From: SealAlert-SA
Date: August 15, 2006
Dear All Seal Supporters,
Whilst South Africa sent a delegation to the recent CITES Animals Committee Meeting in July in Peru - to request CITES to list "Perlemoen" a shell-fish on Appendix III. Seal Alert-SA together with 12 million supporters were campaigning to have Namibia end its genocidal slaughter of protected Appendix II CITES species of nursing baby seals in birthing and breeding grounds. On the day the newspapers in South Africa highlight South Africa's Appendix III move for Perlemoen - Seal Alert-SA requests CITES to move Cape fur seals from Appendix II to Appendix I (without South Africa or Namibia government support) - and requests a full investigation of both South Africa and Namibian Management Officials involved in the illegal trade of millions of Cape fur seals since 1977 - and requesting a ban on all wildlife trade - for the Seals - Francois.
----- Original Message -----
From: SealAlert-SA
To: John.Sellar@cites.org
Cc: willem.wijnstekers@cites.org ; jim.armstrong@cites.org ; marceil.yeater@cites.org ; juan.vasquez@cites.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:40 AM
Subject: Special Request CITES - Distribution of Cape fur
Seals Southern Africa
Dear Mr Seller,
I refer to my emails dated 10th and 11th August 2006, to
which I have not received an acknowledgement to the email
dated 11th.
As my request to the Namibian CITES Management Authority
went un-addressed - with no announcement that the 2006
sealing season has been stopped.
I therefore request the CITES Secretariat to investigate
all the allegations and evidence contained in summary form
below, including;
* Legal opinion of the jurisdiction of the sealing permits
with regard to the mainland, regulated under the Seabirds
and Seals Protection Act No.46 of 1973 and from 2000, the
Marine Living Resources Act, including the regulations
relating to the age group of seals covered under the "pup"
and "bull" quotas.
* The violations and detrimental alleged seal exports
between 1977 and 2006 for Namibia and South Africa.
As these CITES violations have been so widespread since
1977, Seal Alert-SA requests that Namibia and South Africa
joined the other 14 African countries and the other 19
countries already in violation of the CITES Convention, and
a suspension of all wildlife trade be recommended.
In addition Seal Alert-SA requests CITES Secretariat to
consider Amending the Cape fur seals from Appendix II to
Appendix I status, at either the next 54th Meeting of the
Standing Committee in Geneva 2-6 October 2006, or the
Meeting of the Conference of Parties in the Hague 3-5 June
2007.
Could you please acknowledge receipt of this email, noting
that the contents have been read including examination of
the colony by colony pics and data.
For the Seals
Francois Hugo Seal Alert-SA
Special
Request : CITES Secretariat
Request to Amend Cape Fur Seals (Arctocephalus pusillus
pusillus) from Appendix II species to an Appendix I
species.
If this request is to be considered. Seal Alert-SA requests
an opportunity to present a detailed summary for this
request.
The below is a brief analysis.
International Trade Background:
In light of the substantial allegations and evidence Seal
Alert-SA has placed before the Secretariat since early July
2006 - it asks if the Secretariat will view this in the
urgency that is required.
Seal Alert-SA has been on the forefront of Cape fur seal
conservation since 1999, involved in almost every sphere of
its protection.
One of the most serious flaws in the conservation of this
species - has been the classification that it is a "seal".
'True Seals' spend almost their entire lives at sea and are
so evolved, and as in the case of "harp seals" - require
dry-land for less than 14 days before pups are fully
weaned. Cape fur seals require dry-land for at least 50% of
their lives, to warm-up, moult, raise their young, to mate
and to breed - as they have not evolved into true seals.
Cape fur seals walk on all fours and still have external
ears, and as such are more akin to the sea-lion species.
Dry safe off-shore habitat is therefore of paramount
importance to this species future survival. A conservation
reality over-looked as yet by conservationists in southern
Africa.
In 1972 the USA banned the import of all Cape fur seal
skins or products from South Africa and Namibia - to which
all Cape Fur seal skins were being exported at the time to
one fur company called Fouke. The US Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) regulations, which states that the
"taking of a nursing pup in a birthing and breeding colony"
is illegal and cruel, (as it interferes in the natural
breeding behaviour of this species). Instead of accepting
this scientific conservation reality, South Africa under
its apartheid policy with its "world sanctions" tried to
circumnavigate this decision, trying first to obtain wavers
in the US courts, before finally failing, and then deciding
to privatise sealing, with an introduction of a Sealing Act
in 1973.
To truly understand how far reaching these violations in
regard to CITES goes and how far back - a brief background
is required. Historical sealing on seals breeding in their
natural habitats - islands, had already driven the species
close to extinction by 1900. Establishing with proven
historical fact - that commercially harvesting this
particular species, either of its pups, cows, bulls or
juveniles - resulted in massive disturbance, fleeing from
these small breeding locations, and causes colony and
eventually species extinction.
As the seal population gradually recovered came renewed
interest in harvesting them or keeping their numbers down.
Sealing at the time was not very profitable, so methods
were sort to keep sealing costs to a minimum. Island Seal
colonies were widely dispersed over 4000 km of mostly
inaccessible coastline with few harbours. With the average
income per seal, even in its peak years, averaged less than
R10 or USD $2. Transporting sealers via boat to these
islands, processing difficulties and transport of these
seal products back to harbours and the mainland proved
economically unviable.
clear evidence of official island seal disturbance policies
The forced re-location of seals to the mainland, via
physical banning, island disturbance, guano harvesting or
seabird conservation - presented an ideal situation, where
large amounts of seals could be forced to congregate and
therefore be harvested in large numbers, at minimal cost -
the opposite side to this coin, sealers had to change their
sealing methods on the mainland. Instead of driving seals
into the 'islands' interior away from the sea - sealers now
drove seals inland away from the safety of the sea.
The as yet unanswered question - is the sealing industry in
southern Africa - a sustainable harvest or a cull?
Statements since 1973 appear to confirm the latter. This
immediately creates a dilemma, for as all sealing products
are exported, these exports cannot be exported if "the
export is detrimental to the survival of the species" - a
violation of the CITES convention since 1977. Confirmation
to support this is contained in the evidence, where in
seeking a waiver in 1975 which would limit the harvest to
70 000 skins - South Africa exceeded the quota before it
was granted and therefore had to abandon plans to import
skins into the US. In the 1990 Commission on Sealing -
further evidence states, "if the objective is the reduction
of the total seal production, the most effective way to
achieve this is to cull the adult females; however, it must
be appreciated that the products from such a cull have
negligible economic value, so that such an operation will
not be self-financing".
Culling of a seal population with quotas involving 90% of
it pups in birthing and breeding grounds whilst still
nursing, in an 'open' eco-system can only be considered
detrimental - a CITES violation.
South Africa which administered Namibia until 1990, brought
out the Seabirds and Seals Protection Act No.46 of 1973 -
which act was incorporated into Namibia until 2000. In 1977
the US appeal court upheld the banning of Cape fur seal
imports. Since 1977 Cape fur seals have been given the
criteria of Appendix II and CITES has been regulating the
international trade.
Since the Seabirds and Seals Protection Act of 1973
transferred sealing from government to private
individuals/companies by way of a permit system, and where
most sealing activities centred on three mainland colonies
- Kleinsee (RSA) and Wolf/Atlas Bay and Cape Cross in
Namibia - there has been an unresolved legal issue regard
lawful jurisdiction - of these "Sealing Permits'. The Act
states, "To provide for the control over certain islands
and rocks; for the protection, and the control of the
capture and killing, of sea birds and seals and for matters
incidental thereto" and "Island" - means any island or rock
or any group of islands or rocks specified in Schedule 1
and "Minister" - Powers of the Minister in connection with
islands, seabirds and seals and the products of sea birds
and seals. "Prohibitions" - No person shall - set foot on
or remain upon any island; upon any island or within the
territorial waters or fishing zone of the republic or along
the coast of the Republic between the low-water mark and
the high-water mark as so defined, pursue or shoot at or
wilfully disturb, kill or capture any sea bird or seal,
except under the authority of a permit.
Under "Offences and Penalties" - Any person who -
contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of this
Act; or with any direction in a permit issued; shall be
guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding two hundred rand or to imprisonment for a period
not exceeding three months or to both. Any person arrested,
as soon as possible be brought to a police station and the
provisions of section 27 of the Criminal Procedure Act
shall apply in respect of his detention thereafter.
Although this act has been in place since 1973, Francois
Hugo of Seal Alert-SA has been the only person who has been
arrested and criminally charged under this Act. As no other
convicts have taken place its jurisdiction with regard to
the sealers has therefore never been tested. Under a newly
introduced regulation in 2000, designed to prevent him
unconstitutionally rescuing injured, sick or dying seals -
by making it a criminal offence to feed such an animal. He
was arrested in 2003, for tube-feeding a baby seal pup
rescued several months earlier. The authorities withdrew
the charge on the date of trial stating, "It was not
appropriate to proceed with the prosecution until we have
completed the new seal policy".
From fossil remains of Cape fur seals found on the Cape
west coast dating back 5 million years, Professor Andy
Smith and Dr Woodbourne of the Archaeological department at
UCT are of the scientific opinion that no mainland breeding
Cape fur seal colonies existed prior to 1940. This view is
supported by Dr Jeremy David.
Specialist Scientist at Marine and Coastal Management (MCM)
Department of DEAT - South Africa, Dr Jeremy David
(formerly in-charge of sealing and seal management) stated,
"Seals select offshore islands as their preferred breeding
sites ....there are also six mainland colonies, five of
which have become established only since 1940 ....the 6th
only since 1850 .... as a result of exploitation the seal
population had been reduced to very low levels by the start
of 1900. In fact, at least 23 island colonies had become
extinct by then .... seals have only recolonised 3 of
them". According to the Seabirds and Seals Protection Act
No.46 of 1973 (South Africa), this legislation was adopted
and still in use until 2000 by Namibia. A total of 46
offshore islands are listed, with a total land surface area
of 1000 ha (Schedule 1 of the Act). The reality is that
these former 23 seal island colonies represent 99% of the
total protected island land. Since official population
surveys were undertaken in 1972 - 98% of these former
breeding seal colonies have remained extinct.
There are some excellent references to the abundance and
size of these former island seal colonies contained in the
book "Before Jan Van Riebeeck - by R Raven-Hart" and taken
from historical accounts between 1488 - 1652. For example -
o Algoa Bay on South African east coast - where the islands
Bird, Seal, Black Rocks, Stag and St Croix are situated,
this bay was actually named the "Bay of Seals" - today
Black Rocks remains the only seal colony, and in 2002, Dr
Stewardson reported that it has declined 94% since first
surveyed, and is in danger of going extinct (our eastern
most seal colony).[see map below].
o In 1603, Sir James Lancaster described Robben (Seal)
Island, southern Africa's largest island, a UNESCO world
heritage site and protected for Seals and Seabirds, as
"this island there is such abundance of seals and penguins,
in such number as incredible" - it has remained extinct
since 1700.
o In 1604, Sir Henry Middleton wrote, "such infinite number
of seals it was admirable to behold, the whole seashore
lies overspread with them".
o In 1607, David Middleton wrote, "in my opinion, there is
no an island in the world frequented with more birds and
seals then this island".
There are of course many, many more descriptions detailing
the 'Seal Life" on all these 23 islands, still protected
today, but extinct now to every major former seal breeding
colony.
Based on these historical accounts, and using population
densities of current island colonies, extrapolated over the
known existing islands surface area - we can determine a
rough example of the size of the former island populations
of seals. An estimated 4 million pups or a total population
of 16 million. The seal population as its surveyed peak in
early 1990's is less than 10% of the pristine population.
Based on current population numbers, the largest island,
currently extinct to seals, but still bears their name
Robben (Seal) Island - if the entire population of Cape fur
seals in southern Africa, over their full distribution
range, South Africa and Namibia included - would return,
they would occupy less than 6% of this island or 21% of its
seashore.
Prior to 1940 sealing was undertaken exclusively on islands
on a slowly recovering species from near extinction nearly
40 years prior. By the early 1970's as island populations
of seals continued to decline, sealing moved to the
mainland. By the first population survey in 1972, South
Africa's only mainland colony had a pup production of 46%
of the South African seal population, by 1990 when South
Africa stopped it had risen to 58%. Likewise the two
mainland sealing colonies in Namibia had a pup production
of 53% of the Namibian seal population, by 1990 rising to
64%, and later to 75%.
As all Cape fur seals originated from one population of
island seals prior to 1940 - it seems absurd that mainland
seal colonies would continue to represent larger and larger
portions of the seal population in (particularly as sealing
activities intensified) - whilst 98% of their former
colonies remained extinct and island populations grew
smaller. Even more absurd, is the decline of fish stocks in
the northern west coast area in the late 1960s where these
mainland seal colonies have developed.
Since 1973 and the
incorporation of Cape fur seals in Appendix II in 1977, and
the export criteria required - "An export permit may be
issued only if the specimen was legally obtained", the
whole question of "jurisdiction" comes into question.
Mainland seal colonies on average stretch about 3 km along
the coast and about 200 m inland (confirm by MCM official
Mike Meyer in 2006). Well beyond the high-tide mark.
Mainland sealing involves rounding the seals up and driving
the herds inland again, away from the high-water mark
inland. Where the harvest occurs between 200m - 400m from
the high-water mark.
clear evidence of sealers at Kleinsee operating well
outside their jurisdiction (criminally)
Between the period 1973 and 1990, all seals killed on the
mainland at Kleinsee - South Africa, involving over a
million seals were killed outside the jurisdiction of their
permit and the act. A criminal offence. The majority of the
Kleinsee seal colony is in fact situated on private land,
on the farms known as Kleinsee 192 and Dryerspan 193. These
farms fall within the diamond restricted area belonging to
De Beers, of which De Beers the largest gem diamond
producer in the world, is the owner of these farms. Sealing
sheds situated at least 400m inland away from the
high-water mark on these farms were used to slaughter and
process seal products.
In essence what occurred here - sealers ignoring the
definitions of the act and its jurisdiction - a criminal
offence - "pursued, shot at, wilfully disturbed, captured
and killed seals" - by driving them away from their
permitted jurisdiction in order to harvest these seals more
effectively. Nobody until now has ever questioned these
methods - not even the Commission on Sealing in 1990,
headed by WWF-SA former chairman, Dr John Hanks or the 11
scientists appointed to advise the then Minister.
Seal Alert-SA since its complaint to the Public Protectors
Office in 2000, which resulted in a five-year investigation
by advocates Pienaar and Fourie, and a report to Cabinet,
known as the Report No. 51 of the Public Protector - South
Africa into "Allegations of improper conduct by the
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism in
connection with the Conservation and Protection of the Cape
Fur Seal" addressed some of the issues surrounding this but
mainly focused on the 'seal rescue and rehabilitation'
aspect. Regardless many of these issues were the same. Key
Findings : were are follows.
* 1. Mr Hugo's complaint was justified in so far as it
related to the absence of clear and adequate legislation
regulating the protection, conservation and rehabilitation
of seals; and
* 2. The Department is currently drafting legislation that
would address the said deficiencies.
Note - Although a draft has been released, Seal Alert-SA
has made submissions, but has not been consulted and in its
opinion, still fails to address many issues.
As the Namibian Ministry has stated, "Sealing methods are
currently regulated through the Sea Birds and Seals
Protection Act (Republic of South Africa, Act No.46 of
1973) and the Sealing Regulations (1976). Although this
legislation is still in force in Namibia". The Namibian
sealers since 1973 to 1990, and from 1990 to 2000, are as
criminally guilty as their methods are the same as their
South African counter-parts during their sealing years 1973
- 1990. The Wolf/Atlas Bay seal colonies are again in the
diamond restricted area. Controlled through a joint
partnership with Namibian government and De Beers, known as
Namdeb since 1994. The Cape Cross seal colony in situated
in a protected Nature Reserve.
In 1983, a European Communities Directive binding on all
members states came into force. It prohibited the import of
the skins, raw or processed, of 'nursing' harp seal pups
(whitecoats) and 'nursing' hooded pup seals (bluebacks) -
CITES Appendix III species (no mention is made why Cape fur
seals Appendix II species was omitted from this EU ban). In
1987 the Malouf Report findings in the Royal Commission on
Seals and Sealing states that "nursing baby seals" should
not be commercially harvested or traded in at any stage
anywhere. In 1987 the Canadian DFO introduced regulations
that banned the hunting of 'nursing' harp seal pups
(whitecoats) and 'nursing' hooded seal pups (bluebacks).
Marine Mammal Regulations now prohibit the trade, sale or
barter of the fur of these pups. Furthermore, seals cannot
be harvested when they are in breeding or birthing grounds.
Although Cape fur seals have a distribution range >from
Mozambique, South Africa, Namibia to Angola - after South
Africa announced it was stopping commercial sealing in 1990
- Namibia has remained the only country to commercially
harvest and export Cape fur seals and in particular 90% of
their harvests in nursing Cape fur seal pups.
Namibia now remains the only country in the world to
commercially harvest "nursing baby seals in birthing and
breeding grounds" and the only sealing country, after
Canada, Greenland, Norway and Russia banned the practice in
1987 - to export and trade internationally with CITES
approval.
In a study done on stomach contents of the pups harvested
on the sealing colonies in Namibia (Best and Shaughnessy
1975) - only 8% of the pups harvested contained solid food
of any kind - all the rest 92% were milking or empty.
There is a question whether this species should be
commercially traded. With 63% of the weight of pups, and
75% of the weight of bulls, are wasted and discarded, after
the skin and blubber (oil) has been removed. Pup skins are
more valuable than bull skins. There is no economic value
in adult females -hence their zero quota for past 100
years. The carcass at 50%, has attempted to be utilised,
but not very successfully, although large amounts are
exported as meat-meal and bone-meal to the livestock and
petfood industries, mainly in South Africa. The value as
mentioned, is as low as USD$3 - USD$20 for the whole seal.
Bulls genitals are exported to the east, but it seems
hardly justifiable to slaughter a large bull for its
genitals.
There are also many very real and precautionary health
risks involved. Research is lacking into exactly what
accounts for the mass die-off's from starvation in 1988,
1994, 1995,1996, 2000 and 2001. A by-symptom of distemper
is starvation. Stress in these conditions is a
breeding-ground for diseases and viruses. The increasing
herds of jackals and hyenas that have been congregating
around these mainland colonies since 1940 have recently all
tested positive for distemper and jackals are known to
cause at least 30% of the rabies cases in Africa.
In a media release by the Minister in 2000, "I hope that
many Namibians will find ways to increase the contribution
of seals to food security and health in Namibia ..... to
assist in this direction I attach a recipe for several seal
dishes".
In the book "For the Love of Nature" by Chris Mercer and
Beverley Pervan - describing the goings-on at the world
famous Harnas Lion Farm in Namibia. There are a number of
quotes that are interesting. Pg 87 - "We have plenty seal
meat. It is only Savannah the Cheetah who will not eat it".
Pg89 - "The amount of meat that has to be prepared .... and
even seal meat from the culling exercise at Cape Cross. The
seal meat is very rich and oily and not all the animals
will eat it". Pg92 - "look at those bliksem jackals....,
ignoring the seal meat that she has put down for them. If
you go to Cape Cross, you will see plenty jackals feeding
on the seal there. But my jackals, oh no, they are too
proud to eat it".
If you go back even further into the hardened lives of
these first explorers to this country, exploits which are
contained in the book, "Before Van Riebeeck" written by
Major Raven-Hart - John Jourdain in 1608 describes the
following, "and having brought our boats laden with these
seals, we cut the fat from them for oil, and the rest was
thrown a good distance from the tents because of the
noysommness, which even after seven or eight days caused
such a stench that the tents had to be moved >from
there, and which neither the wolves nor other ravenous
beasts would touch".
Minister's reply recently, when he stated, "If culling
seals is a problem, the solution is to eat them". Is a
dangerous precedent to set.
In 1997, one of only two concessionaires was caught
attempting to process seal meat to be sold as sausages for
human consumption. The subsequent impounding by Health
Inspectors >from the Ministry of Health or the statement
made by Albert Brink of Sea Lion Products at Cape Cross,
"criticised the move by health ministry to impound the
meat, saying it was unwarranted as no health certification
was necessary".
Seals in general are known to be infected with a multitude
of viruses, diseases and parasites that seals can
potentially carry, such as Pox virus, Hepatitis, Influenza,
Morbillivirus, Salmonella, Mycobacteriosis, Staphylococcus,
Clostridial, Mycotic, Candidiasis, Sarcocystis, Toxoplasma,
Lung, Stomach, Heart, and Hook worms, and the resultant as
yet, untested threats these could pose to human health.
Is the Minister willing to risk an outbreak similar to
"bird-flu" or in this case, "Seal-Flu", for the sake of two
concessionaires who employ part-time a few unskilled
workers, whose culling at best benefits Namibian fishery by
only 0.02%, or is CITES willing to be a part of such an
out-break.
Since Namibia's independence in 1990 it has maintained an
annual harvesting policy of Cape fur seals as claimed by
the Minister of Fisheries under the Constitution to be a
"utilization of living natural resources on a sustainable
basis". Over 90% of the harvest involves pups aged 7 - 9
months, in birthing and breeding colonies who are still
nursing at the age of 10 months (Ministry of Fisheries in
Namibia 2000 and 2006). In recent years the Ministry have
changed the definitions of this harvest, by at times
stating it is a cull or they are going to die anyway why
not harvest them or to reduce the population. The
sustainability of which was determined by a harvesting a
maximum of 30% pups born in each separate colony.
Calculated from annual pup population surveys conducted
between 18-24 December. Sealing quotas have been awarded
for two mainland colonies Wolf/Atlas Bay and Cape Cross.
Where according to the Namibian Ministry 75% of the
Namibian pup production occurs. Sealing season until 2001,
ran from August 1 to November 15, thereafter it was
lengthened to July 1. Sealing quotas have risen steadily
from 9 790 pups on a pup population of 126 000 in 1990 to
85 000 pups on a pup population of 119 000 in 2006.
Namibia between 1990 - 2001 had two sealing concession
holders sharing the TAC almost 50/50. They employed between
14 - 150 unskilled, part-time workers between August and
November. In 1997, both sealing concession holders together
with an unnamed foreign partner announced they were going
into a N$2.5 million seal pup processing factory to be
built at Henties Bay in Namibia. They announced they would
be seeking higher quotas to ensure a return on their
investment, and would be seeking more stability by
requesting rolling TAC's. In 2001, the Namibian Minister of
Fisheries announced 3-year rolling TAC's. The 2006 sealing
quota was divided as follows - Namibia Venison & Marine
Exports 38 050 for Wolf/Atlas Bay and Sealion Products 32
950 and Cape Cross Seals 20 000, both for Cape Cross seal
colony.
Export trade income (which involved 100% of the harvest)
between 1998 and 2000, was N$3.9 million to N$600 000
respectively ( USD $650 000 and USD $100 000). Although the
quota was doubled in 2000 to 60 000 pups. Income per pup
between 1999-2000, dropped 90% from N$139 to N$14 - (USD $
23 to USD $3), although the harvest increased from 25 161
to 41 753 seals exported.
Namibia has a human population of 2.4 million and the
fishing industry is the third largest contributor to GDP.
Between 1998 and 2000, Seal exports contributed to fishery
exports of between 0.18% to 0.02% respectively.
Analysis over a decade (1990 - 2000) revealed that sealers
harvested 267 450 pups on a TAC quota 403 800 - on average
66% of the TAC quota. International trade or exports of
seal pup skins was 291 488 - or 109% of that harvested.
Since the first reported mass die-off in Namibia in 1988
were 80% of the pups died of starvation. A number of
anomalies have crept into Namibia's sealing quotas,
harvests, exports and international trade.
Major known mass die-offs of Cape fur seals occurred in
Namibia in 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000 and 2001 - whilst little
scientific evidence exists of the causes or the effects or
the actual numbers involved. The scientific research
findings of Dr Jean Paul-Roux, head of the Marine Mammal
Section at the Namibian Ministry of Fisheries into the mass
die-off's (1994-1996), which was by no means was the
largest such incident on record, and released publicly in
1998, provides useful insight, into how these events could
have effected the seals in the other less researched
incidents - and preceding years growth.
Dr Jean-Paul Roux wrote, "The seal population was affected
quite drastically by those events. From January 1994, pup
growth was very low due to lack of prey available to the
lactating females. The pups were loosing weight in March
and pup mortality increased. By July 1994 researchers of
the Marine Mammal Section estimated that less than 5% of
the 200 000 strong 1993/94 cohort would survive to the
weaning stage. In mid-June the average mass of the few
surviving pups was just over 8,6 kg nearly 5 kg less than
the average for the previous seven years. At the same time
thousands of emanciated adults were washed ashore in an
unprecedented mass starvation (this statement seems absurd
as these mainlands are these seals colonies why would they
leave and then 'wash ashore' as opposed to simply dying in
the colonies). Adult mortality seemed to peak during
mid-winter but continued until the end of October (sealing
season). Both sexes and all age groups were affected. An
estimated 300 000 seals died during 1994, nearly a third of
the total population. From August to November 1994, the
body conditions of the remaining adult females had
deteriorated badly and abortions were wide-spread.
Researchers estimated that around 40 000 females aborted
during this period at Cape Cross alone. There was no
improvement during the following breeding season. Sixty per
cent less pups were born in Namibian colonies than during
the preceding years. This low birth rate was attributed to
adult mortality, abortions and the undersized pups due to
poor condition of mothers during pregnancy. The early pup
mortality was the highest recorded since 1987. Many of the
adults who survived in the breeding colonies were in poor
body condition. Pup growth was again very poor during most
of 1995. In the northern most colonies, adults did not show
signs of recovery before July 1995. At the end of winter
many adult females aborted again. The Namibian seal
population is estimated to have been reduced by between one
third and one half. This includes a 40% drop in the
foraging population and the breeding stock since 1993 and
the near total eradication of two chorts of pups".
In 1994 well aware that all the
pups (100%) were dying. Namibia increased its pup quota
from 50 850 to 56 000. Sealers then harvest 32 545 pups or
58% of TAC. Exported with CITES approval 43 547 skins - 33%
more skins than harvested. In 1995 well aware that again
100% of the cohorts had failed. Namibia reduced the pup
quota from 56 000 to 17 450. Sealers then harvested 18 260
- 5% more. Exported with CITES approval 37 019 skins - 102%
more skins than harvested or their TAC quota. In 1996 aware
that conditions were similar. Namibia increased the pup
quota from 17 450 to 20 500. Sealers then harvested 15 378
pups or 75% of TAC. Exported with CITES approval 42 611
skins - 177% more skins than harvested.
In the period between 1993 and 1997. Pup TAC quotas were
174 800. Sealers harvested 124 916 pups or 71% of TAC.
Exported with CITES approval 197 599 skins - 58% more skins
than harvested.
The question to answer in all this, if two cohorts of pups
died in 1994 and 1995 - where did the CITES approved
exports of 197 599 pup skins come from? Is it suggested
that under the Namibian Constitution of "sustainable
utilization of living natural resources" or under CITES "
non detrimental exports of the survival of the species" -
that sealers killed over 197 000 pups that 'were barely
still alive at the time of harvest' - which resulted in
every pup being killed?
The sealing regulations for "pups" state - a pup, means a
seal in its first year of life. In 1998 Dr Jean-Paul Roux
of the Namibian Ministry of Fisheries reported that the
average weight of a "pup" over the last seven years was
13,6 kg (around the time of the harvest). On the, 16th
August 2005, Sapanet ANC newsbriefing reveals - "Sea Lion
products manager at the reserve, Philipp Metzger, said pups
culled so far this year had 20kg to 25kg less blubber than
normal. "It's not enough for them (weened pups) [this
statement is nonsense as pups only stop nursing after 10
months (Sept/Oct/Nov)] to go swimming far.Fifty per cent of
the seals are in good condition. The rest are poor or very
poor. They can't survive this year as well." Last year
about 500,000 seals died of starvation on the Namibian
coastline".
Clearly therefore "pups culled" weighing on average 13,6 kg
- could not possible have 20-25 kg less blubber than normal
- unless these sealers are slaughtering seals and not pups.
A violation of their sealing regulation. As apparently from
their statement "normal" this practice is widespread over
the years. This would further mean that sealing exports
were in violation of CITES - "as an export permit may be
issued only if the specimen was legally obtained". There is
additional video-taped evidence between 1993 - 2000, that
this practice was widespread to fill quotas. In 2000, a
television program broadcast in 44 African countries,
showed undercover footage of sealers randomly clubbing all
age groups of seals. (see attached media article)
clubbing of seals who are clearly not "pups" between 1993 -
2000 (contravention of sealing regulations)
In 2000 Namibia doubles the sealing quota for pups from 35
000 to 60 000 - an increase of 71%. Whilst still regulating
sealing under the (South African) Sea Birds and Seals
Protection Act of 1973 - (as Namibia only incorporated
seals into the Marine Resources Act on the 27th December
2000 and into the regulations on 7th December 2001).
Sealing season went ahead, and one month after it ended on
the 14th December 2000 - Namibian Ministry of Fisheries
released the following press release, "Dead Seals on
Beaches - The phenomenon reminds of the seal die-off seen
in 1994 and the cause is in fact the same as in 1994. The
recurrence of a starvation event only four years after the
1994 disaster however clearly invites the question as to
whether the seals have not reached numbers that outstrip
the carrying capacity of the present environment".
Seal Alert-SA is aware of two Namibian Marine Scientists
who critised Namibia's pup and bull harvest quotas - and
were given 24-hours to leave Namibia.
Between 1973 - 1990 in South Africa, sealing was conducted
at kleinsee, within the diamond restricted area. Where
public access is restricted, and no cellphones or camera's
are allowed into the area. Likewise at Wolf/Atlas Bay
between 1973 - 2006 access is also restricted, it being a
diamond restricted area. At Cape Cross or any of the
sealing colonies, filming is not allowed during the
harvest. In addition as confirmed by a reporter from a
Namibian newspaper, a few days ago - guards patrol Cape
Cross seal colony with guns and rifles and access is
strictly forbidden during sealing operations. Executive
Producer of the Namibian State run Namibian Broadcasting
Television program Current Affairs - confirmed in an email
that he has been the first reporter allowed in to film, in
many years.
Over the years and as recently as a few days ago - Namibian
sealers have stated, "we farm sheep and cattle, so why not
harvest seals". Thereby suggesting that their concept of
sealing is not harvesting 'wildlife', but instead farming a
'species bred simply for harvesting'.
Lets explore this concept a little. It costs a little over
R4000 in feed costs alone and over 2000 hours to bring a
pup to harvesting age. Even in a rescue sense, no ownership
can be claimed or exploitation rights, yet Namibian sealers
incur none of these costs but lay claim to being "seal
farmers" - can come along wait for nature to grow this pup
and club it to death and sell its skin for US $3 - and then
claim he is a "Seal Farmer". If he had even half the costs
incurred in a seal rehabilitation sense, how much would he
have to sell each skin for ??? R2000, R4000 or R6000
instead of just $3. Why should he profit on these terms ?
If he had the market for 85 000 skins (as he wanted the
increased quota), would he be so keen to feed 85 000 seals
a R4000 each to bring them to "market" and sell them for $3
- how long would he stay in the seal farming business in
this way.
There is another issue to consider. Not even livestock
farmers slaughter their new-born young - as they will
clearly go out of business. Yet, CITES on a Appendix II
endangered species - permits the international trade of
this method and species?
diamond restricted areas in South Africa and Namibia
De Beers, the largest contributor to Namibia's GDP and the
world's largest gem diamond producer in July 2006, sent an
official letter to Seal Alert-SA saying "they were
completely opposed to seal culling" (CITES has a copy).
Two days later after Namibia announced it had experienced
its largest die-off of seals in 2000, on the 16th December
2000 (start of next seasons pupping season), the Weekend
Argus carries a report which states, "90 000 pups have
already in their first month of birth washed up on
Namibia's beaches" - a second major mass die-off in two
years, and the 5th such disaster in just the last 6 years.
In 2000 with a newly increased quota to 60 000 pups.
Sealers harvest 41 753 - or 69% of their TAC. Exported with
CITES approval 48 686 - 16% more than that harvested. (If
Namibia suffered its largest mass die-off from starvation -
where did the 48 686 exported skins come from pups or older
seals?)
On the 10th February 2000, Minister Iyambo signs a document
which states - "information on the levels of seal harvest
is freely available, and is made public each year. The
allowable harvests set since 1993 have been as follows" -
(Seal Alert-SA note : there is a huge difference between a
"sustainable TAC" set prior to the start of a sealing
season, and the actual number of seals harvested thereafter
three months later).
At the CITES 20th Animals Committee Meeting in 2004 to
"Review the Significant Trade" of Namibia with regard to
seal exports - a report prepared by TRAFFIC and the
IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Program quote and lists a "table of
harvest quotas" supplied by the Wildlife Society of Namibia
(2001). When comparing this to the figures stated by the
Minister, Wildlife Society of Namibia and TRAFFIC - the
mismanagement here is only too apparent. (See Below).
In 1994 - TAC was 43 000. Namibian Wildlife Society reports
- 50 850. CITES states 43 547 skins were exported. In 1995
- TAC was 37 019. Namibian Wildlife Society reports 17 450.
CITES states 37 019. In 1996 - TAC was 17 000. Namibian
Wildlife Society reports - 20 500. CITES states 42 611. In
1997 - TAC was 26 000. Namibian Wildlife Society reports -
30 000. CITES states 29 950.
Acceding to Sealers demands on the 14th June 2001, the
Minister of Fisheries lengthens the sealing season by one
month to now start July 1 and issues a 3-year rolling TAC
on this newly doubled sealing quota of 60 000.
There is a very real scientific concern here, if the
harvest of these seals - has not been detrimental to its
survival, and sealing TAC's are set at sustainable levels -
why have sealers consistently only be able to harvest 68%
of their TAC. Unlike the Canadian Seal Hunt where ice floes
and weather play a part in reducing or delaying the
harvest, none of these "weather" factors are present on the
dry desert coastline of Namibia. If with a lengthened
sealing season, sealers have not improved their harvested
percentages on their TAC's.
In 2002, on a 60 000 TAC quota Namibia exports 117 409
skins. According to the report of the 20th Meeting of the
CITES Animals Committee in 2004, to report on the "Review
of Significant Trade" of Namibia. CITES ends its report
with, "Exports of sealskins from Namibia dipped to a few
thousand skins per year in 1998 and 1999 (Seal Alert-SA
evidence - 54 636, hardly a few thousand), increased to
over 40 000 skins in 2000, dropped to 20 000 in 2001, then
quadrupled to over 112 000 skins in 2002. Namibia has not
notified the CITES Secretariat of an export quota for this
taxon. An explanation from Namibia regarding the large
increase in exports in 2002 would assist the Animals
Committee in determining whether or not this species should
be selected for a Review of Significant Trade.
As can be seen from the table
above, between 2001 and 1992 - the Cape fur seal population
in Namibia have declined by almost 50%. This was confirmed
in Dr Jeremy David's report on the "population status of
the southern African fur seals" during a IFAW hosted seal
workshop in March 2003. Where he stated, "the 2001 surveys
had estimated that the Namibian pup population was 110
000".
This is below the population level last seen in 1979, just
7 years before the first known population survey.
By using a factor of 4.19 as used above extrapolation of
the pups on each colony can be determined. For the sealing
colonies at Wolf/Atlas Bay and Cape Cross we see that the
total pup production in 2001 - 70 939. Namibia issued a 60
000 sealing quota - or 84% of the pup population (ignoring
his own policy that harvests should not exceed 30%). It is
unknown how many seals sealers harvested, but CITES records
reflect 20 654 skins were exported - or 34% of the TAC
quota.
In 2002, Namibia on a 60 000 TAC quota exported without
CITES approval 117 409 skins. Hence the 20th Meeting of
CITES Animals Committee in 2004 and its Review of Namibia's
Significant Trade in Seals.
In 2002, US NOAA Fishery officials seized 5000 raw Cape fur
seal skins illegally imported from Namibia on the 24th
June, (one month prior to the start of sealing season)?
In 2003, South African arrested, charged and convicted a
South African who imported two separate batches of 135 and
30 Cape fur seal skins, illegally from A Brink in Namibia,
a sealer.
In 2003, Mark Radermacher of Duck Valley International in
George - South Africa, advertises Cape fur seal skins for
USD $20 on his website (see attached).
In 2003, Francois Hugo of Seal Alert-SA answered an ad to
buy a PC. The seller, Will Carter of Staghorn Scottish
Outfitting & Hire in Plumstead - South Africa,
staghorn@iafrica.com , unaware
of who I was - proudly showed me his workshop where he
was manufacturing Scottish 'sporran' purses from Cape
fur seal skins. He informed me he was importing tons
cheaply and was making millions re-exporting them to
Scotland. I informed the SA authorities and have heard
nothing since, except to see that this concern closed up
shop and disappeared.
Although South Africa in 1990 stopped the commercial
harvesting of Cape Fur seals - According to the CITES
Animals Committee Review - South Africa exported 6000 skins
in 1992, 5 500 skins in 1996, 50 skins in 2000 and 409
skins in 2001.
In 2004, a Dutch newspaper reported that whilst the EU
banned the import of CITES Appendix III "nursing baby seals
in birthing and breeding grounds". The EU imported 1.2
million Euros worth of Appendix II "nursing baby Cape fur
seals in birthing and breeding grounds" - which would
involve a minimum of 80 000 seal skin imports into one
country. Once again Namibia's total Sealing TAC quota for
2004 was 60 000.
In December 2005, Mr W Burger of Namibian Venison &
Marine Exports admitted on video camera that he was
regularly exporting skins and tons of carcass meal to the
South African livestock and pet-food industries. (There are
no CITES export permits for these products between 1992 -
2002)
As far as Seal Alert-SA can determine the conservation
status has not been properly assessed since 1990 - some 16
years ago. Considering that population surveys only go back
to 1972. 40% of this species conservation period has not
been properly assessed, if at all.
In the CITES January 2004 - Review of Significant Trade -
Analysis of Trade Trends:
It contains conservation comments primarily from a website
of the Seal Conservation Society (based in the UK) - 2001,
(which is no longer operational, and which this information
is extremely poor) (for a detailed CITES 'Trade Analysis').
The CITES enclosed chart lists no real exports, otherthan
skins - when every part of this species requires an export
permit in this 100% internationally traded wildlife
industry - such as genitals, carcases, oil, meal etc. It
ends with a Comment : "recommended for a review to
determine sustainability of trade" - based on the export in
2002 of 117 400 skins on a sealing quota of 60 000.
In the CITES 20th Meeting of the Animals Committee - Review
of Significant Trade - in April 2004:(three months later)
In its conservation status report prepared by TRAFFIC and
IUCN/SSC (world conservation union - headed by former
Minister of South Africa Valli Moosa) it contains
information, as pointed out in my email dated 10th August,
Trade in Seals, that it is in fact scientifically false and
a complete misrepresentation of the facts. As pointed out
in the publicly available scientific findings of Dr
Jean-Paul Roux, head of Namibian Fisheries Ministry for
Mammals in 1998 - that the allegation must be that this
report is or has been "fraudulently prepared" - what other
excuse is there? Particularly the release of Dr Burger
Oelofsen's press release in 2000, and the complete omission
of the information contained therein. The review ends -
"Namibia has not notified the CITES Secretariat of an
export quota for this taxon. An explanation from Namibia
regarding the large increase in exports in 2002 would
assist the Animals Committee in determining whether or not
this species should be selected for a Review of Significant
Trade".
The "Terms of Reference" of the Advisory Committee on the
Commission on Sealing in 1990 - South Africa - was, "To
investigate and report on the scientific basis for
harvesting seals as a renewable marine resource on a
sustainable basis"; "To investigate and report on the
scientific basis for culling as a method to reducing the
seal population"; "To make recommendations for future
research" and "To review and report on the cruelty aspects
of culling".
Almost none of the issues raised above were ever addressed
and Seal Alert-SA was not established at the time of the
Commission. Although reference is made to the EU directive
banning imports of "nursing pups in birthing and breeding
grounds" since 1983 and in 1985, and specifically to the
Canadian Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing in 1986
findings and report. South African scientists although well
aware that 90% of the harvests or culls involved "nursing
baby seals in birthing and breeding grounds - simple
ignored all the 'conservation realities' involved with
these sealing methods that were detrimental to the future
survival of this species.
One of the recommendations of the Commission was never
adopted - "As there is no evident biological basis to
distinguish "Namibian" and the "South African" seals and
there is no evidence that there is more than one seal
population in southern Africa - it is recommended that the
Minister gives priority attention to liaison with the
relevant authorities in Namibia with a view to the possible
implementation of a unified policy for seal management".
At this point the following needs to be considered. The
CITES Secretariat monitors the implementation of the
Convention in its 169 Parties (reviewing legislation,
levels of trade, illegal trade, annual reports, etc) but
Namibia has not been identify as a priority country for
attention under the different mechanisms established by the
Conference of the Parties. Accordingly, the CITES bodies
has not adopted any decision recommending a suspension of
commercial trade in specimens of CITES-listed species with
that country".
o In light of the substantial violations, allegations and
evidence contained above - it would seem appropriate that a
"suspension of commercial trade of all specimens of
CITES-listed species with Namibia" is adopted.
o In light of the substantial violations, allegations and
evidence contained above - it would seem appropriate that
similar suspensions are adopted for South Africa.
With the Namibian Minister's confirmation that the Namibian
seal population in 2006, was lower than the population in
1982 and 27% lower than pre-1993. The quota of 85 000 pups
and 5000 bulls, Namibia's highest on record - a 68%
increase over the sealing TAC in 1994. After the population
had experienced mass die-off's in 1988, 1994, 1995, 1996,
2000 and 2001. Needs urgent review. Considering this quota
does not subscribe to the scientifically set harvest of a
maximum of 30% - 35 000, and taking into account the
natural mortality experienced by this species of 25-32%
from birth - will see a total chort extermination of this
years pups.
In the first sealing decade after Namibia's independence -
the Namibian seal population has declined by 50%.
As mentioned "detrimental trade" or "sustainable harvests"
should not only consider "pup populations between 18-24th
December" as their corner-stone of this species
conservation status and trends. Habitats, current and
former are just as important - particularly if there is
already widespread extinction of these colonies already. In
the case of this species 98% has been lost and is now
extinct.
Based on the evolutionary cycle and known scientific fact
of this species distribution - Cape fur seals should be
displaced as follows. Based on the geographic size and
location of islands along the distribution range of Cape
fur seals. The species if healthy and in effective
conservation management, should be located as follows; 4%
east coast, 85% Cape west coast and 11% in Namibia.
Population surveys and trends have been extremely difficult
to access. Seal Alert-SA acquired an official set of colony
by colony pup surveys for the period 1972 to 1997. However
more recent surveys have been impossible to acquire. Except
for some Namibian population figures in 2000, 2001 and some
data for 2004 and the Minister confirmation in 2006 of the
population.
Based on the peak of the population in 1993 of 300 000 pups
- if seals were allowed to naturally be distributed we
would see;
o East Coast - 12 000 pups or 4% . Instead we find, 30 602
pups breeding on 0,6%. Representing (42% of the islands
populations of seals).
o Cape West Coast - 255 000 pups or 85%. Instead we find, 6
170 pups breeding on 0,2%. Representing (8,5% of the
islands populations of seals).
o Namibia - 33 000 pups or 11%. Instead we find, 35 262
breeding on 0,7%. Representing (49,5% of the islands
populations of seals).
+ Overall - 23% of the seal population breeding on 18.3 ha
(<2%) of the 1 099 ha available on islands and on 17 out
of 46 islands or 37%.
73% of the seal population is now breeding on 7 mainland
colonies.
From the chart above. As
supplied by Dr CJ Augustyn, Chief Director : Research,
Antarctica and Islands (MCM) Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism - South Africa, in May 2006. Presents a
serious decline across the seal population when comparing
2004 - 1997.
o
Total Population is down -14%.
o
Total Population in Namibia is down - 6%.
o
Total Population in South Africa is down - 24%.
o
All Mainland colonies are down - 33%.
o
Mainland Colonies in South Africa is down - 39%
o
Mainland Colonies in Namibia is down - 29%
o
Island Colonies in Namibia is 23% below the population
first surveyed in 1972.
Considering the significant harvest by foreign fishing
fleets in Namibian waters - where in 1968 the catch for
pilchards was 1.387 million tons, before declining to 25
000 tons or 3% within a decade, and in 2002 the quota was
zero. With Namibian fleets facing collapse requesting South
Africa if it could fish in our waters.
That the Cape fur seal population would naturally migrate
towards Namibia and onto the mainland, and grow from 0 pups
in 1940 to 230 000 pups in 2006 or 83% of the total
population. With intensive sustained annual escalating
sealing or culls - where over 2 million seals were
harvested.
On the 27th December 2000, Namibian incorporated the Cape
fur seals into its Marine Resources Act, and as such is
seen as a 'harvestable marine resource' if one considers
the TAC fishing chart above for two of the most
commercially valuable fish species in Namibia, worth 2.639
billion Namibian dollars or 93% of fisheries TAC. Namibia's
management of this 'resource' over the past decade,
presents serious concerns for the "non detrimental or
survival" of the Cape fur seal species.
o
Hake - Even though the biomass was declining, its most
important valuable resource. Fishery Minister set
increasing TAC's above what the fishing industry could
catch.
o
Pilchards - Even though the biomass dived sharply, its
second most valuable resource. Fishery Minister set
increasing TAC's and allowed the fishing industry to far
exceed these set TAC's.
If this management approach is being applied the annual
harvest of seals it will be "detrimental to the survival of
the species", which with a 100% chort pup quota - clearly
it is.
The chart above illustrates -
SE Coast SA colonies already extinct since 1972. SW Coast
SA colonies with no growth or decline since 1972. The
Orange or Central/South Namibia is where sealing currently
occurs, and it indicates the "disturbance and fleeing"
factor caused by sealing activities - causing seals to
migrate south and north increasingly.
The above chart (supplied by Dr
S Kirkman Scientist for MCM/IFAW) shows the clear
imbalances caused by sealing on the mainland between 1972 -
2004. It is important to note that - prior to 1940 - all
seal populations originated from one (island population of
seals), whose remnants since 1972 have declined.
Since the Sea Birds and Seals Protection Act of 1973, CITES
Management Authorities in South Africa and Namibia, whilst
exporting and trading in the "legally obtained and non
detrimental survival of seals" engaged in consist programs
of banning seals from all historical former island breeding
habitats, through physical shooing and shooting of any
seals on any island larger than 3 ha - therefore ensuring
that the 20 of the 23 former island colonies of seals
remained extinct. The following major islands, listed under
the act, as protected island habitats have been identified;
o
Robben (Seal) Island - the largest island in southern
Africa, whose land surface area accounts for over 57% of
all the island's land was involved in shooing, shooting and
banning of seals. Since 1999 it has been a UNESCO World
Heritage Site.
o
Dassen Island - the second largest, whose land surface area
accounts for over 27%, has been involved in shooing,
shooting and banning of seals.
o
Bird, Seal, Stag and the Islands of St Croix in Algoa Bay -
on our east coast, formerly known as the "Bay of Seals" has
conducted similar illegal practices. In the last few years
the population of seals has become extinct (See Dr
Stewardson's 2002 report)
o
Dyer Island - has maintained similar practices.
o
The Saldanha Bay group of Islands, known as Jutten, Marcus,
Malgas, Meeuwen, Schaapen, Vondeling - have all banned
seals from this UNESCO World Biodiversity region. In 1998
and since, South African management officials have resorted
to shooting bull seals in the surrounding island waters in
order to keep seals illegally off these islands.
o
Penguin Island in Lamberts Bay - has recently been in the
news, where South African management officials have asked
the Minister of the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism for annual funding to hire full-time seal shooting
marksman and professional 'seal shooing' individuals to
keep seals off the island.
o
Ichaboe Island in Namibia - a major seal breeding colony,
and later a sealing station, which once held a pup
production exceeding 50 000. Has been completely walled and
has full-time staff banning seals from this island, which
remains extinct to seals.
o
Mercury Island - a major former seal breeding colony was
extinct. In the early 1980's seal began recolonising the
island. In 1985, the island recorded a pup production of 3
606 pups. During the Commission on Sealing in 1990, it was
recommended to the Minister, "that the seal disturbance
program on Mercury Island be continued". In 1996 the last
158 pups were recorded on the island, since then the island
has become extinct to seals.
As South African and Namibian Management Authorities have
maintained the extinction on 20 of the 23 former major seal
breeding island colonies, by restricting seals to 2%,
whilst ensuring 98% of the island surface area remains
banned - all exported trade since 1977 has been detrimental
to the survival of the species - a CITES violation. Having
caused the direct extinction of the eastern most seal
colony and the extinction of the most northern island
colony in 1996 - and as all island populations of seals are
the lowest on record - all trade involving millions of
exported seal skins and products has been detrimental and a
threat to the future survival of this species.
In the words of the Department of Agriculture,
Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs, Gauteng
Provincial Government and those of the Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism - South Africa, on the
criminal conviction of a South African importer who
illegally imported two consignments of 135 and 30 illegal
seal skins, respectively from Namibia in 2003 - "The
wildlife trade is a major source of revenue and the illegal
trade is regarded as a threat to the country's economy. If
South Africa can be identified by CITES as allowing such
activities to happen, there is a risk that the country will
be banned by the Convention from carrying on the trade.
Consequently, other countries may even be prevented from
trading with South Africa" and in the words of NOAA
Fisheries Law Enforcement, "Illegal trade in endangered or
threatened wildlife continues to be a problem that NOAA
fisheries takes seriously. Seizures like this should be a
warning sign to others who traffic in marine mammal parts".
The South African and Namibian Management Authorities
clearly have a lot to answer for, considering all this
illegal trade since 1972 in which millions of seal skins
and seal products were illegally traded and exported in
violation of CITES Convention.
East Coast
Seal Colonies of Southern Africa
1 ha - Black Rocks. PP - 1702 - 142
(Declined) -[the circled rock in red is black rock
see below pic]
14 ha - Bird Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
2 ha - Seal Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
NO PICTURE
1 ha - Stag Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
NO PICTURE
0.8 ha -
Seal Island - Mossel Bay. PP - 3234 - 691
(declined)
1 ha - Quoin Rock. PP - 3744 - 1779
(declined)
20 ha - Dyer Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
*
3 ha - Geyser Island. PP - 2679 - 11 184
*
2 ha - Seal Island - False Bay. PP - 14 449 - 16 806
*
0.2 ha - Duiker Klip - Hout Bay. PP (never surveyed)
*
West Coast
Seal Colonies of Southern Africa
Block B : See above (including
Robben 'Seal' Island) out of pic at the bottom is
responsible for 85% of the Island surface area
off Southern African Coastline - the distribution range of
the Cape fur seals
* 576 ha -
Robben (Seal) Island - PP - 0 (extinct)
*
0.1 ha - Robbesteen - PP - 2425 - 1155 (declined)
*
273 ha -
Dassen Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
21 ha -
Vondeling Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
*
46 ha -
Jutten Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
NO PICTURE
11 ha -
Marcus Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
*
8.3 ha -
Malgas Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
0.3 ha - Jacobs Rock. PP - 4804 - 1650 (declined)
*
*
2 ha - Paternoster Rocks. PP - 758 - 1200
*
2 ha - Penguin Island - Lamberts Bay. PP - (unknown) *
*
0.2 ha - Elephant Rock. PP - 2494 - 2165 (declined)
NO PICTURE
Northern
Cape and Namibian West Coast Seal Colonies
NO PICTURE
Mainland - Kleinsee. PP - 30 429 - 87 841
*
*
3.2 ha - Sinclair Island. PP - 15 771 - 10 771 (declined)
*
NO PICTURE
Mainland - Lions Head. PP - 2767 - 8 308
*
NO PICTURE
0.1 ha - Albatross Rock. PP - 3 719 - 2 785 (declined)
*
NO PICTURE
Mainland (sealing colony) - Atlas Bay. PP - 8 873 - 46 225
*
90 ha -
Possession Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
*
2 ha - Long Island. PP - 12 219 - 14 835
NO PICTURE
Mainland (Sealing Colony)
- Wolf Bay. PP - 7 436 - 36 700
*
0.1 ha - Dumfudgeon Rock. PP - 2 873 - 465 (declined)
*
0.1 ha - Boat Bay Rock. PP - 1 680 - 883 (declined)
*
*
0.1 ha - Staple Rock. PP - 2 908 - 1 899 (declined)
*
*
0.1 ha - Marshall Reef. PP - 755 - 146 (declined)
*
*
2 ha - Hollamsbird Island. PP - 5 039 - 3 478 (declined)
*
*
Mainland - Pelican Point. PP - (Not in Official Surveys)
1 ha - Penguin Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
*
*
7 ha - Seal Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
*
*
6.5 ha -
Ichaboe Island. PP - 0 (extinct)
3 ha -
Mercury Island. PP - 3 606 - 0 (extinct)
*
Mainland - Dolphin Head. PP - (Not in Official Surveys)
Mainland
(sealing colony) - Cape Cross. PP - 19 738 - 48 993
*
Mainland - Cape Frio. PP - 477 - 7 191
*
For the Seals
Francois Hugo Seal Alert-SA
