Thriving Oceans

After a number of days of ocean exploration and technological seclusion  along the Mendocino coast, I returned to find myself once again shaking my head in disgust.  Good guess, but it’s not about the current environmental calamity in the Gulf but an ocean tragedy that has perpetuated for decades in the name of entertainment.   My disdain for the practice of keeping incredibly intelligent creatures confined in tanks that are the epitome of ‘small’ just keeps growing with each instance that makes its way to the surface.

I first discussed this topic on April 23, 2009 in the post “Ocean-going Genus,” and I am wondering when society will see the light.  Apparently not soon enough as it was not all that long ago when a trainer was killed by a captive orca.  And on July 4th the latest captive marine mammal mishap occurred in Japan (Okinawa) and just so happened to be captured  on a series of videos. 

According to the Associated Press, “The startling footage of the dolphin, a species known as the false killer whale, shows the animal suddenly leaping out of a tank during a July 4 marine show at Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium, in southwestern Japan. An American tourist who was among the spectators shot the footage and sent it to Ric O’Barry.  O’Barry, 70, a former trainer for the “Flipper” TV show who now makes a career out of setting the animals free, made the videos available to The Associated Press.

O’Barry says the videos show a dolphin under stress.  “The habitat of that false killer whale is so unnatural it leaped out in desperation,” he said in a telephone interview from Florida. “It wanted to end it. Why does a person jump out of a building?”

Every documentary I have seen shows nothing less than incredible intelligence as members of a pod utilize teamwork to raise their young and ensure the survival of the group. Plus, most ironically, these are the same characteristics that trainers pass along to cheering crowds as if morality dictates 5 tons of sophisticated ocean-going genius must be confined within concrete walls and rollercoaster backdrops solely for our entertainment.  Yes, I see the Victorian era pseudoscience logic (i.e. money), but shouldn’t we officially abandon a thought process that exterminated the great auk?  Scott Artis on captive orcas (Ocean-going Genus)

I’m not here to pretend that I know or debate the reason why the false killer whale leaped from the tank, but I am steadfast in my belief that the practice of keeping marine mammals in captivity is undoubtedly cruel.  We might be able to meet their physical requirements and sustain life, but we are not at all prepared, informed, or capable of feeding their mental and social needs.  So until Dr. Doolittle gives me a transcript of his one-on-one conversations with captive orcas, false killer whales, etc., I will err on the side of caution that O’Barry’s reasoning makes perfect sense; for humanity’s sake.

Here are a couple of very short clips of an octopus that I encountered in Hawaii.  And I think they showcase the amazing capabilities of this incredible marine species in regards to changing color.

My sea turtle hazard is worse than your sea turtle hazard. 

Of course.  

Sounds logical. 

And more importantly it falls within that quirky social dynamic called HUMAN NATURE.  But the results of bias within the scientific community is an interesting topic; especially when you add the sea turtle variable and the number of threats plaguing the seven species.  So put any preconceived notions that you may have aside and let’s see if we can all come together and accept the fact that the hazard I’m researching poses the greatest threat to sea turtles.

Well, perhaps we should turn to the experts and listen to what they have to say.  And that’s exactly what the authors of a new publication, Using Expert Opinion Surveys to Rank Threats to Endangered Species: A Case Study with Sea Turtles, in Conservation Biology did.  And should we really be surprised by the findings?

An internet-based survey was distributed to sea turtle experts that was designed to determine the respondents’ overall experience, expertise and the proficiency in regards to particular species, geographic regions, and hazards.   Hazards that included pathogens, direct take, global warming, nest predation, pollution, coastal development, and fisheries bycatch.  After quantifying results spanning the nonprofit sector, government agencies, and respondents in over 100 counties, a pattern began to emerge.  A pattern attributed to expert bias.

“Respondents with no experience with respect to a sea turtle species tended to rank hazards affecting that species higher than respondents with experience.  A more-striking pattern was with hazard-based expertise: the more experience a respondent had with a specific hazard, the higher the respondent scored the impact of that hazard on sea turtle populations.” 

Perhaps a sign of the times, everyone was in agreement that sea turtles were under threat from multiple anthropogenic hazards.   It also became apparent that there was an overall consensus on the greatest hazard, fisheries bycatch.  The survey found:

• Bycatch was ranked as the top hazard for 18 sea turtle populations.
• Coastal development was ranked as the top hazard for six populations.
• Nest predation was the top hazard for three populations.

Interesting!  And I guess that exclamation warrants further development if I expect it to make any sense.  Although bycatch, a pelagic threat, ranked as a top hazard for 18 populations, a disparity still exists between coastal development and nest predation, which are terrestrial and coastal threats.  The amount of invested resources does not correspond to the highly scored pelagic threat. 

The authors point out that, “Twenty-eight percent of survey respondents reported conducting research or activities focused in the pelagic environment, compared with 70% who conducted research in both terrestrial and coastal environments.”

Which rounds off the discussion as to its applicability to conservation.  Should statistical methods that account for expert bias be implemented by conservation planning programs?  And should hazards that are both highly scored by experts and have a high uncertainty in regards to the range of effect on a population be treated as a research priority?

 Well one thing is for certain and I agree completely with the authors that, “Priority setting for the conservation of threatened and endangered species cannot wait for exhaustive empirical research.”

DONLAN, C., WINGFIELD, D., CROWDER, L., & WILCOX, C. (2010). Using Expert Opinion Surveys to Rank Threats to Endangered Species: A Case Study with Sea Turtles Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01541.x

As a follow up to my May 28th post (Proposal to save whales means lifting whaling ban and sanctuary harpooning) and interview with Chris Cutter of the IFAW, I thought I’d share the latest news on the issue…

(Agadir, Morocco – 23 June 2010) – The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW – www.ifaw.org) announced today that a controversial proposal to legalize whaling has failed at the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in Agadir, Morocco.

“Under a cloud of corruption allegations the IWC is taking a safe course, opting for a cooling off period that protects the moratorium and other IWC conservation measures,” said Patrick Ramage, Director of IFAW’s Global Whale Campaign. “Had it been done here, this deal would have lived in infamy.”

The proposal, three years in the making, proposed a compromise between whaling and non-whaling nations which regularly clash at annual IWC meetings. Among the most hotly debated components of the proposal was a plan to overturn the worldwide ban on whaling, in place since 1986, by allowing legalized hunting of whales by Iceland, Norway, and Japan – the last three countries still hunting whales commercially. Japan, Norway, and Iceland have illegally killed nearly 35,000 whales since the inception of the moratorium.

“This was an intense three year effort but one conducted behind closed doors and focused on defining terms under which commercial whaling would continue rather than how it would end,” said Ramage. “The proposal it produced could not withstand public scrutiny and ignored the overwhelming global support for permanent protection for whales. Any future process of negotiation should not leave the views, expertise, and perspective of the global NGO community sitting outside.”