next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
For your viewing pleasure ... dialogue between Kevin Chisholm and Dr. Martin Willison (responding to a message Martin sent in December ... you'll find it in the archives). ~Ed. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Chisholm <kchishol@fox.nstn.ca> Organization: Dynagen Systems Inc. Dear Martin Harp seals were "managed" at a level which held their population to about 600,000, through regular harvesting. Then the anti-sealing protestors came along, and the seal hunt ceased. With current harp seal population is in the order of 4 to 5 million, as you suggest, then the population is far above the level which has been proven as sustainable. An increased cull will put the system back in balance. If the Harp Seal population was reduced to 1 million (a level which is more than sustainable), this would represent 3 to 4 million less harp seals consuming fish. Would you know how much fish 3 million to 4 million harp seals can eat in a year? Thanks very much. Kevin Chisholm ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:09:24 -0400 From: Martin Willison <willison@is.dal.ca> Kevin, I don't know what "balance" means to you, but it obviously means something quite different to a seal. I don't know when the harp seal population was 600,000, but this is not the historical norm. Clearly, if the population can reach 5 million, then 600,000 is "sustainable"; but so is 300,000 and so is 1 million. In the mid 1800s the harp seal population was in the millions (see Lavigne 1999) and the cod catch in the region was fairly stable at 300,000 tonnes per year (see Hutchings and Myers 1995). There is no evidence that the current harp seal population is not "sustainable"; although it does, of course, have a maximum. Seal populations fluctuate naturally, however, and so this maximum is not a fixed value. Would you please define what you mean by "balance"? You wrote that "An increased [harp] seal cull will put the system back in balance"? We could have no seals and a "balance". We could also have no hunting of seals and a "balance", and we could have no fishing and a "balance". Each of these is a different balance, and each balance is dynamic. You apparently regard sustainability as something that takes account of human needs, but not the needs of anything else. Why? How do you justify this morally? With respect to your question "Would you know how much fish 3 million to 4 million harp seals can eat in a year?", my best answer is "less than are available", based on the fact that there is not yet evidence of malnutrition. It's worth noting in this regard that during the 1960s trawlers removed 500,000 to 600,000 tonnes of northern cod per year from the area in which the harp seals live. This proved unsustainable and the system went haywire as a result. It is unarguable that seals and humans are competitors in this region. Humans are technologically superior; but does this automatically give us moral superiority? Finally, could you please address the question of whether a harp seal population of 600,000, yielding 10% per year at the most, is sufficient to feed the aboriginal and other traditional-user humans of the region, given much higher historical seal herd norms? I doubt it, and suggest that your proposal counts them as relatively unimportant humans. And, how do you propose to close a commercial hunt for harp seals after it has "culled" the population down to this minimal level? Is this "sustainability"? Martin Willison References: Hutching, J.A. and R.A. Myers (1995) in The North Atlantic Fisheries: Successes, Failures and Challenges, R. Arnason and L Felt (Eds.), Institute of Island Studies, Charlottetown. Lavigne, D. (1999) Marine Mammal Science 15, 871-878 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:30:52 -0400 From: Kevin Chisholm <kchishol@fox.nstn.ca> Organization: Dynagen Systems Inc. Dear Martin Thanks for your reply. Martin Willison wrote: I understand that this was the target level for sustainability of the Harp Seal Herd in the 1960's and early 1970's; if they got above that limit, the cull size was increased, and if it fell below that, the cull size was decreased. As it is now, the cod catch by Man is virtually nothing. If the Harp Seal population was in the "low millions", say 1 or 2, rather than the "higher millions", say 3 to 5, the difference would represent about 2 or 3 million Harp Seals. Assuming they eat only 1 ton per seal per year, then this is another 2 million to 3 million tons per year for Man to catch. What would you feel is the "minimum sustainable population?" What I was thinking about in terms of "balance" was sharing the fish resource with the seals in some sustainable manner. As it is now, the seals get first priority access to the resource. > You apparently regard sustainability as something that > takes account of human needs, but not the needs of > anything else. Why? How do you justify this morally? I never said that, but I do say that human needs should be taken into account, which they are not to any significant degree now. I am not at all advocating extincting the seals; what I am advocating is a balanced and sustainable of the Ocean Resources for the betterment of Mankind. Is that immoral? > With respect to your question "Would you know how much fish 3 > million to 4 million harp seals can eat in a year?", my best > answer is "less than are available", based on the fact that > there is not yet evidence of malnutrition. Well, they may not be suffering from malnutrition yet, because Manhas effectively ceased fishing; they are eating "Man's Share" of the fishery resource. It would be interesting to know the "total catch", ie, those caught by Man, and those caught by Harp Seals, and then compare this with what would have been a sustainable Northern Cod catch. For example, if Man had cut back to say 300,000, and the Seals were culled to half their population, then perhaps the Northern Cod Stocks would be in fine shape. It is wrong to blame the entire problem on Man, unless Man's catch was well above sensible levels. I don't think this is a question of Morality. I feel it is a question of sharing the fishery resource, in a sustainable manner. At the present, the seals are hogging it all. Why do they have first right to the resource? They are exercising a "morality judgement" by saying they are more moral than the little fishies which they eat. Is it not fair that if they "live by the sword, they die by the sword?" I am not sure about this, but a "food fishery" cull of 60,000 seals per year may suffice. If not, then bump up the base. Anything more than this, whether aboriginal, or non-aboriginal, is a "commercial fishery"; it can be raised or lowered to ensure that the sustainable herd level is maintained. > I doubt it, and suggest > that your proposal counts them as relatively unimportant > humans. That is your suggestion, not mine. You seem to be suggesting that seals are more important than non-aboriginals. > And, how do you propose to close a commercial hunt > for harp seals after it has "culled" the population down to > this minimal level? Is this "sustainability"? It is actually quite simple: tell the Seal Cull people the "Rules of the Game" before they start, and then hold them to the rules. Let them decide if it will be worthwhile for them to set up: If too many "get in" some are going to have to "get out" if the herd level reaches its lower limit. Mankind does an excellent job of managing the deer herd, and has done an excellent job of managing the seal herd in the past. There is no reason why it can't be done again. By the way, did you ever notice that the population of Atlantic Salmon is almost inversely proportional to the seal population? Kindest regards, Kevin Chisholm ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:45:48 -0400 (AST) From: Martin Willison <willison@is.dal.ca> Kevin and sust-mar, I don't have the energy to fight on this, there is too much else that needs to be done, but I will give it one more shot because some of Kevin's assumptions are fundamentally flawed. > As it is now, the cod catch by Man is virtually nothing. If the Harp > Seal population was in the "low millions", say 1 or 2, rather than the > "higher millions", say 3 to 5, the difference would represent about 2 or > 3 million Harp Seals. Assuming they eat only 1 ton per seal per year, > then this is another 2 million to 3 million tons per year for Man to > catch. Harp seals mostly don't eat cod. I have heard the estimate that 1% of their diet is cod, but I can't verify this. They prefer fish like capelin and sandlance that cod feed on too. Seals also eat predators of cod, and so the ecological relationships are complex. Historically, there have been large seal populations and large cod populations. It's not a simple matter of only cod, seals and humans interacting. > > There is no evidence that the current harp seal population > > is not "sustainable"; although it does, of course, have > > a maximum. > > What would you feel is the "minimum sustainable population?" I don't know why this question needs to be asked. Would you ask "what is the minumum sustainable human population?". For harp seals it is below 600,000 for sure. By asking this question is Kevin asking that we keep all populations other than the human at its minimal level? Only barely enough harp seals to survive as a species; only barely enough bears to survive as a species; only barely enough wolves, and so on. If this governs our planning for sustainability, then God help us! > > Would you please define what you mean by "balance"? ........ > What I was thinking about in terms of "balance" was sharing the fish > resource with the seals in some sustainable manner. As it is now, the > seals get first priority access to the resource. Of course they do, and so they should. They live in the ocean all the time and all they eat is fish. This is a defining characteristic of being a seal. Humans are land-dwellers, and have invented farming as the primary means of survival. If there were a "balance" we would have to invite the seals to our dinner tables as well as going to theirs. Clearly we should take our share of fish AFTER the seals have taken theirs. > > You apparently regard sustainability as something that > > takes account of human needs, but not the needs of > > anything else. Why? How do you justify this morally? > > I never said that, but I do say that human needs should be taken into > account, which they are not to any significant degree now. This is false and ridiculous. During the last 3 years almost a million harp seals have been killed because Canada thinks there are too many. Every environmental scientist in the world acknowledges that there are too many humans and there are endless discussions by millions of concerned people about how to find morally acceptable ways to stabilize the human population. I have never heard anyone propose clubbing millions of humans to death. Yet this is the "solution" which Kevin supports for seals, and then defends as being one that takes no account of human needs. It's bizarre. Some of the seals are rendered into capsules of seal oil that are being touted as good for "keeping the wife happy" (nudge-nudge ... know what I mean) [I didn't invent this; I heard someone offering them for sale in exactly this way]. Lie upon lie for the sake of the big lie. > > It's worth noting in > > this regard that during the 1960s trawlers removed 500,000 to > > 600,000 tonnes of northern cod per year from the area in which > > the harp seals live. This proved unsustainable and the > > system went haywire as a result. > > It would be interesting to know the "total catch", ie, those caught by > Man, and those caught by Harp Seals, and then compare this with what > would have been a sustainable Northern Cod catch. For example, if Man > had cut back to say 300,000, and the Seals were culled to half their > population, then perhaps the Northern Cod Stocks would be in fine shape. > It is wrong to blame the entire problem on Man, unless Man's catch was > well above sensible levels. The problem with this argument is that as Kevin has already explained, when this severe over-fishing was conducted, the seal population was substantially lower than now. Seals played absolutely no role in the collapse of northern cod, and this is well established by fisheries scientists. There is, however, an ongoing argument about whether the large harp seal herd is, or is not, delaying recovery of the northern cod population. In the mid 1800s there were harp seal numbers similar to today and 300,000 tonnes of northern cod were caught annually. This rate of fish catch continued for 100 years, with fluctuating seal numbers, until the 1960s, when fleets of big draggers entered the scene, and destroyed the fishery. To cover up this calamity various stories have been invented, including the "seals eat all the cod" story. It's a big lie. Kevin asked: > ..... Is it not fair that > if they "live by the sword, they die by the sword?" I have not written objecting to coastal peoples in Labrador eating seals as food. In this remote place, seals eat fish and people eat seals. If this was the "balance" that Kevin sought I would not have written to sust-mar. It isn't like this. > .... Mankind does an excellent job of managing the deer herd, and has > done an excellent job of managing the seal herd in the past. There is no > reason why it can't be done again .... As a matter of interest, in the "Sustainable Maritimes" of your dream, which species are not "managed"? Or is this whole living world just there so that we can play games with it? Who is God anyway? > By the way, did you ever notice that the population of Atlantic Salmon > is almost inversely proportional to the seal population? No I didn't because it isn't. In my world it is considered irresponsible to make up statistics. This statement is akin to racial hatred. The evidence on Atlantic Salmon is clear. The culprits are: pollution (especially acid rain); river habitat loss of various kinds; fishing on the Greenland over-wintering population (a relatively new phenomenon); and now that the population levels are low, fishing on river populations, especially at estuaries. Seals will, of course, eat a salmon when they can get one, but this isn't very often. Martin Willison -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- The preceding message was posted on the Sustainable Maritimes mailing list (sust-mar). http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/lists/sust-mar -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Sponsors: Chebucto Community Net http://www.chebucto.ns.ca Sierra Club - Chebucto Group http://www.sierraclub.ca Volunteer listowner: Paul Falvo sust-mar-owner@chebucto.ns.ca
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects