The Scottish Government has just licensed the shooting of pregnant seals during the breeding season – an action which will also see orphaned seals left to starve.
Everything about this is medievally cruel.
In total, the government has licensed the unnecessary killing of 1,300 seals – mainly by salmon farmers. The irony is that this cull is the result of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, an act supposed to protect our wildlife and whose guidelines declare that seal shooting should be ‘a last resort’.
There is something horribly reminiscent in this – and in its lack of efficacy – of the ‘presumption against closure’ laid down in the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act of 2010.
For the Scottish Government to subvert its own legislation, however, has to be a tricky one to defend.
But why are salmon farmers shooting seals? Seals are intelligent animals and if they get the opportunity and there is only one net between them and the salmon they will, as David Ainsley of Sealife Adventures says: ‘ push against that net and take lumps out of the salmon’.
So why can it be said that is it unnecessary to shoot seals? Because properly designed, installed and maintained double netted cages keep seals and salmon separated. To avoid drowning seals, otters, porpoise and birds, the outer nets must be of the same material and mesh size as the inner nets.
And why does the industry not use double nets? Cost, of course. It is obviously cheaper to use single nets and bullets. But the industry is expanding, profitable and can afford to install these double nets.
Why, in an Act whose own guidance declaims that shooting seals should be a last resort, is their no obligation to use double nets and no penalty for failing to do so?
Shooting seals as a last resort means that the farms must have tried the most effective non-lethal method (i.e. double nets) before they are granted a licence to shoot seals.
But 80% of the salmon farms now granted licenses do not have double nets.
We do not know why the government has failed to follow its own guidelines but we must act to try to get these licenses rescinded and the cull stopped.
What can we do?
If you live in Scotland, email your MSPs – you can find them here. Ask them to bring pressure on the government to rescind these licenses.
Also please ask them to support the Early Day Motion put forward by MSP Robin Harper.
David Ainslie has (below) suggested a text for such an email – so that anyone who wants to support the pleas for these licences to be revoked but is short of time to write their own, can copy this one.
We can refuse to buy farmed salmon until the industry undertakes to stop killing seals. To make the point, tell the supermarkets why you will not buy farmed salmon.
For Argyll unequivocally supports those campaigning against this government action; and our Marine Environment Editor, Mark Carter of Marine Concern is also appalled at this thoughtless and unnecessary killing.
The solution is simple, straightforward and successful. It will cost the industry a little more – but its profits will absorb that with little real pain.This action will not damage the industry but it will protect our wildlife and will create jobs in eco-tourism.
And double nets also prevent escapes from salmon farms, protecting wild salmon.
Suggested Text for email to MSP
‘I am very concerned about the unnecessary killing of seals mainly by salmon farmers. Licenses have been issued to shoot 1300 seals, in addition to this number, seal pups will also starve to death as shooting is allowed in the breeding season. 80% of the farms which have been licensed to shoot seals do not have double nets and are therefore not following the Marine Act guidelines of only shooting seals as “a last resort”. Please ask the government to rescind licenses to farms which do not have double nets. Double nets would keep seals and salmon separated , stop farmed salmon escaping and save many seals which are an iconic Scottish species and are important to the tourism industry.
‘Please support early day motion *S3M-8027 Robin Harper:Seal Culls.’
The photographs of seal pups dead from starvation after their mother had been shot are by copyright holder, Mark Carter.
A very emotive subject but one worth some discussion.
Double nets only work to a very limited extent and do not deter seals entering the supposed exclusion zone between the predator net and the pen. Fact!
For this reason I think it is unfair to impose such a variation onto any fish farm license, such as a legal obligation to use a double net to operate, to force investment in something that has only very limited success is not a rational never mind an economical arguement, such as stated above just because the fish farm is “profitable”.
It is now time, as was done in the past, to have a yearly Goverment cull to keep the seal population at manageble numbers. The Goverment is playing “pass the parcel” because it is such an emotive subject and putting the onus on the fish farms to keep numbers down.
Why not have a controlled cull by Goverment of 1,300 seals in various areas where there has been an explosion in seal numbers instead of passing the buck.
We think nothing of culling deer for the sake of the herd and forests, we shoot foxes, we poison rabbits, eliminate rodents. What is different about seals?
Does anyone have clue about the total seal population on the West of Scotland?
I think and suggest the numbers to be astronomical.
What effect has the seal population have on wild fisheries?
Iconic Scottish Species, utter tosh!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the existing designs of double net don’t work then the onus should be on the industry to come up with designs that do. Good fences make good neighbours!
If we want to expand fish farming in Scotland the industry needs to clean its act up. John may think that thte ‘iconic’ comment is tosh but the public thik seals are cuddly and shooting them is not going to create the public image the industry wants or needs. Comparing deer culling to sealculling is unrealistic as deer are confined by coasts and fences. If we want to use the sea for industry we have a duty to respect it and its inhabitants.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can we not cull the ConDemAll councillors and elect the seals?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Crazy She-Bat: Crazy – you’ve done it again. Best laugh of the day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The officialy sanctioned shooting of pregnant seals is yet another example of how we “punch above our weight” when it comes to total callousness and disregard for nature. As we speak, all across Argyll, there are people out shooting foxes using the excuse that the lambing season is just around the corner. Well, if the sheep are lambing the foxes are cubbing. So pregnant foxes are being slaughtered and cubs are being left to starve in their earths. What have we come to in our search for profit! Why can’t farmers (fish and sheep) just pay the angels’ share and leave innocent creatures alone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cllr McKay is beginning to worry that Crazy She-Bat may be about to indulge in a little ‘Neil Clubbing’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Webcraft,
The seal over population must be addressed, if you live or work near the coastline it is only too plain to observe the explosion in numbers of seals.
My point is that the Goverment is taking the least controversial option in authorising a de-facto seal cull by allowing a set number of seals to be shot by fish farmers under license.
It should be a Goverment run scheme based on scientific evidence and if the evidence supports a cull it should then be carried out in the most humane way possible.
If the seal population is not managed in a responsible way and allowed to expand further, it will only bring devastation to the existing population through disease and starvation eventualy, nobody wants dead and diseased animals washing up on the shoreline.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John,
Lets’ see the evidence of an imminent seal population crash then. Seals compete with fishermen for various species, particularly cod – which are in decline. However, blaming the seals when our fishing practices have been short-sighted could be seen as a tad unreasonable. Surely it is just an ‘us or them’ mentality rather than any concern for the long-term welfare of the seal population.
This post in any event implies at least that the main pressure for this comes from fish farm operators who believe seals are damaging their (caged) fish and profits. I fence my garden off carefully rather than blasting every rabbit that comes into view – why can’t the fish farm operators do the same?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If only the sea was like a garden, no ebb or flood water, no spring or neap tides.
Webcraft you have the solution, hit the nail on the head, build a fence just like the one in my garden, cracking idea!
Just as an afterthought tell me your solution to installation of such a simplistic idea.
The theory of anti-predator nets is just that, theory, they are of no practical use in deterring seals, slip over them or dive under them, sammi seal is a clever beast.
I agree there is no evidence to support a imminent seal population crash, but if they get to multiply as they have done in the past decade there will be major health problems amongst the seal population.
When I mentioned “wild fisheries” I should have mentioned rod fisheries in rivers.
By the way, best deterrent for rabbits is old slippers placed round plants, not joking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ha ha – I’m sure you realised I was using fence as a generic term or metaphor, but use ‘barrier ‘ if you prefer.
I live by the sea and am a sailor, I’ve spent quite a lot of my life on boats and seen plenty of fish farms. If the companies were prepared to spend the money they could keep the seals out with tougher nets, double nets, tensioning or maybe acoustic devices – but shooting them will always be cheaper.
The Chinese don’t care, but fish farms are beginning to get a very bad press domestically in Scotland for a variety of reasons. Giving the companies carte blanche to shoot seals will not help.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Integrity? Not in the Independents: Whatever Crazy Shep-Bat does or doesn’t do in the matter of ‘Neil Clubbing’ – we promise not to take the bait you’ve trailed and will avoid mentioning ‘performing Neils’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tired old Walt Disney-fuelled arguments rolled out time and time again. If only seals didn’t have big brown eyes and looked so cuddley-wuddley then no-one would bat an eyelid. Come on all you hand-knitted tree-hugging bunny-lovers, tell me you don’t swat flies, vacuum up spiders or trap mice in your house and I’ll support your ‘save Sammy the seal campaigns’.
Grow up everyone, we need food and controlling a few rogue seals without any deleterious impact on the national seal population is hardly worth getting yourselves worked up about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My knowledge of seals and salmon farming is negligible so I can’t comment on the specific dangers, and potential solutions, however in a more general sense ‘School Defender’ does make a valid point. Animal culling goes on all the time, and across many species, and the majority of the don’t ever make their way into the arena of public discussion.
The other day I had to rush my 4 year old to Yorkhill in the middle of the night – the road I wanted to take was closed beause there was a deer cull going on which boiled down to people at night with guns shooting at them. The police managed to get it stopped temporarily so we could use the road (much the quickest way to get to Glasgow).
The next day I mentioned it to people and nobody had a clue it was going on or seemed that bothered.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry meant to add that I firmly believe that measures should be taken to ensure that culling is carried out in such a way that minimises suffering and if that is at additional cost then so be it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have seen no evidence that the seal population is approaching a crisis level or that a cull is required. Although I am prepared to be convinced otherwise this looks like a cheap and lazy way of preventing seal predation on farmed salmon.
Neither am I sure that comparing seal ‘culling’ with deer culling – where the scope of the population to roam in search of new food is limited by physical constraints – is viable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Webcraft: a ‘cull’ is a deliberate policy to reduce numbers. Deer numbers are in pest proportions and therefore the numbers have to be culled to manageable levels. Seals are not being culled, but legislation has been introduced to allow selective control, under licence, where they encroach on legitimate and licenced salmon farms.
There are an estimated 164,000 grey seals (usual cuplrits of salmon farm attacks) in Scottish waters, and over 20,000 common seals (numbers are suffering due to killer whale predation- should we bring back whaling?). The overwhelming majority of seals don’t attack salmon farms and will therefore be unharmed. As for the 0.7% rogue seals, it’s a small price to pay surely?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The headline in the article is very misleading, there will not be 1300 pregnant seals shot during pupping season. This figure is for the year.
I would also say that School Defender’s population figure is very conservative, but take 164,000 as a population, seals consume and destroy on average say 10kg of all fish per day, that gives a figure of 82,280 tonnes per year.
If the seal population keeps rising as it has done in the last decade then the total wild fish taken will rise accordingly. This not sustainable.
I think therefore it is unreasonable, Webcraft, for you to solely blame fishermen for the lack of fish on the West Coast of Scotland.
The seal population must not be allowed expand wily nily, it must be controlled by good managment, cruel as it may seem, a cull is in the seals best interest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SD, how do we recognise a rogue seal? Do they wear black hats, or is a ‘rogue seal’ simply one unfortunate enough to come within gunshot range of a fish farm?
‘A cull is in the seals best interest’ – ROTFL – stop it John, you’re cracking me up! Seals are already being shot anyway – this is just a regulation of the process, but shooting seals during the breeding season is a new development.
Thre is an interesting report here looking into seal-friendly fish farming:
http://www.bdmlr.org.uk/uploads/documents/reports/seal-fish-farming-27oct09.pdf
What I found most telling was the very small number of fish farming enterprises who deigned to respond. Is it not even remotely possible that Scottish fish farming needs to dig into its pockets a little and clean its act up? Campaigns like Hugh’s Fish Fight carry a lot of weight these days, and the industry simply needs to be more responsive to public opinion otherwise the public will vote with their wallets.
Of course, the Chinese would not care if we shot every last seal . . .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
More food for thought . . .
Production of Scottish farmed salmon was 169,736 tonnes in 2003. Each tonne of salmon requires approximately 3 tonnes of wild fish – so if we accept John’s figure of 82,000 tonnes of fish each year consumes by seals then farmed salmon ate six times as many fish as seals in 2003.
Just another perspective . . .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Next you’ll all be lamenting about when they took Dolphins out of Tuna.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is absolutely no requirement for a seal cull. The population is not exploding -other than with bullets. I live by the sea, and have seen whole seal colonies wiped out by salmon farmers – not because the seals were actually eating the salmon, but just because the salmon farmers thought they might.
In two of those cases, the salmon farms are now gone, but the seal colonies, which had existed for ever, haven’t come back. It is barbaric lunacy that salmon farms can site their cages right beside exisiting seal colonies, and then get permission to shoot the seals that are inevitably going to be seen near the cages.
Leave the seal population to take care of itself. Impose an immediate blanket ban on the shooting of any seals – and the multi-million pound salmon industry will come up with predator-proof nets faster than you can say ‘Potential Loss of Profits.’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a Seaman Biologist and business man I can see many sides to this argument we need to find a sensible solution, with due regard to the whole argument.
In ancient times seals were farmed. Every part of the animal was used and it was an offence to kill seals apart from the farm management. We could learn from our ancestors.
Double nets may not be totally effective but they are environmentally sound sense as they reduce damage to Porpoise and Dolphins as well as protecting the farmed fish from seals. Those that get inside the nets could be shot.
The extra cost to Salmon farmers must be offset by the importance of seals and cetaceans to the tourist industry. Legislation needs to support both business areas.
There are valid arguments suggesting that Salmon farming is not in the long run sustainable, or at least not environmentally friendly.
The issues are the contamination of Wild fish by sea lice, effluent from the farms killing life on the surrounding seabed, and the feeding of salmon with sand eels and other smaller fish which in the long run reduces fish stocks.
The argument for a controlled cull is supportable if there is a need for population control, but this should not be by killing pregnant seals. The population needs to be measured, and properly controlled humane culling introduced. The possibility of using meat and skins would in my view be sensible and might reduce the cost of population census and control.
Sentiment would no doubt prejudice against that.
Until some kind of consensus can be reached
I would certainly support the early day motion *S3M-8027 Robin Harper:Seal Culls.’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seilach- you claim you have arguments against salmon farming that are valid, but then perpetuate some of the tired old myths that have long been disproven.
a) ‘Contamination’ of wild fish be sea lice: sea lice have always been around, and for hundreds of years anglers have claimed a spring run fish with sea lice is the holy grail. True, management of sea lice is an ongoing issue, but please don’t wheel out the tired argument that farmed salmon have caused the decline of wild stocks.
b) Effluent killing wildlife- localised pollution isn’t necessarily bad (check out the land under your house, you have screwed that ground up in perpetuity), and the plethora of flora and fauna around salmon farms suggests an overall positive impact
c) Feeding of salmon with other fish species- fishmeal for fish food in the UK is sourced from sustainable fisheries, and simply converts inedible or unpalatable species into a nutritionally beneficial and desirable one.
The effect on the seal population of this licence to shoot will be negligible, and hey, if you can start up a business selling seal burgers and fur hats then great.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
School Defender,
Your comments lead me to assume that you have some sort of personal stake in the fish farming industry. Fish farming is important for Argyll, but it has its (widely documented) problems that need to be addressed. Your glib assertions above that sea lice and salmon excreta are inherently good for the environment are not pretty or clever and will not help the salmon farming industry to gain one iota of popular support. The industry is increasingly suffering from bad PR at home, and until 100% of our farmed salmon is exported and eaten by the Chinese I cannot see that as helpful.
The idea that salmon feed is all sourced from sustainable fisheries is disingenuous in the extreme. Harvesting ‘non-commercial’ species to make salmon food removes the feedstock for ‘commrcial’ species of wild fish. Most farmed salmon on supermarket shelves is reared on wild fish, much of it Peruvian anchovy harvested by factory ships, ground into powder and transported around the world to be used in Scottish cages.
It is time the industry stopped blustering and defending indefensible practices and set about cleaning its act up. Truly sustainable environmentally benign fish farming is a great thing to strive for, but we have a long way to go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There you go again Webcraft, jumping to conclusions and asserting that your view is the correct one. Most of the time, when people claim to be thinking they are simply re-arranging their entrenched prejudices anyway.
For information, my interest in this topic is from a personal angle, where I enjoy cooking and eating salmon and appreciate where it comes from and how it is produced. Also for information, public support of salmon farming is actually increasing, as demonstrated by the ever increasing demand in the supermarkets). I also appreciate the vast economic benefit to Scotland from the salmon industry, and just wish that rather than trying to run it down all the time, the naysayers would recognise that unless we have homegrown income generation such as salmon farming, Argyll will just be a holiday and retirement backwater. All this debate started because of some misguided objections to the removal of a small number of seals that caused economic losses; let’s stick to the topic eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK, back on topic.
I agree that Argyll can benefit from fish farming and I wouldn’t like to see it disappear. That does not mean I have to agree with the methods used to produce its products. We don’t need to shoot ‘rogue seals’, we need to keep seals and salmon separate. The only seals that should be shot are seals that manage to find theirn way into salmon cages – which they should not be able to do. All talk of the ‘necessity of culling’, ‘rogue seals’ etc. is nonsense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fair enough, let’s accept that argument and insist that the farmer put up better fences to keep foxes away from lambs, the smallholder create better barriers for their chickens, all windows are fitted with fine mesh to keep flies out (in fact all houses to be sealed to prevent ingress of mice, spiders and woodlice etc ), gardens must have slug proof perimeter fencing too, and if anyone suffers a midgie bite well it’s just their tough luck and woe betide anyone who might swat it unless they were wearing a full lenght protective suit.
Only when we have put all those measures in place and the critters have still got at us and our livestock will we permit anyone to use lethal deterrents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seilach, I found your post very informative but I’d like to ask – and this is not a double entendre – its a genuine question. What exactly does a Seaman Biologist do? I’ve never heard of this before.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This forum is now descending into smut thanks to Crazy She-Bat falling for that old joke.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello ‘Simon’, back again!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Forgive my innocence and inquisitive mind. I tend not to think in the gutter – unlike some obviously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why, then, mention ‘double entendre’ in your question?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jeez, to explain that I wasn’t interested in such ridiculous schoolboy humour!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Methinks she doth protest too much.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Methinks he doth readeth too mucheth Shakespeare eth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do like your style!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To let the seal population to expand out of control will only displace other species which inhabit the coastline, thats the way nature works. Sacrifice one species to let another survive unmanaged is foolish in the extreme.
What is a managable number Webcraft ? 200,000+, 300,000+ or even a million, hazard a guess.
As for the fish-meal content in the salmon feed, suppose you want us to stop pig farming, boycott bacon, pork chop and gammon steak thing of the past, consigned to the dustbin of history.
Why stop at seals, let foxes breed out of control let the same goes for deer, see where we end up.
Those lovely little lambs I saw in the fields yesterday, let the foxes have them before we humans turn them into chops.
We will struggle to grow our vegtables for our veggie meals, we will have rabbit infestation in the vegtable patch.
Did not think much of the link to seal research, a study and those conducting it, must be unbiased for it to be believable, this one was not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What species – other than farmed salmon – are seals threatening to displace John?
And why the reference to pig rearing? Intensively reared pigs are fed on foods containing meat and bonemeal, but not fishmeal so not sure what point you are trying to make there.
The most interesting thing about the report you ‘didn’t think much of’ was the refusal of the salmon industry to respond in most cases – wonder what they are covering up . . .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Intensive pigs are not fed fishmeal??????? Your comments are what pigs convert their feed into.
As for ‘covering up…’, its the last refuge of the disingenuous, create a conspiracy theory and then you don’t need facts!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
School Defender,
Sorry, you are right and I am wrong – fishmeal is used as a component of intensively reared pig food. Looking at http://www.gafta.com/fin/pdfs/Facts&Figures-5.pdf I see that 15% of the fishmeal consumed in the UK is in fact fed to pigs. 55% is fed to fish, so the pig component is pretty small by comparison.
Now that I have been good enough to apologise for my error perhaps you will be so good as to apologise for your quite unnecessary referral to my comments as pigsh*t. I don’t feel that it added anything to the debate, do you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m sorry but a species is not out of control until you see a dead one at the side of the A82.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, I can’t believed that I missed this story and thread to follow, some great comments here and it’s great that it has attracted so much interest. I say “some great comments” as there are also some very misleading ones; so here are some FACTS on the subject, you can check them out yourselves at the websites of the organisations mentioned.
If fish farms were given planning permission in sensible places away from known seal haul-outs much of this problem would not exist. There is currently another complaint in with the European Commission as a salmon farm is just 20 meters from a so called “protected” Special Area of Conservation for seals!
Tensioned double skinned nets, with the second net the same size as the original nets would prevent, just about any further seal predation, with the added benefit of reducing farmed escapees. Most floating salmon farm structures have a hand rail in place, this only has to be placed above the outer net, with a walkway fence introduced, and few seals would be able to get into the double net system. This may even help the welfare of the farmed salmon, save the salmon industry future fines under the Animal Welfare Act.
John, I feel that we have met? Your facts really do need some work; seal…explosion…astronomical…cull to manageable numbers… Can I suggest going to the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) website, they undertake the counts for the Special Committee on Seals a National Environment Research Council (government) funded body, whose job is to keep an eye on seal populations.
The major increase purported in Grey seals recently was mainly due to a change in modelling technique, we gained around 40,000 Greys overnight, this was not an actual increase. The change in counting method was needed to cater for the “stable” nature of the Grey seal population. Common seals are in a very different situation; in recent years; first PDV, then a second wave of the same, followed by an unknown killer in the North Sea. The west coast seals have now been subjected to something that prevents the pups from growing, and then they die; not mentioning bullets and nets!
The head of SMRU commented to the BBC, “We are worried that over the next ten years, there will be no harbour seals left in their core area in Europe”. The Common seal population crashed by nearly 10,000 seal between 2006 – 2008, that’s one third of the Scottish/UK population, hardly an explosion!
Marine ecosystems are at best poorly understood, you cannot simply equate a land situation into the marine, therefore any reference to foxes, rabbits and alike are simply not relevant in this situation, sorry but is the way the marine systems work.
“Seal populations need to be addressed”…WHY? Seals, salmon, cetaceans have all survived very well for millennia, it has been our industrial scale, habitat damaging, extraction that has caused the problems that we face today; hardly a postage stamp area to be called SAFE! i.e. a NO-TAKE-ZONE.
Seals that actually attack fish farms are very few, river specialists for example are around 1%. Seal diet is manly made up of fish that we as humans are simply not interested in, so unless you want a load of sand eels or similar, they don’t always compete with us. Some seals target fish that live outside fish farms attracted by the protection, food, and other distractions that occur around a farm.
This government likes to place the blame on Killer Whales, or Orca; I don’t know about you but I’ve seen very few Orca in the Inner Hebrides, they also like to blame Greys out predating the Commons, again in the inner isles very few Greys are seen alongside for example the Lismore SAC for Common seals. Hardly a generic excuse!
“Seals displace other species”…YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS! Before we came along ecosystems were in balance. Keystone species change and the new balance is restored, the ecosystem goes on. What nature has struggled to contend with is massive extraction of fish from the oceans, many now fished beyond their ability to recover, most of the rest simply…overfished! So, “displaced”, I think that we have already done that!
Fishermen and alike have long blamed seals for eating ALL of the FISH, nothing to do with our overfishing at all. Porpoise around the UK are estimated at eating more fish than seals, perhaps we should shoot them too? Keeping to the facts…fish eat more fish than anything else, with that mentality…”Let’s catch more fish”! Sorry, we’ve already tried that.
We could co-exist with nature and its marine systems if only we were not so, bloody greedy, ignorant of the facts, and prepared to give new methods a chance…for the sake of our seals, our kids and our future we need to change, or maybe, just maybe, nature will do it for us… at our expense!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can’t comment for the salmon industry, but would suggest by looking at the sponsors of this so called research they knew they would be in for a hiding to nothing.
Why build the gallows when you know they are going to hang you anyway?
Mr Robbins and Co. are pretty well anti everything regarding rearing animals for food production.
I am not 100% sure but fish meal as part of a high protein diet is fed to all pigs/poultry as a supplement, intensively reared or not.
But back to discussion, what are your thoughts on the seal population Webcraft, should they be allowed to procreate unabated or should the population be controlled by culling in a humane manner?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for some sanity at last Mark – an excellent post. If there was more dialogue and less confrontation we could perhaps make fish farming an industry to be proud of. At the moment it suffers from the same short-sighted greed and bad practice that a lot of other intensive farming does.
On another related matter – I e-mailed Jim Mather about this and received a reply within minutes saying the matter had been escalated to the Environment Minister – very impressive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Knew the poor bloody fishermen would get it in the neck again Mark.
Explain to me why the seas west of Fair Isle on the traditional haddock/whiting grounds have so much cod on them this year that fishermen have to avoid fishing there.
Why is the science so out of kilter with what is happening in the North Sea, cod and whiting in so much abundance that the expanded areas of real time closures are at the highest recorded yet.
There are about 100 white fish vessels left in the Scottish Fleet, one locally owned on the West of Scotland, 40 vessels away to be scrapped in the past 3 months, and fishermen still blamed for everything wrong with the eco-system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually John’s right, this is not just down to the “poor fishermen”, having said that there are one or two that I would call far from poor. The current situation is down to ALL OF US; from fishermen, fish merchants, supermarkets, scientists, planners (or lack of it), politicians and last but not least us the consumers. In the past it could be argued that we didn’t know better, but now things have changed, we do know better, our politicians just don’t have enough gumption to stick to their guns, and follow the guidelines laid down by our fisheries scientists, who set sustainable quotas, politicians partially due to pressure from fishing associations double the quota, some fishermen then double the doubled quota with the “black” (illegal) catch. This is compounded by damaging fishing methods which wreak havoc with seabed habitats, some of which will be fish breeding grounds; then we have by-catch, discards, and many other activities that all add up to the current situation with the Global fishery…knackered!
I’ve always supported the local, artisanal, sustainable, fishermen, especially those that fish by environmentally friendly methods. Hugh’s Fish Fight (you can follow this and more at (marineconcern.com) has probably changed the way people think about what we get from the sea, and not before time, we can still make a difference, but we need to act now, or fishing will become an activity we read about in history books. What’s worse, this catastrophe is occurring on our watch, and our politicians are more worried about the next five years, not the next generation; but hey, its election times; who’s supporting sustainable fisheries, marine protected areas, and no-take-zones? I for one really don’t want to open a book, and have to show my grandchildren a picture of fish; saying, “That’s what we use to have in our seas and oceans; so many you could walk to shore on their backs”!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mark, I was always told not to try to convert the converted.
You are so obviously anti-fishing and anti-fish farming by the way you churn out the usual propaganda to make your case, so sustainably right and everyone else so wastefully wrong.
You say you support the local, artisnal, sustainable fisherman whoever and whatever that is, but let me guess, he will not own or operate a vessel with a winch and certainly not trawl.
Entertaining television as it was, Hugh’s Fish Fight, Hugh did not give any answers on how to solve the problem of discards. Hugh advocated to use alternatives to Cod, forgetting to tell the public that 95% of cod consumed in the UK is imported.
As for the statement regarding the seal count, “we changed our modelling technique and gained 40,000 Greys overnight, but this was not an actual increase.”
That is what is so wrong with the Industry, scientists do not go to sea, like you Mark and your seal count they use computor models to assess fish stocks, they certainly do not vacate the office chair and put on oilskins, if perhaps, and it happens, when wrong data is entered into the model they tell us it is of no matter, the results would have been the same anyway. Bit like your seal census.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s easy to ctiticise scientists John but what makes you think that standing on the deck of a trawler or working on a few fish farms allows you to accurately enumerate the West Coast seal population? All you have is an impression, coloured by the perception of seals as the enemy. You may be right, you may be wriong – but you are not actually in a position to make a realistic assessment. Marine biologists and scientist are.
Fishermen are conservatives and traditionalists almost to a man, bitterly opposed to change. They tell us there is no need for quotas, fish stocks are fine,then they tell us we need to shoot seals because they are reducing fish stocks. It would help if the industry was a little less dogmatic and confrontational whenever any change is proposed. Shouting ‘rubbish, you don’t know what you are talking about’ is not constructive dialogue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Webcraft,
Another go, am I being “dogmatic” in asking again? Give me accurate verifiable figures of the seal population on the West Coast of Scotland including the Islands.
To conservationists like yourself and Mark everyone with an opposing viewpoint is wrong, It is you who is dogmatic in refusing to consider that the seal population is ever increasing.
And furthermore I am certainly not conservative nor a traditionilist, how dare you you suggest that I have a closed mind because my opinions are opposed to yours.
You seem to me to be an expert in “rubbishing” the views of any who have contradictionary viewpoints to your own.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can we not just tell the seals off and lock the repeat offenders up in Inverary Jail?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John,
It is you who is demanding a seal cull. Surely it is therefore up to you to produce facts and figures, not me?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting isn’t it how man is great at running rough shod over the environment and wildlife in order to save a few quid.
Disgusting.
For those who think the issue of “over population of seals must be addressed” – how about addressing the fact that humans, the most destructive creature on this earth, are over populating the planet, and those keen to cull everything else that threatens our excessive raping and pillaging of this planet – well, you can volunteer yourselves to be culled – do the planet a favour! You can be culled along with the short term, profiteering crooks this planet would bge better off without.
No more Scottish salmon. Boycott.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rather than continue reading the increasingly inane and puerile drivel being written by the bunnyhuggers on this topic, I am voluntarily culling myself in accordance with Amanda’s little rant.
Goodbye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not getting into a debate about birth control, just going to let Amanda rant on in her own inane or should it be insane way.
Like School Defender, Ive had enough, off to enjoy a lovely salmon steak yummy yum
Bysie bye
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mark,
Why did you paste this discussion on to your own anti fishing/fish farming web-site without letting us know your intentions, very sneaky thing to do.
I for one do not wish to be associated with your site and request removal of my comments.
Newroom,
Is this normal practise or policy, should’nt posters have been made aware of such a policy and does this happen to other discussions taking place
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve just had a “Child-Adult-Parent” discussion, one of those about attitudes, and how we deal with issues/people with one of my kids, please lets keep this thread open but with “Adult” dialogue or it loses all credibility; the bottom line then is that the seals loose out, some may think that is the agenda from a few. I’ve just been asked to write a piece as the Marine Environment Editor and this has given me the subject matter; I’ve sat through so many meetings and conferences were a few of the fishing associations and/or commercial companies appear to want nothing more than to disrupt proceedings in some vague idea, I believe that we will all just roll over and forget about it; that’s not going to happen, we all have rights, fortunately we live in a democracy, let’s use those rights and discuss…article coming soon!
To answer John’s request for accurate verifiable figures: The UK Authorities and that includes Scotland has a duty to keep tally on seals, this is funded through the National Environment Research Council, they in turn use the Sea Mammal Research Unit based in St Andrews to undertake seal counts, that’s both Greys and Commons. The website and full reports from 2002 through to 2009 can be found at: http://www.smru.st-andrews.ac.uk/pageset.aspx?psr=411 . The two species due to their different pupping habits are studied in different ways; greys have a white coat when born and are easily spotted from fixed wing aircraft, especially when in large congregations around the coast. Pictures are taken during the pupping season (Sept. to December) and the white coats are counted. This figure is then fed into a formulae to estimate the numbers overall. The 2008 figures for UK grey pup production is 41,500, and this is considered to be a “levelling off” in numbers not an explosion or anything like. UK Grey’s make up around 40% of the World total.
Common seals are better camouflaged; the pups lose their white coats in the uterus and can be very difficult to see from close-up let alone an aircraft. This is why SMRU use a helicopter fitted with thermal imaging equipment, although a fixed wing aircraft can be used over sandbanks such as in the Wash. A full count of adults and pups alike is undertaken. So the numbers given and supplied for the common seals is a realistic account of the minimum number of common seals seen around our coasts, usually between June and September; is currently around 24,250 for the whole of the UK, using a combination of data between 2006 -2008. This figure is around 40% of the Europe sub-species, so I think that makes them quite special.
Scotland is home to around 82% of the UK total, it is thought that around 60 to 70% of seals may be counted as others may be “out to sea”. This would place the total UK figures at around 40-46,000 seals. It is recognised however that the validity of the multiplier used is under contention; from personal counts within the inner Hebrides I believe the multiplier figure to be much lower, bringing the total figure much closer to the 19,771 as recorded in Scotland in 2006-2008 combined figures. It should be noted that different areas may be subject to different factors.
The latest figures show that the decline in the Orkneys is a massive 67%, while the decline for the Strathclyde region is around 25%, although in earlier counts due to a difference in numbers between the Clyde and Strathclyde’s west coast, the west coast decline figure may be as high as 30%.
Hebridean Partnership/Marine Concern have been conducting boat counts around the Lismore and inner isles and lochs area. We use a range of independent scientists, combined with volunteers; all data is recorded, and photographic records are kept. From my own observations I believe that the counts to be low, as is confirmed by most seal tour boat operators. The counts conducted by Marine Concern are very similar to those recorded by SMRU. If interested you can find out more at http://www.marineconcern.com .
Sorry for another long one, but you did ask!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry John I don’t have an anti fishing/fishfarming website; you must have me confused with someone else. I do have a Facebook iframe one my website that automatically lists the latest news/forums etc. Or would you prefer this to be kept in private?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mark,
Please Mark, no need to imply I am confiused, You are Mark Carter of Marine Concern.
Google Marine Concern, click news on the menu bar and hey presto this discussion is mirrored there,
This discussion is in the public domain Mark and therefore not private, I am quite happy for my views to be posted on For Argyll but do not want them used as propaganda on an anti-fishing/anti-fish farming web site.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Facts please John!
This is the basis of my next article the methods used during past, present and probably future marine debates and meetings; railroading, out timing, pressurising, debating the ludicrous, such as a divers fin is more damaging than the commercial scallop dredge, intimidation, and “setting people up” with false information.
In this case, it appears while the facts are overwhelming, the only way out is to scandalise or discredit; I have not “pasted” any part of this discussion on my website, I have simply posted a link to this discussion and ForArgyll, something that I have done many times before, it adds to the diversity and increases numbers to ForArgyll. If links never existed, U-Tube, Facebook and many other similar sites would not be as highly successful as they are, on the other hand the Middle East would still be run by dictators.
Nothing sneaky about that, you have never been mentioned, not that mentioning a cover name in this situation could be seen as using your name anyway whilst hidden behind a shroud. As I have never mentioned you it would be difficult removing what doesn’t exist; if you don’t want your name to show on the ForArgyll site…what can I say?
I won’t get dragged into a lowering of the seal dilemma or any type of spat situation, but suffice to say some fishermen and some in the fin fish aquaculture industry see the only good seals as a dead seal; to put it another way, every seal is seen as a “rouge” and therefore can be shot…to those people; wake-up times are a changing, both in terms of how the World communicates and how people see our seas, and what’s in them!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for this Mark – now we know exactly how the seal population is counted / estimated and the margins of error. Doesn’t look like we need to rush for a cull.
I am not anti fish farm, although I have lost the taste for Scottish farmed salmon in recent years as I find it has become flaccid and fatty. This may be real or it may be that my tastes have changed. My tastes aside though fish farming obviously has a part to play in the future economy of Argyll, but it would be nice if the industry could sensibly address the obvious problems of visual intrusion and pollution and the questionable economics of feeding 3 tonnes of wild fish to create one tonne of salmon.
(Just to clarify – by ‘visual intrusion’ I don’t mean the actual cages – I mean the horrible piles of rusting scrap moored alongside most Scottish fish farms that the ancilliary equipment and stores are kept in)
John, I am afraid that your over-defensive attitude seems to be typical of the industry. Why not admit that it is not perfect and sit down with people like Mark to find solutions that at least go some way to addressing these concerns while leaving the industry economically viable? Apart from anything else a portrayal of the industry as ‘friends of the seal’ and custodians of the marine environment would sell a lot of fillets!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Child/Adult discussion, says it really goodbye
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John,
That was a rather childish parting shot
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello again Webcraft,
Not me who brought the child/adult thread into the discussion, not guilty my lord.
Not ment at you, I did enjoy debating with you, at least you had the good manners not to resort to ridicule.
I think it would be impossible to sit down with anyone with such entrenched anti fishing / anti fish faming views.
My concern is Argyll has a fragile economy, that I think you will at least agree is factual, to call for boycotts is irresponsible when considering the employment in both the fish farm industry and comercial fishing industry which provides jobs at sea and ashore for a mostly young workforce who reside in rural areas, they are the people whose families also reside here, these are the people who depend on rural schools and who spend an Argyll £ in Argyll.
Without these young families working and in permament residence here, we are on a hiding to nothing, no young families = school closures and forced depopulation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t have entrenched anti-fish-farming views at all John – I thought I had made that quite plain – or were you referring to Mark? I certainly wasn’t calling for a boycott, all I said was that I rarely eat farmed salmon now because it is my perception – rightly or wrongly – that it is not as tasty a product as it once was.
What I did say was that to me – and most of the public – there is no real or obvious evidence that a seal cull is necessary, and that the extra expenditure on double nets and/or accoustic measure might pay for itself in extra sales brought about through good PR. I don’t know if the industry can improve its sustanability by replacing a percentage of the fishmeal in the food with something else or not, but it may be possible to use more vegetable protein and save money as a result. And – here’s a wild idea off the top of my head – why not allow ‘discard’ to be brought ashore for this purpose rather than dumping it back dead into the sea?
Discussion and admission that some criticisms might have some relevance is a better starting point than oversensitivity and antagonism. And – I must apologise if you thought I was calling you a Tory – when I said ‘conservative’ it was with a small ‘c’ meaning resistant to change. It was intended to be descriptive rather than pejorative.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For the record; “Child/Adult/Parent” is a method of highlighting attitude/response levels, it probably has a proper name, but it eludes me, suffice to say that the only way anyone can have a constructive two-way conversation, debate etc. etc. is by staying in the “Adult to Adult” range. In my view some of the above strays a little from that which in my mind belittles the relevance of the thread, and to me and some others it is a worthwhile topic.
I’m glad “good manners” has been raised, because I get a little tired of the constant use of, “Your (i.e. me) own anti-fishing/farming” attitude; I have always been and still am in favour of sustainable, environmentally friendly practices, be them fishing , fish farming whatever, but the key word is sustainable, and that does not mean in the short term…”I’ve been scallop dredging for 30 years, so it must be sustainable”, just doesn’t cut the mustard!
I also fully agree about the fragile status in Argyll, and my family know only too well the problems associated with school closures, we moved off Kerrera when the Council closed the school stating that a 4 and a half year old boy, my son could stay in a hostel when he couldn’t get home due to bad weather…no chance, alone at 4 and a half, some caring Council!
Comments like: implying I’m confused, own anti fishing/fish farming (ideals), web-site without, very sneaky thing to do, everyone with an opposing viewpoint is wrong, “rubbishing” the views of any who have contradictory viewpoints, You are so obviously anti-fishing and anti-fish farming, the list goes on, and on, yet when I call for some “Adult to Adult” discussion, someone spits a dummy out, that’s not a level playing field, and unfortunately reflects the status within most of the important marine debates to date.
It is easy to trash an initiative that highlight’s current problems like Hugh’s Fish Fight over discards, because they don’t offer an alternative but they have highlighted the problem, no longer is out of sight, out of mind going to work anymore. More and more people are becoming aware of past bad practices, and they can’t continue.
Comments like, “they certainly do not vacate the office chair and put on oilskins”, and “try getting your hands dirty” are old hat and untrue, in my case I’m a time served apprenticed farrier (blacksmith), so please don’t tell me anything about hard work and getting my hands dirty. And the figures given re the seal census is from a government funded scheme that in the case of the common seal uses old fashioned counting, if they are not there they can’t be counted… nothing special there.
Once again, it’s easy to trash the science conducted but that’s all we have, and trust me in the marine environment it is not always that easy, nor cheap; comments like, “suggest by looking at the sponsors of this so called research they knew they would be in for a hiding to nothing”, can be used both ways as with the recent Clyde fisheries studies and just how poor they are…let’s just bash the scientists, they must be wrong, might work with a few politicians but then they probably won’t be in power when matter get out of hand!
I would love to get into “real” discussion over any marine related issues, but to date most of what I have found is propaganda, a leading “game” plan, and even intimidation from the industries concerned, in the early days some companies and associations came along just to slow down procedures; hardly open dialogue, or fair play; here’s to that day!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You certainly threw the rattle out of the pram there Mark with that rant, and rant it was.
So blinkered everyone who disagrees is childish, very bullish and intimidating.
I concede you think you are right and think you always will be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Webcraft,
Busy weekend.
The average percentage as of 2009/2010 of fish meal content in food for Alantic Salmon is 36 to 45% with a target 2011 of 12 to 16%.
The figures for Rainbow Trout 2009/2010 are 30 to 34% fish meal content with a target 2011
of 5%.
There is a legal obligation to discard or return to the sea immediately any over quota species. It is illegal to retain onboard over quota species on any EU registry fishing vessel.
The official figures for the grey seal population 2009 was 164,000 with 7% increase expected, 2010 one can assume a figure of around 175,000+. Figures from SG
The common seal population was estimated between 20,000 to 24,500 for 2009.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s fantastic news about the proposed dramatic reduction in the percentage of fishmeal in salmon feed, and the industry should be shouting about it loudly to counter the bad publicity from Hugh’s Fish Fight. It shows that the industry is responsive to public concerns, is environmentally aware and is prepared to change, adapt and modernise.
I think that fish farms could also double-net and put the price of salmon up a wee bit to cover the cost – label the product ‘seal friendly’ or ‘environmentally aware’ and put pics of cuddly seals on the packs.
Once you have done all that then quietly shooting the odd genuine rogue seal on site that is really worrying the fish is fair enough, just don’t let anyone photograph you doing it – and don’t go calling for seal culls and shooting seals away from fish farms. If we really do need a cull thten make sure it is fronted by marine biologists or civil servants.
We live in an age where PR is essential, and you and Mark shouting at each other across thte internet achieves nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s good to finish on an even keel, sorry if you took my last as a rant, to me, and its intention was a list in historic order, it may have been given in “parent” mode, I guess old police habits die hard, sorry if it was taken that way. Being tagged as “anti” does however make future dialogue difficult and when mentioned enough people especially in the relevant associations, their members tend to believe it. I am not and never have been anti fishing or aquaculture, I enjoy my fish and chips, and the fish has to come from somewhere, I also enjoy tuna, but I can’t find any source local to Oban that sells “rod and line” caught, does anyone know where? One thing we have in common is passion for what we do, and that gives us a middle ground, I can see why raising issues might appear as “anti”; but with me it is purely just raising issues and looking for alternatives, some of which I believe I have found, but for the industry, bullets are still cheaper!
Good to the change the subject, and recently the OT remarked on fish food conversion rates, I did a follow up to it, but unfortunately it was never published. It is not so clear cut as suggested, I guess it never is. Scotland is amongst one of the better fin fish farming Countries as far as caught fish going into fish feed is concerned, and recently the figure according to the industry is around 1.7 to 1. Not bad at all when you consider it has been around 10 to 1, and possibly still is extremely high when purchased from some foreign sources. The complications arise in the introduction of fish oils as well as caught fish, and the figures don’t account for that. Furthermore, the industry is in the process/or has changed its “counting” method to that of protein input/output, and this gives a very different figure; skewed in favour of the salmon producing PR machine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What’s the story in Balamory, wouldn’t you like to know?
Unbelievable to think that this magical wonderland so beloved of all our children and grandchildren is at the very centre of the Seal killing zone. We wish we were making that up but your article clearly proves that it is a very real and horrible situation.
Have any of you thought how devastating this is going to be to your tourist industry?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0