.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

David @ Tokyo

Perspective from Japan on whaling and whale meat, a spot of gourmet news, and monthly updates of whale meat stockpile statistics

6/09/2006

 

Sustainable Use: More on New Zealand sea lions

New Zealand's own anti-use group, Forest and Bird hasn't given up over Minister of Fisheries, Jim Anderton's decision to allow an increased level of by-catch this year (based on scientific advice).

They have now launched a web petition urging "the Government to reduce the number of threatened New Zealand sealions that fishing vessels are allowed to kill in the southern squid fishery each year to close to zero"

Jim Anderton covered the matter again in another press release yesterday:
“My statutory role under the Fisheries Act is to strike a balance between the economic benefits of squid – our most valuable fishery – and the impact on sea lions. I have to ensure any impact is sustainable and that is precisely what I did in this case. The Minister of Conservation has a statutory role to advocate a conservation viewpoint and he does this well, but I am required to make a balanced decision taking into account all factors,” Jim Anderton said.
Forest and Bird responded in the media.

I don't agree with his statement that the Minister of Conservation advocates a "conservation" viewpoint, but it is excellent that he did make a balanced decision.

I wrote to Jim again, as follows:
Mr Anderton,

I write to you once again to applaud your response to criticism regarding your decision to increase the allowed by-catch of NZ sea lions for this season.

In fact, I believe your recent decisions have shown that you as Minister of Fisheries are filling the role of "conservationist" more so Minister of Conservation, who plays more of a protectionist role.

To "conserve" something implies that we humans wish to utilize whatever that resource may be, but we moderate our utilization such that it does not effect the ability of future generations to also utilize the resource (aka "sustainable use").

Protection is only useful as a means of conservation when a resource is seriously threatened, which judging the information in your press releases, is not the case for the New Zealand sea lion.

One question I do have is what becomes of the by-caught sea lions?
Indeed, if economic value could be assigned to these resources it creates an incentive for these resources to be conserved (by industry, rather than only by government), just as is the case for other fisheries. While there are direct benefits from the squid fishery, it would be wonderful if the by-caught sea lions were put to good use, also.

It must be difficult to make the right decision in cases such as these when what are essentially "anti-use" groups attack you with quite emotional arguments, but I think you have done a splendid job in this instance, and make a very compelling argument in support of your decision in your press releases.

Congratulations again, and best regards,
I got a response for Jim's advisor last time I wrote, so it'll be interesting to see if they have any information on the use of by-caught sea lions.

As for Forest and Bird, I wish they would concentrate more on the real issues, such as conservation of the Maui's dolphin.

Comments:
Are you suggesting that New Zealand sea lion numbers are robust and the species is not "threatened"?
 
What I'm suggesting is that Jim Anderton's *scientific advice* says that even raising the permitted mortality level to 150 for a single season would in no way danger the viability of the population.

Are you aware of scientific information (from a *credible* source) that shows that the Minister's advice was so so wrong?
 
And I quote:

"The scientific advice provided to me from independent scientists at NIWA was that a mortality limit of up to 550 sea lions would not compromise the sustainability of the twelve thousand sea lions on the Auckland Islands."
 
And for information on NIWA:
http://www.niwa.cri.nz/niwa_group/
 
Abundance estimates put the numbers at around 12, 500 for this species, which, as you are aware, is endemic to NZ. That means it is found nowhere else. You would also be aware that it has been subject to epidemics, such as a mortality event in 1998 that wiped out over 53% of that season's pups. How low does a population have to be before YOU (not Mr Anderton) think it is too low. Yes, Maui's dolphins are at critically low levels, and could quite possibly go extinct. Is this low enough for you? Any population that is isolated and endemic only to a small region is more at risk from other factors such as disease or adverse weather events. SEDs need more trially, and the fishing industry needs to adapt, as other industries have to, in order to ensure the survival of each breeeding population of NZ sea lions. Just saying that a certain quota is acceptable for bycatch is not enough, and those that are involved in marine mammal research recognise this. Why try and utilise drowned sea lions and start up another industry around this which will further want to put pressure on the animals if it is commercially successful?
 
- Jim Anderton's advisor would certainly have been aware of the epidemics, in 1998. A bad year for pups almost 10 years ago is not a reason to panic and start making irrational decisions. As Anderton notes, his advisers were naturally fully aware of fluctuations in the number of pups.

The scientists look at the full picture - not just the *bad news* which can be used for emotional propaganda by certain protectionist-minded environmental groups.

What *I* think and (what Mr Anderton thinks) is not half as relevant as what the *scientific advisors* think.

I am not a marine mammal scientist, I do not have the information about population dynamics and population risks that is available to the people who advise the Ministers of the Government of New Zealand. I wonder if you have some secret information yourself that was not available to the NIWA scientists, or whether you too are getting your information second hand?

I have no reason to question the NIWA scientists, who clearly have more knowledge on the topic than me (and indeed more than people who visit my blog are likely to have)

If one does not believe in science or independant scientific advice, one is rendered utterly incapable of making sound decisions in the best interests of *conservation* and *sustainable use* of marine resources.

I stress that *conservation* and *sustainable use* are the concepts behind my statements - I get the distinct impression that you concern yourself solely with protection of sea lions, and I suggest that you ought to make consideration of the squid fishery, and actually listen to their point of view, rather than telling them what they need to do to meet your protectionist goal.

> the fishing industry needs to adapt, as other industries have to, in order to ensure the survival of each breeeding population of NZ sea lions.

The scientists said levels of up to 550 would be safe. Jim Anderton then exercised considerable caution in setting the limit at almost a quarter of that.

So why are you making an emotional argument that says we need to ensure the survival of the breeding population? Jim Anderton clearly had this in mind.

It is dishonest to suggest that the survival of the population is threatened by the by catch limit of 150 that was set for this season.

> Just saying that a certain quota is acceptable for bycatch is not enough,

That's what a Minister of the New Zealand government's scientific advice has said.

> Why try and utilise drowned sea lions and start up another industry around this

Because otherwise those dead sealions will go to waste, which is not making the best use of our resources.

> which will further want to put pressure on the animals if it is commercially successful?

This is why we have *regulations*. Rational humans recognise that if they depend on a natural resource for benefits, they have an commercial incentive to make efforts to *conserve* that resource. But because history has shown us that there are bad eggs, regulation is required to ensure that foolish short-term interests do not threaten the conservation of that natural resource.


I appreciate your comments, but I do wish to ask you one thing:
Are you aware that the Minister of Fisheries was taken to court by the squid industry in previous years, for making irrational unscientific decisions leading to very low levels of allowable by-catch? Are you aware that the court found that the Minister had failed to act in accordance with the law, which requires that *balanced* decisions must be made, and that in the past instance, the Minister had failed to do so? This is the reality. Anderton would be in court were he to have ignored the indepenant scientific advice that he received, as he *rightly* should be.

If you have a problem with he decision, I suggest that you need to find a justification for the relevant law to be changed.
 
>A bad year for pups almost 10 >years ago is not a reason to >panic and start making irrational >decisions.
There have been other small epidemics since then, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

>to do to meet your protectionist >goal.
Is my goal 'protectionist'?

>So why are you making an >emotional argument
What have I written that makes it an emotional argument?

>Are you aware that the Minister >of Fisheries was taken to court >by the squid industry in previous >years,
Yes, I would imagine that this influenced his decision immensely, but I am sure he can separate science from what could be construed as 'emotive' livelihood debates from politics.

>This is why we have >*regulations*. Rational humans >recognise that if they depend on >a natural resource for benefits, >they have an commercial incentive >to make efforts to *conserve* >that resource. But because >history has shown us that there >are bad eggs, regulation is >required to ensure that foolish >short-term interests do not >threaten the conservation of that >natural resource.
What made NZ sea lions numbers so low to begin with? The conservation of a resource can rely on other factors as well, that are beyond human control.
 
>Is my goal 'protectionist'?

It doesn't seem to be conservationist, and I use that term in the common dictionary sense, as opposed to the redefined version used by anti-natural resource use proponents in recent times (including the "Minister of Conservation").

I may be getting the wrong idea, but perhaps you might like to clarify exactly what level of bycatch you believe would have been acceptable.
Perhaps you might

> What have I written that makes it an emotional argument?

You suggested that the squid fishery must change to "ensure the survival" of the population. Yet scientific advice is that the survival of the population will not be threatened by Jim Anderton's decision.

I thus concluded that you were appealing to the fear of extinction of a population (without reasonable grounds), and fear is an emotion. That is the reason for my characterization. I did not make it lightly.

> I am sure he can separate science from what could be construed as 'emotive' livelihood debates from politics.

What he did was weigh up two things:
1) The conservation of the sea lion population
2) The economic benefits of the Squid fishery.
So on the contrary, I think the fact that he made the decision he did indicates that he made it without emotion, and for that I commend him. Thanks to his decision the squid fishery can enjoy some additional economic benefits this year, while the sea lion population will remain viable.

> What made NZ sea lions numbers so low to begin with?

Unregulated sealing, years and years ago:
http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/S/SealsAndSealing/Seals/en

> The conservation of a resource can rely on other factors as well, that are beyond human control.

Absolutely. And? Are you claiming that the NIWA scientists have not considered such factors?
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Archives

June 2004   July 2004   August 2004   September 2004   October 2004   November 2004   December 2004   January 2005   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   January 2010   February 2010   April 2010   May 2010   June 2010   July 2010   August 2010   September 2010   February 2011   March 2011   May 2013   June 2013  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?