Thriving Oceans

Sometimes it takes a meal  to get some notice.  And the next time you try to order fish and chips and the basket comes back heavy on potatoes don’t blame the waiter or waitress.  Our ocean gluttony has decimated the popular batter-dipped fish over the last 40 years.  Gluttony is the key word as our fishing practices are less than sustainable to say the least and the result of consuming a species faster than they can reproduce should not surprise any of us. 

The fact is that cod are vanishing, which is why the European Union is calling for sharp cuts to fishing quotas.  But are “sharp” cuts up to 25% in some fishing areas enough to ensure the species fully recovers? I’m not convinced!

Here are a few points to consider:

• In the 1970s more than 250,000 tons of cod were estimated to fill fishing zones in the North Sea, eastern British Channel and Scandinavia’s Skagerrak Strait
• Stocks are now hovering around 50,000 tons, a mere 20% of historical estimates
• “…will seek to cut the catch in some fishing grounds around Britain, France, Spain and much of Scandinavia from 5,700 tons this to 4,250 tons in 2010″
• “The scientific prognosis for most stocks is not encouraging, with many in a worse state than last year,” Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
• “Overfishing off Canada’s maritime provinces exhausted the world’s richest cod grounds and forced the government to impose a fishing moratorium. The collapse wiped out more than 42,000 jobs, and 18 years later the fish have still not returned. Some Canadian scientists believe the collapse of cod stocks off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia changed the marine ecosystem so dramatically that it may be impossible for cod to recover.”
• In the U.S., the two major New England cod fishing waters have witnessed steep declines with catches totaling only 3,868 metric tons in 2007. This is about 19% of historical catches in the 1980s (20,000 tons annually)

Reference: EU officials warn of disappearing cod

 “The United States today announced that it will seek the strongest possible management for the conservation of Atlantic bluefin tuna, a fish which is in serious trouble.

This action has two components.

First, we are sending a clear and definitive statement to the international community that the status quo is not acceptable. 

Over the past 40 years, the international body that manages bluefin tuna, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), has overseen a 72 percent decline in the adult population of the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock of bluefin tuna and an 82 percent decline in the adult population of the western Atlantic stock. 

In recent years, the countries that fish the eastern stock, which spawns in the Mediterranean, have done so at two to three times the sustainable level, causing a significant and rapid decline in the last decade. The status of the western stock, which spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and is fished primarily off the North American coast, has recently stabilized due to the establishment of well-enforced, science-based quotas. 

A sustained lack of science-based management for the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock of bluefin tuna, and concerns about slow recovery in the west, have brought us to this point. As a member in ICCAT, the United States calls for strong and definitive action at the November 2009 meeting in Brazil. This includes establishing management measures that end overfishing such as setting responsible science-based quotas, stronger enforcement of these quotas, and closures during spawning periods. 

Second, the United States strongly supports Monaco’s proposal to list Atlantic bluefin tuna under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to prohibit international trade of the species. The United States will consider amending or withdrawing support for the Monaco proposal if ICCAT adopts significantly strengthened management and compliance measures. 

Improving international fishery management and ending illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing are high priorities for the United States government, Congress, commercial and recreational fishermen, and conservationists.”

-Statement from Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, Announcing Support for Listing Atlantic Bluefin Tuna on International Trade Endangered Species List

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