Thriving Oceans

International Coastal Cleanup Day is Sept. 19, 2009 – Marine debris is any man-made, solid material that enters our waterways directly or indirectly. A problem that not only damages our marine and coastal ecosystems, litter that finds its way into the environment affects wildlife as well as beach goers  Nearly 80% of debris, found on beaches, coastal waters, estuaries, and oceans, is washed, blown, or dumped from shore, while 20% is from recreational boats, ships, fishing vessels, and ocean platforms.

Cigarette butts, soda cans, plastic bags, and fishing gear are slow to degrade and present horrific problems to the life they encounter. Studies have shown that marine debris threatens over 265 different species of marine and coastal wildlife through entanglement, smothering, and interference with digestive systems.

Whether a small or large-scale polluter, the litter entering our seas and oceans is reducing fish and wildlife populations.  In fact, the cumulative impact of continuous, small-scale pollution can be dramatic.  The increase in the use of various kinds of plastic as durable, lightweight packaging has heightened the need for proper management and disposal.  Because of the abundance of plastic in our daily lives, it is of no surprise that it is ubiquitous in our world’s oceans.

Besides the threats to wildlife, certain types of marine debris, such as broken glass and medical waste wash-ups, can pose a serious threat to public health.  This type of debris and pollution has resulted in beach closures and swimming advisories that have robbed coastal communities of significant tourism dollars.

So go beach combing this weekend and forget the shells…GET THAT TRASH AND SAVE WILDLIFE!

California Coastal Cleanup Day
Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup

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.

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

Out of sight out of protection?  Not any longer as technology is enabling scientists to study deep sea coral reef ecosystems and provide protection before commercial bottom trawling, crab pots and energy exploration activities mar the reefs. 

“The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council is pushing the proposal to protect the region, about the size of West Virginia, in depths down to 2,500 feet and below, creating the largest deep water coral protected area off the Atlantic Coast.” AP

In a world of overfishing, bycatch, and declining ocean health, I know this is hard to believe but this is one of those rare cases where protections are being instituted prior to the development of a potential problem. Go figure!

According to the USGS:

The Atlantic cruises will examine deep coral ecosystems off Florida and North Carolina. The Gulf cruise will involve returning to deep coral sites visited in previous years as well as exploring new target locations on the West Florida Slope and a deep ship wreck. The primary research objectives are to examine and classify deep coral reef habitats and their associated fauna and compare them with non-reef environments.

The program has integrated a diverse group of collaborators, including scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNC-W), UNC Chapel Hill, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), and the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS).

Read more:  Protection plan deep-sea coral reefs considered

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

In a previous incarnation of Thrivingoceans.org, I used to have a list of favorite quotes that was almost completely comprised of excerpts from the movie Jaws.  And after all the years of watching the flick I am still not exactly sure how my wife truly feels about the film, but she does seem to tolerate the viewings.  Perhaps I’ll ask her tonight.

At any rate, I came across this great video from Save Our Seas and I wanted to pass it along, not only for the familiar movie appeal, but for its ultimate message.  Don’t be alarmed as it may contradict what is typically heard on the evening news and cable news networks.

“You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
Chief Martin Brody (Jaws)