Something everyone can do is become aware of the threats to sea life and tell others what they learn. Don't buy products from the countries that continue to slaughter whales and certainly don't visit there.

12/4/04: The Bush Administration is systematically gutting conservation laws throughout our country. Here is a perfect example of how far backward we've gone with the November election: The article is from the Los Angeles Times. It's by Ken Weiss, who did a story on us a few years ago. He is thoughtful and objective.

Bush Administration Proposes Slashing Protections for Salmon
By Kenneth R. Weiss

November 30, 2004

The Bush administration on Tuesday proposed dramatically scaling back protections for salmon and steelhead trout streams from southern California to the Canadian border, saying the rare and endangered fish are sufficiently protected in other ways.

The revised plan, which was prompted by a lawsuit from the National Association of Homebuilders, could exclude about 80 percent to 90 percent of the "critical habitat" that the agency designated four years ago as necessary to keep salmon and steelhead populations from going extinct and to allow depleted populations to recover.

Previously protected streams and rivers on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County and on Camp Pendleton in San Diego County would be excluded after the military argued the protections would delay training exercises, space launches and diminish military readiness.

In addition, streams that run through millions of acres of coastal forests stretching from northwest California through western Oregon and Washington would be excluded. Federal officials said they didn't want to impose another layer of restrictions on areas already subject to protections for the northern spotted owl.

The new plan also excludes private land where developers have struck conservation deals with government officials

By removing all of these areas, "we would get down to excluding around 90 percent of the critical habitat that had been (previously) identified," said Jim Lecky, an assistant regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The new plan, released late Tuesday, was immediately applauded as "a very large improvement" by Christopher Galik, an environmental policy analyst for the National Association of Homebuilders.

But environmentalists and fishermen said it failed to meet the agency's own scientific criteria for what is needed for the once abundant fish to return to healthy population levels. The salmon spend most of their adult lives in the ocean and then swim up rivers and streams to spawn.

"None of this defensible," said Chris Frissell, a fisheries biologist with the Pacific Rivers Council. "There is no way it would come anywhere close to help these fish recover."

All sides of this battle are predicting more lawsuits over designating "critical habitat," arguably the most powerful tool under the federal Endangered Species Act to control development, timber harvesting and farming practices that can degrade healthy streams and rivers.

"That the one certainty," Lecky said. "More litigation."

The legal battle began in the 1990s, after the federal government began its 15-year effort to bring back salmon, as well as steelhead, which are prized by fishermen and seafood lovers.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, in 2000, designated large areas of the Pacific Coast from Malibu Creek in Los Angeles County to the northwestern tip of Washington state as critical habitat for the ever-declining salmon and steelhead. It extended into the northern reaches of California's Central Valley and included vast areas of the Columbia and Snake River valleys that stretch into Idaho.

Homebuilders feared habitat restrictions would stall, change or cancel streamside projects. Timber companies worried habitat restrictions would curb plans for logging roads and harvesting practices which can muddy clear streams. Farmers were concerned that they would be prohibited from siphoning water from rivers and streams used by fish.

The National Association of Homebuilders led a list of groups that sued, arguing the designations were excessive, unduly vague and lacked a required analysis of economic impact.

The federal government withdrew the critical habitat designation for 19 types of salmon and steelhead.

On Tuesday, it reissued substantially modified designations after taking into account the economic costs of its first plan, which federal officials said could run about $230 million a year in the Pacific Northwest and $100 million to $200 million a year in California.

"Clearly, there were some areas were the economic costs of the critical habitat clearly outweighed the biological benefit," Lecky said. Other areas were eliminated, he said, because better mapping and more accurate data allow federal officials to more precisely pinpoint which streams are used by salmon and trout.

Nicole Cordan, policy and legal director of Save Our Wild Salmon, called the plan "ridiculous" on its face, predicting that eliminating 90 percent of protected habitat will fail to meet the biological needs of salmon or the legal tests of the Endangered Species Act.

The proposal, she said, falls in line with other administration positions, including one announced Tuesday that federal dams do not jeopardize salmon by blocking their migration upstream. Earlier this year, the administration proposed counting millions of hatchery-raised fish that are released into the wild, undercutting the need to keep the wild fish on the list of endangered species. This is, Cordan said, "typical of this administration -- ignore science, ignore sound economics and ignore the law."

Glen H. Spain, northwest regional director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said the administration is making a critical error in failing to consider the economic benefits of restored salmon -- such as struggling salmon fishing industry -- in its economic analysis.

"Conservation makes good economic sense and we are a perfectly good example of this," Spain said. "Our livelihood is on the line."

<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-salmon1dec01,0,860036.story?coll=la-home-headlines>

10/1/2004: Here is a GREAT way to help right whales!
Dear Friend:
I want to offer you a unique opportunity to help save the world's most endangered large whale from the brink of extinction. Thanks to an exciting new IFAW pilot program, you can have a direct impact on the survival of one of the ocean's oldest and most magnificent creatures: the Northern Atlantic Right Whale.
Right Whales, found off the U.S. and Canadian eastern coasts, can grow up to 60 feet and 80 tons. One of the most heavily hunted species for more than eight centuries, only about 300 right whales sadly remain today.
And although Right Whales have been protected as an Endangered Species since 1949, the National Academy of Science has stated that under current conditions the right whale is "doomed to extinction."
Together, we are their last hope. The reasons for this frightening prediction include risks posed by entanglement in fishing gear. Seventy percent of right whales have been injured or scarred by fishing gear.
Floating lobster lines can snag whales and impede their ability to breathe, eat, swim and mate. Right whales are particularly vulnerable because they are slow swimmers that feed with their mouths open for up to 20 minutes at a time.
Entanglement can drown right whales and even whales that are disentangled may suffer life-threatening infection from deep cuts. Even the slightest chance of capture or injury to a single right whale is too much to risk if this species is to survive.
A win-win for lobstermen and right whales:
The good news is that entanglement is highly preventable with the right equipment. That's why IFAW has launched a pilot program to help lobstermen replace dangerous floating rope with state-of-the-art, whale-friendly sinking rope. We've made substantial progress in raising the funds needed to purchase this lifesaving equipment, but these ropes are expensive and we need your help. IFAW still needs to raise $150,000 to match a challenge grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Service to replace 3,250 miles of dangerous fishing gear.
There are many heroes in the effort to save the right whale. Men and women who travel thousands of ocean miles risking their lives to disentangle suffering right whales. Lobstermen who have stepped up at their own expense to replace harmful gear. But more heroes are needed if we are to prove the extinction predictions wrong.
Your dollars will go directly to buying the safe ropes along the migratory path of the right whale. Not only will you be helping to save one of the most ancient, mysterious creatures on earth, you'll be helping to protect the livelihood of caring lobstermen.
So please, give what you can to keep the right whale alive before they disappear forever. To donate, go to: www.ifaw.org.
Thanks for All You Do,
Fred O'Regan -- President and CEO
P.S. Once this pilot program has succeeded, it can be replicated in other fishing areas in New England and around the world to help save other whales from extinction. That's why it is so critical we raise the money needed to purchase these whale-friendly ropes. Please give what you can and then forward this message on to friends and family.

June 16, 2004: IFAW Says Whaling Hits 15-year High

The world's whaling nations -- Japan, Norway and Iceland -- all have their fleets at sea at the same time, with their harpoons trained on the world's largest marine mammals, for the first time in 15 years.

The International Fund For Animal Welfare (IFAW - http://www.ifaw.org ) campaigns around the world to end commercial whaling and promote responsible whale watching as a humane and sustainable alternative.

IFAW's unique research and education vessel, Song of the Whale, is traveling to Iceland on its maiden voyage. Japan's whaling fleet left the harbor to hunt 150 minkes, 50 Bryde's, 50 sei, and 10 sperm whales in the North Pacific. In Norway, 340 minkes, from a quota of 670, have been killed so far in the North Atlantic and the first whale meat from the hunt is now on sale.

Meanwhile Iceland, which resumed whaling last year, has taken five minkes and plans to kill another 20 around its shores before the end of June.

IFAW's Vassili Papastavrou said, "Most people think we saved the whale in 1986 when a worldwide moratorium (temporary ban) on whaling came into force. Tragically, three countries have found ways around the ban and are killing around 1,400 whales a year between them."

"Far from improving, things are getting worse for the whales. Iceland rejoined the whaling community in 2003, after mothballing its whaling fleet for 15 years; and Japan is targeting endangered species including Bryde's, sei and sperm whales, as well as hunting in an internationally recognized sanctuary in the Southern Ocean."

Japan and Iceland exploit a provision in the International Whaling Convention, which allows whales to be killed for scientific purposes. The Japanese and Icelandic governments fund their "scientific" whaling programs and the meat is sold in supermarkets and restaurants in both countries.

In Japan, the Fisheries Agency conducts a bullish marketing campaign to encourage more people to try whale meat, promoting products such as whale burgers and whale blubber ice cream, and encouraging schools to serve whale dishes to children.

Norway raised an objection to the international moratorium on whaling in 1982 and has continued to hunt minke whales commercially in the North Atlantic. Like Japan and Iceland, Norway has a growing whale watching industry.

Iceland announced plans to kill 500 whales (minke, fin and sei) in 2004/2005 as part of a scientific program [the science appears to be based on "How good does whale meat taste?"]. So far, it has restricted its whaling activities to the more numerous minke, killing 36 last year.

Whale watch and tourist operators in Iceland have condemned the return to whaling, and together with international critics, have provoked increasing debate on the issue among the Icelandic public.

Activists Tell Public Banks Not to Buy Shell’s Snake Oil (YOU can, too!)
MARCH 23, 2004
CONTACT: Pacific Environment
David Gordon, 510/541-5334
Doug Norlen, 202/785-8700 x31
Rory Cox, 415/399-8850 x302
SAN FRANCISCO - Citing allegations of Shell’s untrustworthy communications to shareholders, environmentalists are calling on public finance institutions to question the veracity of information Shell provided to them on its Sakhalin II project in Russia. Controversy continues to swirl around Shell’s communications with shareholders regarding its oil and gas reserves. According to the New York Times, company documents suggest an “external storyline” and “investor relations script” that were designed to misinform shareholders about Shell’s dwindling oil and gas reserves. Last week, Shell reduced its oil and gas reserves for the second time this year as U.S. regulators stepped up their investigations into Shell’s misstatements of reserves.
Similarly, environmentalists seeking to protect the unique environment of Sakhalin Island are questioning Shell’s assurances and documents that suggest that the Sakhalin II project is environmentally benign. They argue that on numerous occasions, Shell has failed to provide complete and accurate information about the potential environmental impacts of the project to public finance institutions such as the U.S. Export Import Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Both banks are considering financing the further development of the Sakhalin project.
>“Given the allegations of inaccurate information provided to their own internal investors, one can only wonder what snake oil they’re trying to sell to these external public banks,” said David Gordon, Acting Executive Director of Pacific Environment. The San Francisco-based organization supports grassroots efforts on Sakhalin Island with the goal of ensuring that Shell and ExxonMobil use the best available practices in their offshore oil and gas projects.
Pacific Environment is one of 50 organizations from the U.S. and Russia that have called on Shell to improve their oil and gas drilling practices on Sakhalin, a Russian island located about 50 miles north of Japan. Environmental concerns include:
· Shell’s offshore drilling and undersea pipelines will threaten the habitat of the critically endangered Western Pacific Gray Whale, of which only 100 remain. The habitat also supports a variety of other marine biodiversity and fisheries, which are vital to the local economy and subsistence for native peoples. Shell refuses to acknowledge its impacts to recovery of the gray whale population even though scientists have called on disturbances to the whale population to be reduced to a minimum.
· Shell misrepresents the adequacy of its oil spill response plan. For instance, in a recent industrial accident associated with Shell’s construction of a Liquid Natural Gas terminal, it was discovered that the two tugboats that might be called into service in an oil spill do not work at night.

· Shell plans to lay 800 kilometers of pipelines across over 1,000 streams and rivers on Sakhalin Island, including hundreds that provide spawning grounds for wild salmon. Environmental experts contracted by the Sakhalin II operators recommend 24 aerial crossings of these waterways, yet Shell/SEIC proposes to implement none. Most of Shell’s internal expert recommendations on this issue were lost through translation errors, including through omissions and contradictory translations. Meanwhile, Shell’s Environmental Impact Assessment fails to identify at least 27 salmon spawning waterways among the 183 crossings surveyed.

· The project occurs in one of the most seismically active areas of the world, where earthquakes of 8.0 are not uncommon. An independent report released March 2, 2004, exposes significant faults in Shell’s seismic risk analysis. The report documents that Sakhalin II seismic examinations present incomplete, inaccurate and contradictory information, understate seismic risks, fail to provide documentation of site-specific risks at individual fault crossings, and base their findings on hazards to people, but not to the environment.
In all of these factors, Shell representatives have reassured finance agencies, as well as local and international concerned citizens and environmentalists, that they are using the best environmental practices. While environmentalists have always been skeptical of these claims, the recent allegations of misleading shareholders by overstating oil reserves just cast more doubt on Shell’s forthrightness.
Doug Norlen, Policy Director at Pacific Environment, said “Shell is accused of deceiving shareholders and presenting inaccurate information to the public institutions considering Sakhalin II. We see a trend here. How long will the banks continue buying Shell’s misrepresentations?”
Pacific Environment protects the living environment of the Pacific Rim by strengthening democracy, supporting grassroots activism, empowering communities, and redefining international policies. Pacific Environment provides direct support to activists working on Sakhalin Island.

LFA SONAR: Whales around the world are endangered by Low Frequency Active Sonar. But just south of the border, Americans are conducting geophysical surveys that quite possibly caused the death of two beaked whales in the Sea of Cortez. This work is being conducted by the National Science Foundation and Columbia University. You can send an email to both as well as National Marine Fisheries Service, which is in charge of issuing permits for such work and the resulting deaths of marine mammals if it feels its worth their sacrifice. NMFS hasn't issued a permit for this work. Go to this link for the Center for Biological Diversity to send your message: http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/whales

If you thought the whales were saved, think again. Commercial whaling continues despite an international ban. Discarded nets, cables and other fishing gear fouls whales and other animals and condemns them to a long, painful death. Pollution gnaws away at their world and vessel traffic takes its toll. But one of the worst threats to the denizens of the deep is LFA, Low Frequency Active Sonar. This sonar is so powerful, it can travel vast distances underwater. It will be deployed world-wide by the U.S. Navy. It is known to cause disruptions in migratory habits of marine mammals and it can kill them. NMFS had to issue a marine mammal harassment permit to the Navy so LFA could be used to detect... what? Well, submarines. Why bother quibbling over methods of approaching whales when they are okay with shattering eardrums and wiping out all sense of reality for sonar-dependent species such as orcas and sperm whales?

A compelling question was recently raised asking how the United Satets government can be so presumptuous as to decide it has the right to deploy LFA. Don't other countries have a say in this? Apparently not. But you do. Write your representatives in congress and weigh in on LFA. And tell President Bush how you feel! Write a real letter for the full effect, or send him an email.