Eye of the Whale: entertaining fact-based novel with timely issues

The fact-based novel, much like a "based on a true story" film, is an interesting literary device - a cross between education and entertainment. When done right, meaning when the factual side is accurately portrayed, it can present information and issues (the non-fiction part) in the context of a personal human experience (the fictional part). This is something that non-fiction can sometimes miss, particularly when discussing science- or environmental-based issues.

There are many great examples. Carl Sagan's Contact, comes to mind, a novel combining present-day science in radio astronomy that then takes the reader a step beyond to our first contact with intelligent extra-terrestrial life. And that's the beauty of the fact-based novel, using facts to set the stage to then transport us to a fictional situation or premise that scientists may have actually dreamed of or bandied about over a couple of beers but would not openly propose without the research to actually support it.

Eye of the Whale, by Douglas Carlton Abrams (Atria Books) is just such a work - combining the topical issues of whale communication research, ocean pollution, and industrial/political influence to move the reader from what we know into what could be and, in so doing, takes us on an adventure with a dramatic ending and much to ponder as to our own future.

The story centers on Elizabeth, a young PhD candidate studying humpback whales and their songs in the Caribbean. Her research is in competition with local whalers and their paths cross in the opening act when, during a hunt, she detects a unique and abrupt change in the whales' communication. A baby whale is dying - not from a whaler's lance but from disease and this leads Elizabeth on both, a detective's investigation to find out what is causing whales worldwide to vocalize songs of concern for their offspring, and a crusade to save another humpback whale trapped in the brackish water far inland from San Francisco Bay - a whale that is trying to communicate an important message to its species and perhaps the world.

"Apollo swam northwest toward the summer feeding grounds - his long flippers not far from those of his two companions--
The three whales moved their flukes rhythmically and forcefully--their grace belying the extraordinary thrust of the broad tails propelling them onward--
Apollo could feel his companions by the lift and fall of water and the low sounds of the contact calls that groaned from within their great bodies--"

As Eye of the Whale unfolds, it lays a foundation of facts regarding whale intelligence, the insidious threat from chemical pollution and its impact on animals and man in even the most minute of quantities, and the multitude of players involved in maintaining the status quo for whaling and industrial chemical production. Abrams establishes a host of characters and locations with great detail and from there, the fictional novel takes over, culminating in Elizabeth literally fighting for her life - against those who are concerned as to what secrets she is uncovering - while racing against the clock to save the life of an important messenger whale.

The extent of Abrams research, with copious acknowledgments at the conclusion, is clearly evident and adds greatly to the believability of the story - an important component to any fact-based novel; the reader must be convinced of the factual foundation before any literary license is taken. And while some of the romantic dialog was a bit awkward at times, I found Eye of the Whale to be a riveting story, keeping one's attention to the end where the reader is left to ponder the real implications for the future that the story presents.

For lovers of whales, this book would certainly be an engaging read. However, and perhaps more importantly, if you have even a faint passing interest in environmental issues but resist those non-fiction works that sometimes seem to be factual digests of gloom and doom, then pick up Eye of the Whale. Every good yarn has a foundation of truth and Eye of the Whale accomplishes just that.

Available in hardcover, paperback, or Kindle from Amazon.

Oceana.org: new web site keeps score of accomplishments

There are many conservation organizations vying for our attention and support. I subscribe to several to get the latest updates on what is happening in the world of conservation. Typically each organization has a particular strategy that best maximizes their available resources: some focus on legal action, others go after illegal trade in threatened species, while others focus on general public awareness.

Oceana is one of the larger and more prominent organizations involved in ocean conservation. They approach a wide range of issues and have international reach. They recently revised their web site and I think it's worth a look. While sprucing up a web site with the latest technology in look and feel is common today, what I found noteworthy with Oceana's new web site was some of the information it provides.

In particular, the web site explores various issues and lists what Oceana's involvement is, what they are doing regarding, say, overfishing, ocean acidification, or shark conservation. And then, most importantly, they list their victories. This is critical when you are considering whether an organization is worthy of your support, particularly your financial support: what are they doing and what have they DONE.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of well-intentioned groups out there with worthwhile agendas but, in the end, its what they accomplish that really matters. So it's good to see Oceana providing that kind of information.

The web site also contains information on a long list of various species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. And there is information on many of their ongoing scientific research projects and expeditions, which are of considerable interest to me (I'm always interested in what is going on out in the field and how these results are being communicated to the decision-makers and general public).

Oceana is among my top A-list of committed ocean conservation organizations. Check out their new web site at www.oceana.org.

Galapagos Islands: hi-tech GPS comes to the aid of marine park management

The Galapagos Islands - an oceanic oasis that was one of Darwin's key research sites for his seminal work on evolution - is feeling the pressure of its unique status. With increased tourism and island population, combined with international demands for seafood, the Galapagos has been showing signs of this negative impact on its natural resources.

The Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) was created in 1998 to provide protection to the islands' surrounding waters. And in the next few months, through the support of Conservation International and WildAid, the GMR will be taking a hi-tech step forward in managing major ship traffic in the area.

Utilizing GPS satellite tracking equipment, the activities of ships greater than 20 metric tons will be monitored by the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS). This will provide the GNPS with greater ability to manage and regulate ships in no-take zones, tourism itineraries, and commercial shipping. Besides "tagging" ships, the computer-based system will enable the GNPS to tag and track migratory species and monitor environmental/climate changes.

Hats off to Conservation International and WildAid for supporting this important example of cost-effective marine research and management.

Nature: the ultimate oppressed group

Well, here in the U.S., the Independence Day holiday weekend is coming to a close. Canada had their Canada Day on the first of this month and many nations around the world celebrate important moments in their history wherein oppression was shed in favor of social or political harmony. Unfortunately, across the globe, there are still people living without the freedoms they deserve and hopefully they will someday reap those benefits.

But there is one group that is still oppressed on a daily basis, the results of which can and are having an impact on the entire planet, and that is the oppression of nature.

Mankind has yet to fully embrace the notion that we are a part of nature, not separate from it. Whether it's our own hubris in being the most "advanced" species on the planet (a debatable notion, for sure) or whether it's the result of religious dogma, man still persists in seeing things as "us and them," or shall I say "us and it." We have perverted the concept of dominion - meaning to protect - to become the worst form of domination, to control and take for our own self-interests. In doing so, we fail to appreciate the impact we have on nature and how nature can impact upon us.

Now this did not happen overnight. Man has taken this approach in the past for centuries but it is in the relatively recent present that we are now understanding the consequences by either actually seeing the drastic results or at least having a better knowledge of the intricacies of nature's web. We are now able to scientifically forecast a dire future if we do not take a different strategy sooner rather than later.

We are part of the little picture, the microcosms that might include the loss of a single plant or animal species, all the way up to the big picture, macrocosms that support our climate, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. We stand perhaps on the cusp of a global realization, that by denying our place within nature, we will certainly face issues that will dwarf all of our own self-interests - political, social, economic, or otherwise.

Nature evolves; it does so to perpetuate itself, to survive. Nature will make adjustments to the climate, the land and seas, the flora and fauna, in response to internal or external factors. And it does so very objectively; there are no favorites. So when we put nature in peril, we are actually putting ourselves in peril.

Now a fatalist might say, "Well, there's nothing we can do. If nature wants to take us out, it will. So you might as well enjoy the ride while you can." But perhaps it's my own human arrogance that says, "No, our fate is what we make." Mankind is the oppressor but it can be the steward, helping itself by helping nature; being a part of nature rather than against it.

Or for you sports fans, here's a metaphor: like it or not, we are part of the ultimate team . . . and the coach is watching. I'd like to survive the next round of cuts. How about you?

Dr. Sylvia Earle: discussing the limits of the ocean's bounty

At last month's BLUE Ocean Film Festival, I had the opportunity to videotape an interview with Dr. Sylvia Earle on behalf of planSEA.com, an organization dedicated to teaching ocean conservation to the next generation: the children.

Dr. Earle is one of the leading figures of ocean exploration and conservation and we touched on a great many subjects in our interview. Here is a segment that addressed the need for education and also an important perspective regarding the taking of seafood.



I found her viewpoint in comparing seafood to "bushmeat" very enlightening. I've always said we rely on raising cattle and poultry as a way to feed the masses and Sylvia backs that up with the idea that we long ago realized that simply taking wild terrestrial animals (bushmeat) would not work, that it could not be sustained.

But that is exactly what we do with the ocean's bounty - and it is a very limited bounty, limited in the sense that it was never meant to feed the human population. That is why I have always been a supporter of aquaculture or aquafarming, recognizing that there are significant challenges that need to be addressed regarding the practice but convinced that the ultimate future of seafood harvesting will need to come from these controlled methods.

I have had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Earle and her staff on several occasions and let me tell you, she is one busy person. As explorer-in-residence with the National Geographic Society, she works 24/7 with major ocean conservation organizations and with the prominent decision-makers to help shape the future of our oceans.

It must be frustrating at times because the bureaucratic wheels can seem to turn so slowly. But I take heart in something I read recently in TIME magazine regarding political decision-making and the control of power. In an article about FDR, David Kennedy wrote,

"As the historian Henry Adams wrote, the greatest fear 'was power; not merely power in the hands of a president or a prince, of one assembly or several, of many citizens or a few, but power in the abstract, wherever it existed and under whatever form it was known.' That's why the framers of the Constitution constructed a political order based on 'checks and balances.' That arrangement has conspicuous virtues, but it also designs a measure of paralysis into the American political system. It impedes swift adjustment to changing economic and social realities. It sustains a chronic deadlock in which trauma and shock become necessary preconditions for effective political action. To a degree not found in other political cultures, it forges a perverse partnership between danger and opportunity."

Okay, in essence, it is saying that our political bureaucracy is structured to prevent the concentration of power and avoid knee-jerk reactions. And that's a good thing. Maddening, but a good thing. Particularly if we wait for environmental "trauma and shock" to elicit a political response, we know that it won't be an isolated event but a harbinger of many more, catastrophic events.

That's why we must persevere with both generating broader public awareness and motivating our leaders to act. Enough "events" have already occurred, there is enough evidence, enough data needed to act; we don't need to wait for the roof to cave in on us.

Wolves, Seals & Tuna: some encouraging news

My apologies for my not keeping up with new postings. I have been immersed in some video & editing assignments. So let's see what's been going on lately . . .

Some good news:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has placed the wolves of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin back on the endangered species list. Once protected, these wolves of the Great Lakes were demoted from endangered to threatened by the Bush Administration and then all protection was removed in 2007. Following legal action by several NGOs, protection was reinstated but then it was removed by the new administration just this past April. New legal action again by NGOs has now once again reinstated the wolves endangered status.

It could continue to seesaw back and forth as the anti-wolf lobby, headed by cattle ranching interests, fights back. But the potential loss of these wolves has consequences, as seen in the past when open hunting of wolves caused a spike in the deer population and throughout a wide range of small animals and rodents. Cattle ranchers, in protecting their herds, now had a whole new set of problems to deal with as deer grazed on the lands and small animals ran amok in numbers. Nature demands that we keep our top predators to insure a balanced ecosystem.

Hawaiian Monk Seals have long been considered one of the most endangered of all marine mammals. Their existence in the Hawaiian Island chain, particularly in the northern islands, has been tenuous at best.

But the National Marine Fisheries Services has recently agreed to extend protection for the seals across the entire chain with federally protected habitat, thereby hopefully improving the seals chances for survival. This particularly important in the northern islands where the seals have had the greatest difficulty due to starvation, disease, and entanglement with fishing nets and gear.

Populations of tuna have been decimated worldwide as market demand for this seafood continues to grow. Realizing their future industry is at stake, several of the world's leading tuna processors have formed the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). Included in the foundation are Bumble Bee, Starkist, and Chicken of the Sea.

The foundation's goals are to commit to processing only tuna that:

• Comes from well-managed, non-depleted stocks
• Can be verified as to being legally caught
• Has not been caught using methods that generate unacceptable levels of bycatch
• Has not been transshipped (offloaded) at sea

All of these news items are good news but will require vigilance on the part of NGOs and government watchdog agencies or organizations to insure that they are properly carried out.

Still, it's nice to start the week on an optimistic note.

Endangered Species Act: government feet-dragging over critical corrections

The issue of overturning many of the 11th hour steps taken by the previous U.S. administration that weakened environmental protections and regulations have been addressed several times in this blog in the past (Click here and here). But one of the big challenges we face is the tendency for government to procrastinate, stall, or stonewall acting on environmental or conservation issues until it is more convenient or financial feasible (as if nature is listening to our endless stream of rationales).

The Center for Biological Diversity(CBD) is focused on an upcoming deadline regarding a procedural process to undo crippling changes to the Endangered Species Act(ESA):

Dear Richard,

A crucial deadline is looming: By May 9, the Obama administration has to seize its opportunity to overturn last-minute Bush administration regulations that gut the Endangered Species Act, or it will miss the chance. The Bush rules exempt thousands of federal activities from review under the Endangered Species Act, and specifically exclude greenhouse gas emissions from regulation. If this administration doesn't withdraw those "extinction rules" by May 9, they will stay in effect -- a disaster for endangered species.

Congress specifically empowered Obama's secretaries of Commerce and Interior with the authority to overturn the Bush extinction regulations with the stroke of a pen. The secretaries of Commerce and Interior jointly administer the Endangered Species Act, with the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (under Commerce) responsible for marine species such as whales and sea turtles, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (in Interior) responsible for species such as wolves and polar bears.

While more than 80,000 people have written to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar demanding he revoke the Bush rules, Gary Locke has only recently been confirmed as secretary of Commerce and has yet to take a position on the issue. Similarly, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the new head of the National Ocean Atmospheric Administration, has failed to take a public position on rescinding the extinction rules. Please contact Secretary Locke and Dr. Lubchenco and urge them to immediately revoke the Bush extinction regulations.

The Endangered Species Act has served nature well for 35 years. And it's more important today than ever. Here's a link to a CBD web page where you can add your voice. Click here.

A Question From RTSea: how's the blog doing?

Just a quick question to my readers . . . What would you like to see from this blog?

I have basically taken the approach of being a news aggregator for nature issues (partial to marine conservation with a specialty interest in sharks) and have tried to keep my opinions as diplomatic as possible (I find too many blogs seem to be forums for rudely spouting off, thereby fomenting partisanship and not pushing the agenda forward).

Give me your thoughts as to what you would like to see. If I'm on the right track, let me know. If not, let's hear your ideas. With so much mass communication flying around these days, the last thing I want to do is waste any one's time.

Thanks.
RTSea

Omnibus Land Act: taking steps to learn more about the oceans

As we have often heard, mankind knows more about the backside of the moon than it does about the oceans on our own planet. There's so much that we don't know, so many incredible secrets to be uncovered - many of which can prove to be beneficial to our existence, present and future.

So, when legislation is based with the purpose of learning more about the oceans, that's always a good thing. The recent signing of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act puts forth provisions to study the oceans to learn more about the effects of global warming and industrial influence. Specifically there are four:

The Ocean and Coastal Exploration and NOAA Act authorizes the National Ocean Exploration Program, National Undersea Research Program, and the Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to increase scientific knowledge for the management, use and preservation of oceanic, coastal and Great Lake resources.

The Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act authorizes the establishment of an integrated system of coastal and ocean observations for the nation's coasts, oceans and Great Lakes.

The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act authorizes a coordinated federal research program on ocean acidification.

The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act authorizes funding for a program to protect important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, aesthetic, or watershed protection values, and that are threatened by conversion to other uses.

It's very simple: if we want to save it, we need to know what to save and how to save. When you have the knowledge then the debate becomes secondary to the need for action.

Blue Vision Summit: bringing together the players to spread the word

Earlier this month, the Blue Vision Summit was held in Washington D.C. This conference represented a coalition of several ocean conservation groups, government bodies, and scientific organization, coming together to forward an agenda of proactive steps regarding ocean issues. Over 400 recognized scientists, oceanographers, decision-makers, political influentials, representing over 200 organizations including NOAA, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and National Geographic to name a few.

The summit was the brainchild of the Blue Frontier Campaign, headed by David Helvarg, author and ocean activist. The Blue Frontier Campaign has a 10 point plan to generate greater proactive interest by the general public regarding ocean issues by harnessing the power of education and media communications of all types.

There are many worthwhile organizations making their best efforts regarding preserving our aquatic resources. Summits like this allow them to pool their collective brainpower and capabilities to speak with a more unified approach. There are enough well-intentioned organizations; sometimes what is needed is for the public to hear them as one voice. It will be interesting to watch what comes from this event over the months to come.

To learn more about the Blue Frontier Campaign, their 10 point plan, and what was accomplished at the recent Blue Vision Summit, check out their web site. Click here.

Marine Protected Areas: are they the hoped for success?

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and No Take Reserves (NTRs) have been instituted worldwide, from the South China Sea to the North Atlantic to the Mediterranean, as a method to not only preserve marine environments but also provide a means to ensure a reasonable population outside of the zone for commercial fishing. While common sense might dictate that these zones would logically improve the health of a marine environment, there are many challenges in empirically proving it.

While an MPA or an NTR may have a defined boundary, those limits have not been, shall we say, "communicated" to the marine life below the surface and so spatial density, or spillover as it is sometimes called, becomes a critical component. A healthy zone that generates populations of species that extend beyond its borders and provides a reasonable commercial yield, does not do so in a vacuum. There must be a proper flow of incoming influences including plankton, coral, and fish larval stages and other biosystem factors - all of which pay no attention to a zone's arbitrary boundaries.

While preliminary results appear positive, there is a considerable amount of challenging research taking place:

• Studying the impact of political/public use influences on the size (reduction) of a zone versus initial environmental recommendations (preliminary research indicates the negative effect is disproportionately larger than the amount of size reduction).
• Researchers are often challenged by a lack of extensive baseline studies of ecosystems prior to the zone for use in evaluating against post-zone studies.
• Much research needs to be done to document the relationship/effect of multiple MPAs or NTRs and how they interact with each other.

To date there have not been any major negative ecological effects attributed to MPAs and NTRs, but let's hope with more research over time, we will have the body of data to undeniably prove their effectiveness and how we can maximize or improve on that success for both environmental and commercial interests.

EarthEcho International: carrying on the Cousteau tradition

There are several terrific non-profit conservation organizations (NGOs) doing good work in the name of ocean conservation. While often involved in many facets of marine issues, each organization tends to focus their energies where their particular expertise can do the most good: political, scientific, education, activism, and so on.

For many of us, our initial exposure to the oceans was through the work of Jacque-Yves Cousteau - his expeditions, films, and books and the organization or marine conservation empire that he built. With his passing, the ocean movement lost a recognizable celebrity figure head and the Cousteau organization slowly devolved into different factions, each with their own skills and accomplishments, but perhaps none as powerful as the original.

EarthEcho International is an environmental media and education non-profit founded by Philippe and Alexandra Cousteau (children of Philippe Cousteau, Sr. and grandchildren of Jacque-Yves Cousteau). In existence for several years, it is slowly coming into its own and beginning to flex its muscle. While involved in efforts to motivate governments to initiate better ocean policies, one of its goals to better educate the general public, in particular the youth, as they will be the next inheritors and caretakers of the planet.

Youth likes its heroes and icons, so keep an eye on Philippe. He is a young face with a famous heritage that could prove to be an important figure in reaching young people worldwide to embrace environmental issues and set new directions in public thinking. EarthEcho International has assembled an interesting group of advocates and educators. Let's wish them well for the future.

Learn more at the EarthEcho International web site.

Scuba Divers: be part of the solution, or you're part of the problem

As a scuba diver for some 25 years or so, I have had the opportunity to dive in a variety of locales and have, over the years, seen some significant changes in various aspects of marine ecosystems - from reef degradation to reduced fishlife to encroaching pollution and man-made debris. So, I have tried to be a thoughtful diver while also trying to enlighten as many people as possible to the many issues challenging our world's oceans, often through my volunteer diving at aquariums and through public speaking.

Scuba divers can serve as ambassadors for marine conservation as they have a unique perspective having been active participants, shall we say. They have seen the ocean's beauty firsthand; they have witnessed its complexities - these are not alien experiences, gleamed from a book or dreamt about. And because we divers take benefit from what the ocean has to offer us then we have a responsibility to do what we can to preserve it. We must not choose to cede it all to the activists or the decision-makers, assuming that they can carry the ball without our help.

When I am speaking to groups about marine conservation, often in regards to shark conservation, I occasionally run across a diver or two who are a bit worn out from all the eco-preaching. They just want to dive and leave the "save the seas" stuff to someone else. Sorry, but that ship has sailed. We all must chip in and do our part: know what's going on, get involved in some capacity if only just to let your voice be known; otherwise you risk being as selfish a consumer of the seas as those who have been labeled as the worst of abusers.

After all, what are you there for? To see vibrant sealife, healthy reefs, lush kelp forests? Or do you just want to experience the cool features on the latest dive computer or fashionable wet suit? To those divers who are committed to preserving the earth's oceans - many, many thanks. To the uncommitted - be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

My Stand: eco-tourism, apex predators, and conservation

Lately I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to screen my white shark documentary, Island of the Great White Shark to large crowds, to discuss shark issues with the audience, and be interviewed by newscasters. Their questions and comments would be wide-ranging, expressing a variety of opinions. While I tend to avoid op-ed positions (I find I get long-winded as you can see) and prefer to enlighten people with the facts, sometimes I feel compelled to express just where I stand.

Eco-tourism:
Eco-tourism has taken an interesting journey, evolving from the hunting safaris of the past into photo safaris to its current position as a conservation-minded endeavor. In the process, it has moved from a high adventure, risk-your-life type of activity to that of ecological enlightenment. This is not to say that it is without risk - from inclement weather, to a charging animal, to tenuous or hostile political environments in some developing countries. But those involved in eco-tourism who choose to promote it as a thrill-seeking, dangerous activity are behind the curve regarding its future and in the end can do more damage than good.

This is particularly true of shark diving. Many leading NGOs have turned towards shark eco-tourism as a possible new strategy to pursue. While past strategies of regulation and prohibition have produced legislative results, eco-tourism offers an additional supportive approach by providing countries or businesses with economic alternatives to curtailed anti-conservation activities while also providing a means to educate the general public with first hand experiences.

However, the NGOs commitment to eco-tourism becomes shaky when safety protocols are not strictly enforced, resulting in aberrations like some of the incidents or activities that have received broadcast media or YouTube attention - like riding, grabbing or playing "kung fu" with passing sharks or cage breaches due to unsafe bait handling. The days of high testosterone, "face the malevolent monster" are at an end and undermine the efforts of those who are working hard to build a general public consensus regarding the importance of shark conservation.

I have personally seen how shark eco-tourism can be beneficial, as I brought out in Island of the Great White Shark at Isla Guadalupe. Those shark diving operators who have been a model of effective eco-tourism have supported the island's "biosphere" status financially, supported Mexican shark researchers both financially and logistically, and have acted as unofficial watchguards in the absence of Mexican enforcement due to the country's limited resources.

Criticisms of Eco-tourism:
Eco-tourism is not without its critics and many of their concerns are not based on the welfare of the participants but on the animals themselves. Here are the two most common complaints often levied against shark eco-tourism and my take on the issues:

1. The animal's normal feeding behavior is being disrupted.

Well, to be honest, I have my concerns when feeding takes place pretty much year-round. I am concerned with sites like Stingray City in the Caymans and other similar spots where the potential for negative feeding behavior is possible because of an endless stream of tourists with bait in hand. These sites need specific scientific study to determine if there are detrimental effects taking place.

At a site that I am familiar with, Isla Guadalupe, this same complaint has been used by certain political forces in Mexico who are determined to rid the island of all boat activity. In this case, I believe it is a weak argument. When hang bait is used to attract the sharks, a certain number of them succeed in occasionally catching the bait being wrangled by the crew, but we are talking about bonito or tuna carcasses (the sharks often spit out bony tuna heads) - not a major source of nutritional quantity or quality. For the 3-4 months that the sharks are at the island, this activity does not supplant their normal feeding behavior (primarily pinnipeds and whole tuna) or leave them starving the remaining 8-9 months when they migrate.

I recently had the opportunity to discuss this issue with shark researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The consensus was that a specific study would be needed for a definitive answer (researchers don't like to guess) but the feeling was there is probably some behavior modification regarding the sharks "recognizing" the presence of shark diving boats but a negative impact on their feeding habits from hang baits alone was a bit of a stretch.

2. Animals will associate humans with their food/bait.

With regards to sharks, the fear is that providing bait to sharks will make them associate humans with their food and become more aggressive to divers, surfers or swimmers - in essence that we're teaching the sharks to eat people. While a specific scientific study would be needed on a site-by-site and/or species-by-species basis to determine it once and for all, I can at least add my anecdotal observations.

In all my years of shark diving, I have yet to see any shark become specifically aggressive towards the divers in cages or myself (where I am often more exposed to the sharks) when conservative baiting is present. This is not to say that I am willing to put my arm in front of a floating bonito while a white shark bears down on it and expect the shark to swim around me. Nor will I place myself in the midst of a group of frenzied reef sharks tearing apart a large piece of bait and act surprised if I get nipped accidentally. But with all the various prey and various scents that sharks detect and recognize, to assume that a shark will equate fish blood to human prey is an A equals B logic that my experiences just don't support.

The Shark's Role as Predator:
In building public awareness in shark conservation it is critical that we build consensus based on truth. And the truth is that to maintain a healthy eco-system nature needs its predators - even the big, fearsome ones from sharks to grizzly bears to lions, tigers and so on. Many of these animals benefit from the "warm and fuzzy" factor. We look at the mother polar bear and her cubs strolling across the Arctic ice and we get all soft inside, forgetting the fact that the polar bear is a ferocious predator - a role defined for it by many, many years of evolution.

Sharks do not have the warm and fuzzy factor working for them. They live beneath the waves in their own realm and for centuries all man has been able to do is scratch the surface of that realm and form attitudes steeped in ignorance and fear.

So at one end of the attitude spectrum there is "sharks are killers" and "the only good shark is a dead shark." What we must do is to educate people as to the important role that has been defined for these animals through millions of years of evolution. For some of our larger sharks, their role as predator and scavenger may not be a pretty one, but it is absolutely vital in preserving the intricate weave that we call the marine eco-system.

Unfortunately, I have sometimes seen the spectrum move too far in the other direction. For some people, their enthusiasm as shark advocates pushes them to ascribe social or human-like traits to sharks that don't really exist. To promote sharks as cuddly puppy dogs who smile at our approach is not a responsible position based in fact and can ultimately be dangerous not only to the cause of shark conservation but literally to any person who interacts with a shark, forgetting at a crucial moment the animal's refined sense of self-preservation, of flight or fight. Timothy Treadwell tragically lost sight of this while studying Grizzly Bears.

This circles back to my earlier comments about shark diving. As a professional filmmaker, I am paid to take a calculated risk in filming and sometimes exposing myself to an animal that might choose to defend itself aggressively. Eco-tourists who pay to see these same animals should do so in a safe environment. If we promote some of our most maligned sharks as gentle, loving and smart (in human terms), we are setting up the cause of shark conservation for the inevitable backlash when someone is injured in an unprovoked (or provoked) shark/human interaction.

Let's be true to the facts, true to the sharks, and true to the belief that people can rally behind a cause like shark conservation without being misled, no matter how sincere the intentions. The truth shall, in this case, set the sharks free!

Future Head of NOAA: Dr. Jane Lubchenco - a great choice

With President-Elect Obama's selection of Dr. Jane Lubchenco as chief administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a very positive step has been taken in putting in place the type of qualified scientific leadership that an organization like NOAA requires. Her appointment has been met with cheers from major conservation and environmental organizations nationwide.

Dr. Lubchenco's credentials are most impressive: A professor of marine biology and zoology at Oregon State University who received her Ph.D. at Harvard, she is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She is also a MacArthur "genius" fellow and Pew fellow in Marine Conservation. Lubchenco was a presidential appointee for two terms on the National Science Board and has been a member of the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Pew Oceans Council.

While NOAA is indeed a government agency and its leaders must be well-versed in the art of politics and diplomacy to accomplish their mission, it must be said that to have a scientist at the helm who happens to be a qualified administrator - rather than the other way around - is what is most needed at NOAA. This is critical so that NOAA can stay focused as a science-based source of environmental policy, rather than becoming a political mouthpiece for pro-industry (ie: anti-environment) constituencies. If President-Elect Obama is to make good on some of his campaign rhetoric regarding the environment, he will need the support of scientists like Dr. Lubchenco to provide the hard facts, opinions, and solutions.

President-Elect Obama has said, "All of us know the problems rooted in our addiction to foreign oil it constrains our economy, shifts wealth to hostile regimes, and leaves us dependent on unstable regions. These urgent dangers are eclipsed only by the long-term threat of climate change, which unless we act will lead to drought and famine abroad, devastating weather patterns and terrible storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline at home."

As part of his scientific "A-Team", the PETT (President-Elect's Transition Team) will need to engage people of Dr. Lubchenco's caliber. And they will need many more of them. Let's wish her well.

Last Minute Shopping: gifts that make a statement

One week left in the 2008 holiday shopping season and while many of us are scaling back this year, let me make one last crass plug (I promise!) at some last minute gift ideas for you or your friend's stockings:

A small contribution to the any of the conservation groups/NGO's and aquariums I have mentioned in this blog would be appreciated. We have all been hard hit by the downturn in the economy and non-profit groups are no exception. We provide the vocal support to causes but they do all the real legwork. Just thumb through past postings to get some ideas.

Working on converting someone to becoming a shark advocate and need a little "lubrication" to close the deal? Try any one of the fine wines from Shark Trust Wines. This is a great company with both, a great product and message: a portion of its revenue is donated to shark research organizations. One great example of how business can support conservation.

And while you're enlightening your friends to shark conservation, give them a different perspective on the most misunderstood of all sharks, the great white shark, with a DVD of Island of the Great White Shark - available at several leading aquariums and retail outlets in addition to Amazon.com. This award-winning documentary has received accolades from marine conservation organizations for its accurate portrayal of these magnificent predators while educating the viewer to the ongoing research taking place and the threats that these animals are facing.

Undersea Voyager Project: preserving the human experience in exploration and discovery

I had the pleasure of attending a press event for the Undersea Voyager Project that was held at one of my regular stomping grounds, the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, CA. It's great to attend these events as you get to meet new people with similar interests, concerns, and passions for marine conservation.

The Undersea Voyager Project is headed up by Scott Cassell, who has done considerable study and research on the Humboldt Squid - a particularly voracious predator typically found in deeper water but makes more local appearances from time to time. The primary thrust of the Project is an ambitious program involving submersibles and a variety of different marine science projects, culminating in the development of a larger submersible that will act as an undersea classroom bringing science to the general public in a very real and as-it-happens way.

I find this very exciting because throughout my involvement in marine conservation as a filmmaker and giving screenings and lectures, I have found that there is a tremendous amount of scientific data that does not get effectively translated into issues, implications and solutions for the general public to understand and appreciate. As an example, we have decades of data documenting climate change - and yet there are still many people who refuse to accept it.

Organizations like the Undersea Voyager Project can be of tremendous benefit in enlightening the public, young and old, to important issues regarding our oceans. Marine conservation must not be obscure or vague; it must be made real and tangible to all people: to the general public, to the decision-makers, and to the future generations of scientists-in-the-making.

Check out the Undersea Voyager Project web site and give it your support.

Marine Protected Areas: scientists studying the impacts

The continuing efforts to establish marine protected areas (MPA) or reserves worldwide has been an important issue with many conservation and scientific groups for obvious reasons. Activities ranging from overfishing to pollution have needed to be addressed because of the negative impact they have on marine ecosystems and marine life populations. The juggling act has always been in trying to meet the needs or at least compromise with the various stakeholders: commercial fishing, recreational activities, conservationists, scientists, and more.

Challenging as it is, MPAs continue to be established and now a new challenge facing scientists is the careful monitoring of these areas to see what effects - good or bad - the MPA may be having. I was reading interesting information from a SeaWeb.org Marine Science Review (Marine Protected Areas & Reserves #288). Worldwide, there is a considerable amount of research taking place regarding MPAs. Some of the issues they are studying have to do with bio-dispersion - the movement of marine species within a given area. We humans may define an area as "protected" but marine species don't read the fine print and may not stay within safe borders. Depending on the size, sex, and bio-density, a species that moves into harvesting areas, outside an MPA's borders, could be severely impacted. On the other hand, species of less commercial value could profligate within the MPA and perhaps upset the overall ecosystem - one example I read concerned increased populations of parrotfish which consume coral.

While the overall concept of marine protected areas and reserves seems to make environmental sense, scientists are hard at work developing new methodologies and research methods to be able to properly monitor the long term consequences of our efforts to preserve and protect our oceanic resources.

RTSea Blog: dedicated to communicating in 2009

The sun is beginning to set on 2008 and, to say the least, it has been an interesting year. The RTSea Blog, in existence for more than a year, has been in its current format for six months now. It has been a very stimulating and motivating experience; I seem to learn as much as I mean to convey to others about some of the important environmental issues we are facing.

But now I would like to hear back from my readers as to any comments, ideas, or suggestions you may have to make it a better blog. I will probably always lean toward marine conservation issues, but if there are topics of interest you would like me to cover or changes in tone - more or less confrontational, more or less political, etc. - please let me know.

All comments come to me as emails for my review before being posted in the blog, so if you would prefer not to have your comment posted, just let me know in your comment.

Hopefully the year will end on a positive note. It would be a great precursor to 2009!

ICCAT: Putting Atlantic bluefin tuna conservation in its grave

Just a few days ago, I posted some hopeful information regarding proposed limits or regulations on Atlantic bluefin tuna and several shark species (see posting). A meeting was being held in Morocco by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). It seems by the end of the meeting those hopes were dashed.

The ICCAT has chosen to ignore the advice from their own scientific advisors and agreed to reduce the annual catch from 27,500 tons to 22,000 tons for 2009. The scientific advisors presented data that showed that a catch of 15,000 tons was necessary if the species was to be preserved. Once again it seems short-term economic gain has won out over long-term conservation management. Considering that negative economic impacts on commercial fishing are not something that nature has ever given much of a damn about, there are those who believe that the ICCAT's action could seal the fate of Atlantic bluefin tuna.

Xavier Pastor, Executive Director for Oceana in Europe, declared: "ICCAT’s credibility has been destroyed by the negotiating countries who opposed responsible management measures for bluefin tuna. Instead of preserving the bluefin tuna stock from collapse, they gave in to the fishing industry’s short-term economic interests. With this decision, we can only wait for the disappearance of bluefin tuna."

Also under consideration were regulations regarding the taking of several depleted species of sharks. The only regulation to pass was the releasing of bigeye thresher sharks. (Read Oceana press release.)

To modify Starkist's old advertising slogan, "Sorry Charlie", which promoted discriminating tuna quality; it seems the ICCAT wants to say "Sorry Charlie, nice knowing you."