The Government’s proposal to remove the tow limits imposed on squid fishing to prevent sea lion captures is based on assiduous fact-finding work driven by MAF and undertaken by a range of independent national and international science providers, says the Deepwater Group of New Zealand and the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council.MAF is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. I'm not sure what "science providers" are, but I'm guessing it's the same as scientists.
From the rest of the press release, I have gleaned the results of this assiduous fact-finding work: "debunking previous theories that SLED (sea lion exclusion device) use was a key contributor to sea lion deaths" and "estimating that the majority of sea lions escape alive and unharmed."
While both of these are good things, neither directly counters the science showing that squid fishing is still the most plausible cause of sea lion decline. Even if SLEDs don't kill sea lions and most sea lions escape unharmed. If too many sea lions do not escape unharmed, that's still bad new for the population. But I don't know what the numbers are, and I don't know how many is "too many."
Perhaps more importantly, the squid fishery also competes with sea lions for calamari. Of course, the sea lion "kill quota" currently under debate won't affect that competition one way or another. But it is an interaction to be noted by anyone who cares about the New Zealand sea lion decline.
Mr Bodeker, CE of the New Zealand Seafood Council said that that sea lion pup count declines are of concern to the industry and the challenge now is for scientists to establish the real reason for the pup declines and to see if a remedy can be identified.The Council will probably not be pleased if it turns out that the remedy might involve a kill quota on squid, rather than sea lions . . .
* John 16:24. Man, no one ever cites that properly!
Comments