The photos are gross, and there are plenty more where they came from
There’s a large photo of Metiria in this morning’s Dom Post holding up this photo in Parliament of a mangled dead albatross killed by a squid boat, obtained from an Official Information Request:
She also displayed this unfortunate dead Hooker Sealion, the rarest sealion in the world:
She was asking Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton whether he was satisfied that enough is being done to reduce non-fish by-catch in New Zealand waters. Earlier this year, Anderton decided to increase the kill limit on New Zealand sealion, against the advice of Conservation Minister Chris Carter. There is no limit on the number of seabirds, including very rare species, that can be killed.
The exchange is below:
METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Fisheries: Is he satisfied that sufficient progress is being made to decrease non-fish by-catch in New Zealand waters?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): Yes. A number of management measures are in place to avoid, remedy, and mitigate the incidental catch of non-fish species by fishers. The ministry and fishers continue to investigate new methods and approaches to improve performance.
Metiria Turei: Why, then, do his own ministry figures show that over the past three seasons non-fish by-catch, such as seabirds, sea lions, and seals-like the one in the photo I am holding here-has not declined in New Zealand’s biggest squid fishery, the Auckland Islands?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: Sometimes, industry initiatives and partnerships with Government make the glass half full rather than half empty. There is always concern about non-fish by-catch. If the member is interested, I can tell her that partnerships between industry and Government are fostering exchanges of crews and technologies between fleets in different countries; hosting national and regional fisher forums to enable fishermen from different fleets to exchange ideas and information; employing advisory officers in a number of countries, including South Africa and countries in South America, to work alongside skippers and crew; and so on. There is always concern about non-fish by-catch, but, in fact, lots of initiatives are being taken, and sometimes industry deserves thanks for, and congratulations on, that, rather than brickbats.
Metiria Turei: Why, then, given the Minister’s concern about non-fish by-catch, and the interest of the industry in preventing non-fish by-catch, has no limit been placed on fishing-related deaths of seabirds, such as has been imposed on sea lions-I have a photo of a sea lion here-even though some seabirds in this country are much more at risk of extinction than the very rare Hooker’s sea lion is?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: There is a national plan of action on seabirds, which was approved by the Government in 2004. Implementation of the plan has resulted in codes of practice in the following fisheries: ling longline, joint venture tuna, and squid. Recently, I have implemented further regulatory mitigation measures for all vessels over 28 metres. As a result of those measures, there have been significant reductions in seabird mortalities.
Metiria Turei: Why has the ministry failed to meet every one of the deadlines in the national plan of action on seabirds that the Minister has just mentioned-seabirds like the albatross in the photo I have here that was mangled in the process of fishing-and why, 1 year on, have industry plans for decreasing seabird deaths still not been implemented?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: I remind the member that no responsible fisher-either company, corporation, or individual-intends catching non-fish by-catch in the fisheries areas. Very significant measures are being taken by all fishers that I am aware of to mitigate these unfortunate events. But, with the best will in the world, nothing is perfect. Goals are there to be achieved, but from time to time targets are missed. I am convinced, and I have plenty of evidence to suggest, that very supportive and significant efforts are being made by the fishing industry to mitigate this non-fish by-catch.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:34 am
ahh..!..selective animal-rights porn..i see..
just for some balance…could we have some photos of the killed/butchered/mutilated little lambies and calvies…that many of those tutt-tutting over this one will then go off and happily chow-down on….?
self-rightousness….thy name is hypocrisy..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 4th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Phil the point being that sheep and cows aren’t endemic to New Zealand. Nor are their population numbers under threat.
I sometimes wonder why you comment, if you don’t read the articles.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:42 am
taranaki..
rather than play “let’s swap ad hominems..”
can i just ask you….
.don’t you see the inherent ironies/contradictions there..?..
in having bacon and eggs just before or after doing ‘crocodile tears’ for the media..over some other species of sentient beings..?
and i gather your moral compass is fixed on..
“if there’s heaps of them..chow-down folks..”..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 4th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
… yeah, so anyway, moving right along.
The trouble with the term ‘by-catch’ is that it makes the stuff that won’t sell in supermarkets sound insignificant, and holding up two photos of single examples - however grotesque - might not necessarily dispell the illusion.
Bottom trawling wipes out unknown worlds. By ‘world’ we mean vast acreages of unexplored, unstudied, unknown life. Bottom trawling has a strong, negative and immediate impact on biodiversity.
There is no such thing as a sustainable fishery. The regulatory controls of the fishing industry required to even get current fish stocks heading in the right direction is almost immeasurable.
But there is one opportunity for progress. Come November, the UN decides whether or not to impose a moritorium on bottom trawling in international waters. Currently, our government is equivocal on whether or not it will support this move.
This is unacceptable, from both an ecological point of view and an economical point of view. Obviously, reducing fish populations, and reducing the number fish species, just pisses the hell out of everybody: fish catchers, fish eaters, fish.
The government is formulating its response now as I type. There is only one right answer to this: vote for a moritorium.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
So we should say that because there are lambs being killed we shouldn’t care about any other life form on the planet - even if they are native/rare/almost extinct?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
There are native plants being wiped out by environmental destruction as well. So if the only concern is that a species is being made extinct (which is a valid concern, just not the only one), then it would be just as constructive to hold up pictures of mutilated mistletoe or seaweed. But we all know it would not have the same shock value as a mutilated albotross or videos of whales taking 30 minutes to die in agony. What shocks the public, and what the public is right to be shocked about is the sight of sentient beings being hideously slaughtered for greed.
What Phil is pointing out, and what I agree with, is that it is inconsistant to be outraged over the torture of one sentient being but not another. It is a form of prejudice, like being outraged over blacks murdering whites but not whites murdering blacks.
It does not follow logically that we should not care about whales or albatrosses. It does follow logically that given that we care about whales and albatrosses, and given that we care not just because the species is being wiped out but because sentient beings are being tortured for trivial reasons, then we should be equally concerned at other sentient being being tortured for trivial reasons.
http://www.epf.org.nz
August 4th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
I hate this pseudo-action which is designed only to satisfy the public that something is being done: spending on “initiatives”, “exchanges”, “forums”, “advisory officers”. If this spending was actually effective in reducing by-catch, rather than just window-dressing, then reductions in quotas and limits could take place simultaneously. I presume the rationale is to ease the cost to the industry of moving to better practices… but governments seem to have forgotten that the regulation part is necessary for the practices to actually be implemented and have effect! What incentive does the fishing industry face to make the best use of the spending “initiatives”, and to actually improve their practices, if there is no punishment (eg by-catch limits, fines, etc) for not doing so?
Exactly the same principle holds for the game the Howard government is playing around climate change. Placate the public with spending (ostensibly a “technology-based solution to climate change”, in substance just R+D subsidies to big industry). Ignore the reality that R+D subsidies (without economic incentives to change behaviour) are useless, but the economic incentives alone (eg Kyoto plus a carbon tax, say) would induce the desired research and changes in behaviour.
I was under the impression that industries quite competently organised “exchanges, forums, and advisors”, so as to most profitably comply with regulations, well before governments started paying them to do so (and simultaneously failing to regulate).
Its a crappy, wasteful, type of political trick, this focus on spending rather than results. I can only presume it survives and thrives because it pleases everybody that governments need onside: much of the public, who can ignore the issue in the knowledge that something’s being done; and industry bosses, who weasel out of being regulated (and get a few free overseas jaunts as well).
Don’t we, or should we, have some kind of law to force governments to avoid wasteful spending where a simple regulation would do the trick?
August 4th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Kiore1 - it’s not prejudice, it’s pragmatism. When the majority of the wider public don’t know or care much that this is going on, and you have a snapshot of time in Parliament to raise the issue, you use the mangled albatross, not because you don’t care about the plant life, but because it will get more people to take notice. You can educate them about the other creatures later. Case in point - Metiria held up photos of coral in Parliament last week when asking questions about bottom trawling (a separate, but related issue to set-net by-catch), but they didn’t make it onto page 2 of the Dom Post.
August 4th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Frog I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying Metiria is prejudiced, nor am I saying she should not have held up the pictures of the albatross. It acheived what it set out to do, and got the interest of the public and the media. I am not surprised they were not interested in the picture of a coral - not enough blood and guts.
But that just proves what I was saying. The public are not concerned because species are being wiped out. They are concerned because a sentient species is being mutilated. So what I am saying is the public (including some participants on this blog) need to examine their inconsistancies (ie prejudices) and ask why it is so terrible that an albatross or whale is being mutilated (and the answer is not becasue it is endangered or the coral would have provoked the same response), yet mutilated cows, castrated sheep, mulesed sheep, genetically manipulated broilers and other examples of animal cruelty in the agriculture industry do not provoke any reaction. I am still pleased that the concern is there - a double standard is beter than no standard at all.
I found the same inconsistancy in the GM debate. Genetically modify a cow through nuclear transfer (ie GM) and everyone is shocked. But nobody says a word about the monstrous freaks of nature, the broiler chicken, which is in continual pain because its body is too big for its legs, and its heart cannot pump hard enough for its bloated muscle mass. This is because the freak has been produced not through GM but through several generations of conventional breeding.
August 4th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Tell me something will moaning and goaning do anything to help these poor creatures, if you had 2 million dollars I hardly think that you all would use all of it to save all these creatures. Yet the animals and creatures in this country that suffer, due to man, want to progress. this will always happen whether we complain or not. I ain’t saying it’s right or wrong for that fact, but the birds the seals will surely be here long after you and I are gone, maybe not this breed or maybe not that type. but they will be here reguardless.
I think the issue should be more focus on people, which is more important.
August 4th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
No, moaning and groaning won’t help save these poor creatures - but signing the Save Our Sealions petition at http://www.forestandbird.org.nz might help convince Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton to stop allowing the squid fishery to kill so many of them next season.
Cheers, Helen Bain, Forest & Bird.
August 4th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
My experience in dealing with Anderton over the battery hen issue is that a petition will not cause him to change his mind one bit. He is totally arrogant, not interested in public opinion, contemptuous of the parliamentary process (he overturned the decision of the Regulations Review Committee), and his only interest is promoting industry. His reply to Metiria’s question which shows quite clearly how he is greasing up to them.
Anderton’s weak spot is that he likes to see himself as the people’s friend, and he is totally dependent on the voters of Wigram for his power. A concerted campaign in Christchurch by both animal rights campaigners and conservationists joining forces would have more effect than a petition. Not in getting him to change his mind, but as a salutory reminder to other ministers about the dangers of ignoring public sentiment.
August 4th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
I heard Metiria on morning report defending Magaret Wilson. She isn’t a good ambassador for the Green Party, too prone to nasty sniping.
Henry
August 4th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
well thats a matter of opinion Henry, meanwhile …
what a great thread! you gals and guys are great - keep it up
August 5th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
NIWA is not independent. They are part of the government and dance to the tune of the government. When I wanted some temperature data in order to do an analysis of MAF’s assumptions over the fall webworm (they erroneously assumed it would have only one generation in Auckland), NIWA grassed on me to my employer. They certainly do not subscribe to the scientific ethos of searching for truth.
Truly independent scientists are of course just as likely to be mistaken or prejudiced as any other human, but the difference is that their mistakes are their own; they are not paid to have them. They are also free to change their minds as new evidence comes in. Putzai is a case in point. He started off with his own opinon that GM technology is a good thing. When his own research threw out unexpected findings he was not afraid to change his views.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
oops sorry, that should have been on the whaling thread!
August 5th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
I repeat great to see the ministers concern for the birds and seals but i still wait for a reply re my concerns about the amount of pollution from cigarette butts going into the water we drink and eat from,and that the birds and seals call home. i feel that perhaps the minister being maori and female is part of the problem and could be the reason she has no inclination to use her position to highlight this issue.
cheers
August 5th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Metiria isn’t the minister of anything. She’s a member of parliament outside of government.
Are you are confused with Chris Carter the minister of conservation, or Jim Anderton the minister of fisheries? They are both white men as that seems to be of the utmost importance to you.
August 6th, 2006 at 8:06 am
I think the point that Metiria raised about us not letting farmers kill kiwi for agriculture gains, so why do we allow endangered species to be killed in bycatch, for an industry that is benefiting by pillaging the huge resource of the ocean is what’s at stake here… (can we just nudge away from the petty infighting for a second?).
It’s actually very dangerous and unhelpful for people who support a “green” cause, to bring up distracting side issues and “yeah, but what about….(insert “global warming”, “pollution”, “battery hens” etc here), because it detracts from the original point at issue, and allows those who dispute the cause to follow the sidetracking line, and drag the issue away from the original point of contention.
The issue Metiria raised was 1. bycatch of threatened species; 2. fisheries assurances that they would do something about it; 3. and the fact that no decline in bycatch has occured in three years. This should be of very grave concern to us all as New Zealanders, as a maritime and seagoing nation, and as a country who stakes its international reputation on its clean/green image.
there are about as many sea lions left as hector’s dolphins. we are steadily losing more of our great seabirds every day. bycatch is avoidable, and its unacceptable, and the answer that the squid fishery is an important economic resource is not good enough. Nobody’s saying stop fishing, they’re just saying fish better and do it now.
August 6th, 2006 at 10:16 am
yes ..yes..naturevision…
can we be clear here…
(and can i repeat what others have already said)…
that this nudging from those aware of/concerned about those blindspots in the green vision..and the sufferings of all..not just some..sentient beings..are done not from some desire to ‘muddy’ the message…but are attempts to ‘clarify’ the message…
(and if not in this forum..pray tell where..?..)
and this is not a matter of ‘instead of’ (whatever) sentient beings being protected/saved/fretted about…but a matter of ‘as well as’….
we care about the ongoing sufferings of all these living creatures…and the destruction of our environments…
and all this suffering/chaos just to satify easily cured societal/cultural addictions to flesh-eating..
(and please note…this destruction of the oceans/habitats/birds/seals (the ostensible concerns of this post/thread ?..) is all done in the name of further feeding that flesh-eating addiction…wtf..?..eh..?..)
(and if any of you reading this are realising you are becoming sickened (on so many levels) by your addiction…and are looking around/floundering as to how to ‘break the cycle’..you could go to whoar..and look under the ‘vegan’ category…there you’ll find links to writings/thoughts/benefits/recipies…blueprints of how to break that cycle..eh..?
you could also go to the peta site for a raft of links..or to…or to…(you have many choices out there…just google vegan..!..and off you go…)
btw..i am also trying to talk to those who are currently vegetarian..
and can point out to them that the benefits they accrued/accrue from that change from carnivore…are amplified/magnified (far out of proportion to the actual changes)….by going vegan…
so..naturevision(?)…we should just ’shut-up’ about this..?
um…reality check for you naturevision….we have only just started…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 6th, 2006 at 11:16 am
minister, member all the same but when i write to someone in a party that i vote for and support in other ways i do expect some sort of aknowledgement or reply. this member chooses not to ,on an issue that i feel impacts on my childrens future and the future of those to come i begin to wonder why. the nicotine lobby is very powerful and i am left to make assumtions.
also big ups phil as one on the path i fully understand where u are coming from. lambs seagulls snails all deserve our concern and protection.
i’ve heard those west coast snails secrete a substance that is a possible cure for all types of illness. pity we extincted them before this was discovered.
August 6th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
yeah fair enough naturevision, but the post is also about media reaction and getting in the papers with explicit photos, so some comment on how some issues are deemed worthy of media attention and other similar ones aren’t seems appropriate.
August 6th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
poffa, Metiria only has 24 hours in a day, same as the rest of us, she can’t do everything that is asked of her.
August 6th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
The media thing worries the hell out of me. when Jim Anderton arbitrarily decided to increase sea lion bycatch (world’s most endangered sea lion) by more than fifty per cent, the media barely touched it. sadly, most New Zealanders don’t even get an opportunity to be made aware of this stuff.
i hear your points about sentient beings and i do understand where you’re coming from, i’m just saying that in my experience, when green groups are involved in a process (which refers to one aspect), their constant diversions to global warming/veganism/pollution/any other possible angle, just allows the industry who have more money, better lawyers and more direct focus, an opportunity to follow down the diverted path, and not have to deal with the real issue… in this case Fisheries promise to reduce bycatch and nothing achieved.
These sea lions are our ‘kakapo’ of the sea, and being charismatic megafauna, by protecting them, we can help protect their entire ecosystem…
Sometimes greenies, in order to play the game and get the best results its important to FOCUS.
August 6th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
naturevision:
I wouildn’t assume that everyone on this thread are Greens.
However, I agree with your point … and that the “damage” of diversions is still done if they are seen to be “Greenies.”
August 7th, 2006 at 7:06 am
sorry eredwen..just what is the ‘damage ‘in open, free, uncensored dialogue…?
on a site ostensibly set up for that very purpose…?
(esp. in this case…where the concerns/issues raised are indeed..valid/relevant to the original posting..?..)
but also it is valid to raise issues that may not have been yet covered by frog…cf….taito phillip field…
this pernickinous (have i made that up?) attitude to raising ‘new’ issues on previously occupied threads is ..to my mind..just another manifestation of that queue-ettiquette we inherited from the british..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 7th, 2006 at 7:10 am
and in that vein…how about that ian ewen-street eh..?
does it..or does it not..bring to mind muldoons’ old joke about kiwis moving to aussie..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 7th, 2006 at 8:51 am
[…] go to source/story>>frogblog ยป The photos are gross, and there are plenty more where they came from […]
August 7th, 2006 at 10:10 am
phil u:
A couple of good “stirs” there!
My answer to your question is: “None”.
Had you read (rather than skipped?) through the thread you would understand that Naturevision’s concern was the perception and distortion of so called “Greens” behaviour by media (and other potential detractors).
OK?
August 8th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Speaking of gross fishing-related photos….
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0608/S00084.htm