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.

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.

Yeah, it’s a balancing act, no doubt about it.  And if you’ve been following me for a while here at Thriving Oceans you are probably aware that I’m not in a monogamous relationship with ocean conservation.  I have a burrowing owl mistress on the side, and it’s nothing to be ashamed of. 

Besides using it as an excuse for my apparent disappearance from commenting on our wondrous seas, it actually does have a rather unique, albeit indirect, connection with ocean conservation.  At the end of July I was informed that a burrowing owl conservation project I submitted to Earth Island Institute earlier in the year  was approved by the Board of Directors.  I’m still working to get things integrated with this incredible organization, but I simply wanted to spread the word because I’m just plain EXCITED.  And what an opportunity it will be as I continue my journey down the conservation path.

So where’s the link?  Well, if you’ve been paying attention to the Academy Awards, Animal Planet, the news, etc.,  you should be familiar with The Cove, Blood Dolphins, Ric O’Barry, the International Marine Mammal Project, the campaign to end the Japanese slaughter of Dolphins, and Earth Island Institute.  I’ve joined the family and will strive to be just as successful in bringing awareness and changes to burrowing owl conservation as Ric has done for dolphins.

Check out some of his work…

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.

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!

“Join the Center for Biological Diversity this Sunday, May 23 for a state-wide rally to save the whales.

This June, the International Whaling Commission is considering allowing commercial whale harvests and granting several countries quotas for whales. This new proposal undermines the whaling moratorium, which for 24 years has helped bring whales back from the brink of extinction.

Regretfully, President Obama supports the proposal to allow whale killing. The policy would reward countries like Japan, Iceland, and Norway — countries that have killed 33,000 whales since the moratorium — by condoning those countries’ whale hunts if they reduce their catch to the quota limit. Allowing any commercial whaling would mark an unacceptable setback for whales and conservation.

This Sunday, May 23, is a day of action along the California coast to call on President Obama to keep the whaling ban intact and strengthen regulations in the International Whaling Commission. Please join the Center in our support for these events featuring speakers, costumes, and action steps to promote strong protections for our oceans and whales. Staff from the Center’s Oceans program will be speaking at the San Francisco City Hall rally at noon on Sunday.”

 Click here for Save the Whales Day rally locations.