Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Their numbers are still small compared to their population prior to when they were hunted for their fur.
Population Historically, sea otters numbered between several hundred thousand to more than a million. But due to the fur trade, worldwide numbers plummeted down to a total of 1,000-2,000 in the early 1900s. As of 2009, the three-year running average is approximately 2,800 southern sea otters off the coast of California. There are between 64,600 and 77,300 northern sea otters residing in Alaska, Canada and Washington. There are approximately 15,000 in Russia and less than a dozen in Japan.
And in some regions, like the Aleutian Islands (see linked article), their numbers are still perilously low. They're still struggling to recover from a population collapse.
RE: Grey seals Grey Seal. (Article not quite up-to-date)
Who would want to eat seal meat that was full of PCB's?
Well to begin with, that pinniped website is a biased anti-sealing website who wants to portray sealing as something barbaric and inherently unsustainable. I think that the reports by the Swedish and Finnish governments are more reliable, and there is far more seals in the Baltic today than for 14 years ago when this text was written. Today, there is an estimated 40,000 in the Baltic, and today, Sweden also hunts them, not only Finland. Even the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has given green light to a general licensed hunt that will take more than the current Swedish cull quota (230 grey seals in the Baltic and 90 harbor seals in the Skagerrak), and the parliament seems very positive to it, the ultimate descision is expected to be soon. For 14 years ago the seals were not a very big problem for the fishermen here, but now they are.
As for PCB's, yes, literally ALL animals in the Baltic has that in them, some more than others. For example, Baltic salmon is illegal in the EU but an exception has been given to the countries of Sweden, Finland and Latvia who are allowed to catch and sell Baltic salmon and legally trade it between these 3 countries that all are on the Baltic coast. It's not dangerous to eat if its not in large amounts. Seals are of course no exception to Baltic pollution. Swedish fishermen here in Blekinge were recently caught illegally exporting Baltic salmon to Denmark and France where its banned, the only countries that we are allowed to export the salmon to is Finland and Latvia, who also has very liberal laws on what food is allowed to contain, and all 3 countries has strong traditions in Baltic salmon fishing. I have never heard of anyone dying from eating Baltic salmon though. If I'm not wrong its also banned in Russia, since I heard that Russia is pretty strict on what food imports contains. Also Baltic herring, common in parts of Sweden as "surströmming" (fermented smelly herring) has been widely condemned by the EU for being too contaminated, but Sweden has been given an exception on that one too, for traditional reasons.
Out of the 40 official responses sent to the Swedish parliament regarding the proposed fully licensed seal hunt (which will be bigger than current cull), only 3 were against, coming from WWF and a couple of other groups. The rest were for it. If a licensed hunt is approved, it will be just like any other hunt that any hunter can apply for, exactly like with deer and moose. One of the problems with the current culls is that permits are sometimes given to fishermen personally, and many fishermen does not know how to hunt.
Domestic sales of the salmon in Sweden, Finland and Latvia were exempt from the ban, but even in those countries, sales must adhere to guidelines regarding safe limits of consumption.
Last edited by Helsingborgaren; 01-02-2014 at 09:40 PM..
As far as I know the fishermen on the Oregon/Washington border are Americans, and they have requested culls of marine mammals to secure their fisheries several time, but they are denied due to the "Marine Mammal Protection Act", even though the animals they want to cull are abundant and non-endangered.
But it turns out, they are endangered when you consider the population as it should be in its full range, and especially in specific areas. It really only takes a small number of sea otters to threaten a salmon run. The fact that a few have learned to target a specific location for the abundance of fish during spawning season doesn't mean they're not endangered.
But it turns out, they are endangered when you consider the population as it should be in its full range, and especially in specific areas. It really only takes a small number of sea otters to threaten a salmon run. The fact that a few have learned to target a specific location for the abundance of fish during spawning season doesn't mean they're not endangered.
It is not only sea otters, but also seals and sea lions. The sea lions has found their way up the Columbia river on the Washington/Oregon border where they are more or less an invasive species, destroying the livelihood for both native and non-native fishermen. There is an annual very, very, very small cull of sea lions in the Columbia river that is legal, but with lots of protest and activism from fanatics like Sea Shepherd at place, who starts a moral outrage if even 1 is killed. Farmers are allowed to cull coyotes to protect their livelihood, so why shouldn't fishermen be able to do the same with their pests?
In any case the very small cull is not even near the amount they would need to remove from the river, I mean last year they took less than 10 I think. Of course peple have a right to protest, but that shouldn't affect the ultimate decisions of pest control to protect the livelihood of strugging fishermen, which is a question of sustainability and not public morals based on a hypocritcal idea that marine mammals are more worth than land mammals.
Last edited by Helsingborgaren; 01-02-2014 at 10:01 PM..
Interesting problem with the sea lions on the Columbia. They've tried removing them, and giving them to zoos and aquariums. But you can't really do that year after year. They've tried harassing them, and chasing them away, but that never really works long-term.
Interesting problem with the sea lions on the Columbia. They've tried removing them, and giving them to zoos and aquariums. But you can't really do that year after year. They've tried harassing them, and chasing them away, but that never really works long-term.
The only thing that works is a cull, like with the coyotes, too bad for the coyotes that they happen to live on land. If they lived in water no one would be allowed to lay a finger on them, because of a law that makes a difference between mammals that lives on land and those that lives in water.
There have been times when farmers weren't allowed to cull wolves, though.
True, but it's alot more common than permits to cull any kind of marine mammal, only due to this law that is unlogical. In Sweden its the other way around, its alot easier to get permit to cull seals than wolves, due to the low number of wolves and the high number of seals. Sometimes, very rarely though, you can also get a permit to cull 1 or 2 ringed seals, but thats very limited due to the low population of ringed seals in the Baltic. But the grey seals there is many of.
Last edited by Helsingborgaren; 01-02-2014 at 10:41 PM..
I suspect that you don't really want an answer, you are just wanting an argument.
In the USA, mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and plants get on the protection list when their population numbers get low. A species can move off and on the protected list depending upon how the population is doing.
If a species is collected, the number taken is monitored to maintain population levels.
Being cute has nothing to do with it. There are all sorts of creepy frogs and snakes that are protected and obscure dull looking plants that are protected.
I'm going to guess that Mexico, which doesn't really have a good record for wildlife care also has a ban on whaling because the gray whales that travel up and down the west coast of North America are worth a huge fortune in tourist dollars from all the whale watching expeditions.
To add to this, numbers don't have to be low. It's also not just marine mammals that get protection. In the US and Canada, all native bird species are protected by the migratory bird treaty. Birds of pray have addition protection added. The MBT makes it illegal to capture and keep birds for sale. Most birds can be kept with permits however.
Marine Mammals are vulnerable to disturbance. However as oregonwoodsmoke said, I don't believe you're looking for information, just an argument so I won't waste my time explaining any further. If your country doesn't protect wildlife in the same way, why do you care that we do?
Actually, migratory birds are protected as a class. It's illegal to bring migratory bird parts (feathers, for example, used in Native craftwork) into the US.
That's not what that is Ruth. Non native species are not protected. The pigeons, Starlings and House Sparrows we see everyday are not protected. Import laws are something completely different.
TBH, I don't think that most people could be paid enough to actually care one way or the other whether it's legal or not to shoot sea mammals. Most people probably think that it is legal to shoot a sea lion...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
