Thriving Oceans

It’s Friday…So let’s keep this week’s trend of good news coming for ocean conservation.  The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary received relatively good overall health ratings in NOAA’s latest report.  However, the typical issues afflicting all our coasts are no stranger nor any less of a threat to this valuable marine sanctuary.

[The Report] indicates that the overall condition of the sanctuary’s marine life and habitat ranges from good (highest rating) to fair (moderate rating), but identifies several threats to sanctuary resources, such as growing coastal populations, agricultural and urban runoff, vessel traffic and marine debris.

“The sanctuary was designated because of its extraordinary resources and qualities, and this report confirms its continued vitality,” said Paul Michel, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary superintendent. “But it also reveals that expanding human population and activities require adaptive management strategies to preserve the sanctuary today and into the future.”

Offshore and nearshore environments are generally rated in the report as good (highest rating) to fair (moderate rating). In the nearshore, habitat-forming plants and animals, such as surfgrass, kelp and sponges, are healthy, according to the report. However, rockfish, salmon, and some seabird and marine mammal species have declined.

Proximity to dense population centers and agriculture is a factor in nearshore water quality. The boundary of Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary reaches to the shoreline for 276 miles along California’s coast. Beach water quality issues that are common throughout California, such as elevated pollutant levels, are also observed within the sanctuary.

The report also reflects a fair to poor rating for water quality, habitat and living resources in the estuarine environment of Elkhorn Slough, a part of the sanctuary. The sanctuary has already partnered with multiple agencies to implement strategies to restore estuarine habitats and improve water quality and the health of plants and animals in Elkhorn Slough.

Emerging or poorly understood threats present new challenges to sanctuary resources. Global climate change is already impacting ocean chemistry, which is expected to affect marine biodiversity and biological productivity. Habitat quality and living resource conditions are impacted by pollutants, marine debris, changing ocean conditions and disease. Rising population growth in adjacent cities and counties, vessel traffic, as well as air and water pollution from outside the sanctuary’s boundaries are also a concern. New management strategies will be necessary to meet some of these emerging resource threats.

Now that I’ve covered ‘Whale Wars’ and the ‘Institute for Delicious Whale Research’ over the last week, I thought I’d keep on topic and present some information over the very controversial  “Scientific Permit Whaling.”

The 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling established Article VIII that provides a means by which whales may be killed for scientific purposes.  But what is most interesting and surely limits any authority of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is that issuing a scientific whaling permit is actually decided upon by individual nations.  Although the nation has to submit a proposal, the Convention says,

“…it is the member nation that ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and this right overrides any other Commission regulations including the moratorium and sanctuaries.”

So what does this all mean for whales?  Well it means that the IWC has no direct effect on preventing the continued slaughter of whales.  IWC established sanctuaries are in reality not off limits to whaling, and harvesting can continue under the guise of research without any Convention/Commission repercussions.  The IWC is limited to Resolutions that ask governments to abstain from issuing scientific whaling permits, but as per their own words:

“While the Commission cannot interfere with the right of a member nation to issue a permit, it can comment on the permit, after receiving the report of the Scientific Committee.”

Unfortunately comments, strong words and resolutions are not enough of an incentive for some nations to refrain from sinking a harpoon into the side of a fleeing whale.  And as if the situation couldn’t become even more laughable, the IWC member nations, for instance, could not even come to a unanimous decision whether to vote in favor of a 2007 resolution against Japan’s Antarctic whaling program or not.  For all practical purposes the resolution did pass with 40 votes in favor, 2 votes against and 1 abstention, but there were 27 countries that “decided not to participate in the vote as they believed that the submission of the proposal was not conducive to building bridges within the Commission.”

But  there is an environmental  irony with  Japan’s Antarctic whaling program, known as JARPA II, as well.  According to what was presented to the IWC by Japan, the objectives of this so-called scientific harpooning are:

1. monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem;
2. modeling competition among whale species and developing future management objectives;
3. elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structure;
4. improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks.

Since the feasibility study has been completed, the JARPA II program will commence under full-scale research with scientific permits issued for 850 (plus 10%) Antarctic minke whales, 50 humpback whales and 50 fin whales per year.

Hmmm…now I am starting to see the light. Saving, improving and monitoring the Antarctic ecosystem by removing species vital to its health must be sound science.

If you watch Whale Wars then I am sure you have seen the banner trailing the Japanese whaling fleet that is supposed to lend legitimacy to their activities via the website ICRwhale.org .  The Institute for Cetacean Research is definitely the “spin zone” for killing whales and like others I came upon it last year after watching the series.  Well, as I was poking around the web for a post I am planning for next week, I happened upon a Greenpeace blog from October 2008 that brought to my attention a spoof well worth visiting.  I figured that I may not be the only one who missed this parody so just in case…

“The Institute for Delicious Whale Research” introduces itself as a “site has nothing to do with the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research, except for very scientific research purposes only.”

Although the site has not been updated since Dec. 29, 2008, the latest news article’s title is an eye catcher, “Whale Shepherd Attacks Whale Tickling Vessel.”

The incident occurred when the Keki Maru was undertaking a detour in the iced packing area after completing the day’s whale tickling activities. The Keki Maru topside starboard rear frypan was terminally damaged by the Dutch vessel’s crumbing, although no hindrance to its present cookery operation and extremely scientific research activities has occurred.

The Director General of the Institute of Delicious Whale Research (IDWR) in Tokyo, Mr Morisu Minoru, said that Japan’s right to conduct intensely scientific foodological research in the Antarctic was legally accepted by the most highly bribed member countries of the International Whaling Commission. Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Lying (ICRL), explicitly provides that member countries may issue permits that allows governments like Japan’s to compete to be the biggest liars in the developed world.

Credit: Institute for Delicious Whale Research

So go check it out and decide for yourself if “this is either a parody site, or extremely accurate scientific research.”

As  ‘Whale Wars’ season 2 finale rolled its credits a couple weeks back I have been left contemplating whether or not I would actually broach the topic on Thriving Oceans.  To be honest I have been throwing the idea back and forth ever since season 1, but I always managed to find something else to capture my attention (perhaps on purpose).  Now that the season is over and I’m sure has already circulated throughout the blogs, I am left with what may just be a passé post.  But, since I already started I decided to continue on and see what happens to pop onto the page.

In nothing less than a rollercoaster ride of emotions, the last two episodes brought whaling out of the shadows and plastered it over television screens throughout the world.  Sure I’ve seen the sickening whaling footage captured by the likes of Greenpeace, but in a sense of irony, as I am watching a program about whaling, I was not fully prepared to witness the slaughter in a Friday night context.  And if you’re thinking this is a case of ‘out of sight, out of mind’ on my part you are indeed correct.

What I found most interesting was the fact that while I was (and still am) truly appalled by the Japanese whaling activities and left mocking their propaganda-esque banners claiming they are “taking tissue samples,” or “studying stomach contents,”  I found myself wondering if a line had been crossed when the Sea Shepherds collided with the Yushin Maru #3 harpoon ship.  Did I betray my own beliefs by asking such a question?  I just saw a number of whales loaded onto the processing ship and a whale finally succumb to a very graphic death at the hands of the Japanese whaling fleet , so how could I even mull over whether the collision was justified? Especially since there is no doubt with whom I side.

Well, perhaps this says something about my character and perhaps it is also a case of filling the role of an armchair captain that drove my initial reaction.  But after careful introspection I, firstly, cannot say what I would do in the heat of witnessing such ocean atrocities, and secondly I just cannot  bring myself to say it was the wisest of all decisions.   My uneasiness  with the collision was not the byproduct of compassion for the whalers themselves, but for the cause I support.  Had someone been critically injured I am left wondering how that would have detrimentally affected direct/indirect action, whether by Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, or other non-profits, against whalers in the future.  We need to ensure those groups are available to continue their campaigns and not locked up in an international legal incident.

While policies need to change for the elimination of all whaling, thwarting Japanese efforts to fill their quotas in the meantime should be conducted in ways  that will not harm the ultimate goal. With that said I have no problem with riding the edge to protect whales in the Southern Ocean.   And while the whale warriors prepare for another season of cetacean protection, the vast majority of us are left simply watching from afar.  Instead of being mere observers we should also embark on a journey…a journey of support, of letter writing campaigns, and of boycotts to aid all of the great organizations working to bring an end to the harpooning of whales.

Sometimes it takes a man in black (or people in black in this case) to walk the line and bring a cause back  to the worldwide stage.

*Check out a great interview of Paul Watson conducted by TreeHugger

As the weekend rolled to an end and the inevitable Monday workday loom overhead, I moseyed on to the bedroom and turned on the radio. Expecting to encounter a little paranormal lullaby, I was incredibly surprised to find the guest host of Coast To Coast AM, George Knapp, tackling the overfishing crisis.  In his interviews with Rupert Murray (The End of the Line) and Rick Moonen (RM Seafood), George brought this important topic of conservation concern to an international audience.  Since Coast to Coast AM is broadcast on over 500 United States affiliates alone, I was elated  to hear the notion of sustainable seafood practices being promoted to millions and perhaps recruiting some listeners to ultimately make informed and responsible meal decisions.

 And sprinkled throughout their conversations was a discussion, or warning if you will, about a vanishing act recently perpetrated by Alaskan King salmon.  Well, after a little online digging I managed to come up with an AP report (Aug. 2, 2009) on CBS News describing the failure of king salmon to return to a number of Alaskan rivers…again.

“One Alaska river after another has been closed to king fishing this summer because significant numbers of fish failed to return to spawn. The dismally weak return follows weak runs last summer and poor runs in 2007, which also resulted in emergency fishing closures.” AP

And as the salmon continue to vanish from our waters year after year, we are left speculating whether the problem is ocean currents, food availability, bycatch, aquaculture, or overfishing.  Yet over the last decade, ” the incidental number of king salmon caught has skyrocketed, reaching over 120,000 kings in 2007.” AP

Hmmm!  Perhaps a connection?  Instead of embarking on another version of the blame game and debating whether (or to what degree) the lack of salmon returns is caused by natural phenomena, such as changing ocean currents, river conditions or available prey, or human activities, we need to institute a little fisheries management tough love. 

For in the end bycatch may not be the only culprit, but as opposed to the actions of Mother Nature, it is the factor that we can definitely control.  And of the 120,000 kings killed in pollock trawl nets in 2007, an estimated 78,000 adults would have returned to the rivers of western Alaska.

AP Article: King Salmon Failing to Return to Spawn

An eternity, perhaps not quite, but that’s my perception of time when thinking back to my Hawaiian excursion in mid-June.  And finishing up a home movie chronicling our adventure, complete with contemporary Island music from the likes IZ for instance, just gets me in the mood for some white sandy beaches and clear salty waters.  So why not share a few things I came across while swimming over the reefs of Maui.

Obviously such a post lends itself infinity as the amount of pictures and video I have is substantial… notice I did not mention anything about quality.  But with that said, using a digital underwater camera is  a goldmine for someone who needs to cull through the blurs to find a few gems. 

Of course I need to start the ball rolling with a Hawaiian green sea turtle.  It is by far my wife’s favorite marine creature and I am always left in awe at the range of colors found on their carapace.  By the way, did you see our Hawaiian green sea turtle video footage?  And even in today’s world of rampant conservation information,  I was left in shock to discover people clamoring to touch and harass this amazing species (And yes members of our party spoke up immediately to inform the culprits and end their activities). I guess that’s why we need to continue spreading the word.

Hawaiian Green Sea Turtle

A juvenile yellowtail coris (Coris gaimard), which is the first one I have run across in Hawaii

A raccoon butterflyfish (Chaetodon lunula)

A Slate or Red pencil urchin (Heterocentrotus mammillatus) and a black sea urchin (Echinothrix diadema)

A cushion seastar (Culcita novaeguineae)

Whitemouth moray eel (Gymnothorax meleagris)

An Arc-eye hawkfish (Paracirrhites arcatus)

The Hawaiian Day Octopus (Octopus cyanea) and a female bird wrasse (Gomphosus varius)