2002 Seal Forum

Table of Contents

1. Background
2. Opening Remarks
3. Use of Control Rules and Reference Points
4. Harp Seals
5. Hooded Seals
6. Grey Seals
7. Blueback Seals
8. Seal Exclusion Zones
9. Participants
10. Comments received after the Forum

1. Background

The 2002 Seal Forum was held in St. John's, Newfoundland on November 14 and 15, 2002. The purpose of the Forum was to consult with Canadian stakeholders and interest groups on the development of a new multi-year seal management plan for Atlantic Canada and Quebec, based on the report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management.

Representatives from the following stakeholder groups participated in the Forum:

• The sealing industry in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec;
• The fishing industry in the region and the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council;
• First Nations and Aboriginal groups from the region;
• Provincial governments from the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec;
• Conservation groups and animal welfare groups, regional and national;
• Community associations; and
• Academia.

Nearly 200 Canadian organizations were invited to attend the forum and/or to make written submissions related to the multi-year plan. Each invited organization was entitled to send one delegate and up to two additional observers.

At the Forum, delegates heard presentations from various experts, including Dr. Ian McLaren on the management scenarios, Dr. Mike Hammill on the science behind the precautionary model, Ken Jones on the Blueback issue, and Dr. Dan Lane on Seal Exclusion Zones.

Delegates were assigned to one of four smaller mixed-stakeholder groups for much of the first day. One of these four groups worked in French, the others in English. Facilitators were assigned to each group to encourage full and respectful participation by all stakeholder representatives. The same series of questions related to the following six topics were considered by all groups:

• Control Rules and Reference Points
• Harp Seals
• Hooded Seals
• Grey Seals
• Seal Exclusion Zones
• Blueback Seals

The morning of Day Two, a printed summation of discussions on five of the six topics was distributed to all Forum attendees. As well, preliminary results from the 13 completed surveys related to "seal exclusion zones" were reported on.

After each topic was presented, everyone attending the plenary was allowed a few minutes to write their reactions on a comment card. These were collected and form part of this report as well, under the heading "Comments from the Plenary."

Over the course of the Forum, various viewpoints were offered regarding aspects of the design and planning of the event. These included:

• Interest in having the background documents earlier than they were received;
• Concern about the proposed stakeholder categories, and how they were grouped;
• Structure of the smaller sessions using flipcharts (some approved, some did not);
• Concern about the complexity and number of questions; and
• Recognition that this Forum provided a good opportunity to learn from the scientists.

These comments will serve to improve on the process for the next Forum.

In the remainder of this document, we attempt to summarize the proceedings of the Forum, capturing agreement where it presented itself, as well as the differences that were evident. To the extent possible, stakeholder group preferences related to the proposed "precautionary approach" to managing the seal fishery are indicated. The intention is to offer maximum opportunity for the Minister to understand the various perspectives represented at the Forum.

Back to top

2. Opening Remarks

• David Bevan, Director General, Resource Management,
  Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa

David Bevan welcomed participants to St. John's and to the Forum on behalf of DFO. A summary of his remarks follows:

The purpose of the 2002 Seal Forum is to consult with Canadian stakeholders and interest groups on the development of a new multi-year seal management plan for Atlantic Canada and Quebec, based on the report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management. The Forum will address the three seal species for which there is a commercial harvest on the East Coast of Canada: harp, hooded and grey.

In terms of consultations, I want to stress that the department is not seeking any decision or consensus out of this Forum. Rather, we are collecting the views of a range of Canadian stakeholders and interest groups on possible management strategies. These views will be considered in the development of a new multi-year seal management strategy for 2003 and will be presented to the Minister when he makes his final decision.

We have invited about 200 Canadian organizations to attend the forum or send in written submissions. These include First Nations and Aboriginal groups, sealing and fishing industry representatives, conservation and animal welfare groups, academics, community associations and provincial governments. Seeing the wide range of people here at the Forum, I am sure that you will take full advantage of this opportunity to get to know each other and to exchange ideas.

To assure that all views are presented as fairly as possible, independent facilitators will conduct the forum and produce a final report. The report will set out the views of all attendees, as well as those received in writing.

The Forum is specifically intended to examine the management strategies put forward by the Eminent Panel on Seal Management. I am especially pleased that the Chair of the Panel, Dr. Ian McLaren, is here. Dr. McLaren has graciously agreed to give a presentation on the management strategies.

The Forum will also be looking at control rules and reference points for decisions in any management strategy. The reference points and control rules were developed by a team of DFO scientists and managers and represent a significant first step towards Objective-Based Fisheries Management. These will be explained in a presentation, and DFO scientists and managers are present to clarify them in the workshops.

I would also like to point out that our intention is not to address issues that do not relate to the management of seal populations, such as harvesting practices, allocations to groups or areas, or the different public perceptions of the hunt. There will be an opportunity for an open-mike session at the end of the Forum, at which time Forum participants may choose to voice their views on such other issues.

At this time, I would like to turn things over to the facilitators, Kathleen Howard and Associates, so they can introduce themselves and explain how the Forum will work.

Back to top

3. Use of Control Rules and Reference Points

Participants in their small break-out groups were asked to individually indicate the most important "pro" and the most important "con" of the control rules and reference points precautionary model as it was presented to them. The responses have been summarized below.

Pros

• Flexible - allows flexibility in management response when herd is above Ncons;
• Responsive - identifies several possible actions to achieve results within scenarios; warning time to make decisions before it's too late;
• Permits integrated planning - for harvesters and others;
• Decision-making framework for quota-setting;
• Builds confidence in what is happening - you can know beforehand what will happen;
• Tangible, transparent targets - allows avoidance of arbitrary decisions on TAC;
• Practical management tool, accessible and transparent - e.g. links to needed data/research; requires a partnership between scientists and harvesters; allows for consideration of traditional knowledge from fishers;
• More rational approach, removes uncertainty - uses population size, health of herd to trigger increase or decrease in exploitation levels and to determine management measures;
• Provides links to possible methods of assessment.

Cons

• Insufficient funding resources;
• Rigid mutually-exclusive categories;
• Requires current data base to prevent arbitrariness, which is costly - research programs cannot support framework; this approach requires regular surveys in order to work;
• Does not take into account traditional knowledge or qualitative data;
• Too reactive;
• Deciding how to move from data rich to data poor - unknown circumstances make it very difficult to choose what scenarios and reference points to use; without a solid database on seals and groundfish, going to any reference point is arbitrary;
• Data for uncertainty needs to be incorporated
• Encourages risky behaviour
• Uses a species approach, not ecosystem- this lacks a global perspective of the whole marine resource;
• Programs are too brief and support too erratic;
• There is no optimal target population level identified;
• Difficulty with the language used in the scenarios.

Comments from Plenary

1. Linking control rules to reference points seems to make some sense when in a data rich situation. In data poor situations it makes less sense. But data poor does not necessarily mean moving into ultra conservative management (i.e. closing fisheries).
    
2. Although I agree with some of the pros, the whole procedure seems to take a simple understanding of methods of Resource Management and make it a much too complex issue for most people to understand.
    
3. Data poor situations should be changed by having more surveys to obtain information that creates a data rich situation. At this time, we can use reference points and control rules. In data poor situations reference points & control rules are very difficult to use.
    
4. Still some confusion in the terms used, some good points taken and accepted (i.e. there must be programs to educate fishers and people on the terms of reference). In other words put it in simpler form, in a way people can understand.
    
5. In an environment where groups are adversarial, one might try in the future not to foster this hostility in small groups, such as using "fisheries" vs. "conservation" approaches to management, labelling stakeholders groups (identifying them in general fostered closed-mindedness among people). As mentioned, this could have been an excellent opportunity for learning, and was in sessions where DFO staff were interactive and acted as moderators (e.g. session with Dr. Becky Sjare).
    
6. The "con" of "insufficient funding resources" (because using these control rules is research intensive) is probably a "pro". Adopting this approach to seal management would necessitate more research funding for studying seal population dynamics - more knowledge about these processes is imperative to proper management of the herd. An approach that requires politicians to put money into research is a good thing.
    
7. It was clear in our group that people had a very poor understanding of what the options represented. The responses are, as a consequence, basically meaningless. Much better would have been a session where there was in-depth explanation, questions and answers.
    
8. The Government of Canada should always have a seal fishery to help the cod come back and other species. Our communities in rural Newfoundland are hurting. Young people are leaving with control of our seal herds cut. This can help. I agree with some of the pros. When it comes to people's lives, money should not be an issue.
    
9. Reference points are OK to trigger review and sound alarm for need to take a more conservative approach. However, pre-determining the action to be taken once a reference point is reached is problematic. Up-to-date facts about a situation have to be taken into account, including such things as carrying capacity of environment and predator/prey relationship. Data poor situation calls for caution, but predator/prey issues have to be considered, and decisions taken on the best information available, even if it's less then ideal.
    
10. Multi-species interaction (e.g. seals eat cod, seals eat capelin, cod eat capelin.) The importance of work on diet, fatty acid needs to be expedited.
     
11. Con - it should be stated more clearly and explicitly that surveys and data that are kept current over time are critical to utilizing this system. Experience & past history does not indicate that this may happen due to funding and resources at DFO.
     
12. Weight of opinion at this meeting reflective of nothing more than the stacked invite list to this meeting. The fix was in well before this consultation began.
     
13. Generally, the points reflect most of the sentiments I've/we've had or perceived.
     
14. Framework to provide more confidence regarding management of decisions when stock declines.
     
15. "I did see some mother seals killed and the pup fall out on deck still alive...told me to throw it overboard and I did. It crawled up on a pan of ice. The mother was full of milk, the milk ran out on deck when the pup fell out." DFO file, 1998, sealers testimony. END THE HUNT.
     
16. Forum fails to understand that the task is controlling stakeholders, not seals.
     
17. Species-at-risk criteria (i.e. Cosewic criteria) should kick in only after the precautionary approach (PA) has failed. The PA should keep populations within reasonable biological limits.
     
18. Starting point - the questions asked should have been less of pitting one group against another. Sometimes the questions asked made one decide against conservation or fisheries but they should not be structured that way.
     
19. The hunt is about politics, not science. We intend to take our message to the people who count in this issue - the Minister of DFO and other politicians who end the seal hunt - an electoral issue.
     
20. Need much more biological/economic research.
     
21. Group 2 - We had difficulty in discussing reference points - it maybe would have been better starting with strategies based on the current stock position (which was well-determined) and then ask if reference points were relevant over a planning period (3-5 yrs).
     
22. The Canadian Sealers Association (CSA) will respond to all points and issues, in writing, within the two-week period. This response covers the seven people at our table. I will also respond regarding SIDC.
     
23. If one enforces this system and somehow 10 years passes without a count carried out, that would/may lead to a closure of the harvest even though the stock may be large enough to allow the harvest to carry on.
     
24. Because of limited resources that now exist with the Federal Government and DFO, if seal studies and stock assessments are not carried out on a regular basis, the possibility of moving to a "data poor" situation exists, which would mean that the seal harvest could be cut back or even shut down without further review.

Back to top

4. Harp Seals

Participants were asked to consider a large number of questions related to the harp seal. Each is considered separately below.

"Do you prefer the Conservation or the Fisheries Reference Points model?

• All groups agreed that labeling the approaches Fisheries vs. Conservation was problematic. This led many participants to refuse to answer the question as it was put to them.
• Operational differences between fisheries and conservation approaches were difficult to grasp. Many indicated that conservation is the guiding principle for the fisheries model as well. A "healthy balance" is what is being sought.

Do you have any suggestions for other reference points that should be used?

The four discussion groups suggested the following elements be considered in establishing reference points:

• Environmental/ Ecosystem - What's going on in other fisheries, for example food availability; carrying capacity of the environment and predator/prey relationship important considerations
• Economic viability of Fishing Industry
• Health of members of herd
• Age-class structure of the herd
• Add reference point "N-target" for seals (between N-conservation & N-max), the target level the seal population ought not to exceed

Are there more specific control rules (management measures) that you would like to see at any reference point level?

• None were proposed, although one group cautioned that "locking in" the control rules too early would constrain management action in future years.

Which Management Scenario for harps seals do you prefer and why?

There was no clear preference across the four groups, one choosing market forces, two others a scenario involving a reduction of the seal population (Scenario #5). A fourth group proposed a sixth "ecosystem" scenario, stabilizing the seal population based on the capacity of the ecosystem to sustain balance. Other individual participants chose a PBR approach, or abstained from choosing at all because of the lack of certainty about the data as we know it today.

While a few individual preferences were expressed, none of the groups chose to consider a "second choice" scenario when asked.

Which scenario(s) do you not like at all and why?

Again, while there was no consensus across the groups, status quo and PBR were referenced often in the discussions.

Are there any other management scenarios that you would like to have considered? Please describe.

• Combination scenarios (e.g. status quo and market forces)
• Create a scenario based on historical information, i.e. catch status and population. How did we get where we are?
• No common operational basis or database to have the discussion about management scenarios
• Allow a fall seal hunt in Labrador
• Sixth scenario: management aimed at attaining better ecosystem equilibrium
• Human/seal relationship approach to management
• Research Quota, Commercial Quota and Traditional Subsistence Quota

Comments from Plenary

1. More emphasis on economic viability of the industry. Alternate uses (e.g. tourism).
    
2. We did take seals before they had pups on one occasion. I did see a pup fall out on deck while the female was being pelted. This pup was alive and it was thrown overboard. End the seal hunt now.
    
3. The CSA will, again, respond in writing within the agreed time frame.
    
4. Question 9 - Human/Seal relationship. Should be removed. The species must be managed by numbers and health of the species and not by Human/Seal relationships.
    
5. Human/Seal Relationships approach to management vs. exploitation management model is a misrepresentation of the scenario proposed. Currently the emphasis is on managing the seals, not remembering sufficiently that what we can realistically hope to manage is limited to our own exploitation of seals, not the seal population itself. So what was proposed was actually a strategy explicitly focused on managing exploitation in a sustainable way, not vs. exploitation.
    
6. Human/Seal relationship approach to management is obviously a proposal of one of the seal protest groups and should not be considered by this forum. They have no interest in the advancement of the industry.
    
7. In the context of Question 7, it seems clear that there is an unwillingness to compromise, which I can understand. A part of these sessions may have been appropriately used to try and build personal relationships & trust among stakeholders...which would have resulted in more coherent and manageable responses to the questions being asked. Without understanding among stakeholders for each other's situations and passions, everyone will leave here unhappy. In the future, I would like to see more effort expended to foster positive relationships.
    
8. Quota for commerce, quota for research; no quota for traditional subsistence.
    
9. In our group there was a consensus that #4 and #5 were the preference options.
    
10. Cannot emphasize enough the allowance being given for a fall hunt in Labrador, with Ring Seals included in any format.
     
11. Does not reflect the idea that a point of reference should be "the number that the seal population should not exceed."
     
12. Management aimed at attaining better ecosystem equilibrium. There are more things to consider than just the seals.
     
13. Combination of #2 & #5. Market TAC plus non-commercial removals (subject to actual amount of TAC) to bring about herd reduction over a five-year period.
     
14. I think it's crucial that as an industry we have to find some way to reduce the harp seal population. More emphasis has to be placed on the fact that their numbers are definitely having a very negative effect on the recovery of our cod stocks.
     
15. Keep control of the harp to ensure that groundfish are given a fair chance to expand, still keeping in mind a healthy seal herd. Harp seals must be hunted to help make sure the groundfish fishery returns to a reasonable level.
     
16. If the harp seal is depleting the cod stocks there must be a hunt to help rural Newfoundland survive. It is not only cod but also other species of fish that the seal eat. Level it off.
     
17. Stress once again that the model should be market driven with a ceiling put in place by DFO. I chose fisheries model but we are very concerned about conservation. It was very difficult in the beginning to chose because we thought we were voting against conservation. It puts sealers at odds right from the start.
     
18. We must bring a balance back into our ecosystem. For this to happen we must bring the harp seal population under control in a humane way, with caution and conservation applied first.
     
19. I was present when the female hood was being pelted and the young pup fell out onto the deck. This happened eight or ten times. There were lots of comments made .... "We should never be allowed out killing them." DFO file, sealers testimony 1998 END THE HUNT.
     
20. Where is the animal welfare perspective? Given that most Canadians oppose the commercial seal hunt and most others oppose the way it's currently operating, no hunt should be a management option.
     
21. Under the current population size (i.e. management regime), there should be adequate flexibility to allow the industry to take advantage of favourable market conditions.
     
22. Should make sure emphasis is not placed on input just because it is all that was received. It appears significant information and input was lost due to problems with process or difficulty in understanding complex concepts. Or attempts by some to deliberately confuse or obstruct a logical discussion of what was on the table.
     
23. We can't manage seals - only people. Reference points good idea - didn't work for WMP. Reference points are arbitrary. Population model inadequate.
     
24. Even supposedly "well known/data rich" species like harp seals lack sufficiently detailed data for accurate or precise predictions under any scenario. Problem with underlying assumptions for all scenarios - as McLaren stated, "no clear management aim" - in other words, a head count on population level is a goal but the background question about why remains unstated.
     
25. Considérer l'instauration d'une période d'ouverture de la chasse différente pour la BCN (i.e. retarder l'ouverture de cette chasse de 2 ou 3 semaines) afin de permettre l'arrivée des « brasseurs » avant la prise complète du contingent.
     
26. Évaluer la possibilité suivante (question 4) : à partir d'un Ncible, déterminer les Ncons, Nmin et Ncritique (à discuter avec les scientifiques).

Back to top

5. Hooded Seals

Participants were asked "Would you agree that hooded seals should be considered as a 'Data Poor' situation?"

• Three of the four small groups agreed that the hooded seals ought to be considered "data poor." The fourth group felt that the current TAC ought to be considered reasonable, but that any future increase should be treated as "data poor." Three of the four groups expressed serious concern about the lack of financial resources made available in order that a population survey is conducted on this species.

Participants were asked: "In a 'Data Poor' situation would you prefer that hooded seals be managed by automatically moving to one or two reference point levels lower or would you suggest that harvest decisions be established using a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) approach?"

• Participants struggled with this question. The lack of recent population data makes it difficult to choose. Clearly, moving to a "data rich" condition is the preference. However, given the current situation, there was some inclination towards the PBR system, with certain reservations and opposing views expressed. A representative opposing view, drawn from the comments below, would argue that classifying hooded seals as data poor, thus reducing or ending the harvest of hooded seals until a new survey is carried out, would be wrong. "The herd of hoods is in good shape and should definitely be harvested...To say simply that it is data poor is wrong. If it was rephrased to say "science-data poor" but rich in fishers' data, that would be more correct."
   
• There was no clear preferred path on this question. One group agreed that it was not possible to situate hooded seals relative to a reference point, making it impossible to choose between the two options. Another group proposed consideration of a "discounted PBR" option, while a third proposed moving one reference point lower. One group proposed that, if the human and financial resources required to assess this population were not forthcoming from DFO, that responsibility for such an assessment be delegated to the provincial governments.

Participants were asked, "Do you have any suggestions for other reference points that should be used?

• Three groups did not reply to the question. A fourth proposed consideration of age structure.

And finally, participants were asked, "Are there more specific control rules (management measures) that you would like to see at any reference point level?"

• None of the groups responded to this question.

Comments from Plenary

1. In a data poor situation, it would obviously be difficult to make any management decisions. So, rather than answer questions that were posed, we should somehow request/release federal government funds to learn more about the behaviour and biology (population dynamics) of the Hooded seals. This will allow us to make informed management decisions, otherwise we will be unsure of the impact of harvest scenarios. In addition, it is unbelievable with the ongoing controversy - that these animals are still classified as "data poor."
    
2. Harvest hoods when they reach the beater stage. Two weeks after whelping. Apply same management and harvest principle as are used in the harvesting of harp seals.
    
3. Due to the fact Hooded and Harp Seals whelp the same time, we should harvest the (Blue Back) the same dates we harvest the Harps when they become beaters. There should be a blue back hunt for the same reason we have a harp seal hunt.
    
4. No need to have meetings or put out information on the poor data that is put forth. Too many changes can take place in this time period.
    
5. Traditional knowledge has to be considered in a situation where scientific data is not available. It seems to me very unlikely that Hood numbers have diminished in the past 13 years.
    
6. Do the survey, deal with the blueback issue and make it clear to sealers and the public, the implications on the population and on the socio-economic impacts. Welcome the public and NGOs to participate/observe the controlled, humane hunt according to the regulations developed with the help of the industry and other stakeholders.
    
7. Re: Question 12. Don't you mean "other" Reference Points that should be used? If so (P 21 in Info Kit), PBR is not an extra one; it was proposed initially.
    
8. Funding needs to be secured to carry out appropriate population surveys and make "data poor" situations "data rich". This seems obvious - certainly it must be to DFO scientists. It seems as if this topic of hooded seals was raised to support Science's "application" for funding from their political masters to conduct research that is obviously necessary.
    
9. Cannot understand why DFO would need to ask a lay audience if they are in a data-poor situation with respect to Hooded Seals. It leads one to suspect that to some extent this exercise is designed by micro-managers to obtain evidence to support or not, the funding of basic services at DFO. It seems obvious that the situation for Hoods is data poor so why ask?
    
10. All evidence suggests Hooded Seal population has increased since the last survey. Therefore there is no rationale to reduce quota; however, if any new management measures are to be introduced, a survey should be completed.
     
11. I think that it is dangerous to begin classifying the level of harvesting allowed according to the lack of information. The classifying of hooded seals as data poor would mean that the harvest of hooded seals should stop until a new survey is carried out. The herd of hoods is in good shape and should definitely be harvested.
     
12. Q.10: To say simply that it is data poor is wrong. If it was rephrased to say science data poor but rich in fishers' data, that would be more correct.
     
13. All Reference Points on the Hooded Seal should be held over until an in-depth survey is completed. This survey must occur in short order.
     
14. Shouldn't let "data poor" situation be excuse for allowing herd to go unchecked. Eminent Panel reports recent Northern Cod consumption by Hoods as a staggering 98,000 mt, more than 3 times the total 2J3KL cod index fishery of the past 5 years. While the database is less than ideal, the best available information is consistent with maintaining at least current TAC (10,000). Issue of young hoods (bluebacks) is separate from TAC issue. Scientific info at workshop indicated from biological viewpoint, it's better to harvest young animals than mature adults.
     
15. There is no clear answer as to the size of the Herd, but I feel it has grown much too large, therefore would recommend a legal hunt of the valuable blue back, with conservation being factored in.
     
16. [There should be] a hunt as if there was an increase in population since the last data report, that is with an increase in TAC.
     
17. Once again we need a survey to determine how many hoods we have in the population. Hoods eat 3 times as much cod as harps, therefore we need some form of hunt. It is better to eliminate young hoods (bluebacks) than older hoods. We cannot kill the mature (breeding) population. After the baby is weaned from mother, sealers should have an opportunity to harvest some young hoods. In order for us to have a sustainable groundfish fishery, we need to have an expanded hood hunt.
     
18. Accept Control Rules. Make sure a hood hunt is conducted because they are large consumers of any groundfish. There must be a hooded seal hunt. Make info data rich. Government money needed.
     
19. We should have a by-catch of 10% within the present TAC of 10,000 for 2003.
     
20. Not enough emphasis placed on the fact that according to background paper, Hooded seals destroy 3 times more cod than harps. Therefore, we need to start to find a way to control these herds, e.g. blueback hunt within the proper time when young hoods are prime.
     
21. DFO file 1998 Sealer's testimony. STOP THE HUNT! "During the 2nd trip we left 15 or 20 pups alone after taking the family. There were mistakes made by killing pregnant female hoods, this happened approximately 6 times but they never came on deck. I am an experienced sealer and I knew they were pregnant. We were not saving the meat so the pup went overboard with the carcass."
     
22. The fact that you denied the Animal Protection Institute attendance at this conference, indicates your lack of interest in diverse opinions.
     
23. Definition of, and distinction between, data rich and data poor completely arbitrary. PBR, or some similarly precautionary method, should be applied to all species.
     
24. Again - CSA will respond in writing in the agreed time frame.
     
25. Do a survey. Cooperation with Greenland. Same goes for harp seals. It didn't even come up in the discussion yesterday!!
     
26. "Data-rich" / "data-poor" is most dangerously applied to this species.
     
27. Political Vulnerability - There are a minimum of 24 Liberal seats across Canada that are "vulnerable" - where an electoral campaign could defeat the Liberal candidates. Arrogance is not a good political tool.
     
28. We have to find a way to take a quota of these seals.

Back to top

6. Grey Seals

Participants were asked "Would you agree with Grey seals being classified as 'Data Poor', but could be readily re-classed as 'Data Rich' with a new survey?"

• One group chose not to respond to the question, as they were not impacted by the Grey seal harvest. The other three groups were all supportive of this population being classified as "data poor." The Francophone group, whose fishers and sealers are more significantly impacted by this species, urged that an assessment of the population be made a priority, given the important interaction between Grey seals and groundfish stocks.
   
• Participants were further asked, "In a 'Data Poor' situation would you prefer that Grey seals be managed by automatically moving to one or two reference point levels lower than they would have been based on the results of the 1997 surveys, or would you suggest that harvest decisions would be established using a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) approach?"
   
• Only the Francophone group provided a formal reply, recommending moving one reference point lower, given the uncertainties of the data. However, they stressed the importance of not blocking consideration of pilot projects on utilization of this species if such projects are put forward.

Comments from Plenary

1. We should hunt grey seals due to the fact this herd impedes on the rebuilding of the cod stocks in the southern Gulf. We must hunt this herd for this reason if for nothing else.
    
2. Data is not good enough to make data rich - kill more grey seals, reduce them in numbers.
    
3. Being from the gulf, we need a survey to determine how many grey seals are in the population. We need a cull (exclusion zone) for grey seals in Bay St. George. Our cod stocks are still in a declining mode and we need to protect these stocks to save our communities in the Gulf.
    
4. The population appears to be on the increase and are also showing up where they were never known. Thus a new predator in town, the population must be lowered.
    
5. They definitely need to be reduced. They are having a major impact on the catches of herring and other species in my area.
    
6. There should be a pilot project. Find a market and hunt the grey seals as they have a great impact on cod stocks.
    
7. Need to conduct a small pilot harvest to test markets for grey seals. Extraordinarily large numbers of grey seals.
    
8. This conversation highlighted some concerns with using TK over science. Observed – in harps, hoods = population explosion. Observed in greys = obviously they are just changing their distribution - not really decreasing. Need more science.
    
9. The whole concept of data rich/data poor is poorly defined and understood even by DFO scientists in certain cases. Input on what is felt as data rich/data poor is suspect, i.e. how many are aware of what data exists for grey seals and how it relates to a truly data rich situation - i.e. Harp seals?
    
10. As an observer, I travelled between 2 different groups for the "grey seal" question - there was some discrepancy in the scientific information that was tossed around in the different rooms. In one group, Dr. McLaren suggested that direct grey seal impact on cod was considered minimal (< 0.4% of their diet). In another room there was an overwhelming feeling among delegates that grey seals were having a large direct impact on the cod. Such discrepancies need to be clarified.
     
11. If so "data poor," how can the estimate of 33% decrease be so exact. I may agree with the 33% if it was in writing as an increase, and this is from personal observation over 37 years of fishing in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence.
     
12. Arguably, not data poor - given the fact that there has been no exploitation of these stocks in the Gulf and on the Scotia Shelf, then we must be nearing carrying capacity - by evidence of any and all observations. Develop a reduction strategy on greys as a first priority - examine all market opportunities and encourage work on product development.
     
13. Dear Mr. Minister: Remember a general election is coming & you won by only 703 votes. A decrease from the previous election.
     
14. Remember Mr. Minister: There are three by-elections coming: Moncton Riverview, Ottawa Centre, Perth Middlesex. There is always an opportunity to hold governments accountable for their animal protection and environmental record.
     
15. No comment on Grey Seals, they are not prevalent in my area.
     
16. In areas like the Gulf where grey seals are a problem, perceived or otherwise, scientific work must begin immediately on cod consumption. Urgent.
     
17. Grey seals were essentially extinct in Canada as recently as the late 1940's. When you're recovering from a population of zero, of course the population is growing. The question is, have we learned a damn thing in the last 50 years?
     
18. "After the females were pelted and pups fell out onto the deck the pups were thrown over the side. I did see a couple move around in the water behind the boat. We watched a seal that came out of the old one on deck try to get up on a pan of ice. It did not get up to my knowledge." DFO File, 1998, Sealers testimony. END THE HUNT.
     
19. As stated on other items, the CSA will respond in writing within the time frame.
     
20. Important discussions took place in workshop 4 concerning management of the grey seal. Unfortunately, the summary of the workshops does not report the substance of discussions on this species. Please make the necessary corrections and additions.
     
21. The grey seal poses a serious problem for Quebec groundfish fishers. This was the topic of much discussion in workshop 4.
     
22. The seal poses the greatest problem as a predator of cod, and a detailed study of this predator is called for. We therefore recommend a systematic slaughter of the grey seal.
     
23. We feel that short-term direction is lacking when it comes to dealing with the grey seal. At our workshop, we suggested that a TAC be set somewhere between scenario 3 and 4 when information is lacking. Emphasize research and the establishment of exclusion zones.
     
24. The grey seal is a species that is extremely important for goundfish fishers. Most of the discussions at our workshop are not reported in the proceedings. We cannot disregard what was said in workshop 4 because a few groups are not interested in the grey seal. Given its importance to groundfish, it is unbelievable that the Department does not have more data.
     

Back to top

7. Blueback Seals

A number of questions were put to the four groups about bluebacks. The questions can be summed up as follows: "Do you agree or disagree that a Blueback hunt could be allowed, provided a new population survey was done and shows sustainability?"

The question of opening a hunt was discussed with full recognition that this can be a very emotional, divisive and potentially inflammatory topic. This was raised in all groups, and some discussion of the consequences of any decision to move forward on such a hunt occurred whenever the issue came on the table. It was clear that animal welfare stakeholder groups will not ignore such an activity. They emphatically stated their position that there should not be a hunt and that they would vigorously oppose it.

Most participants agreed that the hooded seal ought to be considered a "data poor" species, and that a population assessment ought to be undertaken without delay. Notwithstanding the considerable emotion stirred by this, most stakeholders agreed that the extended protection for Bluebacks ought to be lifted, provided:

• a population survey confirmed anecdotal evidence of the state of the herd that would sustain such a hunt, and
• the hunt is properly managed through establishment of opening dates that ensure animals are weaned and rules are clear about whelping patch entry.

If an assessment of the hooded seal population is not able to be completed soon, there was some call for consideration of establishing a Blueback TAC within a PBR reference point scheme.

A variety of viewpoints on this position were reflected in the comment card responses below.

Comments from Plenary

1. It is quite apparent to me that although we have a diversification of views on agreeing with implementing a precautionary approach management strategy on the various species of seals referred to, we also are debating with some animal rights participants attending (individuals who don't support any hunt whatsoever). I don't consider such a debate appropriate.
    
2. As in all other CSA answers today, we will respond in agreed time frame.
    
3. Nobody's going to buy the government's Orwellian re-definition of baby hooded seals.
    
4. The respective positions are entrenched. For purposes of self-interest, DFO and the industry should test this one for backlash, nationally and internationally.
    
5. DFO has had a much better record at managing stakeholders then seals.
    
6. Mr. Minister: 3rd Parties with electoral experience can shift 4,000 votes in any given riding - considerably more than the 703 victory in West Nova.
    
7. Animal welfare comments should be removed, as "no hunt" is not an issue at this time. At this point in time, we should be managing a healthy stock by having an annual harvest if a responsible size.
    
8. A harvest of bluebacks should definitely be allowed, at least to the level of the current TAC, until a new survey is carried out.
    
9. My perspective was not included, which was support in theory for the proposed hunt, but in practice to hold off until the industry was more responsibly conducted. For example, as long as the industry is party to blaming seals for eating fish and contributing to a climate of intolerance towards seals, they should not be given new and increased opportunities to kill seals as the likelihood of minimizing inappropriate behaviour from a preventive perspective has not been dealt with.
    
10. This is not a scientific (biological) issue. How can you make this decision based on the recommendations of the EPP (which had only science in its talk) and this group (which is industry-dominated)?
     
11. It should be mentioned that a risk benefit analysis regarding organized opposition from animal rights groups should be conducted prior to any decision to reopen a blueback hunt. (Even with the mitigation measures proposed to avoid young pups, PR would be critical.)
     
12. The protection should be lifted and there should be a TAC based on the fact that the herd should have increased since the last survey setting the TAC for a number of years.
     
13. Good comments for the most part. However, because of the agenda of the animal welfare groups, their position has to be completely ignored. If not, we will never be able to develop this industry.
     
14. The agenda of animal welfare is a "no hunt" of all seals, therefore, their input should be ignored. We cannot destroy one species to save another.
     
15. The position of the IFAW should not be considered. No matter what you do they are going to play hardball. Let's look ahead. "Long may your big jib draw."
     
16. We should definitely have a blue back hunt provided there is a new survey completed. Blue backs or young hoods consume an extreme amount of cod. Once they are weaned from the mother, there should be a hunt for blue backs.
     
17. Don't wait for new survey - change rule now. Better to harvest young then mature adults. Information we have: 1. Latest Arial survey (dated), 2. Catch has been well below TAC every year since. 3. Anecdotal evidence of abundance. 4. Impact of hoods on Northern cod as per Eminent Panel.
     
18. Ignore the animal rights groups; continue with hunt at present TAC 10,000; make data rich.
     
19. By all means, we should have hunt in 2003. With the present TAC of 10,000.
     
20. Relevant to Northern Labrador, a blueback hunt is most favourable. Bluebacks in this region are generally one year old. An exception to the current protection should be administered.
     
21. I do not have a problem with reducing the age of harvest. But I think we need to understand the relationship (behaviour) between the mother & pup because we don't want to disrupt this interaction in a negative way, possibly resulting in an alteration in population dynamics. Therefore, I would recommend a bit more behavioural research into this interaction, prior to making this decision.
     
22. The concerns raised in one group that there must be more consideration of the logistics of performing a blueback hunt - i.e., what are rules around whelping patch entry, etc. - did not make the PowerPoint summary. Also, there was no mention of the comment made by several delegates in one room that they are concerned about the possible political/public "backlash" that could occur if the blueback hunt restriction was lifted.
     
23. END THE HUNT! "Almost all these seals especially after March 8, 1998 had the pups with them on the ice. The trend was that if there was no pup, these animals took to water. Prior to March 8, 1998 most females were killed with the pup inside them. I seen seven pups thrown over the side after the female was pelted. I took two out myself. There was once I can remember the young seal watching his parents being hoisted aboard. He watched the boat as we steamed away." DFO file, 1998, sealers testimony.

Back to top

8. Seal Exclusion Zones

Ten questions were asked in pencil-and- paper survey format. From the small number (13) of surveys completed in time for consideration at the forum, a summary of responses follows. One of the survey respondents indicated strong disagreement on the proposal for such zones to be established.

Question 1: How do we decide if seal exclusion zones are needed?

With two exceptions, respondents called for there to be a basis of evidence from which such a decision would be taken, demonstrating the need for such an action. Such evidence would be both anecdotal and scientific. One respondent made the point that this should happen, "only if it can be established that statistically significant benefits can be obtained. One respondent was against the concept.

Responses:

• Prove that seal herds are interfering with those stocks
• Yes. So would concerned people around the world if you ever tried to sell this unsaleable concept.
• This requires scientific evidence and industry observation and confirmation of seals inflicting high mortality on specific aggregations of fish at key periods of fish life cycles (e.g. spawning, juvenile rearing)
• By study to determine if there would be efficiency related to any activities within such a zone.
• Through information gathered directly from fishers and sealers. Also from organizations directly involved from the hunt.
• Good scientific evidence of a threatened cod stock in a specific area.
• In certain, very limited contexts (e.g. Smith Sound), a highly regulated hunt might be justified but ongoing observation and adherence to whatever regs are established must be part of it. For example, if seals are killed only to be repeatedly replaced by others. The herd could be decimated.
• If there is evidence of vulnerable species particularly in key spawning and nursery areas.
• Evidence of local impacts by seals over short and long-time sealers, habitual or repeated use by individual seals, important local impacts (e.g. Large fish concentrations), measurability of exclusion actions.
• Seal exclusion zones are definitely needed. But because of the detrimental effects seals are having on all cod stocks province wide it may be more beneficial to have an immediate reduction in all seal herds.
• Only if it can be established that statistically significant benefits can be obtained.
• Through science information on the different groundfish species.

Question 2: Do you have concerns about the benefits and costs of seal exclusion zones?

All but one expressed concerns in this regard. The exception simply stated, "government should pay." Concerns ranged from who should pay, to safety, ensuring a humane approach, ensuring something meaningful comes from it, proper selection of sites, etc.

Responses:

• Yes, I do. Also, how the kill or hunt will take place.
• Yes. So would concerned people around the world if you ever tried to sell this unsaleable concept.
• Concerns - the overall impact of benefits may be difficult to measure, but will require scientific study.
• Benefits - immediate protection of well-defined local areas where cod are known to suffer high predation by seals.
• Yes. Will there be benefits and at what cost. Dependent on specific location.
• No. Government should pay.
• Yes. Full utilization of the animals. Utilize most effective and humane methods of harvest.
• Outside of Smith Sound, few locations are practicable. Also, nets are and should be illegal. Guns are out in some cases.
• I have great concern about the cost of not doing it.
• Yes. Scientific rigor / measurement of effectiveness, practicability, cruelty (Nets, wounding of animals shot in water.)
• Yes
• The benefits will out weigh the costs. What will the costs be if our groundfish stocks are depleted completely.

Question 3: If seal exclusion zones are established, how should decisions be made on the establishment and continuation of any zone?

Most respondents suggested such decisions be made on the basis of consultations (fishers, sealers, scientists, provincial governments and industry), on historical data, and/or scientific data on effectiveness.

Responses:

• Made in consultations and meetings with sealers.
• They should not be established. The backlash would be huge if they are.
• Industry observation and scientific confirmation of same.
• Through consultation with local fishers and appropriate scientists. Control, monitoring and review would be critical throughout any pilot project.
• With use of historical data gathered over the times/years the zone is in
• Scientific data
• There is a concern that the zones will be used to destroy the seal population, on the futile hope that this measure will restore a viable cod stock.
• Consultation between DFO, Industry, Province, Public, etc. Committees could be set up on this purpose on a regional basis.
• Measured effectiveness based on a prior criteria established (e.g. mitigation of predation impact).
• On the basis of experimental results. Experiments should be conducted to determine if predicted results could be obtained.
• By science doing surveys on the health of groundfish stocks.

Question 4: If anywhere, where would you favour the establishment of seal exclusion zones, i.e. fiord-like areas, inshore, offshore, or specific areas where cod over-winter or spawn? Please specify any area where you believe there should be such a zone. Please also indicate if you are concerned about the creation of any zone in areas near communities, etc.

Most respondents (8 of 12) proposed fjord-like areas where such an effort was operationally most feasible. Smith Sound was most often mentioned as a candidate area for consideration.

Responses:

• Smith Sound and Pinsents Arm near Williams Harbour in Labrador.
• Species cleansing zones should not be established.
• Smith Sound - Fjord during spawning aggregations for cod
• Placentia Bay
• Bird Island, Sydney Bight, Cape Breton, juvenile area
• Bonavista and Trinity Bays
• Areas to be identified in 4TVn (e.g. Miscou), 3Pn4RS
• St. Georges Bay
• Would have to be specific situation with some control over parameters, i.e. fjord-like, enclosed. Significant biomass of fish, probability of success, etc.
• In any place where there is a cod spawn/winter area or a known concentration of cod.
• Wherever it is most feasible, practical and effective. Public perception is a concern. Easy access by residents also a concern.
• Smith Sound, only as a pilot project/test case.
• Fjord-like areas, inshore areas, areas where cod overwinter or spawn all warrant designation for seal exclusion zone.
• It is absolutely critical that Smith Sound be designated.
• Care should be taken, regarding use of firearms near communities. Other options (e.g. nets) should be considered.
• As panel report stated, only fjord-like areas seem practical.
• Small, restricted areas where the zone can be closely monitored and the results unequivocal.
• Offshore - St. Pierre Bank 3Ps (over winter)
• Inshore - Bay St. George 4RS3Pn
• Fjord-like - Smith Sound 2J3KL

Question 5: If established, during what period or season should a seal exclusion zone be in effect?

Not surprising, the responses were very location-specific, and thus wide-ranging.

Responses:

• Early and late fall.
• Species - cleansing zones should not be established.
• During spawning aggregations and peak spawning periods.
• When the most damage and monitoring is being inflicted on the fish, and seals are most abundant.
• All year.
• Whenever the cod is in the area.
• When predation occurs.
• Not when females are in late pregnancy.
• Should be in effect anytime it is felt by industry that the presence of seals are having an effect on the presence of cod in that area.
• Winter season where cod over-winter; spring season in 4R3PN.

Question 6: If established, who should be allowed to hunt seals within a seal exclusion zone - a specially trained team or licensed professional seal hunters?

Once again, no consensus emerged on which of these two groups ought to hunt within the zone. One voice said that the idea "was not practical to implement."

Question 7: Given that DFO has no current funding for any seal exclusion zone program, do you have any ideas on how any new seal exclusion program could be financed?

Many had no response on this question. Four indicated government ought to pay. One person proposed self-financing.

Responses:

• Species - cleansing zones should not be established.
• Funding is required - instead of funding through marine mammal envelopes, then try fisheries envelopes and oceans management funding.
• IFAW contribution or DFO should fund or subsidize. Any monies from seals could be contributed to project.
• Gov't should pay.
• No idea other than lobby for increase in science budget.
• Self-financing by marketing products. Make it part of the TAC (shared revenue)
• Spend some of our surplus, the federal government proposes to have.

Question 8: Should there be a limit or quota on the number of seals hunted within a seal exclusion area and should those seals be sold to processors or just collected for diet research?

There was no suggestion of a limit in these zones, with the exception of the respondent who disagreed with the zones completely.

Responses:

• Yes, sold to processors.
• Both - as per market opportunities, no limit on seals "hunted" or otherwise excluded (e.g. acoustics)
• Used to fund project by selling. Limits or quota should be high enough to be effective or to measure any possible effects of exclusion.
• Should not reduce TAC. There should be no limit or quota in an effort to maintain an exclusion zone. Seals should be utilized by both the industry and research.
• Full utilization of the animals. How would the zone be considered exclusive if there were a quota/limit on harvest?
• The situation must be monitored to prevent undesirable results (pilot project)
• No limit as long as threat to fish stocks exists. Seals could be sold to processors if shortfall exists in market requirements - otherwise, collected for research
• For ethical and scientific reasons, the carcasses should be fully used.
• Collected for diet research

Question 9: The Marine Mammal Regulations limit hunting methods to the use of clubs, hakapiks and firearms with minimum requirements as prescribed in those regulations. Do you believe that any other humane-harvesting method should be looked at for use in any seal exclusion zone? If so, which method?

There was general agreement that, whatever the method, it must be humane. One respondent felt there was no humane method. Nets and acoustic devices were also identified for consideration.

Responses:

• May be driven from area
• There is no humane method
• All humane harvesting methods should be explored whenever harvesting is carried out.
• Yes and possibly not be limited to lethal methods. Perhaps acoustics or barrier.
• Remain as is
• Yes has to be humane. Depending on proximity to communities; methods of other firearms. Nets?
• No
• Nets, in areas close to communities.
• Only firearms seem practicable??? And humane enough

Question 10: How should DFO assess the effectiveness and impacts of any seal exclusion zone?

Most respondents suggested monitoring a well-designed experiment. Several felt that there was no practical way of assessing effectiveness of such an effort.

Responses:

• Information from the hunters
• There is no practical way
• Through scientific monitoring, control and performance evaluation and additional information from seal research.
• Based on the design and implementation of the experiment
• Constant Monitoring / Research programs
• Long term planning, monitoring implementation. Perhaps approach as pilot project for one specific area; Smith Sound?
• Without a longitudinal analysis and much better seal and groundfish data than currently available, it is hard to imagine how results (other than seals killed) can be measured.
• Observations of Fisheries Officers and scientists consultations with industry and interested groups
• As in Q1,2, the purpose would have to be stated in terms of biological consequences for the groundfish being depredated. This establishes scientific hypotheses and would lead to operational criteria to be assessed for testing those hypotheses.
• Continue to give the Science Branch more funding to carry out further study on the recovery, if any, of cod stocks, i.e. tagging programs, etc.
• Through science surveys telling us the groundfish stocks are improving.

Comments from Plenary

1. While this may sound like a good idea to many, the administration and practicality is a difficult process. However, I feel this is worth doing through government funding but it must be maintained for a lengthy period in order to be able to provide sufficient data to further this process, maybe as long as 8 to 10 years.
    
2. It would be interesting to do a test case, but finding a control and an experimental situation. Based on ecosystem - based on diet models, other predators take out much more cod (e.g. adult cod) than seals. How do we deal with this? It appears that we are targeting an obvious visible predator. Saying this, it would be an interesting attempt. Not limiting the numbers killed, however, is scary because with the level of negative emotions directed at seals - we could end up in a very serious "cull" situation, and ultimately in the eradication of seals.
    
3. This is a very contentious, emotionally and politically charged issue. It is my impression that there is no overwhelming data to support the creation of such seal exclusion zones. The FRCC seems to have charged ahead with this idea in the face of lack of data or scientific support. Much more consideration of these seal exclusion zones needs to be given. If they are to be implemented - probably largely for political and not scientific reasons - there should be consideration given to using only non-lethal exclusion methods.
    
4. Species-cleansing zones: Unnecessary, not operationally feasible, totally contrary to the Canadian public's expectations.
    
5. CSA will complete one as an organization and forward it to Grace Mellano.
    
6. Products from seals removed from exclusion zones should not be allowed to enter the marketplace. This could have a very adverse affect on the market for seal products.
    
7. We're recommending that the Liberal TAC be increased.
    
8. Seal exclusion zones are, in fact, fishermen anger management programs - perhaps some truthfulness in this process would be useful
    
9. Let's have a sealer exclusion zone. "I seen a female pelted and the pup came out of her when they cut her open. The pup was dead. This seal was killed for a while. This was on the day we got one hundred and seventy. Someone passed the comment 'if only Greenpeace were here to see this'." DFO file, 1998, Sealer's testimony. END THE BLOODY HUNT!
    
10. We're going to establish Liberal exclusion zones.
     
11. Need research on means of driving seals away, which could be more practical than killing the seals.
     
12. General Comment: I agree with seal exclusion zones. Especially at a time when the survival of key commercial species such as cod are at risk. (However - subject to appropriate responsible criteria).
     
13. Areas such as Smith Sound, concentrations of cod must be protected. As an experiment it should be tried for its effectiveness.
     
14. Should be done right away.
     
15. Zones are one of a series of management alternatives that should be used.
     
16. Need to proceed. Develop a pilot project in consultation with scientists, fish managers, sealing industry, and communities close to proposed zones.
     
17. Seal exclusion zones should be looked at as a means to protect vulnerable fish aggregations, not as a means to reduce seal herds.
     
18. "He had to know that the 22-calibre guns were being used.... I don't think that the 22-calibre rifle is powerful enough to kill even a beater seal. I often seen seals alive after we hoist the seals out of the speed boats." DFO file, 1998, Sealer's testimony. END THE HUNT!
     
19. I strongly support a seal exclusion zone. It has been greatly debated that seals destroy cod in and around Smith Sound. Therefore, to protect our groundfish resource we need exclusion zones for seals.
     
20. Make sure the proposed action and suggestions are carried out to its fullest. Do it in the right manner.
     
21. There should be an exclusion zone as an experiment and paid for by government.
     
22. Anywhere that numbers of seals are found to be feeding on concentrations of cod or herring in the small bays and inlets in Nfld., these seals should be hunted at the time regardless of the time of year. Sometimes these seals may be driven from an area by just firing shots in the area.
     
23. Smith Sound - according to SSR, most of remaining 2J3KL cod overwinter in Smith Sound. Absolutely must be protected. At most, a tiny, tiny % of seal herd would be harvested to protect this vital area. Other areas should be considered as well, as required.
     
24. Something has to be done to reduce the number of seals. This is one idea of many. I like it.
     
25. This is very important to the cod stocks in our area with no question this should happen and the fishers in the area should be the hunters to take the seals with the help of government people, etc. and to monitor the area is important as well. Good idea.
     
26. Yes, we need exclusion zones, but how do we keep the seals out. Being a professional sealer for many years, I fail to see the suggested methods working. However there may be ways, we must try.

Back to top

9. Participants

Group # 1
Marc Allard Makivik Corporation 1111, Dr. Frederik Philips 3ième étage Ville Saint-Laurent, Québec H4M 2X6	Glen Best Fogo Island Co-operative Society Ltd. P.O. Box 70, Seldom Fogo Island, NL A0G 3Z0
Will Cornick Gulf >35 Representative Canadian Sealers Association P.O. Box 306 Port aux Choix, NL A0K 4C0	Martin Duchesne Atlantic Marine Products P.O. Box 39 Catalina, NL A0C 1J0
Frank Flynn Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 130 Forteau Labrador South, NL A0K 2P0	Frank Hennessey PEI Groundfishers Association Box 543 Souris, Prince Edward Island C0A 2B0
Don Ivany Atlantic Salmon Federation for Newfoundland and Labrador c/o Sir Wilfred Grenfell College Box 2000 Corner Brook, NL A2H 6P9	Kelvin Letto Labrador Straits Development Corporation P.O. Box 69 Forteau, NL A0K 2P0
Earle McCurdy FFAW-CAW P.O. Box 10, Cormack Building 2 Steers Cove St. John's, NL A1C 5H5	Dr. Ted Miller Biology Department Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador St. John's, NL A1B 3X9
Larry Nicholl Rural Rights & Boat Owners Association Nfld & Labrador General Delivery Cupids, NL A0A 2B0	Hedley Richards FFAW-CAW P.O. Box 10, Cormack Building 2 Steers Cove St. John's, NL A1C 5H5
Robert Van Tongerloo Canadian Federation of Humane Societies 30 Concourse Gate, Suite 102 Nepean, Ontario K2E 7V7	Keith Watts Labrador Inuit Association P.O. Box 70 Nain, NL A0P 1P0
Fred Woodman Fisheries Resource Conservation Council 344 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6	Karl Sullivan The Barry Group 139 Water Street, 8th Floor St. John's, NL A1C 1B2
Irving Roberts Fruits de mer St-Paul C.P. 69 St-Paul's river, Québec G0G 2P0
Resource Staff: Frank Ring - DFO Moncton Larry Yetman - DFO St. John's Dr. Becky Sjare - DFO Science, St. John's Suki Starnes - KHA facilitator

Group # 2
Eldred Woodford Canadian Sealers Association Southern Area Representative PO Box 192 Ochre Pit Cove, NL A0A 3E0	Nigel Welsh Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. P.O. Box 839, Station "B" Happy Valley, NL A0P 1E0
Tina Fagan Seal Industry Development Council P.O. Box 8005 St. John's, NL A1B 3M7	Hedley Butler Fish, Food and Allied Workers (FFAW-CAW) Gulf Small Boats Representative P.O. Box 10, Cormack Building 2 Steers Cove St. John's, NL A1C 5H5
Loomis Way Fish, Food and Allied Workers (FFAW-CAW) Gulf Small Boats Representative P.O. Box 10, Cormack Building 2 Steers Cove St. John's, NL A1C 5H5	Dr. Daniel Lane Fisheries Resource Conservation Council 344 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6
Gordon Cooper Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation 67 Commonwealth Ave Mount Pearl, NL A1N 1W7	Tom Best Eastern Avalon/Southern Shore <35' Vessels Fish Harvesters Association P.O. Box 160 Petty Harbour, NL A0A 3H0
Janet Russell The Alder Institute Tors Cove, NL A0A 4A0	Jerome Ward Minister's Regional Office Suite 801-10 Fort William Place St. John's, NL A1C 1K4
Clary Reardon Marine Fisheries Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture & Fisheries P.O. Box 2223 Halifax, NS B3J 3C4	Ross Hinks Miawpukek First Nation P.O. Box 10 Conne River Reserve, NL A0H 1J0
Richard J. Smith International Fund for Animal Welfare Canada Suite 1100, 1 Nicholas Street Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7
Resource Staff: Ken Jones - DFO Ottawa Dr. Garry Stenson - DFO Science, St. John's Caron George - KHA facilitator

Group # 3
Mark Small Chairman 3K South Shrimp Committee Wild Cove, NL A0K 5T0	Guy Perry FFAW-CAW P.O. Box 396 Port au Choix, NL A0K 4C0
Keith Smith Canadian Sealers Association P.O. Box 723 St. Anthony, NL A0K 4S0	Dwight Spence Fish, Food and Allied Workers (FFAW-CAW) Gulf Longliners Representative P.O. Box 10, Cormack Building 2 Steers Cove St. John's, NL A1C 5H5
Don Steele Canadian Nature Federation c/o Rita Anderson Department of Psychology Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's, NL A1B 3X9	Gerald Burton Emerald Zone Corporation P.O. Box 1427, 155 Little Bay Road Springdale, NL A0J 1T0
Kirby Brown Labrador Representative Canadian Sealers Association P.O. Box 38 St. Lewis, NL A0K 4W0	Tom Dooley Newfoundland Department of Fisheries & Aquaculture Box 8700 St. John's, NL A1B 4J6
Adla Itorcheak Qikiqtaaluk Corporation P.O. Box 1228 Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0	Catherine Moores Atlantic Marine Products P.O. Box 39 Catalina, NL A0C 1J0
Patrick McGuinness Fisheries Council of Canada 38 Antares Drive, Suite 110 Ottawa, Ontario K2E 7V2	Knut A. Nygaard Carino Company Limited P.O. Box 6146 St. John's, NL A1C 5X8
Resource Staff: Dr. Ian McLaren - Chair, Seal Panel Patrice Simon - DFO Science, Ottawa Grace Mellano - DFO, Ottawa Cheryl Phillips - KHA facilitator

Group # 4 (Francophone)
Paul Nadeau Association des pêcheurs de la Basse côte-nord C.P. 140 La Tabatière, Québec G0G 1T0	Marcel Cormier Fédération des pêcheurs semi-hauturiers du Québec 735 rue Principale, CP 1088 Cap-aux-Meules Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Québec G0B 1B0
Dario Lemelin MAPAQ 200, chemin Sainte-Foy, 12e étage Québec, Québec G1R 4X6	Paul Boudreau Madelipêche CP 877 Cap-aux-Meules, Québec GOB 1B0
Paul Lamoureux Table filière du loup marin 333 chemin des patriots sud Mont St-Hilaire, Québec J3H 3G5	Bernard Guimont Les Produits du Loup Marin Ta Ma Su Inc. 1500 rue des Tanneurs Québec, Québec G1N 4S8
Robert Langlois AQIP Pêcheries Rivière-au-Renard Inc. 153, boul. Renard Est Rivière-au-Renard, Québec G4X 5K9	Guy Leroux CLD Basse-Côte-Nord Centre local de développement C.P. 250 1163 boul. Dr. Camille Marcoux Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, Québec G0G 1W0
Resource Staff: Dr. Mike Hammill - DFO, Mont-Joli Isabelle Morency - MPO, Blanc Sablon Roger Simon - DFO, Magdalen Islands Patrick Flanagan - KHA facilitator

Back to top

10. Comments received after the Forum

• * Comments received after the Forum (PDF Format)

---

* If this document is not accessible to you, Grace.Mellano@dfo-mpo.gc.ca for alternate formats.

To access the Portable Document Format (PDF) version you must have a PDF reader installed. If you do not already have such a reader, there are numerous PDF readers available for free download or for purchase on the Internet. See our help page for a list.