Censorship?  I wish I could say “Get the hell outa here” but we are living in the real world after all.  And when that rock is an ocean world and millions of dollars are at stake from the harvesting slaughter of cetaceans it is damn obvious why “severe” reporting restrictions have been placed on a meeting between Taiji leaders and ocean activists at the behest of the Japanese mayor.

“There’s no compromise to be made. There will be no stopping of our activities until the harassment, capture and slaughter of both dolphins and whales on this planet ends,” said Sea Shepherd member Scott West (AP).

On November 1st, Ric O’Barry, The Cove, released a Statement of Non-Participation on his blog, Save Japan Dolphins, and went on to say that he had intended to have a constructive discussion:

“I was expecting and looking forward to a frank dialogue on how the dolphin hunt and the sale of toxic mercury-contaminated dolphin meat to the Japanese public can be terminated, while guaranteeing the financial livelihoods of the Taiji dolphin fishermen and their families.” (Read the entire post)

But even after the Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan went on the record recently by saying, “We must stop this great extinction in our lifetime” and the government pledging $2 billion to help other nations reach species-preservation goals, the Associated Press highlighted what I thought was pure irony:

In Tokyo, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku told a news conference that dolphin hunting “is part of Japan’s long-held cultural tradition.”

So if I understand correctly, Japan is willing to pay for other nations to get on board with marine species protection but to do so at home would literally break a bloody tradition. To that I can only say traditions are meant to be broken!

I urge you to support Earth Island Institute and  Ric O’Barry’s Dolphin Project.

Associated Press Article: Japan dolphin hunt town meets with activists

Photo credit: savejapandolphins.org

Oh the ocean conservation irony!  Well, things are certainly on a roll in terms of paradoxes hitting the headlines over the last couple of days, but this time it’s not about underfishing.  My intuition says there’s a payoff in the works; perhaps some good PR, maybe a few feel good dollars to hopefully get the world to close their eyes, or perchance it is simply a BRIBE…a $2 billion dollar dolphin slaughter, whaling kickback if you will.

According to a report by the Associated Press, Japan (the country harpooning whales for “scientific research”) has pledged $2 billion dollars to:

“…help developing nations reach species-preserving goals that are being debated at a U.N. conference…”

Wow!  I know what you’re thinking, “How could this offer by the great whaling nation get any more poignant?”  No worries as I have a quote that will make you realize the country permitting the butchering of dolphins is gung-ho for marine conservation.

“We must stop this great extinction in our lifetime,” Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan said at the conference in Nagoya, southwest of Tokyo.

Hmmm, profound indeed and glad to see Japan is committed to preserving whales, dolphins, tuna, etc.  Now I’ll remove my tongue from my cheek and continue on with my day knowing our oceans are in good chopsticks hands.

It’s good to be back and I must say I miss writing about the ocean world.  If you’re curious what I’ve been doing check out my post: Joining Earth Island’s Conservation Ranks.

Now on with the show…I happened upon this Associated Press article that popped out of Boston the other day and I didn’t realize that I was in for quite a laugh.  So the writer goes on to describe a series of natural and regulatory circumstances that had created a situation by which fish stocks were being underfished (oh the overfishing irony!), and how, as an example,  haddock numbers were booming because an area had been closed to U.S. fishermen. Wow, sounds like a great conservation plan and one that had been properly implemented, right?  My thoughts exactly!  But intertwined amongst the words were two ecological gems that I just had to share with all you ocean aficionados and conservationists.  I hope you appreciate the perspective as it is actually quite sad and telling…

Steve Ouellette, a fisheries attorney in Gloucester, talking about underfishing:

“I think it’s just a tragedy.”

“Hundreds of millions of dollars of fish are being wasted.”

Yep, allowing healthy fish to remain in our oceans, contribute to biodiversity, balance ecosystems, and  simply exist unexploited are such catastrophes and a waste of life.  Somehow I doubt that underfishing will become my new mantra.

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.

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.”

Our planet is an intriguing concoction of variables that meld together for successes spanning the organization of life (species, populations, communities, and ecosystems).  It is literally an evolutionary process that is ecologically driven.  And as a genotypic sex determined species, we seem to have an inherent fascination with the mysterious adaptive significance of environmental sex determination.  But the evolution of environmental conditions, such as temperature, determining the sex of offspring is not what is going to be explored at this time.  Nor do I plan to open up a heated discussion about climate change.

However, I am curious about the population dynamics of species exhibiting temperature-dependent sex determination in a warming world.  More specifically, how will sea turtle populations fare if sex ratios are dramatically skewed as a result of warmer temperatures.  Yet worry not as I am not alone in wondering about the stability of our threatened and endangered sea turtles.

Scientists from the Institute of Life Science, Institute of Environmental Sustainability and the National Marine Park of Zakynthos executed a study to determine if “temperature-dependent sex determination increases the probability of extirpation when ambient temperatures induce the production of offspring of a single sex.”  Especially when, “Some taxonomic groups, such as sea turtles, are already endangered and have sex ratios skewed to the sex produced at warmer temperatures (females).”

However, measuring population viability is more than just determining the ratio of male and female hatchlings.  Species stability requires a measurement of the number of males and females that are ready to mate at any one particular time (operational sex ratio), which also accounts for the breeding frequencies of each sex.

Results:

• Based on hatchling ratios, it is assumed that for every 100 adult turtles in the population, there were 70 females and 30 males.
• Males return to breed every year
• Females breed every 2.6 years
• Operational sex ratio is 47% female – in any particular year 30 out of 30 males will be breeding, but only 27 out of 70 females will breed.

So just what does this data all mean?  Well, the most striking finding is that since male sea turtles breed more frequently than females (i.e. an operational sex ratio that is not female biased), they are able to “reduce the probability of unfertilized clutches.”  Even though males already comprise a smaller portion of the population, and would do so to a greater extent in a warming climate, the results are indicating that we (or they) do not have much to worry about when it comes to temperatures altering the sex ratios to a point where the population collapses.  But perhaps this just might be limited to the SHORT-TERM.

As pointed out by the authors, a male breeding cycle that is 2.6 times greater than females may help alleviate the impacts of climate change on the population, but there will undoubtedly be a reduction in males over time.  And as males become limited the probability that a population will persist declines.

For example, it is predicted that under some climate-change scenarios, nesting beaches in some parts of the world will produce only female hatchlings.  If this hatchling sex ratio propagates into adult sex ratios (e.g., there is no immigration of males from other sites), then the increased breeding frequency of males will be redundant because there will be no males.

Thus, we just may find ourselves taking on the role of the Earth’s climate by relying upon methods to control nest/embryonic temperatures in an attempt to artificially produce male hatchlings and ultimately prevent the loss of sea turtles.

HAYS, G., FOSSETTE, S., KATSELIDIS, K., SCHOFIELD, G., & GRAVENOR, M. (2010). Breeding Periodicity for Male Sea Turtles, Operational Sex Ratios, and Implications in the Face of Climate Change Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01531.x

It’s probably not much of a limb to go out on, but I’m pretty sure there is a clear majority and mandate by Americans to halt whaling, let alone lend official support and endorse such actions by other nations.  And I think I may enter the frigid waters and tackle our own policies regarding indigenous harvesting in another setting.  For now, I like to imagine that the approval rating for whaling is somewhere in the single digit range, but after reality sets in I doubt we have yet to reach the incredible homogeneity that the populace of Australia has been demonstrating.  As reported by Time, ” A national poll conducted in January [2010], 94% of Australians said they were against whaling.”

As for the U.S., the numbers I have on hand are two decades old, but it does speak to our disdain for a practice that seems only fitting for 160 year old novels and blurry monochromatic photos adorning museum walls. The poll found that 83 percent of American voters oppose killing whales, 61% “strongly” oppose whaling, 82 percent want government officials to speak out publicly against commercial whaling, and 55% believe the U.S. government should impose limited trade sanctions banning the import of seafood products from countries that continue whaling (Schoen & Berland Associates 1999).

Now that a new proposal to lift the ban on commercial whaling is making headlines, I am wondering if the voices of the American people are simply being ignored…again.  And I think there really might be a disconnect between governments, the International Whaling Commission, and the people when it comes to this particular issue.  WHALES ARE NOT ANIMALS.  And I think most of us inherently understand this ideology and have a connection to cetaceans that far surpasses something that can simply be chalked up to the love for a high profile, charismatic species.

So for those wondering what whales are if not simply animals, the answer is a BEING.  We are human beings and they are whale beings; it’s an existential connection based on mutual respect, based on intelligence, and based on the fact that we see us in them.  Yet it is so much more than mere anthropomorphism as I/we embrace them as colleagues in life.  Thus, many of us perceive whaling as an antiquated notion, whether or not done under the guise of scientific permits.

Now that we have established a background, it’s time to circle back to the proposal to end a ban on whaling.  In March 2010, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) produced a draft proposal to address:

…the problems within the Convention; conservation and sustainability; healthy whale populations; exploitation and protection; whaling under special permit (‘scientific whaling’); small type coastal whaling; benefits for developing countries; monitoring and accountability; sanctuaries; the commercial whaling moratorium; an interim period; governance mechanisms of the IWC; animal welfare; aboriginal subsistence whaling; international trade; reservations and objections; whale watching; bycatch and human impacts; small cetaceans; an acceptable “Package”.

Addressing problems is always a good thing, right?  Well, after waving away the smoke we find that the proposal not only recommends whaling for members of the IWC who are currently killing whales to legally do so for the next 10 years, but that the Obama Administration is backing the plan (Which by the way was announced in a press release on Earth Day 2010).  Additionally, the key is an “acceptable package,” which can be argued as strictly no whaling,  and is currently tied to the fact “that whaling catch limits are largely still to be determined.”  It is because of this ambiguity in the draft proposal that the International Fund for the Welfare of Animals (IFAW) is looking for support and involvement. 

“The plan can mean not only reversing the current ban on whale hunting by Norway, Iceland, and Japan for the next ten years, but will allow whaling in the internationally recognized whale sanctuary around Antarctica.” IFAW 2010

 Thus, I caught up with Chris Cutter, IFAW spokesperson, to find out a little bit more about this developing situation as they fight to protect a species in which we have so much in common.

Thriving Oceans:  What is your main concern with the new proposal and the backing by the current Administration?

Chris Cutter: Our main issue is that the administration is saying definitively that this deal would save X numbers of whales. The issue is that the current proposal has “draft” numbers in it.

 You could take the administration at face value and say the “intention” is to reduce the numbers of whales killed, but it’s inaccurate to say that the proposal would save X amount of whales without any hard figures to back that up.

Thriving Oceans:  Are we potentially jumping the gun by criticizing a draft proposal?

Chris Cutter:You could flip that around and say it’s inaccurate for IFAW and other NGOs to criticize the plan for the same reasons. Without any numbers it is impossible to assess. Suffice it to say, given the history of the negotiations to date, the structure of the proposal itself, and the fact that all of the conservation benefits are based on dubious science, we’re skeptical.

 Thriving Oceans:  So we’re potentially hearing some environmental pandering as the Administration is claiming whales are going to be saved?

Chris Cutter:  The problem is that there will be hard numbers in the proposal when it is voted on next month. Until those numbers are written in ink, not pencil, no one should be talking about future numbers of whales killed or saved.

It is up to us to lead the effort in protecting these animals.

To learn about how you can get involved, please visit IFAW on Facebook or visit www.IFAW.org.

It’s an article packed full of potential contention as it speaks to a variety of issues involving fisheries management.  So thank God we are dealing with a charismatic marine species or we just may be contemplating their extinction.  But then again, perhaps we are doing just that since all 7 species of marine turtles are listed under the Endangered Species Act.  So what does that mean when millions of sea  turtles are caught as bycatch in just 18 years?  I think it means the status quo is definitely due for an overhaul to say the least.

Bycatch.  It’s a word that sounds rather innocuous as it rolls off the tongue, but clearly does not do justice to the staggering amount of life that is instantly converted to simple biological waste.  It’s a problem that amounts to tonnes, in the neighborhood of several million per year.  And again I say thank God because the widely popular sea turtle may be able to help shine the light on an ever growing problem responsible for population declines in multiple species.  Well, at least I hope so.

In Global Patterns of Marine Turtle Bycatch, gillnets, longlines, and trawl fisheries are providing us with a perspective that we would probably rather ignore.  Unfortunately the out of sight out of mind attitude is not helping the sea turtle situation and it reminds me of an old mantra I used, “The catch of the day may cost more than you think.”  In this scenario, that cost is…

The total reported global marine turtle bycatch (1990-2008) was ∼85,000 turtles, but due to the small percentage of fishing effort observed and reported (typically <1% of total fleets), and to a global lack of bycatch information from small-scale fisheries, this likely underestimates the true total by at least two orders of magnitude.

And after looking at the data I am left wondering how many sea turtles are actually killed or die as a result of wounds incurred by coming into contact with gillnets, longlines and trawls.  I can imagine it is only palatable when wearing a pair of rose colored glasses.  But as far as the research goes, there was insufficient data to incorporate mortality rates.

The study found the bycatch per unit effort (BPUE) varied greatly depending upon the region and fishing method employed.  In fact , it identified certain hotspots that are a cause for concern and highlight the need for fisheries management intervention.

Based on reported sea turtle bycatch, the maximum BPUEs found for each fishing method are as follows:

• 2.2 turtles per set for gillnets in the Mediterranean Sea
• 19.3 turtles per 1,000 hooks for longlines in the eastern Pacific Ocean
• 7.2 turtles per haul for trawls in the southwest Atlantic Ocean

“Targeted action to reduce turtle-gear interactions is essential for population persistence, and is already underway for some fleets…our study revealed that reports of longline bycatch are two-fold more common than reports of bycatch in either trawls or gillnets.”

Having the data means we have no more excuses for not developing, continuing to develop and implementing a conservation plan that is both regional and fishing gear specific.  The plan must be more than focusing on turtle excluder devices, but must include other innovative management techniques on the lines of time-area closures, etc.  And since time is of the essence and marine turtle populations are at risk, immediate action is required.

Wallace, B., Lewison, R., McDonald, S., McDonald, R., Kot, C., Kelez, S., Bjorkland, R., Finkbeiner, E., Helmbrecht, S., & Crowder, L. (2010). Global patterns of marine turtle bycatch Conservation Letters DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00105.x

I’ll be perfectly honest…I’ve been sitting on this essay from Conservation Biology for the last week or so as I mulled over my approach on breaching this topic.  At one point I envisioned the title as Torn Between Ocean Science and Ocean Conservation; clearly a manifestation of the dilemma with which I was trying to come to terms.  The direction we go just seems so obvious, right?  Well I guess that depends on which side of the fence you fall on as the authors, Heupel and Simpendorfer,  do a fairly good job at covering all aspects of the issue, from allowing scientific collection of only healthy species to limited collections of endangered species to the use of non-lethal methods to use of collections only in an attempt to perfect non-lethal sampling methods.  So what SHOULD we choose? 

Whether good or bad scientifically speaking, the fact is that continued media coverage of declining shark populations and our fisheries in general is sparking a change in the attitudes of our future scientists as conservationist ideals seep into the public.

“One noticeable result of the increase in concern about sharks is that more students enquiring about graduate school who are interested in working on sharks are indicating they are not willing to participate in projects that may harm sharks. This occurs before they know which species are involved, the status of that species, or what benefits could be gained from lethal sampling. This suggests their perspective is not rooted in science, but is ethical, political, or emotive.”

So are ethics, politics, and emotions incompatible with science?  Perhaps.  But before any skewering takes place let me qualify that remark.  Science strives or should strive to remain unbiased  in its approach to answering questions or interpreting results.  Science should not let politics drive a conclusion, science should not let profits mask facts, science should be done responsibly, and science should not be performed when devoid of morality.  And if this is the case, then I think it is obvious why we find ourselves with up and coming scientists displaying perspectives rooted in wildlife and ocean preservation.  Our ethics and emotions are driving those interested in marine conservation to take the lead for the protection of ecosystems as next generation scientists.  And when we combine this with garbage filled oceans, oil spills and pollution, and overfishing ,for instance, it should not be surprising that those tired of ocean degradation are interested in making a positive difference.   

And let’s not forget that we apply such a social standard when it comes to research on whales.  Non-lethal sampling is a worthy endeavor and out of scientific necessity ingenuity will drive new and innovative data gathering methods.

This definitely goes beyond sharks and speaks to greater societal attitudes. There’s a problem and our oceans need fixing.  And I am hoping that this change in attitude is not limited to those aspiring to be ichthyologists and marine biologists, but highlights growing awareness amongst consumers.  Getting back to the issue on the table, sharks are declining worldwide because of finning, commercial and recreational overharvesting , and loss of functional habitat to name a few.  But what does this all mean for science?  Well the authors ask the following questions:

“Should research sampling be slowed, stopped, or questioned because of their status?”

“Is the preservationist’s point of view misguided because information on depleted species is being applied to all shark populations?”

“Thus, if shark species are not assessed accurately and scientifically and suffer from biases, how can effective management and conservation be applied?”

I think one thing that is clear is that the answers or reasons will be just as varied as the life amongst a coral reef. But in regards to Heupel and Simpendorfer, the answer is rather middle of the road in that they believe we should not forego compiling data nor completely condemn killing sharks in the name of responsible science.  Additionally, they recommend always taking appropriate precautions to use nonlethal approaches whenever possible. However, this is just conjecture as I guess the actual solution will be determined in the near future by those now entering the scientific field.

HEUPEL, M., & SIMPFENDORFER, C. (2010). Science or Slaughter: Need for Lethal Sampling of Sharks Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01491.x