Of course the fact that some baby seals are being slaughted just for their
pelts does not justify the need to do this. In the past perhaps killer
whales and other sea going predators preyed on the seals, limiting their
numbers. There may be a case for 'regulating' the seals 'humanely';
therefore there is an ecological issue here. In the past the black bears
and grizzly bears were all killed when they came into towns, when they
killed livestock, or got into garbage dumps. Recently it has been shown
that the bears were intrinsic to the cycling of nutrients in the riparian
forests here in coastal areas of British Columbia. Bears also serve as
'helpers' of the eagles which find the salmon left by the bears on the sand
bars with only there heads eaten.
What I am concerned about is the seal in terms of the ecological function
which it may have provided in the past which was to consume littoral fish,
like cod. Now the cod is all but vanished, the seal has less food, and
their numbers are much lower, lower density means that their function is
reduced. And no one really knows what is going to happen therefore if the
slaughter of baby seals begins as a large commercial enterprise. In my
assessment, I would gather the knowledge first. We have seen over and over
again what happens when 'untested' technologies are used inapprpriately.
For instance salmon farming on the west coast of British Columbia [causing
huge sea lice outbreaks, escape of exotic species, pollution and impacts on
the local ecology]. Now it has been shown that the farmed salmon may not be
health to eat due to relatively high levels of PCBs, etc.
Any time we beging thinking about the cumulative impacts of an untested
technology or resource extraction, then we are doomed to end up with
consequences which may be irreversible. I remember when TBT was determined
to have wiped out huge shell fisheries, and that put a lot of people out of
work, then there was the oil damage about 2 years ago which ruined the
fisheries along the entire coast of Portugal.
There are too many to list, but the consequences of not assessing the
impacts, and the alternatives may cost many communities both human and
non-human.
Rules are fine when they are guided by sound science and understanding.
Concepts are essentially rules for thinking and organizing....
Here we have no sound strategies for wildfires, floods, and epidemics. So
why don't we have them in place before the happen?
Fact is seals may be beneficial as predators of fish, especially fish which
are competing with young cod stocks. Then it seems we have found out that
where there are no rules, such as beyond the 200 mile fishing limit for
Canada, anyone can go there and fish everything out, including the 'forage
stocks' which the cod rely on.
To have no rules therefore implies having no concept or thought about
consequences.
amities
John Foster
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Perley [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 3:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Canadian Greens now oppose sealing
I agree with Steven. The death of an individual animal/plant etc. is not
an ecological concern per se. From the system perspective such disturbance
is integral to the continuation of life. Leopold's pyramid analogy with
energy flowing through the gut of creatures creates the picture. The death
of an individual tree or beast does not necessarily 'harm' the ecosystem,
and an amount of death is always an essential part of the ecological
processes. More of an issue is how it is done, how much is done, an
evaluation of consequences, etc., etc. Rule based 'don't kill' ethics -
unless related to certain endangered or keystone species - is an
ecological
nonsense. When an individual is of a species that may be neither
endangered, nor ecologically critical, but just very charismatic and cute
(good for posters), then claiming an ecological/environmental rationale for
their absoute protection is a a big stretch for that ethical position.
As Steven suggests - IF there is a concern, then it seems more to do with
animal rights and cruel practices that 'the environment'. Interesting that
the Green Party of Canada has chosen to consider it from an ecological and
social point of view. A good sign in my view that they have moved toward
'sustaining socio-ecological systems' as a basis for policy, rather than a
sometimes antisocial preservationism that is opposed to all human harvest.
Good for them. Fikret Berkes, Buzz Holling, Lance Gunderson and Carl Folke
seem to be making some inroads at last.
Chris Perley
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jennifer Simon
Sent: Monday, 31 January 2005 6:24 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Canadian Greens now oppose sealing
I disagree. The ecosystem is comprised of the totality of living things.
A
depletion of a chain in the link...or a thread in the web if you prefer
that
analogy...has a wave-like effect on linked and interdependent organisms. I
can`t understand why anyone would try to argue that the plight of any
creature is unrelated to the environment. If it isn't an environmental
issue, what kind of issue is it?
Quoting STEVEN BISSELL <[log in to unmask]>:
> Maybe I miss the point, I often do, but this seems to be an animal
> welfare issue not ecological. Is anyone saying that the killing of
> these seals is ecologically unsound? I realize the method and such is
> brutal, but that is not an environmental issue really.
> Steven
>
> >***** > >"My letter headlined 'Canadian Greens endorsed seal hunt' in
> >the
> June 2003 >edition of _Animal People_ pointed out that the Green Party
> of Canada had >adopted a policy in support of the commercial seal hunt
> held each spring >off our east coast. > >Animal protectionists
> responded with a two-phase strategy. First, with a >federal election
> coming up, we set out to show that the party would lose >votes over
> this. Our protests received national news coverage. Follow-up
> >included going to all-candidates meetings and calling talk shows when
> the >party leader was in the studio, challenging the party position. >
> >Rebecca Aldworth, then of the International Fund for Animal Welfare
> and now >with the Humane Society of the U.S., went to the Green Party
> national >convention in August 2004. She showed her video of the seal
> hunt and talked >individually to every party member. > >It worked! The
> party dropped its pro-hunt policy and adopted a policy that >calls for
> phasing out the commercial seal hunt, by a vote of 98 to 7. This >made
> the Greens the first Canadian party to have an anti-seal hunt policy.
> > >The fight probably is not over. I think there is a good chance that
> the >Terra Nova
> (Newfounland) Greens, who were behind the original policy, will >try
> to get the present policy dropped or weakened at the next Green Party
> >of Canada convention in 2005. But we will be better prepared." > -
> Don Roebuck > > > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ~~~~~~
> > Visit the Green Web Home Page at: >
> > http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/ > >
> Our e-mail address is <[log in to unmask]> > >
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~
>
Jennifer Simon
Rutgers School of Law - Camden
"Never doubt that a small group of
thoughtful, committed citizens
can change the world. Indeed, it's
the only thing that ever does."
- Margaret Mead
|
