Comments on: Boycott Monterey Bay Aquarium If They Won’t Boycott LBAM Spray

By: admin

admin — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:44:49 +0000

Welcome Brett,
That is a good comparison. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that local attitudes toward the aquarium are changing from supportive to suspicious because of policies like these, and obviously, because of the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s lack of concern for the health of wildlife and neighbors in regards to the pesticide spraying. When I think of the enormous store of public good will this institute has enjoyed, I am reminded that good will can run out if you don’t carefully protect it by cherishing your patrons.

I appreciate you taking the time to comment here and hope to see you again.
Kind Regards,
Mim

By: Brett

Brett — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:50:43 +0000

This is not unlike the Japanese whaling fleet that use a ‘research exemption’ to continue whale hunting. Fisherman report they see lots ‘by-catch’ disposed of by these trawlers. Of course, the aquarium doesnt own these trawlers….they contract this out to fishing vessels out of Moss Landing.

By: jan

jan — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:01:22 +0000

Administrators at the Monterey Bay Aquarium say they work and vote with “consensus” when asked why they haven’t opposed the spray. Does their consensus include all of the govt. agencies? Is this another example of the collusion and interdependence of all of our non-profits, universities, and environmental groups - silence in the face of abuse. The public stands alone apparently against all the powers that exist at this time in our dismembered regulatory and oversite agencies.

By: admin

admin — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:20:55 +0000

Dear Lorenzo,
Thank you so much for asking such an important question. Apparently, the Monterey Bay Aquarium is up to all kinds of bad stuff.

A friend of mine in Monterey explained that locals tried to put a stop the the Monterey Bay Aquarium not only using the Marine Sanctuary as their private refrigerator for feeding the animals in their displays, utterly robbing all of the tide pools in the area, but they are also SELLING what they take from the tide pools to other aquariums in the the country.

As vegans, we need to disclose that we come to this issue of the Monterey Bay Aquarium with pre-conceived bad feelings. We believe it is unethical to use living animals for the purpose of entertainment and profit. So, a business like the Monterey Bay Aquarium is operating a venture that we feel is immoral.

But, until I started learning more about them and their environmentally-unfriendly practices, I didn’t realize just how corporate they really are, and how uncaring they truly seem to be about the protection of animals and habitat.

So, they are trawling the sea, using the tide pools as their private refrigerator and they utterly failed to protect Monterey Bay from aerial spraying.

Not a good organization. They do not deserve public support or funding.

Thank you again for taking the time to comment.
Mim

By: Lorenzo

Lorenzo — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:23:42 +0000

Regarding the Monterey Bay Aquarium….how come they are exempt from the ban to use trawlers to drag the bottom of the MB National Sanctuary to catch fish to feed to their captive fish?? They are using exemption because they are a ‘research organization’ and thus can go use damaging trawling gear to strip the bottom to feed their aquariums. This is not unlike the Japanese whaling fleet that use a ‘research exemption’ to continue whale hunting. Fisherman report they see lots ‘by-catch’ disposed of by these trawlers. Of course, the aquarium doesnt own these trawlers….they contract this out to fishing vessels out of Moss Landing. I dont understand why commercial fishing was banned cause they damage the bottom with trawling gear while the MB Aquarium is allowed to continue to do practice.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:47:39 +0000

Hello Ed,
Thank you for taking the time to share your feelings on this. We’re not saying that the Monterey Bay Aquarium hasn’t done some good work in the past.

What we’re saying is that Checkmate is the next DDT and the Monterey Bay Aquarium is intentionally playing dumb about this for reasons they will not disclose.

Perhaps they have changed their past policies which may have been geared toward conservation. Allowing toxic chemicals to be dumped, without protest, into Monterey Bay which includes both the Marine Sanctuary and the waters which feed some of the aquarium’s displays is a bizarre stance for the aquarium to take.

They are not acting conscientiously and a boycott forces them to re-examine how their decisions are affecting public perceptions of their business.

Checkmate aerial spraying is the biggest threat to health and life in California. Monterey Bay Aquarium cannot afford to be silent in this matter.

I do thank you for your response, Ed.
Mim

By: Ed P. Rumsfelder

Ed P. Rumsfelder — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:52:37 +0000

I cannot believe that you folks would condemn an institution like the aquarium that has done so much good over a single issue like this! In its 24-year history, the aquarium has turned almost 50 million people on to the oceans and our need to conserve them. Let’s take a step back and acknowledge that for a moment. So often we allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good! Let’s not fall victim to that again here……!

By: hotchilipepper

hotchilipepper — Tue, 27 May 2008 15:39:42 +0000

Let’s hear from the volunteers who work at the aquarium. What have you been told? Or, can someone join the group - to find if there’s been any communcation with staff or volunteers on their opinion on the spray. We need to get to the facts. Let, there not be silence. Let’s cause a stir of the water - so they are not so comfortable in their own shell! Can we believe they are this stupid to believe the spray is only a safe pheromone. But… then I’m told stupid is as stupid does … Thanks for listening hotchilipepper

By: bpm

bpm — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:27:40 +0000

Mim,
You have it right - they are both two different entities.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) is a not-for-profit oceanographic research center in Moss Landing, California affiliated with the Monterey Bay Aquarium (started by the Packard Foundation). Did they oppose the spray?

From my understanding many people were in denial about the LBAM aerial spray thinking it wouldn’t happen. For example, The Monterey Herald Newspaper took the position that people were over-reacting. Monterey did oppose the aerial spray but, to my knowledge, did not file a lawsuit against the spray, like Santa Cruz City/County did. HOPE finally did, which was settled just recently in favor of CDFA doing an EIR before any spraying. Is that your understanding?

Isabelle with StoptheSpray also agrees that Julia Packard had lunch with Kawamura and decided not to take a position on the spray (see website link below).

http://forum.stopthespray.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1159&p=1728&hilit=aquarium#p1728

Julia Packard has an interesting background found here:

http://currents.ucsc.edu/06-07/01-01/dinner.asp

and here:

http://www.sanfrancisco.com/monterey-bay-aquarium-b3213741

Julia Packard should have publicly opposed the spray, but didn’t. My assumption is that Kawamura sold her a bill of goods - just like he has been doing with everyone else. However, Julia Packard should have come out on record after the spray, especially with the known consequences.

Did anyone ever contact Ms. Packard to determine why she didn’t oppose the spray?

By: admin

admin — Mon, 19 May 2008 08:27:29 +0000

Thank you so much for those links, BPM

Please, correct me if I’m wrong…it is my understanding that the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary are 2 separate entities, though they are physically contiguous. Do you concur with this?

The buffer zone was apparently 100 meters, right? Unfortunately, aerial pesticide has been documented as drifting as much as fifty miles, according to a study I read that was conducted in Alaska. So, yes, the spray got into both the aquarium and the bay, regardless of the 100 meter agreement. That’s just a useless distance.

And, then, of course, it rained and, as you’ve noted above, the spray washed right off the land, through drainpipes, into the bay.

Has anyone got any information about what the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary did when the ooze ended up in the bay? Clearly, that newsreel indicated that MBMS stated they would consider CDFA to be in violation of federal law if pesticide got into the bay. Does anyone know if they are suing CDFA or have taken any actions at all?

Maybe some of the folks in Santa Cruz/Monterey can let us know.

Thank you for your incomparable link gathering skills, BPM. You are great!
Mim