A new web site was launched yesterday that I highly recommend you take a look at: Mission Blue. This new site is part of Dr. Sylvia Earle's foundation and provides a sharp focus on many of her recent expeditionary activities, including an ongoing expedition and ocean conference at the Galapagos Islands.
Ocean conservation can be a very broad and overwhelming issue to get one's arms around, so many organization devote their resources and energy to more specific topics of interest. Mission Blue accomplishes this by identifying Hope Spots - geographical marine areas of critical importance that can also serve to highlight specific marine issues or challenges. The web site allows you to select and learn more about a specific Hope Spot - ranging from the Seychelles off of Africa, to Antarctica's Ross Sea, to the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez), and more.
There is a lot of great interactivity with the site, added by Dr. Earle's working relationship with Google, which provided map imagery and a handy version of Google Earth incorporated into the site. And then to round it off, there is a blog to keep readers updated with the activities of each expedition and other events with which Dr. Earle has been involved, such as the creative think tank organization, TED (technology, entertainment, design).
Politics makes for strange bedfellows, as the saying goes. And so we must always be prepared to yank the sheets out from underneath to clean up the hankypanky. Basically, all these colorful metaphors reflect the need to maintain a healthy skepticism of political institutions, corporations, and, yes, even the non-profit organizations we often turn to who carry the cause of conservation.
Why? Self-preservation. It's fundamental, it's common to all living things. But I'm not talking about the self-preservation of nature, the cause that we are championing. Self-preservation is also a driving force behind less tangible or tactile entities - like, government, business, non-profits, and even public attitudes. Take these recent examples:
President Obama opens up the possibility of offshore oil drilling off the east coast, in areas he had specifically vowed during his campaign that he would prevent. The California and Alaska coast were spared for the moment, but his actions set a dangerous precedent for future drilling in those areas. Why the turnaround? Self-preservation of possible energy/climate change legislation, of his presidency's effectiveness, his party's position of power and/or influence, and so on.
Former Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin has tentatively inked a deal for a limited series on the Alaskan wilderness. With Ms. Palin's track record regarding oil drilling, polar bears, beluga whales, and more; for many conservationists, this would be like Michael Vick hosting a canine puppy series. So, why? Self-preservation of a cable network sure to get ratings, of a politician/celebrity positioning herself for both monetary and political gain.
The UN-based CITES conference walks away from taking a pro-conservation stance regarding a variety of marine species. Why? Self-preservation again. This time with the economic interests of certain nations exerting their influence to such a degree that to resist would have threatened the stability of the organization - something that has plagued many UN-based efforts.
It is this fundamental and understandable sense of self-preservation which propels us to be skeptical of the institutions that are supposed to provide, support, or protect us. Skeptical but not cynical, for that can lead to disillusionment and rejection - which can lead you to either stockpile ammunition and live in a cave or become an eco-terrorist, both of which are ultimately counter-productive.
So rather than throw in the towel when progress seems mired in institutional self-interest, I hope that conservationists - young or old, veteran or neophyte - can retain these attitudes and continue to press forward:
Determination: Remember that, while there are bound to be setbacks, the cause of conservation is also one of self-preservation - that of the entire planet - and that is a fundamental worth pursuing.
Reasonability: This is to say that if you want to convert or change someone's position, you had better have your arguments well-founded and indisputable. There will always be debate, so it behooves us to make accurate and rational arguments, devoid of acrimony or exaggeration.
Proactive: To get self-preserving institutions to act on behalf of a larger cause or greater good, such as conservation, requires relentless pushing and nudging. They may do so kicking and screaming or only doing so when they perceive it as also serving their own self-interests, but it can be done - at the ballot box, in the courts, at the check-out counter, and even at the grass roots level in the court of public opinion.
Do what you can when you can. And retain a healthy dose of skepticism.
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion." - Thomas Jefferson
When we selectively eliminate critical species from ecosystems, there is a price to be paid not only by the animal itself and the ecology. Man too must pony up - but our price may not be so obvious. It may be a price that is paid years down the road or is one we choose to ignore in the face of immediate personal or commercial gain.
This is what was once faced by cattlemen with regard to the hunting of wolves in the northern United States. Whatever was gained by cattle ranchers in eliminating a key predator, it ultimately came back to haunt them when the deer and varmint population exploded and competition between nature and the cattlemen for suitable grazing land necessitated bringing back the wolf population. But now the pendulum seems to be swinging back and the hunt for wolves is once again beginning in earnest - with no lessons apparently learned.
Many commercial fisheries stand on the brink of collapse, but sometimes the reason is not the obvious one: overfishing of a particular species. In some cases, it is rather the domino-like effect of our actions - as in the case of the hake fishery in Chile which has been severely impacted by the expansion of the Humboldt squid population, a voracious predator whose numbers have grown because of the commercial elimination of the squid's primary natural predators: sharks, tuna, and billfish.
This secondary effect is now being seen in other regions along the eastern Pacific coast: in the Sea of Cortez, where catches of grouper are in decline; and Northern California, where local fishermen are switching from catching rockfish to hauling up huge quantities of squid.
Here's a short video from my recent assignment in the Sea of Cortez.
The filming was for an important future program about which I have to be tight lipped for the time being. But the issue regarding Humboldt squid, which represents one of the multiple effects of disrupting once-balanced marine ecosystems, is an ongoing and growing one.
You fish. The fish are all gone. You move on. It's not that simple anymore.
In the past several months, with the poor results coming from the COP15 conference in Copenhagen and the CITES conference in Qatar, environmental issues have taken a few lumps. It would seem that the policymakers and the industrialists have their own agendas and these don't seem to be aligned with the long-term interests of the planet. So, what to do? We take back the initiative!
It may sound a little 60's-ish corny, but it's time for the people to be heard again. If we can't depend on our institutions to do the right thing then the least we can do is let them know where we stand and that we are watching. If we can vote you out, we will. If we can refuse to buy your products, we will. And we will support those groups that actively promote the long-term interests of the planet - and by "planet" I mean plants, animals and humankind.
350.org and The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are starting a petition drive to keep the Clean Air Act strong by having greenhouse gases designated as "criteria" pollutants under the act and to get the 350ppm standard for CO2 emissions adopted by the EPA. If you recall, leading climate scientists have cited the 350ppm level as the point that must be attained if we are to have a fighting chance in getting a handle on climate change and insuring a manageable future for generations to come. Ambitious? Sure. Controversial? Absolutely. It will require a major commitment on the part of governments and industry. And there won't be 100% consensus within the scientific community that this is the right approach. Accept when we ask this simple question: what's wrong with reducing carbon emissions to that level? Will it harm the environment? Would we be moving in the wrong direction environmentally?
350.org and CBD are hoping to get 500,000 to sign on to the petition. No reason why not. Click here to read about it and add your name. And check out 350.org's web site, too. Lots of good information there.
Having been on location for the past two weeks, I am now getting caught up on some conservation issues. And I am finding myself to be a bit disappointed and discouraged. The CITES conference that concluded last week in Qatar was definitely a letdown for ocean conservationists as proposed trade measures to protect marine species ranging from bluefin tuna to sharks were defeated.
Regarding the bluefin tuna, Japan apparently waged a vigorous campaign to defeat the proposed Appendix I rating, which would have initiated a complete trade ban. The populations of bluefin tuna are considered so perilously low that many marine biologists question whether extinction can be avoided.
There was a long list of sharks that were up for various levels of protection ranging from the hammerhead species to the spiny dogfish. All were rejected. And proposals to protect coral species were similarly defeated.
There were proposals that were adopted for several terrestrial flora and fauna - those that basically had little commercial value. In the end, what became clear was that CITES was more interested in the short-term gain of propping up dwindling trade in endangered species than in the protection of those species in the long term. Preserving the status quo of market-driven economies was more important than preserving the very resources that are the foundations of those economies.
Renown shark researcher Leonard Compagno, Director of the Shark Research Institute said, "CITES seems to be primarily about promoting trade in endangered species, not regulating or preventing it. Its mode of operation seems to favor behind the scenes lobbying and power-politics with certain countries dominating by their wealth and power, and species seem to become protected in the breach when parties are not interested in opposing CITES protection. It addresses a tiny fraction of biodiversity, and seems reluctant to be engaged in battling the biotic holocaust that stalks the world." Perhaps CITES will take steps in the future - when the tuna boats return to port with their holds empty, when there are no more fins for shark fin soup, and when the last great polar bear has sunk to the bottom of the Arctic ocean. But by then, their only recourse will be to hang their heads in shame for their greed and lack of foresight.
I'm generally an optimistic and determined person when it comes to conservation. I think I need to curl up with some comfort food and rally my inner forces. Tomorrow is another day.
Click here to read the latest press release. Click here to read the results of the proposals.
Preparing for our last day of diving here at Bahia de Los Angeles. Had one terrific night dive surrounded by the local fishermen in their traditional panga boats as they hauled up Humboldt squid. This fishing activity brings the Humboldt squid up closer to the surface and we position ourselves right in the thick of it.
To prevent scaring off the squid, I was filming with red lights which don't seem to bother them. It made for an eerie and adrenaline-pumping experience - like being in an oceanic roller derby bathed in red light, with squid zooming about, sometimes hitting you as they test to see if you're something edible.
Will be back in a day or two and will post a final report with pictures (the WiFi here in Baja is very sketchy and slow, so I have held off posting any images).
We're finding windows of opportunity to dive with the Humboldt squid when the wind's not blowing.
An amazing animal but, unfortunately, a very disruptive predator when it's range has been allowed to extend beyond traditional borders due to a loss of natural predators that would normally keep their numbers under control.
We have a slate of experiments we are performing while we're here and we're chipping a way at them one by one. Last night we were surrounded by small to medium squid.
The photo shows me in standard squid diving gear: Neptunic Shark Suit, cable harness for being attached to the boat, and (not shown) an EX3 HD camera in Amphibico housing.
Just a quick update from your local Bahia De Los Angeles internet cafe. The weather here in Baja, California along the Sea of Cortez has been warm and sunny . . . and windy. And that has made filming difficult so far.
I am here to film Humboldt squid with Scott Cassell and dealing with these predators can be very interesting to say the least. We sport Neptunic Shark Suits to provide protection from the squid, along with a cable harness tied to the boat (The little darlings can drag you down if they become really interested in you. And we're diving in water 250- to 1200-feet deep.
The winds make it challenging for both the divers and the local fisherman (a panga - the local fisherman's small boat - can be swamped by wind-swept waves when full of squid as it rides low in the water).
We will be back out on the water later this morning, hoping for calmer seas and plenty of squid. There is an important story behind the ecology of these animals, some of which I have posted in the past. But there's more to come.
There's no Friday night partying this week; it's off to bed for an early call tomorrow as I head to the Sea of Cortez for a two-week film assignment. I will be joined by Scott Cassell of Undersea Voyager Project as we travel to Baja, Mexico's Bahia De Los Angeles. Hopefully, I will have internet access so that I can post some news and updates while on location.
In the meantime, be sure to watch the developments coming from the CITES conference which begins tomorrow (3/13) and runs through the 25th. I'm sure there will news updates and press releases on the CITES web site. Stay tuned - there are a lot of important proposals regarding threatened or endangered species.
When we examine a marine ecosystem or the population of a particular species and observe that "it's not what it once was," we are, in simple terms, observing a shifting baseline. The use of shifting baselines, or what has sometimes been called Shifting Baseline Syndrome (SBS), has become a common but controversial tool in evaluating fishery management, species population, and general ocean vitality. In fact, it has been used as the basis of study for a variety of scientific and societal conditions - from ocean conservation to Hollywood entertainment.
One of the challenges in using SBS is in determining what the fundamental baseline is - what is the baseline that represents a fully healthy, functioning marine ecosystem or species population? Is it what it was 10 years ago? A century? Or before the arrival of mankind? To determine such an ultimate starting point, scientists often have to take a variety of empirical and anecdotal data and work backwards. Sometimes this works, sometimes not.
As an example, one study in the late 1990's determined that the appropriate baseline population for green sea turtles in the Caribbean was 660 million, based on an extrapolation of the extent of a particular sea grass that figured prominently in the turtle's diet. Several years later, based on a reevaluation of the sea grass growth, that number was scaled back to 16 to 33 million - quite a reduction but still, given today's population of less than 200,000, what can we realistically expect as a conservation goal?
In other situations, SBS gets oversimplified in its application regarding policy. When research determined that over-fishing was the primary cause of a drop in Canadian cod fisheries, a moratorium was put in place in the early 90's. However, the cod population has failed to recover and the moratorium remains in place. What may have been missed is some unforeseen cascade effect, some other component to a healthy cod population that is missing or altered, perhaps triggered by the over-fishing, perhaps not.
Many scientists see value in using SBS but there are some who feel that it must be utilized in a more comprehensive fashion that also incorporates other theoretical approaches including resilience and social-ecological systems (SES) which introduce variables of human involvement or impact while trying to determine an appropriate future baseline.
In the end, it can be a vexing question: as we consider the health of marine species or ecosystems, what is the ideal goal that we can truly expect to strive for, regardless of how things were in the past? Can science accurately and reliably make that determination? Hopefully, it can but it will require a broad spectrum of scientific approaches to do so.
Click here for a proponent web site that explains shifting baselines. Click here to read a scientific paper on SBS weaknesses and solutions.
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.
A new web site was launched yesterday that I highly recommend you take a look at: Mission Blue. This new site is part of Dr. Sylvia Earle's foundation and provides a sharp focus on many of her recent expeditionary activities, including an ongoing expedition and ocean conference at the Galapagos Islands.
Blue accomplishes this by identifying Hope Spots - geographical marine areas of critical importance that can also serve to highlight specific marine issues or challenges. The web site allows you to select and learn more about a specific Hope Spot - ranging from the Seychelles off of Africa, to Antarctica's Ross Sea, to the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez), and more.
