In October 2011, the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was asked to undertake a study on the Management of Grey Seals in Atlantic Canada. A large part of what the Senate Committee is looking at is culling tens of thousands of grey seals, in addition to the currently sanctioned commercial hunt of grey seals, as a way to supposedly further "manage" the seal population and benefit fish stocks. On Tuesday the 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.
Follow Sheryl Fink on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SherylFink
If seals are abundant and these are, and they can sustain a harvest which these can, what's the big deal? As long as it's humane and regulated it's no different than any other hunt. The seal hunt in Canada is highly regulated and monitored already so I trust this will be no different.
Canada doesn't need to have 100% unanimous scientific opinion and approval to manage their wildlife, when have scientists ever unanimously agreed on anything?
This all boils down to "We just don't like it'' we would do the world a favor by working for endangered and threatened species and stop wasting time and money on abundant species ''because they're cuter''.
In other words, there is a possibility a seal cull will help a species (cod) that's almost extinct?
'...the majority of grey seal diets consists of fatty forage fish such as herring, sand lance, and other small fish.'
When seals stop eating these fish, cod will eat them, and the cod population will grow. Right? And a species (cod) on the verge of extinction will be helped. Right? Isn't this what you want - no species near extinction, or do you love seals so much you don't mind cod going extinct?
I'd rather see Senators harvested.