Photos and article found in the February 2011 issue of National Geographic magazine, on newsstands January 25

It’s been two weeks since I found myself talking with a great crew over at the National Geographic Society.  The topic was oceans, more specifically artificial reefs, and to be honest I was begging for something to get me back in the swing of discussing our seas.  Well, 14 days later, a layover in Denver, and a swipe of the forehead for finally catching up on a backlog of graduate classes, I’m ready to engage in a little ocean diversion.

Although I have not been personally involved in the creation of artificial reefs, the idea of restoring habitat is something that I do engage in quite frequently.  And just because these restoration projects involve burrowing owls and in some cases the installation of artificial burrows, were talking about communities, ecosystems, and species.  But unlike my work in a grasslands, building artificial reefs definitely involves a stunning array of….you name it.

“Even officially sanctioned ones are often created from distinctly odd materials, including decommissioned subway cars, vintage battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, oil drilling rigs, and specially designed beehivelike modules called Reef Balls (Relics to Reefs, National Geographic Society, Feb. 2011).”

After getting past the visuals of a submerged tank or ship, there are those concerned about the impact of artificial reefs on the biodiversity of natural reefs and the potential problems of increasing overfishing.  But, I’m going to forgo jumping into that debate for the time being, and instead take a moment to share a few photos, encourage you to check out the article, and allow you to weigh the pros and cons for yourself.

Photo: David Doubilet/National Geographic

 Upholstered with luminous sponges and corals, the bridge of the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Duane attracts schools of smallmouth grunts—and divers. The ship was intentionally sunk in 1987 off Key Largo to create an artificial reef 120 feet deep.

Photo: David Doubilet/National Geographic

 In the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico, steel pillars supporting a gas platform make a vertical reef encrusted with tube sponges.

Photo: David Doubilet/National Geographic

 This M60 is one of a hundred tanks sunk in 1994 in a 1,200-square-mile zone of artificial reefs off the coast of Alabama. The 50-ton tanks survive hurricanes better than lighter, less stable objects.

*Photos posted with permission of the National Geographic Society.

It’s a frightening premise, and it’s happening right now. A Sea Change follows the journey of retired history teacher Sven Huseby on his quest to discover what is happening to the world’s oceans. After reading Elizabeth Kolbert’s “The Darkening Sea,” Sven becomes obsessed with the rising acidity of the oceans and what this “sea change” bodes for mankind. His quest takes him to Alaska, California, Washington, and Norway as he uncovers a worldwide crisis that most people are unaware of. Speaking with oceanographers, marine biologists, climatologists, and artists, Sven discovers that global warming is only half the story of the environmental catastrophe that awaits us. Excess carbon dioxide is dissolving in our oceans, changing sea water chemistry. The more acidic water makes it difficult for tiny creatures at the bottom of the food web to form their shells. The effects could work their way up to the fish 1 billion people depend upon for their source of protein.  A Sea Change is the first documentary about ocean acidification, directed by Barbara Ettinger and co-produced by Sven Huseby of Niijii Films.

Lucky for me, the film is making the rounds to San Francisco and although I have to check my schedule, I do believe there’s a slot available to make one of the showings.  I encourage you to mark your calendars and attend a screening as well…perhaps we’ll even have a chance to meet in person, have an ocean conversation, and enjoy this award winning documentary with other ocean conservationists.

A Sea Change:  Imagine the World without Fish
Wednesday, January 26th 2011 6:00 PM
Saturday, January 29th 2011 2:00 PM
San Francisco Public Library, Koret Theatre, Lower Level
100 Larkin Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-557-4277

Awards:

Best Green Film, Kosovo International Documentary Film Festival; Grand Prize, Feature Documentary, FICA International Environmental Film Festival; Dumosa Award for Best Coastal Film, Cottonwood Environmental Film Festival; Best Nordic Country Film, Polar Film Festival; Aloha Accolade Award, Honolulu International Film Festival

For more information about the film, visit http://aseachange.net

For screening details click here

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.

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.

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.

There is never a dull moment when it comes to discussing wildlife and conservation and if you keep your eyes open there is always an opportunity to learn some great facts.  And perhaps a perk I never really envisioned when I began throwing words upon the web was networking.   I have forged many great relationships through JournOwl and Thriving Oceans and many more are burgeoning at this very instance.  And I am always on the lookout for innovative ways to spread the word and get people of all ages excited about the natural world.  It’s definitely a passion…and  just maybe teetering on the brink of obsession; in a good way of course.

Well, this leads me to my ultimate point about networking, new friendships, talking conservation, spreading a positive message and divulging a little history of where things all started and where things are headed in my ocean world.

So wander on over to Oceans 4Ever and check out my latest interview (How it all started for Scott Artis) with some enthusiastic, like-minded ocean conservationists.  And we also had a chance to talk about making a difference so don’t pass up…Kids & conservation – five easy things kids can do today to help oceans.

 What are we waiting for, Let’s Get Ocean Responsible!

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