Sheryl Fink2013-05-25T23:04:07-04:00Sheryl Finkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=sheryl-finkCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Sheryl FinkGood old fashioned elbow grease."Polar Bears Could Face Extinction Within Our Lifetime"tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27747272013-03-04T12:21:07-05:002013-05-04T05:12:01-04:00Sheryl Finkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-fink/
Canada, and Canadian Inuit, are fanning the flames of controversy and actively trying to block the proposal, claiming that the listing would pose a 'serious threat' to the Inuit way of life. This statement is not only an exaggeration, but it misses a much larger issue: polar bears could face extinction within our lifetime if we do not start taking action to protect them now.
Canada is home to some 15,000 of the planet's remaining 20,000-25,000 polar bears, with 13 of 19 recognized populations within our borders. Only one of these populations, with about 2 per cent of Canada's bears, is thought to be increasing, and this is because it was severely over-hunted in the past and is now recovering; the others are declining, stable, or we simply do not have enough data to determine population trends.
Canada is also the only country that allows the hunting of polar bears solely for the purpose of international trade and sport. About 600 polar bears are hunted annually in Canada, with over 400 of these ending up in commercial international trade, primarily as skins.
Canadian Inuit are actively opposing the uplisting, and have set out on a lobbying expedition to encourage European leaders to oppose the US proposal to give greater protection to polar bears. In fact, Inuit leader Terry Audla has publicly claimed -- contrary to all available data and international scientific consensus -- that climate change is not having a negative impact on polar bears, and that the Canadian polar bear population is increasing. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.
Blog continues below slideshow...
Climate change is a very serious threat to polar bears.
Scientists agree that polar bears are threatened with extinction. In fact, the decline in sea ice is expected to lead to the disappearance of two thirds of the world's polar bear populations within 45 years. It's hard to imagine that someday the only place we may see polar bears in Canada is on the front of a toonie.
Canadians want greater protection for polar bears.
As home to some 75 per cent of the world's remaining polar bears, and the only country to allow commercial and sport hunting of this species, it falls to Canada to take the lead in protecting polar bear populations. A new poll conducted by Environics Research Group found that 85 per cent of Canadians support giving polar bears greater protection through an Appendix I listing at CITES.
Stopping international commercial trade in polar bear parts will not be enough to save this species, but it is a crucial step.
We need to be realistic. Giving polar bears greater protection through an Appendix I listing on CITES is not a panacea to the threats facing the world's remaining polar bears. It will not even stop all hunting of polar bears. It will not affect the traditional hunting of polar bears by Inuit for hides and meat, nor will it stop trophy hunting by Canadians or foreigners, who use Inuit as hunting guides.
And while there is no question that climate change, and its impact on polar bear habitat, poses the greatest threat to this species, hunting for international commercial trade is the second largest threat, and one that can be easily addressed. If polar bears are to be saved, we need to do more than drink cans of Coke. We need to take every possible measure to reduce needless threats to this species.
Stopping the commercial trade in polar bear rugs is one small -- but critical -- step towards securing a future for polar bears.
Delegates from Canada and other signatories will vote on the proposed uplisting at the 16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16) to CITES, 3-14 March 2013.
Please take action and let the government of Canada know you want to see greater protection for polar bears, starting by supporting a ban on the international commercial trade of polar bear parts.]]>Le Sénat recommande un abattage massif de phoques gris : le bon, le moins bon et le terribletag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20407032012-10-30T16:07:00-04:002012-12-30T05:12:01-05:00Sheryl Finkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-fink/rapport sur la « gestion » des populations de phoques gris de la côte Est du pays. Ce rapport recommande de dépenser des millions de dollars provenant des contribuables pour faire une « expérience » tellement mal ficelée dès le départ que les résultats, quels qu'ils soient, ne voudront strictement rien dire.
Mettons de côté pour l'instant les détails du fonctionnement de l'abattage et ses coûts (en argent et en répercussions éthiques) et rappelons l'essentiel de la proposition : abattre 70 000 phoques. Le chiffre fait frémir. La compassion pour les animaux est au coeur de notre travail et il est difficile d'imaginer l'ampleur des souffrances qu'un abattage aussi massif engendrerait.
Cela dit, prenons un moment pour analyser cette proposition d'un autre point de vue, celui de la science.
La première recommandation du Comité est bonne : on dit que le ministère des Pêches et des Océans du Canada (MPO) devrait fixer des objectifs de rétablissement et un échéancier pour les stocks de poissons en difficulté. Jusqu'ici, les efforts du Canada pour favoriser le rétablissement des stocks de morue ont été - disons-le clairement - pathétiques. On le reconnaît dans le rapport du Sénat et le grand spécialiste des sciences de la mer, Jeff Hutchings, l'avait décrié vigoureusement dans son témoignage. Prenons le cas du stock de morues du sud du golfe du Saint-Laurent, par exemple - celui-là même qu'on pense favoriser en abattant les phoques. À chaque année ou presque depuis 10 ans, le MPO accorde délibérément dans ce secteur des quotas et des prises plus élevés que le seuil considéré comme viable dans une perspective de développement durable par les scientifiques spécialisés dans les pêches. Autrement dit, on maintient la pression de la pêche commerciale sur ces stocks de morue depuis une décennie, au lieu de l'alléger. Compte tenu qu'on a laissé ce stock en état d'épuisement perpétuel, et qu'on n'a pas de stratégie de rétablissement digne de ce nom, le simple fait d'envisager un abattage massif de phoques est déjà totalement contraire à l'éthique.
La seconde recommandation du Comité est intéressante aussi : on reconnaît qu'il y a d'importants manques dans nos connaissances scientifiques et on ajoute qu'il faudrait y remédier. Le problème, c'est qu'on ne dit pas clairement qu'il faudrait y remédier avant de procéder à un abattage.
Plusieurs autres recommandations du rapport ont déjà abondamment critiquées par la communauté scientifique. Au premier chef, on critique sévèrement l'idée de faire un abattage de phoques gris en le considérant comme une « expérience » scientifique.
Pensez à toutes le variables en jeu. Il y a les morues, les phoques gris, et tous les autres animaux de l'océan. Des animaux qui se nourrissent de morue, de phoques gris, d'aliments dont se nourrissent les morues et les phoques gris, de plantes, d'autres animaux, etc. Il y a aussi les variables environnementales : les courants océaniques qui transportent la nourriture de la morue, la pollution, les maladies, les changements climatiques. Ce réseau alimentaire est d'une grande complexité et dès qu'on modifie une ou plusieurs variables - ce qui est inévitable - toute cette « expérience » tombe à l'eau.
Plus loin dans le rapport, il y a de quoi devenir de plus en plus perplexe : on dit que la chasse commerciale serait préférable à l'abattage et qu'il faudrait élaborer un plan basé sur un marché local et international rentable pour les produits tirés des phoques gris. Apparemment, les membres du Comité dormaient sur leurs deux oreilles pendant plusieurs témoignages, dont ceux du MPO, des chasseurs, et des associations représentant l'industrie de la pêche. Tous ont souligné ce que plusieurs d'entre nous savaient déjà : il n'y a PAS de marchés rentables pour le phoque gris depuis qu'on a cessé d'éclairer nos villes avec des lampes à l'huile de phoque. Voilà près de 20 ans que le gouvernement dépense des millions de dollars en fonds publics pour des plans d'affaires, des stratégies d'adaptation, et des projets de marketing pour la peau et la viande des phoques gris - tous ont échoué. L'an dernier, le quota de chasse commerciale aux phoques gris avait été fixé à 60 000 têtes, et le nombre de captures s'est élevé à... zéro. Le fait de croire qu'un abattage de phoques gris pourrait un jour servir à alimenter un marché rentable n'est que pure chimère.
Les deux dernières recommandations sont encore plus déroutantes.
On propose d'ajouter l'huile de phoque non réglementée comme supplément alimentaire dans la prochaine édition du Guide alimentaire canadien. Si jamais on prend cette proposition au sérieux, vous pouvez être certain qu'elle soulèvera une vive controverse.
Dernière recommandation - et certainement pas la moindre - le Sénat propose de relancer le projet révoltant d'abattre et d'incinérer des dizaines de milliers de phoques sur l'île de Sable et dans l'est du plateau néo-écossais. Le Sénat fait cette recommandation même si on a clairement dit au Comité que « le prélèvement et l'élimination de milliers d'animaux de l'île de Sable trouveraient peu d'appuis auprès du public ». Ironiquement, même si c'est dans ce secteur que l'on retrouve les plus importantes populations de phoques gris, c'est aussi un des endroits où on commence à observer un rétablissement des stocks de morue. Cela s'explique peut-être par le fait qu'on n'a pas rouvert la pêche commerciale dans ce secteur depuis l'adoption du moratoire.
À mon avis, le seul résultat sûr de cette « expérience » est le suivant : dans quatre ans, nous serons encore plus fortement convaincus que le fait de mener une telle expérience en pleine nature avec l'argent des contribuables est une idée tellement mauvaise qu'on peine à trouver les mots pour en décrire la folie.
Une fois qu'on a compris qu'un abattage massif de phoques gris ne peut pas être mené comme une « expérience » et qu'il est impossible de le justifier d'un point de vue scientifique, on revient à la question de la souffrance animale. On abattrait des milliers et des milliers de phoques à l'arme à feu et au gourdin, on infligerait toute cette souffrance... uniquement pour satisfaire des intérêts politiques.
Si vous êtes aussi choqué que nous par ces recommandations, svp Envoyez un message à Gail Shea, la ministre des Pêches et des Océans du Canada. Demandez-lui de rejeter intégralement tout projet d'abattage des phoques gris.
Vous pouvez aussi consulter le rapport de l'IFAW
sur les implications d'un abattage massif de phoques gris.
MISE EN GARDE
Des images choc de la chasse aux phoques compilées par nos collègues du HuffPost Canada ]]>The Senate's Seal Experiment Is Doomedtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20106092012-10-24T13:52:57-04:002012-12-24T05:12:02-05:00Sheryl Finkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-fink/report on the "management" of grey seal populations on Canada's East Coast and recommends spending millions in taxpayer dollars on an "experiment" that is so incredibly flawed that, whatever the result, it will be entirely unreliable.
Without going into details of how it should be done and the costs that taxpayers should bear -- both economic and ethical -- the report calls for a cull of an astounding 70,000 grey seals. Compassion for animals is the heart of our work, and it's difficult to think of the mass scale of suffering that this grey seal cull will produce.
But let's for a moment analyze this from a different perspective -- a scientific perspective.
The first recommendation made by the Committee -- that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) should identify recovery targets and timelines for depleted fish stocks -- is a good one. Canada's efforts towards cod recovery have been -- to put it bluntly -- pathetic, and this was both acknowledged in the Senate report and heavily criticized in the testimony given by Dr. Jeff Hutchings, a leading marine scientist.
For example, the cod stock in the southern Gulf of St Lawrence -- the stock that this proposed seal cull is supposed to benefit -- has been under pressure from a commercial fishery for most of the past decade, with DFO deliberately allowing quotas and catches to exceed the level that fisheries scientists have said was sustainable. After allowing commercial fishing to keep this stock in a perpetually depleted state, and without proper cod recovery strategies, it is completely unethical to even consider culling seals.
The second recommendation of the Committee -- acknowledging that there are major scientific research gaps that need to be filled -- is also commendable. Unfortunately, it is not made clear that these gaps must be addressed before any attempts to cull are made.
Several other recommendations in the report have already been widely criticized by the scientific community, starting with the idea that a cull of grey seals could be conducted as a scientific "experiment."
Think of all the variables that are in play in this experiment. There are the cod, the grey seals -- and every other animal in the ocean. Animals that may feed on cod, or on grey seals, or on whatever cod and grey seals feed on, or on whatever those animals and plants may feed on. Then there are the environmental variables: ocean currents carrying the cod's preferred food, pollution, disease, climate change. That web is incredibly complex and intricate, and if any of those variables are altered -- and it's certain that one or more will be -- then the "experiment" is for naught.
The report goes on -- and this is where it gets really perplexing -- and says that a commercial hunt would be preferable to a cull and that any plan should be based on viable domestic and international markets for grey seal products. Apparently the Committee members were sleeping during the presentations of several witnesses -- including DFO, sealers, and fishing industry associations -- who pointed out what many of us already know; that there are NO viable markets for grey seals, and there haven't been any since we stopped lighting our street lamps with seal blubber.
Millions of dollars of government funds have been invested into business plans, coping studies, and marketing efforts for grey seal skins and meat for almost two decades -- all of them have failed. In fact, the commercial hunt of grey seals last year landed zero animals out of an allowable catch of 60,000. Saying that a cull of grey seals could ever be supported by viable markets is nothing more than a pipe dream.
The last two recommendations plunge even further beyond belief. The suggestion to add unregulated seal oil supplements into the next iteration of the Canada Food Guide and will undoubtedly raise controversy, should it ever be taken seriously.
Last and certainly not least, the Senate recommends re-opening the shocking proposal to shoot, bulldoze, and incinerate tens of thousands of grey seals on Sable Island and on the Eastern Scotian Shelf. This recommendation is despite the fact that the Committee heard "there would be little public support for the removal and disposal of thousands of animals from Sable Island." Ironically, this is the area with the highest population of grey seals AND one area where cod are beginning to show a recovery, perhaps due to the fact that a commercial fishery has not been reopened in this area since the moratorium.
The only outcome from this "experiment" that seems certain to me is this: in four years' time, we'll be even more sure that spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money to conduct an experiment in the wild was an idea so terrible that it's difficult to fully describe its foolishness.
And when we accept that a grey seal cull cannot be conducted as an "experiment," and is not based on any science, we come back to the suffering. Thousands upon thousands of grey seals to be shot and clubbed to death, all that suffering...for no reason other than to satisfy political interests.
If you're as outraged by this as we are, Please SEND A MESSAGE to Fisheries Minister Gail Shea, asking her to unconditionally reject all calls for a grey seal cull. You can also read IFAW's report on the implications of culling grey seals.
WARNING: GRAPHIC
]]>Bad Call on the Seal Cull, Senatorstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20063792012-10-23T14:44:52-04:002012-12-23T05:12:01-05:00Sheryl Finkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-fink/Senate Committee recommended a large-scale cull, and in anticipation put together a recap of what the Committee has heard.
The Senate Committee received testimony from a number of witnesses over the past year. Some, like Dr. Jeff Hutchings, were acknowledged world experts in issues concerning marine mammals and fisheries, others less so. The Canadian Sealers Association, for example, freely admitted that grey seals were not their area of expertise and instead decided to talk about harp and hooded seals -- two entirely different species.
Dr. Hutchings, who is a Professor at Dalhousie University and Chair of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on Sustaining Canadian Marine Biodiversity, was clear in his opinion that trying to benefit fisheries is an insufficient reason for a cull. Why? First, the effects of a cull can't be credibly predicted from a scientific perspective. Secondly, the deliberate killing of one species native to Canada because of the human-induced depletion of another native species, is indefensible.
Dr. Hutchings went on to point out that the cod fishery in the Southern Gulf of St Lawrence opened too soon -- and at quotas too high -- to allow the stock any chance of recovery. For over a decade, the Government of Canada has allowed a commercial fishery to take place on cod in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence with catches that fisheries scientists said were unsustainable. Now, they want to place the blame on seals for preventing cod stock recovery.
IFAW's science advisor, Dr. David Lavigne, presented IFAW's position. His testimony noted that there was substantial evidence that grey seals also had positive impacts on other species, and played a key role in the structuring and stabilizing of marine ecosystems. He warned that by removing predators, we change ecosystems, sometimes in ways that are neither anticipated or desired.
Further scientific evidence was presented by a panel of highly-respected biologists from Dalhousie University: Dr. Boris Worm, Dr. Sara Iverson, and Dr. Heike Lotze. The scientists were direct, making three main points: First, that there are numerous examples from around the world of large-scale removals of seals and other marine mammals from ocean ecosystems, and in most of these cases these removals had either unknown or no effects on fish stocks.
It is therefore unlikely that a seal cull in Eastern Canada would have a substantial positive effect on cod populations. Second, that the majority of grey seal diets consists of fatty forage fish such as herring, sand lance, and other small fish, and therefore they would not expect much, if any, benefit of culling seals on cod. Third, studies show that both the depression and recovery of cod in certain areas is explained not by the abundance of seals, but the abundance of forage fish such as herring. Because seals eat mostly forage fish, including herring (which eats young cod), a seal cull could even have a negative effect on the recovery of cod.
Many witnesses saw seals as competitors for fish (Morrow, Cunningham) -- competitors that should be eliminated. This is not surprising. Throughout history, everywhere that seals and fisheries overlap there have been calls to kill seals. What some might find surprising, however, was the fact that even sealers and the associations they represent stated that they were opposed to a seal cull.
In addition to scientists and sealers -- most Canadians are also opposed to a seal cull. In a nation-wide poll recently conducted by Environics research, 73 per cent of Canadians were opposed to a government-sanctioned cull of grey seals.
There was plenty of evidence presented to the Senate Committee that a cull of grey seals would be scientifically risky, unethical, and expensive. Yet, the senate recommended the cull anyway.
WARNING: GRAPHIC
]]>Rae to Maher on Seal Hunt: Blubber, Blubber, Blundertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16838572012-07-18T15:20:36-04:002012-09-17T05:12:07-04:00Sheryl Finkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-fink/
The seal hunt is an unnecessary, outdated practice with little economic value. Willfully ignoring this fact, the majority of Canadian politicians continue to support the hunt in attempt to garner favour in Atlantic Canada, as Maher points out. But when the leader of a political party justifies the reputation-staining, taxpayer-supported slaughter of tens of thousands of seals with arguments of "culture and tradition," accompanied by weak lamentations that the practice is "being singled out unfairly" -- accepting such an excuse would prevent action against any atrocity to humans or animals -- it is time for Canadians to sit up and ask what kind of Kool Aid they are drinking up in Ottawa.
Despite decades of political posturing and tens of millions in wasted tax dollars, government support of the seal hunt has failed. There are 33 countries that now ban the trade in seal products, most notably the 27 member states of the EU, Russia (which reportedly represented approximately 90 per cent of the export market for Canada's seal fur) and the U.S. An agreement between Canada and China to allow edible seal products to be exported to China has not been ratified, and there are reports of China considering banning seal products as well. Frankly, it seems unlikely that the 2012 hunt would have occurred at all without a $3.6 million bailout from the government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The political excuses for continuing this unnecessary slaughter are getting noticeably thin on the ground. "Tradition" does not justify the slaughter of newly weaned animals so that their skins can be stockpiled. There are plenty of traditions that are no longer justified or socially acceptable today, and the killing of seal pups in attempt to encourage the international wildlife trade should join this list. The sooner the better, for seals, the few remaining sealers, and for Canadians of all political stripes.]]>Harp Seals on Thin Icetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.11859662012-01-05T17:47:50-05:002012-03-06T05:12:01-05:00Sheryl Finkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-fink/witnessed first-hand the devastating effects of climate change on harp seal pups in eastern Canada, including dead seals on beaches, abandoned starving pups found on shore and whitecoat seals crushed to death in ice before they are strong enough to swim. New scientific evidence is proving our eye-witness accounts to be startlingly real and deeply concerning for seal conservation.
A new study shows that warming in the North Atlantic over the last 32 years has significantly reduced the winter sea ice needed by harp seals for giving birth and nursing, resulting in higher death rates among seal pups in recent years. The study, authored by scientists from Duke University and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE, raises conservation concerns for the future of harp seals, which are also commercially hunted for their fur and, to a lesser extent, their oil and meat.
Harp seals have evolved to rely on stable winter sea ice as a place to give birth and nurse their young until the pups can swim and hunt on their own. The new study is the first to demonstrate that all four harp seal breeding areas -- not just those in the Northwest Atlantic -- are being affected by deteriorating ice conditions. Sea ice cover in all harp seal breeding regions was found to have declined by as much as six per cent per decade over the study period. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species also notes this concern, stating that "climate change impacts are almost certainly going to be negative for harp seals in the future."
According to the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), 80 per cent of the pups born in 2011 were thought to have died due to the lack of ice. 2010 was the year of the lowest ice cover ever recorded with coverage at about 80 per cent below the expected levels and 70 per cent of the pups were thought to have died. Again, in March 2007, extremely poor ice conditions in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence led DFO scientists to predict that pup mortality in the Southern Gulf could be extremely high, "possibly approaching 100 per cent."
High ice-related mortality combined with commercial seal hunts in Canada and Greenland and bycatch from other fisheries means that entire year classes of harp seals are likely to be missing from future population surveys. For example, using the Canadian government's own estimates, only 600,000 pups were thought to have been born in 2011. If only 20 per cent of these pups survived due to poor ice, 120,000 pups would remain, of which one-third were killed by Canadian hunters. This would leave some 80,000 pups alive to attempt the northward spring migration, where they are subject to bycatch in other fisheries (another estimated 8,500 seal pups killed) and then hunted in Greenland (an estimated 83,000 seals killed).
Clearly these are only estimates and we shouldn't get too caught up on the numbers, since by using these figures the number of seals estimated killed in 2011 exceeds the number that are thought to have been born! The point is that entire year classes of pups are being wiped out by a combination of bad ice and commercial exploitation and not just in one year but perhaps in several years. This fact will not be apparent, however, until at least five to six years later, when these pups would have reached breeding age and their absence will be noticed in the population surveys.
The increased mortality due to lack of ice and reduced reproductive rates has prompted one DFO scientist to recommend a quota reduction for 2012.
Unfortunately a quota reduction may not be enough. The Environment Canada ice forecast does not provide much hope for harp seals either, predicting yet another below-average ice year with an ice-free Gulf of St Lawrence and greatly reduced ice off of Newfoundland in the breeding area known as the "Front" in March -- the period when seals finish nursing and the commercial hunt normally begins.
With media reports that there are some 400,000 unwanted harp seal pelts in stockpiles and the recent reports that Russia (which makes up 90 per cent of the export market) has now banned the import of harp seal skins, clearly there is no economic reason to continue commercial seal hunting. Nor is there any evidence that harp seals are preventing recovery of fish stocks, either through predation
or competition.
Given the continuing cruelty observed during the Canadian seal hunt, the current conservation concerns for the harp seal population, the predictions for yet another poor ice year in 2012 and the likelihood that poor ice years will continue for some time, it seems clear that NOW is the time to end the commercial seal hunt for good. There is no justifiable reason for it to continue, and all the reason in the world why it should end.
]]>Seal Hunt Has Repercussions for Canadians and the Economytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8759512011-06-14T07:46:25-04:002011-08-14T05:12:02-04:00Sheryl Finkhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-fink/
As the 2011 commercial seal hunt winds down in Canada, the issue is once again heating up in Europe. To add fuel to the fire, IFAW is releasing disturbing new video evidence proving that Canada's commercial seal hunt remains inhumane and unenforceable. The new footage comes amidst a heated debate in the European Parliament that suggests the seal hunt could impact a major trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.
IFAW's video (warning: graphic) -- for those who cannot bear to watch it -- shows sealers engaging in practices such as the intentional killing of a protected blueback seal; spearing a live, conscious seal pup in the face with a steel hook as it cries out in attempt to defend itself; and a seal sliced open while alive and conscious and left to struggle in the bottom of a boat for several minutes. Occurrences that even the most hardened Canadian politician would have difficulty justifying as 'humane.'
We offered to share our footage with Frank Pinhorn, Executive Director of the Canadian Sealers' Association. He refused outright, saying he didn't watch video from protesters.
This should raise a red flag to anyone concerned. Most industry associations take the conduct of their members very seriously, especially when laws are being violated, as it reflects poorly on the professionalism of the industry. But given the long history of international scrutiny on Canada's commercial seal hunt, the stakes are much higher here.
The video evidence of outrageous cruelty and poor enforcement confirms that the Canadian government and the sealing industry continue to ignore concerns about inhumane killing raised by the European Union. And the repercussions to all Canadians -- and the Canadian economy -- could be severe.
The new footage comes at a time when Canada's commercial seal hunt is being raised as a potential impediment to the EU-Canada Economic and Trade Agreement. Earlier this week, European MPs quizzed the European Commission about ongoing tensions involving Canada's seal hunt -- often in the same breath as the tar sands -- during a debate about the trade agreement.
"We can't deny that occasionally we [Canada and the EU] do have differences of opinion... Canada is starting WTO action against the EU import ban of seals, in addition to their barbaric annual seal cull."
"We have to have a mutual respect between partners in a trade agreement... These are not really trading partners if they do not respect our interests and our rules... You cannot cooperate and trade with people like that... I'm of the opinion that if Canada does not stop its actions against this [EU seal import ban] before the conclusion of this agreement we should not agree to it."
"There is the question of the seal hunt which has been raised again... I would like to call upon the Commission most firmly not to forget this point, about two years ago, here in this Parliament, a vast majority voted for a ban on trade [in seal products] despite tremendous pressure from Canada on the Parliament to water down that legislation, and it was above all the voices of millions of European citizens against this inhumane slaughter that counted.... The ban has had an effect... because of that ban the market collapsed and the number of animals killed dropped to just 38,000 this year and the price of the hide also dropped... It is regrettable that Canada is still using the WTO to try to contest the EU law and therefore it is important for this Parliament to send out a strong signal to Canada: we fought long and hard for that law and we should not give it up."
MEP Arlene McCarthy -- who was one of the driving forces behing the positive vote on the EU ban on seal products in the European Parliament plenary in May 2009, affirmed:
"Canada's continuing challenge to this law democratically adopted by all Member States in the EU remains a source of ongoing tension...The European people have a right to say that products obtained from this cruel slaughter are not fit for the EU market place and I will continue to defend our right to do so."
Recently, MEPs voted in favour of a motion for a resolution including an amendment by MEP David Martin, which
"Takes note of the recent legal developments regarding the EU's ban on seal products, in particular Canada's request to the WTO for the establishment of a formal dispute resolution panel; and expresses its strong hope that Canada will withdraw the WTO challenge, which is counter to positive trade relations, prior to the need for ratification of the CETA agreement by the European Parliament."
Canada remains defiant in its intent to challenge the EU seal product ban at the WTO, despite the estimated $10 million price tag. But Canada's defiance could end up costing Canadians far more if it risks jeopardizing the trade deal.
What next?
To date, some 38,000 seal pups have been reported killed -- a far cry from the allowable catch for this year of 400,000 seals. According to media reports, fewer than 50 boats took part in this year's hunt, a sharp decrease from just five years ago when over 1,100 boats set out. With little demand for seal products, the total landed value of the hunt remains at about $750,000. A negligible amount, considering that financial support for the sealing industry from the Canadian government exceeds this several times over.
Earlier this week, some deep budget cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were announced. It seems obvious that federal funding for the cruel and unnecessary seal slaughter should be the first thing to go. When politicians are talking about cutting essential social services, the idea that millions of dollars will continue to be poured into this dying industry is downright obscene.
Our video reinforces IFAW's position that trade bans on seal products -- such as the one in the EU -- are not only justified, but absolutely necessary. And all of the news this week underscores the fact that the cruel seal hunt continues to impact Canada's reputation on the international stage in a very significant way.
It is thanks to IFAW's donors that we are able to observe the seal hunt each spring in attempt to film even a few of the atrocities that undoubtedly occur. We will be providing the video evidence from Canada's 2011 seal hunt to political leaders in Canada, and asking them how they can possibly support and subsidize such cruelty. It will also be shown in the EU, China, and around the world as evidence that commercial sealing remains an inhumane, unnecessary and outdated practice that should be stopped and to encourage other countries to reject cruel seal products.
]]>