Oepartment of Fisheries and Oceans
Brief Submitted to The Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada
VOLUME I
VOLUME I Brief VOLUMES II-V Appendices
May 1985 016989
TABLE or CONTENTS
Page
INTRIDUCTION ...... 1
SECTION 1 - THE ATLANTIC SEAL HUNT 1.1 General Description •••••••...•••••••••..••.. 2 1.2 Management of the Seal Hunt ••••••••••••••••• 3 1.2.1 Policy...... 3 1.2_.2 The Process .••••••••••••.•...••.••••• 4 1.2.3 Population Assessment - harp seals.... 6 1.2.4 Management Measures - harp seals ••••• 7 1.2.5 PopUlation Assessments - hooded seals. 12 1.2.6 Management Measures - hooded seals ••• 15 1.3 Humane Killing Issue ...••.•.•.•...... •..•.•• 18 1.4 The Committee on Seals and Sealing •••••••••• 19 1.5 Regulations...... 20 1.6 Sealer Training ...... 35 1.7 Public Information ...... 35
1.8 Access to the Seal Hunt ...... 10 ...... 36 1.9 The Canada/Norway Sealing Commission ••••••• 39 1.10 International Issues ..•.•....•..•....•.••... 40 1.10.1 Import Bans ...... 40 1 .10.2 EEC Ban ...... 42 1.10.3 Fish Boycott Campaign •••••••••••••••• 45 1.10.4 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species •••••••••••• 47
-i- TABLE IF CONTENTS (Continued) Page
1 .11 Economics ...... ""...... 50 1 .11 .. 1 History ...... 50 1.11.2 Economic Aspects - Primary Industry.. 53 1.11.3 Economic Aspects - Secondary Industry. 58 1.11.4 Seal Pelt Exports •••••••••••••••••••• 63 1.11.5 Secondary Processing 65 1.11.6 Economic Impact •.....••.••...... • 67 1.11.7 Manufacture of Sealskin Products ••••• 69 1.12 Marketing ...... 70 1.12.1 The Market for Seal Fur and Leather.. 70 1.12.2 Market Characteristics ••••••••••••••• 71 1.12.3 Recent Developments •••••••••••••••••• 72 1.12.4 Current Market Conditions •••••••••••• 73 1.12.5 Market Outlook ...... 74
SECTION 2 - GREY AND HARBOUR SEALS •••••••••••••••••• 76 2.1 Grey Seal Popu~ation ••.••••••••••••.•••••• 76 2.2 Harbour Seal Population ••••••••••••••••••• 77 2.3 Seals Competing with Man for Food ••••••••• 77 2.4 Seal worm in Seals ...•..••..•...••.••••.••• 78 2.5 Seal worm in Fish ...... "...... 78 2.6 Bounty Program ...... 81 2.7 Cull Program ...... 82 2.8 Research Activities ••...•••••...... •..• 83
-ii- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page
SECTION 3 - PACIFIC COAST SEALS •••••••••••••••••••••• 86 . 3".1 Harbour Seal ...... "...... 86 J.2 Northern Elephant Seal ...... 87 3.3 Northern fur Seal ...... 81 3.4 Steller Sea Lion ...... 89 3.5 California Sea Lion ...... 90
SECTION 4 - SEALS AND SEALING IN CANADA'S NORTHERN AND ARCTIC REGIONS 91 4.1 Introduction...... 91 4.2 Distribution and Abundance of Arctic and Northern Seals •••••••••••••••••••••.••••• 93 4 .. 2 .. 1 Ringed Seal ...... 94 4.2.2 Harp Seal...... 96 4.2.3 Bearded Seal...... 97 4.2.4 Harbour and Hooded Seal...... 97 4.3 Importance of Seals and Sealing in the North. 99 4.3.1 Seal Harvest ...... 99 4.3.2 Commercial Sealing .•.••••.•...... •.. 100 4.3.3 Domestic Use of Seals .•.••••••••••••• 103
SECTION 5 - HARP SEAL ENERGETICS, FOOD CONSUMPTION AND INTERACTIONS WITH FISHERIES ••.••• 112 5.1 Introduction. •• • . ••...... • •• •• . . . . • ...... 112 5.2 Feeding and Migration ••••.••.•••.•..•.•••••• 112 5.3 Effects of Increase in Population on the Ene rgy 8udget .•••..•....•.•.•••.•.... 113 5.4 Summary... ..•.•...•...... • ..•.. .•..•...... 114
REfERENCES
APPENDICES • (see Volumes II-V)
-iii- -1-
INTRODUCTION:
The Department of Fisheries · and Oceans of Canada is responsible for a wide range of activities which include fisheries management and research in coastal and inland waters; fisheries economic. development and marketing; international fisheries negotiBt.ions; oceanographic research; hydrographic surveying and charting; and the development and administration of fishing and recreational harbours. The main legislative base for the Department is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, which established the Department in April 1979; and the Fisheries Act, which was enacted in 1867 in accordance with the responsibility for "sea-coast and inland fisheries" placed on the Federal Government by Section 91( 1 Z) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible to Parliament for administration of the laws relevant to Canada's fisheries, including the Seal Protection Regulations (C.R.C. 1978 c833 and amendments thereto) made under the Fisheries Act. This brief is intended to provide the Commission with information related to seals and sealing in Canadian waters. Emphasis had been placed on the activities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to the management of these resources. Detailed discussion and background on some aspects of seals and sealing, such as the biology of seals, and the early history of the seal fisheries, have not been included in this brief as this information is available in publications produced elsewhere. Although the major portion of the material presented herein relates to the annual hunt for harp and hooded seals that takes place off the coasts of Labrador and Newfoundland (the Front) and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, sections dealing with grey seals, seals on the Pacific coast, and the harvesting of seals in the Arctic, are also included. As the brief represents a compilation of material for examination by the Commission, rather than a defence of the Department's past policies and actions, we have attempted, as far as possible, to present factual information rather than interpretation. -2-
SECTION 1 - THE ATLANTIC SEAL HUNT General Description The annual hunt for harp and hooded seals takes place off the coasts of Labrador and Newfoundland (the Front) and in the Gulf. of St. Lawrence, principally around. the Magdalen Islands. The hunt, which has focused to a greater . extent on harp seals because of easieI' accessibility and greater abundance, involves licenced "landsmen" who go sealing on . foot or from small open boats or long!iners and, except for the 1984 arid · 1985 hUnts, offshore sealers operating from large vessels built to withstand heavy ice. In addition, and an a much smaller scale, there has been a hunt for harp seals on the Upper North Shore of the St. Lawrence, centered at Les Escoumins and Godbout and net fisheries along the Lower North Shore and the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Offshore sealing began in Newfoundland during the early 1800's and developed rapidly from about 80,000 pelts in 1805 to more than 280,000 in 1819; from 1830-1839 the average Newfoundland take exceeded 450,000 pelts including a peak catch of 687,000 in 1831. The average harvest remained around 450,00 pelts until the 1860's when it dropped to about 310,000 pelts, remaining around that level until World War I. From 1920-1939 the Newfoundland hunt produced an average of 150,000 pelts declining to about 35,000 during World War II. The above figures refer only to the catch of Newfoundland vessels and as such do not include seals taken by landsmen in the Gulf nor those taken by aboriginals in Northern Canada and Labrador. In 1946 Norway re-entered the fishery after making small catches in 1938 and 1939. Total harvest from the Gulf and Front rose from negligible levels during World War II to an average of 283,000 pelts in 1951-1960, and 280,000 during 1961-1970, peaking at more than 400,000 in both 1951 and 1956. During the 1970's quota regulations reduced the average take to 150,000 animals.
Previous to the 1930's commmercial sealing was for oil and leather, which resulted in a concentration of hunting effort on the fat whitecoats. Refinements of processing techniques for furs changed the emphasis on pelt preferences to some extent, resulting in an increased proportion of bedlammers and adults in the catches during the 1950's and 1960's. Subsequently, regulations protecting whelping females and shortened hunting seasons reversed this trend such that, until 1983, the bulk of -3- the harvest of harp and hooded seals consisted of whitecoats (harp seal pups 3 to 10 days old, before their first moult) and bluebacks (hooded seal pups up to 1 year old). Due to lack of markets, there has been no commercial whitecoat or blueback harvest since 1982 and the number of large vessels participating in the hunt has declined from eight in 1982 to three in 1983 and none .in 1984 or 1985. Norwegian large vessels have not participated since 1982.
Traditionally, the net fisheries on the Qu~bec North Shore, Labrador end Newfoundland have, for a number of communities, provided the major means to capture seals during their annual migrations. Recent trends, however, indicate a decrease in participation in these fisheries. In 1982, some 19 communities in Quebec, as well as 19 in Labrador, participated in net fisheries for seals. While the Newfoundland fishery traditionally spanned the areas from Big Brook to the Fogo Islands, it is now substantially reduced. In Labrador, dependency on meat from the net fishery is high, as it is on the Quebec north shore and the Strait of Belle Isle area during years of heavy ice conditions.
Because of the importance of meat to many participants and, due to limited access to pelt markets, some seals landed in this fishery are not recorded in official statistics. The number of licenced seal-net fishermen in 1982 was 140 for Quebec, 133 for Labrador, and 120 in Newfoundland, but not all of these participate actively in the net fishery. Estimated landings for 1982 were 820 seals for Quebec, 5,000 for Labrador and 1,200 in Newfoundland.
1.2 Hanagenlent of the Seal Hunt 1.2.1. Policy The hunt for harp and hooded seals has a long and complicated history centered around a philosophy that has viewed seals as a harvestable resource. The history of the management of this hunt has included international negotiations, consultations with industry as well as organizations opposed to various aspects of the hunt, the formation of the Committee on Seals and Sealing, extensive research concerning the status of the populations, observations of the hunt with respect to its humaneness, and the evolution of the Seal Protection Regulations.
Canada's policy on Seals and Sealing is consistent with its policies on the management of other fishery resources. This policy has been described in detail, most recently in the "Information Sheet" titled 'Canada's Policy on Seals and Sealing' published in 1983 (I-HQ-83-D9E Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Appendix I) and a brochure titled "The Atlantic Seal Hunt" published -4- in 19B4 by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Appendix II). This policy states that seals are considered a natural renewable resource available to be humanely harvested within the limits of sound conservation principles, taking into account its role in the ecosystem, with the objective of gaining the maximum socia-economic benefits for Canadians in general, and those who depend directly on the resource in particular. This policy reflects a shift in 1976 from previous policies designed to achieve maximum sustainable productivity. (See for example, "Canadian Conservation Policy" in "The Atlantic Seal Hunt", Department of the Environment, 1976. Appendix Ill).
1.2.2. The process The first significant regulation pertaining to the conservation of harp seals was the introduction of opening and closing dates for the hunt in the Gulf and Front areas in 1961. This measure, agreed mutually by Canada and Norway, was ratified by Order in Council in Canada and by Royal Decree in Norway. Protection of whelping females followed in 1965 and in 1966, licencing, quotas and regulations defining killing methods were introduced (see Appendix IV). In 1967, the Convention establishing the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Commission (ICNAF) was amended, bringing the Northwest· Atlantic harp and hooded seals under its aegis. Coastal states in the area in whose waters the species migrated (Canada and Denmark (Greenland» were members of ICNAF as were other states recently engaged in the exploitation of the two species in the area (Norway and the USSR). Management measures were adopted annually by the Commission, based upon recommendations from its Panel A (Seals) which, in turn, received its scientific advice from the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (STACRES) •
On December 22, 1971, an agreement entered into force between the Government of Canada and Norway on sealing and the conservation of seal stocks in the Northwest Atlantic. While the agreement initially applied only to the harp seal, amendments were negotiated in 1975 to extend application to the hooded seal, bearded seal and walrus. The Convention established a Commission which was entrusted with the following functions: a) on the basis of scientific and practical research to submit proposals to the contracting parties with regard to, inter alia, sealing and the conservation of the seal stocks, national quotas, opening and closing dates, humane hunting methods and the prevention of cruelty or suffering to the animals. -5- b) to submit proposals to the contracting parties with regard to the establishment of inspection and control procedures required to ensure the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this agreement. c) to submit proposals to the contracting parties concerning ·scientific research to be · undertaken jointly or separately with respect to sealing and the conservation of the seal stocks; or concerning the coordination of such research. Further information on the Canada/Norway Sealing Commission is presented in a later section of this brief. Subsequent to extension of jurisdiction the mechanism for the generation of scientific advice remained essentially unchanged in that Canada has officially requested (often jointly with the EEC) that the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (STACRES) of ICNAF and its replacement body, the Scientific Council of NAFD, provide advice relevant to the management of harp and hooded seals. The annual reports on seals produced by STACRES, and more recently by the Scientific Council, have been used as a basis for the setting of quotas.
Since 1977, Canada has had a domestic scientific forum, the Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee (CAFSAC). Practice has been that material on seals presented to the NAFD Scientific Council by Canadian scientists has been reviewed first by CAFSAC and its Marine Mammal Subcommittee.
With the extension of fisheries jurisdiction by Canada and Denmark (Greenland) in 1977, the harp seal population in question resides completely within the fisheries jurisdiction of the two parties. Between 1978 and 1981 total allowable catches were established annually between Canadian and the European Economic Community (representing Denmark). Allocation of the TAC between the two parties was also resolved in this forum (the only harvest by Greenland is an unregulated take by indige~ous peoples). Following these annual decisions by Canada and the EEC regarding TACs, meetings of the Canada/Norway Sealing Commission were convened for discussion of allocations to Norway within the Canadian fisheries zone and various details of regulations and scientific research. Among the matters decided between Canada and the EEC at negotiations in November 1978 was an agreement with respect to harp seals that an interim target population of age 1 and older animals be established at 1.6 million and that catches be restricted to levels below the replacement yield until this target is achieved. This point was contained in a press release issued by the Department of Fisheries and Environment on December 11, 1978. The Agreed Summary -6-
Records of the Canada/EEC meetings for the years 1978 to 1981 are contained in Appendix V.
Meetings between Canada and the EEC to discuss TACs and allocations have not been held since 1981. In the absence of such meetings, quotas for catches within Canadian wateOrs have been set by Can ad" , taking into account estimated catch levels at Greenland.
1.2.3. Population Assessment - harp seals The biological research which has provided the ~asis for the management of the harp seal hunt began in Canada in 1949. Initial research focused on basic life history. Aerial photography was used to obtain population estimates for the years 1950-51 and again in 1959 and 1960. Tagging studies initiated in the early 1960's provided new information on the migrations of these animals. Tagging experiments on a larger scale, to produce estimates of abundance, were carried out in the Gulf in 1964 and at the Front in 1966. In addition, large samples of teeth were collected over the years allowing estimation of age composition of catches. °New attempts at aerial surveys using ultra-violet photography were conducted in 1975 and 1977 and large-scale tagging programs for mark-recapture experiments were conducted in the Gulf and at the Front in 1978, 1979 and 1980. Additional tagging experiments were also carried out in 1983 (1).
While these methods have allowed estimation of harp seal production, it is necessary to understand the dynamics of the seal herd in order to calculate the yields which it can provide to the hunt without depletion of the herds. Population models developed for this purpose, beginning in 1972, continue to be refined.
In October 1982 an Ad hoc Working Group of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was convened in response to a request by the Government of Canada and the EEC Commission for scientific advice from ICES on aspects of the population dynamics and state of the harp and hooded seal stocks in the Northwest Atlantic. The Working Group was comprised of scientists from Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom and the USA. The report of this Working Group (Appendix VI) states that:
" ••••• the Working Group concluded that pup production for the period 1977-80 was likely to be in the range 380,000-500,000. These pup production estimates were mul tlplied by 4.0, a very coarse approximate figure derived from the Roff and Bowen analysis, to give a corresponding range of 1.5 million to 2.0 million for the 1+ population in 1977-1980." -7- and:
" the Workino Group concluded that the pup production in 1977-80 and 1+ population was likely to have been laroer than the late 1960's pup pro~uction and 1+ population, but the possibility of no increase or a sliqht decline. is not neqliqible." In 1983, · the NAFO Scienti fic Council concluded · that pup production in 1978-80 was in the ran<:Je of 350,000 to 600,000 and that estimates of replacement yield in 1984 ranged from 160,000 to 600,000 animals, based on the upper andlewer bounds of the estimates of population size and vital rates.
Again, in response to a joint request from Canada and the EEC to review the status of the harp and hooded seal stocks in the Northwest Atlantic, the NAFO Scientific Council met in January 1985 (see Appendix VII). The Scientific Council reported that, from a mark-recapture study in 1983, pup production in the Northwest Atlantic was estimated to be about 534,00n animals in 1983 and noted that these results supported the conclusion that pup production had probably increased since the late 1960's. Estimates of replacement yield in 1985 ranqed from 210,000 to 510,000 animals based on the upper and lower bounds of the estimates of population size and vital rates.
1.2.4. Manaqement Measures - harp seals The first quotas under the ICNAF Harp and Hooded Seal Protocol were instituted for the 1971 fishery when vessels were limited to 200,000 harp seals and the landsmen allowance set at 45,000. In 1972, the total allowable catch (lAC) was reduced to 150,000, allocatinq 120,000 to vessels and allowinq for an estimated catch of 30,000 animals by landsmen. This lAC remained in effect from 1972 to 1975.
Scientific analyses prepared late in 1975 contained a very wide ranqe of opinion on the status of the harp seal stocks, due primarily to disaqreement on the rate of natural mortality. ICNAF determined that, because of the existino uncertainties, it was prudent to take a conservative approach and, with Canadian support, the lAC for 1976 was reduced to 127,000. 8ased on the information provided by analyses followinq the 1976 seal hunt, the 1977 lAC was increased to 170,000, in consultation with the European Economic Community, and includino for the first time an allowance of 10, 000 for the pro,jected catch by northern native peoples. Both the Committee on Seals and Sealinq and the ICNAF Scientific Committee supported this increase. ' -8-
Inshore catch levels are affected by the widely fluctuating accessibility of seals to landsmen from year to year; hence, their catches were not initially placed under quota. Catches of seals in the four-year period from 1971 to 1974 were consistently ' below the amounts forecast as their allowance under the TAC. In 1975 and 1976 however , climatic and ice-drift conditions, combined with the increased mobility ' of inshore, sealers dUe to ' expanded use of small vessels (generally 11-20 meters in length), made it possible for 'landsmen to catch more seals than had been anticipated for this sector of the hunt. Consequently, the total catch of seals in' these tWo years was in excess of the quotas established. In 1977, inshore operations were placed under quota and the proportion of the TAC allocated to these sealers was increased substantially from the unregulated estimate of 30,000 of previous years to a controlled quota of 63,000. Suballocations of this 63,000 quota were designated to various areas throughout the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the northeast shore of Newfoundland to ensure a fair distribution of the landings.
A further conservation measure introduced in 1977 limited the number of adult harp seals taken by restricting the catch by large vessels to five per cent of their total catch (this, in addition to the ban introduced in 1964 prohibiting the killing of any adult in breeding or nursery areas). Scientific advice received for the 1978 sealing season indicated an anticipated production of 309,000-347,000 pups (Gulf and Front areas combined), which would permit a sustainable yield of 227,000-245,000 animals. In line with the stated policy of the Government of Canada to allow an increase in the harp seal stocks, to an interim level of 1.6 million, the TAC was set at 1BO,000. This included an allowance of 10,000 for the hunt by northern aboriginal peoples, mainly in Greenland, and an allocation of 170,000 covering all components of the regulated hunt within the Canadian management zone. The TACs for 1979 and 19BO remained unchanged at 1BO,000. However, in 1980, a distinct allowance of 1,BOO was identified as the anticipated catch level in the Canadian Arctic, on the basis of average catches of previous years. This amount was relinquished on a pro-rated basis by all components of the regulated commercial hunt by Canadian sealers. The Greenland allowance was set at 10,000. -9-
In 1981, the Canadian Ar~tic allowance remained at 1,800 while the sum of allocations to all commercial components in the areas within Canadian jurisdiction came to 168,200 making an unchanged overall total of 170,000 for Canada. The EEC forecast a catch of 13,00.0 for Greenland.
Total catches from 1977 to 1980 were consistently below the established quota, notwithstanding a yearly increase in the catches 'under the Arctic allowance.
In 1981, unusual ice conditions and distribution resulted in catches within the Canadian Arctic component which was closer to ten times the allowance forecast for this sector. Similarly, the landsmen sector was approximately 20,000 over their quota. On the other hand, the large vessel operation was within its allocation. The net result was an overrun of slightly more than 30,000 above the quota of 170,000 harp seals for all areas within Canadian jurisdiction. However, this figure is well below the under-attainment of quotas registered in the period 1977-1980 by the regulated, commercial component of the sealing industry. The events of 1981 brought to light deficiencies in the regUlations. New regulations were introduced for the 1982 season, designed to prevent the recurrence of a similar situation, even under the most improbable conditions of weather and ice distribution.
In 1982, the total allowable catch in waters under Canadian jurisdiction was increased by 9% over the level prevailing from 1978 to 1980, to 186,000. The bulk of this increase was assigned to the catch in northern waters by Canada's native population, bringing their allowance to 11,000 compared with 1,800 in previous years. The regulated commercial component of the Canadian sealing industry was allocated 151,000 (up from 145,700 in 1981, or 1,000 over their 1979 level, in compensation for the amounts they relinquished in 1980 and 1981 to accommodate increases in the Canadian Arctic and in the allocation to Norwegian large vessels on the Front). The allocation to the Norwegian fleet in 1982 was 24,000, compared with 22,500 in 1981. It was anticipated that the catch by natives of Greenland would be close to 13,000 as forecast for 1981. -10-
The total allowable catch for harp seals has remained at the same level as 1982 for the 1983, 1984 and 1985 hunts. In summary, during the period 1971-1976, TACs were established annually, assigning fixed quotas to the large vessel sealing operation, and setting aside an allowance for the expected catch by aboriginal people, landsmen and small boat components. The TACs were · not reached during four of these years, and were exceeded·. in two ·, producing a total . overrun of 1.4 percent. In 1977, landsmen and small boat sealing were brought under strict. quota management, assigning sub-allocations to these groups, making it possible under normal circumstances to close down the fisheries in various areas before the TAC was reached. This procedure resulted in a regulated catch representing 95.4% of the quota for the ·period 1977-1980. The amount in excess of the quota within the landsmen and small boat components in 1981, equals roughly two-thirds of the unattained quotas of the previous four years. Catches since 1982 have been very substantially below the quota.
Table 1 shows quotas and catches for the years 1971 to 1984.
Management plans, based on scientific advice and developed through consultation with the Committee on Seals and Sealing and the industry, have for most years been published as News Releases. Management measures for harp seals implemented from 1961 to 1985 are highlighted below. Additional details are provided in the section of this brief on regulations.
1961 Opening and closing dates established for Gulf and Front areas.
1964 Prohibition on killing of adults in breeding or nursery areas.
1965 Protection of whelping females. 1966 Licencing, quotas and regulations defining killing methods were introduced.
1971 TAC for large vessels set at 200,000: allowance for landsmen 45,000. -11-
TABLE 1
HarE! Seal Quotas and CatchesX Catch TAC Canada Norway Total
1971 245,000 132,660 98,306 230,966 1972 150,000 76,583 53,300 129,883 1973 150,000 65,542 58,290 123,832 1974 150,000 92,050 55,585 147,635 1975 150,000 114,202 60,161 174,363 1976 127,000 119,519 45,483 165,002 1977+ 170,000 119,519 35,624 155,143 1978+ 180,000 144,206 16,254 160,460 1979+ 1BO,000 139,634 20,2BB 159,922 1980* 180,000 148,381 20,213 168,594 1981il 1B3,000 166,919 22,382 189,301 ·1982" 186,000 137,827 24,016 161,843 1983" 186,000 57,889 57,889 1984" 186,000 30,900 30,900 XFigures from ICNAF/NAFO Statistical Reports For catches in the Canadian Arctic see Section 4 of the brief.
+Including an allowance for 10,000 for northern native people. *Including an allowance of 1,800 for the Canadian Arctic and 10,000 for Greenland.
#Including an allowance of 1,800 for the Canadian Arctic and a forecast catch of 13,000 for Greenland. "Including an allowance of 11,000 for the Canadian Arctic. -12-
1912 TAC reduced to 150,000 (including estimated catch of 30,000 by landsmen).
1976 TAC reduced to 127,000.
1977 TAC increased to 170,000 (including an allowance of 10,000 for northern native people). Number of adult harp seals restricted to 5% of catch. 1978 TAC set at 180,000 (including an allowance of 10,000 for northern native people). 1980 TAC remained at 180,000 (including ·an allowance of 1,800 .identified for the Canadian Arctic and 10,000 for Greenland). 1981 TAC for Canadian waters set at 170,000. 1982 TAC for Canadian waters increased to 186,000 (including an allowance of 11,000 for the Canadian Arctic) •
1983-1985 - TAC remained at the 1982 level. 1.2.5. Population Assessments - Hooded seals1
Scientific research on hooded seals has received comparatively less effort than that for harp seals.
Historically, assessments of the hooded seal population in the Northwest Atlantic were restricted to the Front herd and involved a combination of sequential population analyses fine-tuned to some reference pup production level as estimated by a survival index model. The principal restraint on this approach was that sequential population analysis requires as input parameters an estimate of M (currently unknown), the current population age structure, and some independent means of calibrating estimates of current and historical estimates of population size. The only independent estimate of pup production was a survival index estimate for the late 1960's, and this value depended very heavily on one data point. A comprehensive
1The status report on hooded seals prepared in response to proposals to list hooded seals on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is contained in Appendix VIII of this brief. The status report contains more detailed information on the biology, management and population status of hooded seals than is presented in this summary. -13-
review of the hooded seal data base, conducted by the ICES Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals in 1982 (See Appendix VI) concluded that the analyses of available data were insufficient to provide reliable estimates of population size, current pup production and hence trends in population abundance. In 1984, however, aerial surveys of both the Davis Strait and the front herds were successfully conducted for the first time and the results of these surveys were presented to the NAfD Scientific Council in January· 1985 (See Appendix VII). Pup production at the front in 1984 was estimated at 62,000 pups (95% confidence interval of 40,000 to 87,000) and for Davis Strait the 1984 estimate was 18,600 pups (95% confidence limits of 13,800 to 23,400). It was considered that the Davis Strait estimate was probably biased downwards due to the significant possibility of missed patches and the fact that no correction was made for pups that had left the ice or were yet to be born. Comparison of mortality rates of the two herds suggested that they had been subjected to substantially different exploitation histories, at least during the past 10 years. By comparing the 1984 estimates of pup production to previous estimates of around 30,000 pups for the late 1960's it was concluded that the hooded seal population has probably increased in recent years, whether the value of 30,000 represented total Northwest Atlantic production or front production alone. Replacement yields for 1985, based on front production only, ranged from 15,500 animals to 34,900 depending on the 95% confidence limits of pup production and a range of M from 0.07 to 0.13. A summary of the scientific advice on hooded seals for the years 1968 to 1985 follows:
1968 Open season from March 12 to April 25 was recommended. (2) 1970 Open season from March 20 to April 23 was recommended. (3)
1973 A catch limit equal to the average annual kill for the period 1966-1970 (15,000 animals) was proposed as an interim limit on exploitation rate. (4)
1974 It was recommended, as · an interim measure, that the catch for 1974 should not exceed 15,000 animals. (5)
1975 A TAC of 15,000 animals was proposed, based on the same rationale as for 1973 and 1974. (6)
1976 The sustainable yield was estimated to be 23,800 animals but because of uncertainties in the data a continuation of the TAC of 15,000 animals was recommended. (7) -14-
1977 No new evidence to alter previous advice; a continuation of the 15,000 TAC was recommended; breeding females should be limited to 10% of the total catch by large vessels. (8)
1978 Sequential population analyses indicated that population levels had increased since the mid-1960's ',and that current vital parameter , rates suggested a sustainable yield of 22,000 animals, assuming that breeding females were restricted to 10% or less of the kill. Because of uncertainties in the data the , continuation 'of the TAC of 15,000 was recommended. (9)
1979 Based on existing data, the best estimate of sustainable yield was considered to be between 15,000-20,000 animals. A continuation of the TAC of 15,000 animals was advised. (10)
1980 No new data were available to add to previous advice re continuation of the 15,000 TAC. It was recommended that the catch of breeding females be reduced to 5%. (11)
1981 No new analyses were presented to change the recommended TAC of 15,000 animals. (12)
1982 Same advice as for 1981. (13) 1983 ICES Working Group concluded that the analyses of available data were insufficient to provide reliable estimates of current stock size, pup production, and sustainable yield. (14)
1984 Useful estimates of sustainable yields could not be provided because of uncertainties in the vital population parameters of pup production and natural mortality; replacement yields varied from 3,500 to 23,000 depending on the natural mortality rate and various illustration levels of pup production. (15)
1985 Aerial survey results provide estimates of 62,000 pups at the Front and 18,600 pups in Davis Strait; these were substantially higher than previously assumed. Based on the 95% confidence limits of Front production and ranges of natural mortality, replacement yields for 1985 were estimated to range from 15,500 animals to 34,900 animals. (16) -15-
1.2.6 Management Measures - hooded seals1 Management measures for hooded seals implemented from 1965 to 1985 are summarized as follows: 1965 Hunting of hooded seals was banned in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
1966 ICNAF assumed responsibility for management advice for Northwest Atlantic hooded seals. 1968 Open season was defined from March 12to April 15. 1971 A Committee on Seals and Sealing was established to advise the Canadian Government on seal management.
1974 The TAC was set at 15,000 animals and the opening and closing dates were defined as March 20 to April 24.
1975 The TAC was set at 15,000 animals. 1976 The rAC of 15,000 animals was continued and the opening date was delayed to March 22; the shooting of seals was banned between 2300 and 1000 GMT up to March 31 and between 2400 and 0900 GMT thereafter, to limit loss of wounded animals.
1977 The TAC of 15,000 animals was continued with the number of females to be killed limited to 10% of the catch. The shooting of seals in the water was prohibited to reduce loss by sinking.
1978 The TAC of 15,000 animals was continued and the catch of adult females was reduced to 7.5% of the total catch 1979 The TAC of 15,000 animals was continued and the catch of adult females was further reduced to 5% of the total catch. 1980 The TAC of 15,000 animals was continued along with the 5% limit on breeding females.
1981 The TAC of 15,000 animals was continued along with the 5% limit on breeding females.
1rACs as listed in this summary refer to the total allowable catch in Canadian waters. -16-
1982 The TAC of 15,000 animals was continued along with the 5% limit on breeding females.
1983 The TAC was reduced to 12,000 animals; previous conservation measures were continued.
1984 The TAC was reduced to 2,340 and other conservation measures were retained.
1985 The TAC was maintained at 2,340 and other conservation measures were retained. Table 2 shows catches of hooded seals in Canadian waters for the years 1971 to 1984. -17-
TABLE 2
Hooded Seal Quotas and Catches in Canadian Waters1
Catch
TAC for Canadian Canada Norway Total Waters
1971 432 14,514 14,946 1972 422 12,178 12,600 1973 312 6,255 6,567 1974 15,000 204 9,796 10,000 1975 15,000 5,385 10,226 15,611 1976 15,000 3,867 8,518 12,385 1977 15,000 6,044 6,049 12,093 1978 15,000 4,189 6,315 10,504 1979 15,000 6,819 8,306 15,125 1980 15,000 7,346 5,707 13,053 1981 15,000 8,319 5,367 13,686 1982 15,000 5,665 4,404 10,069 1983 12,000 128 128 1984 2,340 140 140
1Compiled from ICNAF/NAFO Statistical Reports - Figures exclude research catches. -18-
1.3 The Humane Killing Issue Discussions related to the issue of humane killing in respect to the seal hunt began in the late 1950's. It has been the subject of regulations (see following section on regulations) since 1960 when new regulations provided that "No one may hook, commence to skih, bleed, slash or make any incision with a knife or any implement until the seal is, without doubt ,dead". Consultations dealing with .this issue and involving the sealing industry as well as representatives of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies were held, beginning in 1964. In his opening remarks at a meeting on June 1, 1966, the Honourable H.J. Robichaud, the Minister of Fisheries at that time, stressed the importance that he and his Department attached to the development of the "most suitable, humane methods for harvesting them [seals]" (See Appendix IX). Mr. Robichaud also issued a lengthy statement on May 16, 1967, in which he quoted from the reports of observers to the hunt in 1967 (see Appendix X). Since the early 1960's, numerous observers representing a number of organizations in Canada, the United States and abroad, as well as independent veterinarians and representatives of the Committee on Seals and Sealing have observed the hunt. Repor.ts from observers to the hunt for the period 1966 to 1977 are listed on pages 15 to 18 of the Committee on Seals and Sealing bibliography published in 1978 and have been made available to the Commission along with reports from observers subsequent to 1978 and the Committee's own reports recording their observations of the hunt. Extracts from the reports of a number of observers which are not listed in the Committee on Seals and Sealing bibliography are contained in Appendix XI.
In view of the continued allegations of cruelty by opponents of the seal hunt, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans requested the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) to observe the seal hunt. Their report on observations made in the Gulf in 1979 and 1980 and at the Front in 1980, is contained in Appendix XII. The following paragraph is extracted from the summary of this report: -19-
"The Committee considers these two instruments [the regulation club ana hakapick] to be effective in rendering the seal pups unconscious when used in the prescribed manner. The Committee is thus confident that seal pups are unconscious after the first properly applied blow. The Committee further supports the additionai safety and assurance factors embodied in the recommended three blows and subsequent exsanguination. The Committee recommends that Fisheries-Canada continues to educate sealers, including the landsmen, in the practices of humane sealing. " The CVMA has also observed the testing of prototype handguns which were developed as possible alternate killing instruments, under contract to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The reports of these observations by the CVMA in 1982, 1983, and 1984 are contained in Appendix XIII. While it has been demonstrated in small-scale tests, that the .38 calibre single-shot pistol is capable of producing humane death in seal pups, design modifications were recommended and there remain questions concerning the safety of their use by large numbers of sealers under conditions which occur at the seal hunt. The pistols have not been field tested on a large scale. A comprehensive examination of ' possible alternative slaughtering techniques (for fur seals) is contained in a 1973 report to the U.S. Department of Commerce (Appendix XIV). This report concludes that "objective consideration of the pros and cons of the possibilities presented shows that the clubbing technique remains the best available". An information sheet prepared by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 1983, titled "Humane Aspects of the Harp Seal Hunt" as well as pamphlets prepared for sealers containing instructions on the humane killing of seals are presented in Appendix XV. The subject of humane killing has been one of the major components of the sealers' training courses organized by the Department.,
1.4 The Committee on Seals and Sealing The Committee on Seals and Sealing (COSS) was established in 1971 by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Initial membership and terms of reference, a summary of the work of the Committee along with the Committee's recommendations and the Minister's responses for the years 1972 to 1978 are contained in the Committee's Progress Report 1971-1978 (Appendix XVI). The Committee's recommendations subsequent to that time, which were transmitted by letter to the Minister, and the Minister's replies, are provided in Appendix XVII. -20-
1.5 Regulations
Seal Protection Regulations were first made by Order in Council P.C.5293 - 18 October, 1949. These regulations which, in their present form (Appendix XVIII), apply to bearded, grey, harbour, harp, hooded and ringed seals, define the areas, times and methods by which. seals may be killed as well as prescribing certain other conditions including those related to sport hunting, the use of meat, licence requirements, the use of helicopters or other aircraft, and observers approaching a seal or an area where the hunt is being carried out. Licence fees, quotas and closed times are included as schedules to these regulations. A chronological summary of changes to the Seal Protection Regulations from 1959 to 1984 is presented below. Copies of the actual amendments are contained in Appendix XIX. It is important to note that quotas and closed times may be changed by "variation order" so that quotas listed in the regulations may not necessarily reflect those actually in effect. For example, while the 1983 regulations list the quota for hooded seals as 15,000, the actual quota was 12,000. In 1984 and 1985, the quota for hooded seals was set at 2,340, .however; because anticipated harvest levels were substantially lower than this, variation orders were not issued. -21-
Chronological Review of the Evolution of the Seal Protection Regulations
======;======_. Date and SOR/I Details
June 1959 - Seal Protection Regulations (P.C. 1959-724) SOR/59-191 Replaced the Seal Protection Regulations made by Order in Council P.C. 5293 - 1B October 1949
- defined "resident" in terms of "defined area" - described "defined area", Le. waters north of 60· and all of Ungava, Hudson and James Bay
- prohibited killing seals in the defined area except by residents for food and except for scientific purposes
- provided for sports hunt in certain areas north of 60·N. under licence
limited the sale and disposal of seal meat in the "defined areau
February 1961 - amendment SOR/61-60 - set out "Front Area" and "Gul f Area"
- established closed seasons for "Front Area" and "Gul f Area" - required licences for sealing from vessels
April 1961 - amendment SOR/61-160 closed seasons in "Front Area and "Gulf Area" lengthened
February 1962 - amendment SOR/62-59 - prohibited the use of aircraft for spotting except under licence - prohibited killing from aircraft -22-
May 1962 - amendment SOR/62-171 - established Cape Oorset, Whale Cove Regions
- made minor changes in definitions · applied controls to sport hunting in ·Cape Oorset Region and Whale Cove Region
set sport. quotas of 40 in each region - set daily sport bag limit of 3 - only 1 of which might be a bearded seal
- provided for the use of guides who had to be Inuit - prohibited the retention of meat over 25 lbs with the excess to go to the Inuit
January 1963 - amendment SOR/63-16 - established sport hunting quotas for Frobisher Bay at 50 seals - permitted grey seals and harbour seals to be killed any time without a licence in areas where a bounty was offered
April 1963 - amendment SOR/63-135 - defined "Frobisher Bay Region"
- changed regional sport hunting quotas to 60 seals in each of Cape Dorset, Whale Cove and Frobisher Bay Regions
- required the use of Inuit guides and their boats - changed the seasons in Gulf and Front Areas -23-
March 1964 - NEW REGULATIONS SOR/64-99 - Seal Protection Regulations (P.C. 1959-724) of June 1954 REVOKED - Replaced by Seal Protection Regulations (SOR/64-99) March 1964
- prohibited seal hunting in the "defined area" (see item 1) except by residents for food or when authorized by the Minister for scientific purposes - provided sports hunting provisions for Cape Dorset, Whale Cove, and Frobisher Bay Regions with sport quotas established at 40, 60, 60 respectively and daily limits of 3 of which only 1 might be a bearded seal
- required Inuit quides and their boats when sport hunting and prevented retaining of more than 25 Ibs of seal meat prohibited sealing from vessels over 40' in length in the Gulf and Front Areas without licence.
- prohibited use of aircraft for spotting except with licence
- prohibited the killing of seals from an aircraft - set out seasons in the Gulf and Front Areas permitted the killing of grey and harbour seals in bounty areas without a licence.
- set out licence fees for vessels 40' and over, 65' and over, 100' and over, OAL.
November 1964 - NEW REGULATIONS SOR/64-443 - Seal Protection Regulations (SOR/64-99) Revoked - Replaced by Seal Protection RegUlations P.C. 1964-1663 - provisions as per SOR/64-99 (preceding regulations ) AND - divided Gulf Area into Districts -24-
- required sealing licences for all vessels over 30' in overall length.
- closed District 2, Gulf Area to the hunting of Hood Seals
- set out a quota for white coats in Distri~t #2 of Gulf Area
- Use of aircraft in seal hunt prohibited except in District 2, Gulf Area, and for spotting only in the remainder of the Gulf Area and the Front Area; licences required in all cases; no killing of seals from an aircraft permitted.
- closed seasons for sealing from aircraft or vessels in Gulf Area and Front Area
- provision for the variation of Gulf Area closed season by Minister
- required sealer's licence
- prohibited sealing with long lines - set minimum weight and length for clubs - prohibited skinning until dead
prohibited the killing of adult seals in breeding patches - required all seal skins to be removed from the ice to the base of operations daily
- permitted the killing of grey and harbour seals without licence in bounty areas
- established licence fees
March 1965 - amendment SOR/65-100 - allowed the use of aircraft in special circumstances in District I, Gulf Area and the Front Area for 1965 only -25-
June 1965 - amendment SOR/65-238 - defined "Coronation Gulf" and "Tuktoyaktuk" Regions
- reduced.sport sealing quotas to two seals annually
- prohibited sport sealing of bearded seals
February 1966 - amendment SOR/66-101 - redefined "Front "and "Gulf" Areas
- redefined "Districts 2" & "3", Gulf Area
- required that vessels over 30' in overall length be licenced. Licence subject to terms and conditions prescribed by Minister
- prohibited the killing of hooded seals in the Gulf Area - established quota for seals less than 1 year of age in District 2, Gulf Area
- provided for the cessation of hunt in District 2, Gulf Area by Ministerial order
- restricted aircraft sealing licences to Canadian aircraft and subject to terms and conditions
- required all sealers in Gulf and Front Areas to have a sealer's licence
- restricted killing weapons to (a) a gaff (defined) (b) a club (defined) (c) a rifle (defined)
except in District 1, Gulf Area and a portion of the Front Area, net fishing by local residents permitted
- prohibited hunting of adult seals in whelping or breeding patches
- required that pelts be removed from ice within 24 hours - prohibited the removal of live seals except under permit -26-
March 1966 - amendment SOR/66-115 - authorized, for conservation purposes, the Minister to stop hunting in the Gulf by sealers operating from· vessels less. than 30' in overall length or from shore
May 1966 - NEW REGULATIONS SOR/66-235 - Seal Protection Regulations P.C. 1964-1663 of 29 October 1964 revoked and
- replaced by SOR/66-235 Seal Protection Regulations P.C. 1966-904
- same as previous Regulations, AND
- defined "person of mixed blood"
- prohibited taking seals by longline
January 1967 - amendment SOR/67-52 - added definition of "sealing"
- described seals by common and scientific names
- exempted land based aircraft searching for seals from the requirement to have a sealing licence
required all sealers in the Gulf and Front Areas to be licenced and to wear specific visible means of identification
- set out criteria for acceptable clubs, riFles, and shotguns
- required the use of clubs only, when striking live seals and required they be struck only on the forehead
- prohibited the hooking, skinning, bleeding, or cutting of any seal until the seal was without doubt dead
- required the removal of seal pelts killed the day previous before killing could continue
- made masters of ships and pilots of aircraft responsible for the behaviour of their crew or passengers -27-
- restricted hunting hours in the Gulf Area
- provided for immediate suspension of a licence by a fishery officer for a period not exceeding 30 days
March- 1968 - amendment SOR/68-78 - changed Front and Gulf seasons
February 1969 - amendment SOR/69-79 - changed Front and Gulf seasons
March 1970 - amendment SOR/70-108 - redefined "Gulf Area" and "Front Area" - defined "white coat"
prohibited the killing of whitecoats in Districts Z and and 3 of the Gulf Area
- prohibited the use of aircraft in sealing except for searching for seals
- required searching aircraft to be licenced - restricted aircraft eligible for licencing to those registered under Part II of the Air Regulations made pursuant to the Aeronautics Act
provided for the prescribing of terms and conditions in an aircraft sealing licence
- prohibited landing of aircraft less than t nautical mile from any seal herds in the Gulf or Front areas
set out seasons for all sealers in the Front and Gulf Areas with an exception for residents of District 1 of the Gulf Area operating from shore or vessels less than 30' overall length
- removed the requirement that a pilot be responsible for the hunting behaviour of his crew (see item 15) -2B-
March 1971 - amendment SOR/71-127 - defined "reoistered net tonnaoe" - removed the division of the Gulf Area into Reoions stopped the issuance of vessel sealino licences to vessels over 65' overall lenqth unless those vessels were licencerl in 1969 or 1970.
- set quotas for harp seals of 50,000 in 'each of the Gul f Area and the Front Area for vessels over 65 feet - revised sections pertaininq to seasons in the Gulf Area and the Front Area
- restricted the off-season takinq of seals by residents operatinq from shore or small boats to local resirlents - restricted the takinq of seals by nets to local residents
- amendment and licence fees
August 1971 - amendment SOR/71-397 - established closed season for Murray Harbour, P.E.I.
December 1971 - amendment SOR/71-64B - revised closed season for Murray Harbour
March 1972 - amendment SOR/72-72 - revised eliqihility criteria for licencinq vessels over 65' overall lenqth - revised harp seal quota for Front Area vessels over 65' OAL prohihited harp seal huntinq in the Gulf Area from vessels over 65' OAL
set combined harp seal quota for landsmen in Gulf and Front Area -29-
June 1972 - amendment SOR/72-186 - provided some relaxation of the seal sport fishing provisions for residents of· the defined area
March 1973 - anendment SOR/73-159 . - revised seasons for harp seals in the Gulf and Front Areas and for hood seals at the Front
April 1974 - amendment SOR/74-216 - rede fined "resident"
- prohibited the landing of aircraft within t nm. of a seal
March 1976 - amendment SOR/76-172 - defined "hakapik" and "sealing crew" - revised quota for harp and hood seals at the Front hunted from vessels over 65 OAL
- prohibited landing an aircraft within ! nm of a seal except under permit
- prohibited overflying seals at less than 2000 ft. altitude except under permit
adjusted hunting seasons for harp and hood seals in the Gulf and Front Areas
- required hunters to hold either sealers or assistant sealers licences
- established criteria for sealers and assistant sealers licences (i.e., sealers: 18 years of age or over, 2 or more years experience sealing and be a sealing group leader - assistant sealers: 15 years of age or over) -30-
- limited the hunting activity of inexperienced sealers - permitted the use of the hakapik in the Front Area
- set out a closed season for grey seals - prohibited tagging or marking of live seals except under permit
- limited hunt to specific hours during the day - amended licence fees
February 1977 - amendment SOR/77-1B1 - defined "Regional Director"
- redefined "hakapik" - adjusted eligibility criteria for sealing vessel licences
- revised quotas and seasons
- permitted variation of seasons or quotas by a Regional Director General
- provided for the broadcasting or publication of variation orders
provided for sealing from vessels over 65' OAL in the Gulf with Ministerial permission
- set out adult seal skin quotas for large vessels as percentages of catch on board (5% harps over I year, 10% female hoods)
required persons operating from shore or in small vessels to take seals only off that part of the province where they reside
- ordered that hooded seals be struck with a hakapik after being shot.
- revised some hunting hours -31-
October 1977 - amendment SOR/77-828 revised the prOV1Slon providing for the closed season in Murray Harbour and added a close season · for the Gaspe
C.R.C. 1978 - Consolidated Regulations of Canada, chapter 833 c. 833 february 1978 - amendment SOR/78-167 - defined "Lake Melville Area"
- defined "landsman" - permitted residents of Labrador to take seals at the front at any time - added prohibition against persons without permits coming within !nm of any area where sealing is being carried out
- detailed application requirements for a permit to visit the hunt.
- restricted the harvesting of ringed seals in Lake Melville to residents
- required Lake Melville hunters hold sealer's licences - required that a club or hakapik be on board a sealing vessel.
established the various means by which ringed seals in Lake Melville might be taken
- established criteria necessary to declare a seal dead
- imposed a duty on vessel masters to ensure their crews complied with the RegUlations
- revised hunting hours - added ringed seals to Schedule II - revised Schedule III relating to quotas and seasons -32-
March 197B - amendment SOR/7B-237 - . rev iaed schedule ·.to .rEiad "Canadian" rather than "Gul f" based vessels over 65' OAL
March 1979 - amendment SOR/79-213 - modified "Front" and Gulf Area" - redefined "sealing" - revised the provisions on licensing large vessels - provided for the possibility of issuing new vessel licences
- limited the validity period of licences - further limited the catch of female hoods - permitted the use of the hakapik in Gulf by sealers off large vessels
- required exsanguination of a dead seal provided a close season in the St. Lawrence and Saguenay Rivers
- modified Schedule III dealing with quotas and seasons
September 1979 - amendment SOR/79-676 - corrected inconsistencies between French and English versions -33-
February 1980 - amendment SOR/80-115 - redefined "Lake Melville Area" - set out eligibility criteria for licensing of sealing vessels over 65' OAL
- restricted the daily kill of adult female hooded seals by sealers operating from a vessel over 65' to five percent of the total number of hooded seals taken by sealers from that vessel
required that the hood remain attached to all adult male hooded seals until taken on board a vessel
- required that all seals killed by means of a club or hakapik be struck on the head three times or until the skull is crushed - prohibited a "sealing group" from stockpiling more than ten seals that have not been pelted
December 1980 - amendment SOR/81-18 - altered some licence fees
- amended some seasons
February 1982 - amendment SOR/82-269 - redefined "Front Area" and "Gulf Area"
- required all vessels 35 feet or more OAL to be licensed to engage in sealing
- revised quotas and close times for the 1982 sealing and revised the procedure for varying fishing quotas and close times
- increased the percentage of harp seals one year or older that a vessel over 65 feet may have on board (from 5% to 6%) -34-
- prohibited landsmen operating from vessels 35' or more OAL from taking whitecoats in the Front Area and the northern portion of the Gulf Area1
- set out revised· licence criteria for ·a sealer's licence and an assistant sealer's licence
- redefined· a maximum length and width for a club· used to kilt seals
- restricted the taking of grey seals under bounty to licenced sealers
July 1983 - amendment SOR/83-588 - removed a reference to a Minister of the Province of Quebec in the licencing provisions
December 1983 - amendment SOR/84-64 - revised the definition of "Regional Director General"
- revoked a duplicative section
February 1984 - amendment SOR/84-20l - clarified that a person, when clubbing a seal, must crush the skull before proceeding to the skinning stage
1 This was the result of an industry decision and was made in exchange for an allocation of hooded seals. -35-
1.6 Sealer Training
Beginning in the early 1970s, instruction in humane killing techniques and pelt handling was provided to sealers on an informal basis by Fisheries Officers and representatives of the Magdalen Island Sealers' Association, using pamphlets prepared by the Department.
In 1980, the Department of Fisheries published the first version of the- "Manual for Sealers" and organized training sessions for all sealers from the Magdalen Islands. These training sessions were conducted, for the most part, by Fisheries Officers with the cooperation of the Magdalen Island Sealers' Association, representatives of the Adult Education Branch of the Quebec Department of Education, and the Carino Company.
The following year, a revised Manual (see Appendix XX) was published, and arrangements with the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and the Department of Education, were formalized. Participants in the program were giv-en a certificate which, in 1981, became a condition for obtaining a sealer's licence. While the emphasis of the program was on instruction in humane killing, the correct handling of pelts to achieve their maximum value was also stressed.
In 1980 fisheries officials toured each of the sealing communities in Newfoundland and presented training symposia on sealing, humane harvesting, storage of pelts and seal meat, and regulations. These courses continued each year and were accompanied by a further review of regulations with each sealer by the local fishery officer as he picked up his licence. Prior to 1980, informal training was provided to sealers by Fisheries Officers and a member of the Committee on Seals and Sealing.
1.7 Public Information
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (and its predecessors) has included public communications activities as part of its seal hunt management policy. Communication with the public has included news releases, pamphlets and information sheets as well as direct communication in the form of correspondence and media interviews. Copies of news releases related to the seal hunt issued from 1970 to March 1985 are contained in Appendix XXI. These relate to the management of the seal hunt, the formation of the Committee on Seals and Sealing, the Canada/Norway Sealing Commission, -36-
ICNAf/NAfO, the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, humane killing, the EEC import ban, ICES, initiatives to promote development of the Canadian sealing industry, the price stabilization program, arid the establishment of the Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada. Copies of pamphlets and information sheets related to the seal hunt produced for both .sealers and the . public, are also included in Appendix XXII. Some examptes of correspondence betwe.en the public and the Department are included in Appendix XXIII.
1.8 Access to the Seal Hunt Prior to 1970, access to the seal hunt was unrestricted. By regulations in 1970, 1974 and 1976, restrictions were placed upon aircraft in the Gulf and Front areas to the extent that helicopters and other aircraft were restricted to landing no closer than half a nautical mile from any seal on the ice, and from flying lower than 2,000 feet over any seal on the ice. These regulations were initially promulgated in response to the dangers caused by extensive and uncontrolled use of aircraft (in 1964 there were 65 aircraft participating in the hunt) in a small area and on the basis of requests from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies to terminate the hunting of seals using aircraft (see Appendix XXIV).
Recommendations concerning the control of public access to the seal hunt were made as early as 1966 when the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals stated that: "Fishery officers should be free to do their work without catering to outsiders" (see Appendix XXV, page 7). In 1978, the Committee on Seals and Sealing recommended:
"That seal hunting is an outdoor slaughter operation and that there is no necessity for the Government of Canada to provide unrestricted opportunities for the general public to view these operations. Instead, the Committee believes observation of sealing should be limited to the follOWing: 1. Members of the Committee on Seals and Sealing, in order to enable them to advise the Minister of Fisheries in accordance with their terms of reference; 2. The humane movement as represented nationally by the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, and internationally the International Society for the Protection of Animals. These two bodies should (and do) have every opportunity to send -37- one or at the most two observers to the Front and the Gulf, and these observers should be given every cooperation by Government. Furthermore, it is recommended that other humane societies both in Canada and elsewhere who may wish to observe sealing and obtain information should be directed to obtain their information through these two above-mentioned organizations. It was agreed that members of the Committee make every effort to ensure that major humane organizations receive accurate information and if this involved participating in the meetings of those groups, that this would be a legitimate activity of COSS.
3. Scientists, authorized by the Government to carry out research projects on seals, both in the Gulf and on the Front, such individuals should have unrestricted access to the seals in order to enable them to carry out their studies. 4. News media, with the following stipulation: application for permission to view the hunt to be made to the Minister at least one month before the hunt commences; the name, address, professional association, occupation and number of personnel they wish to be covered by the permit, transportation and description of vehicle intended for the visit, the area they wish to visit (the Front or the Gulf) and the date of their proposed visit to be included. The Committee recognizes that unlimited or unrestricted observance of the hunt by the news media could, in itself, constitute harassment to the seals and to sealers. In order to avoid this, the Committee recommends that the number of news media personnel allowed to visit anyone part of the hunt at the same time should be" limited by permit within the final jurisidiction of the" Minister, and that the news media should be made well aware, in advance, of the conditions (re: photography, etc.) of the Observer Permit. Furthermore, the Committee believes that visitor or observer permits should be standardized and should be issued ina way which is consistent, both in the Front and in the Gulf, and that in particular, the decision to issue the permit -38-
should be made by at least the Regional Director-General. It is the Committee's oplnlon that the Government, in issuing permits to the media for access to the ice should issue permits to Canadian news agencies, but should consider restricting access to the ice when considering applications for permits for the international news media, to encourage the latter .to obtain information from Canadian. press sources" (See Appendix XXV 1) •
In February 1978 an amendment to the Seal Protection Regulations was made requiring a permit, issued by the Minister, for any person to visit the immediate area in which the hunt was being conducted. The news release (Appendix XXVII) announcing this amendment noted that "they [the amendments] are designed not to prevent legitimate viewing of the seal herds, but rather to prohibit illegal and unjustified interference in the lawful activities of the seal hunters". The release further notes that: "Accredited journalists, scientists, humane society personnel and other legitimate observers will be permitted to the hunting areas ll as usual •
Although the regulations were amended to require permits on February 23, 1978, we haye been unable to locate any record of applications for permits for that year. During the years 1979 to 1984, a total of 190 permits were issued: 50 in 1979, 23 in 1980, 37 in 1981, 41 in 1982, 15 in 1983 and 24 in 1984. This does not include permits issued to persons engaged in scientific research. The number of permits issued has fluctuated due to weather and ice conditions, availability of enforcement staff and the number of applications. Permits have been issued to national and international (Netherlands, USA, West Germany, Australia, U.K., France and Belgium) media, representatives of organizations opposed to the seal hunt (including Greenpeace, the Royal SOCiety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and others), Canadian politicians, European Parliamentarians, veterinarians, film makers, researchers and others. -39-
1.9 The Canada/Norway Sealing COmmission The Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Norway on Sealing and the Conservation of the Seal Stocks in the Northwest Atlantic ' entered into force on December 22, 1971. The objectives of the Agreement, which allowed the continuation of Norwegian sealing in certain parts of Canada's newly-declared 12-mile territorial sea and fishing zones 1 are detailed in the, preambular par,agraphs of the i\greement. These objective,s' included cooperation concerning conservation of seal stocks ih the Northwest Atlantic to secure their' protection and rational utilization, as well as coordination 'of scienti fic research concerning seal stocks and enauring the use of humane catching methods. The Agreement defines the area and species to which it applies, as well as the area where Norwegian vessels are permitted to take seals, and establishes a "Commission" entrusted to make recommendations to the contracting parties with regard to sealing, conservation of seal stocks, opening and closing dates of the hunt, humane hunting methods, the establishment of inspection and control procedures, and research. The Agreement obliges the parties to provide statistical and scientific information to the CommisSion, notes that proposals of the Commission shall be binding, following approval of the Parties, and further obliges each contracting party to put into effect and enforce measures necessary to implement the Agreement. The Agreement further provides that each Contracting Party be entitled to issue permits to its nationals for the taking of seals on the high seas or in its own territorial sea for the purposes of scientific research, the local population and, under certain conditions, for expeditions. Clauses pertaining to costs of the Commission and joint research, termination of the Agreement and its entry into force, are also included.
Articles II and XII of the Agreement were amended in 1975 to include hooded seal, bearded seal and walrus and to re-define the area where Norwegian vessels engaged in sealing operations were allowed to take seals. (A copy of the 1971 Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Norway on Sealing and the Conservation of the Seal Stocks in the Northwest Atlantic and the 1975 amendments are attached as Appendix XXV II 1.
1Amendments of June 26, 1970, to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act of Canada, and the designation, by Order in Co'uncil, P.C. 1971-366 of February 25, 1971, of certain areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada as fishing zones of Canada. -40-
The Canada/Norway Sealing Commission has met formally fourteen times between its first meeting in 1973 and 1982. An informal meeting was held in Ottawa in January 1983. Meetings of the Commission have not been held since that time, by agreement between Canadian and Norwegian Commissioners. Agreed summary records of these meetings are included in Appendix XXIX.
It is important to note that while meetings of the Canada/Norway Sealing Commission offered an opportunity for· consultation between Norway and Canada, the Commission · did not·, and does· not now, . have the power of decision regarding sealing quotas (see section of Management of the Seal Hunt).
Preceding the entry into force of the 1971 Agreement between Canada and Norway on Sealing, discussions with Norwegian officials in 1965 led to an informal agreement with the Norwegians to keep their sealing vessels out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Norwegians have not taken seals in the Gulf since that time.
Finally, although Norway was provided with an allocation of seals in Canadian waters in 1983, Norwegian vessels have not participated in the seal hunt in Canadian waters since 1982.
1.10 International Issues 1.10.1 Import Bans
Activity relative to import bans on seal products took place in individual EEC Member States, prior to and after the implementation of the EEC Directive banning the import of harp and hooded seal pup products implemented in October, 1983. It is noteworthy that although the EEC Directive required Member States to take measures to prevent the import of whitecoat and blueback products, not all Member States have complied.
The first formal measure against the import of seal products was taken by Italy • . The Minister of Foreign Trade decreed a ban on seal pelt imports on June 8, ·1978. In substance, the decree requires that imports of sealskins and sealskin products originating from countries of certain zones as well as other Member States be subject to ministerial authorization. The motivation for the decree, as indicated in the preamble, was the perceived need "to take all steps necessary to prevent extinction of certain species of animals particutarly threatened". -41-
The Italian Ministry of Foreign Trade indicated that the decision to implement the ban was taken at the "highest political level" in response to public pressure. On September 3, 1978, Prime Minister Trudeau met with Prime Minister Andreotti in Rome, during which the seal impart ban was discussed, and Mr. Andreotti undertook to review the situation. On September 8, 1978, an aide-memoire was forwarded to the Italian Government requesting recession of the ban and offering consultations with Canadian experts· to discuss the matter. Subsequently, Italy issued instructions that seal pelts had to be at least 50 cm in diameter and have hair length of at least 2.5 em. When the matter of a possible ban arose at the EEC level, Italy indicated that they had to support it as consistent with their awn legislation. In the Netherlands, a voluntary boycott an the impartation of seal products was undertaken by Dutch furriers in the mid-to-Iate 1970's. In 1978, an Advisory Commission on Treatment of Exotic Plants and Animals reported to the Netherlands Ministry of Culture its conclusion that on the basis of "available data", there has been dangerous depletion of harp and hooded seal numbers.
The Netherlands Ministry of Culture drafted a general administrative order banning the impartation of "at least" whitecoat harp seals intended to take effect, after approval by the State Council, by the end of 1978. An aide-memoire was passed to the Netherlands Government on September 8, 1978 protesting this. The ban was nat lifted.
Early in 1978, the French Government passed a series of regulations concerned with the maintenance and protection of wildlife resources, and announced its intent to use the regulations to effect a ban an the impartation of seal products into France. The French Government did nat impose this ban, but signed an agreement with the French Furriers Association in which the latter agreed nat to import seal skins. The French Government, however, has nat promulgated any laws or decrees to apply EEC directives. -42-
A request for consideration of a ban on the importation of Canadian seal products into the UK was tabled in the House of Commons, March 23, 1978. However, the UK Government indicated that an import ban was thought to be inappropriate at that time and referred the request for comments from Departments. To date, there is no national legislation or regulations in the U.K. prohibiting the import of seal products, nor are there voluntary measures to ban the import of seal products.
At present, there is no national, legal or voluntary ban on the import of seal products in Denmark.
In the Federal Republic of Germany, where no legal measures have been taken, there is an "informal agreement" among the environmentalists, the Ministry of the Economy and fur industry to apply the EEC directive.
Greece applies EEC legislation regarding skins of "oil bearing mammals" to imports of seal products.
1.10.2 EEC Ban
Responding to a mailing campaign generated by a~ti-sealing non-governmental organizations, the European Parliament voted 160-10 (there are 434 Members) to pass a resolution on March 11, 1982 on "Community trade in seal products and in particular in products deriving from the whitecoat pups of harp seals and from the pups of hooded seals" (Appendix XXX). The basis for this resolution, as given in its preamble, was the "deep public outrage aroused by the annual slaughter of newborn seals, and the manner in which this slaughter is carried out, on the one hand and the conservation status of seal species and seal stocks on the other hand".
The European Parliament requested the Commission of the European Communities to follow the example of the United States, the Netherlands and Italy and to introduce, by means of a regulation, a ban on imports of all skins and products derived from young hooded and harp seals and on these and other products coming from seals whose stocks are depleted, threatened or endangered. Further, Parliament requested the Commission to:
Propose legislation to ensure that all seal products imported into the Community are clearly marked as made of or derived from sealskin, indicating the type of seal and where the seal was killed. -43-
Introduce, by means of this regulation, arrangements governing intra-Community trade in the skins and products derived from young hooded and harp seals which safeguard existing stocks.
Take initiatives ••• to bring about the inclusion of all earless seals (Phocidae) in Annex II of the Washington D.C. Conv.ention ••• thus making it possible to supervise to a certain extent the trade. in. the products of ear less seals. ·
To bring forward proposals in due time to include all species of seal in Annex C of the Council regulation implementing the Washington Convention in the EEC so as to ensure the surveillance of imports and exports.
The Resolution further contains detailed requests to the Commission concerning measures to be taken for the conservation of the Mediterranean monk seal. The Commission informed the Parliament on April 19, 1982 that it had asked the Nature Conservancy Council in the United Kingdom to examine the latest available scientific data relating to the status of the harp and hooded seals in accordance with the Resolution. The Nature Conservancy Council submitted its report in May, 1982 (Appendix XXXI). A full review of the report prepared by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans appears in Appendix XXXII.
The European Parliament passed a second resolution (Appendix XXXIII) relating to seals on September 16, 1982, by a vote of 24-3-3, calling for the Commission to send the necessary proposals to Parliament and the Council and indicate its precise timetable for doing so. A further provision of that resolution reminds the Commission and Council that the action outlined in Parliament's resolution also relates to the seal stocks off the shores of the Community and states Parliament's belief" that it would be hypocritical if action were taken in relation to third countries while ignoring the Community's own responsibility" •
In October 1982, the Commission submitted a proposal to Parliament providing for an import ban (Appendix XXIV). A report by the EEC Environment Commission to European Parliament is attached (Appendix XXXV). -44-
On November 19, 1982 the European Parliament adopted a resultion (52-10-4) favouring the Commission's proposal for the ban on seal products. In December 1982, a Canadian delegation led by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Hon. Pierre De Ban~ and including Han. Brian Peckford, visited the EEC and some Member States to explain why an import ban would be unnecessary. This represented a continuation of the high level diplomatic representations in the form ·of d~marches, notes verbales and aide-m~moires which had been made by Canada over a period· of years.
The Council of the European Communities considered the issue at meetings on December 3 and 17, 1982. At the latter meeting, a resolution was passed (Appendix XXXVI), considering European Parliament's resolution on trade in seal products and requesting, inter alia, the Commission to pursue exploratory talks with "the countries concerned" and report back as a matter of urgency. These talks included a trilateral meeting in ottawa, January 31 - February 1, 1983 with officials from Canada and Norway. During the meeting a draft treaty dealing with seals and sealing in the north Atlantic was tabled by Canada for consideration (Appendix XXXVII), but the Commission representatives made it clear that they had no interest in pursuing this initiative. Similarly, proposals by Canada to establish a joint panel on humane killing and to conduct joint research on the status of the hooded seal stocks in the north Atlantic were not accepted by the Commission. (An agreed summary record of the meeting is attached, Appendix XXXVIII). The Council met again on February 28, 1983 to consider the Commission's report and approved a two-year directive, dated March 28, 1983, (Appendix XXXIX) which would, unless a weighted vote by the Council overturned the decision, after consideration of a report to be prepared by the Commission, require all member states to take or maintain measures to prohibit commercial imports of harp and hooded seal pup products (whitecoats and bluebacks) into their jurisdiction, commencing October 1, 1983. Article 3 of the Directive provides that it shall only apply to products not resulting from traditional hunting by the Inuit people.
The preambular paragraphs include reference to a request to the Commission to "continue to seek, in the context of continued contacts with the countries concerned, solutions which make restrictions of imports dispensable". -45-
The basis for this Directive in terms of jurisdiction is Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome. The Directive required the Commission to report before September 1, 1983,which would be the basis for a decision to reconsider the ban.
The Commission submitted its report on August 23, 1983 (Appendix XXXIX) recommending that the directive go forward as adopted (a critique of the report prepared by the Department of Fisher ies and Oceans is attached, as Appendix XL). Although there was provision in the Directive that the Council consider the Commission's report before October 1, 1983, when the ban was to take effect, it did not do so. Instead, the report was considered by Coreper, another arm of the EEC composed of permanent representatives of the member states, rather than Ministers, and without a legislative mandate; it called for the Commission to consult affected countries and make reports at six month intervals from the time of implementation of the ban.
A report on seals, including recommendations regarding the ban, was adopted in the Environment Committee of European Parliament in February 1985 (see Appendix XLI). It recommended that the ban be extended indefinitely and widened to include products of harp and hooded seals up to one year old. The report was considered in European Parliament on March 14, 1985, and adopted unanimously, 55-0. However, because the ban is already in place, the Commission and Council are not legally bound by Parliament's adoption of the report.
1.10.3. Fish Boycott Campaign
In a series of letters, sent periodically for several months from June, 1982 to the Canadian Minister of Fisheries and leading representatives of the Canadian fish processing industry, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) reported preparations for an international boycott of Canadian fish products unless the seal hunt was stopped.
This was the first part of a three-stage campaign called "Operation Boycott", as described in a letter dated September, 1983, and signed by Brian Davies, Executive Director of the IFAW (See Appendix XLII). -46-
The second stage, as stated in the letter, was to attempt to get the major British importers to voluntarily refuse to purchase Canadian fish. To this end, ad prototypes were sent to British importers as an indication of the proposed campaign (copies of prototypes and covering letter attached, as Appendix XLIII). . .
The third stage of Operation Boycott was to be a grassroots con.sumer boycott of the brand names that sell Canadian fish imports. The campaign focused on Canadian canned salmon, (Pacific) because it is easily identifiable as Canadian.
other activities which the IFAW planned to include in the campaign are described in Appendix XLIV.
The campaign also included the mailing of IFAW "information packages" (copy attached, Appendix XLV) to households in the U.K. The package included a request for donations, preprinted post cards to supermarket chains and importers (including Tesco, Sainsbury's, Safeway, Findus, John West and Birdseye), and a letter. In February, 1984, the IFAW boycott campaign had apparently spread to the USA. The "information packages" were reportedly sent to 5 million households (Appendix XLVI). Targeted industries included both wholesalers and fast-food chains. Tactics also included a newspaper advertisement and small demonstrations and picket lines have occasionally been set up outside some fast-food outlets.
The stated objective of the boycott campaign in the USA, was to ban the harvest of harp and hooded seals up to one year old. In a telex dated March 20, 1984 to an official in the Department of External Affairs (see Appendix XLVII), it was stated that if a "legally binding prohibition on the killing of all harp and hooded seals up to the age of one year in the Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone was implemented, IFAW would at that time completely terminate the boycott of Canadian fish products". The IFAW has recently indicated the boycott campaign would be cancelled if the following conditions are met: (a) ban hunting for animals less than one year old; (b) ban hunting on the whelping grounds; (c) institutionalize the harvest level at the 1984 total of 30,000 harp seals, rather than set the total allowable catch according to scientific advice. -47-
In the U.K., one supermarket chain, Tesco, announced it would phase out the purchase of Canadian fish. However, they did not remove the product from their shelves. Their decision is reported to be under review. otherwise, there has been no indication that the boycott campaign had any effect in either the U.K. or the U.S.A. (see media reports, Appendix XLVIII).
1.10.4. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (see Appendix XLIX) was implemented in Canada in 1975. A full report of Canadian participation in CITES is given in the 1983 Annual Report for Canada (see Appendix L). Currently 87 countries have ratified CITES (also known as the Washington Convention).
The purpose of CITES is to regulate trade in species of wild animals and plants (as well as their respective parts and derivatives) which are listed on . Appendices to the Convention.
The effect of including a species on Appendix I is to stop commercial trade in that species. The Convention provides in Article II (1) that "Trade in specimens of these species must be subject to particularly strict regulation in order not to endanger further their survival and must only be authorized in exceptional circumstances." The criterion for inclusion on Appendix I is that species, which are or may be affected by trade, be "threatened with extinction".
The effect of including a species on Appendix II is to regulate trade by a system of export permits. There are two alternative criteria for inclusion on Appendix II.
Article II 2(a) of CITES provides that Appendix II shall include "all species which although not necessarily now threatened with extinction may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival". -48-
Article II Z(b) provides that Appendix II shall also include "other species which must be subject to regulation in order that specimens of certain species referred to in'sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph be brought under effective control". This sub-paragraph is referred to as the "look-alike" provision: if the product of B species which does not meet the criterion for listing "looks like" and is likely to be confused with the product of a species which meets the criterion, there is a danger that the latter potentially "threatened" species could be traded freely without permits.
Although a strict legal interpretation confines the listing of a "look-alike" II Z(b) species to those which look like other species on Appendix II, parties have varied this provision in practice and have voted to include species on Appendix II if they look like Appendix I species.
Individual countries may distinguish between "look-alike" and truly endangered species on national lists, but the CITES Appendices do not necessarily indicate whether a species was included b~cause of the' "look-alike" provision.
Appendix III includes all species which any party identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation, and as needing the cooperation of other parties in the control of trade. In other words, this Appendix relates to unilateral listing by parties.
Proposals to amend CITES Appendices are considered at biennial Conferences of the Parties, which began in 1976, or between meetings using a postal vote system.
Proposals relating to seals were tabled and discussed at the 1981 and 1983 meetings and a proposal to include hooded seals on Appendix II has been formally tabled for the 1985 meeting.
At the 1981 Conference, France tabled proposals to include grey and harbour seals on Appendix II. Canada opposed these on the grounds that they did not meet CITES criteria for listing: there is no significant international trade in either species, and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that either species is likely to be "threatened with extinction". The French delegation withdrew the grey seal proposal before the vote, and the harbour seal proposal was defeated. -49-
At the April 1983 Conference, the Federal Republic of Germany, on behalf of the Commission of the European Economic Community, tabled a proposal (see Appendix LI) to include all species of phocidae, or hair seal, on Appendix II. The basis for this proposal was that they looked like species already listed on ·Appendix I (the Mediterranean monk seal), as prov ided in Art icle II 2(b) of CITES. The proposal was made in response to a resolution on seals passed by the European Parliament on March 11, 1982, · which requested the Commission, inter alia, to take initiatives to bring about the inclusion of all earless seals (Phocidae) in Annex II of the Washington D.C. Convention thus making it possible to supervise to a certain extent the trade in the products of ear less seals.
Two other proposals relating to harp and hooded seals were tabled by Gambia and Uruguay, but were withdrawn before the Conference. Canada opposed the FRG proposal for reasons contained in the Canadian critique of the FRG Proposal (see Appendix LII). Briefly, the reasons were: lack of objective scientific basis; the look-alike problem (with the Mediterranean monk seal) does not arise because monk seals are so scarce they are seldom seen, let alone harvested or traded, and because the value of hooded seal pelts arose from the distinctive characteristics; there would be an unwarranted socio-economic impact on Canadian fishermen and Inuit; listing of these species on CITES would result in no improvement over the present system of monitoring trade; the proposal is inappropriate in view of the collapsed markets for seal products; sound Canadian management practices ensure conservation of the species. It was noted by the FRG, that even if the proposals were adopted, all products from the Greenland hunt would have been exempted from any CITES requirements when they entered the EEC through Denmark.
An amendment to .the proposal which would have allowed hooded seals to be considered separately, and the proposal as tabled were defeated. The minutes of the proceedings (see Appendix LIlI) include argumentation given by proponents and opponents of the proposal. -50-
Sweden has tabled a proposal to include hooded seals on Appendix II for consideration of the 1985 meeting (See Appendix LIV). This proposal was tabled prior to the receipt of the most recent advice on the status of the population from the NAFO Scientific Council. Canada has prepared a status report on hooded seals and a critique of the proposal (see Appendices VIII and LV respectively).
1.11 Economics 1.11.1 History
The history of sealing in many localities of the Atlantic region is part of the history of the early settlement of Newfoundland's northeast coast, the Qu~bec North Shore and the Magdalen Islands. For many years the seal hunt has been an important part of the local economies in these communities.
The commercial demand for oil and skins in the late 18th century gave rise to the modern sealing industry. The first fleet of wooden ships appeared in 1794, followed by wooden steamers in 1863, and the first steel ship in 1906. By the early years of this century the hunt consisted of landsmen operating close to shore and large vessels that were capable of sailing far from shore and manoeuvring among the ice floes. About ten years ago, long liners (vessels 35-65 feet in length) again entered the seal fishery.
Landings
Annual seal pelt landings in Newfoundland averaged almost three hundred thousand in the first ten years of this century then began a generally declining trend with substantial fluctuations, for the next thirty years. Landings were at very low levels during most of the years of the Second World War, increased again during the 1940's before declining once more until the late 1960's (Table 3).
A total allowable catch and various area quotas were introduced in 1971 in order to assure the rebuilding of the harp seal herd. Pelt prices also gradually strengthened throughout the 1970's while annual landings in Newfoundland rose from 41,743 in 1972 to a high of 152,967 in 1981 (Table 4). Similarly, total landings on the Atlantic Coast -51-
TABLE 3 LANDINGS OF SEAL PELTS - NEWFOUNDLAND
1911-1960
Number of Seal Number of Seal Year Pelts Landed Year Pelts Landed
1911 305,597 1935 143,031 1912 175,130 1936 183,689 1913 272,965 1937 113,689 1914 233,719 1938 226,747 1915 47,004 1939 97,345 1916 241,302 1940 159,687 1917 196,228 1941 42,666 1918 151,431 1942 4,698 1919 81,293 1943 No seal fishery 1920 22,285 1944 6,697 1921 101,452 1945 11,543 1922 126,031 1946 58,342 1923 101,770 1947 130,128 1924 129,561 1948 171,982 1925 127,882 1949 170,412 1926 211,531 1950 121,908 1927 180,459 1951 228,014 1928 227,022 1952 105,245 1929 201,856 1953 106,336 1930 241.236 1954 67,357 1931 87,866 1955 55,561 1932 48,613 1956 77,586 1933 176,046 1957 46,182 1934 227,390 1958 55,427 1959 32,029 1960 37,459 -52-
TABLE 4
LANDINGS AND LANDED VALlES Of SEAL PELTS -NEWFOUM>LAND
Average Value Year Landings E!er E!elt* Gross Value No. $ $ 1960 37,459 3.08 115,374 1961 41,450 3.22 133,469 1962 59,753 3.80 227,061 1963 77,767 4.28 332,843 1964 45,720 18.85 861,822 1965 79,954 11.29 902,681 1966 51,515 10.66 549,150 1967 42,070 8.68 365,168 1968 39,749 4.28 170,126 1969 118,072 6.93 818,239 1970 93,286 8.18 763,079 1971 73,406 8.15 598,259 1972 41,743 10.42 434,962 1973 44,957 10.25 460,809 1974 48,784 14.04 684,927 1975 78,127 20.87 1,630,341 1976 94,617 15.82 1,496,B34 1977 88,701 19.BO 1,756,408 1978 111,563 19.0B 2,12B,622 1979 99,829 22.22 2.,217,702 1980 122,223 27.18 3,322,,381 1981 152,967 25.43 3,889,244 1982 122,024 25.37 3,100,756 1983 49,065 12.40 608,353 1984 29,366 11.46 336,656
*Values are for pelts only and do not include the value of any other products derived from the seal fishery. -53- followed the same pattern (Table 5) in the 1970's in terms of numbers and average pelt prices.
The deployment of more large vessels in the Newfoundland Front (and corresponding decrease in the large ve.ssels operating in the Gul f)to prosecute the valuable whitecoat hunt, resulted in a change in the distribution in landings. In· 1971,. Newfoundland seal landings comprised 55 percent of the Atlantic Coast total. In 1981, Newfoundland accounted for 79 percent of the Atlantic Coast landings. This change was influenced by the establishment, about fifteen years ago, of the Carino Company's large (with a pelt processing capacity in excess of 200,000 pelts per season) modern processing plant in Oildo, Newfoundland.
1.11.2 Economic Aspects - Primary Industry The primary economic returns from the seal hunt consist of the pelts, seal oil and seal meat. Comprehensive data are available with respect to the number and value of pelts landed since complete records have been kept by the two large buyer/processors of pelts, Carino Ltd. of St. John's and Karlsen Shipping of Halifax. Pelts The landed value of seal pelts taken from the Canadian hunt on the Atlantic Coast ranged from $756,000 in 1973 with an average price of $11.09 per skin, to a peak of $4.7 million and an average price of $24.36 per skin in 1981. In the past three years, landed values have declined sharply to $379,000 in 1984 (Table 5). Oil Comprehensive annual records of the value of seal oil production are not available. Furthermore, since seal oil is a commodity which is subject to price fluctuations, as are other marine and vegetable· oils, there has been no consistent pattern of year-to-year oil price increases. It was estimated in 1976 (17) that the sealers' revenue from the sale of blubber to the pelt processors averaged about ten percent of pelt -54-
TABLE 5
CANADIAN LANDINGS AND LANDED VALUES Of SEAL PELTS . ATLANTIC COAST
Average Value
Year Landings ~er ~elt* Gross Value No. $ $ 1968 107,148 6.27 672,337 1969 173,689 7.36 1,278,111 1970 148,337 8.82 1,309,035 1971 134,610 8.51 1,144,898 1972 78,335 10.48 820,574 1973 68,209 11.09 756,457 1974 94,105 12.30 1,157,393 1975 122,919 20.00 2,458,681 1976 127,147 15.95 2,028,000 1977 128,054 18.23 2,334,847 1978 152,537 17.98 2,742,615 1979 150,434 20.89 3,142,269 1980 166,495 25.83 4,301,048 1981 192,752 24.36 4,695,326 1982 153,536 24.03 3,688,889 1983 64,407 13.31 857,315 1984 33,337 11.38 379,386 "Values are for pelts only and do not include the value of any other products derived from the seal fishery. -55- receipts. Based on that estimate, it is possible the sealers' receipts from the sale of blubber for oil was approximately $4-500,000 during the modern era peak landings in the years 1980 and 1981.
Seal Meat The market for seal meat was made up of several different segments: the sale of flippers and carcasses to the public by the large vessel and longliner sealers (in past years this was the most lucrative segment of seal meat sales), the local, usually in small communities, sale and personal use of seal meat on the part of landsmen hunters and the sale of carcasses for the commercial canning of seal meat products.
It is estimated (17) that sealers' revenue from the sale of seal meat in recent years has approximated 15 to 20 percent of the income from the sale of pelt. Thus, in the peak year of landings in 1981, it is likely that the sales of meat amounted to between $700,000 and $1-million. It is est imated that, rather than being discarded, in ex'cess of fifty percent of potential seal meat available each year is actually taken by sealers and that the utilization of meat has been increasing steadily. Thua, industry sources consider that sales of seal meat have actually become an increasingly important proportion of sealers' revenues in view of the decline in pelt prices since 1981. Primary Sector Employment and Income During the past twenty years, seal harvesting employment was comprised of the large vessel, longline and landsmen hunts. The large vessel hunts in the Gulf and Front were undertaken, until 1983, by eight large vessels with crews averaging about twenty to twenty-five per vessel. In 1983, only three large ships engaged in the seal hunt and none participated in the commercial seal harvest in 1984. The large vessel hunt was the most efFicient in terms of landings of seals, with each vessel averaging yearly catches of about 10,000 seals over hunting seasons which averaged 4 to 6 weeks in length. The large vessel fishery returned the highest per capita incomes to sealers of the three Fisheries. -56-
The longliner seal fishery, during the peak of years 1980-81, was prosecuted by approximately 140 longliners, mostly operating in northeastern Newfoundland. Longliner crew sizes averaged between four and five sealers per vessel.
Small boat and land-based hunters constituted by far the largest number of sealers in the hunt.. Precise counts of the numbers of landsmen hunters sealing e·ach year are not av.ailable. During the peak years of the modern-day hunt, 6,000-7,000 sealing licences. were issued annually. Hunters were based in scores of small communities in the Magdalen Islands, the Quebec North Shore and Labrador, Cape Breton and, most predominantly, in western and northeastern Newfoundland. Hunting effort, number of pelts landed and sealing receipts have varied greatly among the landsmen sealers. It is estimated, however, that approximately 2-3,000 individual landsmen participated in the annual Atlantic Coast seal hunt on an intensive commercial basis during the peak years of 1980 and 1981. Table 6 gives the estimated per capita sealing income for commercially-active sealers, by type of hunt for the years 1981-1984. It should be noted that there is wide variability in terms of the type of effort, duration of hunt and quality of pelts and meat receipts with respect to the long liner and, especially, the landsmen sealers, Thus, the estimated average incomes should be regarded as a rough estimate of central tendency. For the large vessel operations, sealers' incomes have been estimated after allowing for vessel expenses and the vessel owner's profits.
For the longliner sealing operations, the estimated income shares for the crews have been determined by allocating, as is common in that fishery, an income share to the boat equivalent to the per capita crew share. This allocation of sealing receipts to the participants in the longliner operations does not fully cover the actual vessel expenses but is consistent with practices in that sector. With respect to the landsmen segment of the hunt, the average income figures were obtained by dividing that sector's estimated gross sealing receipts by the estimated number of sealers who participated in that hunt on a commercially intensive basis. Because of the wide variations in hunting practices, no attempt has been made to calculate costs and net incomes. -57-
TABLE 6 ESTIMATED AVERAGE SEAlING INCOME ATLANTIC COAST SEAL HUNT BY SEGMENT IF IllNT 1981-1984
1981 1982 1983 1984;2
LARGE VESSELS
Number of Ships 9 8 3 Number of Sealers 217 204 65 Est. Average Sealing Income/1 4,600 5,100 850
LONGlINERS Number of Ships 137 124 85 41 Number of Sealers 550 550 371 152 Est. Average Sealing Income/ 1 2,500 1,800 690 300
LANDSMEN
Number of Sealers/3 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,000 Est. Average Sealing Income/1 750 380 250 300
/1 Estimates reflect incomes from pelts, meat and oil.
/2 targe vessel activity in 1984 was mainly for scientific research purposes. The catch of seals was very small and no commercial sealing incomes have been estimated.
/3 Averages based on estimates of number of hunters who participate on a commercially intensive basis. Total number of reported landsmen hunters were at least double the numbers shown above in each year. -58-
Detailed pelt landing statistics by type of hunt for the years 1978-1984 are included as Appendix LV.
Seal Pelt Price Stabilization Programs 1983 and 1984 Average prices paid to Atlantic coast fishermen and NWT "hunters for seal pelts declined by about 50% in 1983 compared with the previous year (from about $25.30 to $13.31 on the Atlantic coast). Prices were unchanged between 1983 and 1984.
. In order to partly compensate fishermen and hunters for the substantial declines in income from sealing, the Fisheries Prices Support 80ard implemented, in 1984, a seal pelt price stabilization program with respect to the 1983 season. Under this program, stabilization payments of about $630,000 and $90,000 were distributed to about 3,000 Atlantic coast fishermen and 1,000 Inuit hunters in the NWT respectively.
In March 1985, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced that the seal pelt price stabilization program would be continued with respect to the 1984 season. While average pelt prices remained unchanged between 1983 and 1984, the number of pelts landed declined by over 50%. As a result, it is estimated that stabilization payments for the 1984 season will be about $200,000 to Atlantic coast fishermen and about $48,000 to NWT hunters.
1.11.3 Economic Aspects - Secondary Industry Secondary industry employment and production with respect to the seal fishery occurs in the areas of pelt assembly and trucking (in the case of the landsmen hunt) to centralized processing. Primary pelt processing (de-blubbering of pelts, thinning and grading) is another area of production and employment. The production of seal oil is another centre of activity. Finally, the commercial production of seal meat products has contributed to the local value of industrial production and employment. In recent years, most of this activity has been located in Newfoundland while the smaller portion of pelt processing has been conducted in Nova Scotia.
It should be noted that the peak activity in the secondary industry occurred between the late 1970's and 1982. As a result of the sharp decline in landings in -59-
1983 and 1984, it is estimated that production and employment in this sector was only 10 to 20 percent of the lev.els of 1981.
Pelt COllection and Trucking The collection· of pelts taken by the Newfoundland landsmen fishernien and transportation of pelts to the Carina plant in Dildo, was undertaken by independent· agents and truckers until recent years. Mast agents were independent businessmen or merchants located in a number of small communities. The mast cammon arrangement was for the agent to purchase the pelts directly from landsmen and longliner fishermen for an established price at the beginning of the season. The agent would consolidate seal pelts from a number of sealers and truck these to the processor. The agent would then be paid directly by the processor. On average, the agent's fee was about 10 percent of the price paid by the processor.
During the late 1970's, it is estimated (17) that the number of seasonal jabs, of durations ranging from a few days to a few weeks, was approximately thirty. Mare recently, the number of agents engaged in this activity was declining as increasing numbers of sealers elected to make their awn deliveries directly to the processor.
Primary Pelt Processing The processing of seal pelts on the Atlantic Coast has been limited, with minor exception, to the primary functions of de-blubbering, thinning, cleaning, grading and storage for subsequent shipment to secondary processors.
Until approximately fifteen years ago, when the Carino Company established its processing plant in Dildo, much of the seal processing activity took place in Nova Scotia.
Fallowing the opening of the Dildo plant, increasing proportions of the large vessel harvest in the Front, the Newfoundland small vessel and landsmen hunts and substantial numbers from the Quebec landings, were purchased by Carino. From the mid-1970's through 1983, Carino accounted for about an average of 75 to 80 percent of the purchases of seal pelts taken in the Atlantic region each year while Karlsen Shipping of Halifax accounted for almost all of the remaining proportion. -60-
Processing Employment and Receipts Through the late 1970's and early 1980's, the two processing plants on the Atlantic Coast operated for periods of 7 to 8 months of the year, with peak production usually occurring in the period between April and June. The highest employment levels during the years of peak production, 1980 through 1982, was about 70 in Newfoun9land and about 20 in Nova Scotia.
For the period 1980-1982, the processing industry sources estimate primary processing costs were in the range of $6 to $8 per pelt. It is estim'ated that depreciation charges and overhead expenses averaged an additional $2-3 per pelt. In 1982, for the first time, the Carino Company experimented with the secondary processing of about 30,000 of the 120,000 pelts which it processed that year. Prior to that year and since 1982, all of the Company's pelts had been sent to its parent company, The G.C. Rieber & Company a.s. of Bergen, Norway, where the pelts were either chrome-tanned (for boot and shoe manufacture) or alum-tanned (for garment manufacture). Similarly, the pelts processed by Karlsen Shipping were sent to various dressers in Norway, Finland, West Germany and Italy where they received secondary processing.
The experimental chrome tanning operations in Oildo in 1982, were judged to have been a technical success by the company. However, the severe downturn, beginning in mid-1982, of skin sales prompted the Rieber Company to delay its plans to establish secondary processing in Newfoundland and, instead, to continue centralizing its secondary processing operations in Bergen.
Secondary Industry - Net Value Added It is difficult to estimate the receipts accruing to the pelt processors with respect to their production of pelts for the following reasons:
First, pelt and skin prices have historically fluctuated considerably on the international markets. This phenomenon affects the valuation that a processor and dresser would place on a commodity at anyone time. It also affects a company's business practices in terms of holding inventories of pelts and skins and selling product on the skin market. -61-
Second, the Atlantic Coast processors who account for most, but not all, of Canadian seal pelt exports are the subsidiaries of Norwegian-owned seal fur dressinq and marketinq enterprises. lhus, the shipment of processed pelts from Canada to the parent companies are transfer prices and are determined largely by the companies' internal business practices rather than would be the case with tradinq between two independent concerns in the markel.
Subject to these Qualifications, it is possible to make a rough estimate of the primary process ina industry's receipts: The averaqe export value declared by processors with reqard to seal pelts shipped to Norway in the period 1978 throuqh 1981 was in the ranqe of C$30-35 per unit. The average landed value (prices paid to the sealers) durinq this period was about C$20-25 per pelt. lhus, the difference between the declared export value and the landed value of the raw pelt was in the order of $10 per pelt durina this period. This fiqure also approximates the estimated production, overhead and depreciation costs, discussed earlier in this section, of about $10 per pelt.
Therefore, the net value added1 qenerated by the Atlantic Coast primary process ina industry, based on averaqe annual pelt purchases of 160,000 durinq the 1978-82 period, is estimated to have been in the order of $1.6 million yearly. Commercial Seal Meat Production
Apart from the sealers' sales of flippers and fresh meat, there has been some commercial processinq of seal meat products for a number of years. In the late 1970's, three Newfoundland fish processinq companies were enqaqed seasonally in the production of canned seal meat product. Durina the last several years, however, only one processor, located in Comfort Cove, has been enqaoed in this activity.
1This estimate is obtained by subtractina the cost to the processor of the raw pelt from the estimated sellinq price of the processed pelt. -62-
With the exception of 1984, when seal landings on the northeast coast of Newfoundland were very low, the seal meat processing concern has purchased about 6-8,000 seal carcasses annually from landsmen and longliners during the past several years. Prices paid to sealers have averaged about 251t/lb delivered to the plant. The average carcass weight has been ·about 35-40 Ibs.
In most years, the seal meat canning operation has employed approximately 20-25 individuals during the production period of 6-8 weeks from mid-March through April and early May. With the exception of 1984, annual production has been in the order of 6-8,000 cases of 24/15-oz cans of seal meat. At a recent price of $35 per case FOB plant, this production has had an annual value in the order of $200-250,000. Virtually all of the canned meat production is consumed in Newfoundland. Other seal meat products, frozen roasts and steaks, have been sold in retail stores and supermarkets in both small and large urban areas in recent years. Some of these products have also been produced by the canned seal meat processor. No firm estimate of the retail value of frozen seal meat is available but it is believed that the value would not exceed that of canned seal meat production. Seal Meat Production Value The foregoing supports the contention that the value of seal meat production in Newfoundland has, in recent years, been in the order of $1 million. It is likely that the sealers' own sales of fresh flippers and seal meat in small and large communities has been in excess of $500,000 per annum in recent years. Established retail trade sales of frozen seal meat have possibly been as high as $200,000 per annum in some years while the value of commercial canned seal meat production has approximated $250,000. -63-
Seal Oil Production
The production of seal oil has been a significant part of the total value of sealing industry output even in the modern era when seal has been valued primarily for its fur.
Direct employment in seal oil production has not been large, however, since the process is a highly mechanized one and involves the cooking in large vats of the blubber taken during the primary pelt thinning process.
No production or export statistics specific to seal oil are available. Based on information provided by the processors it is possible, however, to obtain some rough estimates of the value of seal oil production over the last several years.
Between 1978 and 1982, Atlantic Coast annual seal pelt landings ranged between 150,000 in 1979 and 193,000 in 1981. Based on average oil yield of 13.5 kg per pelt, the processors' seal oil production, it is estimated, varied from about 2,000 tonnes to 2,600 tonnes yearly during that period. With considerable fluctuation, seal oil prices during the last several years have ranged, at various times, upwards to about C$0.50/kg (C$500/tonne) CIF Western Europe. Thus, it is estimated that annual sales of Atlantic Coast seal oil during the 1978-1982 period approximated C$800,000 to C$l million CIF.
1.11.4 Seal Pelt Exports Table 7 shows the annual Canadian exports of raw and primary processed seal pelts for the period 1977-1984. The data show that pelts exported increased in numbers and gross value through to 1981, the peak year for the landings and prices, and have declined substantially since then. In 1981, exports of raw seal skins from Canada were valued at slightly over $6 million". In 1984, the value of these exports was $35,000. Exports in 1984 were very small and reflect the very low production in the Northwest Territories and the Atlantic Region last year.
It should be noted that the export figures include the shipments of the N.W.T. hunt of raw ringed and harp seal pelts, largely on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company, to the U.K. and other Western European countries. In the late 1970's through 1982, these latter exports accounted for about 20-30,000 pelts yearly. -64-
TABLE 7
At.tIUAl CANADIAN EXPORTS IT RAW AM) PRIMARY PROCESSED SEAL SKINS
1977-1984 (numbers and value ($' 000))
1977 1978 1979 1980 No. V No. --V No.-V No. -V UNITED KINGI)(JI 30 806 732 13 672 176 16 473 276 22 748 722 DELG./ LUX. 5 754 89 4 423 55 -- FINLAND 45 000 127 14 859 297 22 984 575 17 819 445 WEST GERMANY 24 737 800 7 549 147 11 064 387 13 294 304 NORWAY 86 240 2 200 116 268 4 013 106 032 3 329 93 443 985 SIfEDEN 5 095 102 7 561 108 5 403 127 14 520 343 OTHERS 587 3 3 087 97 3 126 136 8 924 392 TOTAL 198 219 4 080 167 419 4 893 165 082 4 680 170 748 3 191
1981 1982 1983 1984 No.-- V No. --V No. V No. --V U.K. 19 565 500 15 817 471 1 025 22 8ELG./ LUX. 192 5 DENMARK
FINlAND 33 712 722 14 243 254 WEST GERMANY 9 725 213 563 18 170 3 NORWAY 156 243 4 358 103 614 2 826 63 836 1 390 SWEDEN 1 369 36 1 855 3 OTHERS 3 501 178 1 072 87 576 25 668 35 TOTAL 224 115 6 007 137 164 3 689 65 629 1 442 838 38 -65-
1.11.5 Secondary Processing of Seal Pelts
Canada In the past dozen .years, the secondary processing (chrome or alum tanning) of harp and ringed seal pelts has been a very small part of Canadian fur dressing production. In the 1960's and early 1970's, the Canadian production of seal fur footwear was in the order of 20,000 pairs of boots per annum. Much of this production was sold in the United States. With the passage of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the U.S. market for seal fur footwear (and all other imported seal products) was closed and footwear production declined substantially. One Canadian dresser, Maranda and Labrecque Ltee of Quebec City, provided much of the tanned skins for the footwear production and dressed upwards of 20,000 seal skins annually during this period. Maranda and Labrecque still produce some tanned seal skins for the manufacture of footwear but this volume has averaged 1-2,000 skins per annum over the past few years.
Other Canadian dressers, notably D. Cohn-Transcanada of Winnipeg, have remained active in seal skin dressing and Cohn's production has mainly been for the Inuit cooperatives which annually utilize 2-3,000 ringed and harp seal skins from pelts taken in the N.W.T. hunt.
Western Europe Norway Western Europe, notably Norway, has been the locus of seal skin tanning and marketing for many years. Through the 1970's, the G.C. Rieber Company a.s. of Bergen, Norway, became the world's leader in the dressing and marketing of seal skins. At its peak, production of chrome tanned harp seal skins at the Rieber chrome tanning plant in Bergen was in excess of 100,000 units. The operation normally employed 20-25 individuals. " -66-
The company's fur dressing plant, also in Bergen, normally employed a staff of eighty; at its peak, the operation dressed in excess of 200,000 skins annually. After the downturn in the European market, beginning in 1982 and the cessation of production and sales of whitecoat and blueback fur in 1983, the company's fur dressing activities were substantially reduced. Fur dressing operations have, since 1983, been limited to the production· of South African Cape seal skins and the relatively small proportion of hair seal (juvenile and adult harps) which are of fur garment quality. Currently, the company's fur dressing and chrome tanning operations together employ about 25 individuals.
Other Countries Finland and Italy were, until two years ago, important dressing centres for whitecoat skins although production in those countries was substantially less than Rieber's. Although volumes were small in relation to Norwegian production, West Germany has also been an important centre for very good quality dressing of hair seal, blueback and some whitecoat skins. Since the enactment of the EEC ban on the importation of harp and hooded seal pup (whitecoat and blueback) products, with effect from 1 October, 1983, seal skin tanning has been virtualy confined to Norway. -67-
1.11 .6 EcooDlllic Impact of the Sealing Industry - Prillary and Secondary Production
Table 8 summarizes the estimate of the economic impact of the sealing industry to the Atlantic Region. The estimates are based on the industry's production for 1982. The year was typical of the period between the mid-1970's and early 1980's. The landings of 153,000 approximated the annual average for the period 1975-1982. The quota of 'whitecoats was also landed in 1982 - the last year that a commercial hunt for whitecoats was conducted.
Primary industry receipts for 1982 are estimated to have totalled $4.820 million for the large vessel, longliner and landsmen hunts with respect to the sales of raw pelts, blubber (for oil) and fresh meat. The net value added generated by the secondary industry has been determined, for purposes of this presentation, by calculating the difference between the estimated selling pr ice of the pr'oducts (pr imary processed pelts, seal oil and commercial canned meat) and the cost to the processors of the raw product.
The net value added generated by the secondary industry in 1982 is thus estimated to have been $2.360 million. The sum of the primary industry receipts and secondary industry net value added is estimated to have been $7.180 million.
In comparison, the economic impact of the sealing industry in 1984, using the same methods of calculation, declined to approximately $1.0-$1.4 million. other Estimates of Economic Impact - Primary and Secondary Production
In the 1976 study of the Atlantic Coast Sealing Industry (17), the industry's contribution to the Atlantic Region's Gross Regional Product was calculated by summing the receipts obtained by the primary and secondary industry sectors and applying multipliers of economic impact. For the primary industry, an impact multiplier of 1.462 was obtained while the secondary industry generated an impact multiplier of 1.206. The total dollar contribution to the regional economy was determined, through this analysis, to be the product of -68-
TABLE 8
ESTIMATE Of EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT Of THE ATLANTIC COAST SEALING INDUSTRY, 1982
Primary Receipts Pelts ...... 3,700,000 Oil ...... 350,000 Meat 770,000 Sub-Total: 4,820,000
Secondary Industry Net Value_Added1 Pelt processing ...... 1,600,000 Oil production 600,000 Commercial meat production •••.•••••• 160,000 Sub-Total: 2,360,000
Estimated total receipts .•.•.•...... • 7,180,000
Employment Primary
Number of sealers: Large vessels 204 Longliners 550 Landsmen (2) 2,500 Secondary Agents and transportation ••••.••••••• 30 Pelt and oil processing ..•...... •.. 90 Commercial canned meat production •••• 25
1. In the case of the secondary industry the net value added has been defined as the estimated selling price of the product less the cost of the raw material.
2. Based on an estimate of about 2,500 landsmen who participated in the hunt on a commercially active basis. The actual number of licences issued to landsmen was much higher. -69- an impact multiplier of 2.668 per dollar of seal pelts landed. This calculation would result in an estimate of the Atlantic Coast industry's economic impact of $9.84 million in 1982. For 1984, the comparable estimate would be $1.0 million.
1.11.7 Manufacture of Seal Skin Products
Canada Since the enactment of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, referred to earlier, Canadian manufacture and utilization of seal fur products has declined to about five percent of the international market for this commodity. Footwear
Two Canadian footwear manufacturers, both based in Quebec, currently produce a line of seal fur apr~s ski boots and slippers. Production totals approximately 8,000 pairs of seal fur footwear per annum and the manufacturers utilize about 3,000 skins each year. This production is a relatively small proportion (perhaps five to ten percent) of these manufacturers' annual sales of footwear. Virtually all of the production is sold in Canada.
Garments
The Canadian garment market for hair seal (juvenile and adult harps) has always been small. Sales in southern Canada are currently very small and consist of custom production undertaken by furriers for individual clients.
Seal fur garment production is somewhat higher in several eastern Arctic communities than it is in southern Canada. A number of Inuit cooperatives are producing a variety of ringed and harp seal garments, largely for sale within the N.W.T. Handicrafts
The manufacture of seal fur handicraft items is undertaken by individuals and small business enterprises in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the N.W.T. Often the skins utilized in this production are scrap pieces which have been re-cycled from seal fur footwear manufacture. -70-
Handbags and Accessories Some manufacturers of these products use seal fur trim in the production of part of their line of goods. The number of seal skins used in this production is smalL .
For much of the Canadian seal fur manufacturing industry the ·source of· skins has been Rieber in Norway. In recent years, this utilization has averaged about · 4,000 skins· annually. For a portion of southern Canadian seal fur footwear manufacture and the N.W.T. production, ringed and harp seal skins dressed in Canada have also been utilized. 1.12 Marketing 1.12.1 The Market for Seal Fur and Leather The market for seal fur, in the modern era, began its strongest period of sustained growth approximately thirty years ago with the development of whitecoat for the fur garment industry. As has been stated earlier, the Canadian garment market's utlization of harp seal fur has always been small relative to the market in Western Europe. In the 1950's, however, there was a relatively large (some industry sources estimate approximately 20,000 skins per year) domestic utilization of whitecoat fur in the manufacture of garments and garment trim. About twenty years ago, this fur became no longer fashionable and Western Europe became virtually the sole market for whi tecoat fur. The seal leather market has been a relatively small, specialized segment of the industry which has been supplied by these seal skins (usually of older animals) which were damaged or otherwise unsuitable for either fur garment or footwear manufacture. As has been the case with seal fur, the seal leather market has been concentrated in Western Europe, while consumption in Canada has been small. Western European footwear manufacturers, followed by small leather goods producers (e.g. wallets and keycases) accounted for most of the consumption of seal leather. -71-
In recent years, even before the enactment of the EEC ban on the importation of seal pup products, the European market demand for seal leather had declined considerably, compared with the 1970's.
1.12.2 Market Characteristics In the decade· prior to 1983, industry sources estimate that the Western European market accounted for about 90 percent of the utilization of seal fur and leather products. Within the region, seal products were concentrated in several countries.
France and Italy
France and Italy accounted for most of the utilization of whitecoat fur - pr imar il y used in the manufacture of more casual garments (jackets) and for trim. Small volumes of short-hair seal products were utilized in these countries. West Germany The West German market took the major production of hooded seal pup (blueback) fur for the manufacture of garments and high-valued fur footwear. The same country was, and remains, the dominant country for the manufacture of fur footwear, handicrafts and accessories from the chrome tanned skins of juvenile and adult harps. Over the past several years, the West German garment market for the older harp seal skins has virtually disappeared. Prior to 1983, relatively small volumes of whitecoat furs were sold in West Germany.
other Countries - Western Europe other countries in the region (e.g. Norway and the U.K.) have utilized the skins of older harps for garments and footwear but volumes have been comparatively small. other Markets - Asia For some years, small sales, mainly by Rieber, of whitecoat and harp seal skins have been made to Hong Kong and Japan. Sales volumes have remained small for a number of years. There appears to be a decided preference -72- for mink and fox skins which produce a considerably lighter garment for the Asian market. It is possible that a larger market for seal skins could be developed in Japan but at this time that area has not offered the short term prospect of a large alternative market for seal skins. United States Prior to the passage in the U.S. of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, that country accounted for annual sales of up to 20,000 pairs of Canadian manufactured seal fur footwear. The U.S. market was never significant in terms of harp seal fur garment sales, but small numbers of hair seal and whitecoat fur garments were sold in the U.S. prior to the import ban.
Canada
In the 1950's, the Canadian garment industry utilized upwards of 20,000 whitecoat skins per annum" but sales of these skins declined SUbstantially throughout the 1960's. The domestic garment market for juvenile and adult harp seal skins has always been small.
In recent years, Canada has accounted for no more than five percent of the international market for harp seal skins. Domestic utilization is estimated to be about 4-5,000 harp seal skins a year. Most of these are dressed by Rieber in Norway while a small proportion is produced by Canadian dressers.
The Inuit cooperatives in the N.W.T. utilize about 2-3,000 ringed and harp seal skins annually in the local manufacture of garments, footwear and handicrafts. These skins are taken from the N.W.T. seal hunt; most are tanned in Winnipeg.
1.12.3 Recent Developments In February of 1982, the EEC Parliament passed a resolution calling for the Community's Council of Ministers to implement an EEC-wide ban on the importation of seal products. The passage of this resolution helped generate considerable uncertainty in the European fur trade which had been growing increasingly apprehensive about the activities of the anti-sealing protest movement. In addition, the severe economic recession, which began in Western Europe and the U.S. in the fall of 1981, resulted in a substantial downturn in the European market for an furs in 1982 and 1983. -73-
These three factors resulted in a virtual collapse of the European market for whitecoat and all other seal skins. Beqinninq inmid-1982, Rieber's sales of seal skins declined to levels which were one-tenth of the normal sales volumes. Sales have recovered only sliqhtly from the depressed levels of mid-1982.
With effect from October 1983, the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community enacted a community-wide ban on the importation of all seal PUD products. The ban was, initially, for a two-year period endinq on 30 September, 1985. At this time, there are efforts on the part of various protest groups and some European parliamentarians to effect an extension to, or wideninq of the import prohibition.
As a result of the impendinq import ban, the Atlantic Coast processors announced that they would not purchase whitecoat and blueback pelts in 1983. In addition, no pup seal pelts were purchased in 1984 and there has been no commercial hunt in Canada for these pelts since 1982. In a similar vein, the Norweqian sealinq industry and Ministry of Fisheries agreed to impose an internal prohibition on the takinq of seal pup pelts early in 1983, and there has been no Norweqian hunt for these animals since 1982. 1.12.4 Current Market Conditions
Europe
While the EEC's import ban related to seal pup products ended the trade in those skins, events of the last several years have severely depressed the European market for all seal products. Since mid-1982, sales of rinqed seals and juvenile and adult harps, mostly used in the manufacture of fur footwear, have been slow to recover.
The Rieber Company's current inventories of chrome tanned harp seal skins (for footwear manufacture) exceed 100,000 - a substantial volume in relation to sales rates of the last three years. While the substantial reductions in Canadian and Norweqian seal pelt landinqs have not increased Rieber's inventories siqnificantly in the past two years, inventory levels have not declined since 1983. -74-
Prices for dressed skins are currently about 40 to 50 percent of the prices realized in mid-1981. For example, the current prices for a good quality chrome tanned beater skin and a prime garment quality alum tanned beater skin are about C$30 and C$40 FOB Bergen, respectively. Comparable prices for the skins in 1981 would have been C$50-$60 and C$10(); respectively.
It is reported that inventories of ringed and harp pelts, held by the Royal Greenland Trading Company in Copenhagen, are very large. The Oanish Government has continued to subsidize heavily the Greenland Inuit hunt for these animals and has continued to pay the hunters prices which far exceed levels which could be sustained by the market. The Rieber Company confirmed several months ago that it had purchased, in September of 1984, approximately 20,000 raw ringed and harp pelts from the Royal Greenland Company at US$3 per pelt. This price is far below the levels which could support a commercially viable sealing industry in Greenland or Canada.
Canada In the past six months, Canadian manufacturers of footwear report increased sales of seal fur footwear. Local sales of seal fur products manufactured in the N.W.T. have also increased somewhat over the past year. While these developments are encouraging, these increases are on a sales volume basis which is still small in terms of the international market. In the fur business it is the garment trade that produces the highest levels of utilization and the highest margins to hunters (or ranchers) dressers and retailers. In Canada, the seal fur garment market has been and remains very small.
1.12.5 Market Outlook Europe It is conceded by the fur trade that the market for seal pup products in Western Europe is non-existent and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. If there is no extension of the Community's import ban to include other seal products, some of the trade is optimistic that a market for the products of older seal skins can be revived over the next several years. -75-
Other Countries - Asia
Elements of the fur trade remain hopeful that larger markets for seal skins can be developed in Asia, principally Japan. To date, however, there has been no substantial increase in the small. volumes of sales· which have prevailed for a number of years.
Canada The Canadian market for seal products has been under-developed for many years. The dressing and marketing of seal skins has been concentrated in Western Europe and, consequently, the private sector has not made a large-scale effort to develop a substantial market base in this country.
Garments
Substantial investment would be necessary to develop a relatively large Canadian seal fur garment market, ·one which would support the continuation of a viable commercial hunt for older animals.
Footwear It appears likely that increased promotional efforts could broaden the distribution base and increase domestic sales of seal fur footwear. It is possible that these efforts could increase annual sales from present levels of about 8,000 pairs annually to, say, 25,000 pairs. Such an increase would, however, not result in a substantial increase in the utilization of seal skins.
Handicrafts and Accessories
As is the case with footwear, more effort to develop the domestic market for handicrafts and accessories could result in increased sales. Indeed, there has been an increase in locally-based activities in this segment of the industry in Newfoundland and in the N.W.T. over the past year. Utilization of skins for these products is, however, relatively small.
Seal Leather One area of potential for the Canadian market is the production of seal leather. Seal makes an attractive and functional leather for footwear and small. goods. Recent experiments undertaken by Canadian tanners suggest that tanning costs are comparable to the costs of tanning bovine leather. -76-
- SECTION 2 - GREY AND HARBOUR SEALS
2. 1 Grey Seal Population
Grey seals are distributed throughout the ' eastern seaboard of Canada as far north as Labrador. For the purpose of making population estimates, these grey seals are considered to comprise a single population eV,en though there are at least two major , pupping areas, (southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and Sable Island). Assessments of stock size were made in 1981, 1983, and '1984 under the re'view process of the Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory CommIttee (CAFSAC); copies of the Advisory Documents relating to grey seals (Advisory Docs. 81/11, 83/20, 83/22, 84/21) are attached in Appendix LVI.
In 1981, utilizing information from tagging studies on Sable Island and bounty returns, it was estimated that the population size in 1980 was about 44,000 age 1+ animals plus about 11,000 pups (Advisory Doc. 81/11). Although relatively little reliability could be given to population size estimates for earlier years, it was felt that the available evidence indicated a sUbstantial increase from the 1960s. This evidence included increased interaction between fishermen and grey seals, increases in sightings of grey seals by knowledgeable (but non-fishermen) observers, and documented exponential increases in pup production on Sable Island (Appendix LVII).
In 1983, new estimates were made utilizing additional tagging data information from Sable Island, which was also analyzed in more detail to account for data heterogeneity and the fact that pup production there was increasing by 7-12% per year. The results of the calculations were such that CAFSAC concluded that the population of age 1+ animals in 1983 was between 60,000 and 130,000 (Advisory Doc. 83/20).
In 1984, as a result of tagging stUdies in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, estimates of total pup production could be made with more confidence. As a result the variance around the estimate of the population size was substantially reduced, and CAFSAC estimated the size of the age 1+ grey seal population in 1984 to be between 50,000 and 75,000 animals.
Comparison of the 1984 estimates with the estimate of 44,000 age 1+ animals in 1980, indicates an increase during the 4-year interval of between 13 and 70 percent. Given the limited reliability of the 1980 estimate, the percentage increase probably has no value other than to show that the population is increasing, possibly significantly. Further, the available evidence, even -77- through not quantitative, suggests a sUbstantial increase since the 1960s.
Since the 1970s the fishing industry has been reporting ever increasing interactions with grey seals resulting in damaged gear and partially consumed fish in their nets. Again, it is difficult to quantify either the amount of loss, relative to earlier years, or an interpretation pertaining to the size. of the grey seal population. The frequency of the. reports however dcies suggest inc'reased interaction and thus some degree of population increase.
2;2. Harbour Seal Population Harbour seals are distributed along the eastern seaboard of Canada but are not generally found as far north as grey seals. The southern parts of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Newfoundland appear to mark their normal northern limit. Southward, harbour seals extend well into the eastern seaboard of the USA. Harbour seals have generally been thought to form rather small sedentary populations with limited movement between group~; the evidence to support this hypothesis is however quite limited.
There has been no bounty on harbour seals in eastern Canada since 1976, and there have been no government-controlled culls. Consequently, there are no data on age structure of the population. Furthermore, since harbour seals do not concentrate at certain times of the year for breeding or moulting purposes, it is very difficult to utilize aerial surveys for population estimation. Lacking such data, CAFSAC has provided no estimates of population size or trends. In the mid-1970s however, the harbour seal population size in eastern Canada was estimated to be about 12,000 and this estimate was published in the scientific literature.
Since that time fishermen have increasingly complained about harbour seals damaging gear and robbing nets in both traditional and non-traditional harbour seal areas. Concurrently, pup production has been noted to be slowly increasing on Sable Island, the location of one of the larger breeding groups.
The above observations are not sufficiently quantitative to be interpreted in the context of the overall population status or trend, but do suggest some increase over the 1970s levels.
2.3 Seals Competing with Man for Food It has often been stated that seals consume vast quantities of fish which would otherwise be available to man. It should be noted that earlier estimates of consumption rates by seals of 101~ of their body weight daily is no longer supported by a -7B- growing body of evidence. Recent information gathered from studies of animals in captivity suggests that each adult grey seal consumes about 1.6 t of food per year. Their diet consists mainly of fish, of both commercial and non-commercial interest, and to a lesser extent, invertebrates.
2.4 Sealworm (Phocanema decipiens) in Seals Seals are the definitive host for sealworm, that is the parasite reaches maturity and reproduces while in the digestive tract of the seal. Grey seals are the preferred host and appear to be. responsible for over 90% of the problem. Grey seals appear to support progressively heavier burdens of sealworms, as they get larger and do not develop resistance to the parasite. Mature adult grey seals support burdens of seal worm in the order of a few thousand per seal on average, although occasionally, as many as 10,000 have been found in a single stomach.
Harbour seals support much smaller burdens, in the order of a few hundred per adult. Since the population of harbour seals on the east coast is estimated to be much smaller than the grey seal population, its contribution to the parasite problem is not large.
Harp seals on average carry burdens of less than 10 sealworms per adult. Although the harp seal population in the Northwest Atlantic is an order of magnitude larger than that of grey seals, the low burden levels, the distribution of harp seals, and the apparent temperature tolerances of the seal worm suggest that harp seals are not a particularly suitable final host.
The life cycle of the sealworm is outlined in Appendix LVIII and described in detail in Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 1201. 2.5 Sealworm (Phocanema decipiens) in Fish The occurrence of larval parasitic nematodes commonly known as sealworm or codworm in many ground fish species is a chronic cosmetic problem to most northern Atlantic fisheries (Canada, Iceland, Britain, Norway, etc.). It cannot be considered a significant public health problem since proper cooking kills the parasite and most documented cases of humans being infected are from areas where fish are traditionally eaten raw. Generally, the infection is self-curing, that is, the worm voluntarily detaches itself from the stomach wall and is expelled by the host. -79-
Surveys have been conducted recently to determine current seal worm infestation rates in commercially-important fish so that comparisons could be made with historical surveys. The results of the scientific surveys are presented in Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Nos. 1201 and 1202 and a particularly good overview of the seal worm problem is given in 1201 ·(pgs. 1-6). An evaluation of the problem to the Canadian fishing industry in terms of incremental costs is provided in Appendix LIX. . .
A summary only will be provided here. Sealworms have been reported in more· than thirty species. of marine and anadromous fish in · eastern Canada. Most of the host species belong to the cod, flatfish, and sculpin families. Generally, however, widespread infestations seem to be limited to cod, smelt, American plaice, witch flounder, and yellowtail flounder. The Canadian industry has indicated that haddock and catfish (wolffish) are becoming increasingly infested.
The conclusions of the scientific surveys (Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Nos. 1201, 1202) on cod and flatfish are:
1) Seal worm abundances in the Gulf of St. Lawrence cod are not significantly different from those reported 25 years ago. Sealworm appears to be more abundant in Sydney Bight cod that 25 years ago, but the evidence is somewhat confounded by methodological differences between the two studies. Seal worm abundance in eastern Scotian Shelf cod has increased greatly over levels reported 25 years ago and samples taken in the vicinity of Sable Island are the most heavily infested. 2) Gulf of St. Lawrence American plaice are now heavily infested with sealworm and, according to processors, this is a recent development. In Sydney Bight seal worm abundances in American plaice and witch flounder have become much greater than 25 years ago; in earlier surveys, infestations of Sydney Bight plaice were extremely rare, in the recent survey they were as infested as cod. Seal worm abundances on the eastern Scotian Shelf in American plaice, witch flounder, and yellowtail are all far greater now than they were 25 years ago. Again, parasite abundance increased with proximity to Sable Island. -80-
The conclusions of the Fishing Industry Survey (Appendix LIX: Task Force on Seal Borne Parasites Report) are:
1) The sealworm problem, once confined to cod, has now spread to other species and a much broader area.
2) The number of fish· having parasites in the Sydney Bight area is 3-10 times that. 2, years ago and along the south coast. of Newfoundland it has increased 4-6 times during the last five years.
3) On the eastern half of the Scotian Shelf parasite abundance decreases. with distance from Sable Island, and there is evidence ·that fish in the western half of the Scotian Shelf are now infested.
4) The loss of yield of cod alone due to discarding part of the fillet in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Scotian Shelf because of Phocanema decipiens in 1982 was estimated to be $11,957,000. 5) The incremental labour costs to the industry for candling and trimming cod fUlets due to Phocanema decipiens in 1982 was $14 million. 6) The above estimates of costs to the fishing industry do not include costs associated with flounders, downgrading of product and rejections because industry did not feel they had the data to quantify the costs due solely to sealworm.
7) Even if control measures were implemented immediately, processors would face higher costs in the short term, due to the lag effect in removing seal worm from the biological system.
8) If the solution is to be achieved by improved detection and removal techniques, then new methods will have to be developed; current techniques reliably remove only about 7,% of the worms; obviously increased costs will result. Numerous suggestions have been made regarding reduction of the seal worm problem via reduction of the grey seal popUlation. Since there is a strong relationship between grey seals and sealworm, it is obviously one option. Since we do not, however, have sufficient scientific information to determine the nature of the relationship between grey seal population size and seal worm levels, we cannot calculate precisely how much of a reduction would -81- be necessary to reduce sealworm levels in fish to specific targets. Also, the seal worm has a life cycle which can take five years to complete, thus any reduction in the size of the grey seal herd would take several years to show up in the number of worms in fish. Even then, such reductions would only be apparent in the youngest fish since the older ones apparently retain their burdens until they die. Lastly; the five-year life cycle of the sealworm means that we are largely seeing sealworm burdens created by the grey se;!l· populaUon which existed five years ago, not now.. . Even with sUb.stantial reduction of the grey seal popUlation now, .we .will probably observe an increase in the seal worm problem in the short term. Clearly if control of the sealworm problem is to be achieved by grey seal population control, such must be ·viewed as a solution which will become evident in the long term.
2.6 Bounty Program The bounty on grey seals was initiated in 1976, largely as a measure to allow fishermen to destroy seals which were robbing or damaginq their nets and traps. Only bona fide fishermen are allowed to hunt seals for bounty and they must additionally obtain a permit from the Province of residency to carry a firearm (normally carrying a firearm is prohibited in most provinces from about January-September) • The number of grey seals, primarily pups, turned in for bounty reward has ranged from 961 in 1979 to 610 in 1983 (See Appendix LX). Obviously, however, a proportion of seals shot are not recovered due to being wounded only, or being killed in the water and sinking. No quantitative information is available to accurately estimate loss rate, but interviews with fishermen suggest that losses could be as high as 50%. Estimates of grey seal population size for the period since the bounty has been in effect have certainly shown no decrease in population trends and pup production is estimated to have increased. The component breeding on Sable Island, which has been estimated to be 30-50% of the total breeding population, has exhibited an increase in grey seal pup production from about 2,000 to 6,000 animals between 1976 and 1984 (Appendix LVII); The Sable pup counts are derived from direct count and total cohort tagging.
The bounty does have value however in the context of population assessment. Biologists rely on bounty recoveries of sub-adults and adults to derive the age structure of the grey seal population and of pups to estimate total pup production in eastern Canada. Without some means of annually collecting SUbstantial numbers of these life history stages, population estimates could not be made, and consequently population trends could not be monitored. -82-
The bounty system, because of its universality, provides samples that cover off both the geographical and seasonal distribution of the grey seal. Although a cull could be designed to duplicate the information gathered via the current bounty system, and could conceivably improve estimates, a properly designed study would be manpower intensive and expensive; neither could be achieved with current resources. Until the necessary resources are available to replace it with an equivalent program, the bounty system is necessary for population estimation and trend monitoring. ·
There has been ·no bounty on harbour seals since 1976 although in certain restricted localities, special permits have been issued to fishermen to destroy nuisance harbour seals. Lacking a similar means to sample the harbour seal popUlation for age structure, estimates of population size have not been made.
2.7 Cull program The Department of fisheries and Oceans conducted a cull of grey seals annually from 1967-1983, during the breeding season in the southern part of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on Camp and Basque Islands (nearshore islands between Halifax and Cape Breton). No cull has ever been conducted on Sable Island. A very ·small cull (112) was conducted in 1984 due to scientific requirements for tagging work on Gulf seals. No cull was conducted in 1985 to allow further tagging. There is no culling program for harbour seals. Current information suggests that Sable Island and the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence are the two prime breeding locations for grey seals. The cull historically took a combination of breeding adults and pups. On average, adults represented 191~ of the annual cull; the number of animals taken in the cull ranged from 152 to 2,385 (see Appendix LX)
The cull was initiated as a grey seal popUlation control measure. Its effectiveness however can only be speculated. It certainly has not been successfull in reducing overall population levels, since current estimates indicate as a minimum, a stable population size, and more probably an increasing trend. It is possible however that the cull has been effective in dampening the rate of increase of the Gulf component of the population, There are no definitive data to support this possibility, but two facts provide tenuous support: 1) sealworm levels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence have remained fairly stable while levels on the Scotian Shelf have increased dramatically; -83-
Z) the exponential increase in pup production on Sable Island has not been reflected in recent total population level estimates. There was probably a lower loss rate·, and escape of wounded seals in the cull program than in the bounty system, since it was a directed activity at killing seals and only high-powered rifles were used • . Current attempts at making grey seal population estimat·es require tagging pups in the Southern Gulf and utilizing subsequent recovery data from the bounty system for mark-recapture type cohort estimates. Tagging programs and culling programs are not currently compatible in the southern Gulf; on Sable Island however, a total pup count can be made, and thus a Sable cull, properly coordinated, could occur without eliminating our ability to make population estimates. It should be noted, however, that a grey seal cull during the breeding season will not supplant the need for a bounty, or similar system to collect information on age distribution for assessment purposes. A breeding cull would only take sexually mature females, socially dominant males, and pups; sub-adult and non-breeding adults would not be sampled in such a cull and thus a large component of the population age structure would be missing. Calculations on population size and trends require information on the age structure of the total population. 2.8 Research Activities There are several major outstanding questions to be addressed concerning grey and harbour seals. Basically these can be grouped into: 1) population size and rate of change; Z) stock structure (i.e., one east coast population or several discrete ones which intermix at various times); and, 3) the nature of the seal-seal worm interaction (i.e., what magnitude of change in size of· the seal herd would be required to be observable in seal worm infestation levels in fish).
In addition, there is little known about the life history dynamics of seal worm such as environmental factors affecting the survival of eggs and larvae, factors affecting fecundity of females in the seal, and the interactions with fish population. -B4-
Research programs currently underway include: 1) annual tagging of total grey seal pup production on Sable Island and part of the grey seal pup production in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence to monitor population trends, estimate population size, and determine migratory patterns;
2) aeriat surveys to determine geographical range of the grey seal in the Gulf of St. Lawrence;
3) studies of tag loss on grey seal to improve estimates of pup production and population size;
4) studies on grey seal pup growth and mortality to improve estimates of survivorship; 5) studies on grey seal site fidelity of breeding adults to examine population discreteness and adult survivorship; 6) studies on grey seal adult behaviour on the breeding grounds to better understand the dynamics of the breeding colonies; 7) studies on seasonal burdens of seal worm in the grey seals on Sable Island and the Nova Scotia coastline to increase knowledge on the seal-sealworm interaction and examine for regional differences; B) studies on sealworm infestation levels in commercially important fish to develop a baseline, compare current levels with levels examined in the 1950s, and monitor key species for infestation trends;
9) annual tagging of total harbour seal pup production on Sable Island to monitor pup production trends there and determine migration patterns; and,
10) studies to examine sealworm burdens in harbour seals. -65-
Future research projects should include:
1) continued tagging studies by both regions and associated studies to improve population size and trend estimates and dispersal patterns; 2) basic· biolgical studies to better· understand life history .. dynamics and factors affecting population parameters; and, 3) continued work on sealworm burdens in seals and infestation levels in finfish. -86-
SECTION 3 - PACIFIC COAST SEALS 3.1 Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) This species is found throughout the inshore coastal waters of British Columbia and in most large river systems with ocean drainage. It is non-migratory although local movements associated with fish concentrations. seem to occur. Breeding takes place throughout· its range-. Population trends Aerial censuses suggest a m1n1mum population of 7,000 off southeastern Vancouver Island in 1984 and 600 at the Skeena River mouth in 1983 (unpubl. data). Numbers off southeastern Vancouver Island increased at an average rate of 12%/yr during 1973-84 and at the Skeena River at a rate of 10%/yr during 1976-83. The increase no doubt results from recovery following a long history of control programs. Estimated total abundance in British Columbia during the 1960's was 20,000-35,000 (18). Management measures During 1914-1969, the species was killed for control purposes to reduce interference with salmon fisheries. The kills were through bounties, organized hunts by federal fisheries officers, and opportunistic kills by fishermen. From 1914 to 1964, an average of 2,900 seals/yr were reported taken for bounty (18). During 1963-69 seals were also killed for pelts. In 1970 protection was given in British Columbia under the Federal Fisheries Act. Interaction with fisheries The main concerns have been with the removal of salmon from gillnets and damage to gillnetted salmon. Generally nets are not torn. Sportsmen report that salmon are sometimes removed from fishing lines. The species may congregate at river mouths to feed on spawning salmon. Diet studies indicate the following species are eaten: shrimp, squid, herring, salmon, pollock, flatfish, seaperch, sablefish, lingcod, rockfish (19).
Current research programs a. Abundance and movements. Annual aerial censuses are undertaken off southeastern Vancouver Island to monitor long-term trends in abundance. Censuses are also undertaken in other areas with the goal of eventuallY determining abundance throughout coastal British Columbia. -87-
b. Food. Scats on haulouts are being examined for determination of diet.
c. Interactions with fisheries. Fishermen are being interviewed to determine their at t i tudes towards harbour seals and to determine the locality, type and degree of interaction with harbour seals. 3.2 Northern elephant seal (Mirliunga. angustirost.ris) The distribution includes the inshore. waters of British Columbia. Breeding occurs in winter off Cali fornia and Mexico. Young· of the· -year are seen· off the west coast of Vancouver Island in late winter and spring and adult males are seen throughout coastal regions in summer. Population trends The species is rare in British Columbia although some increase in numbers occurred recently (20).
Management measureS No individuals were killed for control or commercial purposes in British Columbia during this century. Protection was given in 1970 under the Federal Fisheries Act.
Interaction with fisheries No interactions with fisheries are reported. Diet off California is reported to be squid, elasmobranchs, and teleost fish.
Current research programs No research is being conducted here on this species except through opportunistic circumstances such as recording sightings, and undertaking standard biological examinations of carcasses washed ashore.
J.J Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus)
Distribution is typically 20-200 km off the coast of British Columbia during December-May. The stock breeds on the Pribilof IslandS in summer and migrates mainly to California in winter. .Some seals remain off British Columbia in winter. PopUlation trends Overharvesting resulted in severe depletion of this stock to about 300,000 during the late 1800's. With protection it increased to about 1.8 million by the mid-1950's (21). A herd reduction program on the Pribilof Islands during 1956-68 reduced numbers to about 1.2 -88-
Since then the population has decreased gradually to about 0.8 million. Recent declines are not thought to be due to the current harvesting regime of subadult males but rather to an apparent increase in oceanic mortality of young animals. One cause for this may be entanglement in discarded fishnet and plastic packaging bands (Fowler 21). Management measures Management is through the North Pacific .Fur Seal Commission· under terms which are reviewed every 4 to 6 years (22). Bachelor males (2-5 yr) are killed for pelts in summer on rookeries of ·the ·Pribilof Islands. Similar kills take place on Asian stocks where rookeries exist on the Commander Islands and Robben Island. The size of the annual kill on the Pribilof Islands is determined by the proportion of males of a certain body size which haul out during the killing. However, a quota of 22,000 was imposed in 1984. Body size limits and timing of the killing season are changed occasionally to alter the escapement rate of young males. In recent years the annual kill varied from 20,000 to 25,000 males. Canada receives 15% of the skins taken from the Pribilof Islands and from rookeries of the Asian stocks. Northern fur seals are not killed at sea except for research purposes. A copy of the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals and the 1984 Protocol are contained in Appendix LXI Although the Protocol was signed on October 12, 1984, by representatives of all four Governments party to the Convention (Canada, Japan, U.S.A., U.S.S.R.), it has (as of March 12, 1985) been ratified only by the Government of the USSR. The North Pacific Fur Seal Commission publishes the proceedings of its annual meetings as well as reports of scientific investigations. Interactions with fisheries The offshore distribution of this species in British Columbia keeps conflicts with coastal commercial fisheries to a minimum. In regions where fishing operations and seal distribution overlap, no damage to gear or captured fish is reported. However, the following species are consumed in British Columbia: herring, pollock, salmon, sable fish and squid (23).
Discarded synthetic scrap fish net is injurious to young seals. During migration seals encounter the scrap net, put their heads in holes, become entangled and die. Scrap plastic packaging bands are similarly a cause of mortality.
Current research programs Studies, supported through contracts with the Oepartment of Fisheries and Oceans, are underway to model the dynamics of the Pribilof Island population through an examination of existing data. -89-
3.4 Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)
The Steller sea lion inhabits inshore waters throughout British Columbia. It has local seasonal movements between five rookeries and numerous winter sites.
Population trends
In. 1913-16, the breeding stock in British Columbia numbered about 20,000. A series of control programs during 1913-l9.68 resulted in the population decreasing to about 6,000 animals by the mid-1960's. Numbers remained stable up to 1982 (24, 25).
Management measures The species was subjected to control programs to reduce interference primarily with the salmon fishery, although also to some extent with the halibut and herring fisheries. Control programs consisted of organized kills by federal fisheries officers, bounties and kills for leather and mink food by entrepreneurs. Three main periods of control occurred: 1913-15, 1922-39, and 1956-66. In 1970 the species was protected under the Federal Fisheries Act.
Interaction with fisheries Steller sea lions distrupt salmon fishing operations by removing fish caught on troll lines, breaking troll gear and ripping gillnets. Halibut fishermen report that hooked halibut are sometimes removed or damaged. Herring fishermen complain about herds scattering schools of herring and occaSionally individuals getting into herring seine nets. The following fish are eaten in winter off southern Vancouver Island: hake, pollock, squid, eulachon, dogfish, skate, salmon, octopus, lamprey, and rockfish. In summer, ratfish, halibut, and sandlance are also consumed.
Current research programs a. Abundance and movements. Aerial censuses are undertaken in winter to monitor trends in abundance off southern Vancouver Island and to establish seasonal movement patterns. Censuses of the breeding stock in British Columbia are made every 3-5 yr.
b. Food. Oiet is being determined from an examination of scats at haulouts off southern Vancouver Island. The energy requirements of sea lions are studied from an examination of data collected on consumption rates of captive seals and sea lions.
c. Interaction with fisheries. Fishermen are being interviewed to establish attitudes towards sea lions and to determine the locality, type and degree of interaction with sea lions. -90-
3.5 California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) California sea lions migrate into British Columbia during October-November and leave during April-May. Breeding occurs in Mexico and Cali fornia. Concentrations are found mainly off southern Vancouver Island, with groups of Stellar sea lions. Only adult and subadult males occur here. Population trends From the late. 1800's to the late 1960's, the species was rare in British CollMllbia. By 1972 numbers increased to about 500 . and by 1984 to about 4,500 (25). Recent increases may be due to coastal. oceanic warming. This could have encouraged more individuals of this typically warm water species to move northward. Increases could result also from crowding at wintering sites south of British Columbia. The breeding stock in California is stable or increasing slightly. Management Measures
The species was rare up to the late 1960 s and not considered a management problem. Only a few individuals were recorded killed during the large control program for Steller sea lions in 1913-1968. Protection was given under the Federal Fisheries Act in 1970. Interaction with fisheries The most common complaint from fishermen is that this species scatters schools of herring and squid, and gets into herring seines and gillnets. Oiet studies underway suggest that herring is the main food with hake, pollock, squid, eulachon, dogfish, skate, salmon, octopus, lamprey, and rockfish also eaten. In April-May the sea lion feeds on eulachon at the mouth of the Fraser River. Current research programs a. Abundance and movements. Annual aerial censuses are made off southern Vancouver Island to monitor trends in abundance and to determine seasonal movement patterns. b. Food. Scats on haulouts are examined to determine diet. The daily energy requirements are being examined from earlier studies on captive seals and sea lions. c. Interactions with fisheries. Fishermen are being interviewed to determine their attitudes towards sea lions and to determine the locality, type and degree of interaction with sea lions. -91-
SECTION 4 - SEALS AND SEALING IN CANADA'S NORTHERN AND ARCTIC REGIONS.
4.1 Introdl,lction The Northern and Arctic seal harvests- occur along a coastline of over 155,200 km bounding a land mass that comprises over 40~ of the area of Canada. Ringed and bearded seals are the primary species of importance, with ringed seal accounting for 86% of the animals landed. Harp seals are an important component of landings in Grise Fiord and the eastern Baffin Island communities of Frobisher Bay, Broughton Island, Clyde River and especially Pangnirtung, which accounts for approximately 60% of the landings of this species in the Canadian Arctic. In the Northern and Arctic Regions the hunt is primarily for adult animals which are taken over a longer season and not in an intensive, localized, harvest during a restricted period of time. This is because ringed and bearded seals are not found in large groups such as harp and hooded seals, but are widely dispersed throughout most of the Arctic and are available for harvest all ye~r. Ringed seals are more numerous and widely distributed than bearded seals which are solitary and limited in number and distribution by different habitat requirements. For these reasons, ringed seals make up the largest proportion of the harvest.
Also in the Arctic the harvest is used extensively for subsistence purposes as well as commercial fur sales. The hunters are almost all natives, over 90~ of whom are Inuit. Seals and the hunt itsel f is an integral -part -of the Inuit culture and economy. Although rifles are used native hunting practices are largely traditional.
On the basis of these difference in biological, cultural and harvesting factors, DFO has not followed the same regulatory management approach for the Arctic seal harvest as has been applied to the Atlantic coast seal hunt. Rather, DFO has worked through negotiations and meetings with local Hunters and Trappers Associations to promote better hunting practices. The hunt is monitored through the estimate of annual harvests by community from statistics primarily derived from fur traders records and export permits. This method does not reflect pelts used domestically nor does -it take into account hunting -92- loss ratios. However, current efforts are directed to improving this information. Over the past 5 yearsDFO together with the Oepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of the Environment (Canadian Wildlife Service) and the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) has financed the Keewatin Wildlife Federation and the Baffin Region Inuit Association to . conduct harvest studies. These. surveys have yielded more specific estimates of the various species, including seals, harvested by eastern Arctic communities. These figures with statistics frpm fur . sales. and export ·permits provide the· Department · with a· conservative estimate of· actual · landings;
The · DFO has recognized that max1m1z1ng economic benefits therefore must assume a·· lower priority in the Arctic seal hunt than do other objectives. To · this end the Department has undertaken a low-level approach to regulatory management and has acted instead as stewards .concentrating primarily on improving hunting practices through negotiations with HTA's. Current estimates of the size of the hunt and the biological capacities of the seal populations indicate that none of the populations of northern seals is endangered by present hunting practices and levels. Concomitantly, DFO has emphasized the development of scientific and technical expertise required to protect the marine environment and its living resources. There is a need for considerably more information on the biology of the seals and for better estimates of hunting pressure (harvest plus losses) on seal populations. With an expanded base of information on seals and sealing, DFO hopes to ensure the maintenance of the social, cultural and economic needs of northern people and a diversity of future options.
The ringed seal (Phoca hispida) and the harp seal (Phoca rroenlandica) are of major importance 1n the Arctic. Others which occur are he bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus), spotted seal (Phoca largha), harbour seal (Phoca vitulinaJ and hooded seal (Cystophora cristataJ. Although it also occurs, the walrus (Odobenus rosmarusJ is not discussed here. Brief sketches of the population biology are provided for the other species. (For harp and hooded seals see Section I of this brief). -93-
For the Inuit of Canada's northern and Arctic regions, seals and sealing are of vital economic, social and cultural importance. The average annual Arctic commercial seal harvest over the past 21 years (before 1981) was 36,000, and ranged from 10,500 to 68,300. The seal industry had an estimated economic value to the North of about $1.3 million (1982 dollars) including the handicraft industry. In addition to providing money for immediate needs, the social and cultural value of seal hunting is ' substantial and not to be ul')derestimated • For, example;' Berger recognized the importance of subsistence harvest.i.ng activities for Inuit and other northern Natives as a. means of providing highquaUty and irreplaceable food (26). Information on ' the , harvest, pelt production and other economic factors as we1l' as the nutritional and cultural aspects' of seals and ,sealing' is provided for the Northwest Territories (NWT), northern Quebec and northern Labrador. 4.2 Distribution and abundance of arctic and northern seals Northern pinnipeds usually display one or more of Ehrenfeld's characteristics of a hypothetical "most endangered animal" (27). Some or all are relatively large predators restricted in distribution, living in international waters, crossing international or jurisdictional boundaries and commercially exploited. They all have long gestation periods, produce a maximum of one pup per year and may form large aggregates at various times of the year. All these features make pinnipeds vulnerable to human activity. Based on this potential vulnerability, DFO supports and conducts research on the biology of marine mammals, particularly those which are harvested on a larger scale.
Aspects of biology presented here will be those most directly related to conservation and management that being population distribution and abundance. Research into the population biology of Arctic pinnipeds is expensive and difficult. These seals inhabit remote and inhospitable environments; predation has made them shy and unapproachable; they cannot easily be observed, counted, or caught alive; their marine habitat prevents direct observation of mortality and feeding. Age at first reproduction is we1l known for most species, as are seasons of parturition and the approximate length of lactation. Pregnancy and birth rates have been estimated, but appear to vary from year to year, and the values obtained are subject to unquantified errors due to the segregation of pregnant from non-pregnant females. Age- and sex- segregation is a common feature of mammal populations and complicates determination of overall age and sex structures. These data are available, however, for some defined areas for some species. In general, the causes and rates of mortality have not been estimat'ed accurately but some values have been obtained conditional on assumptions of stable populations. -94-
4.2.1 Ringed Seal The ringed seal is circumpolar in distribution and the most abundant and widely-found pinniped in the Canadian north (28, 29, 30 and 31). It occurs in Nettilling Lake, Baffin Island (28, 32), along all.the coasts of James Bay and Hudson Bay, throughout the Arctic archipelago and on most of the Labrador coast (32, 33, 34). Ringed · seals do . not usually undertake extensive migrations but· do make· sl10rter movements during which they become segregated by age. In wint.er mature animals tend to remain in areas of stable fast ice on complex . coasts (28, 31, 35, · 36), the preferred breeding habitat (36, 37, 38, 39). In the western Arctic, ringed seals may also breed off-shore in st·able pack ice (33, 34). At this time immature ringed seals are found in peripheral, off-shore ice and along simple coasts with less stable ice (29, 31; 35, 40, 41). In the open water periods, ringed seals disperse pelagically, on a small scale (35, 42, 43) although subadults occasionally travel farther.
Although the sedentary nature of ringed seals reduces movements across jurisdictional boundaries, it may also lead to local over-exploitation. The degree of exchange between groups of ringed seals is currently unknown and although five subspecies have been identified, no separate stocks have been defined (39). Population estimates of ringed seals are difficult to obtain. Since they are so widely dispersed, surveys must extrapolate from a small proportion of the habitat examined. Even within the survey area, only a proportion of the animals are available for censusing while others are in a different habitat, hidden by ice or in the water depending on the season of the survey. Notwithstanding these limitations, there are some estimates available (Table 9) and others for more specific times and places have been published (40, 43, 44, 49). All of these estimates must be accompanied by serious caveats. Different surveying techniques have different biases and assumptions. Surveys from ships (52) may underestimate seal abundance (29, 44). Both surface and aerial surveys are affected by weather and observer position and capability (37, 41, 44, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54). Aerial surveys have been made using various combinations of aircraft, altitude and airspeed, all of which can affect population estimates (31, 41). Seal behaviour also influences surveys which make assumptions about durations of dives, daily and seasonal haul-out patterns, sex, age, and seasonal differences in distribution, and the behavioural reactions to the survey itself (29, 31, ·33, 37, 38, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 53, 55). Surface surveys of subnivean birth lairs may be used to correct aerial surveys (46, 48) but are themselves biased by population composition. While the population estimates derived from this array of techniques are not always directly comparable, they all indicate a relatively stable population of ringed seals in the Canadian Arctic since the 1700-1800's (39, 56). They also indicate, however, a need for improved censusing techniques and an increased understanding of ringed seal behaviour to test the assumptions involved. -95-
Table 9. Ringed seal (Phoca hispida) population estimates.
Population Area Habitat Estimate Source OOO's
NE Atlantic li Arctic Ocean 6-7000 (39) Eastern Canadian Arctic 1000 (44,45) Baffin Island fast ice (46) - Home Bay 70.7 - Hoare Bay 36.4 - Cumberland Sound 58.8 East Baffin Island fast ice 67.0-177.0 (47) pack ice 417.0-787.0 (47) Hudson Bay 455.0 (46) James Bay 61.0 (46) Viscount Melville Sound 408.4 (48) Barrow Strait, Peel Sound 3300.0 Beaufort Sea 21.7-61.3 (43, 49) Eastern Beaufort Sea 36.3-76.0 (50) Belcher Islands 70.0 (51) -96-
The ringed seal is ubiquitous and abundant, and inhabits fast ice, on which humans can travel and live. They are the main prey of the much-studied polar bear (Ursus maritimus). Therefore more is known about its life history and about patterns and rates of mortality than about those of other seals. Pups, born in lairs under snowdrifts (34) are preyed on by Arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus) and when foxes are abundant, much of the seal production may be lost (36). Polar bears also take pups, but perhaps incidentally to hunting the more nutritious adults (57). Further high losses of sub'-adults in fast ice-areas are due to aggression from adults which drives the young seals out of the water- onto the ice, where they starve, freeze, and are eaten (T .G. Smith pers. comm.; M. Kingsley pers. comm.). Higher densities of sub-adults _ may survive in loose-ice areas, where, however,_ they may be in poor condition (M. Hammill, pera. comm.) and are preyed on by bears (54). Walrus are also known to take ringed seals and may find the naive young easier prey (58, 59). The polar bear also preys on adults in the fast ice, killing one seal every 4-5 days (60). No ringed seal population estimation has been big enough to sustain the estimated number of bears in the area at these predation rates. Estimates of maximum sustainable yields, which may serve as an upper limit of exploitation (61) range from 7 to 10% (29, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47 51). This would translate into 70,000 to 100,000 seals harvested each year in the eastern Arctic (Table 9). Again the variation in estimates warrants further research.
4.2.2. Harp Seal Harp seals are usually found north of Hamilton Inlet for about six months, from June through November (62). Within the Arctic regions, younger harp seals tend toward the west coast of Greenland while older ones move into Canadian waters (63). There is also an apparent tendency within the Canadian Arctic for older harp seals to go farther north than the younger ones (64).
In summer, harp seals are commonly found throughout the eastern half of the Arctic archipelago, from Lancaster Sound to Hudson Strait and from the east coast of Baffin Island to the west end of Barrow Strait. They are less frequently seen in Foxe Basin and Hudson and James Bays. Some younger animals may stay north all year (63).
There are no estimates of the proportion of this population summering in the Canadian Arctic. Inuit in the Canadian Arctic and residents of northern Labrador and Quebec harvest few harp seals compared with southern catches. In the 10 years following the introduction of quotas, 1971 to 1980, the southern hunt harvested an average of 162,000 harp seals a year compared with 9770 caught annually in the Canadian Arctic and west Greenland (65). Over this time, the northern harvest has been 4.6% of the total Northwest Atlantic catch (65) • -97-
4.2.3. Bearded Seal (Square-flipper seal) The bearded seal has a circumpolar distribution and is a year-round resident in the Canadian Arctic (28, 30, 66). The species is widely and thinly dispersed throughout the Canadian Arctic and the waters off northern Quebec and northern Labrador (76). A small southern Labrador/Newfoundland population has disappeared (66). The dis.tribution . of bearded seals is. largely governed by the. availability of pack ice imd shallow water (30, 32, 43,44, 45, 66,67, 68, 69; 70, ·71, 72), although they may rarely associate with fast ice in Winter (43, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75). The bearded seal is usually solitary abd never found in large aggregations.
Two subspecies of bearded seal have been identified (32). E. b. barbatus (Erxleben 1777) is found in the North Atlantic and HudSon Bay and E. b. nauticus (Pallas 1811) is in the North Pacific and east into the-Canadian Arctic. However, no clear geographic boundary between the two has been distinguished (32, 76, 77) and the following discussion applies to both subspecies.
Bearded seals may move long distances in association with drifting ice (76) but the identification of stocks and degree of intermingling that may be associated with these movements is largely unknown. The relationship between bearded seals of west Greenland and those in Canada is unclear (78). It is also unknown how bearded seals in one area of Canada mix with those of adjacent areas (e.g. Hudson Bay and foxe Basin; Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf). There are no recent population estimates for bearded seals in their entire Canadian range (32, 76, 77) although older or partial estimates are available (Table 10). The general lack of data concerning population size, reproductive rates and mortality rates severely limits estimates of sustainable yields. However, McLaren suggested an MSY of 5% (44,45).
4.2.4. Harbour Seal and Hooded Seal These two species of seals occur infrequently in the Canadian north. The harbour seal found in Arctic Canada, Phoca vitulina concolor, ranges from florida to north Baffin Island and into Hudson and James Bays (79) but the distribution is discontinuous (80). Another form, P. v. mellonae, which is of doubtful subspecific rank (80) occurs in-lakes in northern Quebec (79, 80). -98-
Table 10. Population estimates of bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) in Canada.
Area Estimate Source OOO's
Eastern Canadian Arctic 185.0 · (44) .
(includes
East Hudson Bay 36.0 Foxe Basin 37.7 Cumberland Sound · Frobisher Bay 12.9
Hudson Strait (Quebec)) 6.6
Beaufort Sea (1974) 2.8±0.7 (49) (1975) 1.2±0. 2
Beaufort Sea (1974) 3.1 (43) (1975 ) 1.4 ( 1978) 3.1 (1979) 2.1
Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula and Mackenzie (1981 ) 0.7 (50) Delta Shelf (1982) 1.3 -99-
Harbour seals are non-migratory (80) but occur in small groups near shore (79, 80). This habit of occurring in small, widely scattered herds makes total population estimates difficult. There are probably about 400,000 to 500,000 P. vitulina in the world of which 40,000 to 100,000· are P. v. concoler (79). The number in Arctic Canada is 6300 to 17,3[0 (81). There are no clear data on trends in population abundance but it has been suggested that local populations are declining in areas of human activity (80).
There is no information available concerning Arctic stocks of harbour seals. Hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) associate closely with pack ice. They breed in large herds on pack ice near Jan Mayen, in the Greenland Sea, in the Gulf ·of St. Lawrence, off the coast of Labrador and in Davis Strait (82). The last concentration straddles the international boundary between Canada and Greenland. It is thought that hooded seals from all whelping areas migrate to the Denmark Strait to moult (83) although moulting animals are also found off northwest Greenland (84). The summer range extends from Spitzbergen to Baffin Island (83). Stock of origin and vital parameters of hooded seals found in the Canadian Arctic are unknown.
4.3 Importance of seals and sealing in the north
Seal hunting by northern people can be considered in the context of a cash economy or a hunt for export, a non-cash economy or a hunt for domestic use and of a cultural contribution. The numeric importance of the export and domestic-use hunts can be examined through comparisons of harvest and export statistics. When seal skins are sold commercially they pass from the producer (hunter), through one or more wholesaler, to the retailer and final consumer. This chain of events is vulnerable to a variety of human disruptions beyond the producer's control and is directly influenced by the international fur-buying market. Nutritional and cultural aspects of seal hunting are less directly affected by the international community but may suffer perturbations indirectly. The most obvious disruption in recent years was the ban on the importation of seal products (whitecoats and bluebacks) enacted by the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1982.
This section outlines the harvest of seals and the commercial sale of seal products from northern Canada before and after 1982. It also briefly examines the domestic hunt in terms of nutritional and cultural contributions·. 4.3.1 Seal Harvest The seal harvest or number of seals landed represents the basis from which commercial seals and local seal consumption is drawn. Harvest statistics are collected by a variety of agencies but the method of reporting is inconsistent between groups. oro is working to improve this situation but the results will not be apparent for -100- several years. In the interim, existing harvest estimates are the best available quantitative index of northern utilization of seals. They do not however indicate the full impact on the resource species since they do not record hunting losses.
The average annual harvests of all seal species in the Northwest Ter.ritories (1981-B3) was about 44.,000 seals (Appendices LXII to LXIV). Mostsettlenients for which data are available took fewer. than 1500 seals each year but two took in excess of 4500 (Table 11.). The average annual seal harvest in northern Quebec (16 of 1B communities) was about 13,400 between 1976 and 19BO (Appendices LXV and LXVI) with most settlements reporting harvests of less than 1500 seals (Table 12). Harvest statistics are not available for northern Labrador but commercial sales suggests that the harvest is relatively small. Hence the best data indicate about 60,000 seals were landed each year in the late 1970's in the NWT and Arctic Quebec. Those harvests for which the information is available show this harvest is B6.4% ringed seal, B. 71~ harp seal, 4.6% bearded seal, 1.B% harbour seal and 0.02% hooded seal (Appendices LXII, LXV and LXVI). 4.3.2 Commercial Sealing The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) is the largest wholesale buyer of seal products in the north. Most of these skins are destined for fur auctions in Europe (Copenhagen, Frankfurt, London, Leningrad) although each year HBC also holds four or five auctions in Toronto at which seal pelts are sold. Recently, cooperatives in the NWT and northern Quebec have also purchased seal skins. These organizations handle fewer skins than the HBC, usually pay the hunter less than the HBC, and process and use the skins for local garment and handicraft industries. The commercial sale of seal pelts within northern labrador has been almost completely through the labrador Northern Services Division within the Northern Development and Operations Branch of the Government of Newfoundland since the early 1970's. The commercial sales records show a pattern similar to the harvest statistics: the ringed seal has provided a significant cash -101-
Table 11. Average annual seal harvests for communities in the Northwest Territories (see Appendices LXV and LXIV).
Seals Number at Harvested Comm.unities Community
1-500 10 Nanisivik, Resolute Bay, . Cheste.rfield . Inlet, Eskimo Point, Rankin Inlet, Whale Cove, Bay Chima/Bathurst Inlet, Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, Pelly Bay ·
500-1500 . 8 Gr ise Fiord, Hall Beach, Igloolik, Sanikiluaq, Coral Harbour, Repulse Bay, Coppermine, Spence Bay
1500-2500 5 Arctic Bay, Cape Dorset, Frobisher Bay, Lake Harbour, Holman Island
2500-3500 2 Clyde River, Pond Inlet 3500-4500 o
4500-5500 1 Broughton Island 5500-6500 o
6500+ 1 Pangnirtung -102-
Table 12 Average annual estimated seal harvests in communites of northern Quebec (see Appendices LXV and LXVI).
Seals Number of Harvested " Communities COmmunity
1-500 6 Aupaluk, Tasiujaq, Fort George, Wemindji, Eastmain, Fort Rupert
500-1500 6 Akulivik, Quaqtaq, Kangiqsuk, Kuujjuaq, Kangiqsualujjuaq, Killiniq
1500-2500 3 " Kuujjuarapik, Inukjuak, Salluit
2500-3500 1 Kangiqsujuaq -10J- income for many years for many northerners (96). Between 1961-62 and 1980-81 (fiscal year July 1 to June 30), approximately 36,000 seal skins worth about $456,000 were sold each year in the NWT (Table 13). Most seal exports originated in the eastern Arctic (Appendices LXVII and LXVIII) where the communities of Pangnirtung and Broughton Island account for a large proportion of seals (Table 14). The average annual seal production in northern Quebec (10 communities) was 2200 seals between 1978-79 and 1980-81 (Table 15). Prior to 1981-82, the commercIal hunt in northern Queb.ec was worth .about $62,000 annually {Table. 15) •. Between 1973 and. 19.81 ; four communities -- in nort.hern Labrador sold an average of 270 seal skins annually (Table .16) • . There· are no data on the cash value of these sales.
After 198i and the EEC ban on the import of whitecoat and · blueback products, the harvest and commercial sales figures changed markedly in the Northwest Territories and northern Quebec. In the Northwest Territories, commercial sales since 1981-82 have averaged 15,700 seals and $258,000, down by 56% and 43% respectively (Table 13). In Quebec, sales were down by 51% in the number of seals and by 71% in cash value compared to the previous three seasons (Table 15). .
During the same period however, the costs associated with seal hunting have increased. Inuit hunters have become dependent on expensive imported hunting· equipment (96, 97). In ' one community for which data are available these costs of hunting to the Inuit have more than doubled since 1972-73 (Table 17). Other items such as fuel and spare parts, although important, are not recorded here. Seals, in particular the ringed seal, provide a marketable commodity, however the rising costs of equipment used to hunt seals may cause subsistence hunting to be abandoned. An analysis of hunting economics of two communities reflects these changes (Table 18). It is apparent that the economic profit from seal hunting in the north has shrunk considerably in the last few years. To offset the depressed market value of seal pelts, in 1982-83 oro implemented a seal pelt price support program, through its "Fisheries Prices Support Board", similar to the one offered to Atlantic coast sealers. This federal program spent approximately $88,000 in the NWT giving an average return of about $6.00 per seal pelt to the hunters. The GNWT has also paid a subsidy of $5.00 for all seal pelts sold. A similar Fisheries Prices Support Board program will be implemented in respect of the 1984 harvest. 4.3.3. Domestic Use of Seals Estimating the number of seals used locally by subtracting estimates of exports from estimates of harvest is crude at best. In addition to the errors associated with these two estimates, there are discrepancies in the years for which the data are available and the manner in which they are reported (fiscal or calendar year). With this proviSion in mind, it appears that for the regions being considered, about 20,000 seals are used locally each year. Although the data are few, it also seems that export sales have declined more rapidly than harvest levels (Table 13, Appendix LXII) and this estimated local use value may be higher in recent years. Quantitative data on the proportion of seals used for different purposes (food, clothes, ropes and tarps, dog· food, fox bait, etc.) is unknown. -104-
Table 13. Seal pelt production in the Northwest Territories from 1961 to 1964.
Number Average value Year of Pelts returned to hunter ($) Total Value ($)
1961-62 10,470 4.65 48,685.50 1962-63 27,664 · 8.49 236,735.16 1963-64 46,962 1'4~76 691,706.56 1964-65 68,332 11.06 757,118.56 1965-66 51,197 5.97 305,646. • 09 1966-67 46,355 6.82 316,141.10 1967-68 19,460 3.82 73,948.00 1968-69 27,479 7;66 211,038.72 1969-70 31,165 6.64 269,364.34 1970-71 37,282 9.22 343,632.24 1971-72 30,819 9.81 302,334.39 1972-73 26,363 15.10 396,081.30 1973-74 36,391 17.36 631,747.76 1974-75 40,468 17.10 692,002.80 1975-76 34,270 23.65 810,465.50 1976-77 46,407 16.99 622,434.93 1977-78 26,726 11.86 316,970.36 1978-79 29,352 14.16 415,765.45 1979-60 30,860 19.05 566,022.74 1960-61 42,120 21.13 890,296.16 1961-82 24,556 19.42 476,948.00 1982-83 14,837 14.86 220,590.00 1983-84 7,689 9.96 76,581.00
Season: July 1 - June 30. (Source: Department of Renewable Resources, N.W.T.) -105-
Table 14. Average annual commercial seal pelt production (all species) for communities in the Northwest Territories (see Appendices IX, LXVII).
Average Annual Seal Number of Pelt Production Communities . Convnun it y . 1-500 20 Grise Fiord, Halt Beach, Resolute Bay , Sanikiluaq, Port · Burwell, Chesterfield Inlet, Rankin Inlet, Eskimo Point, Whale Cove, Bathurst Inlet, Cambridge Bay, PeUy Bay, Spence Bay, Baker Lake, Gjoa Haven, Aklavik, Inuvik, Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour, Tuktoyaktuk
500-1500 7 Arctic Bay, Cape Dorset, Igloolik, Lake Harbour, Pond Inlet, Repulse Bay, Coral Harbour
1500-2500 2 Frobisher Bay, Coppermine 2500-3500 2 Clyde River, Holman Island 3500-4500 o
4500-5500 1 Broughton Island 5500-6500 o
6500+ 1 Pangnirtung Table 15 Commercial seal pelt sales in communities in northern Quebec, from 1978 to 1984.
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 COMMUNITY No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value
Ivujivik 64 1,664 484 14,036 117 3,393 105 1,785 2 20 Kangiqsualujjuaq 60 1,740 62 1,798 154 2,618 Akulivik 4 116 27 783 82 1,394 Sallvit 118 3,068 541 15,689 140 4,060 481 8,177 7 70
Povungnituk 1 26 1 29 5 145 I af-' Kujjuarapik 250 6,500 500 14,500 527 15,283 128 2,176 2 20 8 '"I Kangiqsugyag 916 23,816 1,076 31,024 1,102 31,958 1,059 18,003 19 190 2 Kuujjuaq 32 928 32 928 3 51 Kangiqsuk 73 1,898 152 4,408 82 2,378 59 1,003 Inukjuak 110 2,860 62 1,798 54 1,566 67 1,139 TOTAL 1,532 39,832 2,911 84,268 2,148 62,292 2,138 36,346 30 300 10
Average price per pelt 26.00 29.00 29.00 17.00 10.00
(Source: Minist~re du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la P~che). -107-
Table 16. Number of seal pelts as purchased by the ~abrador Northern Services Division.
Year Nain Makkovik Postville HOE!edale Total 1973 1455 281 . 73 107 1916 1974 1561 . 651 102 98 . 2412 1975 1692 934 14.1 494 32.61 1976 1781 757 105 108 2751 1977 989 556 108 1120 2773 1978 1473 376 109 614 2572 1979 1079 748 149 939 2915 1980 1016 521 125 858 2520 1981 2204 N/A 292 453 (2949) 1982 1161 292 396 623 2472 1983 1984 396 94 264 2738 == 26541 N/A: not available -108-
Table 17 Hunting costs in Clyde River in 1972-73, 1976-77 and 1983-84.
1972-731 1976-771 1983-842 Item ( $) ($) ($) Snowmobile3 1,.400;00 2,500.00 3,898.00 Trail motorcycle (2 wheels) 1,150.00 (3 wheels) 2,100.00 Outboard motor (25 h.p.) 900.00 1,100.0D (55 h.p.)4 2,998.00
22-foot (6.7 m) canoe 1,200.00 1,800.00 2,595.00 .303 Enfield rifle 99.00 150.00 .222 Remington rifle 150.00 250.00 659.00 .22 semi-automatic rifle 60.00 73.00 368.98 20 shells for .303 rifle 7.00 10.00 18.50 20 shells for .222 rifle 5.00 7.50 11.50 20 shells for 12-gauge shotgun 9.00 11.00 25 shells 14.50 Fox trap 1.00 2.50 4.00 Duffle (for winter clothing) per metre 8.75 13.10 28.00
1 1972 and 1976 item costs have rounded off from Clyde River prices. 2 1984 costs are exact as charged by the Clyde River Company store. 3 Snowmobile prices reflects the cost of the most popular model present in Clyde River in each of the sample years. 4 This larger engine is now the most common in Clyde River, replacing the smaller 25 h.p. model. (Sources: 1972-73 and 1976-77 costs - Wenzel 1978; 1983-84 costs - Wenzel pers. comm •. -109-
Table 18. Economic return derived from seal pelts in Holman Island and Broughton Island.
1980/81 81/82 82/83 83/84
WESTERN ARCTIC: Holman Island Number of hunters 65 60 58 66 Number of ringed seal pelts sold 5,702 2,294 1,497 1,348 Number of "other" seal pelts sold 8 Average number of seal pelts sold per hunter 88 38 26 20 Total value of seal pelts ($) 110,591 51,097 21,757.50 18,998 Average value per pelt 19.39 22.27 14.29 14.09 Average earnings derived from seal pelts sold per hunter ($) 1,701.4 851.61 375.13 287.85 Percent change in average earnings derived from seal pelts per hunter since 1980/81 -49.95 -77.95 -83.08
EASTERN ARCTIC: 8roughton Island Number of hunters 91 101 80 81 Number of ringed seal pelts sold 3,943 4,274 1,622 1,419 Number of harp seal pelts sold 335 181 63 217 Number of "other" seal pelts sold 1 Average number of seal pelts sold per hunter 47 44 21 20 Total value of seal pelts ($) 76,856 79,570 16,160 12,023 Average value per pelt 19.96 17.86 9.59 7.34 Average earnings derived from seal pelts sold per hunter ($) 844.57 787.82 202.00 148.43 Percent change in average earnings derived from seal pelts per hunter since 1980/81 -6.71 -76.08 -82.43
(Source: Department of Renewable Resources, N.W.T.) Season: July 1 to June 30 -110-
Alton-Mackey (98) examined seal harvesting for domestic use along with other country foods in two northern Labrador communities, Makkovik (population 333) and Rigolet (population 262). Seals were of major importance ·as food in these communities. Ringed seals provided the largest volume of seals in Makkovik, ringed and harp .seals in Rigolet. Seals contributed 23% of· the country food eaten (by weight) in Rigolet and 11% in Makkovik.
Compared to other meats, seal. meat is high in protein and low in fat (Table 19). Seal meat contains ~ore high quality protein and less crude fat than that of domestic animals such as beef, pork and fish (99). The fat present is relatively unsaturated and the meat is a rich source of iron and vitamin A.
The traditional use of marine mammals by Inuit is well established (see ITC report to the Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing). Less obvious but equally important is the cultural aspect of seal hunting by Indians and white residents of Quebec and Labrador. For all of these people, hunting seals is an essential aspect of their culture. Long term community studies (101, 102, 103, 104) reinforce this idea in stating that regardless of the external fluctuations in the ringed seal skin market, Inuit in the communities studied (Wainwright, Alaska and Clyde River, NWT) remained highly dependent on seals for their premium subsistence value. Additionally, each seal species has its own role in this cultural identiFication. Ringed seals, especially young ones, are an important source of food throughout the Arctic. Older ringed seals are used for dog food. Prime skins have represented a source of cash in an ever-expanding cash economy, either through direct sale or through handicrafts. They are also used to make kamiks (boots) for local use. Some of the poorest skins may be used as t arps. In the eastern Arctic, a few harp seals are eaten but they are sought for food in Labrador and Quebec. Their skins also had value as cash equivalents and are used locally for kamiks and tarps. They were a preferred skin for kayak building.
The bearded seal is taken in small numbers throughout northern Canada but the harvest statistics belie its cultural significance·. The meat is eaten and some organs are considered delicacies. The skin is essential for the soles of kamiks and there is some inter-settlement trade in it for this purpose. It also makes excellent harpoon line, a necessity even in today's hunts. The killing of seals will remain part of our northern heritage because of both a material necessity (food and fiber) and a traditional work ethic among hunting societies. Whether this harvest will also provide a fair pecuniary return on the hunter's investments apparently depends on world fur markets. -111-
Table 19. • Representative nutrient composition of 100 grams of various meats.
Protein Fat Calcium Phosphorous . Iron Niacin Thiamine Ribofl (g) (g) (mg) (m!:!) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg
Ringed* .30 1 48 300 20 6 0 1 Seal
Beef* 17 25 11 161 2 4 0 0
Chicken+ 21 4 9 220 2 6 0 0
Beef* 19 6 10 350 17 15 0 4 Liver+
Haddock+ 17 0 30 210 1 3 0 0
Herring+ 17 15 100 250 2 4 0 0
*(Sources: *99, p.97; + 100) -112-
SECTION 5
HARP SEAL ENERGETICS, FOOO CONSlJ4PTION AND INTERACTIONS WITH FISHERIES
5.1. Introduction
In order to place the Northwest Atlantic harp, seal in perspective, with respect to energy requirements, .it is appropriate here to describe it as a stock comprised of individuals which are, on ave'rage; heavier than' an adult human (circa 100 kg) (105) and approximating in number (circa 2 X 106) (1) the human population of the Atlantic Provinces of Canada. '
The stock spends its entire life in the arctic and subarctic regions of the North Atlantic drawing all its resources from this system.
Energy costs for mammals in a cold, ocean habitat are not well understood but, in general, can be partitioned into growth, reproduction, propulsion and thermal maintenance. The most comprehensive analysis addressing these expenditures has been conducted by Lavigne et al. (105). Propulsion and thermal maintenance are considered to be major-expenditures (105, ,106). To illustrate this in more graphic terms, circa two million mammals with an aggregate, warm body surface ar,ea of approximately two km 2 (average 1m2 per seal) migrate annually through a distance of 6000 km in icewater.
Crude estimates of the amount of food required to maintain this stock (105, 107) can be extrapolated to an order of 2-4 million metric tons, considering that the stock has been expanding since the early 1970's when the calculations were made. Year round sampling of harp seal stomach contents has been limited, however findings so far indicate that prey species range from pelagic fish (herring and capelin), pelagic and benthic crustacea, benthic fish (cod, redfish), plaice and Greenland habibut. Polar cod and shrimp (Pandalus sp.) appear to be more important prey than previously assumed (107, 10B 109, 110). Sergeant (107) estimated that the stock at that time was consuming 500 thousand tons of capelin and 20 thousand tons of herring annually. In terms of biomass "landed" the harp seal should be seen in the context of a major fishing power.
5.2 Feeding and Migration
Harp seals have evolved migratory pathways, moving from site to site, to capitalize upon seasonal concentrations of prey which are not only catchable but of high energy content as well (e.g. fat capelin, crustaceans, etc.). The population maintains itself during its summer foray to the Arctic, feeding upon pelagic and benthic crustacea as well as polar cod, then "topping up" on concentrations of high energy prey (capelin, herring, sandlance) during their winter movement, south to the whelping areas (107, 110)
Since much of the feeding is carried out by groups of seals (either to gain hydrodynamic advantage or for cooperative feeding) it is necessary that the prey often be in economical concentrations, similar to those required by commercial fisheries. -113-
While the improved "condition", essentially the appearance as a fatter animal, is apparent during the feeding migration to the southern whelping grounds off Newfoundland/Labrador and the Gulf of st. Lawrence, one cannot attribute greater importance to one or other feeding area. All feeding areas play an important role in the survival strategy of the harp seal. Many animals, including the harp seal (110,111), have been described as feeding "opportunistically". In reality, few predators travel or feed in random fashion ; there is often a . pattern, although it may not necessarily be apparent. In this caSe, the foraging of two million, long. lived, social mammals, cannot be ·appropriately described as "opportunistic" any more than could the fishing strategy of a large, well established commercial fleet. Migratory patterns and feeding behaviour appear to be more struc tured than most envisage and there are probably not alternative prey to which harp seals will readily switch. Indeed, were the alternative prey that attractive, they would already be under exploitation. We have already witnessed a good example of this: stocks of capelin off Newfoundland were depressed in the mid 1970's, an event that is better attributed to poor year-class survival than to overfishing. Hundreds of humpback whales moved to the nearshore after capelin, despite the presence of supposedly abundant alternative prey on traditional offshore feeding grounds.
In summary, the movement of circa two million large mammals, swimming and feeding through thousands of kilometres of icewater, should not be looked upon as a simple migration but as a major logistical achievement. The precision with which they arrive on the breeding grounds attests to this.
5.3. Effects of Increase in Population on the Energy Budget Many of the techniques used in managing marine mammals originated from the management of commercial fish (cold blooded vertebrates) however the problem becomes more complex when population energetics are considered. With the exception of hauling out on ice during the spring breeding and moulting periods, over 90% of the harp seals life is spent in arctic water conditions. Marine mammals are warm blooded, consequently they have a thermal maintenance "rent" to pay to a cold, ocean habitat, a medium with the capacity to extract heat at a rate circa twenty-five times greater than air at the same temperature.
The question has been: What happens as a stock of marine mammals expands? Will their per capita energy consumption increase or decrease as growth and reproduction rates diminish? There was until recently a concensus, albeit based on weak evidence (106), that as a seal population increased, less food would be consumed per individual. -114-
When one considers that the cost of thermal maintenance is forever present and moreover, that a point must come where it is necessary to maintain some minimal standard of condition (insulative blubber thickness), then feeding and propulsion costs would increase as competition intensifies within the population. This would be the scenario, unless the food base were expanding as well.
Using these arguments and suppprted by the finding!! . from laboratory studies on ·sea1s, Brodie and Paasche (106) conCluded that,. as a sealpopulationexpanded·beY0rid a certain threshOld, they would require, on a per-capita basis, nonlinear. increase·s in food resources. This is' a· major potential effect that should not be overlooked in the in the Multi-species.. management context.
5.4 Sun.nary There is evidence to indicate that the Northwest Atlantic harp seal stock has been expanding under a management regime since the early 1970's (1,112) while supporting a viable, commercial and cottage, sealing industry. As a consequence of lost markets for seal products, the present reduced harvest levels of the 1980's argue for a stock which is presently expanding at a greater rate. Since mortality from hunting has been essentially eliminated, the factors affecting the dynamiCS of the population would be changes in vital parameters: for example growth rate (which dictates the age at sexual maturity; 107). Such feedback would be, in turn, a consequence of physical condition, dependent upon the food resources available; in other terms the carrying capacity of the habitat. It would be at this stage that the commercial fisheries within the feeding range of the harp seal would be in potential conflict with this expanding stock of predators. A viable commercial fishery, based upon the harvest of a relatively small biomass (several thousand tons), within that feeding range is that of the fishery for shrimp, Pandalus sp. (113).
Regardless of their magnitude, the importance of these prey resources spread throughout the feeding range of the harp seal cannot be overemphasized.
Present commercial fisheries (in particular for shrimp) in the Davis and Hudson Straits may be the first to come into increasing conflict with the presently expanding stock of harp seals. REFERENCES
1 • Bowen, W.O. and D.E. Sergeant, 1985. A Mark Recapture Estimate of 1983 Harp Seal Pup Production in the Northwest Atlantic NAFO SCR Doc. 85/1/1 2. Anon. 1968 • . Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting. ICNAF . Proc. No. 2
3. Anon. 1970. Proceedings of the 2DthAnnual Meeting. ICNAF Proc. No. 2 4. Anon. 1972. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting. ICNAF Proc. No. 8 5. Anon. 1973. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting. ICNAF Proc. No.12
6. Anon. 1974. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting. ICNAF Proc. No.12 7. Anon. 1976. Standing Committee on Research and Statistics. ICNAF Redbook 1976. 8. Anon. 1977. Standing Committee on Research and Statistics. ICNAF Redbook 1977.
9. Anon. 1978. Standing Committee on Research and Statistics. ICNAF Redbook 1978. 10. Anon. 1979. Standing Committee on Research and Statistics. ICNAF Redbook 1979. 11. Anon. 1980 Scientific Council Reports, 1979-80. NAFO 1980 12. Anon. 1981 Scientific Council Reports, 1981. NAFO 1981
13. Anon. 1982 Scientific Council Reports, 1982. NAFO 1982 14. Anon. 1983. Report on the Meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Assessment of Harp and Hooded Seals in the Northwest Atlantic. ICES Coop. Res. Rep. No. 121. 15. Anon. 1983 Scientific Council Reports, 1983. NAFD 1983 16. Anon. 1985. Report of the Standing Committee on Fishery Science (STACFIS). NAFO 1985. 17. Dunn, F.L. 1977. Canada's East Coast Sealing Industry, A Socio-Economic Review. Department of Fisheries and the Environment, Ottawa, 1977. 18. Bigg, M. A. 1969. The harbour seal in British Columbia. Bull. Fish. Res. · Board Can. 172.33 p.
19.· Spalding, D•. J.1964. Comparative feeding habits· of the fur seal, sea lion and harbour seal on the British Columbia · coast. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 146.52 p.
20. Guiguet, C. J. 1971. An apparent increase in California sea lion, Zalophus cali fornianus (Lesson), and elephant seal, Mirounga angustirostris (Gill), on the coast of British Columbia. Syesis 4(1/2): 263-264.
21. FOWler, C. W. 1982. Interactions of northern fur seals and commercial fisheries. Trans. 47th North Am. Wildl. Conf., p. 278-292.
22. Roppel, A. Y. 1984. Management of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, 1786-1981. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 4. 26 p. 23. Perez, M. A., and M. A. Bigg. 1983. Food habits of northern .fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) off western North America. Report to the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, Washington, D.C. April 1983. 65 p. 24. Bigg, M. A. 1984. Sighting and kill data for the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) in British Columbia, 1892-1982, with some records from Washington and southeastern Alaska. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 460: 191 p. 25. Bigg,M. A. The status of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) and California sea lion (Zalophus callfornlanus) in British Columbia. (In prep.)
26. Berger, T.R. 1977. Northern frontier, northern homeland: the report of the MacKenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Vol. I and II. Department of Supply and Services, ottawa. 27. Ehrenfeld, D.W. 1970. Biological conservation. Holt, Reinhard and Winston, Toronto.
28. Mansfield, A.W. 1967. Seals of Arctic and eastern Canada. 2nd. ed. Bull. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 137: 35 p.
29. Mansfield, A.W. 1970. Population dynamics and exploitation of Arctic seals, p. 429-446. In M.W. Holgate (ed.) Antarctic ecology. Academic Press, London. 30. Mansfield,A.W., D.E . Sergeant and T.G. Smith. 1975. Marine Mammal research in the Canadian Arctic. Can. Fish. Mar. Servo Tech. Rep. 507: 23 p.
31. Smith, T. G. 1973a. Pollution dynamics of the ringed seal in the Canadian eastern Arctic. Bull. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 181: 55 p.
32. King, 'J;L 1983. Seals of the World. , Cornell University Press, New York 240, p.
33. Frost, K. J. and L.F. Lowry. 1981. Ringed, Baikal and Caspian Seal$, p.29-35. In S; H. Ridgeway and R.J. Harrison (ed;) Handbook of marine mammals. Vol. 2, Seals. Academic Press, London. 34. Smith, T.G. and I Stirling. 1975. The breeding habitat of ringed seal (Phoca hispida). The birth lair and associated structures. Can. J. Zool. 53: 1297-1305. 35.McLaren, I.A. 1958a. The biology of the ringed seal (Phoca Hispida Schreber) in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Bull. Flsh. Res . Board Can. 118: 97 p.
36. Smith, T.G. ' 1976. Predation of ringed seal pups (Phoca hispida)by the arctic fox (Alopex lagopus). Can. J. Zool. 54: 1610-1616.
37. McLaren, I.A. 1961. Methods of determining the numbers and availability of ringed seals in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Arctic 14: 162-175.
38. Smith, T.G. and M.D. Hamill. 1980. A survey of the breeding habitat of ringed seals and a study of their behaviour during the spring haul-out period in southeastern Baffin Island. Can. Manuscrip. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1561: 47 p.
39. Stirling, I. and W. Calvert. 1979. Ringed seal. Mammals in the seas. FAO Fish. Ser . No.5, Vol. 2: 66-69.
40. McLaren, I.A. 1966. Analysis of an aerial census of ringed seals. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 23: 769-773.
41. Smith, ToG. 1973b. Censusing and estimating the size of ringed seal populations. Fish. Res. Board Can. Tech. Rep. 427. 18 p. 42. Smith, T.G. 1973c . Management research on the Eskimo's ringed seal. Can. Geog . J. 86: 118-125. 43. Stirling, I., M. Kingsley and W. Calvert. 1982. The distribution and abundance of seals in the eastern Beaufort Sea, 1974-1979. Can . Wildl. Servo Occ. Pap. 47: 25 p. 44. McLaren, I.A. 1958b. The economics of seals in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Fish. Res. Board Can. Arct. BioI. Stn. Circ. 1: 94 p. 45. McLaren, I.A. 1962 Population dynamics and exploitation of seals in the eastern Canadian Arctic. p. 168-193. In E.D. LcCren and M.W. Holgate (ed.) The exploitation of natural andlanimal populations. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. 46. Smith, T.G. 1975. Ringed seals in James Bay and Hudson Bay: population estimates and catch statistics. Arctic 28: 170-182.
47. Finley, K.J; and W.E.Renaud. 1980. Marine mammals : inhabiting the Baffin Bay north water in winter. Arctic 33: 724-738. 48. Smith, T.G., , K. Hay, D. Taylor and R. Greendale. 1979a. Ringed seal breeding habitat in Viscount Melville Sound, Barrow Strait and Peel Sound. Can. Dep. Ind. N. Affairs Environ. Social Comm. Rep. AI~22: 85 p.
49. Stirling, I., R. Archibald and D. DeMaster. 1977. Distribution and abundance of seals in the eastern Beaufort Sea. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34: 976-988. 50. Kingsley, M.C.S. and N.J. Lunn. 1983. The abundance of seals in the 8eaufort Sea, northern Amundsen Gulf and Prince Albert Sound, 1987. Report for Dome Petroleum Ltd. and Gulf Canada Resources Inc., Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, A8. 16 p.
51. McLaren, I.A. and A.W. Mansfield. 1960. The netting of sea mammals. A report on the Belcher Islands experiment, 1960. Fish. Res. Board Can. Arct. Unit. Circ. 6: 11p. 52. Potelov, V.A. 1975. Biological background for determining the abundance of bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) and ringed seals (Phoca hispida). Rapp. P.-V. R~un. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 169: 553. 53. Burns, J.J. and S.J. Harbo, Jr. 1972. An aerial census of ringed seals, northern cost of Atlaska. Arctic 25: 279-290. 54. Stirling, I., D. Andriashek and W. Calvert. 1981. Habitat preferences and distribution of polar bears in the western Canadian Arctic. Prepared for Dome Petroleum Ltd., Esso Resources Canada Ltd., and the Canadian Wildlife Service.
55. Finley, K.J. 1979. Haul-out behaviour and densities of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in the Barrow Strait area, N.W.T. Can. J. Zool. 57: 1985-1997. 56. Davis, R.A., K.J. Finley and W.J. Richardson. 1980. The present status and future management of Arctic marine mammals in Canada. Report for Science Advisory Board of Northwest Territories. 93 p.
57. Stirling, I. and E.H. McEwan. 1975. The caloric value of whole ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in relation to polar bear (Ursus maritimus) ecology and hunting behaviour. Can. J. Zool. 53: 1021-1027. 58. Fay, F.H. 1960. Carnivorous walrus and some Arctic zoonoses. Arctic 13: 111-122. 59. Lowry, L.F. and F.H. Fay. 1984. Seal eating by walruses in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Polar. BioI. 3: 11-18.
60. Stirling, I. and P.B. Latour. 1978. Comparative hunting abilities of PQI.ar bear cubs of different ages • . Can. J. Zool. 56: 1768-1772.
6L Hblt,S.J. andL.M. Talbot. 1978. New .principles , forthe ·conservation of wild living resources. Wildl. Monogr. 59: 33· p.
62. Lavigne, ·D.M., S. Innes, R.E.A. Stewart and G.A.J. Worthy. (iJ:\ pr3s~) An annual . energy budget for Northwest Atlantic harp seals .1n •• Beddington, R.J.H. Beverton and D.M. Lavigne (ed.) Interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. Allen and Unwin, London.
63. Sergeant, D.E. 1965. Migrations of harp seals Pa~ophilUS groenlandicus (Erxleben) in the Northwest Atlantic. J. F1S • Res. Board Can. ZZ: 433-464.
64. Stewart, R.E.A. 1983. Behavioural and energetic aspects of reproductive effort in female harp seals, Phoca groenlandica. Ph.D. thesis, University of Guelph. 231 p~
65. Bowen, W.O. 1982. Age structure of Northwest Atlantic harp seal catches, 1952-80. NAFO Sci. Counc. Studies 3: 53-65.
66. Ray, C.E., F. Reiner, D.E. Sergeant and C.N. Quesada. 1982. Notes on past and present distribution of the bearded seal Erignathus barbatus around the North Atlantic Ocean. Mem. Mus. Mar. Ser. Zool. 2: 1-32.
67. Benjaminson, T. 1973. Age determination and the growth and age distribution from cementum growth layers of bearded seals at Svalbard. Fiskeridir. Skr. Ser. Havunders. 16: 159-170.
68. Ellis, O.V. 1957. Some observations on mammals in the area between Coppermine and Pond Inlet, N.W.T. during 1954 and 1955. Can. Field Nat. 71: 1-6.
69. Finley, K.J. and W.E. Renaud. 1980. Marine mammals inhabiting the Baffin Bay north water in winter. Arctic 33: 724-738.
70. Smith, T.G. 1980. Polar bear predation on ringed and bearded seals in the land-fast sea ice habitat. Can. J. Zool. 58: 2201-2209.
71. Smith, T.G. 1981. Notes on the bearded seal Erignathus barbatus in the Canadian Arctic. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. SCi. 1042: 49 p.
72. Stirling, I. 1975. Factors affecting the evolution of social behaviour in the Pinnipedia. Rapp. P.-v. R~un. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 169: 205-212.
73. Bradstreet, M.S.W. 1982. Occurrence, habitat use and behaviour of seabirds, marine mammals, and Arctic cod at the Pond Inlet ice edge. Arctic 35: 28-40. 74. Cleator, H. and T.G. Smith. 1984. Vocal behaviour and distribution of bearded seals, Erignathus barbatus, in Amundsen Gulf and along western Banks N.W. T. Report for . Dome Petroleum limited, Gulf Canada Resources Inc. and Polar Cont. Shelf Project, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. 50 p.
75. Smith, T.G., .G.A. Sleno and O. Taylor. · 1979b. An aerial · survey of marine mammals in the region north of Cornwallis Island, N.W. T. Can. fish. Mar. Servo Tech. Rep. S37i18 p.
76 . Burns, J.J. 1981. Bearded seal, p. 145-170. In S.H. Ridgeway and R ~ J ; Harrison (ed.). Handbook of marine mammaTS; Vol. 2, Seals. Academic Press, London.
77. Stirling, I. and W.R. Archibald. 1979. Bearded seal. Mammals in the seas. fAD Fish. Ser. No.5, Vol. 2: 83-85.
78. Kapel, F.o. and R. Petersen. 1982. Subsistence hunting - the Greenland case. Int. Whaling Comm. Spec. Issue 4: 51-74.
79. Bigg, M.A. 1981. Harbour seal Phoca vitulina Linneaus, 1758 and Phoca targ~a Pallas, 1811. p. 1-27. In S.H. Ridgeway and R.J. Harrlson ed. Handbook of marine mammals. Vol. 2, Seals. Academic Press, London.
80. Bonner , W.N. 1979. Harbour (common) seal. Mammals in the seas. FAD Fish. Ser. No.5. Vol. 2: 58-62.
81. Boulva, J. 1975. Temporal variations in birth period and characteristics of newborn harbour seals. Rap •• P.-V. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 169: 405.
82. Sergeant, o.E. 1974. A rediscovered whelping population of hooded seals Cystophora cristata Erxleben and its possible relationship to other populations. Polarsforschung 44: 1-7.
83. Reeves, R.R. and J.K. Ling. 1981. Hooded seal Cystoahora cristata Erxleben 1777, p. 171-194. In S.H. Ridgeway an R.J. Harrlson (ed.) Handbook of marine mammals. Academic Press, London.
84. Sergeant, o.E. 1979. Hooded seal. Mammals in ·the seas. FAD Fish. Ser. No.5. Vol. 2: 86-89.
85. Donaldson, J. 1983. 1981 Wildlife Harvest Statistics for the Baffin Region, Northwest Territories. Baffin Region Inuit Association, Technical Report 1: 65 p. 86. Donaldson, J. 1984. 1982 Wildlife Harvest Statistics for the Baffin Region, Northwest Territories. Baffin Region Inuit Association, Technical Report 2: 64 p B7. Gamble, R.L. 19B4. A preliminary study of the native harvest of wildlife in the Keewatin Region, Northwest Territories. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 12B2. 4B p.
BB. Jingfors, K. 19B4. Kitimeot Harvest Study: Progrewss· Report. Department of Renewable Resou·rces, Northwest Territories, Cambridge. Bay, :m p. B9. N.H.R.C., Inuit: Native Harvesting. Research Committee, 1979. Research to Establish Present Levels of Harvesting. by Native Peoples of Northern Qu~bec. Phase II. (yr 1976). Prepared by James Bay and Northern Qu~bec Native Harvesting Research Committee for the Coordinating Committee on Hunting, Fishing and Trapping. 107 p.
90. N.H.R.C., Inuit: Native Harvesting Research Committee, 197B2a Research to Establish Present Levels of Harvesting by Native Peoples of Northern Quebec. Phase II (yrs 1977 and 1978). Prepared by James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Harvesting Research Committee for the Coordinating Committee on Hunting, Fishing and Trapping. 125 p. 91. N.H.R.C., Inuit: Native Harvesting Research Committee, 19B2b Research to Establish Present Levels of Harvesting by Native Peoples of Northern Quebec. Phase II (yrs 1979 and BO). Prepared by James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Harvesting Research Committee for the Coordinating Committee on Hunting, Fishing and Trapping. 154 p. 92. N.H.R.C . , Cree: James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Harvesting Research Committee. 1976. Research to establish levels of Harvesting by Native Peoples of Northern Quebec. Part I. A report on the harvests by the James Bay Cree, Montreal. 2 vols. 93. N.H.R.C., Cree: James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Harvesting Research Committee. 197B. Harvests by the James Bay Cree. Research to establish levels of Harvesting by Native Peoples of Northern Qu~bec. First Part. Harvests by the James Bay Cree, Montreal. 456 p. + Appendices. 94. N.H.R.C., Cree: James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Harvesting Research Committee. 1979. Harvests by the James Bay Cree 1976-77~ Third Progress Report (Phase II, yr 2). Research To Establish present levels of harvesting of Native Peoples of Northern Quebec. Montreal, 419 p. 95. N.H.R.C., Cree: James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Harvestibng Research Committee. 19BO. Harvests by the James Bay Cree 1977-7B and 197B-79. Fourth Progress Report (Phase II, yrs 3 and 4) Research to establish levels of Harvesting by Native Peoples of Northern Quebec. Montreal, 606 p. 96. Wenzel, G.W. 197B. The Harp Seal Controversy and the Inuit Economy. Arctic, 31, 3-6. 97. Usher, P.J. 1981. Subsistence or recreation? The future of native harvesting of seals in the eastern Beaufort Sea, 1974-1979. Can. Wildl. Servo Dec. Pap. 47: 25 p. 98. Alton-Mackey, M. 1981. Country food use in selected Labrador communities Comparative Report June-July 1989 and June-July 1981 (DRAFT), Extension Service and Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
99. Boles,B., L. Jackson and ·M.G. Alton-Mackey_ 1982.· Breaking the ice. Report prepared for the Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Development and the Department · of Regional Economic Expansion. 117p.
100. Osborn, D.R. and P. Voogt. 1978. · The analysis of nutrient in· foods. Academic University Press, New York. 251 p. •
101. Nelson, R.K. 1969. Hunters of the northern ice • . Aldine-Nelson, Chicago.
102. Nelson, R.K. 1981. Harvest of the sea: coastal subsistence in modern Wainwright. North Slope Borough, Barrow, AK. 103. Wenzel, G.W. 1976 . The ecology of Inuit hunting at Clyde River, N.W.T. Report to the Canadian Ethnology Service, Ottawa. 104. Wenzel, G.W. 1983. The integration of "remote" site labour income into the Inuit economy of Clyde River, N.W.T., Arctic Anthropology 20: 79-92. 105. Lavigne, D.M., W. Barchard, S. Innes and N.A. Oritsland. 1982. Pinniped bioenergetics, 191-235. In: Mammals in the sea iv FAD Advisory committee on marine mammal resources research. Working party on marine mammals, 531 p.
106. Brodie, P.F. and A.J. Paasche. 1982. Density - dependent condition and energetics of marine mammal populations in multispecies fisheries management, pp. 35-38. In: M.C. Mercer (ed.) Multispecies approaches to fisheries management advice: Can. Spec. Publ . Fish Aquat. Sci. 59. 169 p. Also presented as NAFO SCR Doc. 80/xi/16 (1980) •
107. Sergeant, D. E. 1973. Feeding, growth, and productivity of northwest Atlantic harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus). J. Fish. Res. Boa Can. 30: 17-29. 108. Kapel, F.O. 1973. Some second-hand reports on the· foods of harp seals i West Greenland waters. ICES CM 1973/N:8. 109. Beddington, J.R. and H.A. Williams. 1980. The status and management of the harp seal in the Northwest Atlantic. A review and evaluation U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Nat. Tech. Info. Servo P88D - 206105, 127 p. 110. Bowen, W.D. 1981. Harp seals and their foods: How do they interact? NAFD SCR Doc. No. 81/xi/154, 8 p.
111. Ronald,K. and J.L. Dougan. 1982. The Ice Lover: 8iology of the Harp Seal (Phoca. groenlandica). Science 215, 928-933.
112. Roff, D.A. and W~D . Bowen. 1980. One, two, many: how many harp seals a there? NAFD .SCRDoc. 8D/x/161, 24 p. Seal (Phoca ·grcienlaridiba) •. Seience215, 928-933. 113. Kanneworff, P. 1983 • . Biomass of shi:imp (Pandalus bOrealis) in NArD sub-area 1 in 1977-1982 estimated by means of' bottom photography. NArD SCROoc .83/1/1.