Pew - more Sanctuaries in the Offing?

Possible Pitcairn MPA - four times the size of the UK!

Something's brewing!

Yes once again that would be Pew.

I just had a conversation with a fellow activists about those Shark conservation orgs, and why IMO Pew continue to stand head and shoulders above the rest: because they are fact and consensus based and pursue policies, MPAs and Sanctuaries that translate immediately into less Sharks being killed which in my book is the only metric for success.

Now it appears that we're in for some more victories.

Experience tells me that with the infamous exception of Fiji, once they go public, negotiations are already well underway and the deal is essentially all but done. So behold Bermuda and Panama - and Pitcairn that will further close the Pacific to Shark fishing, and further point to us as being the odd man out.

Enjoy the video!

Sustainable Whaling?

This is gonna get interesting!

You may have noticed that I don't talk much about Whale conservation.
Yes this is obviously a Shark blog, but that's not the principal reason. What keeps me kinda speechless is the fact that at least at first glance, the pro-Whale "movement" appears to be dominated by extremists, terrorists and New Age whackos who squander zillions of scarce conservation dollars in vociferous activism and achieve little to nothing for the animals they profess to love. In fact, the situation appears so completely irrational and positions, so hopelessly entrenched that I've kind of given up on trying to talk about it even with otherwise highly intelligent people whose opinions I normally value and respect.

This is particularly frustrating since at least on a theoretical level, everybody (with a brain) knows the final solution anyway: sustainable wildlife extraction.
It's not at all different from Sharks, Tuna, Swordfish and all other over-exploited marine resources: stocks must be allowed to recover but once they have, one will have to accept that some of the animals be killed. Only by sitting at the negotiating table and accepting a compromise will we be able to influence how many animals of which species will be killed where, when, and in which way.
And yes, I'm repeating myself!

Now, it appears, the IWC has come up with a proposal for sustainable whaling.
Interesting!

Methinks, it's about bloody time!
Can some Whales like Minkes be harvested sustainably? Some Dolphins?
Are there ethical ways of doing so?

And if so, will the activists engage in goal-oriented negotiations, as in defining all relevant parameters and working towards efficient monitoring - or will they continue to shout Anathema! like Sea Shepherd, continue to squander our money and achieve nothing good in the process?

Anybody taking bets?

Is this effective? And is it efficient?

Check this out.

"Even KILLER Sharks"???
Hmmmmmmm...

Who, exactly, is this targeting anyway?
And to what purpose? To convince the Shark fishermen to desist from finning the Sharks they catch? To precipitate anti-finning legislation? Will it motivate people not to eat Shark fin soup? Or, to ask that the soup they consume is from fins that have not been finned (now, here's a thought!)?
Plus, how many redundant anti-finning initiatives and PSAs does the "cause" really need?

Being the usual party pooper and like in the case of the Beijing billboards, I cannot but wonder.
If it is true that Shark fisheries are supply limited, we need to talk sustainability and not prohibition. If we want to achieve tangible results, we will have to compromise and not demonize - then, once we sit at the negotiating table, we will have a shot at influencing how many animals get killed, where, when and how. And when spending money for conservation and science, we should do so in the most effective and efficient way possible.

Mind you, just my 2¢.