Interesting debate on US whaling

[Guest guest]

FROM WASHINGTON CITIZENS' COASTAL ALLIANCE

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

 

 

JOLTIN' JOE SCORDINO " STRIKES " OUT

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

NMFS rep reveals degree of bias present in Makah EA

 

 

An interesting exchange took place in today's Peninsula Daily News. The Port

Angeles paper dedicated nearly an entire page to two pieces: one by Andrew

Christie of Sea Shepherd, the other to Joe Scordino of NMFS. The section was

entitled " Whaling report throws fuel on debate " , and we are happy to share

the two commentary pieces with you, below.

 

Of critical importance is Scordino's definition of a " strike, " which is

quite different than the definition in the EA and previous NMFS propaganda.

We would also like to respond to Mr. Scordino's piece, but are still trying

to count the number (and layers) of lies contained therein. Plus, it is also

quite difficult to read all the way through without falling over laughing.

But we'll get there...

 

When we speak of agency " bias " as it pertains to the EA, Scordino's piece is

a textbook example, folks. But you'll see for yourself, no doubt...

 

Herewith, Mr. Christie's letter, followed by Mr. Scordino's piece...

*****

 

 

 

FEDERAL AGENCY EMPLOYED FLAWED SCIENCE TO JUSTIFY MAKAH WHALING

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

By Andrew Christie

Information Director

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

 

 

Let's say you're a high school teacher living in Seattle. Throughout the

school year, you look forward to fleeing the fog and spending the summer

frolicking on the beach resorts of Baja, California. Come June, you proceed

to do just that. Upon your return in September, you find that a federal

agency has determined that your vacation has resulted in your

re-classification as a non-resident of Washington State. Instead, you are

now considered part of an urban feeding aggregation.

 

That's the position of the National Marine Fisheries Service on Washington's

resident gray whales, according to Paul Gottlieb's column in the Aug. 16

PDN, " Whaling Season Beckons the Makah. "

 

Before yet another myth about the Makah whale hunt becomes set in concrete

courtesy of the contortions of a NMFS press release and careless repetiton

(such as, " The International Whaling Commission granted the tribe permission

to

hunt " ): The concept of " resident whales " off the Olympic Peninsula has not

been debunked or disproven by anyone, least of all the National Marine

Fisheries Service.

 

What the agency's new Environmental Assessment actually says on the

subject --

admittedly between the lines, in nearly undecipherable prose -- is that

there is insufficient data to determine that the population of some 200 gray

whales that spends most of the year feeding off the Peninsula and in the

Strait of Juan de Fuca is genetically distinct from the 20,000-plus gray

whales

that migrate annually between Baja and the Bering Sea.

 

The insufficient data is the result of inadequate studies. This resulting

lack of knowledge is what NMFS refers to as " the best available evidence. "

 

In other words: No one knows.

 

The environmental assessment goes on to speculate that whales from this

small population that are

killed by Makah hunters are likely to be replaced by new whales after they

have been killed. It also blithely ignores likely impacts on this

hypothetical recruitment mechanism from the upward spiral in mortality and

crash in calf production in the general population of gray whales over the

past two years. Whether or not the resident whales are genetically

distinct -- and the burden is on NMFS and the tribe to prove they are not

thus distinct, not on environmentalists to prove that they are -- NMFS is

rolling the dice on the effects of their removal from the local ecosystem.

 

The Precautionary Principle, a basic tenet of conservation biology, bars

wildlife management authorities from requiring absolute proof of harm as an

excuse to avoid taking actions to head off potential harm or alleviate

ongoing harm. And it most certainly does not allow the absence of proof as a

license for managers to permit actions that may actually cause harm.

 

NMFS is aware of the Precautionary Principle. It has reasons for torturing

it into unrecognizability in this case.

 

For a full exploration of those reasons, I urge readers of the PDN to run

out and buy, beg, borrow, or steal a copy of Dick Russell's just published

" Eye of the Whale, " the first book to tell the truth about the Makah whale

hunt -- an accomplishment all the more significant in view of the mainstream

media's failure to do so for the last five years.

 

Andrew Christie

Information Director

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

andrew

*****

 

 

 

EVIDENCE ON OUR SIDE, TRIUMPHS OVER OPINION, EMOTION

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

 

By Joe Scordino,

Deputy Administrator, NW region,

National Marine Fisheries Service

(Appeared in 'Peninsula Daily News', September 7, 2001

 

Everyone, as the saying goes, is entitled to an opinion.

 

This couldn't be more true then when it comes to the question of whether the

Makah Indians, residents of Washington's Olympic Peninsula for at least a

millenium and whalers for virtually all that time, should be allowed to

continue hunting and killing gray whales.

 

Several animal-rights organizations- the Sea Shepherd Society among them-

don't think the hunt should continue, based primarily on the strongly felt

opinion that killing a whale is simply wrong.

 

But an opinion, that is, a staunchly held belief or sentiment, however

genuine or even noble, cannot replace facts. And it is upon facts that the

agency I work for, the National Marine Fisheries Service, must base its

decisions.

 

Here, for those of you who may have missed it amid the strident rhetoric

about the whale hunt, are some incontrovertible facts:

 

-The United States government has a treaty with the Makah Indians, one

signed a century and a half ago, that plainly states that the tribe is

entitled to hunt for whales in its " usual and accustomed " grounds. That

treaty still stands. It has been upheld in court.

 

-The government has a " trust responsibility " with the Makah and in fact all

tribes to ensure that their treaty rights are not denied. This

responsibility is no less than the government's responsibility to uphold any

other federal laws. It cannot be wished away or ignored.

 

-The International Whaling Commission set a quota of 620 gray whales (to be

taken between 1998 and 2002) for Russia and the United States, 20 of which

would go to the U.S. for the Makah tribe.

 

-The gray whale population in the eastern Pacific Ocean has increased to

record numbers. The number to be hunted by the Makah will not impair the

whales' population growth.

 

-The IWC recognizes only one eastern North Pacific gray whale population.

 

There is no scientific evidence that the so-called " resident whales " in the

Strait of Juan de Fuca is a biologically distinct group of animals.

 

The estimated 200-plus gray whales observed to feed along the West Coast are

found from northern California to southeast Alaska, not just off the Olympic

Peninsula.

 

They move widely within and between areas on the Pacific Coast to feed in

the summer and fall, are not always observed in the same area each year and

are frequently not re-sighted for several years.

 

The term " resident whale " is a misnomer.

 

-The fisheries service has taken a conservative, precautionary approach to

tribal hunting on this local feeding aggregation. Although the tribe may

take up to 10 whales in the next two years, it is limited to no more than

five " strikes " during this same period on whales in the Strait.

 

A " strike " occurs if a whale is hit with a harpoon or rifle fire, whether or

not it's killed.

 

The new environmental assessment released in July used the best available

scientific information to determine where and when the hunt could occur

without affecting the gray whale population. The assessment found that

previous restrictions that limited Makah whaling to ocean waters from

November through June are not necessary.

 

This last finding is important because Sea Shepherd and other anti-whaling

groups argue that the feeding aggregation is a separate population deserving

special protection.

 

But the basis for that criticism is not a fact, it is only an opinion, an

opinion grounded on a debatable philosophy that killing whales is always

wrong.

 

It has no place in the scientific deliberations that form the foundation of

the environmental assessment or of the fishery service's decision.

*****

 

 

 

BETCHA SCORDINO DOESN'T REMEMBER THIS...

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

 

....But scientists are documenting an unusual number of instances of gray

whales straying into

inland bays in California, Oregon and Washington, and in some cases those

whales are remaining throughout the year, failing to

return to Alaska to feed.

 

It is not known if this is something truly new of if some whales always have

done this and scientists are seeing it

because they are only beginning to look for it. " If the trend changes to

more whales sticking around, " Scordino said, " then that's going to be a big

question. "

 

 

(Los Angeles Times, June 7, 1999)

*****