Countryfile ran a piece on Acoustic Deterrent Devices last Sunday, 4th August. The programme highlights the advice from SNH to Marine Scotland, which is:

1. There is sufficient evidence, both empirical and modelled, to show that ADDs can cause disturbance and displacement of cetaceans.

2. There is sound, scientific evidence to expect that hearing damage, stress and masking may also occur but these are difficult to demonstrate empirically and would require further assessment.

Under Scottish law it is illegal to deliberately or recklessly disturb or injure any porpoise, dolphin or whale.

Countryfile asked the director of Marine Scotland why they rejected the advice of their own scientific advisers SNH.

The following are quotes from the programme:

"The response from SNH could not have been clearer. They say that there is evidence that seal scarers can cause disturbance and displacement to marine mammals and a cross-party committee of members of the Scottish Parliament came to the same conclusion."

Tom: "Surely the key thing is that your official advisors, SNH, have said there is evidence of displacement and disturbance of marine mammals. All of that means they shouldn’t be used?"
MS Director: "I think the evidence is not quite as clear cut as that."

Tom: "Sounds to me like you’re deliberately trying to undermine the advice from your own official regulatory body, SNH. I repeat they said ‘disturbance and displacement."
MS Director: "Yes, and there is undoubtedly a body of evidence that we have to investigate further. But it’s not that clear cut that it’s all ADDs in all circumstances or the degree of impact that it’s actually having."

(Note: The law does not allow for a degree of impact, for example it was no defence for a jet skier prosecuted for disturbance that he only disturbed dolphins occasionally or in a small area: https://bit.ly/2YPBNTJ)

Marine Scotland is saying we need more evidence, however there is already abundant evidence, summarised by SNH, that ADDs disturb cetaceans. Calling for more evidence is a well-used civil service excuse for not taking action.

Later on in the programme, Tom highlights the possibility of alternatives to ADDs:

Tom: "But there is a technique out there that keeps seals and salmon separate, and that is stronger nets or double nets, why not just go for those?"
MS Director "The direction of travel is undoubtedly moving towards using those at the moment, though rather than automatically ruling out all the ADDs in all circumstances, let’s get evidence."

To put this into perspective, ADDs are designed to disturb. One ADD manufacturer advertises a 'soft start' option to disturb cetaceans away from the area to prevent hearing injury.

Scientific studies demonstrate that porpoises are disturbed at 100 decibels and 96% of porpoises were excluded at 113 decibels at a distance of 7km from a single Acoustic Deterrent Device. All aquaculture ADDs output between 179 and 196 decibels. Sound energy doubles every 6 decibels; 196 decibels has a sound intensity sixty-five thousand times that 100 decibels. The farm in the programme has 20 ADDs each outputting 196 decibels.

Marine Scotland have a duty to be fair, honest, transparent and proportionate. Does their position on Acoustic Deterrent Devices fit these criteria?

The questions Marine Scotland have consistently avoided answering are:  

1. Under what circumstances do they claim ADDs do not disturb, cause stress or cause potential hearing damage to cetaceans and what is their evidence?

2. Why have they not prosecuted the farms where ADDs clearly are causing disturbance or injury?

3. No Scottish Fish Farms have European Protected Species Licenses, nor could they obtain them as they would not pass the three test required. Why have Marine Scotland not prosecuted these farms for disturbing cetaceans without EPS Licenses?

Please share the petition, it is so important to persuade Marine Scotland to do their job and enforce the law protecting our marine mammals.