Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness

Boycotts don't work. Never have and never will.

Certainly do. I have saved over £300,000ukp in ten years by boycotting
Canada, not to mention I would no longer be moving there on
retirement.
Which is a real big shame as we used to look upon Canada as the more
civilized of the continent.

NOT any more, people think of Canada today and what do they see, state
sponsored animal abusers. Still, at least you're proud of it, me I'd
prefer pride for something nice.

You must be so happy to have saved so much money! It's too bad that you
will not be able to come to Canada and enjoy the feast of the delicious seal
meat. It is so good! The money you saved, is it from donations? I see
that you have asked for donations from the gullible English.

Jim

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:50:24 GMT, "Jim Carter"
wrote:

Boycotts don't work. Never have and never will.

Certainly do. I have saved over £300,000ukp in ten years by boycotting
Canada, not to mention I would no longer be moving there on
retirement.
Which is a real big shame as we used to look upon Canada as the more
civilized of the continent.

NOT any more, people think of Canada today and what do they see, state
sponsored animal abusers. Still, at least you're proud of it, me I'd
prefer pride for something nice.

You must be so happy to have saved so much money! It's too bad that you
will not be able to come to Canada and enjoy the feast of the delicious seal
meat. It is so good!

Canada was known for many things before, culinary delights were not
one of them.

The money you saved, is it from donations?

I worked and owned property in Canada, visited three, four times per
year on holiday and employed 17 Canadians.

I now don't and yes save a fortune.

I see
that you have asked for donations from the gullible English.

I have?





Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

Maybe you can try to get your Prime Minister to follow international law
and not go around invading other countries that are of no threat.
Then maybe you can get your Prime Minister to stop buddying around with
dictators like Ghadaffi.
Then maybe you can complain about our country.

pearl wrote:

"Daniel Audet" wrote in message
m...


I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,



We're at least trying.



but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
up where Canada is on a map.



The objection arises because of the cruelty, which is an obvious
serious breaching of humane conduct. Humanity everywhere is
objecting very strongly, and your refusal to listen harms you too.



Here's a hint. It's part of North America, not Europe. These people who
struggle to make a living in a repressed economy are not subjects of
England, not subject to European law and well within their rights to perform
their harvesting.
Work toward saving people from harm before destroying the livelyhoods of
others.

Dan.



'In 2001 UK tourists spent the equivalent of 1.026 billion Canadian
dollars - this is a massive source of income to Canada. Whereas the
seal hunt, by contrast, is a volatile industry and although accurate
figures are hard to come by it is estimated to be worth approximately
only Can $6 million.

The hunt is actually heavily subsidised by the Canadian Government
and when the subsidies are taken into account it is worth closer to just
Can $3 million. '
http://www.boycott-canada.com/

- Boycott is a predictable enough reaction.

Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!

Mmmmmm, fresh seal meat. I like it even better than I like fresh bald eagle
meat.

--
I like the way Snrub thinks.
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
Boycotts don't work. Never have and never will.

Certainly do. I have saved over £300,000ukp in ten years by boycotting
Canada, not to mention I would no longer be moving there on
retirement.
Which is a real big shame as we used to look upon Canada as the more
civilized of the continent.

NOT any more, people think of Canada today and what do they see, state
sponsored animal abusers. Still, at least you're proud of it, me I'd
prefer pride for something nice.

You must be so happy to have saved so much money! It's too bad that you
will not be able to come to Canada and enjoy the feast of the delicious
seal
meat. It is so good! The money you saved, is it from donations? I
see
that you have asked for donations from the gullible English.

Jim

Agreed!, but two wrongs don't make a right you know. You've NO excuses, either.
"Tim" wrote in message news Maybe you can try to get your Prime Minister to follow international law and not go around invading other countries that are of no threat.
Then maybe you can get your Prime Minister to stop buddying around with dictators like Ghadaffi.
Then maybe you can complain about our country.

pearl wrote:

"Daniel Audet" wrote in message
...
I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,

We're at least trying.

but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
up where Canada is on a map.

The objection arises because of the cruelty, which is an obvious
serious breaching of humane conduct. Humanity everywhere is
objecting very strongly, and your refusal to listen harms you too.

Here's a hint. It's part of North America, not Europe. These people who
struggle to make a living in a repressed economy are not subjects of
England, not subject to European law and well within their rights to perform
their harvesting.
Work toward saving people from harm before destroying the livelyhoods of
others.

Dan.

'In 2001 UK tourists spent the equivalent of 1.026 billion Canadian
dollars - this is a massive source of income to Canada. Whereas the
seal hunt, by contrast, is a volatile industry and although accurate
figures are hard to come by it is estimated to be worth approximately
only Can $6 million.

The hunt is actually heavily subsidised by the Canadian Government
and when the subsidies are taken into account it is worth closer to just
Can $3 million. '
http://www.boycott-canada.com/

- Boycott is a predictable enough reaction.

Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!

So, would you be happy if they killed them the same way they kill cows?

pearl wrote:

Agreed!, but two wrongs don't make a right you know. You've NO
excuses, either.

"Tim"
wrote in message news Maybe you can try to get your Prime Minister to follow
international law and not go around invading other countries that
are of no threat.
Then maybe you can get your Prime Minister to stop buddying around
with dictators like Ghadaffi.
Then maybe you can complain about our country.

pearl wrote:

"Daniel Audet" wrote in message
om...


I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,



We're at least trying.



but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
up where Canada is on a map.



The objection arises because of the cruelty, which is an obvious
serious breaching of humane conduct. Humanity everywhere is
objecting very strongly, and your refusal to listen harms you too.



Here's a hint. It's part of North America, not Europe. These people who
struggle to make a living in a repressed economy are not subjects of
England, not subject to European law and well within their rights to perform
their harvesting.
Work toward saving people from harm before destroying the livelyhoods of
others.

Dan.



'In 2001 UK tourists spent the equivalent of 1.026 billion Canadian
dollars - this is a massive source of income to Canada. Whereas the
seal hunt, by contrast, is a volatile industry and although accurate
figures are hard to come by it is estimated to be worth approximately
only Can $6 million.

The hunt is actually heavily subsidised by the Canadian Government
and when the subsidies are taken into account it is worth closer to just
Can $3 million. '
http://www.boycott-canada.com/

- Boycott is a predictable enough reaction.

Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!

pearl wrote:
I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,

We're at least trying.

To maim and kill each other?

but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
up where Canada is on a map.

The objection arises because of the cruelty,

No, it doesn't. It arises because you think "seals good, people bad." You pull
the same **** for other creatures regardless of the method of culling,
slaughtering, etc.

which is an obvious
serious breaching of humane conduct.

No, it isn't. If you ninnies had your way, we'd ban deer hunting on the same
grounds. Then we'd have even more ****ing deer around here, and more people
would be injured or killed from collisions with them. The seals need to be
culled to take pressure off local fisheries.

Humanity everywhere

Speak for yourself. You don't speak for the rest of us.

is objecting very strongly,

I'm not. Kill the seals, give the meat to the hungry, and save fish populations
for human use.

and your refusal to listen harms you too.

Bull****, Lesley. Nobody is harmed by seal hunts. People are benefitted by them,
and so are cod populations. Remember all your boring threads about saving the
damn cod? This is one of the necessary steps, dummy.

...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:15:34 GMT, usual suspect
wrote:

pearl wrote:
I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,

We're at least trying.

To maim and kill each other?

but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
up where Canada is on a map.

The objection arises because of the cruelty,

No, it doesn't. It arises because you think "seals good, people bad." You pull
the same **** for other creatures regardless of the method of culling,
slaughtering, etc.

The objection arises because of the cruelty,



which is an obvious
serious breaching of humane conduct.

No, it isn't. If you ninnies had your way, we'd ban deer hunting on the same
grounds. Then we'd have even more ****ing deer around here, and more people
would be injured or killed from collisions with them.

That's untrue jonny, if you and your deviant friends stopped
slaughtering the deer the population would in fact fall. It's
estimated deer numbers are 75% higher than they need to be in the USA
simply because of the rebound effect in population, directly caused by
hunters, who of course want high populations because it means they
don't have to walk so far to satisfy their deviant tendencies. Still,
if it wasn't deer it would be children or some other defenseless
creatures eh jonny?

The seals need to be
culled to take pressure off local fisheries.

Another myth

Humanity everywhere

Speak for yourself. You don't speak for the rest of us.

Obviously you're not included in the term jonny.

is objecting very strongly,

I'm not. Kill the seals, give the meat to the hungry, and save fish populations
for human use.

and your refusal to listen harms you too.

Bull****, Lesley. Nobody is harmed by seal hunts. People are benefitted by them,
and so are cod populations. Remember all your boring threads about saving the
damn cod? This is one of the necessary steps, dummy.

The fact is it's not jonny. The decline in cod globally is down to
over fishing, pure and simple, obviously not simple enough for you
jonny, have a lot on your mind lately? lol





Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

"Tim" wrote in message ...

So, would you be happy if they killed them the same way they kill cows?

No, indeed not. Most 'livestock' suffers considerably up to, and also
at slaughter. As you can see, this has been addressed elsewhere..

Comment
From Jim Harrington
4-15-4
http://rense.com/general51/slscmm.htm

To those who have had their eyes and hearts opened by the seal hunt,
as a volunteer for my local Humane Society, I just want to assure them
that many, many people have worked on this issue over many years.
There is a growing push in the media towards fur fashion again, and an
expert on the fur issue reassures me that it is the gasping of a dying
industry. However, for those who are truly sickened by this treatment
of animals, there are many, many unseen atrocities being committed
that are blacked out by the media. Most notably in the meat industry.

Factory farming is one of the most horrifying practices that humanity
has come up with in recent decades. This last week we in British
Columbia have witnessed the slaughter of 19 million farm birds
because a few have exhibited signs of the flu. Several humans came
down with sore eyes and runny noses, and so 19 million birds were
slaughtered. The birds must be replaced quickly, to meet consumer
needs. Big opposition is occuring as no one wants the corpses
disposed in 'their back yard'. As with the heaping charred bodies
of cattle in Britain during the mad cow crisis (brought on by feeding
cattle parts to cattle) I wondered, WHERE IS THE OPPOSITION
to the 'cull'. The careless mass 'disposal' of another species made
sick by our own farming practices. In Asia recently, these ill and
healthy birds alike were violently grabbed and crammed mercilessly
into bags to be buried alive en masse. Shown repeatedly on
mainstream news.

There are many websites available to educate ourselves on the
inhuman treatment of animals. Factory farming is no less horrible
than the seal hunt. If we are truly affected by the mindset of a person
clubbing a seal to death with a pick, let us make each other aware
that this issue is but a speck on the radar. That our barbeques and
frying pans contain the results of no less brutal acts. ..'
http://rense.com/general51/slscmm.htm

I'll be happy when animals aren't killed at all, at least not
avoidably, without really very good reason,- i.e. survival.

Native Wisdom;

'The Circle of Life includes all plants, animals, fish, birds, insects,
humans. The only aspect of the circle that is not essential to life
is the human aspect "I mentioned the sacred circle of life. If you
can imagine a circle, in that circle are the people, plants, animals,
birds, fish, and insects. The Native belief is that if you damage
anything within that sacred circle of life, eventually you damage
yourself. If you take any one of those items, animals, out of the
sacred circle of life--everything would die. If you take out the
insects, eventually everything will die. If you take out the plants,
eventually everything will die. If you take out the fish, eventually
everything will die. What would happen if you take the humans
out of the sacred circle of life? What would happen then?
Nothing. We are the least important in that sacred circle of life.
The ancient beliefs are that we were the last to come along. The
animals, plants, fish, birds and insects didn't depend on us. Our
lives depend on a harmonious relationship with everything within
the sacred circle of life. That's the basis of Native spirituality.
It's not a worship of animals. It is a relationship, a strong feeling
with the natural world." Butch Phillips, Penobscot Indian Nation.'

http://www.nativescience.org/assets/...PlanWRKSHP.pdf

Harp seals and Cod
Questions and Answers

IMMA Technical Briefing 99-02
D.M. Lavigne, S. Fink, D. Johnston, and P. Meisenheimer
International Marine Mammal Association
1474 Gordon St.
Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1L 1C8

This technical briefing addresses commonly asked questions about
Northwest Atlantic harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) and their
relationship with Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua).

1. Did harp seals cause the collapse of cod stocks?

No. At the time of the cod stock collapse off eastern Canada in 1992
it was popular to blame seals, European fishers and a variety of other
factors. Although the occasional claim that seals were involved in the
collapse is still heard, that view is not supported by any available
scientific evidence. As early as 1994, two scientists then in the
employ of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
concluded "that the collapse of northern cod can be attributed solely
to overexploitation [by humans]¼."1 Most of the interest groups
(including fishers, sealers, federal and provincial politicians,
government scientists and independent scientists) now generally agree
that seals did not cause the depletion and collapse of any East coast
fish stocks.

2. Are harp seals impeding the recovery of depleted cod stocks?

There is no scientific evidence to support the common contention that
harp seals are impeding the recovery of cod stocks. In 1995, 97
scientists from 15 countries signed a petition, which read (in part):
"All scientific efforts to find an effect of seal predation on
Canadian groundfish stocks have failed to show any impact."2 While
subsequent government 'fact sheets' posted on the World Wide Web have
repeated the claim the seals are hindering the recovery of cod
stocks,3,4 Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) seal
specialist, Dr. Garry Stenson, has acknowledged (consistent with all
available scientific advice) that "There is no scientific basis for
this statement and we are getting a lot of flack because of it."4 A
1997 international scientific workshop on interactions between harp
seals and fisheries - which included a number of DFO scientists -
"accepted ¼ that it could not [on the basis of available information]
assess the relative importance of predation by harp seals on the
current status of the northern cod stock."5 Still, some government
spokespersons persist in claiming that, despite the fact that harp
seals rarely eat Atlantic cod, they are an important source of cod
mortality. But even they have conceded that "The impact of seals on
the 2J3KL cod stock [i.e. the northern cod stock]6 remains unclear."7

3. So, why are cod stocks not showing signs of recovery?

Since the closure of the cod fishery in 1992, a number of cod stocks
actually have begun to show promising signs of recovery. In southern
Newfoundland, for example, a limited fishery was permitted in 1998. In
the case of northern cod, however, no real signs of recovery yet have
been observed. This is not surprising, given the slower growth rate
and delayed reproduction of northern cod relative to more southern
stocks.6 Even at the time of the moratorium, a number of biologists
predicted the stock would take a decade or more to recover from its
extremely depleted state.8

4. What has been the impact of the cod moratorium on the Newfoundland
fishery?

Much of the debate about seals and fisheries is predicated on the
dramatic effect that the 1992 collapse of the cod fishery, and other
traditional fisheries, has had on Newfoundland. In this context, it
should be noted that cod fishers and others displaced by the collapse
have been beneficiaries of the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery
Program (NCARP) from 1992-1994 and a subsequent $1.9 billion federally
funded compensation program known as The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy
(TAGS), which began in 1994 and expired in August 1998.9 In June 1998,
it was announced that government had approved a new federal assistance
program, which would provide an additional $550 million for East coast
fishers after the TAGS program ended.10 Newfoundland Premier, the Hon.
Brian Tobin, was publicly critical of that program and, following
discussions with the Prime Minister, the Hon. Jean Chrétien, it was
announced on 19 June 1998 that the East coast fishery assistance
program had been increased to some $730 million.10

While the federal subsidy programs have always been well publicized,
it seems to have gone largely unnoticed that the landed value of the
entire Newfoundland fishery actually began to recover in 1993 and, by
1995, it exceeded pre-moratorium levels as some fishers, at least,
switched their attention to other fishery resources, particularly
shellfish.11

A great deal of misunderstanding remains about the importance of
fishing to the economies of Canada and Newfoundland. Although fishing
was Canada's first business12, it now contributes less than 1 per cent
to the Canadian GDP.13 In Newfoundland, fishing contributed an average
of only 1.4 per cent annually to the provincial GDP between 1993 and
1997, inclusive.14

5. Is the amount of fish consumed by seals a measure of impact on
fisheries?

Proponents of culling harp seals, ostensibly to benefit fisheries,
invariably refer to estimates of the amount of fish purportedly
consumed by seals annually to support their calls for an increased
seal kill. Recently, they misleadingly cited a paper attributed to the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization's (NAFO) Scientific Council
as their authority, without mentioning that the paper in question was
an unpublished manuscript co-authored by two Canadian government
scientists.15

Regardless, while claims that seals are eating tens of thousands of
tonnes of commercially important fish may seem to support the
conclusion that they are having large impacts on fisheries, that
conclusion may well be wrong. The figures themselves are derived by
multiplying the estimated food consumption of an average seal by the
estimated size of the population. If the estimate of population size
is wrong - as may well be the case for Northwest Atlantic harp seals -
then so too will be the estimate of its food consumption. The
available calculations also make questionable assumptions about the
availability of individual prey, including Atlantic cod. And, most
importantly, there is the problem that estimates of food consumption
tell us nothing about whether seal feeding behaviour is having direct
or indirect effects on the abundance of various fish stocks, or on the
catches of various commercial fisheries,16 including cod.

The correct interpretation of the estimates of consumption by seals of
commercially important prey can be found in the NAFO Council paper
itself.15 The authors noted that such estimates are merely "one of the
first steps in trying to understand the dynamics between seal
predation and commercial fisheries." Toward that goal, they noted that
"significant advances [toward understanding the relationship between
seal predation and commercial fisheries] will not be achieved until
more is known about the abundance of small fish and other sources of
natural mortality."15

In conclusion, while estimates of prey consumption by seals may
provide some measure of the potential for competition between seals
and commercial fisheries, they alone tell us nothing about whether
such competition is actually occurring. 16

6. Do harp seals selectively feed on the livers of cod?

While such selective feeding has been observed in seabirds, it has
never been documented in harp seals.

For many years now, fishers in eastern Canada have claimed that harp
seals selectively feed on the livers (or "stomachs") of cod and
discard the rest of the body. They further claim that such partial
consumption of prey would not be detected in routine stomach content
analyses, the usual method for determining harp seal diets. This view
of harp seal feeding resurfaced in March 1999, when John Efford,
Newfoundland's Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, released a
videotape showing large numbers of dead cod on the bottom of Bonavista
Bay, many with their bellies gaping, "after a group of seals crowded
codfish into a bay and started feasting."17

Harp seals are not shown on the video, however, crowding codfish into
a bay; nor are they shown feasting (or even feeding). Nonetheless, the
situation described is somewhat reminiscent of harp seals and seabirds
feeding on aggregations of arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) -- a small
energy-rich fish, which is not commercially exploited -- in the
eastern Canadian arctic.18 Finley et al. noted that "the birds often
consumed only the liver of the cod" whereas "many of the fish" in the
stomach of one adult female harp seal examined "were still intact."

Similar events involving harp seals and birds feeding on Atlantic cod
have not, to our knowledge, been described in the literature and are
not captured on Mr Efford's video. Nonetheless, the video, together
with the available literature, usefully provide some alternative
explanations for finding cod in Bonavista Bay with their bellies
"ripped out." They also point the way to resolving the old conundrum:
do harp seals, on occasion, exhibit this sort of feeding behaviour on
Atlantic cod?

Lacking documented evidence that harp seals partially consume their
prey raises the question, how one would ever know if they do, on
occasion, exhibit such behaviour? The first line of evidence would be
expected to come from analyses of harp seal stomach contents and
literally thousands have been examined over the past 50 years.19
Contrary to recent media reports, some quoting fishery scientists who
obviously have never done stomach content analyses, the food in the
stomach may range from undigested (the seal ate just prior to being
killed) to fully digested (the seal was sampled long after its last
meal). In the former instance, the prey items are fresh, entire, and
easily identified. What one finds in such stomachs, generally, is
whole fish, stacked like sardines in a can, or whole invertebrates,
like shrimp or squid. In such instances, we are unaware of one
documented scientific report of fish livers in harp seal stomachs.
Absence of evidence, however, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Yet, when seals have been observed eating cod, scientists reported
that "they swallowed them head first and whole,"20 consistent with the
observations obtained from stomach content analysis.

Nonetheless, anecdotal claims that harp seals do, on occasion,
partially consume cod (and perhaps other fish) cannot be rejected out
of hand by the available scientific evidence. But Mr Efford's video,
and the fishers who appear in it, provide other possible explanations.
Their comments remind us of a 1960's publication, by the late Wilfred
Templeman, which describes mass mortalities of cod, such as the one
depicted in the video.21 Templeman suggested that such events are
triggered by cold temperatures and it is possible that the video
actually captures one such event. The fishers in the video go on to
explain how some of the fish (which may well be in a weakened
condition) got trapped at low tide and were preyed upon by a variety
of birds (crows, eagles, etc.). Indeed, some of the fish shown in the
video have wounds that look more consistent with feeding by birds than
with feeding by harp seals. Other fish shown in the video with their
bellies open are reminiscent of fish that died and subsequently began
to decompose. (Anyone who has removed rotting fish from a gill net
will know that it is the belly region that rots first and it would be
useful to conduct some forensic pathology to determine if this is what
may have happened to some of the fish pictured in the video.)

Mr Efford's video thus provides a useful starting point for further
scientific investigations. In addition to necropsies on the dead cod,
it might also be instructive to place some cod in intertidal waters,
allowing some to be preyed upon by scavengers and others simply to
begin decomposition. Such an experiment would provide documented
evidence of the nature of the wounds left on fish as a result of
predator feeding behaviour and the appearance of fish left simply to
decompose. Video recordings could be used to document which predators
(seals, birds, etc.) took advantage of the situation and the results
(the fish remains) could be compared with those depicted in Mr
Efford's video.

Further, it would be very useful if future events, such as the one
that recently took place in Bonavista Bay, could be studied (and
extensively videotaped) to try to understand why the fish enter
shallow bays, and to document the presence or absence of seals,
seabirds, or other avian predators and their respective behaviours.

Until such work is done, the question remains: does the video provide
-- as Mr Efford claims -- the vital evidence to initiate a cull of
harp seals to benefit the cod fishery? The scientific answer is,
clearly, no. Even if Mr Efford were correct in assuming that seals
were responsible for what is seen on the video, it would simply
confirm that seals do eat cod, which as DFO seal biologist, Dr. Garry
Stenson, has already noted, "isn't particularly new to us." The video,
Stenson continued, still "doesn't tell us what the impact of seal
predation is on the total population of cod, and that is what you need
to know before you can draw any conclusions."22

7. Is a cull of the harp seal population justified on scientific
grounds?

Prof. W. Montevecchi, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland
wrote, in 1995, that, "There is no scientific evidence that the
culling of large marine predators has ever benefited a commercial
fishery¼"23 In the specific case of Northwest Atlantic harp seals, the
1997 scientific workshop in St. Johns reiterated a conclusion first
reached by NAFO scientists in 198124 and repeated by DFO seal
specialist, Dr. W.D. Bowen, in 1992.25 It concluded, "It is not yet
possible to predict the effects of an increase or a decrease in the
size of the harp seal population on other ecosystem components,
including commercially exploited fish populations, or on the yields
obtained from them."5

In recent years, the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to the United
Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) Marine Mammal Action Plan has
attempted to develop a scientific protocol outlining a methodology for
evaluating proposals to cull marine mammal populations with a view to
benefiting fisheries.26 Suffice it to say that the Canadian government
has only just begun to do the sorts of analyses required to determine
whether a cull of Northwest Atlantic harp seals is justified on
scientific grounds. There is at this time no scientific grounds for
culling the population.5,16,27

8. Would a reduced seal population benefit commercial fisheries?

There is no scientific evidence that a seal cull would be beneficial
to commercial fisheries. In fact, culling seal populations might well
be detrimental to the interests of a commercial fishery.

The simple minded, "common sense," view is that if seals eat fish,
then, in theory, fewer seals would mean more fish for commercial
fishers. Even if a reduced seal population resulted in an increased
number of fish in the ocean, it must first be remembered that there
are other predators in marine ecosystems, and any presumed increase in
the size of a commercially important fish stock could well be eaten by
those predators before being caught by fishers. An equally "common
sense" argument tells us that if seals eat predators of commercially
important fish, then fewer seals would mean fewer fish for fishers.

9. What will happen if harp seals are not culled?

In the absence of an increased seal hunt or cull, harp seal numbers
would be expected to stabilize. Indeed, the relatively poor
"condition," slow growth rates, delayed maturity and reduced fecundity
of harp seals in recent years are indicative of a population that has
reached the limits of its food base.5,28 It is quite possible, in
fact, that the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population already may
have stabilized as a result of natural processes, and now may be
declining because of the large and likely unsustainable hunts of the
past three years.29

As for cod, given adequate protection and time, their numbers will
likely recover over the next decade. Dr. R. Myers (formerly a DFO
research scientist and now a professor at Dalhousie University in
Halifax), for example, has stated, "Decimated fish populations like
the northern cod will recover if fishing is cut down."30 This view was
reiterated by 97 scientists who signed a 1995 petition on Canada's
sealing policy. "If fishing closures continue," they said, "the
evidence indicates that fish stocks will recover, and killing seals
will not speed the process."2

10. Would reducing the seal population restore the "balance of the
marine ecosystem?"

Proponents of culling seal populations frequently argue that it is a
necessary action to restore the "balance of nature," especially at
times when a number of once abundant fish stocks are depleted. The
fact of the matter is that the "balance of nature" is largely a myth.
As early as 1930, renowned ecologist Charles Elton wrote, "The balance
of nature does not exist, and perhaps has never existed."31 And, as
Mangel et al. wrote in 1997, "the belief of the 1970s - that for
management purposes one could assume that ecosystems were stable,
closed, and internally regulated and behaved in a deterministic manner
- has been replaced by recognition that ecosystems are open, in a
constant state of flux, usually without long-term stability, and
affected by many factors originating outside the system."32 In short,
there is no preordained balance of nature and there is no "right"
number of seals or other organisms in a natural system. Reducing the
size of a seal population cannot restore something that did not exist
in the first place.

11. Where the issue rests today.

The scientific evidence and arguments summarized above will never
convince those who believe that Northwest Atlantic harp seals "need"
to be culled. John Efford, for example, made the following remarkable
statement in Newfoundland's House of Assembly on 4 May 1998: ".I would
like to see the 6 million seals, or whatever number is out there,
killed and sold, or destroyed or burned. I do not care what happens to
them.the more they kill the better I will love it."33 In March 1999,
he called on the federal fisheries minister to increase the quota for
harp seals from the current 275,000 to between 475,000 and 575,000,
with a view to cutting the population in half.17

Contrast Mr Efford's views with a recent statement by the much
respected Sierra Club of Canada in its sixth annual Rio report card on
the government's performance on environmental matters. In a section
entitled "Commitment to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Living
Marine Resources," the Sierra Club states: "Given DFO's appalling
record of over-estimating cod stocks, the government's willingness to
accept exaggerated estimates of seal populations and unsubstantiated
allegations of seals' impacts on commercial fisheries remains a cause
for concern."34

Concluding Remarks.

As the 1999 Canadian commercial seal hunt swings into full gear this
month, there are two over-riding questions. The first, highlighted by
the events of recent days, is whether a cull of harp seals is
justified on scientific grounds. The scientific answer to this
question is no and, for this reason, presumably, the Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not considering a cull at this
time.35 As its 1999 Atlantic Seal Hunt Management Plan states: "More
research is needed to determine the nature and extent of the impact of
seal predation on the population dynamics of prey species."

The second question relates to the sustainability of the harp seal
hunt. In each of the last three years, the reported and estimated
landed catches of Northwest Atlantic harp seals by Canada and
Greenland have exceeded Canada's estimate of "replacement yield" --
the number of seals that can be removed without causing the population
to decline. If the estimated replacement yield were correct, then the
government has not been achieving its management objective of a
sustainable harvest and the population should now be declining. Landed
catches, however, only tell part of the story. When animals that are
killed but not landed by sealers are accounted for, it now appears
that somewhere between 400,000 and more than 500,000 harp seals have
been killed in each of the past three years.36 Yet, despite the
evidence that the population might be declining, Canada maintained the
total allowable catch of harp seals for 1999 at 275,000,37 the highest
permitted kill since the introduction of quota management in 1971.

The question of the status of the Northwest Atlantic harp seal
population and the sustainability of current levels of hunting will be
revisited following an aerial survey of harp seal pup production in
March 1999. Following the aerial survey, further work on population
modeling to estimate total population size and trends will be required
to investigate the implications of various management options
regarding the future of Canada's annual seal hunt.

Notes and Sources


1 Hutchings, J.A. and R.A. Myers. 1994. What can be learned from the
collapse of a renewable resource? Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 51: 2126-2146.


2 Anon. 1995. Comment on Canada's Sealing Policy. A petition signed by
97 scientists from 15 countries, at the 11th Biennial Conference on
the Biology of Marine Mammals, Orlando, Florida, 14-18 December 1995.


3 Anon. 1997. Understanding the Seal Fishery. Department of Fisheries
and Oceans web page.
http://www.ncr.dfo.ca/communic/seals...ta/utsf3_e.htm


4 Stenson, G. 1996. Email from Garry Stenson, Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, to Kate Sanderson, NAMMCO. (Obtained from DFO through
Access to Information legislation).


5 Anon. 1997. Harp Seal-Fishery Interactions in the Northwest
Atlantic: Toward Research & Management Actions. International
Scientific Workshop, 24-27 February 1997. Canadian Centre for
Fisheries Innovation, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland.
41 pp.


6 For perspective, it must be remembered that a number of commercially
important fish stocks off Canada's East coast collapsed in the early
1990s. The Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) stock of primary interest to
Newfoundlanders and to the sealing question is the northern cod stock.
It occurs in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) zones
2J, 3K and 3L (usually shortened to 2J3KL). This stock (or stocks,
more probably) sustained fisheries off the coast of Labrador and the
East coast of Newfoundland for centuries. Considered to be the richest
of the eastern Canadian stocks, it is also the most northern of the
commercially important Northwest Atlantic stocks. Its growth rate is
slow and its age at maturity old, relative to other stocks.


7 Anon. 1998. Stock status report - DFO Science. Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
http://www.nwafc.nf.ca/english/ssr/ssr97/2J3klcod.html.


8 Myers, R.A., G. Mertz and P.S. Fowlow. 1997. Maximum population
growth rates and recovery times for Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua. Fish.
Bull. 95:762-772.


9 Schrank, W.E. nd. The Newfoundland Fishery: Past, Present, and
Future. pp. 35-70. In. Subsidies and depletion of world fisheries.
Case Studies. WWF Endangered Seas Campaign. Anderssen, E. 1998.
Despair greets loss of TAGS money. The Globe and Mail. 9 May 1998. p
A3


10 Greenspon, E. 1998. Ottawa approves new aid for fishery. East, West
Coasts get $925 million. The Globe and Mail. 12 June 1998. p. A1.
Ayed, N. 1998. Post-TAGS plan lacking if figures are true: MPs. The
Canadian Press. St. John's Evening Telegram. 13 June. p. 5. Gherson,
G. 1998. Pressure sparks new fishery crisis fund. Ottawa Citizen. 13
June. p. A4. Greenspon, E., E. Anderssen, C. McInnes, and R. Howard.
1998. Ottawa sweetens aid for fisheries. The Globe and Mail. 19 June
1998. pp. A1, A5. Walker, W. 1998. Tobin may have gone too far in
fishery bailout fight. Analysis. The Toronto Star. 20 June. p. A12.
Canadian Press. 1998. Canadian fisheries to get $1.1 billion. The
Toronto Star. 20 June. p. A12. Anderssen, E. Fishery package spurs
resentment. Ministers escorted out as angry Newfoundlanders accuse
them of 'destroying our lives.' The Globe and Mail. 20 June. p. A4.
Anon. 1998. Fishing for solutions. Editorial. The Toronto Star. 21
June 1998. p. F2. Anon. 1998. Ottawa's fishery" an expensive flounder.
Editorial. The Globe and Mail. 22 June. p. A16.


11 Department of Fisheries and Oceans. nd. Atlantic Coast Landed
Values, by Region. DFO Web Site. Http://www.
ncr.dfo.ca/communic/statistics/landings.


12 Bliss, M. 1987. Northern Enterprise. Five centuries of Canadian
Business. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto. 640 pp.


13 Statistics Canada. nd. Gross domestic product at factor cost,
primary industries. CANSIM Matrix 4677. http://WWW.
StatCan.CA/english/Pgdb/Economy/Primary/prim03.htm.


14 Statistics Canada. 1997. Gross Domestic Product at Factor cost by
Industry in Millions of Dollars. Newfoundland - Terre Neuve.
1984-1996. Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 15-203 XPB. p. 9.
Statistics Canada. 1997. Provincial Gross Domestic Product by Industry
1984-1997. Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 15-203 XPB. p. 5.


15 Hammill, M. and G.B. Stenson. 1997. Estimated prey consumption by
harp seals (Phoca groenlandica), grey seals (Halichoerus grypus),
harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) and hooded seals (Cystophora cristata)
in the Northwest Atlantic. NAFO SCR Doc. 97/40. 37 pp.


16 Lavigne, D.M. 1996. Ecological interactions between marine mammals,
commercial fisheries, and their prey: unravelling the tangled web.
Studies of high-latitude seabirds. 4. Trophic relationships and
energetics of endotherms in cold ocean systems. Canadian Wildlife
Service. Occasional paper 91: 59-71.


17 Hamilton, G. 1999. Nfld. Video casts seals as villains in 'killing
fields' of northern cod: Minister steals a tactic. National Post, 9
March 1999. P. A1.


18 Finley, K.J., Bradstreet, M.S.W., and G.W. Miller. 1990. Summer
feeding ecology of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) in relation to
Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) in the Canadian high Arctic. Polar
Biology, 10. 609-618.


19 Wallace, S.D., and D.M. Lavigne. 1992. A review of stomach contents
of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) from the Northwest Atlantic. IMMA
Technical Report No. 92-03 (Revised).


20 Pemberton D., Merdsoy, B., Gales, R., and Renouf, D. 1994. The
interaction between offshore cod trawlers and harp (Phoca
groenlandica) and hooded (Cystophora cristata) seals off Newfoundland,
Canada. Biological Conservation 68, 123-127.


21 Templeman, W. 1965. Mass mortalities of marine fishes in the
Newfoundland area presumably due to low temperature. International
Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, Special Publication
No. 6. ICNAF Environmental Symposium, Rome 1964. Pp 137-147.


22 Stenson, G. 1999. VOCM-AM News. St. John's. 10 March 1999.


23 Montevecchi, W.A. 1996. Introduction. Studies of high-latitude
seabirds. 4. Trophic relationships and energetics of endotherms in
cold ocean systems. Canadian Wildlife Service. Occasional paper 91:
7-9.


24 Anon. 1981. Report on Special Meetings of Scientific Council,
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. 23-26 November 1981.
Dartmouth, Canada. NAFO SCS Doc. 81/XI/29. pp. 14-15.


25 Bowen, W.D. 1992. Book Review. Marine Mammal Science, 8: 94-95.


26 Anon. 1995. Tobin Looks at Ways of Expanding the Seal Harvest.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. News Release NR-HQ-95-07E. January
26, 1995. Here, a distinction must be made between a hunt, the
sustainable "harvest" of a natural resource that, by definition is
meant to remove some or all of the so-called surplus production for
direct economic benefit, while maintaining the exploited population at
some predetermined level in perpetuity, and a cull, which is designed
to reduce a population from its current level in order to achieve some
other, indirect management objective, such as reducing perceived
conflicts between seals and commercial fisheries. While the objective
of the Canadian seal hunt is often said to be a sustainable harvest,
it is also claimed to have the objective of benefiting recovering fish
stocks. As such the current Canadian seal hunt is also a cull. For
additional information and discussion, see Meisenheimer, P. Marine
mammal culls as fisheries management: insights from Canada's harp seal
hunt. Unpublished ms. Anon. 1992. Marine Mammal/Fishery Interactions:
Analysis of Cull Proposals. Report of the Meeting of the Scientific
Advisory Committee of the Marine Mammal Action Plan. United Nations
Environment Programme. 27 November - 1 December 1992. Liege, Belgium.
30 pp. Anon. 1995. Marine Mammal /Fishery Interactions: Analysis of
Cull Proposals. Third Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee of
the Marine Mammal Action Plan. 24-27 August 1994. Crowborough,
England. UNEP(OCA)/MM.SAC.3.1. 10 May 1995. 28 pp.


27 Anderson, D. 1998. Letter to Ms. Debra Probert. 19 May 1998. Note:
In this letter, Mr Anderson claims that "A number of mainstream
environmental groups, such as World Wildlife Fund, agree that a
controlled and responsible harvest of the seal herd is appropriate."
In response, Monte Hummel, President of World Wildlife Fund Canada,
wrote to Mr Anderson on 2 June 1998, clarifying WWF's position. Hummel
wrote: ".we have always disagreed with any claim or conclusion that
reductions in numbers of seals assist with recovery or conservation of
marine ecosystems, or components such as cod stocks.I would be
grateful if you would ensure that all staff in your department fully
appreciate the WWF concern that predator control is not at present a
scientifically justifiable action for the recovery of fish stocks, and
further that DFO no longer suggests that WWF supports this argument."


28 Sjare, B., G.B. Stenson, and W.G. Warren. 1995. Summary of female
harp seal reproductive parameters in the Northwest Atlantic. NAFO SCR
Doc. 95/37. 9 pp.


29 Lavigne, D.M. 1999. Cull quota puts seals in the red. BBC Wildlife,
March 1999. Pp. 20-21.


30 Then DFO scientist, R.A. Myers, quoted in Strauss, S. 1995.
Decimated stocks will recover if fishing stopped, study finds. East
coast decline in cod resulted from overfishing, not seals. The Globe
and Mail. 25 August 1995.


31 Elton, C. 1930. Animal Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University
Press, New York.


32 Mangel, M., et al. 1996. Principles for the conservation of wild
living resources. Ecological Applications 6: 338-362.


33 Efford, J. 1998. House of Assembly Proceedings, Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. 4 May. Vol XLIII. No. 18.


34 Sierra Club of/du Canada. 1998. The Sixth Annual Rio Report, 1998.
Grading the Government of Canada and the Provinces on their
Environmental Commitments. 18 June 1998. Sierra Club of Canada.
Ottawa, Canada.


35 Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1999. Atlantic Seal Hunt 1999
Management Plan. DFO Web site.
http://www.ncr.dfo.ca/COMMUNIC/seals/eng/sealENG.htm


36 Lavigne, D.M. 1999. Estimating Total Kill of Northwest Atlantic
Harp Seals, 1994-1998. Marine Mammal Science, in press.


37 Anon. 1999. Anderson Announces 1999 Atlantic Seal Management
Measures. Department of Fisheries and Oceans News Release.
NR-HQ-99-1E. January 6, 1999.



D.M. Lavigne, S. Fink, D. Johnston, and P. Meisenheimer.

IMMA Technical Briefing 99-02

16 March 1999

http://www.imma.org/codvideo/harpcod_QA.html