Thriving Oceans

Coming off the heels of Hope for small sea turtle populations, there is yet another stint of positive ocean conservation news; this time for our cetacean friends.  A new publication in Conservation Biology has actually documented voluntary cooperation by shipping vessels to avoid whale strikes. 

Fin, humpback, right and gray whales have the unfortunate distinction of being the most frequently reported victims of collisions based on historical records.  But whale strikes are not limited to only those species as deaths have been noted for sei, blue and minke whales as well.  However, one particular cetacean stands out above the whale strike crowd with victimhood reaching 2 orders of magnitude above the others.  Perhaps its affinity for urbanized coastal waters around the globe, the endangered North Atlantic right whale is in need of a little shipping compassion. Especially when a 2008 report found that  53% of North Atlantic right whale deaths were attributed to vessel strikes.

To curb the problem, conservation policies have been discussed and even implemented, including the establishment of an ‘area to be avoided.’  In 2007, “The International Maritime Organization adopted the Roseway Basin Area to be avoided on the Scotian Shelf as a voluntary conservation initiative to reduce the risk of lethal vessel strikes to right whales.”  This voluntary area to be avoided went into effect on May 1, 2008 and was designed to be seasonally effective from June 1 to December 31st of each year.  With shipping companies traditionally against the execution  of speed reduction regulations and alteration of shipping lanes (i.e. time is money), the notion of a voluntary avoidance area was definitely a concept that needed confirmation of compliance.

To my surprise, the researchers found:

” Estimates of vessel-operator voluntary compliance ranged from 57% to 87% and stabilized at 71% within the first 5 months of implementation. Our estimates showed an 82% reduction in the risk of lethal vessel strikes to right whales due to vessel-operator compliance. We conclude that the high level of compliance achieved with this voluntary conservation initiative occurred because the area to be avoided was adopted by the International Maritime Organization.”

But the caveat with ocean-going vessels avoiding a conventional shipping lane was that they needed to find a new travel route.  And although the newly adopted course was quite favorable to the right whale, it has the potential to increase fin whale ship strikes by approximately 7%.  The argument, however, is that the fin whale population is 250 times more than that of the endangered North Atlantic right whale, right whales are more abundant than fin whales in the ‘area to be avoided’ , and the ship-strike risk to humpback whales and to sei whales will be reduced by 11% and 74% respectively.

So what does a reduction in ship strikes ultimately mean to the endangered North Atlantic right whale, well it may very well be the difference between recovery and extinction.

“Preventing as few as two female deaths per year would increase the population growth rate to replacement levels that would initiate recovery.  Such prevention is particularly relevant given that contemporary probability estimates of deaths from vessel strikes could be as high as 10 individuals in any given year.”

 

Reference: Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Taggart, C.T.(2009) Efficacy of a Voluntary Area to Be Avoided to Reduce Risk of Lethal Vessel Strikes to Endangered Whales. Conservation Biology

A new publication in Conservation Biology is shedding light on the effect of a low population on fertility success in sea turtles.  And unlike other species that experience reduced fertility when population densities drop, green sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, and their conservationists are receiving a bit of good news. 

“We found that there has been no reduction in fertility in small nesting aggregations in either of these species worldwide.”

The well known issue of sea turtle overexploitation has sparked recovery efforts around the globe.  But the lingering question was whether some turtle populations have passed the point of no return and would thus be unable to ultimately avoid extinction.  According to researchers, marine species have had a variable success rate in recuperating from low numbers, which is a product of the biology of the species and human pressures like habitat degradation and harvesting.  However, these latest findings suggest that even populations comprised of very low densities have a chance at recovery (Previous critical density models indicated depensation might occur when populations dipped below 5% of historical numbers).

“Furthermore, there was clearly no pronounced reduction in fertility in either species at low numbers, even in rookeries yielding as few as 10 clutches per year.”

 

“The capacity to maintain functional levels of fertilization success in the face of high levels of exploitation may help in part to explain why total extirpations have been few and recoveries have been possible.  This information does not, however, explain why in some cases recovery has not occurred.”

I guess the biological moral of the story is that even highly reduced populations have an “intrinsic conservation value”, and can provide much needed information in sea turtle biology and aid in global recovery efforts.

BELL, C., BLUMENTHAL, J., BRODERICK, A., & GODLEY, B. (2009). Investigating Potential for Depensation in Marine Turtles: How Low Can You Go? Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01313.x

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

TODAY IS A GREAT DAY FOR SEA TURTLES!  Check out the following press release:

NASSAU, Bahamas — The Ministry of Agriculture and Marine Resources hereby announces that the Fisheries Regulations governing marine turtles have been amended to give full protection to all marine turtles found in Bahamian waters by prohibiting the harvesting, possession, purchase and sale of turtles, their parts and eggs. The new regulations also prohibits the molestation of marine turtle nests.

The regulations will come into effect on Tuesday, September 1st, 2009.

The Government has engaged in intensive and extensive consultations with the public over the issue of the ban on the harvesting and sale of marine turtles for the past twelve months. The commitment to the conservation and preservation of these species while in Bahamian waters has been demonstrated by the introduction of protective measures and safeguards over the past two decades, starting with the actions taken to safeguard the hawksbill turtle in 1986.