"I R Canuck" wrote in message
news:0rYgc.35278$mn3.13635@clgrps13...
"pearl" wrote:
"I R Canuck" wrote:
"pearl" wrote:
"I R Canuck" wrote:
"pearl" wrote:
"I R Canuck" wrote:
"pearl" wrote:
Harp seals and Cod
Questions and Answers

SNIP Answers to questions posed by those who've done no research
and would like to pretend Canada is 'scapegoating' the seal

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backg...hq-ac01b_e.htm
__________________________________________________ ________
Impact of Seal Predation on Cod

The 2001 Report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management concluded
that seals consume large amounts of fish throughout Atlantic Canada,
but there is much less evidence that this predation is having a major
impact on the recovery of most commercial fish stocks.

The findings of the report were not conclusive and many uncertainties
were acknowledged in providing realistic predictions. The Panel
acknowledged that gaining an understanding of the real impact of seals
on the recovery of cod is extremely complex and requires an in-depth
understanding of the marine ecosystem as well as additional research.
Findings highlighted in the report include:

The consumption of cod, and some other commercial species, by seals
in Divisions 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn is so large that a reduction in seal
predation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial effect on
the size of these stocks. However, the extent of this reduction would
have to be large in order for an impact to be observed.

There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal predation
and the state of fish populations. The interaction between seals,
groundfish and other species is complex and variable. For instance,
seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod. Moreover,
other factors such as environmental changes and fishing levels must be
considered in trying to determine why cod stocks have not yet recovered.

The harp seal population has grown to the highest level recorded.
Coupled with the fact that the annual TAC has rarely been taken in full,
the panel expects a gradual increase in seal numbers if the current
management approach is maintained.

The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the impact
of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium or long term. Science
and resource managers question the value of a cull in a fishery driven by
economic market conditions. More importantly, there is no way of
knowing how other predators and prey might respond to a decrease in
the seal population.

Current estimates of cod consumption by seals vary greatly from less
than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of diet, depending on the
type of seal researched, the time of year and location of the studies.
The panel concluded that more comprehensive research needs to be
done to more accurately estimate the amount of cod that seals are
consuming.
__________________________________________________ ________

I see no scapegoating.

'Canadian Natural Resources Minister John Efford said many
claims about the hunt were simply wrong. He argued that the
seal population was exploding - with an estimated 5.2 million
harp seals in the North Atlantic at present – and commercial
fish stocks were vanishing. '
http://www.indolink.com/displayArtic...d=041304105510

So, let me get this straight. When looking for Canadian Goverment
opinions, one should look to 'indolink' an indian news site (Even
considering they don't provide a quote) as opposed to say . . .
the Canadian Government.

Face it pearl, the Canadian Government has been falsely accused
of 'scapegoating' seals as the cause of the decline in fish stocks.

As far as John Efford goes. Even in the 'indolink' news story, he
didn't accuse the seal of being the cause for the decline in cod
populations. He simply noted that:
1. The seal population has reached a record high (since recording
began).
2. The commercial fish stock is vanishing.
Both of which are true. It's not up to you to put words into his (or
anyone elses) mouth, like you do so often.

Please. As if a link wasn't implied.

A link wasn't implied by John Efford, just like the IFAW veterinary
study never says that 40+% of seals are skinned alive.

Yes, it does. 42% of clubbed seals were found to have
insufficient cranial damage to render permanently unconscious,
and unless bled immediately (6% of the total), they were.
Of the remaining 58% many may have sustained severe cranial
damage during the skinning (79% of 'hunters' failed to perform
a corneal reflex check). Also, of all those observed being skinned
(counting possibles), nearly 40% were, whether shot or clubbed.

You've assumed that all seals are skinned immediately.

Not at all.

They
are not. The IFAW veterinary report never says "40+% of seals
are skinned alive" period!

It says exactly what I wrote above.

The IFAW observations showed 1.66% of seals skinned alive.

Of those observed. So who's assuming that all seals are skinned
immediately? You,- when it suits you.

You poorly
interpret things and then draw false meanings.

BS. You refuse to accept the facts of the matter.

It's the truth, you twist everything you read.

No. That'd be you.

Like I said before,
that wasn't even a direct quote, who knows how out of context those
statements may have been. They may not even have been said in
the same day.

Read your own quote below.

That statement was in regards to Mr. Efford not Mr. Reid.

Good for him if he doesn't tow the same pseudo-official line.
But it doesn't look like it.

And if you don't like the source,
see; http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
"There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
the recovery of those stocks," said Gerry Reid, minister of fisheries
and aquaculture for Newfoundland at the time.."

http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/2003/fishaq/0203n03.htm
"There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding the
recovery of those stocks," added Minister Reid. "The seal herd is in
excess of five million, and as the herd continues to enjoy a population
explosion, the cod fishery simultaneously decreases and suffers
higher mortality rates. There are certainly a number of issues which
need to be addressed in dealing with the state of the cod fisheries,
and one of the main factors is the impact of seal predation. An
increase in the TAC will not solve this problem, however it is a step in
the right direction."

As can be seen when he's not being taken out of context, he realises
that this isn't the only problem.

Who said he did? Quit squirming.

There is no 'squirming' neither Mr. Reid nor Mr. Efford are responsible
for setting quotas. Why should their statements be used by yourself
as representational of the Canadian Goverment's opinions?

I thought that as government ministers, they would be. My bad.

Also, he's a minister for Newfoundland, not Canada. While he has
input into the decisions (much like the IFAW, CVMA, CSA, etc...)
he doesn't make decisions. His was a reactionary statement to
an announcement of a quota increase.

Please. We're not all complete fools, you know.

What is that supposed to mean,

Your comment that such a statement was 'reactionary' is nonsense.
They've been harrassing the federal government for years on those
grounds. See; http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/1999/fishaq/0309n02.htm .

besides you are unable to respond
to my statement. Your source took Gerry Reid's statement out of
context and he's not even in a position to make decisions.

http://globeandmail.ca/servlet/Artic...N/breakingnews

Mr. Reid doesn't set quotas. He is a provincial (not federal) minister.
You have no understanding of Canadian politics.

As a minister, Reid can influence policies made by the federal government.

And, every time he's quoted in national and international press laying the
blame on seals for the state of the cod, people in Canada and elsewhere
accept it as factual, and as validation for the seal kill. You've seen it here.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
"He says the decline in cod stocks is due to overfishing. "There is no
scientific evidence to suggest that harp seals impede their recovery.
That doesn't mean that they aren't - it's just that there's no evidence
to suggest they are," he told New Scientist."

Said Lavigne, not Efford. (corrected).

Yes, please make note of "That doesn't mean that they aren't".

'.. it's just that there's no evidence to suggest they are'. Twit.