Wolf Hunts: U.S. gray wolves, no longer protected by Endangered Species Act, are hunted down

It's official. The gray wolves of the U.S. northern Rockies are getting exterminated.

Government agencies are calling it "predator management" or "harvesting" but the numbers are staggering. In Idaho, from a population of 750 to 1,000, hunters are being allowed to reduce the wolf population to just 150 animals. That's up to 85% of the population - gone. Montana intends to take down 220 of their 556 to 645 wolves. That's nearly 35% to 40% wiped out. Many scientists are concerned that the reduced populations will collapse as they will be so widely dispersed that healthy reproductive patterns will be difficult to maintain. They will literally be spread to thin to sustain themselves.

How has this come about? Weren't wolves protected by the Endangered Species Act at one time? Was it the result of political lobbying by ranchers and hunters? Yes on both accounts.

As reported by James Gibson in the Earth Island Journal, "The recent anti-wolf campaign represents an extraordinary cultural and political victory by the far-right wing in the Rocky Mountains. A loose coalition of some ranchers, hunters, and anti-government zealots demonized the gray wolves reintroduced to Montana and Idaho from Canada in the mid 1990s by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. They cast the animals as huge, aggressive, disease-ridden monsters bent on ravaging livestock, elk, deer, and even people. Wolves became symbolic representations of the hated federal government. In time, both the mainstream Republican and Democratic Parties came to accept this vision of demonic wolves invading from Canada.

In April, 2011, Senator John Tester, Democrat of Montana, facing a tough 2012 reelection challenge from Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg, led a campaign among fellow Democrats to remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act using a federal budget bill rider, while Idaho’s Congressman Mike Simpson did the same among House Republicans. The rider passed with little dissent, marking the first time a species has been removed from the protections of the Endangered Species Act by Congress."

That's a key point in all of this: For the first time, politicians - rather than scientists - have decided whether an animal is endangered and entitled to protection under the Endangered Species Act. The danger here is not just the immediate and ongoing threat to the wolves; there are also the implications that this action can mean for a host of other species whose protection under the law might be inconvenient for some lobbyist-represented industry. Do you see a slippery slope building here? If so, you're not alone.

A long list of environmental organizations have been fighting this change in how the Endangered Species Act is wielded. There have been lawsuits and legal appeals - and there will certainly be more.

The Center for Biological Diversity reported, "The Center and its allies are in court to challenge the congressional rider that removed these wolves from the endangered species list. 'The Endangered Species Act rightly put scientists, not politicians, in charge of deciding which species get protection,' said the Center's Noah Greenwald. 'Wolves once roamed most of North America, but were wiped off the map by intolerance and persecution -- which persist today. Wolf recovery is far from complete.'"

But for the moment, gray wolves are more than important natural predators which maintain balance in the Rocky Mountains ecosystem. They're also, now, targets.

Click here to view pictures taken by Maureen Mitra of the ongoing hunt for gray Wolves.

Read more about the wolf hunts in Earth Island Journal.
Read about what is being done on the legal side in The Center for Biological Diversity.

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: species' future once again debated by controversial ICCAT

Starting this Wednesday in Paris, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) will hold its annual meeting to review catch quotas for the coming year. The 48 member governments of ICCAT constitute one of the few international fishery management organizations that can address the issue of rapidly declining stocks of bluefin tuna, billfish, and even sharks. But to date it has a dismal track record in the eyes of many scientific and conservation organizations.

At last year's meeting, the ICCAT ignored the recommendations of even their own scientific advisers and set catch levels at 13,5000 tons - well above the recommendations ranging from 6,000 tons to an all out ban. It became clear that ICCAT's mission was not the conservation of an aquatic species but that of propping up a dwindling industry in the short term.

So, once again, they meet to discuss the future of Atlantic commercial fishing in a time of worldwide economic pressures, a huge demand for bluefin tuna in Japan with astronomical prices to match, and political pressures to keep supporting a commercial fishing industry with the status quo - rather than transition it to a more sustainable future.

Gloomy outlook, but there is some interesting political jockeying going on.

According to the New York Times, "The European Union’s fisheries commissioner, Maria Damanaki, with backing from Sweden, Germany and Britain, has called for an Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean quota of 'less than 6,000 tons.' The union’s 27 members are supposed to reach a consensus and vote as a bloc."

Ready to challenge that proposal may be France, Italy, and Spain. France has come under fire, in particular, for an apparent reversal in their support of an outright ban proposed just 3 months ago at a UN meeting on endangered species. "In addition to the apparent about-face by President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government, the hosts may find the situation delicate for another reason: the French Agriculture Ministry was singled out in the [International Consortium of Investigative Journalists] report as having allegedly connived for many years to help French fishermen understate their catch," reported the New York Times. ‘‘'France is becoming the Darth Vader of the bluefin fishery,' Rémi Parmentier, an adviser to the Pew Environment Group, said in a recent interview. 'France appears to be doing its best to sink proposals to reduce the catch.'"

Following the Gulf oil spill and concerns of potential impacts on Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna breeding grounds, the position of the United States is a mixed bag. Jane Lubchenco, head of NOAA, said that Washington would support the scientific recommendations - which lean towards radically reduced catch levels. But northeast politicians, who represent major industrial Atlantic fishing fleets, are riding the wave of unemployment concerns and resisting efforts to have the bluefin tuna listed as an endangered species under U.S. law. Again, short-term gain that serves only as a precursor to a total industry collapse.

The interesting wild card in all of this has been indications from Japan that they might consider stricter fishery management. At the recent Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) meeting, Japan stymied all efforts to protect tuna under CITES rules, declaring ICCAT to be the more appropriate forum. Now the pressure is on Japan to put their money where their mouth is. Being consumers of more than three quarters of the catch of Atlantic bluefin tuna, Japan could endorse significantly lower catch levels - or even a moratorium, as some Japanese officials have said they would be willing to support.

Or they can watch their market demand vaporize before their eyes in just a few short years with the loss of one of the ocean's great predator species. The battle of short-term versus long-term goals continues.

Read article in New York Times.

Hawaiian Shark Fin Ban: a great victory in the legislature, but what next?

SB 2169, the Hawaiian ban on the sale, trade, and distribution of shark fins, has passed the state legislature and awakes signature by Hawaii's governor. This is a significant moment on several counts:

• It eliminates Hawaii as a major distribution hub for shark fins
• It sets a new standard for other states or countries to emulate
• It places the social heritage of Hawaiians' respect for sharks over the lucrative economic interests of the commercial shark fishing industry
• It recognizes the importance of the shark as a vital member of a healthy marine ecosystem

In the final vote, the sole opposition came from Rep. Riki Karamatsu, who had opposed the legislation, then seemed to favor it, and then at the eleventh hour re-took his opposing position. Because of his apparent support from the shark fishery industry, I took the position that he would remain opposed to the legislation. While some commended the representative when he appeared in favor of it, I was skeptical and adopted a what-and-see attitude.

It usually feels good to be right, but not when it means that it confirms the undue influence that economic interests can have over politicians.

Hardy congratulations are well deserved to those legislators who initiated and supported SB 2169 and to the many citizens who worked hard to promote it through some difficult times. But we must still be vigilant.

• As Hawaii's shark fin distribution business is dismantled, will the business move to other potential sites: San Francisco, other Pacific islands, or back to Asian soil?
• Will Hawaii continue on this path and consider banning or limiting business in other shark products like cartilage, liver oil, or meat (at least from highly threatened species)?
• Will future legislation, spawned from backroom deals with industry lobbyists, weaken the current legislation?

For now, it is a time to celebrate a great victory and loudly commend Hawaii's decision makers for siding with sensible conservation. And then tomorrow we carry on.

Read Washington Post article.

Hawaii Shark Fin Ban: proposed bill needs your support now!

There is quite a showdown brewing regarding Hawaii's shark fin ban legislation, SB 2169, which I commented on last week. It's been through its ups and downs but has moved forward to the next step: a legislative committee which will determine this week whether the bill be brought to a vote in this session or die on the floor and have to be re-introduced all over again in the next session. As a shark conservation advocate, I favor the legislation but I am realistic in recognizing the strength of the forces that oppose it.

Money and Political Influence
In March, at the CITES conference, the political forces that were supported by Asian (particularly Japanese) commercial interests succeeded in thwarting all proposals for increased protection for seven shark species. Conservation organizations made impassioned pleas for protecting these species but, in the end, the commercial fisheries and their political influence won out.

Hawaii has the potential of being a repeat of CITES if certain politicians, who apparently have strong commercial fisheries support, get their way. One politician, Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, has been singled out by some people as opposing the legislation and having ties to the commercial shark fishing industry. In some blogs, he has become the poster boy of the opposition and been subject to strong vitriol from some shark advocates. Whether that is productive or not is questionable. If Rep. Karamatsu is influenced or supported by lucrative commercial shark fishing interests, I suspect then that his position will not change and the best strategy would be to support the proponents of the legislation and nudge those who are fence-sitting, thereby limiting his influence on their vote.

Proponents of the legislation have been making their case with the media and soliciting support from major NGOs and even a celebrity or two. For the most part, the ecological arguments are pretty solid and have been repeated many times in this blog: tens of millions of sharks are being killed each year for the fins only; scientists are reporting definitive and severe drops in the populations of many shark species; sharks play a critical role in maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem as hunters and scavengers; because of ocean pollution, shark fins and other shark products contain high levels of mercury; while shark fin soup is considered an expensive luxury item, its demand has increased with the growth of a wealthier middle and upper class in many Asian countries; the shark fin provides little if any nutritional value in soup, and its homeopathic qualities have never been scientifically proven.

And yet it persists. Why? Money, plan and simple. The shark finning industry is an incredibly lucrative one. And with that money comes significant powers of influence.

Culture Clash
Hawaii has an interesting mix of cultures, two primarily. There is the culture of the native Hawaiians. Within that traditional culture, the shark is held with great reverence. To harm the shark is an insult to that near-sacred position. Proponents have been tapping into those beliefs to rally citizens and politicians alike of Hawaiian descent.

Then there is the Asian culture that has grown in the islands over many decades, many of Chinese descent. And within that culture there is an attitude brought from their ancestral homeland that runs counter to the mindset of many ocean conservationists: fish is food and food is survival.

This was brought to my attention at a shark conservation discussion panel I moderated and participated in at last year's BLUE Ocean Film Festival. On the panel was Dr. Greg Stone of Conservancy International. He related a discussion he had with a leading Japanese fisheries management official. The official said (and I am paraphrasing from memory) that one of the main differences between Asian and western attitudes regarding marine sealife is that "We don't play with our food." A bit caustic, but the point was that we (meaning westerners) sometimes personalize - and in some cases humanize - our relationship with sealife, whereas for many Asian cultures it's just food; it's a matter of survival.

Now this is not a totally pervasive attitude and is prone to generalization. And whenever one discusses cultural differences, it is a delicate ice of political correctness that one is skating on. However, it certainly is a component of the situation taking place in Hawaii. If shark finning is perceived as cruel (the animal is finned and often thrown overboard, left to drown), then what about the cruelty imposed on poultry or cattle? Are we not treating those animals as simply a food source? Well, that can be another debate in itself, but suffice to say that, yes, cattle and poultry are food. However, they are raised to be food and we utilize as much of the animal as possible. Whereas, shark fishing is not based on farm-raised animals (not feasible with sharks) and it is not an efficient utilization of the animal. We are pulling these animals from the wild and the marine ecosystem suffers for it.

What You Can Do
There's a lot that is in play with the proposed SB 2169: conservation, morality, political influence, economics, and cultural heritage - all working with or against each other. So, what can you do, particularly if you are not an islander? Well, the pen can be mightier than the sword. And what better time to voice your position during this week: I have read that the legislative committee will make its vote this Thursday, Earth Day 2010.

If you wish to make a brief but thoughtful and respectful statement regarding support for SB 2169, do it now. Here are a couple of key email addresses:

The entire Hawaiian House of Representatives:
reps@capitol.hawaii.gov.

Sen. Clayton Hee (proponent who introduced the bill):
senhee@capitol.hawaii.gov

Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu (opponent):
repkaramatsu@capitol.hawaii.gov

Also, here's some interesting articles to provide you with more background info:
Honolulu Advertiser - Senator pushing to get vote on shark fin ban
KHON2.com - Shark Fin Ban Uncertain
Pete Thomas' Blog - Support for Hawaii shark fin ban grows, but will it be enough
SB 2169 - the text of the proposed legislation

Celebrate Earth Day and help Hawaii set the standard in shark conservation for others to follow: let your conviction be known!