Japanese Whalers “Enraged” with Sea Shepherd

The Institute for Cetacean Research has released their 2008/2009 kill figures for their whale slaughter in the Southern Ocean. They slaughtered 679 Minke whales of their targeted 935 and they only took one endangered fin whale from their targeted 50 whales.

Sea Shepherd this last season has saved 305 whales from an agonizing death from the deadly explosive harpoons of the Japanese whaling fleet. The Japanese Fisheries Agency is blaming the failure to reach their quota on disruptions by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

“This season’s catch was reduced as a result of the interference by protesters,” said Shigeki Takaya, a Fisheries Agency spokesman.

The Japanese whalers extended their whaling season by two weeks in an attempt to recover losses. Despite this, they took only 2% of their fin whale quota and 72% of their Minke whale quota. The estimated loss of profits is in the tens of millions of dollars. With costs increased due to security measures, the Japanese whaling industry needed to secure 700 whales to break even financially. They have failed to secure their required 700 whales.

Once again the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has negated the profits of the Southern Ocean whaling fleet.

“We continue to speak the one language these whale pirates understand,” said Captain Paul Watson. “Profit and loss: we need to keep their losses up and their profits down. We will eventually beat these killers with aggressively applied economics.”

 Three vessels from Japan’s fleet on Monday docked in Shimonoseki, a port town about 800 kilometres south-west of Tokyo, with the mother ship due in Tuesday, according to the agency. Two other ships returned to Japan last week.

Kazuo Yamamura, president of Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, which operates the whaling fleet, on Monday told reporters he was upset by damage allegedly caused to his ships by Sea Shepherd.

“I’m enraged, and my blood is boiling with anger,” he said.

The company has blamed Sea Shepherd for skirmishes at sea, saying it was the protesters who escalated the attacks by ramming two Japanese vessels and pelting whalers with bottles filled with rancid butter.

“We did not ram any whaling ship,” said Captain Watson. “We blocked their loading operations and when they attempted to get by us, the harpoon vessels caused the collisions. The harpoon killer vessels are faster and more maneuverable than the Steve Irwin. To suggest that we rammed them is absurd. Three different collisions happened when they attempted to pass us to offload their whales.

This year, Sea Shepherd’s boat chased the fleet more than 3200 kilometres through the icy waters of the Antarctic Ocean before withdrawing in February.

“I am delighted that Yamamura’s blood is boiling,” said Captain Watson. “I am delighted that he is enraged and I am absolutely delighted that the Japanese whalers made zero profits this year and most of all I am delighted that we saved 305 lives. That is three years in a row we have negated their bloody profits. We intend to make it a fourth year when we return to the Southern Ocean in December to once again disrupt the illegal activities of the Japanese whaling fleet.”

Sea Shepherd’s Operation Musashi has been a success. “We did the very best we could with the resources available to us,” said Captain Watson. “If we can raise the funds for a second faster vessel we will be able to do even better next season.”

The entire campaign was documented by Animal Planet for their hit show Whale Wars. The second season, which documented Operation Musashi, is set to air in the United States on June 5^th at 9 PM on Animal Planet.

“Every whale saved is a victory and 305 whales saved is a major victory, plus costing the whalers their profits for the season is an incredible victory,” said Sea Shepherd 1st Officer Peter Hammarstedt of Sweden.

Reposted from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

SANTA CRUZ, CA–Fishing and hunting are having broad, swift impacts on the body size and reproductive abilities of fish and other commercially harvested species, potentially jeopardizing the ability of entire populations to recover, according to the results of a new study that will appear in the January 12, 2009, online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Human predation is accelerating the rate of observable trait changes by 300 percent above the pace observed within natural systems, and 50 percent faster than in systems subject to other human influences, including pollution, according to Chris Darimont, the lead author of the paper entitled “Human Predators Outpace Other Agents of Trait Change in the Wild.”

Not only fast, the changes are also dramatic in magnitude: Harvested populations are on average 20 percent smaller in body size than previous generations, and their age of first reproduction is on average 25 percent earlier, according to Darimont, a postdoctoral researcher in environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

“Harvested organisms are the fastest-changing organisms of their kind in the wild, likely because we take such high proportions of a population and target the largest,” said Darimont. “It’s an ideal recipe for rapid trait change.”

The study is the first to calculate the pace of evolution in commercially harvested organisms and compare the rates to other systems. The team calculated the rates of trait change with a metric appropriately called the ‘Darwin,’ which allowed the comparison of changes across traits and species among natural and human-modified systems, including ‘human predator’ systems. It builds on research by coauthor Michael Kinnison and colleagues that has documented the evolutionary impact of other human activities, such as pollution and the introduction of species to new environments.

Darimont’s findings are based on a meta-analysis of 34 scientific studies that tracked 29 species in a total of 40 specific geographic systems. The bulk of the studies focused on impacts on fish populations, but other subjects included intertidal invertebrates such as limpets and snails, as well as bighorn sheep, caribou, and two plant species: Himalayan snow lotus and American ginseng.

By harvesting vast numbers and targeting large, reproductively mature individuals, human predation is quickly reshaping the wild populations that remain, leaving smaller individuals to reproduce at ever-earlier ages, said Darimont.

“The public knows we often harvest far too many fish, but the threat goes above and beyond numbers,” said Darimont. “We’re changing the very essence of what remains, sometimes within the span of only two decades. We are the planet’s super-predator.”

“The pace of changes we’re seeing supercedes by a long shot what we’ve observed in natural systems, and even in systems that have been rapidly modified by humans in other ways,” said Darimont. “As predators, humans are a dominant evolutionary force.”

Darimont’s findings also dramatically increase scientific understanding of the capacity of organisms to change. “These changes occur well within our lifetimes,” said Darimont. “Commercial hunting and fishing has awoken the latent ability of organisms to change rapidly.”

Some observed trait changes likely represent underlying genetic changes passed on from one generation to the next. In gill net fisheries, for example, evolution can favor smaller fish that pass through the mesh. Those smaller individuals are more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on genes for smaller offspring, explained Darimont. By contrast, some trait changes likely do not involve genetic changes, a process called plasticity. For example, shifts to earlier reproduction can occur because of an abundance of food being shared by a much smaller population of fish. Whereas such plastic changes might be readily reversed if exploitation stops, this is likely not the case with genetic changes.

“Whatever the underlying process, shifts to earlier breeding spell trouble for populations,” said Darimont. “Earlier breeders often produce far fewer offspring. If we take so much and reduce their ability to reproduce successfully, we reduce their resilience and ability to recover.”

For example, commercial fishing has devastated the number of Atlantic cod on the eastern coast of Canada, where cod used to first reproduce at the age of six years. They now reproduce at an average age of five years, a shift that occurred in less than two decades.

Ironically, some wildlife and fish management policies contribute to the rapid pace of trait changes. “Fishing regulations often prescribe the taking of larger fish, and the same often applies to hunting regulations,” said Darimont. “Hunters are instructed not to take smaller animals or those with smaller horns. This is counter to patterns of natural predation, and now we’re seeing the consequences of this management.” In Alberta, Canada, for example, hunters who are permitted to target the largest specimens of bighorn sheep have caused average horn length and body mass to drop by about 20 percent during the last 30 years.

“Although this is the first study of its kind, we assume this human impact is broad, because our predatory niche is so wide,” he said. “While wolves might prey on 20 animals, humans prey on hundreds of thousands of species.”

In addition, researchers don’t know how these rapid changes will impact larger ecosystems, added Darimont. “Size really matters in nature, in terms of interactions with natural predators and competition for resources,” he said. “Will ecological links unravel as exploited species continue to rapidly shrink?”

“This should be a wake-up call for resource managers,” he said. “We should be mimicking natural predators, which take far less and target smaller individuals.” Commercial fisheries often take half a given population per year; by contrast, competing natural predators might take only 10 percent of a population, he added.

However, more conservation-oriented policies would be no guarantee: “It’s unknown how quickly the traits can change back, or if they will,” noted Darimont, adding that consumers can also play a role by reducing the demand for seafood.

Finally, the results also sound an alarm about the viability of commercial industries. “By causing such abrupt and significant changes to their targets, many industries are harvesting away their future bounties,” he said.

###

Darimont’s coauthors on the paper are Stephanie M. Carlson, assistant professor of environmental science, policy and management at UC Berkeley; Michael T. Kinnison, associate professor of biology and ecology at the University of Maine; Paul C. Paquet, adjunct professor of environmental design at the University of Calgary; Thomas E. Reimchen, adjunct professor of biology at the University of Victoria; and Christopher C. Wilmers, assistant professor of environmental studies at UC Santa Cruz.

Although it was a crucial part of humans’ survival 100,000 years ago, hunting is now nothing more than a violent form of recreation that the vast majority of hunters does not need for subsistence.(1) Hunting has contributed to the extinction of animal species all over the world, including the Tasmanian tiger and the great auk.(2,3)

Less than 5 percent of the U.S. population hunts, yet hunting is permitted in many wildlife refuges, national forests, state parks, and on other public lands.(4) Forty percent of hunters slaughter and maim millions of animals on public land every year, and by some estimates, poachers kill just as many animals illegally.(5,6)

Pain and Suffering
Many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured but not killed by hunters. A member of the Maine Bowhunters Alliance estimates that 50 percent of animals who are shot with crossbows are wounded but not killed.(7) A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with “traditional archery equipment,” 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters.(8) Twenty percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters are shot again; 10 percent manage to escape, but “starvation is a likely fate” for them, according to one veterinarian.(9) A South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks biologist estimates that more than 3 million wounded ducks go “unretrieved” every year.(10) A British study of deer hunting found that 11 percent of deer who’d been killed by hunters died only after being shot two or more times and that some wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before dying.(11)

Hunting disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys families. For animals like wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress that hunted animals suffer-caused by fear and the inescapable loud noises and other commotion that hunters create-also severely compromises their normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy that they need in order to survive the winter.

Blood-Thirsty and Profit-Driven
To attract more hunters (and their money), federal and state agencies implement programs-often called “wildlife management” or “conservation” programs-that are designed to boost the number of “game” species. These programs help to ensure that there are plenty of animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses.

Duck hunters in Louisiana persuaded the state wildlife agency to direct $100,000 a year toward “reduced predator impact,” which involved trapping foxes and raccoons so that more duck eggs would hatch, giving hunters more birds to kill.(12) The Ohio Division of Wildlife teamed up with a hunter-organized society to push for clear-cutting (i.e., decimating large tracts of trees) in Wayne National Forest in order to “produce habitat needed by ruffed grouse.”(13)

In Alaska, the Department of Fish and Game is trying to increase the number of moose for hunters by “controlling” the wolf and bear populations. Grizzlies and black bears have been moved hundreds of miles away from their homes; two were shot by hunters within two weeks of their relocation, and others have simply returned to their homes.(14) Wolves have been slaughtered in order to “let the moose population rebound and provide a higher harvest for local hunters.”(15) In the early 1990s, a program designed to reduce the wolf population backfired when snares failed to kill victims quickly and photos of suffering wolves were seen by an outraged public.(16)

Nature Takes Care of Its Own
The delicate balance of ecosystems ensures their own survival-if they are left unaltered. Natural predators help maintain this balance by killing only the sickest and weakest individuals. Hunters, however, kill any animal whom they would like to hang over the fireplace-including large, healthy animals who are needed to keep the population strong. Elephant poaching is believed to have increased the number of tuskless animals in Africa, and in Canada, hunting has caused bighorn sheep’s horn size to fall by 25 percent in the last 40 years; Nature magazine reports that “the effect on the populations’ genetics is probably deeper.”(17)

Even when unusual natural occurrences cause overpopulation, natural processes work to stabilize the group. Starvation and disease can be tragic, but they are nature’s ways of ensuring that healthy, strong animals survive and maintain the strength level of the rest of their herd or group. Shooting an animal because he or she might starve or become sick is arbitrary and destructive.

“Sport” hunting not only jeopardizes nature’s balance, it also exacerbates other problems. For example, the transfer of captive-bred deer and elk between states for the purpose of hunting is believed to have contributed to the epidemic spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD). As a result, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has given state wildlife agencies millions of dollars to “manage” deer and elk populations.(18) The fatal neurological illness that affects these animals has been likened to mad cow disease, and while the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claim that CWD has no relationship to any similar diseases that affect humans or farmed animals, the slaughter of deer and elk continues.(19,20)

Another problem with hunting involves the introduction of exotic “game” animals who, if they’re able to escape and thrive, pose a threat to native wildlife and established ecosystems. After a group of nonnative wild boars escaped from a private ranch and moved into the forests of Cambria County, Pa., the state of Pennsylvania drafted a bill prohibiting the importation of all exotic species of animals.(21)

Canned Cruelty
Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can pay to kill native and exotic species in “canned hunts.” These animals may be native to the area, raised elsewhere and brought in, or purchased from individuals who are trafficking in unwanted or surplus animals from zoos and circuses. They are hunted and killed for the sole purpose of providing hunters with a “trophy.”

Canned hunts are becoming big business-there are an estimated 1,000 game preserves in the U.S.(22) Ted Turner, who owns more land than any other landowner in the country, operates 20 ranches, where hunters pay thousands of dollars to kill bison, deer, African antelopes, and turkeys.(23)

Animals on canned-hunting ranches are often accustomed to humans and are usually unable to escape from the enclosures that they are confined to, which range in size from just a few yards to thousands of acres. Most of these ranches operate on a “no kill, no pay” policy, so it is in owners’ best interests to ensure that clients get what they came for. Owners do this by offering guides who are familiar with animals’ locations and habits, permitting the use of dogs, and supplying “feeding stations” that lure unsuspecting animals to food while hunters lie in wait.

Only a handful of states prohibit canned hunting, and there are no federal laws regulating the practice at this time.(24) Congress is considering an amendment to the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act that would prohibit the transfer, transportation, or possession of exotic animals “for entertainment or the collection of a trophy.”(25)

‘Accidental’ Victims
Hunting “accidents” destroy property and injure or kill horses, cows, dogs, cats, hikers, and other hunters. In 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney famously shot a friend while hunting quail on a canned-hunting preserve.(26) According to the International Hunter Education Association, there are dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries attributed to hunting in the United States every year-and that number only includes incidents involving humans.(27) It is an ongoing problem, and one warden explained that “hunters seem unfamiliar with their firearms and do not have enough respect for the damage they can do.”(28)

A Humane Alternative
There are 30 million deer in the U.S., and because hunting has been an ineffective method to “control” populations (one Pennsylvania hunter “manages” the population and attracts deer by clearing his 600-acre plot of wooded land and planting corn), some wildlife agencies are considering other management techniques.(29,30) Several recent studies suggest that sterilization is an effective, long-term solution to overpopulation. A method called TNR (trap, neuter, and return) has been tried on deer in Ithaca, N.Y., and an experimental birth-control vaccine is being used on female deer in Princeton, N.J.(31,32) One Georgia study of 1,500 white-tailed deer on Cumberland Island concluded that “if females are captured, marked, and counted, sterilization reduces herd size, even at relatively low annual sterilization rates.”(33)
What You Can Do
Before you support a “wildlife” or “conservation” group, ask about its position on hunting. Groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Izaak Walton League, the Wilderness Society, and the World Wildlife Fund are pro-sport-hunting or, at the very least, they do not oppose it.

To combat hunting in your area, post “no hunting” signs on your land, join or form an anti-hunting organization, protest organized hunts, and spread deer repellent or human hair (from barber shops) near hunting areas. Call 1-800-448-NPCA to report poachers in national parks to the National Parks and Conservation Association. Educate others about hunting. Encourage your legislators to enact or enforce wildlife-protection laws, and insist that nonhunters be equally represented on the staffs of wildlife agencies.

References
1) National Research Council, “Science and the Endangered Species Act” (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995) 21.
2) Grant Holloway, “Cloning to Revive Extinct Species,” CNN.com, 28 May 2002.
3) Canadian Museum of Nature, “Great Auk,” 2003.
4) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation” (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2001) 5.
5) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 80.
6) Illinois Department of Natural Resources, “Poaching Is a Serious Crime,” May 2003.
7) Stephen S. Ditchkoff et al., “Wounding Rates of White-Tailed Deer With Traditional Archery Equipment,” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (1998).
D.J. Renny, “Merits and Demerits of Different Methods of Culling British Wild Mammals: A Veterinary Surgeon’s Perspective,” Proceedings of a Symposium on the Welfare of British Wild Mammals (London: 2002).
9) Spencer Vaa, “Reducing Wounding Losses,” South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, 2004.
10) E.L. Bradshaw and P. Bateson, “Welfare Implications of Culling Red Deer (Cervus Elaphus),” Animal Welfare 9 (2000): 3-24.
11) John Swinconeck, “Controlled Hunt May Be Solution to the Excess of ‘Deer at Our Doorstep,’” York County Coast Star 27 Jun. 2002.
12) Bob Marshall, “Is Predator Program Enough?” Times-Picayune 2 Mar. 2003.
13) Dave Golowenski, “Grouse Numbers Go Up if Trees Come Down,” The Columbus Dispatch 20 Feb. 2003.
14) “Hunters Shoot Two Relocated Bears,” Associated Press, 9 Jun. 2003.
15) Joel Gay, “McGrath Wolf Kills Fall Short,” Anchorage Daily News 25 Apr. 2003.
16) Joel Gay, “Governor Takes Heat From Hunters Expecting Aerial Wolf Control,” Anchorage Daily News 8 Apr. 2003.
17) John Whitfield, “Sheep Horns Downsized by Hunters’ Taste for Trophies,” Nature 426 (2003): 595.
18) U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Makes $4 Million Available to State Wildlife Agencies for Strengthening Chronic Wasting Disease Management,” news release, 15 Apr. 2003.
19) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, “Chronic Wasting Disease,” Nov. 2002.
20) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Media Relations, “Fatal Degenerative Neurologic Illnesses in Men Who Participated in Wild Game Feasts-Wisconsin, 2002,” news release, Feb. 2003.
21) Judy Lin, “Pennsylvania Worried About Wild Boar Escape,” Associated Press, 17 Mar. 2002.
22) “Reps. Farr, Shays Introduce Bill to Can Canned Hunts,” U.S. Fed News 7 Oct. 2004.
23) Audrey Hudson, “Greens Cut Turner a Break; Critics Question His Stewardship of Western Land,” The Washington Times 20 Jan. 2002.
24) National Conference of State Legislatures, “Environment, Energy, and Transportation Program: Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife,” Apr. 2003.
25) U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 5242, Session 108, introduced 7 Oct. 2004.
26) Dana Bash, “Cheney Accidentally Shoots Fellow Hunter,” CNN.com, 12 Feb. 2006.
27) International Hunter Education Association, “Hunter Incident Clearinghouse,” 2006.
28) Tom Harelson, “1998 Deer Gun Season Report,” Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 8 Dec. 1998.
29) “Deer Eating Away at Forests, Nationwide,” Associated Press, 18 Jan. 2005.
30) Andrew C. Revkin, “States Seek to Restore Deer Balance,” The New York Times 29 Dec. 2002.
31) Roger Segelken, “Surgical Sterilization Snips Away at Deer Population,” Cornell News 19 Mar. 2003.
32) “Princeton’s Deer Hunt Coming to a Premature End,” Associated Press, 21 Mar. 2003.
33) James L. Boone and Richard G. Wiegert, “Modeling Deer Herd Management: Sterilization Is a Viable Option,” Ecological Modeling 72 (1994): 175-86.

The loss of sea ice due to climate change could spell disaster for polar bears and other Arctic marine mammals. The April Special Issue of Ecological Applications examines such potential effects, puts them in historical context, and describes possible conservation measures to mitigate them. The assessment reflects the latest thinking of experts representing multiple scientific disciplines.

Sea ice is the common habitat feature uniting these unique and diverse Arctic inhabitants. Sea ice serves as a platform for resting and reproduction, influences the distribution of food sources, and provides a refuge from predators. The loss of sea ice poses a particularly severe threat to Arctic species, such as the hooded seal, whose natural history is closely tied to, and depends on, sea ice.

The Arctic undergoes dramatic seasonal transformation. Arctic marine mammals appear to be well adapted to the extremes and variability of this environment, having survived past periods of extended warming and cooling.

“However, the rate and scale of current climate change are expected to distinguish current circumstances from those of the past several millennia. These new conditions present unique challenges to the well-being of Arctic marine mammals,” says Sue Moore (NOAA/Alaska Fisheries Science Center).

Climate change will pose a variety of threats to marine mammals. For some, such as polar bears, it is likely to reduce the availability of their prey, requiring them to seek alternate food. Authors Bodil Bluhm and Rolf Gradinger (University of Alaska, Fairbanks) note that while some Arctic marine mammal species may be capable of adjusting to changing food availability, others may be handicapped by their very specific food requirements and hunting techniques. Species such as the walrus and polar bear fall under this category, while the beluga whale and bearded seal are among those who are more opportunistic in their eating habits and therefore potentially less vulnerable, at least in this regard.

Using a quantitative index of species sensitivity to climate change, Kristin Laidre (University of Washington) and colleagues found that the most sensitive Arctic marine mammals appear to be the hooded seal, polar bear, and the narwhal, primarily due to their reliance on sea ice and specialized feeding.

Shifts in the prey base of Arctic marine mammals would likely lead to changes in body condition and potentially affect the immune system of marine mammals, according to Kathy Burek (Alaska Veterinary Pathology Services). She and fellow researchers point out that climate change may alter pathogen transmission and exposure to infectious diseases, possibly lowering the health of marine mammals and, in the worst case, their survival. Changing environmental conditions, including more frequent bouts of severe weather and rising air and water temperatures, also could impact the health of Arctic marine mammals.

The effects of climate change will be compounded by a host of secondary factors. The loss of ice will open the Arctic to new levels of shipping, oil and gas exploration and drilling, fishing, hunting, tourism, and coastal development. These, in turn, will add new threats to marine mammal populations, including ship strikes, contaminants, and competition for prey.

Timothy Ragen (US Marine Mammal Commission) and colleagues describe how conservation measures may be able to address the secondary effects of climate change, but that only reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can-over the long-term-conserve Arctic marine mammals and the Arctic ecosystems on which they depend.

###

Ragen talks more about the issue on an Ecological Society of America podcast. Visit http://www.esa.org/podcast/ to listen to this latest edition of ESA’s podcast, Field Talk.

Lead authors of the collection of papers in the Special Supplement to Ecological Applications are:

John Walsh (U. of AK, Fairbanks)–climatological understanding
C.R. Harrington (Canadian Museum of Nature)–evolutionary history of arctic marine mammals
Maribeth Murray (U. of AK, Fairbanks)–past distributions of arctic marine mammals
Gregory O’Corry-Crowe (Southwest Fisheries Science Center)–past and current distributions and behaviors
Bodil Bluhm (U. of AK, Fairbanks)–food availability and implications of climate change
Kristin Laidre (U. of WA)–sensitivity to climate-induced habitat change
Kathy Burek (Alaska Veterinary Pathology Services)–effects on Arctic marine mammal health
Grete Havelsrud (Center for International Climate & Environmental Research-Oslo)–human interactions
Vera Metcalf (Eskimo Walrus Commission, Kawerak)–walrus hunting
Sue Moore (NOAA/Alaska Fisheries Science Center)/Henry Huntington (Huntington Consulting)–resilience of Arctic marine mammals to climate change
Timothy Ragen (U.S. Marine Mammal Commission)–conservation in context of climate change

The Ecological Society of America is the world’s largest professional organization of ecologists, representing 10,000 scientists in the United States and around the globe. Since its founding in 1915, ESA has promoted the responsible application of ecological principles to the solution of environmental problems through ESA reports, journals, research, and expert testimony to Congress. ESA publishes four journals and convenes an annual scientific conference. Visit the ESA website at http://www.esa.org/.

Canadian Government Should End Commercial Seal Hunt and Focus on Tourism

After experiencing first hand the beauty of the harp seal nursery, world-renowned photographer Nigel Barker joined The Humane Society of the United States in calling on the Canadian government to end the commercial slaughter of baby seals in favor of the more humane – and lucrative – eco-tourism industry.

Since Canada banned commercial whale hunting in the 1970′s, the whale-watching industry has thrived and is now worth more than the commercial seal hunt.

“Years ago, the Canadian government successfully turned its commercial whale hunt into a multimillion-dollar whale-watching industry, and there is absolutely no reason the government cannot do the same with seals,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS. “By continuing this appalling and inhumane hunt, the government is turning what should be an economic asset - the world’s largest migration of these highly charismatic marine mammals – into a liability. The new economies of the major nations of the world will be built around sustainable and humane practices, not the reckless exploitation of wildlife and natural resources.”

Barker said, “Witnessing hundreds of thousands of harp seals with their beautiful white coat pups in this awe-inspiring frozen landscape is enough to take even the most seasoned photojournalist’s breath away. Of course, the thought of the impending slaughter with the use of clubs, sharp spikes and guns in only a few weeks’ time shatters what should be a celebration of life and promise and instead fills you with dread and remorse for the inhumane way we treat our fellow animals.”

“I hope to raise awareness in the youth of today with graphic images of both the joy and desperation from the largest mammalian birthing site and consequent killing fields on Earth. This sort of behavior cannot and will not be tolerated by the youth of today and I intend to do something about it,” Barker continued.

HSUS is calling upon the Canadian government to immediately implement a fair buyout of the sealing industry. In recent years, the Canadian government has successfully implemented many license buy-back programs, also known as license retirement plans, in the wake of fisheries closures. In these programs, the government compensates license holders for lost revenue resulting from fishery closures. 

A sealing license buy-back program would fairly compensate fishermen (who hunt seals in the off season) affected by the permanent closure of the commercial seal hunt. This program, combined with the additional new sources of income from tourism, would only improve the already strong economy of Canada, the environment, the lives of the fishermen and of course, the welfare of the seals.

Seal hunting is an off-season activity conducted by Canadian fishermen. Since 2005, The HSUS has urged U.S. companies to avoid selling and serving Canadian seafood in order to convince that country’s fishing industry to stop participating in and supporting the commercial seal hunt.  

FACTS:

• Canada’s commercial seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on earth, with hundreds of thousands of seals killed annually.
• In Canada, more than 95 percent of the seals killed each year are less than 3 months old. At the time of slaughter, many have yet to eat their first solid meal or take their first swim, and they are utterly defenseless against the hunters.
• The seals are killed for their fur, which is sold in fashion markets in Asia, Europe and Russia.
• In Canada, sealers are commercial fishermen, who earn only a small fraction of their annual incomes from killing seals.  
• A 2007 study by a panel of veterinary and zoology experts who studied the Canadian commercial seal hunt found a widespread disregard for the Marine Mammal Regulations by sealers, a failure to monitor the hunt by authorities, high wounding rates in seals that were shot or clubbed, wounded seals left to suffer for protracted periods of time and sealers failing to ensure animals were dead in 66 percent of cases. The report concluded that both clubbing and shooting of seals should be considered unacceptable. 
• A recent scientific opinion by the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare requested by the European Commission concluded, “When seals are hit or shot, but are not dead, they may have to be hit or shot again or may be moved or skinned whilst conscious, resulting in avoidable pain, distress, fear and other forms of suffering” and “seals should be protected from acts that cause them avoidable pain, distress, fear and other forms of suffering.”
• Nations around the world have taken action to end their trade in seal products or announced their intention to do so, including Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Panama, Slovenia and the United States.

-30-

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest animal protection organization – backed by 10.5 million Americans, or one of every 30. For more than a half-century, The HSUS has been fighting for the protection of all animals through advocacy, education, and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty – On the web at humanesociety.org.

For additional information on the Canadian Seal Hunt visit these websites:

http://www.canadiansealhunt.com/

http://www.harpseals.org/

http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting