Thriving Oceans

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

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…

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.

Spyhop – For more of the funniest videos, click here

It’s not rocket science!  When the vocalizations of an animal experience a world-wide decline one of the most obvious answers is a population decline…or is it?  Well, the answers definitely don’t fall within the territory of rocketry but are more suited for marine biology.  And researchers are beginning to wonder if the decline in the pitch of Blue whale songs is actually a signal of good things to come.  According to the Scripps Institute of Oceanography:

The sound level of songs blue whales sing across the vast expanses of the ocean to attract potential mates has been steadily creeping downward for the past few decades, and a scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego and his colleagues believe the trend may be good news for the population of the endangered marine mammal.

Mark McDonald of WhaleAcoustics in Bellvue, Colo., along with John Hildebrand of Scripps Oceanography and Sarah Mesnick of NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center studied blue whale song data from around the world and discovered a downward curve in the pitch, or frequency, of the songs. The decline was tracked in blue whales across the globe, from off the Southern California coast to the Indian and Southern Oceans.

“The basic style of singing is the same, the tones are there, but the animal is shifting the frequency down over time. The more recent it is, the lower the frequency the animal is singing in, and we have found that in every song we have data for,” said Hildebrand, a professor of oceanography in the Marine Physical Laboratory at Scripps.

The study’s results are published in the most recent issue of the journal Endangered Species Research.

The researchers examined a list of possible causes for the frequency drop-from climate change to a rise in human-produced ocean noise-and believe it may be explained by the increase of blue whale numbers following bans on commercial whaling activities.

While the function of blue whale songs is not known and scientists have much more to learn, they do know that all singers have been determined to be males and that the high-intensity, or loud, and low-frequency songs propagate long distances across the ocean. Blue whales are widely dispersed during the breeding season and it is likely that songs function to advertise which species is singing and the location of the singing whale.

In the heyday of commercial whaling, as blue whale numbers plummeted, it may have been advantageous for males to sing higher frequency songs, the researchers believe, in order to maximize their transmission distance and their ability to locate potential mates (females) or competitors (other males).

“It may be that when (blue whale) densities go up, it’s not so far to get to the closest female, whereas back when they were depleted it may have been that the closest female was a long way away,” said Hildebrand.

In the 1960s, when blue whale numbers were substantially reduced and recordings of the animals were first made, there may have been a tradeoff in which the male suitors chose to sing higher frequencies that were louder and heard over greater distances, Hildebrand said. In more recent years, as population sizes have increased, it may now be more advantageous for males to sing songs that are lower in frequency rather than louder.

“When they make these songs they need to use most of the air in their lungs,” said Hildebrand. “It’s like an opera singer that sees how long he can hold a note. The (male) songs are made to impress the females and/or other males, so I think that’s how the boy blue whales are impressing the girls, or are showing off to other boys: by making a loud and long song.”

The scientists say the same downward pitch phenomenon may be true in other whales such as fin and humpbacks, but the blue whale song, with a comparatively easier song to analyze, is a good springboard to study other species. Hildebrand says such knowledge about whale songs could be important in monitoring whale populations and recovery efforts.

During the study the researchers analyzed thousands of blue whale songs divided into at least 10 worldwide regions. These include the Northeast, Southwest and Northwest Pacific Ocean; the North Atlantic; the Southern Ocean near Antarctica; and the North and Southeast Indian Ocean. Blue whale songs have been recorded for the last 45 years through scientific and military applications by seafloor seismometers tracking regional earthquakes and dedicated whale acoustic recording packages.