" Grey Seal Cull Plan AXED??"
The following "excerpted" article was written by Alain Meuse and published in the February 1/2005 addition of the Sou 'Wester newspaper...
The Front-page states: Grey Seal Hunt Iffy At Most... and the inside headline reads: ACOA funding refusal could kill proposal to harvest grey seals off Nova Scotia...
It looks like the animal welfare crowd has got its way and there won't be any Grey seal cull or hunt in the near or far future...It was proposed that 55,000 seals could be harvested and hopefully processed. A Newfoundland seal processing firm was contacted and showed promise. Initially, the DFO agreed to the idea..."I've heard through the grapevine that ACOA will refuse funds to the group so that we could hire a coordinator to get the project underway. Without a coordinator we cannot do anything", Denny Morrow, who chaired the (Grey Seal Research and Development Societies) committee, said. He is expected to step down from that position. It appears that heavy lobbying by certain animal welfare groups in Ottawa and Montreal made the issue politically uncomfortable for the government," he said...Some fear it is a disaster in the making.
Instead of "killing grey seals" the government has avoided "political suicide" and under the lobbying pressures from "animal welfare groups" has shelved the ACOA funding for Denny Morrow's "economic development" proposal.
By not supporting the "Grey Seal Research and Development Societies" planned harvest of grey seals off Nova Scotia waters - this is a "positive step" in the right direction to help in..."the rebuilding of the Atlantic groundfish stocks."
Seals and the fishery is a contentious issue in the Maritime's since the collapse of the Cod fishery in the early 1990's. Even after a lengthy moratorium imposed by (DFO) - the prospects continue to look dim for a groundfish recovery. Unfortunately, this is an unsettling reality faced by many fishing communities whose traditional ways and livelihood have regrettably changed...fisherman are frustrated and angry - it boils down to "fishing jobs verses animal welfare" - this concept is slightly askew, because when seals disappear, so too, will the fish and fishing. (...more)
"Some fear its a disaster in the making" not only misleading, this statement inadequately reflects what is self-evident...for an ecosystem to be productive, healthy, and alive, it needs raw materials - "marine life" to stimulate and drive its integral parts. Their is a saying "the whole equals the sum of its parts," and "each part equals the whole minus all of the other parts" and this is true when we actively try to control the seamless functioning of environments..."removing seals uncouples the supporting links in the marine food web, and this directly weakens the entire marine ecosystem".
Here is what a few published academics claim with respect to the complex interactions governing marine systems...
"The collapse of the Northwest Atlantic cod fishery has become a metaphor for ecological catastrophe and is universally cited as an example of a failed management of a nature resource" (MacKenzie 1995).
For years seals have been used as the "scapegoat" for a mismanaged fishery...
And as Dr. Holt (eminent marine biologist) pointedly stated: "There is not one single case, anywhere in the world, where scientific evidence, critically evaluated by independent experts, demonstrates that "culling" of marine mammals would be beneficial for fisheries resources" (Mowat, Sea of Slaughter, 1984).
…an addendum
Originally, when the grey seal cull was discussed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) the numbers totaled as high as 150,000 individuals. The presumption was that the population density was nearing the upper limit of 300,000 animals - essentially, half the existing population was to be annihilated. As an impartial observer analyzing the valuations of these sea mammals…consistently, and without fail, the actual seal cull numbers circulated by the media, government, and the fishing industry were often misleading, inconclusive, unclear and inexact.
Why the discrepancies in "seal harvest" numbers?
Today with instantaneous communication, one would
think that the institutions responsible for authorizing the "cull" of marine mammals would agree unilaterally on some predetermined number. Is there any direct benefit in promoting inaccurate and dissimilar reports to the general public? Yes, it appears that any individual wishing to educate themselves with respect to the removal of sea life is in for a "confusing time", and this I sense is the real reason for the ambiguity in representing specific seal "cull" numbers. This could be deemed as a diversionary tactic used by "credible and responsible departments" in charge of protecting natural resources...to deflect attention away from the actual extent of a harvest - as smaller insignificant numbers, would indirectly suppress public denunciation in the planned killing of marine mammals.
In the latest publication from the Sou 'Wester from Yarmouth the "harvest" figure was 55,000 grey seals- this representational number was quietly approved. How was this count determined? Was the whole process logically analyzed and assessed holistically through a series of scientific models (with the complete understanding that the behavior ecology of marine life is a bio-dynamic involving hundreds of interdependent organisms...) or was this number randomly generated, to fill the logistics associated with the infrastructure required to get a project of this magnitude off the ground?
Numbers communicated to the general public, was the removal of 5000 marine mammals a year, for a period of two years - 10,000 grey seals in all...
Simply: "IF YOU ARE GOING TO CULL 55,000 ANIMALS" - erroneously presenting numbers like 5000 individuals reflects poorly on the credibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)…a world class institution who emphatically delivers quality and accurate statistical information…if we are going to destroy, kill, slaughter, cull, harvest - in essence, inflict a prescribed "ecocide" upon an environment, parties responsible for the healthiness of our oceans should at least have control on the correctness of facts that are conveyed. However, this is rarely the case...
Some untold realities behind the "culling" of seals in Canada…
Naturalist Farley Mowat has estimated that a 3 to 1 ratio exists when we "cull" marine mammals...two animals are lost for every 1 retrieved (only seals physically collected are counted). Females with unborn - mortality again rises…a cull of 10,000 seals, theoretically represents 30,000 individuals, with two thirds of the populous non-recoverable, and suffering from distress…to any individual this "inhumane treatment" of animals, is in itself, "worthy of protest"...a science too, does exist to substantiate the claim that seals contribute favorably to "enhancing zooplankton health"...ameliorating marine ecosystems - a characteristic essential to the "lifeblood" of our oceans. (see also: greysealhunt article)
When we look at living nature as something that is exquisite, precious and invaluable - we hereby diminish our own "self-proclaimed" importance...this postponement of killing - what a welcome change!"Reversal of the burden of proof" a perversion in marine law governing the "conservancy of sea life" - seldom, if ever, is this policy implemented…
please sign our guestbook
