Seems my orginal post on whales has resulted in considerable discussion on the ethics of observing whale and other wildlife. Admittedly I often find myself within the 100 yard limit with whales and sealions. I paddle out to the general area and wait and to be honest, hope for a close look. However I observe the following personal ethics in watching wildlife. I do not aggressively pursue wildlife. (the whales in silver bay pop up at random places so trying to chase them would be fruitless anyway.) On a couple of occasions I could have paddled into the midst of a pod or even gotten close enough to touch one...I wisely avoided the temptation. I stay away from mothers and young (i.e. seals and their pups on ice bergs) I watch the animal behavior for signs that my presence is causing stress. (whale for instance will slap their tails on the water) even though I was recently ask to take a bunch of college students out with me to see whales I said not because too many kayaks I beleve could stress the whales Some may find fault with what I and melissa as we paddle amid whales but an interesting encounter between a whale and a kayaker happened he in Sitka a couple years ago that is a story of a kayaker coming to the aid of a whale in trouble. a local kayaker was out for a day paddle when he spotted a young humpback whale and something didn't look right. he paddled over for a closer look and discovered that tangled around the tail of the whale was a rope. the rope turned out to be from a commercial crab pot with both the bouy and the crab pot still attached. the young whale was trying to drag this through the water. the kayaker alerted fish and game via his VHF. (another good reason to carry a radio) The whale appeared extremely tired so fish and game was able to get close enough to cut the buoy and pot free. However when last seen some of the line was still wrapped around the whale's tail. Happy paddling Bob Sitka *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Rev. Bob wrote: >>Seems my orginal post on whales has resulted in considerable discussion on the ethics of observing whale and other wildlife.<< Though there have been subsequent posts regarding this, I would like to go off on a slightly more philosophical tangent for a moment, and Rev. Bob's words here provide a nice put-in spot... While it is certainly true that we humans represent the greatest danger to just about all other forms of life on this planet - bacterial, plant, animal, ourselves and each other, etc. - I also believe that much of this is caused by our tendency to artificially separate ourselves from "our environment", in addition to our over zealous exploitation of "natural resources" for our own convenience. Instead of dealing with the more direct cause of destruction to "our environment" (including "wildlife"), which might cause us a bit of inconvenience perhaps, we construct a veneer of "responsible rules and regulations" that, in the long run, do very little to mitigate the real problems we've created for "all that nature out there". I'm not saying that we don't need some enforcible guidelines, as obviously, many of us are just too stupid, careless, and selfish to employ common sense. Though it is as important for us to respect the lives of the non-humans as it is to respect other humans, if we really want to prevent injury and death to other species, we'd have to do much more than slap a few "responsible rules and regulations" on to our recreational activities... How many of us are ready and willing to give up our aesthetically hideous suburban sprawl that constantly encroaches on the natural habitat of creatures we end up killing because we feel threatened when they come [back] into our "neighborhoods"? Our massive factory farming, with all it's toxic waste seeping into the water table? Our dumping of toxic wastes into the sea? Our fossil fuel and all it's consequences to land, sea, and air? etc., etc... Rev. Bob's words again: >>"... the ethics of •observing• whale and other wildlife."...<< Until I remember where I parked my spaceship - or remember if I ever had one - I will consider myself to be a native creature of this planet - just like all that "wildlife" OUT THERE. Being a creature of this planet, I do feel that it's entirely possible to have perfectly "natural" interactions with another species. While I am very concerned that we "do no harm", and in addition to being careful to not cause bodily injury to our fellow creatures, I also believe in simply being polite to others - be they human or otherwise. And so... just as it would be impolite to chase after another human who didn't want to be bothered, or to pet them on the head if they didn't want us to, I offer that same respect to the "wildlife" I encounter. Of course, I now expect to hear a chorus of "anthropomorphism!" in regards to my perception that the whales I interact with might actually "enjoy" my company, and/or might even "want" me to interact with them to the extent that I do. Fine... but isn't that it's own form of anthropomorphism? To believe that you know better than I what "they" might want or not want (or need or not need?) - and to then call my perceptions anthropomorphism? The whale that comes up to me and gently nudges my elbow is not looking for food (as perhaps a bear in Yellowstone might be by approaching so close). The whale that swims alongside me for hours is not trying to avoid my "chasing" it. When I paddle along and I'm joined by eight whales and we go across the bay together, with them "playfully" swimming in intricate formations and variations around each other (more anthropomorphism?) am I really endangering their lives because they will "lose their fear of me"? I don't think so. If they approach another human, and are killed for their social behavior, it is the human who killed them who killed them - not my joyous interaction with them. It is the "scientific" and commercial whaling operations that kill them. It is the lack of food sources due to our toxic pollution of the sea that kills them. It is the blades of a propeller on a boat carelessly driven over the back of a whale in shallow water that kills them. etc., etc... ---------------- In a later post, Bruce McC wrote: >>I have no doubts that the previous posters mean no harm to the creatures that they encounter. Their passion for nature is evident. I would ask two questions. Did the creature benefit from the interaction? What would be the motivation for the contact? I see commercial tour leaders baiting monkeys on the Silver River and I see people feeding alligators everywhere, both are against the law. Are these actions for the benefit of the animal? Both actions will inevitably lead to the destruction of the animal. The monkey and alligator will both become more aggressive toward people and demand food. There is a crisis in Wilderness ethic, whether the wild be woods or whales makes no difference. We love our Wilderness to death. If the question is who will draw the lines with respect to use/abuse. The answer is the lines have been drawn.<< ---------------- As I've written just above, the whales I interact with are not looking for food - or at me as food - they are interacting with me entirely on a social level. While I entirely agree with the concept of not feeding "wildlife" our nutritionally deficient processed food - like with the bears in Yellowstone - perhaps we can look at WHY we end up killing them when they become "too comfortable" with us... They break into our cars to find food... (property damage, insurance premiums going up, scratches on the paint, etc.). "Can't have that - better kill the beast!" They become aggressive and "threaten" us for more food... "Can't have that either - better kill the beast!" So sure - on one hand, we do obviously stupid things, and as a result, we feel threatened, and then we kill. When you (Bruce) mention the concept of "use/abuse", I feel there's something missing... There is, in my opinion, something more to life than just use and abuse - the concept of living "in harmony" with one's surroundings - including with the other creatures we share this space with. An interaction between a human and another species is not necessarily an "unnatural" occurrence. And yes - I do further believe that it can be a joyous thing to be celebrated. ---------------- and later, Mark said: >>Reminds me of the debates about what kind of shoes we should use when hiking, to protect the dirt we walk on. Gimme a break. Mark<< ---------------- To completely change the subject, I'll mention a funny incident involving the mention of shoes... When Martha Graham (the dancer/choreographer) was still alive, a friend of mine was in her dance company. He had recently come here from Italy, and his English was still in the formative stages. He was having trouble with pain in his feet, and Martha asked him: "what kind of shoes do you wear?" and he replied: "Italian - aren't they supposed to be the best?" That's all for now... Melissa *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Melissa... Your comments about anthropromorphism and "feeding the bears" are from my original post. Why not credit them and reply to my comments, rather than setting up "straw men"? To be quite blunt: your behaviour (interactions with marine mammals) is illegal, whether you agree with the Marine Mammals Act or not. These animals are NOT your "friends". They are a sentient life form at best , co-existing in a human world, which specializes in destroying other life-forms as well as themselves. (I will send you a list of plants and animal extinct solely by human activity in the last 200 years if you wish) You have no more right to "pet" the whales than I have the right to touch a beautiful six year old girl. It is WRONG. It is illegal. It is sinful, it is immoral, and it is unethical. And , it harms and corrupts the intended recipient of our affection. That is one of the reasons that civil society has created laws to protect the innocent against sociopaths who believe that their "intentions" are welcomed and reciprocated by the victim. I believe that most American's have a very strong concept of what "molestation" is when it involves their own children an family. Please extend your own feelings of personal space to the rest of the animal Kingdom. Rich Dempsey ridem_at_msn.com rdempsey_at_wyoming.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Melissa Reese" <melissa_at_bonnyweeboaty.net> To: <PaddleWise_at_paddlewise.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] whales and kayaks (big snip) Of course, I now expect to hear a chorus of "anthropomorphism!" in regards to my perception that the whales I interact with might actually "enjoy" my company, and/or might even "want" me to interact with them to the extent that I do. Fine... but isn't that it's own form of anthropomorphism? To believe that you know better than I what "they" might want or not want (or need or not need?) - and to then call my perceptions anthropomorphism? The whale that comes up to me and gently nudges my elbow is not looking for food (as perhaps a bear in Yellowstone might be by approaching so close). The whale that swims alongside me for hours is not trying to avoid my "chasing" it. When I paddle along and I'm joined by eight whales and we go across the bay together, with them "playfully" swimming in intricate formations and variations around each other (more anthropomorphism?) am I really endangering their lives because they will "lose their fear of me"? I don't think so. If they approach another human, and are killed for their social behavior, it is the human who killed them who killed them - not my joyous interaction with them. " *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I expect that everyone on the list can agree that they want only the best for the whales, so let's get back to looking at how to do the best for them. Let's look at the harms of anthromorphism when weighed against the promotion of species protection brought about in part through anthromorphism. Let's look at the difference between loving and loving to death. We've seen black. We've seen white. Now let's take a closer look at the infinite shades of grey. Cheers, Richard *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Being a solipsistic type, I don't necessarily want what's best for the whales, but if you want to take a closer look at some of the different shades... http://www.hackstadt.com/features/whale/ Beware touching the whales, sometimes they can touch back! ;) KeS > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net > [mailto:owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net]On Behalf Of Richard Culpeper > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 19:45 > To: PaddleWise_at_paddlewise.net > Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] whales and kayaks > > > I expect that everyone on the list can agree that they want only the best for > the whales, so let's get back to looking at how to do the best for them. > Let's look at the harms of anthromorphism when weighed against the promotion > of species protection brought about in part through anthromorphism. Let's > look at the difference between loving and loving to death. We've seen black. > We've seen white. Now let's take a closer look at the infinite shades of > grey. > > Cheers, > Richard > *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Is bobbing about and touching whales in contravention of the Marine Mammal Protection Act? No. The statute is more about shooting or chasing, to my knowledge has never been applied against bobbers, and has not been contravened by any of the actions presented so far in this thread. The closest it comes is as follows: "(18)(A) The term ''harassment'' means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which - (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering." Bobbing and touching at the wrong time could very well contravene the act, but there is no evidence of this having been done. Even if by some convolution of plain meaning the activity presented were in contravention, I suggest that the law should not be taken as the be all and end all. This very same statute also permits the importation of polar bear trophies from Canada. Let's face it, this, and most statutes, are combinations of over-reactions and compromises, so while they generally lumber along in the right direction, they often are not as fine-tuned as one might want them to be. The statute has a couple of telling exemptions -- one for research and one for Alaskan native people. Let's generally call these exemptions educational and cultural. Well, how about making an exemption for artists and communicitors? The action presented is being done by artist who communicates what she experiences, so how about an exemption for her? Seeing as there is a relatively recent amendment to the statute to permit the harassing of a marine mammal in order to save it from some greater harm, how about an exemption permitting very minor intrustion so that ultimately the public can be brought closer to an understanding of the marine mammal through atistic communication? Great public relations for the save the whale cause. But of course it would never make it to the table or would get lost in the legislative wash. Too bad the polar bear sport throphy exmption did not get lost. So instead of arguing over what is legal or not, let's get to the heart of the matter. 1. Does repeated bobbing and touching by the same person over a period of time cause any harm to the whales being contacted? 2. Is there a benefit to the whales in an artist and a promoter of whales communing with whales and then communicating the experience to the general public? 3. Does the harm, if any, outweight the benefit, if any? Cheers, Richard *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Hi Mark: The Marine Mammals Potection Act was made in 1972, and ammended in 1988 and 1994. The definitions section to which I referred, 16 USC Sec 1362, is at http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t13t16+6504+0++16%3Acite%20w%2F3%201362 You can find all US federal statutes at http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm If you are new to finding your way through US statutes, a good tutorial can be found at Brandeis Unversity at http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/legal_studies/research/home.html It is usually difficult to find a pinpoint within the US Code unless you know what you are looking for ahead of time. Cornell University has a very handy searchable index at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ Ideally, though, a topical annotated index is usually the best place to start. For US enviromental issues, try the US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Wildlife Laws Handbook at http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/index_statute.htm If all else fails, the mother of all legal research web sites is Hieros Gamos http://www.hg.org/hgfr.html For a solid overview of the history of the MMPA and how it has been interpreted in the courts (particularly how the term "harassment" has been judicially defined), check out the report at the University of California at Davis http://ps.ucdavis.edu/classes/161-99/students/AH/statutoryevolution1.html Cases to look at include Strong v. United States -- feeding a dolphin disturbs its regular feeding pattern and makes it less likely to catch its own food; this distrbance constitutes harassment, so feeding a dolphin is illegal. Another interesting case is Tepley v. United States -- following whales with a power boat and then hopping into the water and extensively touching was originally deemed harassment, but was overturned on appeal -- what is interesting is the original trial court's non-binding obiter in recommending a distance between whales and watchers. The higher court shot down the lower court judge's strong stand by finding that the behavioural pattern was not disturbed (thus my position that bobbing and incidental touching is not a violation of the MMPA). BTW, it is worth seeing what Dr. Tepley has been doing recently to promote legislation to protect whales from low frequency active sonar. The case that really frustrates me is United States v. Hayashi, in which the Court of Appeal correctly found that no criminal penalty can be attached for negligent conduct concerning the MMPA -- in this one a fellow got off after trying to scare dolphins away from his fishing line by shoot toward them -- once again a bubba with a gun finds protection in his own stupidity. A solid decision, but one which I personally dislike. What I suggest these cases lead to is that harassment can be just about anything that causes or may cause harm, and harm includes a change in the basic behavioural pattern, but if there is no forseeable harm, then passive interaction is not prohibited. Cheers, Richard Culpeper *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:18 PDT