The condemnation came as the House of Lords debated regulations paving the way for a scheme which would require animal lovers on the British mainland to have documentation in order to visit Northern Ireland. Critics view the move as further evidence of Northern Ireland still having to follow EU rules post-Brexit and being treated differently from the rest of the UK – a major source of contention to the unionist community. The paperwork, which will be free to apply for, includes a declaration that the owner will not travel onwards to Ireland or another EU country with their pet or assistance dog. Animals will have to be microchipped and have their own individual pet travel document, which will be valid for its lifetime. Northern Ireland residents returning after a stay in Great Britain with their pet or assistance dog will not need a travel document. The scheme is being introduced under the Windsor Framework, a revised deal for Northern Ireland’s post-Brexit trading arrangements aimed at tackling issues caused by the protocol. Raising her concerns in Parliament, Baroness Hoey, a Northern Irish Brexit supporter and former Labour MP, said: “These regulations are in effect about a new aspect of the Irish Sea border that has not had expression until this point because of the grace periods.” She added: “The experience of visiting Northern Ireland with your pet dog or cat, or even a ferret, will be made to feel like a visit to a foreign country. Lady Hoey went on: “This could spell the end of holiday trips for pet owners from GB to NI and then on to the Republic, when they want to explore both Northern Ireland and the Republic. “If they have a pet passport, they will have renounced their right to go to the Republic. That makes the border more of an obstruction than having border control posts on it, because at least in that eventuality, you could still cross over it.” Rejecting claims it was a result of the UK leaving the EU, she said: “The reality is that this is happening precisely because Northern Ireland has not got Brexit. “As we say repeatedly, it is still subject to EU rules and the EU could change the rules overnight.” Former DUP deputy leader Lord Dodds of Duncairn said: “Every one of the statutory instruments that come forward under the Windsor Framework must be properly debated, because these laws are being brought forward to implement what a foreign jurisdiction has decided should be the law of the United Kingdom. “In the 21st century, we should not accept colonial rule. We abolished it elsewhere. We believe it should not be tolerated for one second. People should have the democratic right to decide their laws for themselves, in their interests.” He added: “The ridiculous part about this debate is that we are having to debate European laws regulating the movement of pet animals owned by British citizens between one part of the United Kingdom and another. That is an outrage.” Lord Dodds went on: “As I said, there will be hundreds, thousands more of these regulations, in all areas, affecting the daily lives of people in Northern Ireland. They all add up to a grievous assault on Northern Ireland’s constitutional position.” But former leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick said: “I support the Windsor Framework because it is a necessary legal device to deal with the complexities that were presented to us in Ireland, north and south, on the issue of Brexit. “We need a pragmatic solution rather than choosing to have political contests and duels simply for the sake of them.” Introducing the regulations, environment minister Baroness Hayman of Ulloch said: “This scheme will simplify the requirements associated with moving pet dogs, cats and ferrets from Great Britain to Northern Ireland significantly. “It replaces single-use animal health certificates with a free-of-charge lifelong travel document and removes the need for costly pet health treatments. “Pet owners who travel frequently with their pets, or those who rely on the services of an assistance dog to travel independently, will benefit substantially from this change in approach.” However, she acknowledged the concerns raised by peers and promised to continue engagement with them.

Liverpool shines in Champions League, dumping Real Madrid down the table. Dortmund rises to 4th

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Anna Nisi , University of Washington (THE CONVERSATION) Imagine you are a blue whale swimming up the California coast, as you do every spring. You are searching for krill in the Santa Barbara Channel , a zone that teems with fish, kelp forests, seagrass beds and other undersea life, but also vibrates with noise from ship traffic . Suddenly, the noise gets louder. You start to make a slow, shallow dive, but without much urgency – after all, your species evolved over millions of years without this mysterious noise, so why would you know what to do when you hear it? A minute later, you are fatally struck by a container ship. Your body slowly sinks to the bottom of the ocean, where it will nourish deep-sea creatures for decades but will never be seen by humans again. Indeed, your death goes unnoticed ; the vessel barely registers the impact of hitting a member of the largest animal species on Earth. Collisions with ships are a critical threat to many large whale species. While these events are difficult to study, scientists estimate that thousands of whales are killed by ships yearly . In some regions, whales die from vessel strikes at rates that exceed what is considered sustainable after decades of whaling. Collisions with vessels threaten some critically endangered species . Research and experience show that simple measures can reduce these collisions – for example, rerouting shipping lanes to avoid important areas for whales, or reducing vessel speeds. But to implement these interventions, scientists and policymakers need to know where whales are most at risk. Mapping risk to whales In a newly published study in Science, colleagues and I mapped global ship-strike risk for four species of Earth’s largest whales: blue, fin, humpback and sperm. Within each species’ range, we found that vessels traveled the equivalent of thousands of times the distance to the moon and back every year. Our maps reveal widespread risk of vessel collisions in areas including the U.S. West Coast, the Mediterranean Sea and the northern Indian Ocean. These zones already have documented high levels of ship strikes . We also found many other regions with similar levels of risk that are less studied and recognized. They include several stretches along the coastlines of South America and southern Africa, and the area around the Azores off the coast of Portugal. Most high-risk areas are unprotected Whales are largely unprotected from vessel collisions around the world. We identified collision-risk hot spots – areas in the top 1% of predicted risk globally that represent the riskiest places for each species. We found that fewer than 7% of collision-risk hot spots had put measures in place to reduce collisions, such as limiting vessel speeds or requiring ships to avoid certain areas. Exceptions include the west and east coasts of North America, as well as the Mediterranean, which have higher levels of ship-strike management. Where such measures exist, they often are voluntary. Mandatory restrictions on speed cover just 0.54% of collision-risk hot spots for blue whales, 0.27% for humpback whales and none of the hot spots for fin or sperm whales. For each species, we found that ship-strike risk was higher within exclusive economic zones – areas up to 200 nautical miles from coastlines, in which each country has exclusive jurisdiction over marine resources – than on the high seas. This can make it easier to implement conservation and management measures in these areas. Within exclusive economic zones, individual countries can either adopt voluntary vessel measures or propose mandatory changes through the International Maritime Organization , which regulates international shipping. There is a lot of opportunity for countries to protect whales in their national waters. However, since political boundaries mean nothing to whales, the most effective approach would be for neighboring countries to coordinate efforts to reduce ship-strike risk across whale migratory routes . We also found high levels of ship-strike risk within existing marine protected areas – zones where countries have adopted various measures to conserve and manage sea life. Most of these marine protected areas were created to protect sea life from fishing, but very few place any restrictions or regulations on shipping. When marine protected areas contain high levels of ship-strike risk, governments could add such measures to the protected areas’ missions. Benefits of protecting whales Protecting whales from ships would benefit other species too. Vessels can strike many marine species , including seals, sea turtles, sharks, fish, penguins and dolphins. Marine shipping is the top source of underwater noise , which is a major threat to marine life . Underwater noise can disrupt feeding, interfere with communication and cause stress for many species. Vessels run more quietly at slower speeds, so speed-reduction measures can reduce noise pollution as well as collision risk. Humans can also benefit from slowing down and rerouting ships. When vessels travel more slowly, their fuel efficiency increases, reducing their greenhouse gas emissions . The marine shipping industry currently produces carbon emissions comparable to those from aviation . Slowing vessels down also reduces emissions of harmful air pollutants that threaten human health in coastal areas and are estimated to contribute to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths annually. In 2023, for example, vessels cooperating with a voluntary slowdown in California cut 45,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions and 1,250 metric tons of nitrogen oxides, and they reduced the risk to whales by more than half. Changing vessel routes can make waters safer for local fishermen. In Sri Lanka, for example, heavy ship traffic hugs the coast, overlapping with local fishermen as well as with foraging blue whales. Collisions with cargo ships have killed several fishermen there in recent years. In response, some shipping companies are voluntarily shifting their lanes farther offshore to reduce the risk of colliding with humans and whales. In our interconnected world, 90% of consumer goods travel by ship before they get to market. Most items that consumers in wealthy nations purchase in their daily lives have traveled across the ocean at some point. Our study shows that ship-strike risk is widespread – but in our view, protecting whales from these collisions is a solvable issue. And by protecting whales, humans can also protect themselves. This article has been updated to add a video showing areas of the ocean that are used by whales, mapped in combination with global ship traffic. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/new-maps-show-high-risk-zones-for-whale-ship-collisions-vessel-speed-limits-and-rerouting-can-reduce-the-toll-242267 .

Global Classroom Scheduling Software Market Size, Share and Forecast By Key Players-EMS Software, Skedda, Lantiv, Appointy, Prime Timetable

Utah NHL team walks to arena after bus gets stuck in Toronto traffic