----- Original Message -----
From: "sealalert"
To: "VAN DER WALT DANIE TVP"
Cc: "Belinda Shaw" ; "Shannon Neil" ;
"ALBERTS ALETTA CH2"
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: 5050 program on Seals Killing Seabirds
Dear Danie Van Der Walt
Thank you for your reply. It seems you have completely missed the point. The
point is, nothing in wildlife gets resolved down the barrel of a gun, particularly
when it comes to protected species. Your claims of a dilemma or crisis is un- scientifically supported. Your program attempts to give credence and distortion to this very fact. Unfortunately you have chosen to defend yourself and your producers, that is sad, something by the way our protected seals do not get the opportunity to do, thanks to an unobjective programs like yours.
To resolve these issues in an open environment, could you please add a little more support to your statements, namely:
1. Is your program, objective and a reality look at wildlife? If it is can you explain why an opposite viewpoint was not included? Surely your producer should have realized that this is a controversial issue which has been widely reported. Had an objective approach been adopted, very quickly your producer would have realized it is not the figures so much that is in question, it is the entire management plan, which is un-scientific, non-conservationist and in question. Secondly, if it was realistic why did you not show the public Mike Meyer shooting protected seals, you claim were seen 'in the act'. To present a program that ignores these realities is in my books false reporting, please explain your position why you ignored the true realities?
2. I am surprised at your comments on IFAW. IFAW is an Internationally respected Animal Welfare Organization, who chose not to fund MCM after they MCM approached them to obviously gain credibility, strange how their objectives appeared common then, the point anyway, is that there are widespread objections. A leading international expert declined to fund, that is the reality something your program chose to ignore, but you claim your program is reality based, I hope you see my point, any comments?
3. You claim any reasonable person would see MCM is facing a dilemma. Is this before your program or after? My point is, your program appears to set out to create this dilemma, void of reality. This is not reality. The dilemma you refer to: Is it the fact that these two islands, on the one hand, previously contained substantial herds of seals, and after 26 years of seal protection have remained extinct, with regard to pups and failure to re-colonize, or that only 10% of the gannets are being killed in the wild naturally at only one island, has no special conservation status and according to avian democracy unit, steadily increasing on all islands where found and which you not only chose to ignore, but claimed is exclusively protected for just seabirds. So where ever a wild animal eats another, MCM and programs like yours, cause reasonable people to believe there is a dilemma. How strange your reality is at 50/50.
4. You claim your program was not doctored and no props were used, can you explain the following - how an apparently recently attacked seabird which is still alive, is retrieved by one boat, moments later this same bird is in another boat, with involved persons in different clothing, only to suddenly claim, this same bird is still alive and to then 'humanely' swing the bird by the neck to kill it. Please explain how these events were the reality, and were not distorted or manipulated as claimed by you? On the subject of props, black and white footage with dramatic background music of seabirds dead or dying on the islands themselves, is this not a prop, or are you claiming you know for a fact a seal killed these already dead or dying seabirds? Are you also claiming every dead bird on an island is due to seals, and that there is no natural mortality among seabirds that would account for this? Please provide proof that these were not props, and that seals actually killed the birds depicted in these photographs?
5. You claim you recorded 'convincing' evidence of seals killing seabirds, I challenge you to produce one single conclusive segment in your program to support this, seal throwing a dead bird around on the water proves very little, to prove my point, I have videotaped seagulls pecking away at the dead bodies of seal pups in the water, does this mean that seagulls kill seals? I have also seen Seals tearing apart a dead snoek tossed to them by fisherman, and enticed to eat it. Does this mean the seal killed the snoek?
The point is, surely on such a controversial subject, after 18 000 claimed kills, noting that perhaps although your producer only had a few hours of filming, surely MCM would have numerous footage which could have been used.
I question why there is none, can you explain your lack of conclusive proof?
6. You claim in just a few hours of filming was indicative of the frequency of kills, can you please therefore be specific, how many hours of filming and how many separate individual incidences were filmed. I counted over 15 incidents, yet are these just re-runs of the same incident, please detail?
7. Somehow it appears you don't read so well, or perhaps chose to distort the fact or even go as far as ignoring them, as mentioned in my email previously, you claim 1.5 million seals, clearly your source Mike Meyer of MCM, strange how Mike Meyer's boss would claim differently, Dr David of MCM would tell you that Namibia and South Africa's seal population are separate and managed differently, two separate countries, no longer controlled by South Africa, no longer SWA, for 12 years now I think, my point is that there is only 124 613 pups born in SA, multiplied by 4, equals 498 452, far substantially less than your program claims and 70% of these occur hundreds of kilometers away on a mainland near Namibia. Furthermore there may be as little as 1 134 breeding bulls left on the few remaining offshore islands in South Africa, or 130 per island, and MCM have already killed 153 already. Something you clearly chose to ignore, instead chose to inflate false numbers unrelated and unrealistically, why is this? Interestingly out of 21 offshore protected islands for Seal and Seabirds, seal only occur on 9, and by the way 6 of the 9 have shown a 62% collective decline during the past 26 years of protection, and 13 islands are already extinct, it seems to me MCM and clearly by your own comments that both your priorities are directed in the wrong direction, does by any chance this have anything to do with apartheid policies of the past? I say this as you appear to be confused about Namibia and South Africa being two independent countries.
Danie, surely seals decline on the offshore islands are more realistic and a dilemma as you put it. I believe that it is clear, that your program was not a realistic coverage of the situation, it was doctored and props were used.
I will defend the rights of these wonderful animals, I hope we can openly resolve this, I once again give you an opportunity to re-examine your program, should you fail to answer these questions posed, I will have no choice by to lodge a formal complaint with Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Public Protectors Office. I hope it will not come to this and please don't threaten me again, as you will only threaten yourself.
For the Seals
Francois Hugo - Seal Alert SA
PS I have been addressing MCM policies for over 2 years already. The matter is already
before the Minister, so please don't attempt to claim I am using your producers, they must answer for their program, not hide behind MCM.

----- Original Message -----
From: "VAN DEER WALT DANIE TVP"
To: "sealalert"
Cc: "Belinda Shaw" ; "Shannon Neil" ;
"ALBERTS ALETTA CH2"
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: 5050 program on Seals Killing Seabirds

Mr. Hugo,
Thank you for responding to our programme on the killing of gannets by seals.
Sorry for the slight delay but it is policy to consult the producer concerned as well before we reply.
Unfortunately, whether you chose to believe it or not - what you saw on our programme is indeed very much a reality. For someone who claims to be an expert on seals, you seem to know precious little about the behavior of these animals. What is more, your sweeping statements about our intentions and the so-called methods that we employ to manipulate facts, are frankly ludicrous. In the light of this I see no reason why we should even try and answer the various accusations you are leveling at us. However, you are more than welcome to refer this matter to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
Allow me a few remarks of my own.
* It is painfully clear that you are fueling a personal vendetta against Mr. Mike Meyer and Marine and Coastal Management. So if you don't like their policies - then confront them directly with your wisdom and don't try and discredit my producers by spreading half-truths and distorting facts. We have no reason to believe that the figures they are quoting are wrong.
* I am not surprised to hear that the IFAW have turned down funding the MCM project; it is a matter of different objectives, not so?
* Our aim was to focus on the problem which MCM have identified and to show how they are dealing with this.- no more and no less. After watching the insert any reasonable person would have been able to understand that MCM are indeed facing quite a dilemma.
* 50/50 is a reality programme and we do not manipulate or distort facts. For you to suggest that we "doctored the content & planted props" just to sell the idea that seals are indeed killing sea birds, are truly amazing. On the contrary we recorded pretty convincing evidence that seals are indeed the culprits.
* All the seal hunting scenes were recorded in just a few hours on the boat with the MCM team - which is indicative of the frequency of kills. If the camera crew had more time at sea, they certainly would have recorded even more graphic scenes. The action happens so fast that unless the camera rolls continuously you miss the opportunity easily. Is that so difficult to understand?
* We did say clearly that seals are protected animals; despite the fact that there are about one and a half million of them around the Southern African coastline - (or is that something you chose to ignore?). It is easy to understand why MCM are worried about the gannet and penguin numbers and what influence seals have on them.
* We do not dictate to our presenters what they should feel or say when they are out on location. The idea is for them to become part of the story. So if Jan Horn was getting upset about seals killing the birds - then it is a honest reflection of how he felt at the time. Or would you rather he lie?
* The footage taken on Marion Island were clearly identified as such - It showed in graphic detail how an Arctic Seal attacks and kills a very healthy King Penguin, then drags it into the water and plays with the carcass. What you describe as some devious attempt on our behalf to distort the picture, is in fact very easily explained. All the images were perfectly clear when we packaged the programme in our studio. However, these particular scenes were of very dubious technical quality (amateur VHS images). Just by chance a poor transmitter signal caused these very images to break up and distort in certain parts of the country during transmission. I specifically mention this because it illustrates to us very well just how fertile your imagination really is.
So Mr. Hugo from the above you will be able to deduct that we do not owe you any apology. It is rather the other way around. Be careful in future who you send your damaging comments to. Your accusations are both grossly inaccurate and slanderous and we reserve our legal rights in this regard.
Nevertheless, thank you for the opportunity to put the record straight.
Danie v d Walt
Executive Producer
50/50 - SABC 2
Auckland Park 2006
South Africa
011 714 6621
083 413 6868
the environment cares for you!
die omgewing sorg vir jou!

-----Original Message-----
From: sealalert [SMTP:sasealion@wam.co.za]
Sent: 01 July 2002 08:52
To: belinda@ww.com
Cc: 5050@sabc.co.za
Subject: 5050 program on Seals Killing Seabirds
Importance: High

Attention : Belinda Shaw & Shannon Neill
50/50 WildLife Television Program
PUBLIC COMPLAINT
PROGRAM BROADCAST SABC 2 ON 50/50
SEALS KILLING SEA-BIRDS ON MALGAS ISLAND
Dated : 30-06-2002
Dear Belinda,
I refer to the program on 'Seals Killing Cape Gannet sea-birds on Malgas Island' broadcast on the 16-06-2002. Firstly, I take the issue of killing Protected Seals by Government Officials very seriously. I wish to voice my strongest condemnation at your biased, unfair and extremely poor journalism. Clearly this was pure propaganda at it's best apartheid style.
I am reporting this to the Independants Complaints Board as well as the Public Protectors Office. I request your comment and a full explanation.
Firstly, I would like to point out a number of points made in this program;
1. The presenter stated " The majority of these islands are protected areas for breeding Seabirds".
2. Over 15 separate footages were shown of dead Cape Gannet sea-birds.
3. The presenter Jan Horn, made the following outrageous statements on a wildlife program
i. 'A new life is brutally ended'
ii. 'Gee, but they are cruel bastards'
iii. 'This is murder on the high seas'
iv. ' Sensitive viewers to please look away'
4. Footage of a species not endemic to South Africa.
5. Footage was edited and doctored, props used.
Firstly, let me point out that that we are discussing PROTECTED species of both Seals and Seabirds. These species are protected by way of the Seabirds and Seal Protection Act No. 46 of 1973. Which clearly states it is Criminal and Illegal to Shoot Protected Seals. Nowhere in this Act, or in the schedule attached detailing islands protected for Seals and Seabirds, does it define the two islands in question, Malgas and Penguin Island, Lamberts Bay as being protected islands exclusively for breeding seabirds as incorrectly stated and pointed out in your program.
Secondly, according to the Public Protectors report dated 28-09-2001, the islands are protected under the Seabirds and Seal Protection Act, and therefore these responsiblities may not be delegated, and therefore the presence, never mind the unlawful actions of Cape Nature Conservation a local body is unlawful, under the act.
Over 15 seperate footages, in your 15 minute program, 1 propoganda footage per minute was shown of either dead birds supposedly killed by seals, in the water and high on dry land rottening bodies or seals time and time again attacking a clearly already dead bird and even another species from the sub-antarctic attacking 'unnaturally' seabirds. With narration over by Mike Meyer of MCM claiming 18 000 has been killed in 3 years by seals, dramatic music and very well filmed footage of various conservation bodies 'lawfully' involved, zooming in on their badges or emblems on shoulders to cleverly create an air of 'official correctness and of scientific investigation', with binoculars, boats and talking on walkie talkies.
Yet in all this there was not ONE conclusive single footage of a protected seal, actually attacking one healthy bird, killing it and eating it, NOT ONE single shot, in all the 18 000 claimed and supposedly seabirds killed by seals.
In Fact, I challenge you to prove that your edit of this program, has not gone as far as placing dead birds on the water only to pretend on film they have just seen a seal killing it, then claiming this long time dead bird that they placed in the water is still alive, with narration over of 'what cruel bastards' and then swinging this already dead bird. Using the same bird over and over again. The sequences of the footage dont match, I find this totally unacceptable for a wildlife program, to stage events, on a subject as sensitive as this, because if it is proven to have been staged, then you have lied to the public, and if so 50/50 has no credibility.
Something clearly obvious in the footage, there were no adult, bull or large seals, only small ones, indicating they have all been killed. Killing bulls would stop colonisation. Finally, is it really possible to implement this type of management plan, killing only seals seen attacking birds? Can Mike Meyer who lives in Hout Bay, drive with a boat all the way to Saldanha bay, 120km away, launch, drive kilometers out to the island, sit around and wait for a seal to attack a bird, shoot, and then drive all the way back to Cape Town, and repeat this daily for 3 long months, to identify and then shoot only the seal seen to be attacking, we have 21 offshore islands covering 2000 kilometers of coastline, clearly not so he just goes out and shots any bulls he can find under the disguise of conservation.
Strangely, Cape Nature Conservation wants to shoot Tahrs, because they are not indigenous. Nothing is more indigenous to these islands than seals, but now Cape Nature and MCM have another excuse for shooting our bulls.
These offshore colonies are declining. 63% are already extinct. Culling in Namibia is taking out all the alpha bulls with their valuable genes, each and every bull is needed to conserve this species, it is estimated that there are less than 13 000 breeding bulls, in South Africa less than 4 400.
To expose this propoganda lies, perpetratored on the South African Public, let me correct you and detail the Truth! Historically, Malgas and Bird Island were both islands consisting of extensive Seal herds. Human exploitation removed them from these islands, in fact Seals became extinct on these islands. Since MCM first started to count officially seal numbers in 1971 and shortly thereafter the passing in law of the Seabirds and Seals Protection Act of 1973, seal pups have never been recorded again on these islands. In fact as far back as 1971, MCM had ensured that our protected seals do not re-colonise, as evident by the fact that they have not had a listing in their official pup counting survey sheets for these islands during 26 years of counting, 1971 - > 1997.
Since 1971, both MCM and Cape Nature Conservation have been killing protected seals, in order to prevent them re-colonising. It never has had anything to do with seabirds, it has always been the removal, displacement and the annihilation of protected seals.
On Cape Talk Radio with Martin Bailey in December 2000, Cape Nature Conservation admitted beating off preganent cow seals from these islands, forcing these seals to either abort their pups in the water or to give birth in the water, where the pups then of course drown. This cruel practice of shooting, clubbing and harassement has been going on since 1971 by both MCM and Cape Nature Conservation, so clearly depicted in your segment.
In 1999, Mike Meyer was reported being observed shooting protected seals, this was reported to the press. Suddenly, MCM explanation was 'Seals Killing Gannets'. In your program aired on the 6/2002, Mike Meyer referred to an Eco-System Management Plan, and your presenter confirmed since 1993 over 153 seals have been shot by Mike Meyer. What was conveniently left out, was that 2 years ago, Mike Meyer of MCM, a government Department, approached an NGO, the International Fund for Animal Welfare in Cape Town, for funding to prove that seals were killing sea-birds at Malgas Island, IFAW rejected their claims. However MCM continued to insist on the funding IFAW then requested that a written proposal be submitted, an International Expert from IFAW, Mike Levin assessed the proposal and IFAW declined to fund, stating their proposal was biased and unscientific. Yet two years later, Mike Meyer is still shooting protected seals.
Let us examine this further, Mike Meyer was killing protected seals as far back as 1993, in 1999, six years later he was exposed, a further year goes by before he goes to IFAW for funding to prove his unscientific and biased view-point, and two years later is still shooting seals, as if he is a law unto himself.
Let us also examine Mike Meyer's credentials. What scientific qualifications does he have, as I am unaware of any credentials, other than working at MCM? Except he is seen, 'swinging' a protected Sea-bird by the neck, admits to shooting Protected Seals and has been seen on numerous occasions ordering protected whales to be blown-up. Is this what MCM terms "conservation"? The Act states a permit is required, on what basis has the minister granted a permit to Meyer, if in fact he has done so, and Mike Meyer's activities are not then unlawful, where is the scientific proof or report supporting this management plan, dated 1993, prior to Mike Meyer shooting protected seals.
We are also aware Mike Meyer, tried to obtain funds to support his view-point, this time last year, from WWF funded by Nedbank. Seashepherd and myself are in possession of this email correspondence, confirming this. Where are the findings of this WWF funded research?
Mike Meyer of MCM is quoted as saying, that over 6000 birds at Malgas Island alone have been killed by Seals per year, since 1999. I refer you to an article in the Argus dated 1999, in which this sum is supposed to account for 10% of total born. I refer you to your own 50/50 program in 1980's on Seal Havesting at Kleinzee, When Dr J David of MCM, Mike Meyer's boss, Head of Seabirds and Seal Protection Act, justified setting the quota at 32% of pups born, as 32% is their natural mortality in the wild anyway, therefore 32% culled, plus 32% natural mortality, equals 64%, This, the good Dr David claimed was quite sustainable, so please define why suddenly 10% being killed in the wild naturally is such a major issue, warranting hundreds of protected seals to be shot, under the disguise of conservation.
Fur seals killed at South African gannet colony - In a controversial decision, the South African Department of Sea Fisheries has decided to cull 20 of the estimated 30 South African fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus) feeding around the island of Malgas in order to protect fledglings in the island's Cape gannet colony from predation.
Scientists have estimated that about 6,000 chicks, about 10% of the total born, are being killed by the seals during the birds' breeding season from September to March. The stated intention is to shoot fur seals while they are actually seen to have a bird in their mouth. It is thought that the seals are finding it easier to kill the birds than to go fishing in deeper waters, shallow-water fish stocks having been eroded by over-fishing. The operation, which has come under fire from animal welfare supporters, was planned for the first week of March. (Source: Cape Town Cape Argus, 21 March 1999)
I refer you further to the Avian Demography report on Malgas and the Cape Gannet, that all 3 Cape Gannet Colonies in South Africa are increasing and that the Cape Gannet has not been formally considered a candidate for conservation management in South Africa; it reads, copied; "The total gannet population has been estimated at about 200 000. At present all three colonies in South Africa are increasing in numbers.
The Cape Gannet, one of the seabirds endemic to southern Africa, has not been formally considered a candidate for conservation management in South Africa The fishing industry claims that thousands of tons of commercially important fish are lost to seabirds each year. In the past, this misguided fear had been blown out of all proportion on several occasions, to the extent that in 1953 a certain senator S.M. Petersen was pushing for legislation to be passed to end the protection of all seabirds. In fact he even recommended that all eggs of seabirds be collected to ensure the subsequent destruction of these birds. These ideas must have seemed strange even in those days because all of this prompted the Government to finance research into the diet and populations of seabirds and seals.
It must be stated that gannets and other seabirds have been the victims rather than the villains of the fishing industry. The sharp decline in population numbers along the Namibian coast was directly precipitated the collapse of the pilchard stock due to overfishing during the 1960s.
Therefore on what scientific or conservation basis is Mike Meyer of MCM acting?
I refer to an extract taken from the book, Ocean of Life and an article written by Rod M. Randall/Jackass Penguins, I quote under the heading Natural Mortality Factors, 'Over a ten year period, the natural mortality was 68%, and South Africa's Fur Seals could not be implicated in any attacks in Algoa Bay, but revealed that sharks were the most significant predators of penguins, Great Whites were positively implicated in some attacks.
Under the heading Unnatural Mortality Factors, oil pollution accounted for 37% of the mortalities. Your footage on Marion Island and the Subantarctic Seal was also biased, in that firstly there are a number of species of seal that prey specifically on sea-birds, crabeater and the leopard seal as just a few.
Your footage requesting sensitive viewers to look away, only to be shown blurred and interrupted footage, is clearly again indicative of your propoganda techniques. What I saw was a bull defending his harem of female and new-born pups from a perceived threat. The footage of the seal and penguin appeared to be unrelated. Perhaps the penguin was already dead, as even the seagull was seen pecking at it. Again there was no conclusive footage of a kill or the circumstances surrounding it like defending his harem of new-borns. Seabirds have been filmed pecking out new-born defenseless pups' eyes out, whilst dying from starvation, so therefore the threat from penguins and seabirds is real.
Finally, I comment on the presenters words, clearly if this was honestly a grown human's reaction, whilst claiming to be a presenter for a dedicated wildlife program, and seen by millions, It is a disgrace. To place human terms on wildlife behaviour is clearly unprofessional to say the least. It is suggested he applies for a position at Kiddies TV, instead.
In conclusion, I trust you are aware that 13 out of 21 protected islands for seals around South Africa are extinct, and have remained so during the last 26 years of protection. Seals only currently pup on 9 remaining islands, and 6 of these 9 have shown a 62% decline over the past 26 years of so- called Seal Protection, one island by as much as 92% [See report below]. Seals and Seabirds have lived and are living in harmony, with each other on these islands, for thousands of years, if seals were ever a threat to seabirds, then this would have occurred hundreds if not thousands of years ago. It is MCM and the fishing industry which is threatening the species of Seals and Seabirds, by their poor management of our resources.
The Impact of the Fur Seal Industry on the Distribution and Abundance of Cape Fur Seals Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus on the Eastern Cape Coast of South Africa, by C.L. Stewardson (Division of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia.) PO Box 13147, Humewood 6013, South Africa) (ISSN 0035 919X -Trans.Roy.Soc.S.Afr., 54(2). Pages 217-245, 1999)
The present paper provides a review of the former distribution and abundance of Cape fur seals, Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus, off the Eastern Cape coast of South Africa, based on available historical records. It identifies the distribution of Eastern Cape fur seals before commercial sealing began; documents sealing activities off the Eastern Cape coast during the 19th and 20th centuries, and discusses current population trends in relation to past exploitation regimes. The importance of the Eastern Cape population is discussed in relation to the total population..
Black Rocks was the only colony on the Eastern Cape to survive commercial sealing operations. Access to Black Rocks is difficult, and for that reason sealing activities were irregular, and were terminated in 1949.
At present, Black Rocks supports c. 700 seals. In the last 12 years the population has decreased by 82%. By destroying seal herds through commercial harvesting, and confining the population to Black Rocks, the population is unable to build up its numbers sufficiently to stimulate colonisation of neighbouring islands. Limited space for breeding seals on Black Rocks, and the influence of storms (gale force winds and high swlls) restricts the number of pups that can be reared successfully. It is unlikely that the Black Rocks population can increase quickly enough to flow onto Seal and Stag islands, without being depleted by storms. The effect of man on the Seal, Stag and Black Rocks populations is therefore a permanent one. Approximately 23 000 Cape fur seals may have occupied the Bird Island group before European exploitation. The current population for the Eastern Cape coast is considerably less than its historical size.
I sincerely hope that you at 50/50 have been mis-informed by Mike Meyer of MCM and have not tried to perpetrate such a gross lie on the South African Public for sensationalism, I request a full retraction and a public apology to the millions of South African viewers you have mis-informed.
PS : So anywhere where Seal island colonies have declined, and footage can be shown of Great White Shark 'brutally attacking these small cute pups', we should send out Mike 'the gun' Meyer of MCM to shoot now, these protected Great Whites as well, including declining penguin colonies.
For the Seals
Francois Hugo - Seal Alert SA

Disclaimer: Everything in this email and its attachments relating to the official business of the SABC is proprietary to the SABC. It is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. The person addressed in the email is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if this email and its attachments has unintentionally reached you, and do not read, copy or disseminate the content in any way. Whilst all reasonable precautions are taken to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the information, and that this email and its attachments is free from any virus, the SABC accepts no responsibility whatsoever in this regard, and in keeping with good computing practice, the scanning of files and attachments is advised.

Great! And what happened to our constitutional right to know?
Here's a summary of what it's all about (unedited):
Hi all, here is a rather long draft, of our seal history, it should put the whole seal saga in context, attached is the state of the seal colonies in SA. Francois.
THE FIRST COMPLETE ACCOUNT OF THE HISTORICAL ABUSE OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN FUR SEALS
In 1600, Around the Southern tip of Africa, Cape Fur Seals where found to inhabitate 34 offshore islands from Algoa Bay (East Coast) to Cape Frio (Namibia/West Coast). Since the arrival of these first European settlers, the Portugese, Dutch, English, French and then the Americans, seals have been slaughtered and abused, until in the early 1900 many offshore islands had become extinct and their numbers were down to less than 10 000. Examples of this, Robben Island was completely covered with seals and is today extinct and on Dassen Island, over 45 000 skins were left, after the vessels departed being fully loaded, which is today also extinct, these islands supported substantial herds. From 1900 until 1940, the remaining seals had dispersed amongst these 34 offshore islands, even with the species near extinction, havesting un-checked continued, a major barrier to even greater utilization or complete extinction, is the fact that all seal colonies were remote, some difficult to land on and far from the closest market. The cost of freezing and transporting the carcasses would have been very high and unviable, but by 1971, things had suddenly changed. As far back as the records go, 400 years or more, no seals had colonized any mainland areas, but from 1940, the Seals of our coastline, were about to receive, widespread unnatural forced displacement, similar to the apartheid era, group areas act with our black and coloured population. This problem of wide dispersement of colonies, was easily overcome, members of Sea Fisheries were sent for periods of up to 2 years to those offshore colonies, where the Government wanted seals removed, the sole function was to physically beat and drive off every seal from these barren islands. Alpha bull seals, were targeted and shot, at all the islands identified to attempt to prevent colonization. These illegitimate non-conservation activities were disguised under the pretences of sea-bird conservation and so-called displacement by seals .These activities were intensified during the female pupping time, forcing these pregnant, about to give birth females, to seek dry land, in order to give birth. The only land available, was these mainland beaches. This very effective human intervention, has resulted in these mainland colonies to quickly grow, but unfortunately this growth, whilst it may have increased pups for harvesting, it almostly certainly has weakened the valuable gene pool.
The disastrous consequence of this unnatural forced relocation, on the species themselves, is that these seals had no natural defenses against these new land based predators, blackbacked jackals, brown hyaena and lions preyed freely on the defenseless pups. Additionally, there are major concerns regarding the ability of these species to self regulate the own gene pools, alpha bulls being unable to defend a wide open beach area, thereby a weaking of the gene pool of the species appear to be invertiable. Land based diseases, such as distemper and rabies, are also cause for major concern, as these marine mammal species are ill equipped genetically to deal with these new land based diseases. With nowhere else to go, these seals had few options. According to the first official pup count in 1971, 51% of the seals were found in SWA and 49% in S A. Additionally, in only 30 years, 37% of the seals were found on these new land based colonies. Strangely, the Seal Protection Act that was about to become law, somehow omitted all these new land based colonies under the act, these colonies would soon contain the vast majority of seals. Stranger still SA was reaching its zenith at the same time it was bringing in a protection act for seals, 75 000 were being harvested during this period per year.
International events in the 1970’s brought many changes, US brought out in 1972 the Marine Mammal Protection Act, SA followed shortly with it’s own Seal Protection Act in 1973, by 1976 the US market where most of SA skins were sold to one company Fouke, was closed under the new MMPA act. By 1979, all sealing concessions were in private hands, and the SA Government had been forced to cease sealing. In 1979, seal pups were dispersed as follows, only 37% remained in SA and 63% had now been driven into SWA. Efforts intensified, and additionally in only 8 short years, 1971 to 1979, pups born on mainland beaches had increased from 37% to now 73%. A massive forced relocation at a time when these species were supposed to be protected, including the island colonies. The very fact, that the government was displacing seals from their natural habitats, onto these few mainland unnatural colonies, which is still continuing to this day, clearly indicates, that seal culling was never sustainable. One cannot kill seals, and force new seals into the area and claim sustainability.
In the years leading up to the last official count in 1997, we now find that 75% of all seals are now born on mainland colonies. 60% is now found in Namibia formally SWA and SA only 40%. Stranger still is that none of the 14 colonies that were extinct prior to the start of the first official count in 1971 and the seal protection act in 1973, have been recolonised, in fact one has witnessed an entire offshore island colony becoming extinct during the past 26 years of protection, and another which held extensive herds of over 45 000, was exclusively earmarked for penguin exploitation, and concerted efforts undertaken to keep seals from re-colonizing. Of even greater concern, is the fact that 75% of these seals are no longer dispersed amongst their natural indigenous offshore islands, but are now contained in only 6 mainland colonies and 97% of these are on 4 private land areas, where private concessions to cull is currently being conducted. The accumulative result of the Seal Protection Act over the past 26 years, has resulted in the following; Only 12% of the Seal Colonies are presently protected. 75% are now situated on private and strictly enforced restricted land, owned and controlled by a private Diamond Miner De Beers. Prior to 1990, all culling/clubbing of seals was conducted on this private land, to such an extent that of the 75% suddenly found on these 6 mainland colonies since 1940, by 1990, 97% Of all these land-based seals were to be found in only 4 colonies earmarked for private culling.
Of major concern, is that this globally, publicly driven Diamond Mining Company De Beers, is in no way involved in Seal Conservation or Welfare, in fact the complete opposite is true, it allows private culling on it’s land and the construction of foreign owned factories to process protected seals. The devastation of this human intervention and forced re-location, is evident in the fact that all these new, 4 mainland colonies where culling of seals were taking place, saw in 1994 and again in 2000, the death of over 250 000 seals on each of these years, in fact by each year end, every pup born that year had died of apparent starvation and abandonment. Remember that the authorities refused to permit independent investigation by scientists into the causes, noting that starvation is a by-symptom of distemper. A disease that wiped-out 20 000 seals in the Caspian Sea, from a single dog bite in December 2000. Government has continued to claim that although every pup born died, is a natural event, requiring no increased conservation measures. Additionally, this unnatural re-location North, out of South African waters and onto these mainland colonies in SWA, soon be become independent Namibia, may have been a way for the apartheid government to deal with the fact, that the sole US market was closed to them, the hand-over to private concessionaires and their efforts to break into the European markets, collapsed in around 1983, when the European Parliament requested that member nations to place a voluntary embargo on the import of all seal products. However in 1984 alone, these private concessionaires quickly killed 20 000 bulls, for the far east penis trade, that this was twice the average harem bull to female ratio. The following year, pup numbers dropped by 60% in one year. The result of this, is that in 1990 SA placed a moratorium on seal culling at it’s only mainland colony, kleinsee. Strangely this colony did not exist prior to 1940, by 1973, after the seal protection Act came into law, culling was still continued for 17years, until 1990. Sources, indicate that culling resumed 2 years later, and could be going on in secret today, with shipment to an ostrich facility and then into France. By 1990, this single colony out of a previous 21 seal colonies in SA only, suddenly it now represented 70% of the South African seal population in 30 short years. Noting further that this colony was always excluded from the Seal Protection Act, as well as it being conveniently situated on private Diamond mining restricted land. This moratorium effectively proved nothing, except perhaps to fool the internationals, for by 1992, 68% of the seals were displaced into SWA. SWA under the control of SA government, was then handed over, where it now became independent Namibia, who conveniently, has continued to increase it’s slaughter and cull quota’s to numbers previously approaching the zenith in seal culling numbers for both countries, of the 1970’s and 80’s, of a species that supposed to be protected. Namibia in 2000, is not only culling over 67 000, it has in fact, built multi-million dollar factories and extended the culling season to six months, half an entire year. The strangest of all this is, 50% of the seals diet has been proven scientifically by their own scientists to be non-commercial bearded goby fish. The industry itself employs less than 70 part-time workers, and only brings in 0.50 cents to government coffers, and represents less than 0.2% of the fishing industry and a value of less than N$ 2 million. To add further insult, the commercial fishing industry employees less than 0.1% of the population, accounts for less than 0.5% of the GDP. Additionally, in a survey done in 1980, found that the public eat less than 3kg of fish per annum. Pelagic fishing represents 75% of the industry, yet only 3% is canned for human consumption. The vast majority is processed for animal feed, primarily, to feed pets. From the South African perspective to the South African Fur Seals, we find that our government only first started to count our seals in 1971, and in 1973 the Seal Protection Act became law, we further know that by the last official count in 1997, with all it’s inconsistencies, in reality only 12% of our entire South African Fur Seal population is protected. So lets assess what this Seal Protection Act has achieved after 26 years on only 12% of the existing population in South Africa.
ILLEGAL SLAUGHTER OF PROTECTED MARINE MAMMALS ALONG THE ENTIRE CAPE COASTLINE BY THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED FISHING INDUSTRY
In 1973 the Seal Protection Act No.46 of 1973 came into being, it’s primary AIM, the PROTECTION of Seals. This ACT reveals 5 important points
1. It is a criminal offence to pursue or shoot at or willfully disturb, kill or capture A seal.
2. Make regulations prohibiting or regulating the taking on board, without lawful Reason, on any fishing boat of any firearm or any instrument or substance with which seals may be killed, disturbed or frightened away.
3. Under Schedule 1, it lists and names 21 specific islands dotted around the Cape coastline, that are protected islands for Seals.
4. Any other activity requires a permit.
5. Our largest and only mainland colony, where the majority of seal culling occurred, which by the last official count in 1997 accounted for 70% of the SA seal population, it strangely is omitted from the Seal Protection Act and is on private Land.
Strangely, the clubbing/culling of these protected Seals at this only mainland colony was only stopped in 1990, 17 years after this ACT became law. In the 1980’s a Japanese Consortium had already constructed a factory at Kleinsee, to process seals, however public opinion has seemed to have caused this factory to remain in-operational, it can still be seen to this day, how De Beers Has allowed a factory to be built on it’s private land to process protected seals is beyond me, and only they and the government can answer.
In 1978, 5 years after the Seal Protection Act, The Minister of Economic Affairs granted a private concession for the culling of Seals on Seal Island in False Bay, a protected island colony, but was later revoked after there were threats to sue the Minister for Cruelty to Animals.
Since 1971, Marine and Coastal Management (MCM) has been undertaking regular pup counts on these islands, the last count recorded in 1997, a period of 26 years. Pups numbers are multiplied by 4, to obtain official population figures. But soon after the mass deaths of 250 000 in 1994, and the preceding years that following, the formula and model used by the scientists at MCM, for estimating population numbers suddenely failed, and now the rule of thumb rule that has been used for over 26 years, was suddenely dropped and a figure of 5 was conveniently used, a sure way artifically to substantially increase declining numbers. In 1994, Professor Patti Wickens of UCT, was commissioned by the UN, MCM, WWF amongst others to investigate the interaction between seals and fisherman, deaths of seals and costs to the industry. There have been many others 1959, 1979,1985, 1987, 1989, 1992, all contain studies involving operational interactions between seals and fisheries in South Africa. Her findings released in a report in 1994, the latest concluded;
1. Estimated loss of fish to seals, was negligible at 0.3% to the entire industry Or value of R69 728-00 per year.
2. Seal MORTALITY by the Fishing Industry was also negligible at (0.4-0.6%)
Or
(i) 2524 to 3636 Drowned by the trawl Sector per year.
(ii) 312 to 567 Deliberately Killed after being caught in a trawl net and brought aboard.
3. There was 63 949 commercial trawl nets laid each year.
Dr Jeremy David, Specialist scientist at MCM and currently head of Marine Mammals at MCM has made the following statements;
1. Seals conspicuousness may have lead to their role as predators as being Over-emphasized. Unseen predators, such as piscivorous fish (e.g. snoek),Are thought to have a far greater impact on prey resources than seals.
2. Over 52% of the seal’s diet in Namibia is non-commercial bearded goby fish.
3. Scientific findings have shown that seals may even increase fish stocks, such as hake.
On assessment by Seal Alert SA, the scenario presented by various authorities appears to be far worse;
On examination of these official figures for pup numbers, and comparisons made between the first count in 1971 and the last count in 1997, reveal some startling Findings.
1. Seal pups are only found on 9 out of 21 islands.
2. 13 islands have remained extinct in 26 years of protection.
3. 6 of these remaining 9 islands, have shown a collective decline of 62% over the past 26 years. (One colony by as much as 91.7%)
4. When comparing the last official count1997 to 1996, there was a 19% decline on ALL 9 remaining offshore islands.
To prove what a complete failure this Seal Protection Act has been for the past 26 years, consider the following, from 1900 to 1970, pups numbers grew from 3000 to 36 000, during this period there was no government control or protection, seals and pups were slaughtered and harvested without quota, yet when the government took over control and management pup numbers have in fact declined, from 1971 to 1997, pups decline from 36 000 to 35 000. It cannot be said that seals during the past reached optimum numbers as only 9 out of 21 islands has been colonized. In the last 100 years over 3 million seals have been needlessly slaughtered. The result of these above assessments, is that on average 33 742 pups have been collectively born on these 9 offshore islands, officially each year, for the past 26 years. This would indicate that a total of 877 292 pups were born collectively. Officially it has been stated that their natural mortality in the wild is 32% and therefore 596 558 pups would have survived and in turn grown, and a percentage into breeding females, with the resultant increase in pups numbers each year and accumulating over 26 years. There has been no officially declared natural disaster Involving mass pup or seal deaths over the 26 years in South Africa. This number of approximately 600 000 seal pups appear to have vanished (killed). This contradicts sharply with the stated maximum deaths of 4203 seals per annum, or in total 109278 over a 26 year period. Roughly 5.5 times greater than the number of seals officially killed and acknowledged. This in turn would appear to indicate that around 92 protected seals or pups are killed each day along the Cape coastline.
In summation, should 5.5 times the official number be illegally killed by the fishing industry each year or 22 944. This would indicate that besides the 32% naturally mortality, that an additional 67.9% is illegally killed, therefore clearly 99.9% of these pups being killed is not sustainable. Bearing in mind, it is irrelevant whether this number represents pups or females. There would be zero growth, in other words this species is on the road to extinction, and according to official pup numbers, by 19% per year, as per last count. Considering, there are over 15 000 registered fisherman, 3000 registered commercial fishing vessels, who undertake roughly 700 000 voyages each year, and the trawler sector alone laying 64 000 trawl nets in South Africa alone, this represents a massive threat to only 33 000 breeding females, or 1 178 breeding bulls, considering standard industry attitude and actions of continuing to kill as many seals as possible, and the governments clear intention to protect this highly subsidized industry.. To place this whole assessment into perspective, I quote from a letter dated 25-03-1911. It is addressed to the Department of the Interior by the Provincial Secretary of Cape Town, it reads “A party of about 30 members of Parliament have arranged to go on a steamer sailing ship to Saldanha Bay, and they are anxious to have a little sport shooting amongst the porpoises and seals along the way”. Bearing in mind that seals had been all but wiped out in the centuries proceeding, and whose numbers were less than 10 000 remaining from millions, when this letter by leaders of our country was written. In continuance of this, for over 400 years, all sections of the commercial and semi-commercial fishing industry continue to kill seals. Firearms are standardly taken abroad each trip, some boats are even designed to facilitate a seal-shooting platform, it would prove to be exceedingly difficult to find a vessel and crew, who does not kill seals regularly.
The ski-boat snoek fisherman, which number in the hundreds, if not thousands are notorious in this regard, killing as many as 6 seals per trip per boat. Public records even exist recently of seals being shot from MCM controlled harbour walls. It is common for over 300 snoek ski-boat’s to leave from one harbour, with 6 crew on board each boat, that is 1800 armed killers, out at sea on one day killing seals, the authorities failing to intervene. Firearm and handguns are loaded in full view, prior to launching. Of major concern, is that Professor Patti Wickens, in her extensive report failed to even mention or identify, the number of seals shot each year in South Africa by the Commercial fisheries, her report only dealing with the trawl industry, itself a major killer of seal shootings, long-line, poleling and hand-line are all other forms of commercial fishing where seals are extensively illegally shot and killed. Firearm shootings, is without doubt the number one cause of Seal Mortality in South Africa. Seals are killed in a number of ways by the fishing industry, drowned in nets, hauled abroad and then beaten with iron pipes until dead, shot with hand-guns and shot guns, clubbed with wooden batons, gaffed with steel hooks, and whilst gaffed a knife is used to slit open their stomachs, stabbed whilst swimming past, forcibly ridden over at high speed, feed fish with hooks inside, sucked into the prop-wash of propellers and the latest, 2 meter stainless spikes are thrown through the seals are they approach the net. Often seals are lured towards the boat, before the killing starts. These above incidents are not isolated, but common and in practice every day, amongst almost every fisherman. Of additional concern, is in this report is that during an observation abroad the MCM Fisheries Research Vessel mv Africana, during a pelagic research trawl with independent observers on-board, on one day, in only a 11 minute net trawl drag, 28 seals were drowned. Considering commercial trawls are much longer in time trawled and 64 000 trawls are laid, it is understandable that there is massive concern. The State Vetenarian as well as the Public Protectors office has been involved in a number of incidents where seals were killed by gunshots. One incident involved over 26 seals shot, including newborn pups with umbrical cords still attached. The concern of Seal Alert SA, Seashepherd International, Wildlife Action Group and International Fund for Animal Welfare is that the Government appears to be turning a blind eye to these illegal activities, failing to prosecute, offering rewards for killed tagged seals, requesting that the head and fins be kept and failure to put in place regulations already defined in the Act and basically claiming no problem actually exists. These kills are termed incidental kills, with MCM offering rewards of R200.00 per dead tagged seal, no questions asked. Strangely no reward is offered if a tagged seal is washed up dead on the seashore. MCM have tagged over 75 000 pups to date. Should these illegal practices continue, according to assessments of official figures, these illegal killings are not only unsustainable, but could in fact lead to the extinction of this specie from our South African waters, within the very near future. In reality, we have only on average 33 000 breeding females left on our offshore islands, that is about 3 500 per island. It is these remaining breeding females that appear to interact most with the commercial fishing industry, as pups appear to forage inshore, and bulls further offshore. It is the midshore zone, where this conflict is greatest. With the death of one breeding female, resulting in the probable death of the unweaned pup, and the death of the un-born pup inside as well. This illegal shooting/clubbing or stabbing, resulting in 3 seals dying is clearly unsustainable practice. Of greatest concern, is the unavailability of official numbers for bull breeding seals, it is claimed that bulls have breeding harems of 2 to 60 females, with the average of 28. In South Africa, 33 000 pups are born on average, this would then indicate that there are only 1 178 breeding bulls left on these 9 offshore islands, this means that there is only 130 breeding bulls per island. In a recent wildlife program on 50/50 SABC, Mike Meyer of MCM admitted shooting over 153 bulls In only 3 years, on an island that is protected, has been extinct and which has not been re-colonized in 26 years of government protection.
In 1999, I became aware that although these seals were protected, a number was coming ashore or beaching themselves from a variety of causes, the central cause was starvation, and secondary was illness, disease, human induced injured and pollution entanglement. It was clearly apparent that no facility existed to treat these protected seals. I question why, all of the so-called conservation and welfare bodies, already in existence had failed to address this, complete lack of seal conservation. The standard practice, was to call out the SPCA if the seal was still alive, who would then remove it, kill it and dump it on a municipal dumpsite, no records were kept. The SPCA operated criminally illegally and without a permit. Should the seal be already dead, the City of Cape Town, would call out their refuse removal unit and this protected seal would be dumped on a dumpsite. In 2000, the State Veterinary facility in Stellenbosch, confirmed that prior to my involvement, they had never autopsied a seal before. Additionally for some unexplained reason, most of the 13 fishing harbours controlled by MCM in South Africa, have a population of large adult bulls. These bulls appear to live off the fish and offal discharged into the harbour by the fishing industry, additional these harbours contain vast amounts of pollution, this pollution is in the form of plastic box strapping, fishing lines and nylon ropes, entangle themselves around these mostly bull seals neck’s which severely injure themselves, officially it has been found that 97% of the seals within these harbours are males. Of concern, is that such seals have been reported to have been entangled 26 times and over 800 have been dis-entangled in one harbour alone to date. MCM only undertakes destrapping at one harbour the Waterfront, and refuses to permit or make funds available for any other destrapping to be carried out at any of the other 12 fishing harbours. So in 1999, in my private capacity, I applied for South Africa 1st Seal Rescue Permit, after some time the Chief Director of Sea Fisheries replied in writing, I quote “In terms of the Seal Protection Act it would not be legal to set up a seal rehabilitation centre in South Africa, and I am unwilling to approve such an initiative at this present time.” In the 2 years that followed, I brought out and sponsorship an Internationally respected Seal Rehabilitation expert from Holland, who publicly assessed our situation and confirmed that our seals are in desperate need of rehabilitation. Later I was arrested 3 times, charged both by MCM, SAPS and by SPCA. I was intimated, harassed, publicly defamed and concerted efforts were made to have my vessel removed from MCM controlled fishing harbour. In August 2000, I called in Seashepherd International, they assessed the situation and on the 01-11-2000, Seashepherd wrote a letter to Minister Valli Moosa, requesting permission to set-up and fund all Seal Rescue requirements in South Africa, numerous meeting were held, and after receiving no positive response after 3 months, withdrew their offer. Finally in November 2000, I called in the Public Protectors office, after a 8 month investigation the following occurred;
1. On the 30-08-2001, The Public Protectors Office tabled over 30 questions on my behalf over the state of seals in South Africa.
2. On the 31-08-2001, The Public Protectors office, made an INTERIM RECOMMENDATION.
3. On the 31-08-2001, The SPCA sent the Public Protector a response.
4. On the 28-09-2001, The Public Protector Office sent an official COMPLAINT: SEAL WELFARE to the Minister.
5. On the 23-11-2001, The SPCA’s attorney responded demanding a retraction.
6. On the 30-11-2001, The Public Protectors Office, responded and refused to retract.
7. On the 18-12-2001, The Public Protectors Office, confirmed details of a meeting in a letter
PERMIT APPLICATION : URGENT INTERIM MEASURES
8. On the 21-05-2002, The Public Protectors Office, sent the Minister a second urgent
Reminder, a REQUEST FOR CONCILIATION ITO NEMA.
To date, neither the Public Protectors Office, nor I has received any written response to any of the letters, reports or findings of the Public Protector.
This saga continues, with the SPCA in all likelyhood responsible for infecting our wild population of ‘so-called’ protected seals with distemper virus, a deadly disease, causing mass deaths. Cape Nature Conservation, an arm of Local Government, illegally and unlawfully beating off pregnant females of certain islands, so that these seals are forced to give birth in the water, where their new-born pups drown, on the pretence of sea-bird conservation, totally ignoring that these islands were originally seal colonies, their presence, never mind their activities is unlawful on the islands under the act. Sanncob’s role in treating wild-sea birds without protocols, having been forced to close down 3 times in the past 30 years for uncontrollable disease outbreaks, by the state vetinary authorities and in all probability, could have infected the entire wild population of sea-birds with various diseases including malaria for over 30 years, and are in all likelihood responsible for the decline in sea-bird numbers experiencing to-day. MCM role in shooting breeding bull seals at various islands in their hundreds to prevent re-colonization, claiming seals preying on sea-birds, yet years later is still trying to obtain funding from various NGO’s to substantiate, these already adopted management practices, when two years ago the world’s largest animal welfare org. turned them down, citing their research is biased. Finally, the huge disparity, the culling colonies have seen growths of 400%, after 30 000 to 75 000 pups were killed per year, when offshore protected islands, experienced negative declines, could it be that all seal official pup counts are false? Finally, is it possible that these unnaturally high increases in pup numbers on only these new mainland colonies, such as 400% after culling, have in fact reversed the entire eco-environment. Had these seals not been exploited and forced onto mainlands to produce unnaturally high pup numbers for increased harvesting, and had instead been left alone, to increase fish stocks and maintain the dominate specie role, there numbers would be far less today, with alpha bulls controlling their own growth and species. I say this as these mainland colonies have only existed for 50 years and today over 75% of the pups are now born there, that man might have ‘shot himself in the foot’, in that instead of reducing numbers, he has actually artificially increased numbers substantially, but in so doing has interfered in nature. Whereby healthy, strong genes have been replaced with weak genes. These weak genes may have a secondary implication, that being the non-survivability in the wild, as indicated by the frequent mass deaths being reported, as well as this expanding weak population becoming more and more dependant on finding unnatural and easier sources of food, in other words, the complete opposite the fishing industry was hoping to achieve, in that, seals will increasing descend upon fish fleets and nets, in order to survive, as they are of weakened genes. The forced human intervention, has a third negative factor, the removal and decline off the offshore islands by seals, has allowed the next dominate species to grow unnaturally in very high numbers, such as that witnessed on Dassen Island, where millions of penguins took hold, after the unsustainable exploitation of penguins eggs, these too declined, and the next dominate species increased, the duiker. Where today the Namibian authorities, are considering ways of reducing the duiker numbers of millions, who are alleged to be having a severe impact on reduced fish stocks. With today, our offshore environment representing a totally unbalanced Exploded population, who in the coming years, will suffer severely. As increased public participation increases, so too will the awareness and need be publicly driven, to rescue and rehabilitate all these millions of weakened gene marine animals.
Finally, the Public Protector has requested the Minister of Environment and Tourism to urgently convene a panel made up of experts to look into the whole aspect of seal welfare and conservation, together with an urgent fact-finding session.
For the Seals
Francois Hugo – Seal Alert SA

Back Home