by Jim Beers
The newspaper article title was "New England awash in seals"
(Washington
Times, Sunday 2 January 2005, Page A2.) Two pictures were included.
One
showed a doe-eyed young seal in a Mystic Aquarium in Connecticut and the
other was six or seven seals on a rock off Norwalk, Connecticut.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in the environmental fervor of
1972, a year before the Endangered Species Act. One of it's major sponsors
in the US Senate was an Arkansas Senator that was facing reelection and got
the Arkansas "environmental vote" by his sponsorship of this Act.
Later he
bragged that it was a perfect cause for him because there wasn't a single
one of them marine mammals anywhere near any of his constituents.
The Act covered all marine mammals from whales and porpoises and walruses
and sea otters to seals and manatees and dugongs. Like the embryonic (at
that time) Endangered Species Act it seized management authority from State
governments over sea otters, polar bears, manatees, and the rest of them
when they came into Inland Waters under State jurisdiction. Additionally
it
killed any commercial take or use of whales and seals and even polar bear
hunting and import of trophies and the potential harvest of sea otters was
made verboten. Seal hide processors around the world (including South
Carolina) were put out of business.
Why? For two emotional and overblown reasons, porpoises in tuna nets and
baby seal harvest on the sea ice off Newfoundland. Neither situation
"endangered" either species. The porpoises and seals were doing
fine.
Better nets for tuna that allowed for porpoise bycatch to escape were
developed to prevent incidental take that was not significant to worldwide
porpoise populations. Seals in the North Atlantic and elsewhere were being
held to tolerable levels (for the maintenance of other marine resources) by
the worldwide harvest of the whitecoats and adults that supported a thriving
and sustainable economy particularly in remote areas for widely scattered
native peoples..
Toothed whales and seals and walruses and sea otters and porpoises all eat
fish and shellfish. Baleen whales eat the plants that fish and shellfish
eat. Sea otters are very destructive of commercial shellfish off California.
Rock lobster fishermen kill 30 to 40,000 seals a year (that are left for
sharks because no use is allowed) to protect their rock lobster fishery off
the African coast. Whales of all sorts are enormous consumers of
commercial
fish and the fish and plants commercial fish feed on and their numbers are
increasing worldwide. Unmanaged killer whales in Alaska are devastating
sea
otters (after eating many of the seals) so the US Fish and Wildlife Service
is considering "listing" the sea otters in Alaska. Cod fisheries
and
ground-fish fisheries in the North Atlantic are decreasing and everything
EXCEPT uncontrolled marine mammals is blamed. In short the situation with
US influence on marine mammals and all of their effects has created a mess
worldwide, which brings us to the report on New England seals. Although
this article is worthy of Walt Disney cartoonists, it is worthy of analysis
because it is so typical of the silliness routinely touting Endangered
Species and Invasive Species and Wilderness and even the Animal Welfare Act
that passes for "science".
The following quotes and my observations are from the article:
"As many as 100,000 harbor seals can be found in New England waters, and
yet
what is known about these mammals is very little"
Comment: If we know little about them why are they protected and their
consumption of and impact on other marine resources a mystery? This is
patent nonsense. We know more than enough to know what they are doing and
what must be done (population reduction and maintenance through use and
licensing) with their numbers.
"Regional experts recently met at the Maritime Aquarium in Norwalk to
develop a research plan to explore where exactly the seals are coming
from."
Comment" This is so stupid it defies a serious rejoinder. These are
the
same "experts" we rely on for Endangered species and Wilderness and
Animal
Welfare. Don't mention their overpopulation or its effect on fisheries;
the
"problem" is where are they coming from??
"In 1973, only 5,800 seals were counted in Maine".
Comment: And your point is? What was the problem with that? Was it
too
many? Was it too few? Why?
"They were almost completely wiped out".
Comment: That is a completely unsubstantiated opinion based on the bias of
the commenter.
"In addition to the harbor seals, there are between 5,000 and 7,000 gray
seals". "There are also a number of harp and hooded seals".
Comment: What are they all eating? What are the numerous gray whales
that
have spawned daily trips by several whale-watcher boats from Provincetown
(on the tip of Cape Cod) eating? How many of these animals should there be
in New England waters? Are ground-fisheries and lobster fisheries of any
importance?
NOT TO WORRY! What is the answer to this dilemma? The newspaper and
the
"researchers" and the "experts" have the problem well in
hand.
"Mr. Waring (sic a research fisheries biologist at the National Marine
Fisheries Service) said researchers are interested in exploring any genetic
links between harbor seals that are mating in U.S. waters and those that are
breeding in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Marine research is expensive.
Mr. Waring estimates that a complete abundance survey for New England could
cost as much as $300,000. The count, which includes the use of two
airplanes and radio tagging, is completed over three or five years. To
collect diet information, scientists would need an additional $100,000 to
look at seal droppings or to examine the stomachs of stranded, dead seals.
A research plan for the group is still in the early stages, but scientists
hope to eventually secure a federal grant for funding."
Comment: I swear I did not make this up. This is a classic bait and switch
that is oh so common with Endangered Species and other environmental issues
of the past three decades. "Genetic links"??
"Research is expensive"??
(Really?) "Look at seal droppings" and "stomachs of stranded,
dead seals"??
(It is the stomachs of the live and well-fed ones you need to examine to
confirm what we knew 50 years ago!) The "plan" is in "early
stages"?? "Hope
to eventually secure a federal grants"?? No kidding. Beam me up
Scotty!
The Marine Mammal Protection Act is a disaster or enormous proportions. It
got an Arkansas Senator reelected and it is (like the ESA and Wilderness Act
and Animal Welfare Act) a vehicle for Federal power growth, bureaucrat
career enhancement, professorial tenure and most important of all the means
by which the organizations that want to stop all use of animals or the
environment have begun to work their will on marine mammals and associated
marine activities. The effect on marine resources of this animal worship
(the right term) and the cessation of all management is ruinous to both the
renewable resources of the oceans and the communities and families that rely
and formerly relied on them. The Greeenpeace's and the PETA's and the rest
of the outfits that wrought and maintained these travesties merely smirk as
they plot on how to extend the same sort of control over every other animal
and plant under US control. And the rest of us close our eyes to this
transformation of our formerly limited Federal government into something
Bismarck or Czar Nicholas would envy.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act could be repealed tomorrow with great
benefit. Combined with sending US delegations to the UN that truly
represent the management and use of such natural resources for the benefits
to marine mammals and humans dependent on ocean resources would be
inestimable. Numerous whale species (like Minkes) could be harvested by
Japan and Iceland and Norway for food and to reduce their impact on
commercial fisheries. Seal harvests could be ratcheted back up to levels
necessary to maintain seal numbers at numbers and distributions consistent
with desired commercial fisheries. Seal tanneries could be encouraged,
reopened, and seal harvests from Africa and North America and elsewhere
could fatten national coffers, rural communities, and businessmen while
maintaining rock lobster fisheries and other desirable natural resource
enterprises. Sea otters could be managed to reduce their impact on shellfish
while maintaining healthy populations and producing very valuable fur.
Polar bear harvests could once again be managed by Alaska for the benefit of
Alaskans, northern natives, and the bears they live with.
But I keep forgetting! The whole idea is to control people, put the
Federal
government in charge of everything, and improve the financial and power
status of "experts" and "researchers". The idea that
the impacts of all
this on people or the marine mammals themselves has anything to do with
anything is, well, just not "consistent with the Act" (or any of these
other
environmental delusions of the past 30 years.)
Jim Beers
3 January 2005