Caitlyn Vernon: Whale songs and science at risk in B.C.

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Recently, scientists discovered that humpback whales, previously thought to sing only in their breeding grounds in Hawaii and Mexico, sing in the waters of B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest.

      Once common in B.C.’s coastal waterways, humpback whales disappeared almost completely from these waters in the mid 1900s after extensive hunting, and were rarely seen again in B.C. until 1980. While the local humpback population is making a slow yet remarkable comeback, Pacific humpback whales are still a threatened species, legally protected by the Species at Risk Act (SARA).

      Unfortunately, when it comes to species at risk, the federal government seems not to take its legal obligations all that seriously. Recently, Sierra Club B.C. and four other organizations, represented by Ecojustice, took the government to court for failing to protect Pacific humpback whales, marbled murrelets, Nechako white sturgeon, and southern mountain caribou. On February 14, the court ruled federal ministers broke the law by delaying recovery strategies for these four species as mandated by SARA.

      The judge described the case as “just the tip of the iceberg” of “an enormous systemic problem” within the federal government, citing the fact that more than 160 species at risk across Canada still await overdue recovery strategies. In the case of the Pacific humpback, the final recovery strategy was only released last October, more than four and a half years past its due date, and was not considered by the Enbridge Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel.

      The proposed Enbridge pipeline would bring over 225 tankers a year to B.C.’s waterways, cutting directly through critical humpback habitat, as the belated recovery strategy clearly shows. The strategy also outlines the threats posed to this critical habitat by increased vessel traffic, including shipping noise and threat of toxic spills.

      It seems an inconvenient truth that oil tankers and humpback whales cannot co-exist. However, because the federal government delayed the release of the humpback recovery strategy, the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal slid through regulatory review without all available scientific data being considered.

      It’s hard to question the importance of protecting endangered species. Our world is a richer place for the diversity that exists within it—our medicines more effective, our tourism industry more profitable, our well-being enhanced.

      Canadians historically have recognized this value and passed laws decreeing the importance and urgency of protecting species at risk. We have then relied on scientists to offer up the best available information for how to do so.

      Our current government seems to disregard the value of scientific inquiry. In the last two years, the government has slashed funding of scientists; closed scientific libraries; gutted environmental regulations; and transferred primary responsibility for fish habitat along pipeline corridors from the scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the pipeline-friendly National Energy Board.

      These moves appear to be a deliberate attempt to disregard science-based environmental concerns in an almighty push for resource development.

      Where does it lead us if we pay no heed to scientific warnings? Without the guidance of science, we might still be putting asbestos in our walls or bisphenol in our children’s sippy-cups. Collecting scientific data and using it to inform policy and legislation is not an ideological or partisan concern. It is plain common sense.

      It’s time the federal government started following their own laws and using science for thorough and informed decision-making. We need the work of biologists, climate scientists, agronomists, and hydrologists, among others, as we make decisions that will affect our environment, at-risk species, and human health long into the future.

      We have already lost many species and pushed many more, like the singing humpbacks of the Great Bear Rainforest, to the very edge of extinction. If our scientists become a species at risk themselves, how are we going to preserve what we have left?

      Comments

      4 Comments

      Born Again

      Mar 14, 2014 at 6:01am

      Harper is a born again Christian who believes the world started a little over 6000 years ago and is now in the End Times. In the face of his belief that Armageddon is nigh, does anyone really expect Harper to care about whales?

      D. Jones

      Mar 14, 2014 at 9:52am

      I think your statment is, unfortunately, dead wrong: "It’s hard to question the importance of protecting endangered species. Our world is a richer place for the diversity that exists within it—our medicines more effective, our tourism industry more profitable, our well-being enhanced."

      It's not a hard question at all. What *is* hard is to answer that question, in ways that (what I fear is) the majority will understand. Ecosystems services provide only a partial answer, and they do not address the values/morals aspect. Medicines are marginal. And to say our well-being is "enhanced" has as much substance as "art is in the eye of the beholder."

      Without a persuasive answer the statement is mushy, and your argument will have no impact at all on those who are not already on side, except perhaps to irritate them.

      Progress

      Mar 14, 2014 at 11:36am

      This isn't simply about endangered species. It's about how humans treat others around them. Many of us are incapable of seeing other humans as worthy of protection rather than exploitation or indifference, so it is unsurprising that even more humans view other species with even less consideration. When humans can see other species as being worthy of life because they are intrinsically worth it, and not just as being worth something to humans, or more specifically themselves, then humanity may make progress on these issues.

      ignisbliss

      Mar 14, 2014 at 12:07pm

      Science HAS provided the persuasive answers to connectivity of natural world and humanity/earth, but a very vocal minority who believe in old school theories such as D. Jones, I think, ignore the science and are guided by fear/ignorance/ and a refusal to embrace what science proves about importance of protecting the natural world and species at risk. Unfortunately, Canada's Conservative Govt. (Harper) subscribes to the old school theories and beliefs also, is harming this connectivity of the natural world and is attacking "science-based environmental concerns in an almighty push for resource development". Our well being has been adversely affected by this attitude/belief (habitat destruction/ocean acidification/climate change/etc) and irritating those who are not "onside" should be least of our worries. Scientists and research must be a top priority and held in high regard if Canada is to remain a healthy vibrant part of the planet. Ss the judge stated,there's “an enormous systemic problem” within the federal government, citing the fact that more than 160 species at risk across Canada still await overdue recovery strategies." The Govt. needs to get on with obeying the laws of it's country, and making science based decisions. It should be just common sense. Hopefully it will be to the next Fed. Govt.