Cruelty ¨SEAL HUNT"

WHY SEAL HUNTING IS CRUEL ????

Some seals are killed with a blow to the head using a wooden club or hakapik. The sealers stun as many baby seals as they can before going back to kill them. Some seals try to get away, but they are clumsy on the ice, heaving their fat little bodies with an uncoordinated flipper shuffle. Other seals are shot from a distance and then dragged from the ice onto boats using steel hooks.

Two recent independent veterinary reports on the Canadian seal hunt, as well as IFAW video footage, have documented unacceptable levels of cruelty to baby seals. This hunt is a highly competitive activity, carried out over an extensive area, and under very unpredictable conditions. Haste is the rule, as hunters rush to immobilize as many baby seals as possible in the short time available to them.

Seals are routinely clubbed or shot and left to suffer on the ice, before being clubbed again some time thereafter. Some seals are still skinned before being rendered fully unconscious and few sealers are observed checking for a blinking reflex to confirm brain death prior to skinning an animal. As one of the veterinary reports concluded: "Canada's commercial seal hunt results in considerable and unacceptable suffering.”

The Canadian government often misleads the public by comparing the commercial seal hunt to the killing of farm animals in the food industry. Unlike abattoirs, the seal hunt is an unpredictable, unmanageable hunt for wild animals which takes place under hurried conditions. It is precisely these conditions that have led some experts to conclude that this hunt can never satisfy the requirements of a humane hunt.

A Sad Good-bye to Collette

Commentary by Captain Paul Watson
Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Collette has been deliberately killed by Australian government bureaucrats.
The whale known as Colin was found to be female after her death and has been renamed Collette.

Upon hearing about the whale known as Colin, the orphaned baby humpback whale lost in Sydney Harbour, I issued the following statement:

Statement from Captain Paul Watson

We view the life of every Humpback whale as valuable and if anything can be done to save the life of this young baby Humpback than we encourage and support every effort to ensure that he survives.
I would propose finding a small cove, inlet or bay to keep Colin safe and then attempting to feed Colin with a mixture of krill and small fish. Finding whale milk is difficult if not impossible. If Colin is old enough to be weaned then this could work.
It is of course an awesome task to care for and provide life saving care to a whale. It truly is a whale of a task but we can’t be faulted for trying, just for refusing to try.
Australians have an opportunity to demonstrate that they do not just talk about saving whales but that they are prepared to do whatever it takes to protect them, including this little orphan.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society wishes to work with the governments both Federal and State, the media, other groups and concerned Australian citizens to mobilize an effort to save Colin.
We can do this!

Captain Paul Watson



Sea Shepherd Australia Director Jeff Hansen began to mobilize a coordinated rescue effort with the Australia Zoo and the government of New South Wales as soon as he heard about the unfortunate whale.

Unfortunately the bureaucrats could not be bothered. They refused to allow us to help Collette and they refused to attempt to feed her or to let anyone else try. They took the easy way out and simply killed her.
Killing is usually the first response of government bureaucrats when a wild species is in trouble. They dismissed our help, they dismissed our suggestions and they dismissed our pleas to spare the life of this baby Humpback.
As I said before Collette was killed, we could not be faulted for trying to save her life but the bureaucrats can be faulted for not even trying.
The “mercy” killing did not go very well. Whales cannot be killed easily as the Japanese whalers have demonstrated for decades. With Collette, first they put a noose and straps around her and then a veterinarian jumped in the water and stuck a syringe near the dorsal fin to sedate her. This was done twice. They then tied her to an inflatable boat and began moving Collette towards the beach.
As they approached the beach, Collette thrashed about with her head and tail coming right out of the water, completely arching her back. She was panicking and in extreme stress. She struggled all the way to the beach, a condemned prisoner on the way to execution by lethal injection.
The energy she expended in her struggles illustrated that she was not as weak as the “experts” had determined. This young whale wanted to live.
On the beach, a tent was erected around her to keep the public from witnessing the execution. They then injected the poison and killed her.
Witness Cherie Curchod said she saw the whale thrashing around near a jetty below her home after she was given more than six injections.
Ms. Curchod said the whale was then tied up and dragged across the bay at Bonnie Doon, to The Basin at Pittwater before she “actively started trying to get away''.

"Then they dragged it to a closed tent and all the while they dragged it, it was flapping it's tail, blowing out of it's head and moving and trying to get away,'' she said.

"It was so upsetting because euthanasia is meant to be an easy death and that whale did not have an easy death at all.''

But National Parks and Wildlife Services spokesman John Dengate said the whale's death was the "best possible result'' in the circumstances.

"That was the best way it could have been done,'' he told reporters. "You put the animal out of its misery.''

He said the calf had been treated with dignity and respect by leading veterinarians but the process of putting down a large mammal was ....distressing and harrowing''.

"To an untrained person, it might not look like the most fantastic thing, but you can't get a better result than that,'' he said.

It is amazing that Dengate would make a statement like “you can’t get a better result than that (death).

There was a better result possible and that was life. We were simply not allowed to provide that chance. An injunction against the execution was secured but the whale was killed before it was served. It was like a sad scene from a movie where the stay of execution for an innocent man is delivered five minutes after his death. And then they loaded her still warm body onto a truck to be taken to the Taronga Zoo for an autopsy and no doubt for research purposes, a chance to dissect a whale.

Sea Shepherd’s offer to help was rejected out of hand. Sea Shepherd Australia director Jeff Hansen pleaded with them to allow the time to attempt to feed her. Sea World in San Diego had fed a young Grey whale years ago named J.J. and had developed a formula. Jeff told them that a formula could be made available within a day. He told them that there was already a milk formula developed by Wombaroo and already tested on baby humpbacks and it was described on their website at http://www.wombaroo.com.au/about_us.htm
Through Tom Baldwin in the Sea Shepherd Melbourne office we contacted Vanessa Pierce in Sydney who was working with Wambaroo. Through Aaron Barnes of Sea Shepherd in Sydney we had a reputable celebrity vet from Bourkes backyard (a big TV show) who had reared and worked with dolphins, his name is Dr Robert Zammit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zammit). Dr. Zammit was willing and able to help feed the calf. Jeff Hansen also spoke with Allan Short on Steve Irwin’s Whale One and Murray Munro from Wildlife Warriors. Allan had also spoken with Jim Antrim from Sea World California and had the exact formula that was used for JJ, the grey whale.

We had the people lined up. We had the formula to feed Collette. We were mobilized and ready to go but the bureaucrats would not stay the execution. They would not give Collette a chance. They just wanted the “problem” to go away.

A carcass of a large female Humpback was found the same day not far away, and DNA testing will be done to determine if this was the mother and if so it would explain how Collette came to be a lost orphan in Sydney harbour.

The death of this whale underscores the tragedy that happens every year when the Japanese drive exploding harpoons into the backs of defenseless whales in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary where many mother whales are killed and their calves abandoned to die a lonely death far from human eyes under the shadow of the slowly drifting icebergs.

This tragedy also underlies the political reality that the Rudd government has abandoned their efforts to defend the whales from the lethal harpoons of the illegal Japanese whaling fleet. The appeasement of the Japanese government in the name of not upsetting trade will condemn hundreds of whales to an agonizing death once again at the end of the year.

We wish that we still had Senator Ian Campbell championing the whales as the Minister of Environment instead of a man who did more as a rock star than he has done as a politician.

Memo to Peter Garrett

Peter, did you check your balls at the door when you were elected? Why not do one or two of the things you promised to? Now you’re murdering kangaroos, kissing the ass of the Japanese whalers, backing pulp mills, logging and dredging operations. What the hell happened man? Spitting on the burning bed ain’t gonna put out the fire! When you played on the logging road at Clayoquot I loved you man. When you spoke out in song and music for the Earth, we adored you. But now, well now, you’re just another lying craven politician with a self serving agenda. Redeem yourself while you still can – speak out like you used to – hell all they can do is fire you but better to be a hero to the people than a pawn to special interests.

Let’s save the whales!

We could not save Collette, but down off the coast of Antarctica in the Ross Sea, the Japanese intend to slaughter over a thousand whales beginning in January. It is there where we can make a difference without bureaucrats to hinder our efforts.

Last year we saved over 500 whales. We intend to save even more this year.

SPEARFISHING (Facebook diving group)

Common Interest - Activities
Description:
Speafishing isn't just a sport,
it's an addiction!

WE ARE NOW THE LARGEST SPEARFISHING GROUP ON FACEBOOK

Admins
Sal DeCarli (C. Connecticut)
(creator)

Officers:
Sal DeCarli (C. Connecticut)
Grand Pu'ba

912 memmers


GALLLERY OF SPEARFISHING

DIVERS FACEBOOK GROUPS ALERT (shark killing photos)

jeddah divers facebook group
exposing how fun is for them to kill Sharks







A Fucking TIGER SHARK, it is such a dangerous one, cought a similar one at a fishing tournament at 2002, was 3 1/2 meter long , we won
Added August 4, 2006

Added by Bee Kay
to the group "jeddah divers"
from the album ""Fishing trip in the Red Sea""








thats the Big boy for that trip
In this photo: White Tip Shark
Added March 5, 2006
Added by Bee Kay
to the group "jeddah divers"
from the album ""Fishing trip in the Red Sea""

SHARKWATER FILM - SHARKS THE HEAD OF THE ECOSYSTEM

Sharks are Head of the Ecosystem

DURBAN, THREE NON-AGGRESIVE ADULT TIGER SHARKS KILLED BY A FISHERMAN

These majestic animals are a massive eco-tourist attraction in the area and killing them can be compared to the slaughter of lions – a tragic loss of one of nature's awesome creations.
Tiger sharks have limited protection in the Marine Protected Area (MPA) of Aliwal Shoal where divers from around the world come to see them. Although the fisherman claims he caught the sharks outside the MPA (he was seen earlier that day fishing within the MPA area), he landed them in the MPA, which is against the law. As a result of eye witness reports, followed by public outcry, the fisherman is in the process of being charged.

It is suspected that a further five Tiger sharks were killed previously this year. This is a serious blow as dive operators report identifying only about 20 to 30 different large Tiger sharks during a season.

South Africa is considered a shark diving Mecca of the world and Aliwal Shoal is one of the shark diving hotspots of the country. Every year thousands of tourists come to South Africa to have a unique diving experience with some of the oceans top predators. This eco-tourist industry brings in millions of rands of revenue, and provides job opportunities in a country with a high unemployment rate.

It is estimated that Tiger shark diving in Aliwal Shoal generated over R18 million (USA$2,5 million) during 2007, while White shark cage diving in Gansbaai alone generates approximately R289 million per annum (USA$40 million). One Ragged-tooth shark is estimated to be worth R50 000 per annum (USA$7 000) and can live for 40 years or more. In its lifetime it is therefore worth approximately R2 250 000 (USA$310 000). This same shark if slaughtered will fetch only R1 000 once off (USA$140 – shark meat, depending on size and species, is worth only between R3-R18 per kilogram – USA$40c-2,5). Quite evidently the socio-economic value of a live shark far outweighs the value of a dead shark and the loss of any one of these species will therefore have severe impacts.

Despite this, of the over 200 different species of shark found in South African waters, only White sharks, Whale sharks and Basking sharks are fully protected. All other species may be legally caught and killed. Ragged-tooth sharks, Tiger sharks and Bull sharks have limited protection within MPAs. This limited protection of so few species is of little help since these animals know no boundaries and therefore remain vulnerable outside MPAs. Added to this, this protection is of little use when the existing laws are not adequately enforced.
The South African government owes it to its citizens, the world and future generations to protect its natural resources, as well as to support the lucrative and high profile shark ecotourism industry, including those who depend upon it for their livelihood.

• We therefore demand that the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Mr. Marthinus Van Schalkwyk, ensures that Marine and Coastal Management (MCM) immediately improves protection of the following sharks of high eco-tourist value in the following ways:

• Tiger sharks, Ragged-tooth sharks, Bull sharks and Cow sharks may not, under any circumstances, recreational or commercial, be slaughtered and if caught they must be released – this protection is to apply not only in all MPAs but in all South African waters;
• Hammerhead sharks are given MPA protection (they may not be caught or landed in all MPAs);
  
• Blacktip sharks, Bronze whaler sharks and Dusky sharks are given protection within the Aliwal Shoal MPA (they may not be caught or landed in the Aliwal Shoal MPA)
• Scientific research is implemented in order to set sustainable quotas that will ensure the conservation of the Blacktip shark, Bronze whaler shark and Dusky shark, added to this;
• The Demersal Longline Fishery may never be allowed to extend beyond East London in order to restrict catches of the Blacktip shark, Bronze whaler shark and Dusky shark;
• Drumlines, or any similar baited device that aims to target, catch and/or kill any large shark are declared illegal fishing devices throughout South African waters;
• MCM's compliance department immediately launches tangible measures to adequately enforce laws for currently protected shark species both in and out of MPAs.

How to support this petition
We cannot wait for government to do something – it will simply be too late. We therefore implore you to help us save our sharks. Our power collectively must not be underestimated if we are to ensure the survival of the rest of our Tiger shark population as well as that of other species we are privileged to still be seeing in our oceans. If you support this petition then please take the following simple steps – your signature will help:

1. You can either log onto www.aoca.org.za and go to the petition link in the navigation bar and follow the instructions
   
2. Alternatively you can email AOCA directly at info@aoca.org.za and write your own comments. Be sure to write in the subject line: Support of AOCA Petition for Protection of SA Sharks.
   This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Diving is all about the freedom to go just about anywhere, whenever you please. Sadly, legislation is threatening that freedom, but divers can halt this banning by just having a say in things.

On The Brink of Extinction:

The Politics of Endangered Species

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is the United States’ most powerful wildlife conservation tool. But where there’s power, there’s controversy. When a species is listed under the ESA, a recovery plan must be developed and implemented to protect the species from extinction. Recovery actions may involve setting aside large tracts of undeveloped land, limiting hunting, fishing and grazing activities, and curtailing natural resource extraction (logging, mining, oil drilling, etc.) in certain areas. While listed species stand to benefit from protection, there may be a few people who stand to lose financially. Money is power and can be the driving force behind the politics of listing and recovering endangered species.

Take salmon, for example. Salmon are born in rivers, swim to the oceans to mature, then return to their birth rivers to spawn the next generation. Salmon need healthy unobstructed rivers and oceans to survive. Logging next to rivers causes runoff that suffocates salmon eggs. Dams obstruct the passageway for salmon. Hydroelectric power diverts water from salmon streams. Overfishing doesn’t allow enough salmon to reproduce. Development along waterways pollutes spawning habitat. All of these factors over time have contributed to the recent listings of five species of salmon as threatened or endangered. Now that salmon are listed, recovery plans must be implemented. But logging companies don’t want to give up any trees, hydroelectric companies don’t want to give up cheap power, commercial fisheries don’t want to give up any salmon and developers don’t want to give up prime waterfront properties. See how fast the issue of endangered species can become political?

Is the Endangered Species Act in Danger of Extinction?

While certain industries and individuals may oppose a particular listing of a species, some are pushing to abolish the ESA altogether. Getting rid of the entire act will be difficult. But limiting its funding and staff resources may be just as effective.

In November 2000, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) announced a moratorium on listing any new species as threatened or endangered through September 2001. This means that the 43 species proposed for listing will have to wait for protection, the 234 candidate species will not be reviewed and no new petitions will be considered. In the interim, the actions that contribute to species becoming endangered continue: habitat loss, overharvesting for food and products, pollution, etc. For every day endangered species wait for protection, they are another day closer to extinction. According to FWS, the moratorium is necessary because funding isn’t sufficient to address the listing of species, and comply with court orders and settlements arising from lawsuits. Many lawsuits have been filed by citizen groups to force the agency to comply with the ESA by designating “critical habitat” (see glossary for definition) for listed species. At present, only 11 percent of listed species have critical habitat designations.

The most recent attempt to change the ESA comes from the present administration. At press time, the administration had included a provision in the 2002 budget proposal that would restrict how FWS uses its allocated funding for listing endangered species. The agency only would be allowed to: 1) comply with existing court orders, and 2) undertake actions under a priority system to be developed for listing activities. What does this mean for endangered species? Under the current law, anyone can file a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, and FWS must meet specific deadlines in reviewing the petition. Under the administration’s proposal, the deadlines could be waived if the petition is deemed low priority. As an example, let’s say Thelma Smith files a petition to list the fictitious purple frog as endangered. If FWS determines that the purple frog isn’t a high priority listing, then the petition can be shelved indefinitely — regardless of biological evidence supporting the frog’s listing.

In addition, FWS would not be allowed to spend any money on enforcing new court orders that impose deadlines for lower priority listings and actions. In the example of the purple frog, if Thelma Smith won a court decision stating that the frog petition had to be reviewed, FWS couldn’t spend any money to comply with the order. In the past, citizens have filed suit to enforce the ESA if deadlines were missed or required action wasn’t taken once a species was listed. According to the group Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, 92 percent of all species listed in California during the last nine years were the result of citizen petition and court order.

The Bush administration says that the proposal is necessary to ensure that available funding is directed to the highest priority listing and critical habitat activities. Citizen groups see the administration’s proposal as an attempt to gut the ESA by shutting the public out of the legal process of protecting endangered species.

Global Statistics

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) tallies the world’s threatened species in its Red List of Threatened Species.Number of threatened animal and plant species worldwide: 11,046. Countries with the greatest number of threatened species:

• United States: 998*

• Malaysia: 805

• Indonesia: 763

• Brazil: 609

• Australia: 524

• India: 459

• Mexico: 419

• Peru: 398

• Philippines: 387

• China: 385

* Does not correspond directly with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s list of threatened and endangered species.

• National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East West Highway, SSMC3 Silver Spring, MD 20910 www.nmfs.noaa.gov

• World Conservation Union Red List of Threatened Species 219c Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL

• United Kingdom www.redlist.org

• The Ocean Conservancy 1725 DeSales St, NW, Suite 600 Washington D.C. 20036 www.oceanconservancy.org

By I´M A DIVER
NETWORK GROUP

SHARK CAMPAIGN

Moving forward in 2008

We were delighted to have raised £23,000 towards GCT's shark campaign in 2007. This year we want to raise much more money, as we are now including many more species in the campaign!

2008 marks the 10th anniversary of the creation of the GMR and we have broadened our campaign to raise much-needed funds for all the species that play a part in this fragile marine ecosystem. While supporting monitoring work is critical, the broader socio-economic and environmental challenges also need to be tackled if we are to guarantee a sustainable future for the Reserve as a whole and the wonderful array of creatures who depend upon it. Because while they are still vulnerable to indiscriminate human activity, they are all at great risk. This year, therefore, we are also raising funds to support research into a sustainable future for both the local fishing industry and the local population.

What needs to be done to protect the Marine Reserve?

Protecting the marine environment in Galapagos is more complex than simply funding a project to research the lives and activities of any one species, although we recognise the importance of this exercise too and continue to raise funds in this area.

To protect the entire marine ecosystem, not only do we need to look at species specific projects, but also projects that incorporate human intervention, since humans are both the direct and indirect cause of vulnerable species' demise. GCT works closely with their partners in Galapagos to support projects that involve educating the human population about the importance of this World Heritage Site and helping them to seek alternative employment from, for example, over fishing and illegal fishing within these protected waters.

The Marine Reserve hosts a whole range of species in its waters from shark and fish populations to seabirds, turtles and sea lions, all of which play a fundamental role within this aquatic ecosystem and to tourists' once in a lifetime experience in the islands.

Many iconic species live and feed within the Marine Reserve and no doubt all of us will find our favourite Galapagos animal in this list of just some of the species effected:

Species reliant on the Galapagos Marine Reserve:

Larger species

• Sharks
• Whales
• Sea lions
• Fur Seals
• Turtles
• Marine Iguanas
• Dolphins
  

Other

• Coastal Plants, including Mangrove
• Crabs, including the Sally light foot crab
• Sea urchins

Birds

• Boobies - blue-footed, red-footed, nasca
• Waved Albatross - endemic
• Flightless Cormorant - endemic
• Galapagos penguin - endemic
• Gulls, including the rare, endemic lava gull

Species' that are particularly vulnerable

• Sharks
• Sea cucumber
• Lobsters
• Waved albatross
• Penguins
• Cormorants
• Marine Iguanas

There are various funds supporting projects researching and protecting these species and a donation towards the GCT Shark Campaign 2008 will ensure that your money is used for priority projects, identified and agreed by the Charles Darwin Foundation and Galapagos Conservation Trust.

Galapagos Conservation Trust
5 Derby Street, London W1J 7AB, United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0)20 7629 5049 | Fax: +44 (0)20 7629 4149 |

Email: gct@gct.org
Registered Charity Number: 1043470
Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England No. 3004112

WRECKS PROTECTION

Respect Our Wrecks

One of the real treasures of shipwrecks is the opportunity they provide to explore the past. Wrecks can serve as important habitats for fish and other aquatic life because their substrate acts as an artificial reef for entire ecosystems. Invertebrates, such as mussels, sponges, scallops and sea fans, attach themselves to the hard surface of the wreck. Since these organisms often support higher levels of the food web, fish populations often congregate and propagate in the safe haven of the structure. The abundance of life and biodiversity found on wrecks can be similar to that of the world’s most pristine coral reefs.

Divers are privileged to have access to underwater sites that are part of our cultural heritage or maritime history. To preserve the sites for future generations, it is important to be informed, dive responsibly and treat shipwrecks with honor and respect. Divers must be responsible when exploring these submerged sites, looking after themselves, the environment and the cultural heritage.

Project AWARE created the Respect our Wrecks campaign to educate divers about preserving our underwater cultural heritage and demonstrate the environmental value of such sites. As a diver, if you find an object or wreck that may be of historical importance, leave it where it lies, mark its position and seek advice from local government authorities.

WHALING WALL

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has been holding its annual meeting in Santiago.
The main issue has been whether pro- and anti-whaling countries can resolve their differences. They agreed to spend a year looking for a compromise deal.
BBC environment correspondent Richard Black has been sampling opinions on the peace initiative.

Jose Truda Palazzo
Alternate (deputy) Whaling Commissioner, Brazil

It could work if there were some commitment from the whaling countries; but what we are seeing is there is absolutely none. They show that they have no interest in diplomatic and civilised dialogue or compromise.
Having come to this meeting for 25 years, the hope I had on Monday is almost gone.

Jeannine Rambally
Whaling Commissioner, St Lucia

There isn't much harmony. People are not bending.

We have to respect different cultures. I shouldn't go to England and say "you shouldn't eat bangers and mash". There are some whales that shouldn't be harvested because they are endangered; but if it can be done sustainably, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Bo Fernholm

Whaling Commissioner, Sweden

Sometimes you feel the more extreme countries are happy with the situation, and that it's us in the middle who should be unhappy.
Marine resources can be used sustainably. The IWC should have a role ensuring there is sustainable use of what can be used sustainably, and that is not many species today.

Mona George-Dill
President, East Caribbean Coalition for Environmental Awareness

If we put our minds together as human beings to make the compromise process work, it can work. But if we're each of us going to stick out for our own positions, then it won't work.
It's my opinion that some of the commissioners have a lot to lose personally (from compromise).

Calestous Juma
Harvard University; IWC special adviser

The whaling convention was created for one purpose - to allocate catches. New issues have come up, to do with conservation and other uses of marine resources, that need different treatment.
What is needed is mutual recognition of divergence of objectives; and that is not happening yet.

Andy Ottaway
Campaigns Director, Campaign Whale

A deal wouldn't address the tens of thousands of dolphins and porpoises that are being slaughtered each year in Japanese waters.
They've slaughtered about 350,000 porpoises since 1986 - that's two every hour for the 22 years of the commercial whaling ban. This extermination must be a priority for the IWC.

Miguel Marenco
Central American Council for Sustainable Fisheries Development

If this negotiation fails I believe pro-use countries will decide a new way. You cannot stop small coastal whaling; it is part of the world's culture.
Australians eat kangaroo, Koreans eat dog, Nicaraguans eat turtle. What we teach our communities is how to do it sustainably.

Paul Spong
Director, OrcaLab, Canada

I think it's basically a fantasy world; I just can't see the sides coming together.
But it's vital that this issue goes away somehow. Huge resources are being devoted to what is, on the bottom line, in a planetary context, a trivial issue. We have to sort out the real problem we face, which is climate change.

IWC - WHALE MEET ENDS WITH PEACE

The annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has ended with member governments agreeing to try and resolve their differences.- The next year will see intensive dialogue between pro- and anti-whaling countries, and could lead to a package deal next year. But there is still significant water between the camps on key issues. The meeting also decided to embark on a research programme into theimpact of climate change on whales. The only vote of the meeting saw Greenland's bid to add humpback whales to the annual hunt by its indigenous Inuit communities defeated. IWC chairman William Hogarth, the US commissioner, was cautiously optimistic that the peace talks might bear fruit.

"I was basically very happy with the meeting, although I don't think it's going to be easy, there are definitely some big issues such as the lethal take of whales and scientific research whaling," he told BBC News.

"The number of whales being killed is increasing; and I think the way we ought to be looking at this, from the point of view of countries that are anti-whaling, is how can we reduce that number?" All members of the commission, ranging from the strongest whaling nations including Japan to the most vociferous opponents such as the UK and Australia, have endorsed the idea of seeking compromise, although some were pessimistic about its prospects when talking on the meeting's fringes. The most fundamental demand of anti-whaling nations would be that Japan halts its scientific whaling programme in the Antarctic, and perhaps agrees to close the provision for scientific hunting completely. "I don't think we can give (it) up, and we have a very basic position that we have to guard," said Japan's alternate (deputy) IWC commissioner Joji Morishita. "But I keep saying that we can still talk to each other; we have differences of opinion, differences of position, but that does not mean we cannot talk to each other." For their part, Japan and the other active hunting nations - Norway and Iceland - would probably have as their most fundamental demand that the global moratorium on commercial whaling is at least partially lifted to allow hunting in coastal waters.



STUCK FAST

Environmental and animal welfare groups are divided on the merits of the peace plan. Some agree with Dr Hogarth's view that it might lead to a fall in the number of whales killed, while others say there should be no compromise, and are angry with anti-whaling governments including the US for pursuing the initiative. "It's not just the interests of the American people that are being abandoned, but also the future of the world's whales," said DJ Schubert of the Animal Welfare Institute. But Wendy Elliott of WWF's global species programme said a dialogue was worthwhile. "We cannot continue in the scenario that we have at the moment; we need to see a resolution to this impasse," she said. Conservation groups were also pleased with the decision to set up an initiative on climate change and cetaceans. Changes to sea ice in the polar regions has the potential to impact some species severely. Several groups also presented studies concluding that the argument that whales need to be hunted in order to increase the availability of fish for human consumption - which circulates among some of the pro-whaling bloc - is simply wrong. "We've shown that even in those areas where whales do eat commercial fish species, the whales are a minor factor in rises and falls of fish stocks, and the dynamics of those systems can be much better explained by looking at interactions between fish species themselves," said Ms Elliott. Officials from IWC member governments will now embark on a series of discussions leading to the next full meeting in Portugal in a year's time.

I´M A DIVER
Source: BBC NEWS

SHARK FINNING IN GALAPAGOS ISLAND, SHAME OR STUPIDITY ???

Either it be incidentally, arbitrarily, legal or illegally, the number continues being the same: one hundred million sharks killed every year in the planet. And it also happens in Galápagos!

I have not read about it, no one told me about it; I saw it with my own eyes, I personally gathered the net to take the photo for this article. It was difficult for me to raise it because on it, in it, and through it, hundreds of inert creatures were hanging, trapped. I was following the instructions of Franklin Guaranda, who was trying to obtain the necessary evidence to report to the Galápagos National Park. “Raise the net more”, “Hold it high and don’t move it”, “Twist it a little towards the light”, “Hurry it seems that the fishermen are coming”.

Disciplined as I am, held my breath and my tears. Never in my life had I seen a shark caught in a fishing net. A small black fin shark, like a little rubber fish, constituted a great part of the weight that I held under my arms.

With the Zodiac we traveled the approximately three hundred meters of net, from one end to the other, both tied to the beach, taking photographs and video. We saw at least three rays caught, agonizing, four inert sharks and, by of course dozens of Mullets also known in Ecuador as Lisas (Mugil sp.) which are the primary target of this type of fishing.

At six thirty in the morning, our passengers were at the top of Bartolomé Island, one of the most visited sites of the islands. From its height of one hundred and fifteen meters, they contemplate the sun illuminating San Salvador to the west, Santa Cruz in the distance, the north beach of Bartolomé with its golden half moon form and to the south… in the south beach… a circle of death, in broad day light.

The guides call to the boat. Giancarlo Toti, Graciela Cevallos, Walter Perez insist on the radio. Even as they are seeing it, they can’t believe it. The captain, Juan Robalino, authorizes a Zodiac, and with camera in hand, our only weapon and instrument of work, we rushed to the reported place. I have lived something similar in two previous occasions. I knew I was at risk of being insulted, as it has happened before, that we would have to be fast in case the fishermen became aggressive, and that we had to protect the camera. But everything came to pass very “civilized”, if the term fits.

Ashamed?

1. When the fishermen saw us arrive, they got into their boat and they went to the beach, to gather the net. They watched us, we watched them, we were very close to them, always with our camera in hand, but neither they nor we said a word. I want to think that with their silence they let us know that yes, they were ashamed, if not by the slaughter, then by their stupidity of having done this at this place.
   
2. it is not allowed to fish in a tourist area, and
   
3. No one is allowed to disembark on the beach, and the net was secured in each one its ends to dunes where marine turtles nest, one of the men ran stepping on who knows how many nests while he untied the net. Within the circle, in the water, there were turtles and at least five sea lions that were trapped and could not go anywhere, in addition to pelicans and frigate birds that were waiting to participate of the easy feast.

From the stern of their boat, of not more than ten meters in length, a full net full of Mullet hung under the water. We did not want to board the empty boat since we were less than them, so we could not see if they had caught more small sharks, which according to the detraction of Decree 2130, if caught “incidentally” are allowed to be sold on the mainland.

We cannot deny that in fact they were using a gill net for fishing Mullet. But there are hundreds of areas opened to legally fish mullet. So:

• Why fish in a tourist area which is known for its abundance of small shark, which in fact is the main attraction for the tourists here?

• Were they just there for the Mullet?

• Or were they hoping to “incidentally” catch some other small thing?

  That is outside our comprehension. We took photos, video and by all means, we called the Galapagos National Park immediately.

In less than two hours, a boat from the Park arrived at Bartolomé. The fishermen had gotten rid of all the evidence. But we counted on photos, video and our report was signed and ready. The fishing boat was taken to port with the personnel of the Marine Reserve Patrol of the Galápagos National Park and a member of Navy. There the legal procedures will be followed to impose the corresponding sanctions.

The South beach, on which our passengers walked to later that morning, was full of dead Mullet, and pelicans and frigate birds that were finally participating in their much awaited feast. One of the sharks “incidentally” killed was also beached. One of the one hundred million sharks that are killed every year in the world.

Either it be incidentally, arbitrarily, legal or illegally, the number continues being the same:
one hundred millions of SHARKS killed every year in the planet.
And it also happens in Galápagos!

Source:
By Paula Tagle
nalutagle@yahoo.com

DIVERS RAISE YOUR VOICES IN EVERY COUNTRY IN THE NAME OF OUR FLAG, TOWARDS SHARKS PRESERVATION.

Here a real cruelty called tournament:

Montauk Shark Tournament

Only days after congress passed the Shark Conservation Act of 2008, the slaughter of sharks is happening right here in our own backyard.
This weekend the Star Island Yacht Club Shark Tournament will take place in Montauk, NY.
The 2008 Annual Shark Tournament is being held June 12–14. This year's website boasts a prize pool of more that $1,000,000 the largest yet, which means that more sharks than ever are going to be killed. The greed and ignorance of the few will affect all of us.
Why must these types of actions always lead to the decimation of species before we stop the madness?

PLEASE HELP US AND HUNDREDS OF OTHERS IN PROTEST OF THE STAR ISLAND YACHT CLUB SHARK TOURNAMENT THIS WEEKEND.

Please bring your cameras and join Wendy Heller from DivePhotoGuide.com this Saturday and help cover this horrible event so that it can be broadcast to the world in efforts to create more awareness and help save our sharks. We will be working with major media to prevent this event from continuing next year.

You can also join the Humane Society rally to show your support Saturday June 14th from 4-5pm pm at the intersection of West Lake Drive and Star Island Drive, Montauk, NY. For more information on the rally, please contact Kathryn at kkullberg@humanesociety.org.
For details on Wendy's coverage location at the Shark Tournament pls. email Wendy or contact us at

718-748-0324.

We look forward to your support - this is more important for the ocean and for our futures than most people will ever know. We are causing irrepairable harm that will be felt for generations to come.

More info:

• Humane Society on Shark Tournaments

• Star Island Yacht Club Shark Tournament - Associated Press

• Declaration, Manifesto for Immediate Worldwide Shark Conservation Actions

Dear members, buddies, don´t turn your back on this, I´m sure all of you know that Sharks are so important in the marine ecosystem, I don´t want to imagine our Oceans without them. Tell the world, friends, Media press, everyone so we can give our support.

LET´S SAY NO, STOP KILLING AND FILING POCKETS WITH SHARK FINNING COVERED LIKE A ROMAN AGE TOURNAMENT.

Lizbeth Maria Aguirre
I´M A DIVER
Creator
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11692617157