Just a thought from left field, intended to add a bit of color to the discussion, and not intended to be critical of any point of view expressed here so far. I'm always struck by our attitude toward the creatures that have adapted best to human habitation: rats and cockroaches. Why is it that we're disgusted by the creatures that can tolerate us best, and live in our environment so well? And is there a chance that wild animals might consider the human species to be a form of "cockroach"? Paul DeGroot http://evergo.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 10/24/00 7:31:30 AM !!!First Boot!!!, revkayak_at_ptialaska.net writes: << Seems my orginal post on whales has resulted in considerable discussion on the ethics of observing whale and other wildlife. >> snip <<However I observe the following personal ethics in watching wildlife.>> It would appear to me that you are suggesting that "ethics" are flexible. Hey, that works for me. That's what I'll teach my kids. "Well, yes son, the sign says do not remove artifacts. But, they mean other people. Not us, we are the good guys." I mean after all, if I teach them to obey the rules then the people who don't obey the rules will walk all over them. Amen, Rev Bob. Weather is cooling down here in Florida and it will soon be "Manatee Harassment Season." Thousands of people will flock to the winter "resting" areas. Each one determined to share the magic of the Manatee. Each one certain that the MMPA applies to the other somehow less deserving guy. It is easy to be ethical when ethics are tailored to fit desire. Ethics have found a place on the shelf between the Mason jar of morals and the "heat and eat" can of convictions. My brother once said, jokingly, " I don't regret anything that I've done, just the things that I got caught at." Bruce McC WEO *************************************************************************** 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 had a related experience to the concept of 'is ethics situational' and how this subject can get out of hand quickly this past year. A team of 16 or so medical people go to Belize each year and hike into the back jungles to hold clinics. During the 15 years of these trips we have always tried to be environmentally friendly, carrying out trash and being careful to leave the place as we found it or better. The first several years we also watched carefully what we all used to bathe with in the rivers (only ivory or other biodegradable soaps to protect the water). This year, some of the student nurses with us were using other soaps that we had not checked on as yet (we later checked and found that they were biodegradable) when some hiker walked up and accused the students in the presence of the leaders of using non-biodegradable soaps. It of course offended everyone that we, the pinnacle of 'greeness' could be so accused, and a pretty nasty argument ensued, both the group and th! ! ! ! ! ! ! is 'envioro nazi' (as we liked to refer to her) argued about how green each other was. After she left the area, we later found out the students were using the correct soap, but by that time it was clear how such accusations can be risen to depending on how they are framed. This 'green' protector launched into a very aggressive, mean spirited attack against the students and the group leaders which brought out the worst in all of us. Anyway, I suspect this is at the heart of why this discussion about politically correct and environmentally sensitive whale treatment triggers a good deal of response. Most of us have cut corners in this area, leaving such a discussion impacting particularly sensitive parts of our psyche and raising our defensive postures. I will admit that given the choice of getting closer to whales or not, I would have a hard time resisting, even to the point of paying fines or going to jail. It seems so incredible to be so close to such an animal. We all knew as children not to feed the animals in the zoo, but we also know how irresistable the concept is. Enjoying the discussion. Bruce McNellie Nacogdoches, Texas On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 06:59:14 Outfit3029 wrote: >In a message dated 10/24/00 7:31:30 AM !!!First Boot!!!, >revkayak_at_ptialaska.net writes: > ><< Seems my orginal post on whales has resulted in considerable discussion on >the > ethics of observing whale and other wildlife. >> >snip *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> From: "roger mcnellie" <mcnellie_at_lycos.com> > I had a related experience to the concept of 'is ethics situational' > and how this subject can get out of hand quickly this past year. <snip> > It of course offended everyone that we, the pinnacle of 'greeness' > could be so accused, and a pretty nasty argument ensued, both the > group and this 'envioro nazi' (as we liked to refer to her) argued > about how green each other was. I don't understand. Your group liked to refer to her as the "enviro nazi" because she had the same concerns about biodegradeable soap as you? Or because she and your group participated in an argument about greeness... (who was greener)? > I will admit that given the choice of getting closer to whales or not, > I would have a hard time resisting, even to the point of paying fines > or going to jail. It seems so incredible to be so close to such an animal. Do the reasons and purpose behind the fines and jail time interest you (not just the fact that there is a risk of being fined or jailed)? At any rate, I think it's possible to paddle among/near whales without breaking any laws and remaining within the guidelines. The URLs given earlier provide some pretty clear descriptions about what harassment is with regard to MMPA. The guidelines sound pretty reasonable to me for both whales and humans (though, no doubt, there are probably those that think they do not go far enough and obviously there are those that think they go too far). Jackie *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> with regard to MMPA. The guidelines sound pretty reasonable to me > for both whales and humans That looked funny when I just read it (laws for whales to abide by 8-)... what I meant was... the MMPA guidelines seem reasonable from the standpoint of the protection and safety of whales and the opportunity for humans to be responsible with regard to the marine environment while enjoying it at the same time. Jackie *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 10/24/00 1:02:40 PM !!!First Boot!!!, mcnellie_at_lycos.com writes: << Anyway, I suspect this is at the heart of why this discussion about politically correct and environmentally sensitive whale treatment triggers a good deal of response >> Fortunately, political correctness is not the law. My point was more to the "situational ethics" aspect of it. Do we obey laws only if there is a chance of getting caught? 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. If we do not agree with a law, we need to work within the system to change it or better yet get involved beforehand to shape the proposal. If laws were written to allow voluntary compliance, would they be able to serve their intended purpose? In an ideal world, maybe. In a me first world, not a chance. While backpacking at Cumberland Island, GA several years back, I witnessed a squirrel eating another hiker's food supply. When the hiker returned to his camp, I informed him as to what had happened to his food supply. His response, "I guess that's the price of paradise." We all have to give in order to get. If attempting to ensure that Wilderness will exist for my children's children means slightly restricting my use, I am willing to pay that small price. If we disagree, that is fine. I hope that you won't refer to me as an "enviro" or any other type "nazi." I use Dr. Bronner's Soap. I prefer the peppermint unless I am in stealth mode at which time Cedar scent is more desirable. Bruce McC WEO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
>The answer is the lines have >been drawn. If we do not agree with a law, we need to work within the >system >to change it or better yet get involved beforehand to shape the proposal. IMO bunk! Ethics do not derive from law; and, unfortunately, few laws really derive from ethics. It may be ethically responsible to minimize one's interactions with the natural world, but that would be true whether or not the action were legal. The only ethical response to most of the laws enforced by the current over-intrusive state is principled non-compliance, and the only moral imperative is to avoid getting caught. Having said that, I have seen no mention of any animal-related activities in the current discussion that appear unethical or violate good sense. Rick *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
It seems a broader consideration of 'situational' might be worth considering. Some people, and I would include myself, think that balancing a 'wild creature's' safety against a human's need or desire to 'experience wilderness' is already a disjunctive bit of reasoning. Clearly, paddling up close or next to a creature is NOT the moral or physical equiv. of harpooning them for commercial or recreational hunting purposes. The ramifications and consequences of ALL encroachment are not so easily separated or delineated. Habitat is not so clearly marked by 'wild creatures' as it is by property plats and civil law. Respect for a wild creature may well entail leaving it alone. I would guess that most everyone who contributes to this list considers themselves to be more aware and sensitive to the harmful consequence of human interaction with the environment, and likely more experienced in navigating these places with as little impact as possible. I'm not convinced that this qualifies us for any sort of special consideration where whales (or bears, or cougars, or snail darters) are concerned. One critical distinction is that at the end of our experience we pack up the boat and drive 'home'. It's a problem when a backpacker allows a squirrell to feast on his GORP, because GORP doesn't grow wild in the Blue Ridge. But because squirrells don't maul people as bears might, you're not likely to see "A Fed Squirrell is a Dead Squirrell" posters at the Ranger Station. Leave No Trace means just that. It's a difficult proposition and it requires an ongoing committment to learning how one's specific, individual actions and behaviors interact with the larger ecology. When we choose to label people as Nazis, or wave the bloody shirt of Politcal Correctness, we're trying to identify ourselves as being victims of some unreasonable, illogical, and hyperbolic force that we suspect is as self-serving as it is self-destructive. In the debate over the use of Native American and Indigenous Peoples names and images for commercial and sports team use/abuse, Glenn T. Morris of Colorado AIM responded to the issue of what constituted an 'honor': "People should remember that an honor isn't born when it parts the honorer's lips, it is born when it is accepted in the honoree's ear." I offer this here because I think it goes to the heart of this notion of situational ethics. Just because I'm the creature who is aware of the ethical crux, doesn't mean I'm the creature who gets to define the 'situation'. -Will Jennings *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> From: Richard Culpeper <culpeper_at_tbaytel.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. Here's one that involves a $10,000 fine: http://sun.simmons.edu/archives/vmsvax/0024.html This was the incident I referred to earlier (I saw the videotape made of the encounter). I think I mentioned the videographer and assistant were married (I don't know if I was mistaken or they have married since the incedent took place... I saw the footage about 6 months ago). The next link will take you to a comment by scientist Dagmar Fertl, Biologist with the Minerals Management Service of the US Department of Interior who was current WhaleNet's "Scientist of the Week" when this post was written (he comments on the above action as well as interaction with whales and dolphins in general): http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask99/0320.html I disagree that the statute is more about shooting or chasing, as does the judge in Hawaii and another in Florida (see: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/MMWatch/protectdolphcamp.html ) The statute states "any act of annoyance which has the *potential* to disturb a marine mammal or marine stock in the wild" > 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." Included in the guidelines is: "Do not handle pups, do not touch or swim with the animals as this may constitute harassment, which is prohibited" (defined as harassment by the presiding judge in the above Tepley case) (see: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmviewingguide.html ) Here's a good site that might provide a bit more information about the "grey" area from NOAA... http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/MMWatch/MMViewing.html Jackie *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> The next link will take you to a comment by scientist Dagmar Fertl, > Biologist with the Minerals Management Service of the US Department of > Interior who was current WhaleNet's "Scientist of the Week" when this > post was written (he comments on the above action as well as interaction ^^ ooops, just noticed this.. it should read "she." Jackie *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 10/25/00 4:44:58 AM !!!First Boot!!!, culpeper_at_tbaytel.net writes: <<1. Does repeated bobbing and touching by the same person over a period of time cause any harm to the whales being contacted?>> It certainly has the potential to do harm. <<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?>> It certainly has the potential to be beneficial. << 3. Does the harm, if any, outweight the benefit, if any? >> It certainly has the potential to outweigh the benefit. <<So instead of arguing over what is legal or not, let's get to the heart of the matter.>> The answers to your questions are purely opinion. They are unanswerable from a definitive aspect without the benefit of science or prescience. That is why the law is the heart of the matter in this discussion. The law says Yes or No, the attorneys develop the Maybe. Cultural creatives may very well own the future. But, that doesn't change the current law. Bruce McC WEO *************************************************************************** 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 wish I had the time & clear concise way to respond to the bulk of the discussion here. As it is, I don't. That said - I'll just fake it. First - I'm glad this is being discussed. I have found the material presented (especially the urls from Jackie and the post from M. Broze) to be very useful. As someone who is new to kayak touring I'm curious about the potential impact I will have on the places & wildlife I travel to & meet. I find it fascinating that we have touched (no pun intended) upon topics as diverse as anthropomorphism, sapience and habituation. At its core I think we're talking about direct interaction (good touch/bad touch). At least no one has openly advocated 'chasing' whales. In the realm of touch we find issues of consent. How can you have consent with a creature that does not speak? Even with an "implied" consent is the interaction positive/negative (in the long run)? This of course dove tails (or is that orca tails?) with anthropomorphism, sapience and the dillema of habituation. The most useful information I've found so far is the Whale Watch Guidelines for the San Juan Islands. http://www.whalemuseum.com/whalewatch/SWguidelines.pdf Of notable interest is the exceptions on page 3 for Commercial Photographers and Research Vessels. Maybe Melissa's boat could get classified as a 'Research Vessel'? 8) Mayhaps I'll have more to say on sapience and habituation, but I certainly hope the list will give me more to think about 8) Glen Acord - Eugene, OR WKCC, OKCC, OOPS Mariner II, Neckie Rip *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> From: Richard Culpeper <culpeper_at_tbaytel.net> > 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). Thanks for posting your finding. Bob found this page about the case: http://www.whalenet.org/archives/whalenet96/0194.html Folks might be interested in reading this interpretation of the finding and the judge's comments. I must admit, before this debate began, I really didn't have a strong opinion about swimming with or petting marine mammals in the wild as I assumed it was probably harmless. I've done a lot of reading over the last few days regarding this exact issue and have come away with the opinion that this can't be good for the wildlife as there appears to be too much evidence that seems to say that the more we interact with the wildlife, the less afraid they are of us and the outcome has not been positive. From mothers leaving babies behind or seeking shelter away from humans in more trecherous waters (predators and less food available), to marine mammals becoming conditioned to handouts and turning aggressive when they do not get what they are after and to marine mammals losing their fear of humans only to be shot or injured by propellers. I also found Matt's post very compelling (long, but compelling :-). The concern doesn't stop at the well-being of the wildlife but also the safety of the public. The last URL I gave on my preveious post addressed your request to forget about discussing whether it was legal or not and discuss whether or not it was actually harmful. Since I am not an expert on whale behavior, I let the statues or laws be my guide. But from what I've learned, I don't think they are enough. I agree with your statement that "the law should not be taken as the be all and end all." There is a mountain of information available on the web provided by research scientists on human interaction with marine wildlife, so folks that want to learn about it, have many places to go for information from experts other than trying to find it here on PaddleWise. They can be much better informed at places like http://www.websites.noaa.gov/guide/sciences/ocean/ocean.html or http://whale.wheelock.edu/ Jackie *************************************************************************** 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