NATURE FORUM WORLDWIDE

[Kiki Suarez]

Dear Sealman and Nikki,

I have sent some of your arguments to Mrs. Asheeke. She has not answered me, though. Anyways she is responsible for tourism, not the fisheries. I hope she will answer. I am surprised at how opposite the opinions are. Some people just don´t care at all about the seals and how they are killed, others fight a war for them. It seems the only thing needed is a transparency from the Namibian government.

KIKI
_________________
kikitheartist

The deepest truth of Buddhist philosophy holds that at the center of the universe, and of each human being, there is a basic goodness and that everything is connected to everything else. www.kikitheartist.com

[Nikki]

No offense to the Namibian Government but I have truly lost all hope for transparency (from any African government for that matter).

I can also asure you that any argument Mrs. Asheeke may present we have a strong counter, so I am very interested to hear what her comments are

[Nikki]

Well lets wait and see, she might be busy or out of the office. But if nothing comes of your email to her, then no answer is an answer too.

[Nikki]

From Francois Hugo:

A factor which has received little attention in both the EFSA scientific review of sealing and the COWI report on the socio-economic aspects of a possible EU ban on Seal Imports, which is unique to the Namibian situation, is detailed below for your attention.

Fifty percent of the annual pup sealing quota occurs on two of the three seal culling colonies in Namibia. The largest seal pup hunt in the world and second largest overall seal hunt. With these two sealing colonies occurring within the diamond restricted area controlled through a 50/50 partnership between De Beers and the Namibian government.

According to the United Nations, much of Namibia's diamond trade is in the hands of De Beers, which mines half of the world's diamonds, and in the past controlled 80 % of the global diamond market, worth $50 billion.

Diamonds is the single biggest industry in Namibia. Diamonds are also the single biggest export product for Namibia, bringing in 45% of foreign exchange earnings. Making De Beers the largest taxpayer, with Namibia spending half of this revenue on public services (mainly health, education and housing).

In October 2006, De Beers Group Director of External Affairs, Rory MoreO'Ferrall wrote to Caroline Lucas originator of the Written Declaration to ban seal products in the EU, I quote, "On a personal level, I have some considerable sympathy with Seal Alert's cause to protect the Cape Fur seal. They have asked me to request that you include these seals in your proposal before the European Parliament regarding seal products from Canada and Russia. Seal Alert fear, with some justification I believe, that a successful ban on seal products from those countries will serve to place even greater pressure on the Cape Fur seals". (see below for full text of this email)

Although Cape fur seals were listed as an endangered species in 1977 by the United Nations - Convention in Trade of Endangered Species, with an Appendix II listing it was excluded from the EU Seal Pup Directive and Habitats Directive in 1985. This lead Namibian sealers to export products of seal pups almost exclusively to EU. With the Namibian government awarding larger and larger un-sustainable sealing quotas. Since independence in 1990, pup quotas have increased over 750% from 9784 pups to 85 000 pups in 2006 (with rolling annual quotas for next three years). 90% of Namibia's sealing quota is nursing seal pup based. Whilst the species upon which the population is based on pup surveys declined 45%, from its peak in 1993 of 220 212 pups to 120 000 pups. (data supplied by Ministry of Fisheries during Seal Alert-SA's meeting in August 2007)

At a recent meeting in Belgium with COWI, Namibian Director of Resource Management at the Ministry of Fisheries, Dr Moses Maurihungirire raised a few questions and was quoted as follows,
The report notes that the 'independence of inspections' is low - He doesn't know how inspectors could be independent, what does this mean? Says their ministry is independent.
Killing unweaned pups - why is this perceived as negative? The only difference is the diet, so why the sensitivity?
Herding - Psychological trauma, why is this perceived as negative and poor welfare?
Note on the failure to examine whether bull seals are alive or not following shooting - live seals flee if you approach them, plus its not safe to go into a big group of adult males so its not practical to check they're dead.

Dr Moses Maurihungirire ended stating that Namibia practised eco-system based management, even if they wanted to stop sealing they couldn't simply exclude one species from the chain as the eco-system would be skewed.

Namibia commercial harvests 14 fish species with seal's diet consisting of 50% of non-commercially harvested fish species. There are 37 species of Whales and Dolphins and 5 species of Seals and Sea-lions found in Namibian waters. Scientifically it has been established that seal culls adversely effect commercial catch of hake. All marine mammals, of which are defined under Namibian Constitution as a Marine Resource, which are all excluded from commercial harvest under the marine regulations - except the only species of seal, Cape fur seals.

The entire method of killing seal pups in Namibia, is illegal under Namibia's own laws, as in order for sealers to commercially cull these pups, sealers are required to round up and drive these pups outside of the permitted jurisdiction of their permits and the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources, whose jurisdiction ends at the high tide water mark.

Seal Alert-SA has demonstrated to the Prime Minister of Namibia (July 2007) and the various Ministries (August 2007) that seal eco-tourism revenue can more than surpass and replaced the existing seal industry. An industry, that is not even a small business, with 2 sealing rights holders who employ part-time 140 unskilled workers between July - November.


Seal Alert-SA therefore implores all to consider requesting Namibia to end its seal culling policy, as South Africa voluntarily did 17 years ago in 1990, with no adverse impact to the economy, eco-system or loss of jobs.

Alternatively, considering the threats sealing poses to this endangered seal species, which nobody has the right to cause its extinction, stand and support a ban and whatever measures are required to end seal culling in Namibia.

[Daan Vreugdenhil]

I am very content the way this dialogue is going. Mrs. Suarez apparently is having very interesting email exchanges and she posted many interesting ones on this forum. A few messages from my own email correspondence have been posted here as well.

In general the messages are constructive and polite even if reflecting opposing opinions. I would encourage whomever has a specific conservation concern of their own to host his/her concern on our forum and we will try and help to channel that concern and where possible bring it to the attention of the authorities.

I would like to encourage the Ministry of Fisheries to some way or the other respond to the concern first raised by Mr and Mrs Suarez, who spent a year's ecotourism vacation in Namibia. It is obvious that this issue is not going to go away by itself. I would also encourage the project financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Namibia Coast Conservation and Management (NACOMA) Project to respond to this dialogue. GEF funded projects have to be extremely transparent and responsive to public opinion. In this particular case, the it is remarkable that while such important coastal management issue is at stake, NACOMA does not mention any of the Seal management dilemma on its website - otherwise excellent - , which is surprising, because you can't deal with the coastal management and simply ignore this delicate issue on Seal culling. As a moderator of this dialogue, I don't expect that either the Government or the NACOMA project will necessarily change their positions on Seal culling, but I think it is in everybody's interest if the following issues be addressed by both the GEF project and the Ministry of Fisheries:

definition of the management problem;
public distribution of monitoring data;
economic importance of the culling industry;
independent overseers;
humane culling practices.

We have drawn the attention of this problem to the GEF offices at Washington DC (http://www.gefweb.org/.

On a different note, Mrs. Suarez has become a very enthusiastic contributor to our forum. She is a fabulous artist and photographer. I highly recommend everyone to take a look at her world class pictures of animals, nature and traditional people on our picture gallery:
http://www.nature-worldwide.info/phpbb/album.php
Nothing to do with the seals, but absolutely stunning!
_________________
Dr. Ir. Daan Vreugdenhil
Please visit: http://www.birdlist.org/site/why_birds.htm and
http://www.adopt-a-ranger.org
as well as our beautiful pictures at:
http://www.nature-worldwide.info/phpbb/album.php

[Kiki Suarez]

Re: seal extermination‏
De: Mary Duncan (mary@africageographic.com)
Enviado: lunes, 18 de febrero de 2008 02:37:52 a.m.
Para: Irene de Suarez Oberstenfeld (kikiobe@hotmail.com)

Hi Kiki


Our editor is going to ask one of our marine journalists to investigate a story on the seals. Unfortunately I wont be here by the time it is published - that could take a good few months.


I saw another side to seals yesterday at Lambert's Bay. There is gannet breeding colony on Bird Island there and the seals hang around constantly trying to kill the young birds. A couple of years ago all the Gannets left because of the seals or were killed by them, but many have now returned, and nature conservation is trying to discourage the seals from coming up onto the island. Yesterday one seal got hold of a penguin, bit it badly, and we were asked to bring the bird to Sanccob, to see if it could be saved.


Thank you for your good home-coming wishes!


Best wishes


Mary
_________________
kikitheartist

The deepest truth of Buddhist philosophy holds that at the center of the universe, and of each human being, there is a basic goodness and that everything is connected to everything else. www.kikitheartist.com

[sealman]

In reply to the Gannet Colony at Lamberts Bay. It is most disturbing to be frank to read between the lines within these comments. One never hears, "the other side to Jackals" tearing baby seal pups to shreds or Pelicans gobbling up chicks of gannets or seagulls destroying gannet eggs, nor to a white shark tearing a seal to pieces or seagulls pecking out alive seal pups eye-balls. What is most strange, all of which described is unnatural. Yet, never receives a negative comment.

Perhaps if the facts are known, one would re-assess. The island referred to is in fact officially called Penguin Island at Lamberts Bay. Originally this small 2ha island was an important seal breeding colony (it being the most north western island on the west coast of South Africa, important for its migratory foraging route for seals). Sealers exterminated this seal colony, causing its extinction (without conservationists raising a shred of concern). Penguins took over this extinct vacant land, who in turn were forced off, to make way for the better guano producing seabird species Cape Gannets. Until commercial scrapping of guano turned this island to bare rock.

This destroyed the natural heritage of this island, and most importantly has banned the dominant species to this island from returning.

Fisheries then built a causeway/road from the mainland onto the island, to act as a break-water for the fishing vessels and to supply them by road. In which, there was no conservation concern either for the collapsed seabirds or extinct seals or land based predators from entering the island. An aerial view of the island shows the roadway actually divides the majority of the island in favour of the fishing port. Recently fishing factories closed, as the once most productive fisheries in the world collapsed from overfishing, and these same factories now process potatoes for the chip market. In response to maintain the illegal policy that has seen seals banned from 99% of their former habitat. Government gave millions to landfill the seaward site, to give migrating seabirds a favourable nesting site, which was soon colonised again by gannets. Would this have occurred naturally, I doubt it. A tourist viewing facility was built in the belief, that tourists did not want to actually see marine wildlife as it should. With seals dominating the island, which in turn protected the seabirds of gannets and penguins, from predation by pelicans and seagulls, believing instead tourists would flock to see a massive exclusive gannet retreat. Policy was to drive away any seals, by any means, with even a shooter, not a qualified marksman, being hired full time to shoot seals who dared venture anywhere onto the landfill.

The seals presence, being restricted to the outer extreme edge of this small island, forced to bred on the seaward vulnerable wave-pounding extremities, were shoo-ing and shooting was difficult. Where most seal pups born, who cannot swim for the first six weeks, would be swept away and drown.

The gannets never left because of seal predation, they left because of a number of factors, pelicans, feral cats, seagulls and most important during that period a complete shortage of pelagic fish prey for all species. But unlike gannets which have a distribution range from western Sahara to Tanzania (the whole of Africa), seals are restricted to within a few hundred swim kilometres.

Is it not natural, in nature for the weak to fall prey. Fledgling gannets which take off from the island, and then land in the water - would not survive anyway. Is it not natural for these birds to be preyed upon. Perhaps the real issue in this whole saga, is the unsuitable and unnaturally created exclusive seabird nesting islands retreat. Island which are low lying, and perhaps unsuitable for gannet nesting and are actually suitable only for seals and penguins.

Just a little further south, in the bay of Saldanha, history repeats itself, described by early explorers as the seal islands, these seals have long been exterminated, in favour of gannet colonies. Where even walls surround the islands to keep seals off permanently. In a narrow band of 300 km of Cape west coast, there is situated 85% of the offshore islands in southern Africa, all 11 former major seal colonies, all extinct to seals. Islands which today still carry seal names, including the largest Robben Island (robbe Dutch word for seal). Seabirds currently enjoy 850 ha of exclusive protected habitat, whilst the dominant species, seals is restricted to less than 1% or just 8 ha in total. Which is made up of awash rocks, whose population has declined 50%.

What is even stranger, the few penguin colonies, that have shown growth in recent times, are within, large seal breeding colonies. It was interesting, that during the last two oil spills, oiled penguins when most vulnerable, sort refuge in amongst various seal colonies. I wonder therefore why they chose to do this and not flee in terror of "penguin eating seals - thousands of them".

It is just such a pity we place emotion over extinction, which is far more important and permanent.

Seal-Man.

[sealman]

In reply to solutions that benefit all. One should firstly understand that each species has already fought the right of evolution to exist. A fight fought over many species over millions of years. These species are our heritage. They occur exactly where they are for a reason, alter this path (forcing seals onto the mainland) and you alter the path for all. Each current species, collectively got there together, each is vital for the others survival. The higher the predator the more vital to a balanced eco-system that sustains itself. Research has yet to reveal the the total benefits seals bring to the environment, quite simply because research has not been undertaken. One thing is certain seals are not there just to eat fish or seabirds - that is very naive.

Just as I am against banning seals to the mainland - I am against forcing seabirds to develop unnaturally on islands. Nature alone must find its own balance, if we as human-like are the destructor, we must address our foot-print - not theirs.

As wrong as it was for apartheid to benefit the few whites at the cost of the masses. It is wrong to segregate marine wildlife from each other. Comments taken in 1601 prior to exploitation, "On this island there is a great abundance of seals and penguins, in such number as almost incredible" and 1604, "Were sent to the Island Robben, where we found such infinite number of seals that it was admirable to behold. All the seashore lies overspread with them .... and up towards the middle of the island there be infinite number of birds called penguins, pelicans and cormorants".

Why then do we ban, seals from 99% of their former islands and make these exclusive seabird retreats? Why do we say when seabirds and seal population are a faction of their former numbers, with islands almost void of all former marine wildlife - that seals cannot live on islands. Has anybody visited these islands or flown over them, to see the complete sparseness, in most cases?

If I was Namibia, I would encourage the 70% of the population on 3 mainland colonies (man-induced onto the mainland) to disperse back to their 36 islands over 3000 km. Which naturally will limit the overall seal population to 11% on islands off Namibia, instead of 70% on the mainland. I would do this to balance the eco-system, and to allow fisheries to recover. I would use this abundant returned wildlife to increase our tourism potential. I would think of Namibia, as Island nations do of theirs, cherish each and every wildlife creature.

People dont work and save for a year, to go on holiday to meet other countries peoples. They do so to experience other natural worlds, the greater the abundance of these worlds, the greater the attraction. A simple step, a simple piece of legislation is all that is needed. Which stops seal culling and opens up banned former seal islands. The rest will naturally correct itself for the benefit of all.

Sealman

[sealman]

What truly disturbs me the most. Is the officials, scientists and conservationists we rely upon to protect the species - are this species greatest threat. Its shameful. One never hears of the scientists who have voiced concerns of the sealing, to be given 24 hours to leave Namibia. This is a shamefully close-cell system. One should read the report of ex-Namibian biologist sent to the EU, it describes how Namibia has tried various means to eliminate the seal population, using gases, crushers, bombs and a range of fire-arms.

sealman

[Nikki]

Kiki - if you have any further email addresses for Africa Geographic, I have an article of more than 1000 words that I have written about the situation in Namibia.

[Nikki]

Daan,

I can't comment on why NACOMA does not mention seal culling on their site. However, it just illustrates to me personally, that once again this shows that seals are an absolute NON ISSUE in Namibia and they have no other value than making a few select people wealthy. Seals are considered vermin with no realy value to the eco-system so they don't feature in conservation.

Then my comments on

definition of the management problem - there is no management problem because nothing is being managed
public distribution of monitoring data - no reliable and independently verified data available
economic importance of the culling industry - it holds SOME importance as it does create a certain amount of jobs and brings in a certain amount of money in to the country. But these jobs are poorly paid seasonal jobs to less than 200 people, with only the sealing permit holders having any real economic benefit from the cull/harvest. The Namibian Economy will be better served through eco-tourism and investing in community projects within this area.
independent overseers - none
humane culling practices - this is a bit of a grey area and a bit of a controversial one. Welfarists believe there is such a thing as humane culling, where as animal rights activists (such as myself) believe it is a contradiction in terms.




Kiki,

In response to the Lamberts Bay situation:
The island on which these gannets are bred once belonged to seals. The offshore islands are the NATURAL habitat of these marine mammals, but they have been banned from 98%, I repeat, 98% of these islands in favour of other species. This forced the seals out of their natural feeding grounds to new ones where they came in to direct conflict with humans. Seeing as there are not enough fish in the sea for both it seems, the seals have to look for other alternative food sources and since these birds are on the seals' original hunting grounds and habitat, it is only natural for them to find alternative food sources there. These animals ARE predators after all. What Nature Conservation is not telling you is that it is a free for all with the seals that come near these breeding colonies - shoot to kill. So we are in effect penalising these animals for their natural behaviour. Does that seem right to anyone?

There are many reasons why marine birds such as gannets became endangered as far as their population numbers go, but the fishing industry had a direct hand in this, yet, once again, it is other species such as the seals that have to suffer. Another question that needs to be asked is why is so much effort being made to conserve one marine species but the same courtesy cannot be afforded to another? Yes, the seal population at this point in time might be more than that of gannets and therefore the seals are not in an endangered situation, but for how long? No proper protection and conservation is afforded to these animals (I live in SA so I know) and will this be another case of oh shucks, we depleted the species and now they are in trouble? Prevention is better than cure. The eco-system needs to be treated holistically, as a whole. Focusing on certain species only is doing more damage than good.

[Helge Denker]

Dear Dr Vreugdenhil,

thank you for drawing our attention to your forum regarding the harvesting of seals on the Namibian Coast. My apologies for only replying to you now.

We find your approach of contacting local environmental organisations who may provide more information or take action a very positive one. We also agree that calls for action by the public are extremely important in raising environmental concerns.

Seal harvesting will remain a contentious issue as long as the practice continues, as there will always be people who are strongly opposed to it. Emotions often run high and accusations and counter-accusations are quickly made, as evidenced by your forum. NEWS has been monitoring the seal issue in Namibia over many years, and during the 1990s was allowed to be on-site to monitor the actual harvesting operation. While we are no longer actively involved, we continue to gather information on the issue.

In general, Namibia has an excellent approach to conservation, which is based on the sustainable utilisation of natural resources. In practical terms, improvements can be made in implementing this approach in effective and meaningful ways so that it truly benefits local communities while conserving resources.

NEWS supports the sustainable utilisation of natural resources, including the sustainable harvesting of animal and plant products. With regard to the sustainable harvesting of animal products, we emphasise that any killing operation should be conducted as humanely as possible. Furthermore, we encourage an open mind in debating the issue of non consumptive vs. consumptive use of our natural resources, as well as long-term sustainable gains versus short-term gains from such use. NEWS can neither verify nor refute reports of unsustainability or sustainability without consulting specialists in the field in question. We are now in the process of gathering updated data on population dynamics in order to assess the current situation.

We will post our findings when we have an updated information.
_________________
Thank you for reading my comments. If you like to learn more about the Director Namibian Environment and Wildlife Society, a non-profit membership association in Namibia, please visit our website: http://www.news-namibia.org

[Nikki]

Dear Helge

Thank you for participating.

You have some valid points - this is a contentious and very sensitive issue with accusations from both sides being rampant.

However, and please dont take offense at this - where do you get your data from and how exactly are you verifying it? At this point in time, I don't trust any information gathered by Namibia or any Namibian for that matter. I cannot trust that the information will be 100% objective. If you are going to collect your data from government sources, than I am afraid that organisations such as ours, will dispell it. What is called for is various international organisations policing the information and the data and the situation itself in order to get an accurate picture of what is happening in Namibia. An ideal situation would be for orgs such as HSI, WSPA, etc to have access to absolutely any information and files held by the government and to be able to do their own research completely unhindered. You have to agree that this won't ever happen, and if not, you have to ask yourself the question why not. If Namibia feels they have nothing to hide, then why not invite independent international welfare organisations to do as much research in to this matter as they wish and give them complete transparency and allow the authorities to be questioned?

Also, if Namibia had such excellent conservation management, why is it that they are burdened by overfishing?

[Daan Vreugdenhil]

Like in politics, in the world of conservation there are many different ways in which people and organisations think the conservation of nature can best be addressed. Animal rights activists would like to see animals being treated humanely. Some conservationists (Lets call them the "purists") like to see humans stay away from interfering in natural processes and grant animals the rights to their historical living grounds. Again others, like the Namibian Environment and Wildlife Society feel that nature should be an integral part of a humans dominated society in which as many species as possible should be conserved in well-established and well managed protected areas. But they also feel that some species can be used for economic purposes and that - under sound management practices - such species may be hunted or "culled" as the call that in Africa. They feel that nature only stands a chance in a humans dominated world, if there are clear economic benefits to conservation. (lets call them the "practicals")

I personally respect all viewpoints, and I feel it is very important if different people with different viewpoints can express them and that they communicate with each other. I would love to see places on earth where nature processes can take their due course. On the other hand, with mankind interfering everywhere on earth, it is becoming more and more difficult to conserve nature in its natural stage. The life cycles of animals are being threatened everywhere, and functional relationships between predators and preys established through evolutionary processes or simply those of animals that co-existed, no longer work the way they used to. In some cases, where a species has become too much suppressed by human actions, it may need some help. The first reaction would be, to suggest that the human action influencing such species be discontinued. But if that is not happening, such species may need the help of reducing the pressure of another species. I can't judge if the Gannets and Penguins Sealman refers to need help, and whether the most effective help would be by keeping the seals of most islands. It important to realize though, that what has been established through evolutionary processes, may no longer function without human interference in a continuously increasing world of human presence. Humans are there to stay, and if we want to preserve as many species as possible on this beautiful planet, we will have to increasingly interfere, protecting here and adapting natural processes there, so that endangered species may survive. Sometimes it may be a Gannet, other times it may be a Seal.

From the dialogue, it appears to me that groups of people with different viewpoints don't communicate sufficiently with each other. I know this is not easy, and emotions easily get in the way, particularly when dealing with such lovely little vulnerable creatures as seal cups. We easily fall into the trap of mutually blaming each other for not doing the right thing or not having the right point of view. And yet, we all have conservation of nature and the lovely species of the world in mind. If we conservationists can't work together, we simply will be less successful in achieving what we all have in common: the conservation of at least a part of the natural world we all love so much.

It is my sincere impression that the seal issue in Namibia should get serious attention from both the government and all conservationists, animal activists, purists and the practicals alike. The first issue to address would be the transparency issue with regard to both the policy objectives and to the execution of those objectives in the field. When ecotourists like the Suarezes get wind of a massive culling of animals, there is a great risk for very negative publicity, harmful to the reputation of the country in general and particularly to the tourism industry. I can hardly imagine that a diamond industry, that is so closely associated with love, would benefit from being involved in a controversial issue as the culling of seal cups, even if practised "humanely" (I know, the term humane alone will generate heated debates). I firmly believe that keeping silence is an unwise policy in this age of communication and internet connectivity.

I hope that eventually the Government will publish its objectives and monitoring results on the internet and also continue its dialogue with the opponents of the culling, even if both parties won't come to an agreement. As a former senior official of the Ministry of Transport and Water (Rijkswaterstaat) in the Netherlands I was personally very instrumental at the initiation of the Wadden Sea Advisory commission, that brought national governmental, conservation as well as commercial stakeholders (oil companies, fishery sector, sand mining) together. Simply by meeting a few times per year in well-prepared meetings, and discussing the issues with each other, many problems could be solved within the first year or two.

With a special note to Mr Denker, may I suggest that it would be great if you could get something of that nature going for coastal management in Namibia. I am sure there are many more conservation issues related to coastal management that need attention. Maybe you can contact the GEF project, from whom I have not heard any comment yet, in spite of several emails that I wrote them.
_________________
Dr. Ir. Daan Vreugdenhil
Please visit: http://www.birdlist.org/site/why_birds.htm and
http://www.adopt-a-ranger.org
as well as our beautiful pictures at:
http://www.nature-worldwide.info/phpbb/album.php

[sealman]

The issue that needs to be addressed, is whether seal culling has been positive or negative for the economy, species and the environment. My research proves it has been very negative on all aspects. The issue is not about sustainability or humaneness.

The increase in the population as motivation for culls or sustainability. Is in itself a contridiction, as overall population growth, has been solely related to the growth after culling operations on the mainland. Seals living undisturbed (on non-sealing colonies or offshore islands) after 3 decades of surveys have either remained the same (no growth) or declined. Had it not been for the several mass die-offs of starvation, the seal population would be massive. What is causing this???

One could argue as sealing colonies has increased until 1994 (in general) that sealing is very sustainable (prior to the population crashes from mass starvation), but at what cost has sealing on these mainland colonies cost - billions in lost fisheries (seal consumption and jobs) for a handful of employment and income the sealing industry provides. THis does not make economic sense.

The latest population figures from Ministry are 205 5000 (2005) down to 120 000 pups (2006). This in itself should stop seal culls.

There is an aspect of flaw, the Ministry refuses to acknowledge. Initially they claimed pup quotas should not exceed 30% of the pups born. When questioned scientists claimed as that number 25-32% die naturally anyway. But this was the natural mortality on an increasing population between 1972 - 1994.

The very latest scientific research by a South African and Nambian respected scientists employed by the Ministry found that over an 5 year study (mass die-offs recorded in 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2006), which was published in June 2006. That natural mortality has increased from 32% to 62% on average (January - July), as would be expected from mass die-off's. Bearing in mind, this does not relate to the actual die-off year, when some pup mortalities were 100% in some cases.

The peak in the population was in 1993, where 225 000 pups were recorded. Now even with this peak, substract 62%, as that would represent the pups that died naturally before sealing started on July 1. That would leave 85 000 pups alive. But remember the sealing colonies account for 60% of the population, so substract 40% of what is left alive = 51 000 pups. 51 000 pups alive by July 1, to which Namibia awards a three year rolling quota of 85 000 pups per year. That is 30 000 more pups than there are. It also means sealers will kill every pup trying to fill quota. Look at the % of the TAC quota that sealers have averaged since 1990, it is only about 66% of their quota. Bearing in mind, the quota then was 30 - 60 000, which still could not be filled.

You cant ignore these facts. I brought this to IUCN's attention, where they claimed, I misunderstood these quoted percentages (yet it states clearly in black and white). It is still 32% IUCN claimed, which is impossible considering the mass die-off's, as the 32% on average was recorded prior to 1993, it cannot still be the same. It was brought up again, with my meeting with the Ministry, where even a presentation was used to address exactly this, with Namibian scientists claiming the overall average, prior to the mass die-offs and with, is 44%. Which is not relevant, as this issue is the mortality now. But even at 44%, sealing would not be sustainable.

But ignore all this, Namibian Minister officially informed Dutch Minister (on our request) very recently, in the letter (I have a copy), it was stated seal pup population 120 000 (December 2006). Substract 32% = 81 000 pups, substract 44% = 67 000 pups or even substract 62% (latest scientific research) = 45 000 pups. All of these, would mean Namibian sealers would kill every pup alive.

That is not sustainable or even remotely close to Namibian Ministry statement (in writting) that quota should NOT EXCEED 30% of the pups BORN issued years previously.

THe result, the collapse of the largest sealing colony at Cape Cross (I flew over the colony 7 July and 10 August 2007, there was not a single seal left). This was 22 days into 139 day sealing season, on a sustainable quota of 85 000. Namibia has increase its pup quota from 9000 to 85 000 since independence in 1990 (over 750%). The population has declined 50%, sufferred repeated mass die-offs, fisheries have declined, sealing period has increased (was August now July), additional quota holders.

Namibian own constitution, the highest court in the land, clearly states utilisation of a natural resource may only be undertaken if it is done so in a sustainable manner. The population has been declining since the first mass die-off in 1994, and the last in 2006. This very fact alone, admitted by Ministry should mean sealing should have stopped in 1994, as the population has been declining.

Why is everybody still denying the facts and the obvious. Is it acceptable to say, we were not aware, these facts are there, and have been made public. All data was given by the Ministry. The only problem is nobody bothered to add the 1 + 1 to see if it made 2.

Let the seals go back to the islands, please.

Sealman