poaching

The New Zealand Defence Force early in Janurary surprised a third unlicensed fishing boat, far south-east of Tasmania, illegally poaching toothfish - the ocean's "white gold".   The New Zealand government so far has intercepted three ships with their offshore patrol ship, HMNZS Wellington, in cooperation with the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.  
(image: head of Patagonian Toothfish)
This summer is Sea Shepherd’s 11th Southern Ocean Defence Campaign and the first to target toothfish fishing operators in the waters of Antarctica. Patagonian toothfish, a species of cod icefish, can grow up to 10 kilograms in weight and are a highly prized eating fish.

Three ships using illegal gillnets to catch prized toothfish were operating in a protected fishery research area about 2500 kilometres from Hobart, according to details released by Interpol.

(image: gillnets)

The illegal fishing boats, believed to be carrying a catch worth $8 million on the black market in South-East Asia, are all flying flags of convenience to avoid prosecution. Fishing in the Southern Ocean is regulated by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).

Thanks to the New Zealand Navy operating in waters south of Australia, they were able to disclose the presence of three criminal ships using illegal gillnets to catch prized toothfish, operating in a protected fishery research area about 2500 kilometres from Hobart.   

In contrast,  the ship tasked with Southern Ocean patrols for Australia, Ocean Shield, was at found to be at anchor off Christmas Island.   Our government promised that the vessel would be employed on two 40-day patrols of the Southern Ocean. We have criminals in our marine "backyard", but the Australian ocean patrol vessel, Ocean Shield, is on AWOL!

The duty of patrolling the Southern Ocean has been silently abrogated to our neighbouring New Zealand, and a not-for-profit organisation.

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, said the government remained committed to the protection of Australia's sovereign territories and interests in the Southern Ocean, but their priorities were elsewhere!

This broken promise by an Australian government in neglecting the security of our oceans is alarming, disappointing but not surprising. 

Our Australian government has for years ignored Japan's thinly disguised "research whaling", and by procrastination and hollow protests, have allowed the killing to go on relentlessly, without redress. Similar to years of failure of our Australian governments to monitor and halt illegal whaling, this government is failing to control the illegal poaching of prized toothfish! 

If poacher are fishing from a boat that is not signed up to the CCAMLR agreement then the illegal fishing boat is simply fishing on the high seas and prosecution is almost impossible. The only way to prosecute a boat for illegal fishing is to prove that its owner is from a country signed up to CCAMLR.

Gillnets pose many threats, and they are more effective and deadly than longlines. The level of incidental bycatch is greater, and lost or abandoned gillnets have the potential to continue killing marine life through ‘ghost fishing’.

At least the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society will continue to hunt down the illegal vessels.

(image: Sea Shepherd vessel Sam Simon berthed in Wellington)

Successful poachers are making mockery of Australian law, and our so-called national security.  It appears that Minister for Customs and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, has gone to sleep at the wheel, or has abrogated his duties to a successful, vigilant and a service at no cost to the taxpayers from a not-for-profit organisation?

The 2009 mass slaughter of kangaroos across western New South Wales and Queensland is of a slaughter scale approximating the 1994 genocide of ethnic Tutsis in Rwanda by the dominant Hutus.

The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwanda's Ethnic Tutsis and Hutu political moderates by Hutus under the Hutu Power ideology. Over the course of approximately 100 days, from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana on 6 April through mid-July, at least 500,000 people were killed. Estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the total population of the country.

In Australia, the website of the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia explains how 'The Kangaroo Industry Works':

"Every year the National Parks Authorities in each State conduct surveys of the kangaroo population by flying over large samples of the rangelands at low levels and counting the numbers of kangaroos. After 20 years of such monitoring the techniques have been refined to produce very accurate indicators of total populations and trends in populations numbers.

When they know what effect seasonal conditions are having on the population they set a sustainable quota for the number of kangaroos which can be taken in that year. This is typically "only" 15-20% of the total population.

So 20% of the population is slaughtered...but in Australia - that is every year!

So let’s compare human genocide with the kangaroo speciescide in order to begin to appreciate the scale of what is going on in outback Australia. Let's for instance supplant 'kangaroos' with 'Tutsi' in the following NSW Government official media release:

...a submission by former Hutu Rural Lands Protection Boards and NSW Farmers Association to allow a new commercial Tutsi zone in NSW considered during 2008. Extensive consultation was undertaken with the community via the NSW Tutsi Management Advisory Panel.

There are a substantial number of Tutsi already being culled in this area for crop and pasture damage mitigation, whose carcases must be disposed of locally and can not be sold.

To enable the proposal to be evaluated fully, DECC conducted an aerial survey to estimate Tutsi numbers in the area. The surveys estimated over one million eastern ethnic Tutsis. This large population estimate means that when a commercial harvest is undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the management plan, it will be sustainable for Tutsis in the long term.

In accordance with the provisions of the NSW Commercial Tutsi Harvest Management Plan 2007-11, the new zone will come into effect later this year, giving DECC, Hutu landholders and the industry time to set up necessary support systems.

The new area covers the former Rural Lands Protection Boards of Central Tablelands, Molong, Mudgee/Merriwa, Young, Dubbo, Forbes and Hunter. Approximately 16% of the area comprises reserves where commercial Tutsi shooting will still not be permitted....

We must not forget that the UN and international community stood by while the Rwandan slaughter of Tutsis extended into the millions. Happening right now is Australian governments endorsing the dispicable practice and trade of hundreds of thoursands of wildlife. The slaugher of humans is no different to the slaughter of wildlife.

Canadian sealer about to club a seal pup. © IFAW
harpseals.org

On 5th May 2009, Members of the European Parliament voted in favour of adopting strict conditions for the placing on the market of seal products in the European Union.

The way kangaroo joeys are slaughtered by 'professionals' is comparable to that still inflicted on Canadian fur seal pups. Australian poaching of its wildlife places it culturally backward in the 19th Century, when native animals were vermin and 'the 'bush' regarded as wasteland.

Australian society needs to wake up to what is happening outback and call for immediately bans on wildlife killing including banning the State-sanctioned industrial poaching of kangaroos. The so-called kangaroo 'industry' is no different to the fur seal 'industry' or the whaling 'industry'. They are each shameful practices of immoral brutality. Take a walk through Albany's old Whaling Station (now a musem) in Western Australia to see what we did to whales...not that long ago.

Perhaps this photo should go on all the kangaroo meat export packaging and on The Moscow Times newspaper! Both mother and joey are what the Russians are eating!

Australia's 'National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes' at Section 4. EUTHANASING INJURED KANGAROOS AND WALLABIES permits an injured kangaroo or wallaby...if " shot to either the brain or heart is impractical or unsafe (such as when the animal is moving but not able to stand), [then] a heavy blow to the base of the skull with sufficient force to destroy the brain (see Schedule 2) is permissible."

...and the Code prescribes as follows:
"Small furless pouch young (fits within the palm of the hand):
"Single forceful blow to the base of the skull sufficient to destroy the functional capacity of the brain. OR Stunning, immediately followed by decapitation by rapidly severing the head from the body with a sharp blade."
All furred pouch young: "Single forceful blow to the base of the skull sufficient to destroy the functional capacity of the brain."
Young at foot: "Single shot to the brain or heart where it can be delivered accurately and in safety using the firearms and ammunition."

And this when the Code is actually being followed. But who polices this? Who is turning a blind eye? Queensland Premier Anna Bligh is even promoting it - flying to Russia to boost the meat sales, so that more kangaroos can be slaughtered!

The above practice is comparable to clubbing fur seal pups by Canadian sealers! Australia should immediately ban poaching of kangaroos and Australian wildlife in national legislation and should apply similar conditions on the kangaroo meat export and hide export markets, starting with Russia!

European Parliament decision to restrict seal fur trade

The following is the excerpt from the European Parliament decision to restrict seal fur trade:

"The placing on the market of seal products should not be allowed say MEPs. It is permitted only where the seal products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities. Otherwise the import is permitted where it is of an occasional nature and consists exclusively of goods for the personal use of the travellers. Furthermore it is allowed to place on the market products that result from by-products of hunting [and] conducted for the purpose of sustainable management of marine resources on a non-profit basis.

Conditions for placing on the market

The placing on the market of seal products shall be allowed only where the seal products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities and which contribute to their subsistence. These conditions shall apply at the time or point of import for imported products.

The legislative report which has been agreed with the Council in first-reading has been drawn up by Diana WALLIS (ALDE, UK). The legislative resolution was adopted with 550 votes in favour, 49 against and 41 abstentions.

The Regulation establishes harmonised rules concerning the placing on the market of seal products. It is therefore without prejudice to other Community or national rules regulating the hunting of seals.

By way of derogation from the above:

(a) the import of seal products shall also be allowed where it is of an occasional nature and consists exclusively of goods for the personal use of the travellers or their families. The nature and quantity of such goods may not be such as to indicate that they are being imported for commercial reasons;

(b) the placing on the market shall also be allowed for seal products that result from by-products of hunting that is regulated under national law and conducted for the sole purpose of sustainable management of marine resources. Such placing on the market shall only be allowed on a non-profit basis. The nature and quantity of such products shall not be such as to indicate that they are being placed on the market for commercial reasons.

Definition of (indigenous) Inuit

"Inuit" means indigenous members of the Inuit homeland – i.e. those arctic and subarctic areas where, presently or traditionally, Inuit have Aboriginal rights and interests – recognized by Inuit as being members of their people and includes Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit, Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik (Russia)

Penalties

Member States will lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

Omega-3

MEPs point out that the existence of those diverse legal requirements may further discourage consumers from buying products not made from seals, but which may not be easily distinguishable from similar goods made from seals, or products which may include elements or ingredients obtained from seals without this being clearly recognisable, such as furs, Omega-3 capsules and oils and leather goods.

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The article on conditions for placing on the market enters into force nine months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

Debate on subject held 4 May 2009

Diana Wallis (ALDE, UK) rapporteur said: "Seals are very beautiful marine animals – in fact, I have realised during this process that they have great PR – but to some they are the rats of the sea. That is how they are perceived by many fishermen: an adult seal gets through an enormous amount of fish on a daily basis. Therefore, there will remain the need for seals to be hunted to ensure the sustainability of fisheries in some area."

But what we have not done here is to regulate hunting. If people in any of our Member States wish to hunt, they can still continue to hunt. What they cannot do is take commercial gain from the results of that hunt. But it should be the case that the results of the hunt can be used, and I hope particularly that those parts of seals that can be used by the medical community will be able to be used."

Malcolm Harbour (EPP-ED, UK) said: "I think this is a call for action. What people have indicated so far is that this is the beginning of a process and not an end. The issue is the inhumane way in which seals are being killed and the inability of the professional hunters to deal with it. I think the Canadian Government has to reflect on that as well. There are plenty of review clauses built in here to ensure this works. I think the exemptions are well balanced because firstly they reflect the importance of supporting traditional hunting in communities."

Arlene McCarthy (PES, UK) said: "The USA has had a ban for many years, Mexico has banned the trade; in Europe we already have national bans in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy; Germany and the UK are considering ways to ban the trade; bans are now in place in Russia; Hong Kong is planning a ban. This is a political issue that now has it time. After a 40 year campaign against the trade, Europe has the chance to introduce a ban in all 27 states. This year 50 000 seals have been slaughtered that Canadians hunt compared to 220 000 last year. That means that we as citizens have now the opportunity to ban this cruel trade. I know that this will be applauded by the citizens of Europe."

Caroline Lucas (Greens/EFA, UK) said: "Today, nearly one million seals are slaughtered annually in commercial seal kills around the world, and when we vote on this package tomorrow, we will be helping to end one of the most vile examples of animal cruelty."

Avril Doyle (EPP-ED, IE) said: "This has been a difficult debate, often emotional, with the heart ruling the head on many occasions. Great progress has been made in the survival and quality of life of cardiac patients by using the aortic, pulmonary and pericardial tissue of harp seals, the assumption being that they are sustainably hunted or killed and not in a cruel way. I would like assurances on ongoing medical research and bioprosthetic use of products from seals in the context of the compromise".

Background

According to EC proposal, Denmark and Italy are by far the two largest importers of raw fur skin from seal for further processing/sales on the Community market, and will thus also be affected by such regulation. Denmark imports the raw fur skins directly coming from Canada and Greenland (that are not categorised as goods in transit), while Italy imports the raw fur skins from Russia, Finland and the UK (Scotland). Greece also has a noticeable trade in raw skins originating in the two latter range states."

The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) tries to justify the industrial scale slaughter of kangaroos and their young by claiming it's hygienic standards are monitored. Its wesbite boasts 1,076 inspections of 'kangaroo harvesting vehicles' and 621 inspections of 'kangaroo carcass holding chillers' by the NSW meat hygiene authority, Safe Food NSW. Of course if the meat was received contaminated by the abattoirs, then sales and a shooter's reputation would drop off fast.

What is not monitored is the field shooting. Somehow the KIAA believes shooting a kangaroo in the neck is close enough to shooting it in the head. "The vast majority of non-head shots (reported by RSPCA as body shots) were high in the neck at the base of the skull and it appears the result of harvesters deliberately targeting this site." Of course the so-called 'industry' will claim "99.8% of kangaroos are shot in the head". But where are the independent DECC zoological reports verifying the poaching practice including treatment of young is humane as is claimed?

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh should refund the Queensland taxpayer the cost of her junket to Russia last month flogging Kangaroo meat exports.

Now extinct on mainland Australia, the Tasmanian Pademelon remains a target of legalised poaching on the island.

Australia's Federal Minister for the Environment (etc), Peter Garett MP, controls and administers a legal code permitting various species of kangaroos to be killed for commercial gain and export of meat and hides. Nationally this permission is prescribed under the National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes' [The Code]

Under Section 3 of the Code, SHOOTING FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES', the following six species of macropods (marsupials belonging to the botanical family Macropodidae including kangaroos, wallabies, tree-kangaroos, pademelons):

1. Red kangaroo (Macropus rufus), in NSW, Qld, SA, WA
2. Eastern grey kangaroo (M. giganteus), in NSW, Qld
3. Western grey kangaroo (M. fuliginosus), in NSW, SA, WA
4. Wallaroo (Euro) (M. robustus), in NSW, Qld, SA, WA
5. Bennett’s wallaby (M. rufogriseus rufogriseus), in Tas.
6. Tasmanian pademelon (Thylogale billardierii), in Tas.

The Code provides that where a kangaroo is wounded, no other animals are to be shot until all reasonable efforts have been made to dispatch the wounded animal. Shot females must be examined for pouch young as soon as the shooter reaches the carcass, and any pouch young must then be killed immediately. Methods which are acceptable as causing sudden and painless death include decapitation with a sharp instrument for smaller hairless pouch young and a heavy blow to the head for larger pouch young.

And this is Australia's federal envrionmental code for its national iconic kangaroos.
Why don't American's shoot their bald eagles - the national bird and symbol of the United States? They have immense pride in their national iconic bird, that's why!
The Amercian Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus_leucocephalus).

Australians could learn from this association. Besides the immorality of slaughtering native wildlife, in Australia there is grossly inadequate monitoring of the poaching practice to ensure maintenance of species numbers and humane treatment. Poachers can't distinguish between kangaroo species, let alone distinguish threatened from non-threatened, let alone male from female. And do they care anyway? To a poacher, prey is money. It's as if Australian society is stuck in a colonial exploitative mindset. In 2009 we continue exploit our natural resources in the same way as we did in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Gilbert's Potoroo (Potorous gilbertii) is listed as Critically Endangered under the [EBPC Act 1999]

The following macropods are listed as Endangered under the EBPC Act:
* Rufous Hare-Wallaby (Lagorchestes hirsutus unnamed subsp.)
* Bridled Nail-tail Wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata)
* Proserpine Rock-wallaby (Petrogale persephone)
* Long-footed Potoroo (Potorous longipes)

The following macropods on mainland Australia are listed as Vulnerable under the EBPC Act:

* Black-footed Rock-wallaby (Petrogale lateralis) in the MacDonnell Ranges region and also in the West Kimberley region
* Recherche Rock-wallaby (Petrogale lateralis hacketti)
* Black-flanked Rock-wallaby (Petrogale lateralis lateralis)
* Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby (Petrogale penicillata)
* Yellow-footed Rock-wallaby (SA and NSW) (Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus)
* Long-nosed Potoroo (SE mainland) (Potorous tridactylus tridactylus)

Each State in Australia legalises killing of kangaroos legal under licensing conditions that requires the Code to be complied with. But where is the monitoring? Kangaroos poachers do not have to pass a test of species identification, so probably are killing these threatened species. Monitoring of the Code is inadequate to ensure compliance in respect of the humane treatment of joeys, the licensing of kangaroo poachers and of ammunition specifications.

Where is the list of annual prosecutions under the Code on Environment Australia's website? Doesn't exist!

In 2004, Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc (WPA) took the previous Minister for Environment and Heritage and Ors to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (in Sydney) challenging the ferderal government's decision to approve Wildlife Trade Management Plans in South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia. [Case Ref: Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc and Minister for Environment and Heritage and Ors [2004] AATA 1383 (14 October 2004)]

WPA argued that the Management Programmes should not be approved because they are inadequate with respect to the killing and locating of young kangaroos and of inaedquate monitoring of kangaroo shooting, amongst other justfications. But R Purvis Q.C. on 14 Oct 2004 rejected the challenge.

At the tribunal, "Mr Pat O’Brien maintained that in his observation shooters will kill a wounded kangaroo if possible, but if it bounds off then it will not be pursued. He also gave evidence about the practice of using "squeakers" – a large joey squeezed until it squeals as a means of attracting other kangaroos answering the distress call. The squeaker, once exhausted, is discarded."

"Ms Egan gave evidence that, according to her records, in 2003, this resulted in 39 per cent of red kangaroos taken being female. For other species the female take rate was lower. In South Australia 51.4 per cent of red kangaroos taken under the Plan are female."

"It was submitted on behalf of the Applicants that the Code clearly contemplates that "larger young" will be ex-pouch. Culling by a shot to the brain is the same method as that specified for the killing of adult kangaroos. Ex-pouch young are treated as adults in being subject to direct culling rather than being left to starve as a result of a mother being killed. However there was criticism of the suffering that resulted from adoption of this procedure in that there is no obligation on a hunter to pursue young-at-foot in order to kill them following the shooting of the mother."

The magnificent red kangaroo is the world's largest marsupial - the adult male stands up to 2 metres tall, weights up to 90kg and can leap 8 metres and travel at 65kph across rugged scrub terrain - yet it remains the target of legalised poaching in Australia's Red Centre.

The magnificent African Bush Elephant bull (male) walking tall in its native savannah homeland

Out of Victorian colonial exploits of the 19th Century, elephant tusks could be found butchered and refined into expensive goods, notably billiard balls, piano keys, Scottish bagpipes, garment buttons, letter openers and for many ornamental items otherwise considered mere 'trinkets'.

After the elephant tusk ('ivory') trade had decimated the African Elephant population from 1.3 million to 625,000, finally in 1989 the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) imposed a ban on this international elephant tusk (ivory) trade.

Ten years on, Zimbabwean dictator, Robert Mugabe, lifted the ban along with Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa and legalised the sale of elephant tusks from elephants they claimed (a) had died naturally or (b) been shot because they were violently aggressive or for 'problem-animal' control. In 1999, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) authorized an auction of 50 tons of elephant tusks (ivory) from these four countries to the value of USD$5 million. Notably, the demand for elephant has been driven outside the African continent, in this episode mainly by Japan. [I could find a comparable solution for problem Mugabe control]

In 2008, China was also given permission to become a licensed buyer of elephant tusks (ivory) and this followed 108 tons of elephant tusks (ivory) being auctioned from these same four African countries, representing the death of over 10,000 African elephants.

"The growing demand for elephant tusks (ivory) has increased black market prices from $200 per kilo to $850 per kilo in the past four years thus creating a big financial incentive for poachers. Michael Wamithi, program director for International Fund for Animal Welfare’s global elephants program, and former director of the Kenya Wildlife Service, declared: "An estimated 20,000 elephants are slaughtered annually for the trade in their tusks. Many African elephant range states clearly do not have the capacity or resources to combat these massive attacks on their countries' wildlife heritage and the burgeoning markets in China are only fuelling these attacks."

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), which exposes environmental crimes, said CITES had ignored appeals from other African nations not to increase pressures on their elephant populations which were already struggling with wars, instability, droughts and poverty. EIA chairman Allan Thornton said: "Responsibility for the poaching of 20,000 elephants in Africa each year will now lie with those who supported China obtaining legal ivory trade even though they continue to be the world's biggest destination for poached ivory."SOURCE

This elephant tusk (ivory) carving (photo) is a gift from China presented to the United Nations in 1974. It depicts the Chengtu-Kunming railway, which was opened to traffic in 1970. The sculpture was carved from eight elephant tusks. In elephant terms, four mature bull elephants were killed for this elaborate trinket.

One wonders whether the United Nations is still pleased with its eight bull elephant tusk trophy (shot and hacked off from a bull elephant like that above)?