I received a note from a reader of this blog, Lamna nasus, last Wednesday in which he suggested that the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whales are currently threatened by the start of the commercial lobster fishing season in the Bay of Fundy in Canada. He repeated this concern in a recent comment and that we should be more concerned about Right Whales than minke whales.
The commercial lobster season was scheduled to start in the Bay of Fundy last Monday, and about 50 right whales were yet to leave the area as part of their annual migration. It was feared the whales would become entangled in lobster fishing gear.
But by the time I received the note from Lamna, it appeared the start of the lobster season had already been delayed, not by the whales, but by bad weather. It also appeared that the Canadian fisheries department was well aware of the situation and was keeping an eye on the whales.
I agree with Lamna that North Atlantic Right whales are more deserving of our attention and a concerted conservaton effort, than the very common minke whale which captures our attention every year because Greenpeace likes battling the Japanese on the high seas. There are perhaps just 350 Right whales in the North Atlantic while there are perhaps more than a million minke whales in the earth’s oceans.
Boat strikes seem as much a problem for Right whales as fishing gear. So what is the future for this species of whale?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Jen,
Whatever the pre-exploitation level of the species was, it’s probably significantly lower today due to increased shipping through their habitat since the 1800’s. Hopefully the recent conservation measures work, as I understand that models indicate that the species may be extinct in 200 years under current conditions.
A few months ago a story appeared in the Japanese media which I bookmarked and intended to translate for my blog, but it had went offline before I could – anyway, what I remember of it was that due to increases in ship strike in waters around Japan, I think it was the transport ministry, in conjunction with some cetacean research organization (it may have been ICR) were testing some kind of sound emitting device to attach to ferries and such. I can’t remember the details but I think they had measured some success with this.
It is an unfortunate situation that groups like Greenpeace seem more interested in other non-conservation issues. Their “save the whales” page has a “what can I do” section which is basically focused solely on whaling:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/save-our-seas-2/save-the-whales/what-can-i-do
Australian researchers also recently stressed that whaling is insignificant in terms of conservation and sustainability, but “Environment Minister” Ian Campbell *criticised* them, calling them “outlandish”:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/09/whaling-ian-campbell-gets-angry-again.html
I think Greenpeace really needs to ask themselves what sort of organization they are. Obviously readers will know that my impression is that they oppose whaling because they see it as a necessary part of the Greenpeace brand and a necessary source of donations, but this shouldn’t preclude them from giving more prominent coverage to whales that are actually threatened with extinction. But then, Greenpeace is a PR group that draws attention to issues, rather than help solve them. With the right whale (and most endangered whale species) everyone is already aware of the situations. Perhaps Greenpeace should place a greater emphasis on working with people to find practical solutions for these problems, and put their hard earned donations to better use in that manner.
One solution is to allow fisheries from making money from harvesting whatever. Private ownership rather than public.
This has the interesting result of actually increasing the numbers of ‘threatened’ species.
After all if your income is dependent on good stocks then one thing you don’t do is to let their numbers dwindle to unsustainable numbers.
I think its called capitalism, but I am not sure anymore these days in such volatile climate change.
Hi David,
Basically methink that Greenpeace’s first priority is to halt the resumption of commercial whaling, to save threatened species is second hand in this case…
I believe as well that most people think that whaling is a very big part of Greenpeace’s work, but that is actually not the case, even if it is a very popular issue among supporters.
Most supporters also want direct confrontations with the whalers, that is why they donate money to Greenpeace. They see the activists as heroes protecting the whales with their own bodies…. in the end we know however that this tactics is not very efficient….
Louis capitalism exists and operates within a system of rules and regulations. It’s these that are being debated.
What would your capitalist solution do to address a species population with no or low commercial value that was harmed and threatened by normal fishing practices (eg by-catch, entanglement, food source, ship strikes etc)? The unprofitable commercial value might result from no use value or because general consumer sentiment ran against eating that particular species. A profitable use value might be discovered after the population has already reached threatened status. What incentive would exist for your capitalist model to even research the populations of these unprofitable species, let alone take measures to ensure their ongoing existence?
Further, what instrument would you recommend to allocate private property rights of fishing zones that would ensure a long-term perspective towards continued viability? If permits were issued by type of catch, how to prevent impacts on other types of catch? Keen to hear more details of your proposal.
Pinxi
Just let’s agree on one thing first.
What do you define capitalism to be please?
Species extinction – 90% of the earth’s species are fossils.
So why the preoccupation with trying to save tomorrow’ s fossils – an intense hatred of tomorrow’s palaentologists?
Just realised I made a foo foo here. After all if you saved tomorrows fossils, they won’t be fossils in the first place, would they.
(Darts out leaving intellectual confusion).
What Greenpeace could do in the case of the endangered Northern right whales is maybe together with marine biologists from Hole Woods Institution and other prominent Unis in the US, highlight the the shipping lanes on the approach to Boston Harbour.
According to marine scientists a slight modification to shipping lanes could half the ship strikes with the whales.
Question is if their is a political will to do this modification…
It seems also that the Congress has decreased its budget to help the whale population to recover.
Most scientists believe the right whale will be exctinct in about 200 years.
Don’t know how the low gene diversity affect the population regarding inbreeding etc.
Anne,
Geologically species come and go.
Now we seem to have a handle on why some might go, but scientically we might have a problem about the appearance of new ones.
Any comment to make on this perhaps?
Louis,
Yes, geologically some species go extinct…or develope in another direction, specialise…
In the case of the right whale you can hardly say this is in a ” geological” way or in a Darwinian way… when species have gone extinct this have been over a longer geological lifespan, not as is the case with the right whale , which have existed in the nature for millions of years and then go extinct due to human actions in some few centuries.
Anne,
The Right Whale has existed for millions of years, to then suffer extinction at the hand of humans?
Reminds me of the Carrier pigeons which existed in continental US last century. They too were exterminated by human action.
Except we have not fossil remains to support that fact. So what would a future palaentologist think about an historical account which talked about “carrier pigoens” when the fossil record had none?
Louis,
Regarding the appearance of new species I doubt we will see new species such as some whales pop up in a man’s lifespan… what will happen in our short lifespan is maybe some slight change in some species…evolution usually takes many millions of years…
Maybe a new single cell organism might pop up…
Anne
we may have strong opinions about the extinction of species, usually from some sort of catastrophic cause, but the appearance on new ones?
What different procecesses?
Ann,
The good news is the authorities seem to have already proposed a plan regarding shipping lanes:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/proposed_rule_fact_sheet.pdf
Hey Louis, interesting stuff this about extinction of species vs. development of new ones, but frankly I think if have to discuss this topic a new thread is needed, guess we are totally off topic now…
Well, I can be on the same line as you in some cases.
For example, pollution or radiation might make some species go extinct, but also this radiation and dirt in some rivers, like in Moscow have shown new monstrous species due to radiation…
Hi Ann
Yes, this subject would be more suitable for another blog, but in passing, go to http://www.eurekalert.org – scroll through the biology section to realeases dated Nov 16th. An interesting article on how quickly lizards can change the legth of their back legs under predator pressure. Pretty quick!
Hold on folks, Lamna nasus has repeated a claim that the Northern Right Whale will be threatened by the resumption of Lobster fishing in the bay of Fundy. This is based on an apparent belief that these whales will get caught in lobster fishing gear. And my bull$hit Canary just fell off it’s perch, legs akimbo in it’s own droppings.
Would Lamna Nasus care to explain the mechanics of lobster fishing for us so we can assess the realistic probability of a whale getting into serious trouble with lobster gear?
Does he think lobster boats are some sort of 500 tonne purse seiner or longliner with vast arrays of nets etc? No folks, they are small, family operated boats that are rarely as big as an adult Right Whale (16m). They run out a sequence of single lines with crab pots on them. The crab pots sit on the bottom (because that is where the $#@%& lobsters are) as does the line that joins them all together. At the ends of that line will be a small float that enables the line to be retrieved some time later after some lobsters have gone into the pot to feed on the bait.
So we have about 50 whales in a bay that is 50km wide and 150km long that will need to suddenly become bottom feeders or somehow manage to get caught on a single line with a float on it.
And it has obviously not crossed the tiny minds of these whale wonkers that crab pots are not something that can be either set or retrieved by a boat at high speed. So the probability of injury by small, slow, boat strike is also absolutely minimal.
Note also from the link provided about boat strikes on the US East Coast that the total reported deaths was only 8 over 13 months with only 3 traced to boat strikes, 1 entanglement, 3 indeterminant and one death of a first time mother in childbirth.
Of all the places over their natural range from Miami to Nova Scotia, the Bay of Fundy would have to be the place where they are LEAST likely to suffer boat strike or entanglement.
The total population of 430 animals (most of them given names by the whale wonkers) spends most of its time in some of the most congested sea lanes on the planet and they are losing only 1% each year to shipstrike or entanglement.
So even on the basic probabilities, if the 50 whales spent the whole year in the Bay of Fundy there would only be a confirmed casualty every second year. This assumes that risks in Fundy are the same as those off the Norfolk Virginia naval establishments, the New York sea lanes and the Florida high speed “Gin Palace” nirvana. But as we are only talking about a two week overlap with the lobster season then the raw odds blow out to less than 1 casualty over half a century.
The realistic probability of harm is diddle squat. But why let the facts get in the way of a good whale wonk. Eh!
I’m not too sure about all this save the whale stuff.
About 25 years ago, my wife & I, & our 9 month old daughter, were sailing our 40 Ft timber ex racing yacht, from the Whitsundays to Sydney, a trip we often did.
At about 9 am, just off Port Clinton, part of the Shoalwater Bay army area, the light breese swung to the north, & rapidly increased to over 30 knots. This was not a problem for the yacht, but it did mean that there was some chance of damage to the sails, when getting them down, short handed, in that much wind.
The Keppel Islands were only 45 nautical miles away, so we decided to sail to them, & use the smoother water, & reduced wind in their lea, to get the gear off.
By 1 pm we were in a very short nasty 12 to 15 Ft breaking sea, & we were regularly seeing 20 knots on the log [speedo], as we surfed down them. It was going to be a quick passage.
At this time we sailed into a very large group of minke’s. There were many dozens, if not hundreds of them. We did not see many of them, it was pretty rough, but we could see their spouts all round us.
Now, a yacht, running hard, does not have much maneuverability. You can generally only turn one way, & then only 10 to 15 degrees, before major problems, [like loosing masts] start to occur.
If a minke had appeared in front of us, as we surfed down a wave, we had little chance of dodging it. If we hit one we would probably have lost the mast, but we would also, probably, at those speeds, spring many planks, & sink, very quickly. At 12 miles off shore there would be little chance of survival.
I knew I was being silly in view of the small chance of survival, but I could not help wondering, if, in the event of hitting one of the minkes, would I be able to sue Greenpeace for causing the increase in whales. Within an hour, we were clear of them, thankfully.
I have done many things, which other people have thought dangerous, but this was the only time I have ever been worried for my, & my families, safty. So, perhaps you can see why, I’m not realy a fan of wales.
Hasbeen,
I know at least two occasions in Norway where the harpooned minkes have rammed the whaling boats and caused injuries to the crew and vessel…
” knew I was being silly in view of the small chance of survival, but I could not help wondering, if, in the event of hitting one of the minkes, would I be able to sue Greenpeace for causing the increase in whales.”
Hasbeen ,
I just spat coffee all over my keyboard – from laughing that hard .. Funnisest thing I have read in a long time .. ( putting aside from the actual danger aspect of the situation )..
I wonder If I can sue Hasbeen for a new keyboard 😉
brilliant ..LOL
” Would Lamna Nasus care to explain the mechanics of lobster fishing for us so we can assess the realistic probability of a whale getting into serious trouble with lobster gear?”
Highly unlikely Ian, armchair enviromentalists tend to cut and paste in the comfort of their own home.
Right whales do suffer from entaglements with fishing gear / lines etc on occassion – it´s estimated that 60% or so of the remaining animals show scars of entanglement.. and an estimated 16 of the 45 recorded deaths have been from ship strikes between 1970 and 2000 – a few have been cut loose from entanglement at sea by some plucky folk in the past…
Jennifer,
” and that we should be more concerned about Right Whales than minke whales.”
Too true, we should be forcing the US and Canada to enforce rigid shipping lanes, place spotters on each ship passing through the bay of Fundy ( there are a LOT ) and set a speed limit of say 4 knots throughout the area..
Perhaps all of the GP and SS supporters could donate to a fund to finance all of this and volunteer their services as spotters ( once they´ve completed a MMO program of course ) GP and SS can donate say a ship each with associated rubber duckies to be used to ferry all of these observers back and forth – The million Euro cost of GP´s coming southern ocean jaunt should cover the initial expenses in setting this up quite easily … SS could also throw in the $1.3 million plus change they supposedly raised for their faster ship into the pot as well..
It would be a fantastic Public relations Coup for both organisations as they could both then actually be saving some of the most endagered whales on the planet!! (instead of peeing it away on this winters southern ocean jaunt and saving zilch.. )
Excuse my sarcasm here – a good friend of mine died a few years back in a small plane that crashed at sea whilst tracking Right whales off Florida – she gave her life in actually DOING something about the problem…
Fact is Jen, Northern right whales are most likely screwed no matter what we do in a couple of centuries – there have been some mammal populations that have gone as low ( or lower ) population wise and recovered ( look up northern elephant seals or european Bison for two classic examples ) – but due to the environmental pressures these animals are under, even the most optimistic experts in the field fear the worst.
Hasbeen, it would have been very unlikely that what you were encountered were minke whales. As Greenpeace seem only to be concerned about minkes, according to many on this blog, you therefore would not have been able to sue.
Sorry, George McC, take a good look at your atlas. There are no major ports in the Bay of Fundy, it leads no-where, and has no through traffic.
My guess is that the increase in Orca populations has increased relative predation on young NRWs. But there is no headline for Greenfarce in that, is there?
You like the orca predation theory don’t you Ian? Now where is that armchair?
Ian,
I read somewhere since the right whales swim with their mouth open the line might fasten in their mouth and they panick…
Given Louis’s penchant for alternative oil generation theories, perhaps he is similarly inclined with respect to evolution of new species…..perhaps they arise spontaneously from mud?
As for Helens comment on the increase in leg length in a species under pressure of predation. What has that got to do with the “new species” discussion she alludes to?
The classical definition of species is a collection of individuals that are isolated from other organisms by the failure of any attempt to produce offspring with other organisms. The isolating mechanisms are pre-mating (morphology. behaviour, habitat preference, etc) and post mating (physiology, genetics, etc).
Therefore if one species is to become two or more species, there must be separation of populations of the original species long enough for either natural selection or drift to push each population in different directions so that eventually there is either pre, or post mating isolation. This takes a considerable time and is obviously related to the life span of individuals and how often they produce new generations and also the rate of mutation. Obviously some species can form successful hybrids, a sign that the separation of populations was not long enough for the isolating mechanisms to be completely effective.
This process should not be confused with the case of a single species changing its morphology over time in response to natural selection and or drift. We base classical taxonomy on morphological features, and so if a species changes morphology dramatically over time then it could appear radically different from its ancestors. Perhaps so much so that attempts at mating beween the modern version of the species and its ancestors would fail. That would appear to make it a new species under the classical definition, but the success of mating is impossible to test.
Ian,
BTW,the Norwegian killer whales don’t prey on other whales…
Have just noticed another of Louis’s comments suggesting the solution to the endangered species question is to allow harvesting. I cannot name a fishery for any species which demonstrates how commercial interest has actually increased the numbers of an endangered species….and I sm talking about harvesting a wild resource, not husbandry of animals bred from original wild stock. The reverse is much more common. An example is the Atlantic cod fishery.
Perhaps Louis can provide some examples?
Ian
http://www.geoconnections.org/CGDI.cfm/fuseaction/successStories.seeFile/id/863/gcs.cfm
“Each year, dozens of oil tankers move through the Bay of Fundy off the Nova Scotia coast to and from oil refineries in St. John, New Brunswick.”
Russell,
“I cannot name a fishery for any species which demonstrates how commercial interest has actually increased the numbers of an endangered species”
Look up Norwegian spring spawning herring – the stock was reduced to a few hundred thousand tons in the seventies – careful management of the stock when the total stock moved into norwegian waters has resulted in what is probably the best fisheries management success stories in the world..
Dozens of oil tankers each year? The Refineries at St John? Hardly busy compared to the dozens of ships each day in the New York/Jersey area.
Anne, Orcas don’t eat baby whales? Is this some sort of scandinavian welfare deal? I accept what you say but will check anyway.
And the lobster line would be vertical so the Right Whale would need to be swimming sideways to get the line caught. So again, lets work the probabilities here. Can we assume that most of the time they are not sideways?
Nah! Forget it, you are clutching at straws. Once again we have a totally exaggerated threat that is easily swallowed by the gullible.
And didn’t I read someone claim these animals were as smart as humans? But now they are too stupid to be able to sort out a single line with a float on it? Do they not have a simple gag mechanism?
Again, someone explain the process here. Whale swims with mouth open, sideways, rope passes across open mouth, whale swims on as rope slides until buoy bumps side of mouth, whale turns and spits out rope. End of story.
Ian: “Anne, Orcas don’t eat baby whales? Is this some sort of scandinavian welfare deal? I accept what you say but will check anyway”
Hey Ian, never heard that Norwegian orcas eat seals or sea birds or any baby whales contrary to Japanese killer whales…
Thre are lots of herring, obviously they are following the herring shoals…
George knows more about this issue…
“Given Louis’s penchant for alternative oil generation theories, perhaps he is similarly inclined with respect to evolution of new species…..perhaps they arise spontaneously from mud?”
That’s funny. They might arise private ownership.
Hasbeen’s idea “to sue Greenpeace for causing the increase in whales” is however such an old one that I’m surprised George would waste his coffee over it. Must be instant.
Funny to see Motty is branching out his back of the envelope calculations to include 3D sketches with motion now. Why would a whale admiring citizen waste money funding scientific research (how to make small donations to such a cause anyway?) when they could just buy Motty a beer to scribble on his already ink-soaked envelope? Are those envelope sketches beer-reviewed Motty?
Ian,
It’s not only a shipping lane for oil tankers, it’s a shipping lane for SUPERTANKERS, and not only are we worried about vessel strikes but what might happen to the feeding grounds if there happens an accident with a 100 000- 250 000( 500 000) tons oil tanker…
Now about the supposed vertical swimming… no clue at all…
George McC,
I have looked at the background to the norwegian spring herring fishery.
Here is a nice summary ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y4652e/y4652e01.pdf
My reading of this suggest a very different situation from the one you refer to. Firstly, overfishing by commercial fishing fleets in an open access fishery almost drove the stock to extinction in the early seventies. This led to a moratorium on fishing. The moratorium and several good recruitment years led to recovery of the stock (which took 20 years). Now it is a joint managed fishery where all players have agreed to limits to protect the resource, but it is not clear whether that will last -there are a lot of players.
The development of a moratorium and the quota system was not undertaken by the commercial operators of trawlers, it was done by individual governments and the EU. Norway deserves special praise because it resisted the temptation to harvest the stock at a level which would prevent the stocks rebuilding to the previous levels of abundance – at the reduced level of stock, the species does not migrate and spends it time entirely in Norwegian waters. The decision not to fish at maximum sustainable yield was not made by commercial fishermen in Norway, but by government upon the recommendations of Norwegian fisheries scientists.
The overfishing of the resource was successfully completed by the commercial operators who paid scant regard to the status of the stock.
This is a not uncommon scenario in open access fisheries all over the world.
Russel:”…the species does not migrate and spends it time entirely in Norwegian waters. ”
Hey, I ‘m far from a fisheries specialist but I believe the herring shoals are not only bound to Norwegian EEZ… methink they migrate from somewher near Iceland and Greenland to Norwegian waters… btw , methink as well that the herrings migratory patterns still are unknown…
Hi Russell,
Good paper, hadn´t seen that one.Yes, it is now a jointly managed fishery, however, for a crucial period of time, it was under sole Norwegian management, which was my point – during that time, as you say, the Norwegian government followed the recommendations of fisheries scientists and controlled / managed the commercial catch.. ultimately, the Norwegian government protected their own commercial interests rather than the Norwegian commercial fishing industry protecting it – I concede that point..
Hi Ann,
The species is restricted to Norwegian waters when the size of the stock is small. As the numbers rise the species then migrates. After the stock collapsed in the early 70’s the vast majority of what was left of the stock was confined to Norwegian waters. At that time the Norwegians could have taken all of the sustainable production from the fishery each year and prevented the stock from reaching a size where migration would begin again. If they had done this they would have had exclusive access to the fishery, but to their credit they did not, they allowed the stocks to rise, knowing that when they reached a critical level the stocks would again migrate and then other nations would have access to the fishery again.
The point is that George McC suggests this as a success story for the way commercial interests manage fisheries.
I think that on the contrary it is an example of how important the role of enlightened government and fisheries scientists are in taking a long term view of the viability of a fish stock and setting the regulatory framework for fisheries.
I believe if it had been left to the commercial fishing operators to manage, the stock would not have recovered, and there is a chance even the remnant stock in Norwegian waters would have been overfished.
Hi anne
“Hey Ian, never heard that Norwegian orcas eat seals or sea birds or any baby whales contrary to Japanese killer whales…”
Not strictly true, we have anecdotal evidence of Killer whales predating on whales off the finnmark coast.. nothing confirmed though..
We also have cases of killer whales exhibiting hunting behaviour towards seals in some cases and areas.
I´ve personally seen young animals take birds in Tysfjord- Vestfjord, could very well be that was/is hunting practice/ play behaviour though…
Anne,
” Hey, I ‘m far from a fisheries specialist but I believe the herring shoals are not only bound to Norwegian EEZ… methink they migrate from somewher near Iceland and Greenland to Norwegian waters… btw , methink as well that the herrings migratory patterns still are unknown…”
Not now, but for a period of time, the stock was pretty much restricted to Norway´s EEZ… The stock is now in the process of a major migration pattern changes
Hi George McC,
I should point out that I am not opposed to the notion that commercial interests could manage fisheries successfully – I think it might work if they operated on a different time horizon and used a different economic model (I consider discounting is a terrible method of calculating the future value of a natural resource). But I cannot think of any fishery in the world where commercial operators have developed a sustainable fishery without government intervention and regulation.
Russell,
“The point is that George McC suggests this as a success story for the way commercial interests manage fisheries.”
Actually, I was not suggesting this – I´d misread your comment
” cannot name a fishery for any species which demonstrates how commercial interest has actually increased the numbers of an endangered species”
to mean government control – not commercial industry control ..
Hi Russell,
We seem to be posting over each other 😉
” But I cannot think of any fishery in the world where commercial operators have developed a sustainable fishery without government intervention and regulation. ”
I agree with you on this point – commercial operators must be under governmental control as in the norwegian SSH case for this to work .. ultimately though, it could be argued that governmental fisheries management control is simply commercial interest by extention..
OK thanks Russel and George,
The Norwegian fishermen have often mentioned that the herrings migratory patterns are ” outgrundliga”, which I think can be translated to unknown or unpredictable.
“But I cannot think of any fishery in the world where commercial operators have developed a sustainable fishery without government intervention and regulation.”
How many examples do we have where any commercial operators have developed a sustainable anything without government intervention and/or regulation?
Pinxi..
” Hasbeen’s idea “to sue Greenpeace for causing the increase in whales” is however such an old one that I’m surprised George would waste his coffee over it.”
Maybe down under but never heard it before .. 😉
“Must be instant.” – it was .. but still makes for a sticky keyboard..
*How many examples do we have where any commercial operators have developed a sustainable anything without government intervention and/or regulation?*
Tip that on its head and ask;
How many examples do we have where any govt have developed a sustainable anything without commercial intervention?
“Nah! Forget it, you are clutching at straws. Once again we have a totally exaggerated threat that is easily swallowed by the gullible.”
Hey Ian I could send you some email addresses of people who work on North Atlantic right whales. Perhaps you would like to debate this issue from your armchair with the people who spend their time out in the field, analysing the data and writing the reports and papers?
Russell, thanks for your contributions.
Ian,
I agree with Libby here – on this one you´re full of it ..
Libby, George,
I’m also in full agreement that entanglement in fishing gear is a threat to the Northern Right whale along with ship strike, but do you know to what degree the probability of entanglement is effected by different types of fishing gear?
A humpback whale was accidently caught in a purse seine net by researchers in Alaska last week, but these lobster traps seem like they could be a different kettle of fish.
Oh, so now it is supertankers in the Bay of Fundy with 500,000 tonnes of threatened oil spills etc, Just take a look at these images of the bay and bear in mind that the scale is about 150km long and 30 to 50km wide with no through road. shttp://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&q=Bay+of+Fundy&btnG=Search+Images
The population served by the “refineries” in St John is only 2.2 million and that would put total demand for oil at less than 5m tonnes per annum. Do the numbers, folks. Thats only ten x 500k or only two x 200k each month.
And remember, we were talking ship strikes so don’t try this sleazy morphing into a threat from oil spills.
And, Anne, your credibility is going down even further when you suggest that the top of the ocean food chain, Orcas, will not pass up a good feed if the opportunity presents itself.
So how do we explain this apparently civilised behaviour of your scandinavian orcas? Have those barbarian Japanese managed to induce some sort of fall from grace in their Orca populations? And what, then, of Southern Ocean Orcas who appear to have had minimal human influence?
Hmmmn. Must be another “benefit” provided by the workers paradise.
And as we can all see by Luke’s posts, he has a real problem with anyone who has the apparent gall to actually run the calculator over the blatant codswallop that is served up in the name of information by his green political masters.
For the record Phluke, the standard operating procedure of an inquiring mind would be to first run the calculator over the numbers and if that is not adequate then run them through a spreadsheet. The problem for so much green baarrf is that most of it can easily be refuted with a few simple calculations.
The trouble with them sceptics is they got no damned gratitude.
After finding more info on Bay of Fundy I must concede that shipping is very busy due to St John hosting largest refinery in Canada and being port for pulp mills etc. But it is also the case that St John is only a third the way into the Bay. Shipping lanes were also adjusted in 2003 to minimise risk to whales and this means that the vast majority of the bay is free of major shipping activity.
The images from the above post also show the size of the local lobster boats which do not appear to be a threat to a 16m whale. They are definitely not Purse Seiners.
Libby, do you mean the people with a vested interest in exaggerating the threat to whales?
Ian,
You don’t really warrant a response (as usual), but instead of using your google earth, why don’t you actually read some peer-reviewed publications on these animals and as I suggested, correspond with agencies and researchers who are working with them.
Regarding your pet interest, orcas, how do you explain the fact the there are mammal-eating and fish-eating groups in areas like North America?
I find myself actually feeling sorry for you, a position I don’t feel comfortable with.
George and David, thanks. Cetaceans can get entangled in all sorts of gear, but couldn’t tell you any probabilities. Has nothing to do with intelligence (as was suggested by he-who-lacks-it earlier) but how an animal perceives its world via the sensory processes it has.
Not Northern Right Whales, but their even more endangered cousins:
“New Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel agrees on way forward”
http://www.iucn.org/en/news/archive/2006/11/20_whale.htm
Greenpeace not involved, but WWF are.
Hey Ian,
The Norwegian orcas are so used to eat herring that they are the only killer whale population in the world that exhibits carousel feeding. This means they encircle the herring and then slap with their fluke the herring ball and kill or stunn them…
Ian, you really shouldn’t ignore the threat of oil spills…this bay of Fundy must be a cold water bay, it is especially dangerous if oil spills occur in cold water, it takes a LONG time to degrade oil in cold water in comparison to warmer waters…we really don’t know the impact yet of an oil spill in the Bay of Fundy…
Ian,
In Norway you can swim with the killer whales… in Alaska the fishermen are afraid of the orcas and sometimes shot them because of this…
Ian : “And, Anne, your credibility is going down even further when you suggest that the top of the ocean food chain, Orcas, will not pass up a good feed if the opportunity presents itself. ”
Ian, we better pass on this question to George…
And I have another question for George.
1) What kind of killer whales are the Norwegian killer whales? Are they transient, offshore ( they could hardly be residents???
Personally, I do think that the fish eating orcas might eat marine mammals, turtles, seals or sea birds if they are very hungry or if there is scare of food…
The same goes for the marine mammal eating orcas, one article stated that they don’t eat fish, but I am not so sure about this…
Hey, russian scientists found in the 70’s that some orcas were cannibals…guess most carnivores could be that if they really starve…
Anyway, it also seems like the different types of orcas have different kinds of dorsal fins…
OK, everyone , back to the topic.
What has really happened during the week in the Bay of Fundy???
Upon reflection, I must take back part of my concession on oil tankers as a source of ship strike for Right Whales. I accept that there may be “dozens” of movements each year but the design of oil tankers, and the scale of supertankers, makes it highly unlikely that tankers are a serious source of injury.
Oil tankers have a particularly conspicuous bulb on their bow which is necessary to assist the vast volumes of water that must be displaced to propel the ship forward.
For a start it is hardly what could be called sharp. It is a hemisphere the size of a small house. More importantly, this size means that the volume of water moving around it is much wider than an adult whale. So even a head on collision would be hard to achieve because the moving water would deflect the animal.
And as for side on impacts, a 300 metre behemoth must send out a very strong sonar signal, especially close to the point of contact.
The most likely suspects for ship strike for all marine species has always been from high speed leisure craft, not big, slow, merchant ships.
But there is one potential source of injury that has not been mentioned here. And that is nature itself. The tidal variance in the Bay is amongst the highest in the world. Especially in the furthest reaches where the tidal flow can be very fast. Add the usual mix of unsalvaged logs, natural stags and debris to this flow and you can get silent, sharp objects of considerable mass that would hit any whale moving up or across stream at a speed fast enough to pose a serious threat.
The resulting wounds would be hard to distinguish from ship strike but then, there would be no propaganda value in natural causes, would there.
And Libby, spare us the pathetic attempt at defamation, sweetie, it hardly becomes you.
Methink you have a very vivid fantasy, Ian….
I lived in Canada, my wife is Canadian, I spent about 18 months repainting fishing boats. Some fantasy, eh.
But Libby is correct in pointing out that I do not have a PhD in knowing more and more about less and less until I know absolutely everything about sweet FA.
What this thread clearly demonstrates is that one can be an unrivalled expert in a particular topic (whales) but have less than a nine year old Nova Scotian’s comprehension of matters just outside the interface with that topic.
That nine year old Nova Scotian would see it as a self evident truth that assuming lobster fishing had similar risks to purse seiners was the province of fools. That nine year old would wonder why such a fuss is being made about ships that use less than 5% of the bay.
Hi anne,
” And I have another question for George.
1) What kind of killer whales are the Norwegian killer whales? Are they transient, offshore ( they could hardly be residents???”
Depends on how you define residents 😉 – the Classifications of resident, offshore and transient, were originally applied to the North american killer whales off the west coast, frankly, I doubt if the same classifications have been applied to the “norwegian” population. Sattelite tagging studies showed one individual with a home range of 288,284 km² …
“And, Anne, your credibility is going down even further when you suggest that the top of the ocean food chain, Orcas, will not pass up a good feed if the opportunity presents itself–Ian, we better pass on this question to George…”
upwards of 3 to 500 tourists go swimming with killer whales each season in Tysfjord, dressed in dry suits and looking very seal-like I might add .. to date, none of the naughty killer whales have availed themselves of such a free lunch .. though admittedely, I´ve seen numerous cases of threat behaviour by adults towards these snorkellers, especially when calves or juveniles are nearby …
Killer whales are catholic in their diet ( and don´t I know that will get some comments ) and tend to specialise on the most abundant food resource.. In Northern Norway, it´s herring – I believe that other Killer whales specialise on Mackrell in the northern North sea area of southern Norway – we have ID´s from the south of animals that we have never seen in the north .. we also have ID´s of animals that we only see in the summer in certain areas but not in the winter herring feeding areas – a lot more work needs to be done before we have a clear enough picture of the whole population, perhaps then we might be able to classify the “norwegian ” population with designations based on feeding preferences… whats missing is the neccessary dosh to finance this long term..
Motty do you go nuts annually when the humidity jumps? You’re not being corrected by Libby’s nutty green mates but by people on each side of the fence, one or 2 sitting on the post to have a chat. Should give you pause.
Catholics take great pleasure in their food George. Perhaps we had that exchange before.
on the earlier exchange: a significant challenge for the average citizen whale admirer to expand their understanding of ‘conservation’ (viable populations) and some of the complexities; and to understand the motives or professionalism of different groups that they might fund. (quick response – could discuss that one at great lenght). Too much information overload and too little time left already. Short sweet messages work.
“But Libby is correct in pointing out that I do not have a PhD..”
Nope, don’t recall writing this Ian. Please stick to the facts.
The US National Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service recently pubished proposed rules describing regulations to reduce the risk of collisions between North Atlantic Right Whales and ocean-going vessels, as part of the Agency’s ship strike reduction strategy. They write that “historically depleted by commercial whaling, the North Atlantic Right Whale suffers injury and death from ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear.”
Re ship strikes, which have been debated here before with the same individual, there is a recent paper out “Mediterranean fin whales at risk from fatal ship strikes”, as well as some other literature available on the topic. In fact if you click on the boat strikes link Jennifer provided above, there is mention of a right whale struck by a naval vessel for example. As noted previously, large dead whales have been recovered from the bulbous bows of tankers.
Cripes even I copped a serve from Mean Grott and wasn’t even on the bloody thread. Jeez you get sick of the property rights crowd. Even his own lot now make him march up the back on demos. Be careful though ladies he’ll serve you with a class action from stressed Basque separitist Nova Scotian boat owners.
No Libby, one or two large whales have been found on the bulbous bow of tankers. This is anecdotal stuff and your normal tactic. And now you dish up quotes that try to imply that I have been arguing that no ship strikes ever occur or that fishing gear never traps whales. Standard “straw man” stuff.
What I have been clearly questioning is whether it is appropriate to assume that lobster fishing gear poses a similar risk to whales as the vast nets of purse seiners. They clearly do not.
I have also questioned whether lobster fishing boats are even big enough to pose a threat to a 16 metre adult whale.
And I have also questioned whether it is appropriate to imply that shipping in defined lanes specifically designed to minimise harm to whales, that go to a port only a third of the way into the Bay of Fundy, poses a significant threat to whales feeding in the other 95% of the Bay.
All of this in a context of the lack of recent recorded mortalities in the B of F and a much higher probability of strikes etc in the busier parts of the Eastern Sea Board.
And if the other contributors to this thread did not have such a “blame humans” bent then they may actually try to figure out what is actually killing young Northern Right Whales and develop some strategies to help.
Just look at the numbers. Of 430 NRW on the North American East Coast most are readily identified, named and their history recorded.
Only 80 of them are breeding age females and the population is claimed to be static.
Their fertility appears to be in the normal 85% to 90% range which would mean 70 odd calves each year (cycle). Known adult mortality is only 8 (2%) each year with only half from confirmed human causes. And this, in a static population can only mean a high infant/adolescent mortality rate from “other causes”.
So who or what is taking these young?
Who or what is capable of taking these young?
My bet is Orcas as they have been known to take them elsewhere.
Now if anyone happens to have evidence that can confirm that North Atlantic Orcas follow the nordic tradition of only eating one particular meal each day of the week, and that this rotating menu does not include baby whales, then please, present that information here.
If not, spare us the drooling fatuousness.
“No Libby, one or two large whales have been found on the bulbous bow of tankers.”/”I have also questioned whether lobster fishing boats are even big enough to pose a threat to a 16 metre adult whale.”/”And if the other contributors to this thread did not have such a “blame humans” bent then they may actually try to figure out what is actually killing young Northern Right Whales and develop some strategies to help.”/”Their fertility appears to be in the normal 85% to 90% range which would mean 70 odd calves each year (cycle). Known adult mortality is only 8 (2%) each year with only half from confirmed human causes. And this, in a static population can only mean a high infant/adolescent mortality rate from “other causes”.”/”My bet is Orcas as they have been known to take them elsewhere.”
Ian, I am in awe of your knowledge concerning cetacean biology and conservation issues. I was wrong about you all along. Consider me put in my place now that your expertise has come to the fore.
Ian, I realise you would be already aware of the following information, but thought I would post it for the “other contributors”.
The web site for the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium is here:
http://www.rightwhaleweb.org/
Some information from here is that the average calving interval for the 2006 mothers is 3.2 years. Between 2005 and 2006, 5 mortalities and one suspected mortality were recorded. Of these, 4 were calves. Ship strikes were reported for 3 of the 6 mortalities. There is also information on “suggested research and management activities” which mentions the L word (lobsters).
I have only skimmed over the Consortium’s publications, but it may provide some useful background information for those wanting to know more (Ian excepted of course, as he already knows it).
Yep, Ian throw your calculator out of the window in this case, or make an analysis how possible it is that an orca eat a Northern right whale calf on the East coast…
Think there are only a few orcas in the east coast, even if orcas is the animal after humans that inhabit most places in the world…
Excerpt from a site on Right whales:
“… especially the near shore waters between Brunswick, GA and St. Augustine,Fl. In these waters the few whales are born into this population . This world… a place where right whale cows can feel safe from the elements and the rare predatory orca of deeper waters.
While orcas are few and far between along the east coast , other threats have moved onto the continental shelf…”
This site also mentions that vessel strikes are the main cause to deaths and accidents among the right whales as the whales don’t detect the vessels in time and are to slow to change direction, and no Ian, don’t call that unintelligence…. my dog is quite smart as well but have no clue about cars …
To Ian , I know that one site mentioned, methink it was Audubon, orcas, however can’t find any more info right now on this orca stuff and right whales…
“No Libby, one or two large whales have been found on the bulbous bow of tankers. This is anecdotal stuff and your normal tactic.”
Is this number one or number two?
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/fishingreport/fishingrptArchive/frarchives2006/0510index.asp
Jeeez… must improve my English gramma, however it was too early in the morning…
Russell
In response to your dismissal of my contribution to the “new species” topic, may I be permitted to respond?
Ann’s comment went: “Regarding the appearance of new species I doubt we will see new species such as whales pop up in man’s lifespan … what will happen in our short lifespan is maybe some slight change in some species … evolution usually takes many millions of years …”
I responded: “Yes, this subject would be more suitable for another blog, but in passing, go to http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/hu-php111406.php
An interesting article on how quickly lizards can change the lengths of their back legs under predator pressure. Pretty quick.”
If anyone is interested in following this link in passing, they will know they have the right article by the opening paragraph:
“Countering the widespread view of evolution as a process played out over eons, evolutionary biologists have shown that natural selection can turn on a dime – within months – as a populations’s needs change. In a of island lizards exposed to a new predator, the scientists found that natural selection dramatically changed direction over a very short time, within a single generation, favouring longer, then shorter hind legs.”
Thankyou Luke for your on-line tute on posting links – I hope this, my first attempt works.
You should all listen to Ian on the whales. It’s not just armchair commentary. He did spend 18 months painting boats.
Ian your obstinate arguments despite the evidence is undermining your credibility in areas where you do have knowledge. Are you incapable of admitting when you’re out of yr depth?
‘Even though our whale watching season is over we are getting reports and sightings of many whales very close to home. As our owner and captain John Eldridge was returning from hauling one of our boats out for the winter they decided to do a small survey and see see if they could confirm some possible sightings of right whales between Blacks and Beaver Harbour. They did more than confirm, they reported about 12 right whales in a small 3 mile area and all within a mile from shore. Above is a photo taken by John, note that the whale is missing it’s right fluke tip.
Also posted today on the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies (PCCS) Entanglement Updates website there was a right whale that was entrapped and released on November 5th from a fishing weir in Deadmans Harbour (between Blacks and Beaver Harbour). The picture below was taken by the Campobello Rescue Team, and please note that the date on the photo is incorrect. Mackie Greene, head of Campobello Whale Rescue was called and with the help of divers, local fisherman, researchers on Grand Manan, DFO and advice from the PCCS disentanglement team the right whale was released unharmed. The whale that was entrapped was reported to be missing it’s right fluke tip so it may have been the same right whale that John spotted on November 3rd in that area. Mackie Greene reported atleast 30-50 right whales on November 5th, that’s just incredible as this part of the Bay of Fundy is not a known right whale habitat.’
– Danielle, Quoddy Link Marine, Bay of Fundy. 7th November 2006
I don’t know what number it is, Libby. You have given us one example and by your post have tried to imply that the presence of this example must mean it is a common event. Very sloppy, even deceptive, work indeed.
It should also be noted that it is a Sei Whale of 9 metres length, not a Right Whale of 16 metres. The ship involved is not a supertanker plying the entrance of the Bay of Fundy. The story comes from Maryland. So again, Libby, you have presented partial and fragmenary evidence to support a dubious case.
And Lamnu (Susan) it is all very well to provide a story on an entangled whale but there is no detail that it was entangled in lobster gear.
And Pinxie, it must be very frustrating having someone introduce some reality and common sense into your cosy little blog wonks.
get yr hand off it Motty, you’re not impressing or fooling anyone
Ian, you don’t make any sense with what you try and put forward, but I don’t feel sorry for you anymore. Why bother. You’re baiting and wasting everyone’s time.
Pinxi, that is a REALLY bad image you conjure up!
There are obviously nine types of fishing gear in the Bay of Fundy…
In the absence of a link to the photo, could someone explain what a “fishing weir” is that the whale was freed from?
Come on folks, aren’t you guys the experts?
Sorry Libby & others, just that you know, when reasoned arguments fail to work on the irrational zealots….
The productive discussions here are few and far between. A minority of commenters engage in intelligent exchanges or consider evidence that doesn’t fit their prejudices. It’s probably representative of the general public.
Thanks Pinxi. We live in hope.
“The productive discussions here are few and far between. A minority of commenters engage in intelligent exchanges or consider evidence that doesn’t fit their prejudices. It’s probably representative of the general public.”
Naja Pinxi – I actually think that the level of discourse on Jen´s blog is waaay above many or most other forums I have visited … ( with some exceptions of course 😉
On another note, When you get your folks trawling for information ( or dirt ) on you via gooogle at 02:00 am in the morning, it kind of indicates you´re getting their nadgers in a twist 😉
23 Nov, Thu, 01:56:22 88-108-117-251.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com Netscape 7 Macintosh Search string : http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=George+McCallum+whales&btnG=Search&meta=
If a certain armchair evironmentalist wants to find out more about me, he can look in Jens archives .. it´s all there… ( or the juicy bits anyway ..)
ROFLMFAO ….
RAOTFLMAO!
I wasn’t aware it was an offense to visit your website George but its interesting to note that you and David are both paranoid enough to bother checking such records….
I also seem to remember you telling me what a useful tool Google was on this forum just before boldly revealing you knew my name (gasp!) and later incorrectly intimating that you knew my home address on another forum….. twisted ‘nadgers’? :o)
George and David are the guys who have both thrown hissy fits and publically stated that they will not engage me in direct debate. Such kindergarten tantrums do not increase their credibility. :o)
As for George’s business promo in Jen’s archive, the fact he spent years working as an animal wrangler for Marine Park circus shows was very informative…. especially with all his recent criticisms of whale watching…. then again hypocrisy is a word George’s favours …. :o)
Of course one of the problems with being so attached to my ‘armchair’ is that I have been diving in two of the Caribbean nations (Antigua and St. Lucia) among those that David disingenuosly suggested he was going to visit (and was recommending to his friends and family) just after the last IWC in his letter to an on-line Caribbean news service…. too bad after such a public on-line statement David spent his holiday in Japan.
:o)
Hi Ian,
Apologies, I gave up posting links because Jen’s system held up every post with a link in it.
If you want to see the website the go to –
www ..
.quoddylinkmarine ..
.blogspot ..
.com
George I did think as I posted that the current whaling discussions are quite good exchanges these days, except when the funny farm overseer leaves his office to get a coffee and Motty jumps on his computer again
Patrick, not a very good try to defame George for being a marine mammal trainer in the past… this was Rick O’Barry’s occupation as well( Flipper’s trainer)…
And flying to dive, make you an environmentalist??? I rather say it is the opposite…
Regarding the whalewatching business I want to mention that in Tysfjord in Norway, there is currently a controversary between the whale watching tourists/ industry and the Navy, that wants to carry out research on the killer whales regarding their response to Low Frequency Sonar.
The tourists have been very upset with the researches that in their opinion have scared the orcas when driving to near the killer whales when tagging the whales with devices.
IMO this tourist traffick can’t be worse than tagging a few whales and besides all NGOs have been positive to this work. We all know how important it is to get the information between the connection of whale’s strandings etc and the emittance of low frequency sonar…
Patrick, you are not the right man to accuse others for kindergarten tantrums( no, man is not a word I should use to describe you…)
Pinxi,
“George I did think as I posted that the current whaling discussions are quite good exchanges these days, except when the funny farm overseer leaves his office to get a coffee and Motty jumps on his computer again”
Dunno about anybody else but Motty´s back of the envelope jobs either leave me in plain awe … or crack me up …
You guys have not responded with any contrary numbers, and have instead resorted to Phluke’s ploy of sneering at the very notion that someone might just run the numbers through a reality check.
Thanks Lamna Susan for the url. The whale in question was certainly not trapped in anything to do with lobster fishing. The “fishing weir” was a moden version of the ancient tidal fish fence. It is a fixed facility that will continue catching all sorts of fish, including whales, whether the lobster season is delayed or not.
Remember the lobster season? That was the topic of the post. And at this stage you guys have provided no evidence that the lobster fishing season would pose any statistically relevant risk of harm to 50 Right Whales who might hang around for a few weeks longer than normal.
You have managed to air your prejudices and betray some sloppy thinking and lack of tolerance for views you don’t accept. But what is new?
Guys Mean Grott hasn’t got a clue – trust me. I’ve just done him like a dinner (Anne – Aussie slang for pooned him him like a newb) big time on another thread and he got abusive – didn’t call me a bullocky’s daughter though so I got off lightly. He’s all envelope.
no glue
Three minutes on Google – north atlantic right whale entangled fishing gear – produced:
‘Over 65% of North Atlantic right whales have scars from being entangled in fishing gear.’
www ..
.rightwhaleweb ..
.org/rescue
Gotta admire Motty, he’s always up for a ruck as soon as he’s finished being spoon fed. :o)
Motty’s straw man wants a video of a pod of Right Whales choking to death on lobster pots with Bay of Fundy painted on them… which he will then claim has been faked… yawn.
My note to Jen.. 14th Nov. This blog’s promotion of the Japanese Fisheries Ministries whaling 18th Nov, before finding time on 19th Nov. to guess the Canadian weather a couple of weeks into the future, ..still it was a good opportunity to have a pop at Greenpeace…..
Less than 90 of the remaining critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whales are estimated to be females of breeding age and the Canadian Disheries Department were also well aware of the threat to their cod stock situation and kept an eye on it…..
George and David had their fingers crossed though Jen, so no worries eh?
“Over 65% of North Atlantic right whales have scars from being entangled in fishing gear.”
But was it lobster fishing gear?
The one caught in the fishing weir probably had ancestors caught in the same one 2000 years ago.
And those 65% obviously survived. $hit happens.
And Luke is so keen to change topic and weasel out of answering key questions on another thread that he needs to come onto this one to drum up some PR support. The pathetic “leaving the field” response of a propagandist rabit in the spotlight.
‘$hit happens.’ – Ian Mott
That’s Motty’s thorough and detailed scientific plan for protecting critically endangered species. Must be difficult for Motty to type with both his hands in his trouser pockets. :o)
Ian, Why don’t you try googling something like North Atlantic right whale lobster from the comfort of your arm chair? There are a few things written there that may answer some of your queries.
A Nature article from 2001 (which I realise is way to outdated for the likes of Ian, aside from any experiences of painting fishing boats) mentions that the species could be on the road to recovery if 2-3 females could be saved each year, saying that the problem appears to be that the females are not living long enough to get a chance at reproduction. It says that in 1980 the average life expectancy of a female was >50 years, but by 1995 it was down to 60% of North Alantic right whales have scars from entanglement in fishing gear “such as lobster pots and sink gillnets.” It should be noted that animals may be struck by ships or entangled in gear and die at a much later stage, especially pregnant/lactating females which are obviously already drawing on a lot of their own resources.
Ian the contibuters here have tried to present you with various pieces of information to help highlight the problems these animals (which as Lamna says are recognised as being endangered) face. The only one airing any prejudices is yourself. As I mentioned before, you are baiting.
“$hit happens”. Yes Ian we know – everytime we see your name at the bottom of a post.
Readers still interested in the topic might not have seen some of the latest news:
“Lobstermen say proposed rope ban will put their industry in a bind”
http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=143372&zoneid=500
Some briefer articles on this here:
“Fishermen say new rope regulations will cost too much”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/11/24/fishermen_say_new_rope_regulations_will_cost_too_much/
“Lobstermen: New Rope Regulations Too Costly”
http://www.wmtw.com/news/10390545/detail.html
No mention of any “action” from Greenpeace yet. They’ll be all over the media by this time next month, but of course in a different part of the world…
No mention by David of the fact that a critically endangered species should require the local fishing industry to make the necessary conservation changes…
Instead David concentrates on links to tell everyone that there will be an economic cost for helping conserve this critically endangered species…
Let’s not forget David is the one who waffles on endlessly about the importance of concentrating on ‘real’ conservation protecting ‘truly’ endangred species rather than being distracted by other species…
Yeah right when that opportunity comes up David promptly posts a series of links about fishermen not forgetting the opportunity to have a disingenuous pop at Greenpeace when there are already other environmental NGOs addressing this issue.
Instead he wants to imply Greenpeace should send a ship to the Bay of Fundy…when one of the biggest causes of North Atlantic Right Whale mortalities is ship strike…… good idea Einstein….