DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduced Speciesintheparkaremice,Rabbits,Foxes, Introduced Speciesinthepark Australia Areeitherextinctorlocallyextinct

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduced Speciesintheparkaremice,Rabbits,Foxes, Introduced Speciesinthepark Australia Areeitherextinctorlocallyextinct Fact sheet Introduced species CREDIT: Gordon Sanders Gordon CREDIT: Rabbits and camels are An̲ angu and Parks Australia are working Who is responsible? Humans are responsible herbivores – they eat together to minimise the adverse effects for the introduction of all vegetation which holds soil of introduced animals on the natural and non-indigenous species together. Bare soil is more susceptible to wind and cultural values of the park. into Australia and we have responsibility to find a water erosion. We have very humane solution to fix this ancient and fragile soils here What is an introduced animal? issue. Most introduced in the Central Desert and it Introduced animals are species that have arrived from species were imported into does not take a big shift in different countries or regions and established wild Australia deliberately by soil use patterns to create populations, often causing many problems in their new people to serve a purpose. significant changes in the environment. They are recognised as the major factor Examples are dogs and overall soil structure. in the extinction of native species in Central Australia. cats, who were introduced Trees and shrubs are also Currently, 40 per cent of native species in Central as domestic pets. Foxes targeted by both these Australia are either extinct or locally extinct. and rabbits were introduced grazing animals. Rabbits eat for game and recreational the roots of some plants, Introduced species in the park hunting and camels to ringbark trees in drought Introduced species in the park are mice, rabbits, foxes, provide transport. Mice, conditions and also enjoy camels, dogs, and cats. Each of these animals has its own however, likely stowed away eating sapling trees and way of impacting on the environment within the park. in imported food stocks. shrubs. You will notice from the list some animals are predators What is the impact? Foxes and cats are carnivores – they hunt a and some are prey species. These animals interact within Camels cause significant large number of smaller the natural food chain. Both introduced predator and damage to waterholes and animals in the park, with prey species need to be controlled to protect the natural soaks throughout the park. a direct and devastating environment. A thirsty camel can drink up impact on native to 200 litres of scarce water populations. supply in three minutes. Water is very sacred to The effects of competition An̲ angu – without water are more severely felt during nothing can survive. So a drought when native by polluting and draining animal populations may waterholes, camels pose a already be reduced to a bare significant threat to some of minimum. This increased the most culturally significant competition further threatens areas within the park. rare species in the park. ULURU KATA TJUTA NATIONAL PARK ULURU KATA TJUTA NATIONAL PARK Feral animals' use of plants and water means native animals must compete for resources : CSIRO : CREDIT An̲ angu perspective Foxes – Highly elusive, Introduced plants An̲ angu have a different way of looking at introduced animals the fox species is a difficult Thirty four species of flora compared to non-Indigenous Australians. An̲ angu hunted challenge for park staff. have been introduced to the cats before the first European explorers visited Central Many foxes are spotted on park since non-Aboriginal Australia and have adopted introduced species into their monitoring cameras but people first settled in Central lifestyles. Rabbits are a common food source. An̲ angu are are difficult to control, with Australia. The most invasive aware of the threats of introduced species to their native several eradication methods is buffel grass, a perennial Australian species and fully support control within the park. trialled without success. tussock weed, native to Dogs – Usually confined to Africa, India, and Asia. The What is being done in the park? the areas around Muṯitjulu plant was first introduced to There are no fences around the park and the most effective waterhole, local community Australia in the 1870s for way to control introduced species across borders is to dogs often search for rabbits erosion control and pastoral work in partnership with our neighbours – such as Northern for food. A focus is placed purposes and it has since Territory Parks and Wildlife, the Central Land Council and on teaching the community spread widely across most private landholders. to control their dogs and land types. In the 1970s to discourage dogs from buffel grass was introduced Camels – An̲ angu opinion is divided on the management roaming the park. to the base of Uluṟu to of camel numbers. The park closely consults traditional reduce erosion and dust. owners on guidelines which are established for ground culling, particularly in the mala paddock area where camels Buffel grass now thrives pose risk to damage fences and public road networks where and chokes out other native traffic accidents may occur. grasses, destroying habitat for our native animals and Cats – Feral cats pose the biggest threat to park native changing the way wildfire animals. Seasonal trapping of cats occurs in winter when bushfires behave. food is least available to cats. Current management uses Rabbits – Kata Tjuṯa began controlling rabbits in 1989 with a combination of physical, a successful reduction in numbers. Other areas of the park chemical and fire-related remain an ongoing challenge. Healthy rabbit populations techniques. often increase the populations of foxes and cats because they are a favoured food for those species. SHARE YOUR ULURU ADVENTURES! @OfficialUluṟu @SeeUluṟu MAY • 2021 MAY.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conservation of the Wildcat (Felis Silvestris) in Scotland: Review of the Conservation Status and Assessment of Conservation Activities
    Conservation of the wildcat (Felis silvestris) in Scotland: Review of the conservation status and assessment of conservation activities Urs Breitenmoser, Tabea Lanz and Christine Breitenmoser-Würsten February 2019 Wildcat in Scotland – Review of Conservation Status and Activities 2 Cover photo: Wildcat (Felis silvestris) male meets domestic cat female, © L. Geslin. In spring 2018, the Scottish Wildcat Conservation Action Plan Steering Group commissioned the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group to review the conservation status of the wildcat in Scotland and the implementation of conservation activities so far. The review was done based on the scientific literature and available reports. The designation of the geographical entities in this report, and the representation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The SWCAP Steering Group contact point is Martin Gaywood ([email protected]). Wildcat in Scotland – Review of Conservation Status and Activities 3 List of Content Abbreviations and Acronyms 4 Summary 5 1. Introduction 7 2. History and present status of the wildcat in Scotland – an overview 2.1. History of the wildcat in Great Britain 8 2.2. Present status of the wildcat in Scotland 10 2.3. Threats 13 2.4. Legal status and listing 16 2.5. Characteristics of the Scottish Wildcat 17 2.6. Phylogenetic and taxonomic characteristics 20 3. Recent conservation initiatives and projects 3.1. Conservation planning and initial projects 24 3.2. Scottish Wildcat Action 28 3.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Feral and Free-Roaming Cat Populations
    What is TNVR? TNVR stands for Trap-Neuter- Vaccinate-Return and is the most Interested in learning more effective humane method of controlling about Lollypop Farm’s feral and free-roaming cat populations. Cats are humanely trapped, vaccinated, support of TNVR efforts spayed/neutered, ear tipped, and then or scheduling services? released back to their environment to live out their lives without adding to the Contact Us: homeless or free-roaming cat population. Tina Medina, SNIP Coordinator Phone: (585) 223-1330 x190 Why TNVR? Email: [email protected] www.lollypop.org/ferals • Research proves that cat populations will reduce and stabilize over time by ending the cycle of reproduction. FERAL CAT • TNVR stops the breeding cycle of cats and vaccinates them against Spay/Neuter/Vaccinate disease, improving their lives while preventing reproduction. Program • Mating behaviors like roaming, Humane Society of Greater Rochester yowling, spraying, and fighting A program providing cease, allowing cats to be better 99 Victor Road neighbors to their caretakers. Fairport, NY 14450 feral cat caretakers with www.lollypop.org affordable spay/neuter services • It protects cats’ lives. Feral cats are not able to live with people and not and vaccinations for feral cats, adoptable through shelters. Funding is provided by in support of TNVR. a generous grant from Last update: February 2017 What is a Feral Cat? Feral Cat Program Costs Appointments and Requirements A feral cat is an offspring of a • Appointments are scheduled by contacting domestic or pet cat who was not Surgery & Vaccination Flea and Deworming FeLV/FIV us at (585) 223-1330 x190 or by email at Package Cost Treatment Test [email protected] raised by or acclimated to people.
    [Show full text]
  • What Characteristics Do All Invasive Species Share That Make Them So
    Invasive Plants Facts and Figures Definition Invasive Plant: Plants that have, or are likely to spread into native or minimally managed plant systems and cause economic or environmental harm by developing self-sustaining populations and becoming dominant or disruptive to those systems. Where do most invasive species come from? How do they get here and get started? Most originate long distances from the point of introduction Horticulture is responsible for the introduction of approximately 60% of invasive species. Conservation uses are responsible for the introduction of approximately 30% of invasive species. Accidental introductions account for about 10%. Of all non-native species introduced only about 15% ever escape cultivation, and of this 15% only about 1% ever become a problem in the wild. The process that leads to a plant becoming an invasive species, Cultivation – Escape – Naturalization – Invasion, may take over 100 years to complete. What characteristics make invasive species so successful in our environment? Lack predators, pathogens, and diseases to keep population numbers in check Produce copious amounts of seed with a high viability of that seed Use successful dispersal mechanisms – attractive to wildlife Thrive on disturbance, very opportunistic Fast-growing Habitat generalists. They do not have specific or narrow growth requirements. Some demonstrate alleleopathy – produce chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plants nearby. Have longer photosynthetic periods – first to leaf out in the spring and last to drop leaves in autumn Alter soil and habitat conditions where they grow to better suit their own survival and expansion. Why do we care? What is the big deal? Ecological Impacts Impacting/altering natural communities at a startling rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Latitudinal Shifts of Introduced Species: Possible Causes and Implications
    Biol Invasions (2012) 14:547–556 DOI 10.1007/s10530-011-0094-8 ORIGINAL PAPER Latitudinal shifts of introduced species: possible causes and implications Qinfeng Guo • Dov F. Sax • Hong Qian • Regan Early Received: 26 January 2011 / Accepted: 22 August 2011 / Published online: 4 September 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2011 Abstract This study aims to document shifts in the those in their native ranges. Only a small fraction of latitudinal distributions of non-native species relative species examined (i.e.\20% of animals and\10% of to their own native distributions and to discuss plants) have expanded their distributions in their possible causes and implications of these shifts. We exotic range beyond both high- and low-limits of used published and newly compiled data on inter- their native latitudes. Birds, mammals and plants continentally introduced birds, mammals and plants. tended to shift their exotic ranges in similar ways. In We found strong correlations between the latitudinal addition, most non-native species (65–85% in differ- distributions occupied by species in their native and ent groups) have not reached the distributional extent exotic ranges. However, relatively more non-native observed in their native ranges. The possible drivers species occur at latitudes higher than those in their of latitudinal shifts in the exotic range may include native ranges, and fewer occur at latitudes lower than climate change, greater biotic resistance at lower latitudes, historical limitations on ranges in native regions, and the impacts of humans on species Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10530-011-0094-8) contains distributions.
    [Show full text]
  • Feral Cats: Killing 75 Million Native Animals Every Night Saving Australia’S Threatened Wildlife
    wildlife matters Summer 2012/13 Feral cats: killing 75 million native animals every night Saving Australia’s threatened wildlife Welcome to the Summer 2012/13 edition of Wildlife Matters. The AWC mission As you will read in the following pages, our focus remains firmly on battling the The mission of Australian Wildlife “ecological axis of evil” – feral animals, wildfires and weeds. For decades, these Conservancy (AWC) is the effective forces have been steadily eroding Australia’s natural capital, causing the extinction conservation of all Australian animal of wildlife and the destruction of habitats and ecological processes. The role of feral species and the habitats in which they live. cats – which kill 75 million native animals every day – is particularly significant. To achieve this mission, our actions are focused on: Our response to this tripartite attack on Australia’s natural capital is straightforward • Establishing a network of sanctuaries – we deliver practical land management informed by world-class science. Central which protect threatened wildlife and to our strategy is the fact that around 80% of our staff are based in the field. AWC’s ecosystems: AWC now manages dedicated team of field operatives – land managers and ecologists – represent the 23 sanctuaries covering over 3 million front-line in our battle against fire, ferals and weeds. Within the conservation sector, hectares (7.4 million acres). we are unique in deploying such a high proportion of our staff in the field. • Implementing practical, on-ground To date, this strategy has delivered significant, measurable and very positive conservation programs to protect ecological returns. This success is particularly apparent when considering the the wildlife at our sanctuaries: these surviving populations of Australia’s most endangered mammals.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FERAL HOG in Oklahoma SECOND EDITION Russell Stevens
    THE FERAL HOG in Oklahoma SECOND EDITION Russell Stevens Agricultural Division NF-WF-10-01 The Feral Hog in Oklahoma R.L. Stevens, Wildlife and Range Consultant The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Ardmore, Oklahoma All photos by R.L. Stevens except where noted. This publication is a creative work fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by misappropriation, trade secret, unfair competition, and other applicable laws. Except for appropriate use in critical reviews or works of scholarship, the reproduction or use of this work in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, digital imaging, and in any information storage and retrieval system is forbidden without express permission of the authors. The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. Agricultural Division 2510 Sam Noble Parkway Ardmore, Oklahoma 73401 CIP Publisher Data 9780975430330 0975430335 SF397.83.O55 $b S84 2010 Stevens, Russell L. The feral hog in Oklahoma / $c by Russell L. Stevens. 2nd ed. Ardmore, Okla. : $b Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, $c 2010. 19 p. : $b ill. ; $c 28 cm. NF-WF-10-01 Includes bibliographical references. Feral swine $z Oklahoma. Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. ISBN: 978-0-9754303-3-0 © 2010 Cover photo taken along Hickory Creek in Love Printed in the United States of America County Okla. by Russell Stevens, author. Table of Contents Introduction 1 History 1 Current Status and Distribution 2 Biological Characteristics 4 Description 4 Home Range, Reproduction and Activity Periods 6 Food Habits 6 Competition and Environmental Concerns 6 Habitat Preferences 7 Feral Hog Sign 8 Depredation and Disease 11 Depredation 11 Disease and Parasites 11 Methods of Control 13 Trapping 13 Hunting 16 Fencing 17 Toxicants 17 Predators 17 Summary 18 References 18 Organizations 18 Online Resources 18 Introduction Oklahomans have enjoyed or cursed feral hogs (Sus scrofa) in the southeastern and eastern parts of the state for several years.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Species and the Cultural Keystone Species Concept
    Copyright © 2005 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Nuñez, M. A., and D. Simberloff. 2005. Invasive species and the cultural keystone species concept. Ecology and Society 10(1): r4. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/resp4/ Response to Garibaldi and Turner. 2004. “Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological Conservation and Restoration” Invasive Species and the Cultural Keystone Species Concept Martin A. Nuñez1 and Daniel Simberloff1 Key Words: biological invasions ; cultural keystone species; conservation; exotic species; invasive species; keystone species The concept of the keystone species (Paine 1966, (Mooney and Hobbs 2000, Simberloff 2000), 1969, Power et al. 1996) has been a transformative serving as cultural icons in different areas of the notion in ecology. Keystone species were originally world. Examples of this include Eucalyptus in narrowly defined to be those whose importance to California, tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) in community and ecosystem structure, composition, Italy, bluegrass (Poa pratensis) in Kentucky, and function is disproportionate to their abundance. Cannabis sativa in Jamaica, bananas (Musa Even this narrow definition fostered great insight paradisiaca) in Ecuador, horses (Equus caballus) into the nature of particular ecosystems and of in the western United States, coffee (Coffea spp) in threats to them (Power et al. 1996). However, in Colombia, and kudzu (Pueraria montana) in the ecological circles the term came to be more casually southeastern United States. used to mean any species that has a very large impact on the ecosystem, no matter how abundant it is More than 100 species of Australian Eucalyptus (Simberloff 2003), and this casual usage has led to trees have been brought to California since the late attacks on the concept on the grounds that it is so 19th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Feral Pigs in Queensland (Mitchell, Pers
    FERALFeral pigs PIGS (Sus scrofa) in Queensland PEST STATUS REVIEW SERIES - LAND PROTECTION by C. C. McGaw J. Mitchell Acknowledgements This assessment has drawn heavily from information contained within the Bureau of Resource Sciences publication "Managing Vertebrate Pests - Feral Pigs" (Choquenot, McIlroy and Korn 1996). Additional information and data have been included to provide the assessment with a Queensland emphasis. Information has also been supplied by Cliff Dee (Wild Game Resources), Graham Hardwick, Barry Toms and Dr Jonathon Lee (AQIS). Cover and contents design: Grant Flockhart and Sonia Jordan Photographic credits: Natural Resources and Mines staff ISBN 0 7242 7273 9 DNRQ980030 Published by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Qld. Information in this document may be copied for personal use or published for educational purposes, provided that any extracts are fully acknowledged. Land Protection Department of Natural Resources and Mines Locked Bag 40, Coorparoo Delivery Centre, Q, 4151 Contents 1.0 Summary .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 History ...................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Current and Predicted Distribution........................................................ 3 4.0 Estimates of Current and Potential Impact ........................................... 5 4.1 Impact on Primary Production.........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Framing Contemporary U.S. Wild Horse and Burro Management Processes in a Dynamic Ecological, Sociological, and Political Environment
    Human–Wildlife Interactions 12(1):31–45, Spring 2018 Synthesis Framing contemporary U.S. wild horse and burro management processes in a dynamic ecological, sociological, and political environment J. Dˎ˛ˎ˔ Sˌˊ˜˝ˊ, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82071, USA [email protected] Jˊˌ˘ˋ D. Hˎ˗˗˒ː, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82071, USA Jˎˏˏ˛ˎˢ L. Bˎˌ˔, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82071, USA Abstract: The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA) of 1971 established all “unbranded or unclaimed” equids on U.S. public lands as “living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West.” Today, >72,000 feral horses (Equus ferus caballus) and burros (E. asinus; WHB) live on western U.S. public rangelands. The number of WHBs exceeds the Bureau of Land Management’s maximum Appropriate Management Level (AML) of 26,715 by a factor of approximately 2.7 and has nearly doubled from 2007–2015. The AML was set to balance WHB numbers with rangeland health and support other uses such as wildlife habitat and livestock grazing. Thus, public land management agencies must manage WHB under the multiple-use context. This becomes more problematic when WHB populations go largely unmanaged and excessive equid grazing negatively impacts rangeland vegetation, native wildlife, and livestock forage. In addition, approximately 46,000 WHBs exist in off -range holding facilities, further straining federal budgets. Contemporary management actions are being constrained by: (1) litigation that has stymied federal government WFRHBA enforcement eff orts, (2) public emotional concerns that lack reconciliation with the current situation, and (3) increasing complexity in the laws and subsequent amendments shaping WHB management policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Can More K-Selected Species Be Better Invaders?
    Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.) (2007) 13, 535–543 Blackwell Publishing Ltd BIODIVERSITY Can more K-selected species be better RESEARCH invaders? A case study of fruit flies in La Réunion Pierre-François Duyck1*, Patrice David2 and Serge Quilici1 1UMR 53 Ӷ Peuplements Végétaux et ABSTRACT Bio-agresseurs en Milieu Tropical ӷ CIRAD Invasive species are often said to be r-selected. However, invaders must sometimes Pôle de Protection des Plantes (3P), 7 chemin de l’IRAT, 97410 St Pierre, La Réunion, France, compete with related resident species. In this case invaders should present combina- 2UMR 5175, CNRS Centre d’Ecologie tions of life-history traits that give them higher competitive ability than residents, Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE), 1919 route de even at the expense of lower colonization ability. We test this prediction by compar- Mende, 34293 Montpellier Cedex, France ing life-history traits among four fruit fly species, one endemic and three successive invaders, in La Réunion Island. Recent invaders tend to produce fewer, but larger, juveniles, delay the onset but increase the duration of reproduction, survive longer, and senesce more slowly than earlier ones. These traits are associated with higher ranks in a competitive hierarchy established in a previous study. However, the endemic species, now nearly extinct in the island, is inferior to the other three with respect to both competition and colonization traits, violating the trade-off assumption. Our results overall suggest that the key traits for invasion in this system were those that *Correspondence: Pierre-François Duyck, favoured competition rather than colonization. CIRAD 3P, 7, chemin de l’IRAT, 97410, Keywords St Pierre, La Réunion Island, France.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Introduced Tilapias on Native Biodiversity
    AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 15: 463–483 (2005) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.699 The effects of introduced tilapias on native biodiversity GABRIELLE C. CANONICOa,*, ANGELA ARTHINGTONb, JEFFREY K. MCCRARYc,d and MICHELE L. THIEMEe a Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology Program, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA b Centre for Riverine Landscapes, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University, Australia c University of Central America, Managua, Nicaragua d Conservation Management Institute, College of Natural Resources, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA e Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA ABSTRACT 1. The common name ‘tilapia’ refers to a group of tropical freshwater fish in the family Cichlidae (Oreochromis, Tilapia, and Sarotherodon spp.) that are indigenous to Africa and the southwestern Middle East. Since the 1930s, tilapias have been intentionally dispersed worldwide for the biological control of aquatic weeds and insects, as baitfish for certain capture fisheries, for aquaria, and as a food fish. They have most recently been promoted as an important source of protein that could provide food security for developing countries without the environmental problems associated with terrestrial agriculture. In addition, market demand for tilapia in developed countries such as the United States is growing rapidly. 2. Tilapias are well-suited to aquaculture because they are highly prolific and tolerant to a range of environmental conditions. They have come to be known as the ‘aquatic chicken’ because of their potential as an affordable, high-yield source of protein that can be easily raised in a range of environments } from subsistence or ‘backyard’ units to intensive fish hatcheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria
    1 ASC Shrimp Aquaculture Stewardship Council SHRIMP (final draft standards) Benchmarking equivalency results assessed against the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria May 2013 2 ASC Shrimp Final Seafood Recommendation ASC Shrimp Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical? C1 Data 9.44 GREEN C2 Effluent 6.00 YELLOW NO C3 Habitat 4.04 YELLOW NO C4 Chemicals 10.00 GREEN NO C5 Feed 5.96 YELLOW NO C6 Escapes 4.00 YELLOW NO C7 Disease 4.00 YELLOW NO C8 Source 10.00 GREEN 3.3X Wildlife mortalities -4.00 YELLOW NO 6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN Total 49.73 Final score 6.22 OVERALL RANKING Final Score 6.22 Initial rank YELLOW Red criteria 0 Final rank YELLOW Critical Criteria? NO FINAL RANK YELLOW Scoring note – scores range from zero to ten where zero indicates very poor performance and ten indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact, except for the two exceptional “X” criteria for which a score of -10 is very poor and zero is good. Scoring Summary ASC Shrimp has a final numerical score of 6.22 with no red criteria. The final recommendation is a yellow “Good Alternative”. 3 ASC Shrimp Executive Summary The benchmarking equivalence assessment was undertaken on the basis of a positive application of a realistic worst-case scenario • “Positive” – Seafood Watch wants to be able to defer to equivalent certification schemes • “Realistic” – we are not actively pursuing the theoretical worst case score. It has to represent reality and realistic aquaculture production. • “Worst-case scenario” – we need to know that the worst-performing farm capable of being certified to any one standard is equivalent to a minimum of a Seafood Watch “Good alternative” or “Yellow” rank.
    [Show full text]