Thriving Oceans

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.

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