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.

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

While exploring the coral reefs of Hawaii’s Big Island I just couldn’t completely pull away from checking the occasional email.  I was actually coming along quite well until a few work calls popped through and forced me to open Pandora’s box.  But amongst the work craziness I can always find email solace with those pertaining to my wildlife and ocean conservation activities.

And it just so happened that awaiting my attention was an email from Ava over at The Reef Tank.  It was a request for an interview and to say the least I’m flattered.  So upon my return from island paradise I caught up with Ava to talk a little about Thriving Oceans and marine conservation.

So hop on over to The Reef Tank and check out the community blog, forums, photos and of course my interview.

Cheers!

Conservation, like expression, comes in many forms and a topic such as declining bluefin tuna is no different.  I recently received a digital copy of the following piece of art from Susan S., which was created in response to the latest failures to protect bluefin tuna.  The original is pastel and collage so enjoy yet heed its warning. 

A love for the ocean can be quite varied and in some instances inexplicable.  It is calming, extraordinary, deadly, mystical, full of life and truly deserves respect.  Honestly, I am not quite sure why I’m drawn to our marine ecosystems but my hypothesis is that it includes the previously mentioned adjectives as well as a hundred more that I could rattle off.  When you are hooked there is no turning back, ask any fish hobbyist; it’s an addiction.  And perhaps my first 10 gallon tank oh those many many years ago was the catalyst that sparked a lifelong love for all that is ocean.  Nirvana is breathing through a snorkel, watching fish, invertebrates, mammals, birds, reptiles and algae come together in perfect ecological balance.  I am an ocean lover!

I am also a conservationist, a biologist by training, and by default an anthropologist.  I look through the eyes of common sense, which is governed by conservation and biology.  And I watch and study people as they interact with the marine world; hence I delve into amateur anthropology.  Watching wildlife can be amazing, but watching people can be just as insightful.  With that I must conclude conservation is an interesting thing;  you never know how it will materialize but as for when it is every day.

A beer can left on the beach, a plastic bag allowed to blow into the waves or a parent that urges children to approach and prod a resting sea turtle are perfect opportunities to impart conservation ideals.  Which by the way can often be accomplished by simply setting a good example.  A beachcomber collecting debris that has washed ashore, a snorkeler collecting bottles and cans while swimming the reef, and an individual capitalizing on situations to educate the next generation are a few easy but worthwhile endeavors.

So just what is this all about?  Well a recent trip to the Big Island of Hawaii presented just such an opportunity as my wife and I wandered a beach along the Kohala coast.  We happened upon a green sea turtle that had pulled itself onto a beach made of lava rocks for a little rest in the morning sun.  As we captured a few snapshots from a distance (thanks to telephoto lenses!), a mother and her two children approached us and asked to see our sea turtle pictures.  After the exchange of a few words we pointed to the resting sea turtle…why look at pictures when actual observations can be made.  From a safe distance, the two girls watched the sleeping reptile as excitement filled their faces.  “Get closer,” the mother said softly, “it is OK as long as you don’t touch.”  As my wife and I exchanged glances the mother again urged the girls to get closer and closer.  After a moment of hesitation, the children heeded their mother’s wishes and were soon sitting next to the resting sea turtle. 

To be honest I was a little shocked at the request, but awe set in rather rapidly as the older child began using her plastic magnifying glass as an exploratory tool in lieu of her fingers.  Sidestepping the do not touch command on a technicality.  I understand the actions of the child and no doubt would have probably done the same at her age as such investigations are essential in learning.  But I was left waiting for the mother to step in and provide some guidance, a little lesson in wildlife respect, a explanation of threatened species, anything.  Although there was a lack of action by the parent, I could not bypass this incredible sea turtle encounter to make a positive learning experience, suggest a safe viewing distance, and hopefully spread a few cool sea turtle facts that she regurgitates while sharing her photos during show and tell.

It’s all in the attitude and one can often move conservation mountains by being non-confrontational, friendly and informative; especially when children are involved.  As I said, one never knows how an opportunity to teach marine conservation will present itself, but when it does just make sure you don’t miss the chance to set a good example.

An organization that delegates [tries to] policy without any foreseeable recourse at their disposal is simply a Think Factory.  They ‘THINK’ they can get offenders to comply merely on the basis of suggestion.  Perhaps this tactic works in the world of science fiction when the wave of a Jedi’s hand is all that is needed to persuade the weak minded to act in accordance, but on this blue planet it’s the greenery that ‘s the driving force.

As per PhilBee’s recent comment  on the posted video “A Ban on Bluefin Tuna?”,

Therein lies the major problem with the whole system: if a country wants to catch a particular species, it knows it can do so without fear.  Japan’s done it for years with whales, and intends doing it with Atlantic bluefin tuna until stocks are gone.

When you combine short term philosophies with big profits now, we find ourselves constantly hovering on the brink of a catastrophe.  Yet we dismiss the blatant warning signs in an inane refusal to admit a problem is brewing because wallets continue to grow.  And this global trend of denial spans Wall Street, the housing market, whales, salmon, bluefin tuna, sharks, and the list goes on and on.  Are we so short sighted that we cannot make the historical connections?  The age old saying describing those who do not  learn from history are condemned to repeat it is not just a cleaver witticism is it?

Well, we again find ourselves nodding in shame that organizations designed to protect global resources have managed to fall short of garnering enough protections to ensure sustainability.  But, it is not the sole fault of the United Nations or the International Whaling Commission to eradicate the problem.  It is the consumer behind the iron mask that is completing the profitable circle, continuing to order fish species plagued by depleted stocks, and are thus responsible for contributing to the overharvesting problem .  Making responsible choices is of the utmost importance and is quite necessary for conservation.  And of course that does not let negligent industries, businesses, and nations off the hook who continue to practice and promote unsustainable fishing and poaching practices.

So what we end up with is a lack-of-action scenario that is aptly manifested by an AP quote in “UN rejects export ban on Atlantic bluefin tuna”:

“Let’s take science and throw it out the door,” said Susan Lieberman, director of international policy with the Pew Environment Group in Washington. “It’s pretty irresponsible of the governments to hear the science and ignore the science. Clearly, there was pressure from the fishing interests. The fish is too valuable for its own good.”

Those concerned for ocean conservation must continue to educate friends and family, spread the word, make responsible consumer choices, and continue advocating sustainability.   While we fight for better legislation and protections, it doesn’t hurt to hit them where it hurts…their pocket books.

Photo: Captive bluefin tuna inside a transport cage. Credit: Gavin Newman / European Pressphoto Agency