Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change 16 Posted 15 hours, 30 minutes ago
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors? 6 Posted 10 hours, 21 minutes ago
Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations 0 Posted 14 hours, 1 minute ago
By a Whisker
Sea lions all set to gobble their last salmon supper at a Northwest dam have been granted a stay of execution by a U.S. appeals court. Judges granted an injunction, requested by the Humane Society, that a lower court had denied last week. It's only a partial victory for the Humane Society, however, as the court did OK the transfer of the whiskery rascals to zoos and aquariums; state officials planned to nab and relocate eight sea lions on Thursday.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
EU pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Threaded
caniscandida Posted 7:45 pm
24 Apr 2008
Presumably this decision will be red meat for the historic right-wing foes of the Ninth CCA, who are working for it to be dismembered and/or crushed.
And then, from another direction, one might predict that animal-rightsist extremists may complicate things further, by arguing that the sea lions would be better off dead, than be imprisoned in aquariums ...
Permalink
javaearth Posted 12:44 am
25 Apr 2008
Which ever zoo/aquariums takes them would know about the public attention on the sea lions and therefore would be more committed to taking care of the sea lions and the other animals too.
I really do love the Humane Society. In the last few years they seemed to have made good progress. - Especially in the legal department.
All my birthday present and Christmas presents will be checks made out to the Humane Society. I am proud of them!
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:07 am
25 Apr 2008
Sea lions consumed at least 4 percent of returning spring chinook salmon last year, according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. One California sea lion usually eats about seven salmon a day. By comparison, sport, commercial and tribal fishing harvested 14 percent of last year's run on the upper Columbia River.
So, the issue of legal concern is, that the sea lions are depleting an endagered species, and must be stopped? If that were the legal argument, it seems a no-brainer to stop issuing fishing licenses (or limit the fishing take to 10%, thereby compensating for the sea lion's 4% take).
This truly makes no sense to me; no one owns these salmon, correct? I mean, it's not like a rancher shooting wolves that are attacking his livestock: I don't agree with that approach either, but I can understand the rationale behind it (in the rancher's mind) when said struggling rancher is faced with protecting his investment.
I don't see how this could have any legal standing. If a bald eagle wandered into my backyard, and started eating the wild strawberries (which I love, and which are very scarce, but I have no "investment" in propagating, they simply come up every year), I could sue to shoot it? It's simply crazy.
Can anyone explain to me what legal footing this suit has?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:08 am
25 Apr 2008
Kaela,
what you write makes perfect sense. And actually, the reality seems worse than that the sea lions take 4% of the salmon: there is apparently a bit of uncertainty in estimating just how many salmon they take; 4.4% is the high figure, but in fact they might easily be taking far fewer.
Permalink