Norway scraps subsidies to seal hunters

[NigelM]

They eat krill *and* fish. Mostly herring and capelin. Estimates by the Institute of Marine Research estimates that the Minke whale population in the Barent Sea annally eats 1.8 million tons of biomass, two thirds of which is fish and one third is krill and other crustaceans.

Can you provide a link? I'd be interested to read that research as Minke in the rest of the world do have krill as the primary source of food and you're suggesting it's less than one third in the Barent Sea.

Anyway, that's not much fish in the global scheme of things and in any case I'm sure you'll agree that we humans shouldn't be messing about trying to balance out the natural order of things; we should just stop screwing up the world, period.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Can you provide a link? I'd be interested to read that research as Minke in the rest of the world do have krill as the primary source of food and you're suggesting it's less than one third in the Barent Sea.

That figure was from an expert at the institute in a norwegian newspaper, and I think he got the figure from here: http://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/NAMMCOSP/article/viewFile/2975/2848

Chapter 5.5 here is also pretty interesting: http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2011/05/sjoens_pattedyr_web.pdf/en

Anyway, that's not much fish in the global scheme of things and in any case I'm sure you'll agree that we humans shouldn't be messing about trying to balance out the natural order of things; we should just stop screwing up the world, period.

I agree we shouldn't screw up the world. But tweaking it slightly to our advantage is acceptable.

 

[NigelM]

Thanks for the links, that's going to be some interesting reading.

I agree we shouldn't screw up the world. But tweaking it slightly to our advantage is acceptable.

Discussion on the law of unintended consequences could spawn a whole new thread. ;-)

 

[Canuck]

More sustainable: That doesn't seem readily apparent to me. Say you have a forest where 1000 cubic meters of trees grows every year. How is it not sustainable to harvest 100 cubic meters every year?

Because of soil depletion and the compacting of soil. Second growth is much worst than first (to the point that cedar shingles are not used from second growth due to lack of natural oils in the wood) -- and third, fourth, etc. are spindles. Come to BC and see for yourself.

Cutting down the rain forest isn't a problem as long as no more trees are being cut down than grows every year.

Really? Have you been to an old growth rain forest? There's very few left but if you come to BC you can see first hand something truly spectacular. It's an entire ecosystem and not just the trees. Then go to a second growth forest to compare and I don't think you'd say it "isn't a problem as long are no more trees are cut down than grows each year." That used to be the philosophy of our government before we understood that removing trees from an ecosystem does not mean that regrowing the trees brings back all the other species that rely on them. Many take decades, if they ever return at all.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for logging and tree farms, since we need wood and paper products. But we must preserve our last remaining old growth for future generations and not tell people that cutting down the rain forest isn't a problem as long as no more trees are being cut than grow each year. You lose so much more than just the magnificent old growth trees.

 

[markwj]

While growing up, I cut down perhaps perhaps 200 trees to burn to heat the house and clear ground. I also planted 5,000 trees as replacement, and that felt good.

Today, 40 years later, the gaps in the canopy are still clearly visible. Less than 5% of those 5,000 trees I planted survived to adulthood, and the ones that did survive don't have the same attributes as the old growth. Not feeling so good about it now.

 

[apacheguy]

Norway has a scientifically based quota-scheme for all hunting and fisheries. If other nations wish to start whaling, we may need to look more closely on cooperation on the quotas, but until then there is no need to do so.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a sustainable harvest of natural products.

Ah, so then in that case I suppose Norwegian fisheries have no trouble attaining Marine Stewardship Council certification?

Oh, and by the way, there is not an emotional, but rather a moral argument to be made here. The original article states:

Seals are usually hunted with rifles or with so-called "hakapiks", sticks fitted with a metal head to batter the animals to death.

Battering an animal to death is hardly ethical or humane. In fact, it is illegal in the slaughterhouses of California for sure. There have been several that have been caught, shutdown, and prosecuted as a result of such practices. If we are going to hunt, we need to do it responsibility. And that includes the right to a near instantaneous death.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Ah, so then in that case I suppose Norwegian fisheries have no trouble attaining Marine Stewardship Council certification?

That shouldn't be a problem, if they certify whaling operations, and they are impartial.

Oh, and by the way, there is not an emotional, but rather a moral argument to be made here. The original article states:

Seals are usually hunted with rifles or with so-called "hakapiks", sticks fitted with a metal head to batter the animals to death.

Battering an animal to death is hardly ethical or humane. In fact, it is illegal in the slaughterhouses of California for sure. There have been several that have been caught, shutdown, and prosecuted as a result of such practices. If we are going to hunt, we need to do it responsibility. And that includes the right to a near instantaneous death.

As I said in my very first post, sealing in Norway is done exclusively with rifles.

Additionally, you have to use expanding ammunition with a minimum impact energy of 2200 joules at 100 meters with a projectile weight of 10+ grams. You also need to be a certified hunter, and have passed an annual shooting test, where you need to demonstrate 30 hits over two days.

- - - Updated - - -

While growing up, I cut down perhaps perhaps 200 trees to burn to heat the house and clear ground. I also planted 5,000 trees as replacement, and that felt good.

Today, 40 years later, the gaps in the canopy are still clearly visible. Less than 5% of those 5,000 trees I planted survived to adulthood, and the ones that did survive don't have the same attributes as the old growth. Not feeling so good about it now.

You apparently harvested too many trees.

 

[markwj]

You apparently harvested too many trees.

And put a hell of a lot of carbon into the atmosphere.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Because of soil depletion and the compacting of soil. Second growth is much worst than first (to the point that cedar shingles are not used from second growth due to lack of natural oils in the wood) -- and third, fourth, etc. are spindles. Come to BC and see for yourself.

Give it a few centuries. It will be fine.

Really? Have you been to an old growth rain forest? There's very few left but if you come to BC you can see first hand something truly spectacular. It's an entire ecosystem and not just the trees. Then go to a second growth forest to compare and I don't think you'd say it "isn't a problem as long are no more trees are cut down than grows each year." That used to be the philosophy of our government before we understood that removing trees from an ecosystem does not mean that regrowing the trees brings back all the other species that rely on them. Many take decades, if they ever return at all.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for logging and tree farms, since we need wood and paper products. But we must preserve our last remaining old growth for future generations and not tell people that cutting down the rain forest isn't a problem as long as no more trees are being cut than grow each year. You lose so much more than just the magnificent old growth trees.

The clue is to spread out the impact and not exceed the limits to sustainable growth. If you cut down one tree in every 10 (or 100) square mile block of forest per year, it will be hard to see the impact a few years down the line. The rain forests have a very low regrow rate, so the amount of trees you can cut down is almost irrelevant.

 

[trils0n]

Actually, maybe the whaling is even net positive, because whales eat fish, and managing the population of whales means that you can get increase the quotas on fishing. That means that you can reduce the amount of fish farming, where you have to invest all the energy for the production.

If this video is to be believed, then this might not be true. Despite being predators of fish and krill, whales might increase the fish population, or at least other marine life population.

 

[v12 to 12v]

I often wondered why there is dolphin-free tuna, but there isn't tuna-free dolphin. If Flipper was a tuna instead of Charlie, would things have been different?

 

[apacheguy]

I often wondered why there is dolphin-free tuna, but there isn't tuna-free dolphin. If Flipper was a tuna instead of Charlie, would things have been different?

Oh, I think a lot of that has to do with dolphins being more intelligent than tuna and being bigger players in the marine ecosystem.

 

[Yggdrasill]

If this video is to be believed, then this might not be true. Despite being predators of fish and krill, whales might increase the fish population, or at least other marine life population.

If the video had any science-based sources, it might be believable. It doesn't.

Now, that's not to say that whales have zero positive impact on fish populations, but it's a completely different claim that the positives outweigh the negatives.