Whales, Oil and Politics

[The_Squid]

Look at the other posts, do some research. You may come to a different opinion.

humback whales definitely have much healthier populations these days.

[Wilber]

And that's okay, because it's easier to shop one product to market than many

As long as it is easy it must be OK. No point in doing something useful with our resources, at least not ones headed west.

[waldo]

humback whales definitely have much healthier populations these days.

not particularly in regards BC coastal waters. Per the Harper Conservative's own 2013 'Recovery Strategy for (North Pacific) Humpback Whales' report:

- as estimated, today, when present, there are 2145 humpback whales off the BC coast as compared to 4000 in the year 1905.

[bleeding heart]

smallc, as you have long been a cautious poster, not given to flights of illogic--and servility to Power--I find your two-step here a little baffling:

You say that the notion of changing the status of protected whales for wholly politicized reasons to be "conjecture" (which it is); but you then state, categorically in fact, that the Government's decisions are transparently what they claim...until proven otherwise.

Why don't you understand that this is every bit as "conjectural" as that which you decry? I mean there is no difference at all...except that the view with which you disagree is critical of Power, while yours is reflexively defensive about the honour of Power.

There is zero reason--zero--to take any government claims at face value; and if the claims and actions coincide with a much-publicized and controversial set of policy initiatives, there is every reason for suspicion.

I don't mean this from a partisan stance (unlike your unbridled nodding along, which is partisan, given that you see the Party as "the only adults in the room,"...incidentally, a formulaic conservative response, from Northern Europe to South America, and a residue of the Cold War); I mean it as a bedrock principle of democratic citizenship.

Hell, if the default is to "trust the government," there is no good reason for a Parliamentary democracy at all; our system of government, much like many of our closest allies, is built in large part on the cherished and crucial belief that we cannot trust people in power. That's not an unfortunate side effect; it's a pillar of why we do it this way.

We seem to forget that, and to instead think that we should trust them...unless "proof" is offered otherwise.

Fine for a court of law--morally and intellectually insane otherwise.

So, again: why are the criticisms "conjecture"...whereas the support (with similarly zero evidence to defend said support) the sober and rational stance?

[waldo]

further to the prior post reference to the Harper Conservative's 'Recovery Strategy for (North Pacific) Humpback Whales' report... released in October 2013:

- that report was only created due to a 2012 lawsuit related to the failure of the Harper Conservative government to provide a recovery strategy/report for the humpback whale; a report required to be delivered within 5 years of the Humpback whales threatened species designation... Harper Conservatives had ignored the requirement and the report was 3 years past due. The Humpback whale was not the only species recognized within the lawsuit brought before the Federal Court; there were also another ~170 threatened species that the Harper Conservative government failed to provide respective recovery strategy/reports for. As I'm aware, as of March 1, 2014, the Harper Conservative government has yet to provide recovery strategy reports for these other threatened species.

- the result of the lawsuit was a Feb 2014 Federal Court finding that ruled the Harper Conservative government was breaking the law and was very critical of the government’s delay.

- and in terms of the "political timing" focus being discussed, in line with that report, this past week was the deadline requirement, coincident with the Recovery Strategy report release, for Harper Conservatives to have legal requirements in place for the protection of the Humpback whales designated feeding grounds. Why do that, why bother with that... when it's clearly easier to simply downgrade/change their status!

Edited April 24, 2014 by waldo

[Smallc]

Bleedingheart, it's like this. We know why the whales would lose their protected status level generally. It would be because they are no longer threatened. Evidence to that is in fact provided in this very thread. If you're going to say that there is any other reason, then you're going to need to provide proof. Until then, the established normal reason is not conjecture, but the established norm.

[Bob Macadoo]

Bleedingheart, it's like this. We know why the whales would lose their protected status level generally. It would be because they are no longer threatened. Evidence to that is in fact provided in this very thread. If you're going to say that there is any other reason, then you're going to need to provide proof. Until then, the established normal reason is not conjecture, but the established norm.

You've already heard its not the established Norm, its been fast tracked. Not unlike closure on debates to bills and a multitude of other gov't shenanigans that have been for ulterior motives.

[Smallc]

I've heard that but seen no proof of it that I'm aware. Nothing I'm reading says that. What I'm reading says that the US is very close to doing the same thing.

[bleeding heart]

The "established normal reason" is in fact bland claims uttered by the government and its supporters...in the realm of actual knowledge on the subject, the idea as it is being floated is in fact hotly contested....you know this, but have decided that those agreeing with the government must be, by some magical default, "correct."

[Smallc]

The population is increasing. That's indisputable.

[bleeding heart]

Probably why no one is disputing it...including those who believe they could be in serious danger in future, thanks to the alleged reason they are downgrading the threat at a speed which goes against the standard measures.

Just to clarify, I'm not making the claim that it's definitely the wrong way to go.

You're the one who is positive....based on faith in sincerity and openness of a government....one not particularly famous for openness, at that.

[Smallc]

I'm not positive it's the right way to go, but it does seem like a logical step.

[guyser]

Good thing both of those things are fiction.

Wonderful !

Now we have the balance of " the left caught lying"

The right is lying.

Yay!

[WestCoastRunner]

To be clear here, the humpback whales moved from "threatened” to “special concern.” Special concern means: "the population is still not back to where it would have been before it was harvested [by commercial whaling], and also there are still threats, there are ship strikes and they get caught in nets,”

These whales concentrate in the Douglas Channel, which is on the tanker route to Kitimat where the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline would terminate, and around the southern tip of Vancouver Island, which will see increased tanker traffic if Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion project goes ahead.

Since they are no longer 'threatened' but of only 'special concern', the federal government no longer has to come up with a recovery strategy for the species – because it is no longer classified as “likely to become endangered if nothing is done” – and that means the government doesn’t have to protect the critical whale habitat found on potential oil tanker routes. The whales will not have any safe and secure place to live, or to feed and raise their young.

Sounds like a pretty good reason for Harper to change their status.

[Smallc]

So, should a species never be removed from the threatened list? Ever?

[WestCoastRunner]

So, should a species never be removed from the threatened list? Ever?

Um, no.

[Smallc]

What if his species no longer meets that definition them, as several groups seem to suggest?

[WestCoastRunner]

What if his species no longer meets that definition them, as several groups seem to suggest?

What definition do you speak of?

[Smallc]

The population is growing and has been for some time now. Threatened species don't grow.

[WestCoastRunner]

The population is growing and has been for some time now. Threatened species don't grow.

I'm not going to repeat what I have said in earlier posts.

[Smallc]

I doubt it would be any more convincing.

[Vancouver King]

In what can only be described as a warm-up to the inevitable main event, Vancouver now cleans up oil spilled in English Bay and off it's beaches. This fuel bunker oil discharge is only the tiniest down payment of an inevitable tanker spill. This, of course, is in the context of Stephen Harper's gutting of west coast Coast Guard local resouces - resulting in a 15 hour delay before the city of Vancouver was notified of the spill by the Feds.

Kinder Morgans pipeline will result in a 400% increase in tanker traffic and risk. And what are BC Conservative MPs reaction? "Don't make politics of this situation". Seems even BC Tories cannot resist the allure of Big Oil, Alberta edition.

[Smallc]

This, of course, is in the context of Stephen Harper's gutting of west coast Coast Guard local resouces

No such thing has happened.

[Vancouver King]

and how would you describe the closure of Kitsilano's Coast Guard headquarters - Vancouver's only coast guard facility. Did you see the dry docked surface skimmer on CTV last night? - mothballed due to Harper's recent layoffs.

Of course with a prime minister in the pocket of BIg Oil it is logical BC,s environment should be sacrificed to Alberta's desire to export tar sands sludge.

[Smallc]

and how would you describe the closure of Kitsilano's Coast Guard headquarters - Vancouver's only coast guard facility. Did you see the dry docked surface skimmer on CTV last night? - mothballed due to Harper's recent layoffs.

That base was a small SAR base. The resources from it were consolidated to the larger Sea Island base, only 5.6km further away.

Of course with a prime minister in the pocket of BIg Oil it is logical BC,s environment should be sacrificed to Alberta's desire to export tar sands sludge.

Zero evidence of that - zero.