A new development - update on the (US) whale hunt

[Guest guest]

===== A message from the 'makahwhaling' discussion list =====

 

FROM WASHINGTON CITIZENS' COASTAL ALLIANCE

(Please forward widely)

--------------------------------

 

EFFORT LAUNCHED TO RELIST GRAY WHALE UNDER ESA

Petition filed this week

 

Wonderful news for the threatened gray whale population! This is the

cumulation of many months of work by those involved. Sue Arnold of

Australians for Animals states; " It is clear that the gray whale and its

habitat, the Bering and Chukchi Seas are severely threatened. "

 

Developing... stay tuned!

*****

 

 

PETITION FOR THE LISTING OF THE GRAY WHALE (ESCHRICHTIUS ROBUSTUS) UNDER

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

--------------------------------

 

Submitted on behalf of:

Australians for Animals

The Fund for Animals

 

With the support of:

The Great Whales Foundation

Cetacean Society International

Sea Sanctuary, Inc.

Humane Society of Canada

 

Prepared by:

D.J. Schubert, Schubert & Associates

Sue Arnold, Australians for Animals

 

Submitted on:

March 28, 2001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This petition requests that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Association/National Marine Fisheries Service list the eastern North Pacific

population of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) as an endangered or

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The listing is

warranted based on adverse and continuing threats to the gray whale and its

habitat. The primary threats fall into three of the five listing criteria

contained in the Endangered Species Act.

 

Criteria A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range.

 

Criteria E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence.

 

Gray whales and their habitat are subject to significant threats. Gray

whales are threatened by the direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse

impacts caused by aboriginal kills, documented and undocumented mortality,

oil and gas exploration and extractions activities, and noise impacts. Gray

whales and their habitat are under increasing threats from global warming,

El-nino events, bottom trawling, and contaminants. These factors have

caused a drastic change in the Bering and Chukchi Sea ecosystem and/or have

adversely affected the abundance and composition of benthic amphipods - the

primary food supply of the gray whale. As specialist bottom feeders,

changes in benthic amphipod abundance, composition, and availability can

have significant impacts on gray whale survival. While several of these

factors have individually significant impacts, cumulatively the extent and

severity of the impacts indisputably support a listing of this population.

 

The historic and recent bias toward the killing of female and immature gray

whales by aboriginal groups has resulted in a male bias in the population

and the reduction or elimination of younger age-specific cohorts. These

impacts will reduce population productivity for years to come. Though the

number of whales killed by aboriginal groups has historically been

considered sustainable, the cumulative impacts of all current natural and

anthropogenic threats increase the effect of each kill to the well being of

the overall population.

 

Documented gray whale mortalities caused by ship strikes, entanglements with

fishing gear, disease, predation, and strandings are minimum estimates.

Gray whale mortality reporting requirements and stranding networks are

either non-existent or incomplete. The number of undocumented mortalities

has not been estimated and is not considered in gray whale management.

 

An increase in sea surface temperature attributable to global warming and

the increased frequency of El-Nino events have caused, among other things, a

reduction in primary production resulting in a decline in carbon flux to the

benthos and a subsequent decrease in benthic amphipods. Benthic amphipod

stock collapse of 30 and 50 percent have been documented in the Chirikov

Basin in 1986-87, 1990-94, and 1998-99 with the total decline likely

exceeding 50 percent in some areas. Despite the importance of benthic

amphipods to gray whales and other marine mammals, amphipod stocks have not

been subject to monitoring since 1988.

 

Amphipod population recovery to a pre-disturbance condition takes tens to

hundreds of years assuming the habitat is still suitable to facilitate

recovery. Successional processes result in the recolonization of the site

with smaller sized and less preferred amphipod species. Increasing sea

temperatures also favor the smaller, less preferred species to the detriment

of the gray whale.

 

Changes in storm frequency and intensity and the decrease in the extent and

duration of sea ice (9 percent decline per decade since the 1960s) has also

reduced carbon flux to the benthic amphipods by reducing the frequency of

sediment resuspension and reducing primary production.

 

Changes in ocean currents caused by rising temperatures result in changes in

sediment size which directly affects the suitability of habitat for

amphipods, thereby exacerbating amphipod decline.

 

Excessive and extensive bottom trawling has destroyed benthic amphipods,

altered nutrient cycles, and destroyed or degraded amphipod habitat.

 

Increased oil and gas exploration and extraction activities and toxic

contaminants from multiple sources (i.e., industrial, agricultural) threaten

the health and viability of benthic amphipod populations. Such toxins can

kill amphipods, reduce their productivity, or destroy their habitat. The

ingestion of contaminated amphipods and inhalation of oil vapors can also

harm gray whales.

 

The decline in benthic amphipods had direct and immediate impacts on the

survival and viability of the gray whale population. These impacts include

a significant increase in mortality, evidence of starvation, substantial

increase in stranding, and a severe reduction in production since 1999.

 

Criteria D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

 

The removal of the gray whale from the list of threatened and endangered

species under the Endangered Species Act in 1994 was premature and motivated

more by politics than by science. As a result of that action, the gray

whale and its habitat have been left largely without protection. This is

both a function of inadequate laws and the deliberate misinterpretation of

certain laws by the U.S. government.

 

The protective provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act are not

effective as they permit the incidental take of gray whales associated with

industrial activities, have failed to prevent the resumption of whaling by

the Makah, and provide absolutely no protection to gray whale habitat.

Moreover, the Potential Biological Removal level calculated for the gray

whale as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act is not sustainable, is

not based on valid population growth dynamics, and will cause the

extirpation of the population.

 

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and the

International Whaling Commission failed, due to the U.S. government's

misinterpretation of international policies, to prevent Makah whaling and do

not provide any protection to gray whale habitat.

 

The National Environmental Policy Act has failed to provide a mechanism for

the protection of the gray whale and its habitat. Furthermore, the U.S.

government has entirely ignored the Washington State Endangered Species Act

thereby rendering it ineffective in protecting the gray whale.

 

The provision of the Endangered Species Act that requires the development of

a plan to monitor the gray whale population post-delisting has not protected

the gray whale or its habitat. Not only did the government fail to design a

comprehensive monitoring plan, but also failed to fully fund or implement

the plan that it did develop. As a result, stock monitoring strategies are

inadequate to determine population size; population estimates are uncertain

and unreliable; the viability and abundance of benthic amphipods in the

Bering and Chukchi Seas and the spatial and temporal variability in

ecosystem processes are unknown; and, Russian data (if any exists) on

amphipod abundance are unavailable. As a consequence, the government's 1999

determination that the population was stable and secure based on the results

of the plan was unfounded.

 

The evidence provided in the petition to support the listing request is

comprehensive and indisputable. The documented decline in benthic amphipods

is sufficient reason alone to list the gray whale under the Endangered

Species Act. Combined with the multitude of other threats to the gray whale

and its habitats, the lack of any adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect

the population or its habitat, and a failed monitoring program, there can be

no question that this population should again be afforded the protection

provided by a listing under the Endangered Species Act.

 

Contact: Sue Arnold, Australians for Animals

sarnold

*****

 

 

NEXT ITEM

----------------

NMFS has some thoughts on the matter...

 

" The work that I am doing is directed at monitoring calf production for the

eastern Pacific population of gray whales. This population was removed from

the List of Endangered Species in 1994 and one of the agreements associated

with that decision was to monitor reproduction in gray whales over a 5-year

period. But because we have seen much wider fluctuations in the number of

calves than we expected, WE HAVE EXTENDED THE STUDY (emphasis ours).

The last two years we have seen high stranding rates and low calf

production. This year the number of strandings appears to be lower.

What does that mean for calf production? We will know the answer in a couple

of months. "

 

(Wayne Perriman, NMFS Southwest Science Center

March 27, 2001)

*****

 

 

 

STAT OF THE WEEK

---------------

 

Number of gray whale calves observed moving north this spring from the ACS

census station in southern California:

 

ZERO

*****

 

 

 

LIAR OF THE WEEK

-------------

 

Who else? NMFS and their now infamous " 26,000 plus " estimate of the gray

whale population

*****