

 loons were given dishes of grain and grebes, at one point, were encouraged to 

 eat bread soaked with milk. The majority of the birds were cleaned with 

 mineral oil which was followed by a liberal application of cornmeal to absorb 

 the excess mineral oil. Both rehabilitation attempts can be considered fail- 

 ures as essentially no birds were released after Santa Barbara and only 3 

 percent were released after the San Francisco spill, most after 9 months in 

 captivity. 



After the San Francisco spill, Standard Oil of California funded research 

 by the National Wildlife Health Foundation in the use of organic solvents for 

 cleaning oiled birds. The birds were washed in a series of warm solvent baths 

 followed by drying with forced warm air (Naviaux 1972). Later, practical 

 experience with this method showed that absorption through the skin and in- 

 haled fumes produced toxic effects that were demonstrated by torpor, loss of 

 equilibrium, hyperactivity in some species (loons and grebes), and very high 

 mortality in birds weighing less than 300 grams. The toxic effects were not 

 limited to birds. Without respirators and protective clothing, cleaning per- 

 sonnel complained of lightheadedness, euphoria, skin rashes, and headache. 

 The solvent was flammable and was not recommended for use by untrained per- 

 sonnel or in spills involving large numbers of birds. Although birds cleaned 

 with solvent were ready for release within days of cleaning, it was obvious 

 that a safer, nontoxic cleaning agent was needed desperately. 



After several oil spills involving wild birds on the east coast in the 

 midseventies, oiled bird treatment and its results started attracting the 

 attention of both Government and industry. Of an estimated 3,113 birds clean- 

 ed between 1973 and 1976 only 16 percent were released (Perry et al . 1978). 

 No records were kept during any of the rehabilitation attempts. It is prob- 

 able that most of the birds released were not in a condition that would per- 

 mit survival in the wild. The cleaning agents used were Gulfsol 10 and 20, 

 Shell Sol 71, Basic H, Liquid Concentrate, Foresight, L.O.C., and Pink Lux. 



129 



