Orcas, or if you prefer, killer whales - are one of the most distinctive cetaceans in the world. Though often associated with cold water regions, these intelligent and highly social predators are actually found in all the oceans. But probably nothing personifies the classic image of the orca as the pods of orcas that frequent the waters in Puget Sound in the northeastern Pacific Ocean - tall dorsal fins cutting through the blue water or whales fully breaching from frigid waters with picturesque forest shoreline backdrops.
But something ominous is taking place in this northern wilderness: the whales are slowly disappearing. There are several theories being studied that could explain the whales decline. But whether it's one cause or a combination, it all springs from one source: mankind.
Outdoor adventure writer Thayer Walker has written a very interesting article for the online Sierra Club Magazine about the decline of these orcas, known by researchers as the "Southern Residents." I had the opportunity to work with Thayer before and he is a gifted writer with a terrific appreciation for our natural resources, from geography to biology.
Thayer writes about the dedicated work of Ken Balcomb, who formed the Center for Whale Research and has been studying the orcas of San Juan Island in the Puget Sound for over 30 years. Balcomb has documented the gradual decline of the number of whales in the area, impacted in the '60s and '70s by the demand for orcas for aquariums and amusement parks. But what appears to be happening now points to possible poisoning from pollution and, perhaps in equal or greater measure, the decline of the whales primary food source - chinook salmon.
Changes in the salmon population, from either overfishing or man-made interference or damage to the salmon's fresh water breeding grounds, have either pushed the orca pods to search for new hunting grounds or, as unfortunately suspected, doomed the whales to starvation. Orcas are known for their highly complex social structures; whales will stay within a pod for life and will stake out territories that are often not easily abandoned.
But also pollution plays a critical role in this threatening scenario. Much like the chemicals that can accumulate in sharks and dolphins, the blubber in orcas can retain a variety of pollutants that would not necessarily harm the whale (unless absorbed in great quantities) as long as the whale remains vibrant and well-fed. However, when food is scarce the orca will begin to burn some of its fat, thereby releasing stored pollutants into its system which weakens the immune system and the overall health of the whale deteriorates.
The demand for fresh-caught salmon combined with development in the area - including dam building, forest-clearing, and urban growth - are all contributing to the decline of one of the oceans' most magnificent hunters, one that has cruised these frigid waters for eons but is now faced with a threat for which its cunning and intelligence provides no defense.
Kudos to Thayer for "Empty Sound", a great story. To read the entire article in the Sierra Magazine, click here.
A last minute reminder from Oceana: today is the last day for U.S. citizens to submit comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the upcoming CITES convention. At the 2010 meeting, scheduled for March, several ocean species will be considered for protection under CITES' Appendix I, II, or III listings.
Under consideration are:
Bluefin Tuna - heavily over-fished in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
8 Sharks - spiny dogfish, porbeagle, oceanic whitetip, dusky, sandbar, and the scalloped, smooth, and great hammerhead sharks.
Red & Pink Corals - harvested for jewelry.
CITES has taken significant steps in the past to curb the trade in endangered species like rhino horns and elephant tusks. Here is an opportunity to make significant progress with several important aquatic species.
Again, this is the last day for U.S. public comments to reach Dr. Rosemarie Gnam, the U.S. representative for the CITES meeting. If you're a U.S. citizen, let your voice be heard!
Click here to send a message via Oceana (if the link does not work properly, go to the Oceana web site and sign up for their Wavemaker e-activist program).
In the United States, the Obama administration is considering ordering all federal agencies to evaluate any major actions to be taken by considering either their impact upon or how they would be affected by climate change. As reported by Jim Tankersley in the Los Angeles Times, the order would expand the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act and represents a step forward in recognizing the impact of global warming in the U.S. and is considered a victory for environmentalists.
"The act already requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts such as land use, species health and air and water quality when approving projects. By formalizing a requirement to consider effects on climate -- a step some agencies already take -- the administration would introduce a broad new spectrum of issues to be considered."
But it's not a done deal yet. According to Nancy Sutley, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the decision is not yet final. This will provide time for climate change opponents and business interests to get their lobbying efforts into high gear. Admittedly, the current environmental impact report process is a drawn out one that has delayed more than a few projects in the past. Having to make the additional consideration as to whether a shoreline road project might impacted by rising sea levels or whether rising temperatures might mean that different species of trees would replace trees cut down in a clear-cutting project - as was cited in the Times article - will provide environmentalists with additional reasons to question certain federal agency plans. So, expect the battle lines to be drawn.
But if the current administration is going to hold true to its concerns about addressing climate change, then this step is probably a good one.
The article quoted David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club as saying, "People will think longer and harder and smarter about what they build when they understand that the environment around them is changing."
On the other side of the globe, in Australia, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) has dismissed claims from some local scientists that the corals of the Great Barrier Reef are currently not at risk from climate change. GBRMPA chairman, Dr. Russell Reichelt said there is strong scientific consensus, research and fieldwork to confirm that the increase in ocean temperatures brought on by global warming poses the greatest risk to the future health of Australia's coral reefs. This refutes the contrary position taken by Dr. Peter Ridd, who believes the threat is greatly exaggerated.
According to an article in the online Cairns.com.au, Dr. Reichfelt says that coral bleaching is the most compelling evidence of the effects of temperature change and that the incidence of coral bleaching and its severity have been increasing over the past two decades.
"You’ve got animals and plants there that are adapted to withstand up to the normal [temperature] limits,"Dr. Reichfelt said. "If you’ll take it above what they’re adapted to, they’ll die."
Here are two news items from the Center for Biological Diversity that not only benefit the environment but will also have definite proactive effects on our lives.
EPA proposes new pesticide regulation The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a proposed regulation that will require pesticide manufacturers to list both active and inert ingredients on their products. Apparently, the manufacturers currently are only required to list active ingredients which are those designed to kill the intended pest. So-called inert ingredients can actually turn out to be hazardous. Chemicals like formaldehyde, sulphuric acid, or known carcinogens have been used for this purpose and the EPA has recently designated 350 inert ingredients as being hazardous.
If this proposed regulation is enacted, you, the consumer or farmer, will be able to better decide what product to use (if you are inclined to use any pesticides) by knowing ALL of the ingredients that would be entering the air, soil, or water.
But as with many proposed regulations, there will first be a public comment period that will commence shortly. It is anticipated that the pesticide manufacturers will add a dissenting voice. If you would like to add your own voice of support, click here.
Happy with your junk mail? I suspect not, yet millions of pounds of the stuff gets crammed into our mailboxes each week. And that printed material represents the loss of thousands of trees. But there's a way you can help to put a stop to it by visiting 41pounds.org. This organization gets its name from the fact that the average adult currently receives about 41 pounds of junk mail each year.
For a 5-year membership fee of only $41USD (that breaks down to $8.20USD a year), 41pounds.org will block your name from leading mailing list agencies in addition to catalogers you specify. They guarantee that within 6-8 weeks you will see a noticeable drop in unwanted mailings, credit card offers, and catalogs.
41pounds.org is a non-profit organization and, just to be clear, I'm not getting any compensation for plugging this group. You could do all the leg work yourself and save the cost of membership - if you are tenacious enough. But as a former marketing exec, I can tell you that the direct mail industry counts on the fact that you won't bother. To visit their web site and learn more, click here.
2009 has been an "interesting" year - a mix of achievements and setbacks, as readers can tell just from the over 230 postings that ran in this blog over the past year. We're still in short supply when it comes to a full awareness in the minds of the public and the decision-makers as to the scope of the issues facing the oceans, the earth, and the air. Perhaps it's time for less lip service around the water cooler and more proactive efforts on the part of those who get it, those who are committed. Perhaps it's time for more action in 2010.
Patric Douglas of SharkDivers, who authors one of the leading shark conservation blogs, feels the time is right for all of us to get more involved. The Shark-Free Marinas Initiative he started is making significant progress, thanks in no small part to it's director, Luke Tipple, and the participation of many marinas worldwide.
And we have the CITES meeting in March to look forward to, where important, jeopardized species will be considered for protection (or heightened protection) under the current international agreement which has claimed success for many other threatened flora and fauna.
But with the economic turmoil of the past view years offering only glimmers of improvement with which to start the new decade, many non-profit organizations - including many of our conservation favorites - are still feeling the pinch. This has impacted their outreach ability as they struggle to try to do more with less. I know this because I have been putting effort into promoting more film making/media communications for research groups and NGOs - and to say it has been a challenge would be a gross understatement.
But if we are to make any headway with the fence-sitters, the Doubting Thomases, or the outright critics of important issues - like global warming, ocean acidification, overfishing, and the consequences of deforestation, development, and the quest for fossil fuels - then science needs to make its work more visible and get its data and conclusions out into the public forum, not sequestered in libraries and scientific journals.
So let's make this next decade the time when we really put our money where our mouths are. We don't need to tear down the walls; we can work with the system (or maybe around it, when necessary). But it is definitely time to move from passive awareness to committed action.
May the new year be a good one for you, your friends, and family - and, of course, for mother Earth!
I have been focusing on ocean issues for a while, so for a change of pace, let's take a look at some dry, four-footed (or should I say paws and hoof) concerns.
In some parts of the world, endangered animals like tigers and lions are at risk because of demand on the black market for hides and other parts as either trophies/souvenirs or homeopathic "medicines" (as in the case of tigers) or because of competition with subsistence level cattlemen and farmers in developing African nations (lions).
Plains Bison At Yellowstone Park In the United States, one of the great but unfortunate icons of the Old West, the plains bison, or buffalo, is still teetering on the edge, following the slaughter in the 1800s that brought the bison to the edge of extinction. Today, there are actually around 500,000 bison across North America, but many are the result of cross-breeding with cattle. The challenge has been in the proper management of bison. Conservation groups and federal or state agencies differ as to the methods for keeping a healthy breeding population within a defined area.
A prime example are the 4,000 or so free-roaming bison in Yellowstone National Park. During harsh winter weather, bison will forage at lower elevations outside the park, and to insure that the bison do not transmit a particular bovine disease (although transmission of such has never been proven), wandering bison are killed - in the winter of 2007-2008, 1,600 bison were killed, the greatest number since the 1800s.
Several conservation organizations and other concerned groups banded together to issue The Citizen's Plan to Save Yellowstone's Buffalo. The plan was not considered by state and federal agencies and this has pushed several conservation groups to file an intent to sue the Department of the Interior for failing to act on the status of the bison as an endangered species (it has been "under review" for some time). An endangered status would require both designated protected habitat and effective (ie: non-life threatening) management.
Development Threatens Florida Panther In Florida, urban development has continued to encroach upon the habitat of the endangered Florida panther. Only 117 panthers remain approximately, but 21 have been lost so far in 2009, with 15 in each of the preceding two years. Most are killed by cars but one was recently found decapitated.
With the Florida panther listed as an endangered species since 1967, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to insure a safe habitat but, apparently, the political pressure from developers has pushed Florida officials to drag their feet. It's a dilemma I can relate to.
Having grown up in sunny Southern California, I witnessed firsthand the expansion of my hometown, with housing moving more and more up into the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and forcing many coyotes and the occasional mountain lion to forage right within a suburban neighborhood. You could be walking the dog and find a coyote following fifty paces behind you, sizing up little Fido as a possible meal. Caught in cages or tranquilized, these animals are often released back into the hills; but many are killed, particularly if they injure someone.
In Florida, a scientific, legal petition was filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting to set aside 3 million acres as "critical habitat" which would comply with the intent of the Endangered Species Act. The petition was ignored and so CBD, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and Council of Civic Associations have jointly filed notice of intent to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I have mentioned in several past posts, my enthusiasm for the development of responsible aquafarming, also called aquaculture. It comes from a simple realization that man has learned to raise cattle and poultry to feed its population through the understanding that the continued taking of wild animals would not suffice.
Unfortunately, centuries ago, man did not make that same intellectual leap when it came to seafood. And we have been, as Dr. Sylvia Earle describes it, eating ocean "bushmeat" ever since, all to the ultimate detriment of the ocean's ecology.
But there are some very serious challenges that aquafarming must overcome for it to be truly commercially successful without harming the environment. This requires the cautious and well-thought out use of science and technology to insure maximum yield will also protecting the environment within which the aquafarm exists. Once you determine just how it is to be done right, then there must be regulations and enforcement to insure it is done properly. This requires government oversight and this is where it can get a bit tricky.
The Ocean Conservancy has an excellent article explaining the problems in developing national standards for aquafarming. Currently, there are several issues of concern regarding aquafarming: ocean pollution due to feed waste, fish waste, and medications; keeping farmed fished contained and not entering a wild fish population accidentally; responsibility for the maintenance and/or dismantling of an aquafarm (dismantling due perhaps to severe ocean weather or storms); and impacts on other fish populations that are required to act as feed sources for the farms. Many of these issues could be regulated by several different agencies but, without a unifying national policy of standards, we're only setting ourselves up for a bureaucratic nightmare with overlapping agencies, jurisdictions, criteria, and responsibilities.
According to the Ocean Conservancy, one of the last acts of the Bush Administration was to put forward a U.S. plan to increase aquafarming from $900 million to $5 billion by 2025. This plan provided for the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue permits to meet the goal but did not specifically or clearly address how it was to be done responsibly, ie: regulation and enforcement. Pollution or water quality issues would be handled by one agency, often using terrestrial standards in place of a non-existent marine standard; environmental impacts would be handled by another, and so on. It was basically putting the cart before the horse, and many scientific, conservation, public advocacy and even commercial fishing groups objected. This stalled the roll out of the plan, halting it on several occasions, but it was eventually put into place in September of 2009 - flaws and all.
"Establish an overarching, federal regulatory system for offshore aquaculture that includes standardized, precautionary measures to protect the environment and coastal communities. The key provisions of the legislation include:
1. Establishing a clear, streamlined regulatory process for offshore aquaculture with specific provisions and permit terms to protect marine ecosystems and coastal communities;
2. Requiring coordinated, regional programmatic environmental impact statements to provide regulatory certainty, ensure environmental protection for sensitive marine areas, and reduce conflicts among competing uses of the marine environment; and
3. Authorizing new funds for research to provide the crucial feedback needed for adaptive, environmentally-sound management of this new use of offshore waters."
Right now, this is just proposed legislation, newly introduced. Watch how it develops and stay on top of the efforts of groups, like the Ocean Conservancy, in retracting the current piecemeal plan. And you can expect to hear more in this blog as I continue to promote aquafarming as our best chance at attaining sustainable commercial seafood levels while protecting the ocean's wild populations from decline and possible extinction.
The fate of sea turtles, particularly the loggerhead sea turtle, is once again at further risk - this time due to a loosening of U.S. regulations for the longline fisheries in Hawaii and Florida, fisheries that are in pursuit of swordfish and must deal with sea turtles (and many other unfortunate species) as accidental bycatch.
A suit was filed this week against the National Marine Fisheries Service by Earth Justice on behalf of The Center for Biological Diversity, Caribbean Conservation organizations, Defenders of Wildlife, Gulf Restoration Network, and Turtle Island Restoration Network. The suit states that while the Fisheries Service has filed reports that claim that the loggerhead sea turtles face extinction unless the numbers of commercially caught turtles are reduced, they have also proposed a change in longline regulations that would allow for more longlines - literally more hooks in the water - that would produce a three-fold increase in turtle bycatch. The loggerhead sea turtle is currently on the endangered species list, so these new regulations, obviously designed to increase the catch of swordfish, would seem to run counter to the intent of protection required by the Endangered Species Act.
The swordfish fisheries, particularly in Hawaii, have experienced closure at times in the past, even during the past U.S. administration, so it is particularly disheartening to see the influence of the commercial fishing industry on the new administration.
And then on top of it all, we're talking about increasing capacity for commercially-caught swordfish - a fish that currently provides in one 8 oz. fillet over 4 times the acceptable level of mercury for the week. That's a month's worth in one sitting. What crazy, fish-hugging radicals came up with those levels? The government's own Environmental Protection Agency. (Check out GotMercury.org.)
Read press release from Courthouse News Service. If you would like to add your voice in protest to the new regs, click here.
There are many worthwhile non-profit conservation organizations operating today (some would say too many, as over-proliferation can dilute the power of each group). Based on their available financial resources, some of these groups are singularly focused while others succeed at being more broad-based. To regular readers of this blog, you know that one of my oft-cited organizations is Oceana. Why? Because they have had measurable success at being international, comprehensive, media-savy, and are science-based.
At the recent Copenhagen Climate Conference (COP15), Oceana was a visible presence with media presentations and staff on hand for interviews and discussions. While what seemed to captivate the press, and by extension the public, was whether a binding agreement could be achieved between the participating nations, what also was taking place at the conference was the dissemination of a lot of information concerning climate change and its related effects: ocean acidification, impacts on and from commercial fishing, changes within the Arctic circle, and so on.
All this information was being provided to insure that delegates from participating nations had the latest and most accurate information. Unfortunately, what was "sexier" to the press was the protests, bickering, and diplomatic machinations taking place, particularly as the conference moved into its second week and the question as to whether an agreement would be hammered out moved to center stage.
Oceana has assembled several videos that illustrate their presence at COP15. Blowing their own horn? Sure, but why not? Particularly since media coverage was focused elsewhere. Click here to view the videos.
One of the videos is an overview of the impact of climate change on the Arctic Circle, narrated by actor and staunch ocean conservationist, Ted Danson. I have seen some of the changes to the Arctic firsthand, working with InMER.org in the summer of 2007 when we conducted a reconnaissance of the Northwest Passage. Assisting expedition leader Ed Cassano, I documented, both on video/still images and through interviews with Inuit tribal elders and government officials, what has been taking place over the years.
What at first appears to be desolate and formidable, the Arctic Circle is, in reality, a very vibrant but delicate ecosystem, the health of which having great implications for the rest of the planet. Several of the many warning signs we saw are subtle but alarming: shrinking summer sea ice, shrubbery and trees where there used to be only permafrost, the appearance of bees and other insects that had never been seen before - all are "canaries in the coal mine" that speak to bigger and more extensive worldwide changes in the near future.
In the informative application Google Earth (available at no charge; click here for details), throughout the area of the Northwest Passage (within the Arctic Circle, north of Canada), you can find several interesting pieces of visual/textual content supplied by InMER. I had the pleasure of producing several videos for this effort and would look forward to the opportunity to return to the Arctic again to further the cause for its protection.
The other videos on Oceana at Copenhagen center on interviews with dedicated staff members and scientists discussing issues ranging from ocean acidification to over-industrialization. One of the challenges in presenting these subjects in short form (IE: brief videos) is to arrive at a balance between presenting a simplified and oft-repeated message and providing technical information which can be lost on the viewer/listener. One of the videos, I thought, illustrated this balance well: an interview with Oceana science director Dr. Jeffrey Short who, with just a bit more information and an analogy or two, describes ocean acidification as something more than an obscure or academic concept for the average viewer.
Alibaba.com is a leading online source for small to medium-size Chinese businesses to get their goods to market. The parent company, the Alibaba group, owns several online properties to assist Asian businesses, from retail to wholesale. It is also a company that felt the wrath of conservationists because the web site was a source for the sale of shark fins and other shark-related products.
Recently, Alibaba.com commendably removed all shark fin products from its web site. Did the company cave-in to outside pressure from shark advocates? Well, I'm sure it played a role. And they still have a long way to go, as the site continues to offer other shark-related products such as oil and cartilage. According to an interview with Alibaba Group founder and CEO, Jack Ma, he was not aware that shark fins were being harvested directly from the sea.
"Well, honestly speaking, before [the shark fin issue] I had never thought about the environment. That was the first environmental issue I dealt with. In the beginning, I did not understand those anti-shark fin guys because I had never given much thought to where shark fin came from and thought it was cultivated." This lack of awareness is also illustrated in the reactions of Asian people who see footage of shark or dolphin kills (The Cove) - amazing as it may seem, it's all new to them.
But the change is also indicative of a subtle groundswell that is brewing in China. For the past decade, China has been growing as a economic powerhouse. Whatever long-term effects it will have on their communist system of government remains to be seen, but there definitely is a growing level of wealth, a growing middle-class, and the people would like that to continue. And while that new-found wealth has greatly increased the demand for shark fin soup in certain segments of the Chinese populace, what is also slowly beginning to grow in China is a greater appreciation as to their environmental responsibility. It's not perfect by any means; there are still plenty of industrialists who would prefer to utilize their natural resources at the expense of the environment (Western civilization did it. Why can't we?). But the seeds are there and they may just take root.
China is beginning to realize that to be a long-term industrial and economic leader, it must consider the environment. In fact, if it can solve its own environmental problems technologically; if it can establish itself as a leader in alternative energy implementation, then its position as a global superpower will undoubtedly be secured. But it will be a struggle: new clean factories and reduced CO2 emissions are one thing; a long standing cultural history in utilizing endangered species is another.
The world must watch China. They could very well be at the commencement of a long-term strategy that realizes the benefits of development which does not tear down the environment or deplete its own resources. They could be embracing what other industrial developed nations are so slow to adopt. And it could benefit developing nations while sending shivers of paranoia through the halls of powerful nations who have prided themselves as masters of the world for the past several decades.
Click here to read the entire interview with Jack Ma. Mr. Ma has been working with The Nature Conservancy and has some very interesting and heartening things to say about his environmental approach to his business and what is beginning to happen in China. If it's real and it continues, the world could have a new superpower to look up to and emulate.
"What we want to do is to raise awareness among as many people as possible on the seriousness of the environmental situation in China, and let them know that everybody can contribute something to make things better. The better we educate people on the issues, the more will happen. With more and more young people joining the government, they will bring an understanding on the importance of the problem and take action. So it is about influencing a whole system.
I think we are in the process to building it up right now. We cannot expect change overnight. We need to create the change over time, say 5 or 10 years. That's called a long-term strategy, and is necessary for sustainable action and results."
The RTSea Blog was started in 2008 and now includes over 950 entries available for media or academic background research use, including observations on a wide range of topical issues and events involving the oceans, sharks, and nature in general. After a brief break in 2012-13, there will now be more posts forthcoming.
Use keywords in the Search tool below or at the bottom of this web page to locate articles of interest.
Cinematographer/media consultant & producerRichard TheissandRTSea Mediaadministers this blog with the intent that information will be disseminated across the Internet and, in so doing, will illuminate others as to the serious challenges that lay before us in preserving and protecting our natural resources.
Search This Archive
Richard Theiss - DP/Media Consultant & Producer
Available for HD video assignments, media consulting, and speaking engagements. For contact information, click on the image above.
Orcas, or if you prefer, killer whales - are one of the most distinctive cetaceans in the world. Though often associated with cold water regions, these intelligent and highly social predators are actually found in all the oceans. But probably nothing personifies the classic image of the orca as the pods of orcas that frequent the waters in Puget Sound in the northeastern Pacific Ocean - tall dorsal fins cutting through the blue water or whales fully breaching from frigid waters with picturesque forest shoreline backdrops.
But also pollution plays a critical role in this threatening scenario. Much like the chemicals that can accumulate in sharks and dolphins, the blubber in orcas can retain a variety of pollutants that would not necessarily harm the whale (unless absorbed in great quantities) as long as the whale remains vibrant and well-fed. However, when food is scarce the orca will begin to burn some of its fat, thereby releasing stored pollutants into its system which weakens the immune system and the overall health of the whale deteriorates.
Kudos to Thayer for "Empty Sound", a great story. To read the entire article in the Sierra Magazine, click here.
