Children & Nature: Australian writer captures what conservation needs from our youth

Occasionally I will come across an article that needs no journalistic rephrasing, no "spin" or retelling.  It is succinct and delivers a message that must be presented undilluted.

Such is the case with an article I came across in the Opinion section of ABC News (Australia).  Written by educator and naturalist Warren McClaren, it addresss the impact on our children when there is a disconnect between ourselves and nature.

Growing up as I did in suburban Southern California, I can look back on my experiences with nature in a very positive way and I can see the roots of my current passion for preservation and conservation of our natural resources stemming from those early moments.  I was not someone who lived 24/7 in the outdoors, but I came in contact with enough to leave a lasting impact.  And, sadly, that is much more than what many children are experiencing today.

Children are hearing about threats and negative impacts on nature and they are voicing their concern.  And that is good.  But if those feelings exist in a bubble, devoid of the first hand knowledge, can we expect their concerns to carry them into adulthood? 

 Without nature, the little children suffer
Warren McLaren ABC Environment 12 Nov 2012

Most adults climbed trees and played outdoors when they were children. But today's young people don't play outdoors like their parents. It's an omission with grave implications.

We come alive for what we hold near and dear. It's hard to be impassioned for a cause which feels remote.

Charities know this. It's why they bring impoverished third world villagers, or cancer suffers, into our lounge room, via the telly: if they can make us connect with the issue, we are more inclined to support it.

Environmental activists are emboldened to speak up because they perceive they are about to lose something. Something they truly, deeply connect with.

"In wildness is the preservation of the world." With these few words, American philosopher, Henry David Thoreau, succinctly captured humanity's fate. Nature is unruly, untamed. But it is also our future.

Yet we so often talk of 'The Environment' as if it exists elsewhere else, a distant entity that humankind is not connected to. A naughty, wild child, whom we might put in a room and close the door on, for a bit of 'time out'.

We may have disconnected from nature, but we are delusional if we think we can live without it. Ignoring the value and contribution of nature to our well being is, quite literally, life threatening. 

But ignoring is exactly what we're doing. In his seminal 2005 book, Last Child in the Woods, author Richard Louv, gave this ignorance a term: Nature Deficit Disorder. While not a medically recognised condition, there is an ever expanding body of work which supports Louv's central theme: that deprivation of a relationship with nature is fraught with multiple health and welfare issues. For people. And planet. 

There's head-shaking anecdotal evidence of our disconnect with nature, such as the story I was told of kids too scared to play in their own backyard, because they'd heard that insects wee and poo out there.

Scientific corroboration is also abundant. The Children and Nature Network has a collection of research papers, published between 2009 and 2011, which explored benefits to kids from contact with the outdoors. The list of abstracts alone runs to 68 pages.

Research such as Planet Ark's recent examinations (pdf) of Australian childhood interaction with nature today, relative to a generation ago. One of the findings being that, "64 per cent of respondents reported climbing trees when they were children as compared to less than 20 per cent of their children." (pdf) 

The Danish Society for Nature Conservation observed very similar findings in their survey of 2,000 Danes:"59 per cent of grandparents reported visiting a natural setting every day during the summer when they were children, as compared to... just 26 per cent of children today." (pdf) 

Four hundred German and Lithuanian high school students participated in research that found "children's emotional affinity towards nature was a significant predictor of children's willingness for pro-environmental commitment."

A related study in the USA set out to "understand what leads children to continue participating in natural history-oriented professions/education/hobbies as a young adult." The research concluded that a such vocational choice results from "early childhood and is driven by direct, informal and unstructured experiences with nature (from wildlands to vacant lots)."

For many Aussies their introduction to camping and outside adventures began with involvement in Scouts and Guides. Five years ago the international Scout movement celebrated 100 years of life in the great outdoors. But it was a bittersweet centenary. In 2001, Australia had 2,126 Scout Groups, yet by 2011 this had shrunk to just 1,524. A noteworthy decline, coming on the back of a significant modernisation drive within Scouting.

Where did all those budding young Baden Powells go? Inside.

For 98 per cent of Australian children, "watching TV or videos out of school hours remains the most common recreational activity of children aged 5 to 14 years." So revealed the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in the 2003 study, Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities.

A follow up report in 2006 noted that "[N]ot only was the participation rate highest for 'watching television, videos or DVDs', on average, children involved spent more time on this activity than on any of the other selected activities." In a study published last year, the ABS reported that whereas a tad over half of all children were playing games online in 2006, by 2009 and this had increased to just shy of 70 per cent. The ABS also noted that 17 per cent of kids 8 to 14 had a computer in their bedroom.

Researchers at the University of Sydney discovered that "Children who spend more time in outdoor sport activities and less time watching TV have better retinal microvascular structure." Retinal blood vessels have been linked to cardiovascular disease risk factors and blood pressure.

A couple of years ago the Australian national depression initiative, Beyond Blue, engaged Associate Professor Mardie Townsend of Deakin University's Faculty of Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural Sciences to investigate any health benefits from including the outdoors in our lives. She observed, "Experiencing nature in an outdoor setting can help tackle not only physical health problems such as obesity and coronary heart disease, but also mental health problems - and there is plenty of evidence to support the claim." Laying out that evidence in her 160-page report.

Drawing on the work of Kurt Hahn, pioneer of experiential learning and the guy behind Outward Bound and the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme, Expeditionary Learning schools cite as one of their core principles, "direct respectful relationship with the natural world refreshes the human spirit and teaches the important ideas of recurring cycles and cause and effect. Students learn to become stewards of the earth and of future generations."

Developing this early connection with nature is not just some bucolic vision of the 'nuts and berries' crowd. It also has a deep and profound influence on children's intellectual health as well. Richard Louv's book is packed with examples, including the school who educated their kids out amongst local rivers, mountains and forests, "96 per cent of [their] students meet or exceed state standards for math problem-solving—compared to only 65 per cent of eighth graders at comparable middle schools."

I'm not suggesting that everyone need spend 738 days hugging a tree like Julia Hill or Miranda Gibson. There are a host of mainstream opportunities for our children to learn about, and from, the outdoors. There's school endorsed outdoor education experiences, or Stephanie Alexander's Kitchen Garden programs as currently embraced by 267 Australian primary schools. From horticultural therapy to care farming. Or Scouts and Guides. And let's not forget family weekends camping in the bush; or simply get down and dirty, rolling in the grass and watching bees in the backyard or nearby park, with Mum and Dad.

For as William Shakespeare penned, "One touch of nature makes the whole world kin."

Source: ABC News
         

GotMercury.org Gets Cooperation From Supermarket: testing seafood in two month pilot program

 It has been some time since I mentioned the GotMercury organization.  But that is not to say that they have not been busy.  This is an organization dedicated to making people aware of the unhealthy levels of mercury in our seafood - levels that can, in some cases, reach in excess of 4 times the weekly safe levels recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from just one serving of certain fish.

Much has been written about whale, dolphin, and tuna meat and the high levels of pollutants, like mercury, that can be found in these fish.  Served to children or pregnant women, as is done in many Asian countries, is a risky business indeed.  However, these fish are not the only ones with unsafe levels of mercury in their tissues.

GotMercury.org provides a handy online calculator with which you can use to determine the approximate levels of mercury in various seafood.  There is also a cell phone version of the calculator which I keep with me to educate my friends when we are in a restaurant and they are considering the seafood on the menu.  You enter your weight, select the fish you are considering, and then choose a size portion in ounces.  The calculator then gives you the percentage of your EPA/FDA limit of mercury you will be consuming.  Most people are shocked by the results.

GotMercury has also been hard at work exposing tainted seafood at the seafood counter of your local supermarket.  In years past, they were the renegades, buying seafood like any other customer, then testing it and announcing their findings - which were usually disturbing and much to the chagrin of the supermarket.

However, times are changing.  GotMercury is collaborating with Safe Harbor Foods to do testing of seafood sold through the Safeway supermarket chain - with Safeway's cooperation.  Any tainted seafood that is found will be pulled and not sold.  This is a pilot program that will take place over the next two months in 47 Safeway stores in Oregon and Washington.  From there, it will potentially go nationwide throughout the entire Safeway chain.  You can follow the results of this testing process online either through GotMercury's Facebook or Causes pages.

Congratulations to GotMercury.org, Safe Harbor Foods, and to the Safeway supermarket chain for taking the responsible step in participating even at the risk of losing money should any of their seafood be found to be high in mercury.

And if you don't already have the GotMercury calculator either loaded on your cell phone or bookmarked in your browser, I would highly recommend that you do so.  To do otherwise is a risk not worth taking.

Source: GotMercury.org               

Environmental Leadership: some, but not enough, are looking to the future

On the eve of the U.S. presidential election, I thought I would share a little observation I heard that reinforced my feelings regarding politics and the environment.  I was watching a political talk show the other day and on the discussion panel a conservative and a liberal were going at it regarding climate change.  The conservative, a former congressman, was questioning the validity of the science that supports climate change and the liberal was taking the standard position that the science is overwhelming - the usual standoff, positions and arguments that many of us have heard before.

The conservative than said something very revealing.  He acknowledged that temperatures in the oceans and atmosphere have changed but said, as a sort of counter-argument, that scientists have claimed that if we stopped producing CO2 today, it would take a hundred years for temperatures to cool down by a few degrees.  To which the liberal replied, "And so that is why you suggest that we don't need to do anything?  That it will take a hundred years to see any results?  That's why we should have been doing something decades ago, but we didn't know any better.  But today, we do."

One of the biggest challenges facing the environmental movement is that so much of what needs to be accomplished is long-term in nature.  Sometimes very, very long term.  The benefits of reducing overfishing, of restricting CO2 emissions and cutting back on ocean acidification - these may not be apparent in the short term.  We may not see it within a politician's term in office, we may not see it in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime.  Nature has an amazing ability to heal itself when given a chance, when not pushed to the point of no return.  But it can be a slow healing process and we have become a very impatient people.

Mankind seems to be a species that thrives on crisis.  We don't like it, yet time and time again we push ourselves to the edge before we act.  We've done it with our economies, we've done it with political conflict and wars, but we can't do it with the environment.  As Dr. Greg Stone of Conservation International is fond of saying (I heard him re-tell this again at a recent reception saluting the Phoenix Islands Protected Area), earth is a spaceship hurtling through the cosmos at thousands of miles per hour.  It is a spaceship that comes with a life support system that cannot be replenished or resupplied.  What we have is all that we have.

However, while current politicians cajole us with a chicken-in-every-pot promises and ignore the hard issues that won't garner them immediately positive poll numbers, there are some organizations, even government institutions, that are looking at long-term problems like climate change, considering the myriad of implications which lie ahead and taking steps to address them.

The World Ocean Observatory is an online information exchange that runs a series of weekly 5-minute podcasts.  I came across a recent podcast "Who's Thinking Ahead About Climate Change" that noted the efforts of two very different groups, the U.S. Navy and the International Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies, in acknowledging the current state of climate change and preparing for the consequences.  Accepting the scientific data, they recognize the implications and are preparing to deal with the environmental changes that lie ahead.  Here is the podcast:  Click here.

We demand leadership from our politicians and decision makers, but true leadership goes beyond promises of quick fixes back to the "good old days" of expensive homes, SUVs, and mindless consumption.  It requires decisions that move beyond immediate gratification and look to a future where succeeding generations of earth-bound astronauts will have a life support system that they can depend on.  It's paying it forward on the grandest of scale and the most noble endeavor mankind can undertake.

Source: World Ocean Observatory

Pacific Shark Populations In Decline: new study provides hard numbers on pelagic species

The results of a recent study published in Conservation Biology paints a disturbing picture of ongoing decline of sharks in the Pacific Ocean.  Now, to many who are familiar with the subject of shark finning and overfishing, this does not necessarily sound, unfortunately, like anything new - it is what many of us have been fighting about for some time.  However, it's an important report because it covers a wide period of time, has specific numbers, and notes that some areas in shark conservation that receive considerable public support may not be as effective as hoped.

The study by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community in New Caledonia, headed up by Dr. Shelley Clark, covers a fifteen-year period, examining catch records from several fisheries throughout the Pacific, and shows significant declines in the catch rates for blue, mako, oceanic whitetip sharks, along with declining average size in oceanic whitetip and silky sharks (following the same fate of tuna and billfish).  These are all, basically, pelagic or open water sharks that operate outside of most national ocean boundaries in international waters.

Oceanic whitetips were shown to be declining annually at a rate of 17%.  Based on just that number alone, that would mean that oceanic whitetips in Pacific waters have 5-6 years left.  Unfortunately, that could be accelerated because of how animal populations can reach a "tipping point" where their declining numbers can no longer be supported by any means of natural reproduction and the population suddenly collapses and they plummet to oblivion.

Blue sharks were also reported to be declining at a rate of 5% in the North Pacific.  Blue sharks are a bit more abundant and more productive, but they, along with the oceanic whitetip are highly sought after by commercial shark fishing operations.  Physically, these two species have particularly large pectoral fins so, quite literally, fishermen get more bang for the buck with a shark with large fins, in open international waters and, at least with the blue shark, are slightly more abundant.

The New Caledonia study goes on to report that, in international waters, shark fishing for fins or the entire carcass, has proved to be a difficult practice to regulate due to insufficient enforcement, complex laws regarding fin-to-carcass ratios (the result of compromises by international agencies to commercial interests), and no follow-through enforcement or prosecution at the domestic level.  And then there is the impact of illegal fishing or longline fishing where numbers of sharks are caught but were not necessarily targeted.  Time and time again, we find that laws or regulations that are in place mean nothing if there is insufficient enforcement and prosecution.  Pardon the pun, but too often the laws have no teeth.

As reported in a recent press release, Sonja Fordham, president of Shark Advocates International, had this to say about the report and the current state of regulations, "These findings underscore conservationists' messages that most finning bans are not properly enforced, and alone are not sufficient to reverse shark population declines.  Prohibitions on at-sea removal of shark fins not only bolster finning ban enforcement, but also facilitate collection of species-specific fisheries data that are key to refining population assessments and informing the establishment of urgently needed shark catch limits."

This is why it is critical for all shark conservationists to focus some of their interest, energy, and passion into prodding and supporting those organizations that work on behalf of sharks in the international arena.  It may seem a bit removed and you may feel a bit ineffectual compared to regional efforts like state or local shark finning or fishing bans, but, remember, most of the ocean is in international jurisdiction.  If we do not pressure these worldwide agencies to act responsibly, based on current scientific information, then we will find ourselves putting band aids on our local waters, while the open oceans are hemorrhaging badly.

Source: PRNewsire       

Shark Repellent: a new study indicates visual cues could be a deterrent

As a follow up to my post this past Sunday on the Australian government's attempts to control white sharks off the Western Australian coast by a variety of often fatal means, new research has come out regarding another avenue for developing a shark repellent: Eyesight.

According to RedOrbit.com, researchers from Australia have been studying the brains of cartilaginous animals, which includes sharks and rays, and their conclusions point to some species of shark as having a more developed brain than previously thought.

There isn't an implication that the sharks are "smarter" than previously thought, as that often implies intelligence of a sort that we associate with humans.  Rather, while some sharks have developed brains along an evolutionary path that is similar to vertebrates including humans, the sensory abilities of the sharks are perhaps broader in scope and therefore can have an impact on their behavior more than previously suspected.

While chemical shark repellents have focused on confusing or disrupting a shark's sense of smell, the new research poses the idea that visual cues might serve as effective repellents.

“Great white sharks have quite large parts of the brain associated with their visual input, with implications for them being much more receptive to repellents targeting visual markers,” said Kara Yopak, a shark researcher at the University of Western Australia.

And what visual image would a shark possibly find threatening or repelling?

“A shark may recognize a poisonous sea-snake’s markings and swim away, for example, and we can use this information to cue a response.   It’s about understanding how their neurobiology affects their behavior,” Yopak said.  “This information may direct researchers’ efforts towards targeting the visual system when developing repellents for sharks.”

Imagine that the ultimate shark repellent turns out to be a black and white striped banner with the words "This is a giant sea snake.  Go away," emblazoned across the front.  Or perhaps we scuba divers will all start wearing wetsuits with markings that look similar to orcas - a known shark predator.   Anything is worth a try when the alternative is hooking and killing any shark that happens to cruise within the vicinity of a popular beach.

Source: RedOrbit.com

Underwater Eden: new book explores the Phoenix Island Protected Area

The Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA) came into existence in 2006.  It was, at the time, the largest marine protected area in the world and was the result of a courageous step by the government of the Republic of Kiribati - a South Pacific nation consisting of what was once known as the Gilbert, Phoenix, and Line Islands.  With scientific support from Conservation International and other research institutions, like the New England Aquarium, an area of over 157,000 square miles was designated as a protected area, including eight islands, several major submerged reefs, hundreds of square miles of corals ecosystems and vast areas of open ocean protected from commercial fishing.  In 2010, PIPA was recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage site and, while it has been surpassed in size by other marine protected areas, it still stands as a major success in forward-thinking ocean management.

But how did such a monumental step in marine ecology management come to pass?  How did the government of Kiribati come to this ground-breaking decision?  What did marine researchers find in assessing the area?  What makes PIPA so special in terms of sealife? And what are the plans for the future?  To answer these questions, many of the people involved in the development and study of PIPA have put pen to paper and a new book will be available in November, Underwater Eden: Saving the Last Coral Wilderness on Earth.

Edited by Greg Stone, PhD., chief ocean scientist at Conservation International, and David Obura, PhD., adjunct senior scientist with the New England Aquarium, Underwater Eden details the evolution of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area from the difficult political decision-making (the formation of PIPA would entail the loss of international commercial fishing licenses totaling in the millions of dollars), the initial scientific expeditions to catalog the various species of animal and plant life - from fish to seabirds to invasive insects, to the future plans to ensure not only the health and vibrancy of PIPA but the economic well-being of the Kiribati people.

The Kiribati people figure prominently in this book.  Their culture is one that has been forever tied to the sea.  While the ocean is an important key to their survival, they also understand that the ocean, too, must survive.  Both their fates are intertwined and their commitment to PIPA is both heart warming and encouraging.  If only the rest of the planet could see the oceans through the eyes of the Kiribati people.

Through words and striking pictures from top notch photographers like Brian Skerry, Paul Nicklen, and Cat Holloway, Underwater Eden presents the treasures of the Phoenix Islands that rest just beneath the waves.  From 2000 to 2009, four scientific expeditions set out to observe the variety of sealife and document the condition of the coral reefs.  Such studies established a baseline by which the health of the protected area could be monitored and assessed.  However, even in a pristine environment, there can be threats.  Early in PIPA's history, it was impacted by shark fishing poachers (who were ultimately apprehended) and by a coral bleaching event in 2002.  Fortunately, the shark population rebounded as did the coral reefs, serving as examples of nature's resiliency when given a chance to recover.

Greg Stone has often said that through the Phoenix Islands he is able to get a glimpse as to how the oceans were a thousand years ago.  And through Underwater Eden: Saving the Last Coral Wilderness on Earth, we are able to get our own glimpse as to just what he was talking about.  Full of personal first-hand accounts, interesting sidebars, and great photos, this is a book that will strengthen the resolve of dedicated ocean conservationists and enlighten those who do not yet understand the importance of marine protected areas.

You can pre-order Underwater Eden through Amazon in its hard copy edition, just in time for the holiday gift season.  It is very reasonably priced and, most importantly, all of the proceeds go to support the Phoenix Islands Protected Area.  In bringing the back story of one of the most significant steps taken in ocean conservation, this book also provides you with the opportunity to make a contribution to preserving an amazing coral wilderness which continues to serve as a model for critically-needed protected areas worldwide.

Available at Amazon.com. 

Sharks At Risk In Australia: tagged sharks may be victims of Western Australia hysteria

Researchers in Australia are trying their best to foster calm and rational thinking in the wake of five fatalities in Western Australia due to great white sharks in the past 12 months.  As the number of human-shark interactions increased, so did the demand for some kind of action to be taken by the Australian government.

It's really a classic and unfortunate case of public concerns for safety mixed with businesses concerned over loss of potential business that has fueled, ala Jaws, demands for action ranging from protecting beaches with shark nets and drum lines to actively pursuing sharks that are spotted close to shore to culling sharks in the hopes of reducing the potential for deadly encounters.

The media is subtly fueling the hysteria with reports (see below) of sharks "lurking" off local beaches.  Yes, lurking.  Not swimming  as they have for hundreds of thousands of years in oceans that were always meant for their existence, but lurking.

According to a report in Australia's Herald Sun, in September the Western Australia government authorized $4 million to use drum lines and track any sharks that come close to beach swimmers.  This decision came, in contradiction, on the heels of a government-funded report by Queensland's Bond University that found that drum lines provided no discernible measure of safety from sharks and, in fact, would succeed in catching many other unintended species.  Drums lines are floating drums anchored to the bottom with baited lines attached.  The idea behind them is that, unlike shark nets which are designed to prevent sharks from entering an area or that inadvertently ensnare them, drum lines are specifically designed to hook and kill a shark.

The random killing of white sharks threatens the efforts of researchers who tag and track sharks using various telemetry devices that can provide information on the shark's location.  In fact, the Western Australia government has even voiced an interest in killing tagged sharks when their studied movements bring them close to populated beaches.  But with ongoing tracking information of Western and Southern Australia's white sharks (a population reported to be only around 1,000), scientists can learn more about their movements - seasonal patterns, migration routes, and more - and in so doing can best advise as to methods that would provide for public safety while also protecting the sharks as they roam within the environment nature intended.

"Killing tagged sharks is the worst thing we could do right now,'' said Tim Nichol, marine coordinator for the Conservation Council of Western Australia. "We need to learn more about white sharks and these are the sharks giving us information about their movements.  It is very expensive and difficult to tag white sharks and only a small proportion of the population is currently tagged.''

I can hear the voice of Amity mayor Larry Vaughn, "Now you do what you have to to make these beaches safe, but these beaches will be open for business." 

Source: Herald Sun

Ocean Acidifcation: Center for Biological Diversity initiates new campaign

Ocean acidification is garnering more and more attention within the ocean conservation community.  And well it should.  It was only a few years ago that the issue started to reach a state of critical mass within the ocean advocacy community.  And as more and more research is taking place to understand its causes and effects, we are more and more coming to understand its insidious impact on the marine environment.

With today's massive amounts of CO2 being discharged into the atmosphere, the ocean itself is absorbing more and more of the carbon as it settles to earth.  Where once we thought that the ocean could actually be a storage facility for large quantities of carbon (called carbon sequestration), we now find that the amount far exceeds what the seas are capable of handling.  The result is a decrease in the pH of the ocean, making it more acidic.  That is the essence of ocean acidification.

“The havoc wreaked by ocean acidification is unfolding faster and more severely than anyone thought it would. Coral reefs are collapsing, and food chains may break apart as our oceans go through a dangerous transformation,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “If we’re going to stop this crisis from getting far worse, we’ll need national leadership at the top levels of our government.” 

The effects of ocean acidification is a reversal of many of the other threats imposed by man.  Overfishing, particularly of pelagic predators like tuna, billfish, and sharks, among other fish commercially sought after, is a top down assault on marine ecosystems.  Ocean acidification, on the other hand, works primarily from the bottom up.  The decreased pH level destroys many of the microscopic animals that make up plankton, a basic building block in the aquatic food chain.  Also animals like shells and coral that use calcium carbonate in the making of their exoskeletons are put at risk as the increased pH retards or breaks down the growth of calcium carbonate.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has started a new ocean acidification campaign, Endangered Oceans.org.  CBD specializes in taking conservation issues to the doorsteps of government agencies by wielding the power of the courts.  Working in consort with other organizations, the Center has initiated many lawsuits and other legal actions to force U.S. government agencies to abide by the mandates that currently exist, but are often ignored, within federal and state environmental laws.  And they have a track record of many successes.

However, ocean acidification is a challenging nemesis for CBD to take on as it is a truly global issue.  The CO2 being pumped into our atmosphere - from factories, automobiles, energy plants, just to name a few - does not recognize political or geographic boundaries.  Every nation has a responsibility to act not only for they sake of their own people but for humankind as a whole - not to mention the oceans themselves.

While I was attending the BLUE Ocean Film Festival and Ocean Conservation Event last month in Monterey, California, another important conference was also taking place in the same hotel and conference center.  It involved over 500 scientists who had come together to discuss the current state of ocean acidification, where it's heading, and what needs to be done about it.

"Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas are causing the oceans to acidify more and more rapidly than at any time since the extinction of the dinosaurs. It's time for actions that reduce carbon pollution in our oceans before it's too late,” said Ken Caldeira, climate scientist in the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University. 

Learn more about CBD's Endangered Oceans campaign and circulate their new infographic (shown above, click on the image to enlarge) among your friends and colleagues - those who may not be aware of ocean acidification and the threat it imposes on the oceans and ourselves.

Source: Endangeredoceans.org
Source: CBD Press Release              

Orca Goes To Court: Free Morgan campaign to release captive marine mammal

At the recent BLUE Ocean Film Festival, I had the opportunity to learn about Morgan, a female orca that was found alone and in poor health in the waters off the Netherlands.  She was taken by a government-sanctioned rehabilitation agency with the idea that Morgan would be brought back to health and released back to her family pod.  In a very complicated series of events that are now being sorted out in the courts, Morgan was instead turned over to Loro Parque, a Spanish aquatic amusement park in the Canary Islands.

As advocates for Morgan's release, she has many supporters (In the interest of full disclosure, I have previously stated in this blog (here, here, and here) that I am opposed to keeping cetecea like orcas and dolphins in captivity.  I believe the time has to recognize that we have learned enough since the first orca or dolphin was placed in captivity to know that it is not in the best interests of the animals to continue the practice - we now know better).

I had the chance to learn about Morgan's situation firsthand from people like Jean-Michel Cousteau and, in particular, Ingrid Visser, PhD. - a whale researcher who is probably one of Morgan's most committed supporters.  I spoke with Ingrid about Morgan's plight at the BLUE Ocean Film Festival and we agreed to follow up after the festival with an interview.

RTSea: You are deeply involved in the plight of Morgan, a young female orca, currently being held in an amusement park in Spain, but before we look into Morgan's situation, can you tell us a bit about your background?  What initially fueled your interest in studying cetacea (whales and dolphins)?

Ingrid Visser: I’ve been interested in cetaceans for as long as I can remember – I must have been 5 or 6 years old when I first remember knowing that I wanted to work with them.  However, as I kid I was told that the only way I could do that was to work with them at SeaWorld, but even at that age I knew how wrong those types of places were for the animals and I strove to find another way.  I’ve now been working with wild orca for over 20 years.

RTS:  How would you best describe the role of whales and dolphins in the marine ecosystem?  The ramifications from the loss of some marine species has been documented and for other threatened species the adverse impacts have theorized.  What do you see as the impact to the overall marine ecosystem with the possible loss of some cetacea species?  What is the possible cascade effect?

IV: If we use orca (killer whales) as an example of the cascade effect of their removal, the implications are almost so wide-ranging as to defy imagination.  Orca are what we term an ‘apex predator’ (sitting right at the top of the food web) so their removal would have ramifications for their prey but also for the whole food chain.   Orca are also known as a ‘keystone’ species (which is a term that comes from arched doorways made of bricks, where the stone at the top of the arch keeps the whole thing together and if you remove it, the whole arch will collapse).  With this type terminology and it’s definition, I would hope that no further explanation is necessary!

However, orca can also be described by another term, and that is an ‘umbrella species’.  In this definition, the idea is that if you protect them and their habitat, by default that acts as an umbrella, protecting everything that naturally falls under their reach – in this case, pretty much the whole ocean!  Returning young female orca to the wild has been successfully completed (with ‘Springer’  [a rehabilitated orca] now being reunited with her family for over 10 years).  There are details about her and her remarkable parallels to Morgan, on our website.

RTS: Morgan was originally found in the cold waters off the northwest coast of the Netherlands.  She was found emaciated and dehydrated.  What reasons do whale researchers give for her condition at the time of her capture?

IV: We don’t know what happened to Morgan, we don’t know why she was alone or why she was emaciated and dehydrated.  The reasons could range from the logical to the bizarre and just about anything in between.  We don’t like to speculate about this sort of thing, as that can taint how we look at the next steps (rehabilitation and release).  However, as I know that people are often asking this very question, I’d say this – how is that any young animal (or for that matter, human) gets lost and separated from their family?  It could be a simple thing such as the parent (or offspring) getting distracted and wandering off (think of the number of kids who get lost at supermarkets or shopping malls!), or it could be something much more sinister, where the parent was injured in some way (perhaps run over by a boat) and the youngster (Morgan in this case), fled in fright.  Of course, we also can’t rule out that it was something more natural – such as her mother dying of old age.

But, regardless of the original cause of Morgan being alone, she needed help.  This was given, but unfortunately from that point on, she became a valuable commodity in the captivity industry and they don’t want to let her go.  People have called into question why humans had intervened at all and some have said that she should have been left to die.  There are arguments both for and against this method of response (or lack of).  They are a little too intense to go into here, but I would say this; that as a species we have done so much to harm the ocean and it’s creatures, that if we can do something to help right that balance, then I think that we should do that.  As it turns out, Morgan is from the Norwegian population of orca, which was hunted extensively (over 2000 taken).  Studies have shown that the most vulnerable demographic to remove from such a population of orca, is young females.  Conversely, if you want to help such a population recover, logically, returning young females makes the most sense.

RTS: Morgan was brought back to health under a rehabilitation program that would have culminated in her release back to her original family pod.  However, at the 11th hour, a Netherlands court judge ruled that Morgan should be turned over to Loro Parque, a Spanish aquatic theme park in the Canary Islands.  On what grounds did the judge override the opinions of whale rehabilitation experts who were anticipating  that Morgan would be released back into open water?

IV: There were in fact two judges, in two separate hearings (and there will be three judges in the next hearing).  Confused yet?  It is actually a very complicated process and to try and simmer it down to a few key points it should be kept in mind that the Court case is still the same one (there have just been three hearings for the same case).  Also, it should be remembered that the case is against the Netherlands Government for allowing the Dolfinarium Harderwijk, to police their own work.  In other words, they were issued with a ‘rehabilitation and release’ permit, but that permit has a clause that says ‘unless the animals is deemed to not be suitable for release’.  And therein lies the rub.  There is no external vetting process to decide which animals is ready to go back or not.  The Dolfinarium Harderwijk was extremely duplicitous in their methods.

For instance, they told the public (and we have evidence of this) that Morgan was ‘only a toddler, and still dependent on milk’, yet, they never gave her any milk and only ever fed her dead fish.  They also told the public that Morgan was only 2 years old. Yet, when we compared her length to that of 29 other orca (for whom we knew their age at a similar size), we found that she was at least 3 years old, and possibly even up to the age of 5.   This has implications in terms of weaning (most orca are fully weaned by the time they are 3 years old, but some even earlier).  Also, this has implications in terms of her foraging skills and her language skills.  Regardless, the entertainment park lied and also provided this distorted information to their ‘seven experts’, causing them to form opinions based on misleading information.  These ‘Seven Experts’ were four whale biologists, two seabird ecologists and an ex SeaWorld Veterinarian.   When the four whale experts were given the full data set (which included other info), each of them withdrew their support to keep Morgan in captivity and said that she should at the very least be moved to a sea pen and she should be given the chance to go back to her family.

RTS: Was it a question of the judge questioning Morgan's fitness and odds of success or was the judge influenced by the theme park organization, who would obviously benefit financially by acquiring Morgan?

IV: The financial benefits of Morgan, to the captivity industry are difficult define, because the industry keeps their cards very close to their chest when it comes to things like this.  However, we do know that one female orca had been insured for US$10 million.  That implied that Morgan is worth at least that much to them.  But, if we take into account that Morgan is the first orca to come into the captivity industry, from the wild, in 25 years, her dollar value escalates considerably.  Add to that the fact that of the 44 orca in captivity at the time of her capture, all but 2 were related to each other (and of those two, one had given birth to six calves, all of whom had died and the other was a male who they had not managed to collect semen from, so they had been unable to bred him as he was held in a tank, alone, in Argentina).  To make things even more interesting, the public should know that SeaWorld has allowed mothers to breed with sons – indicating that inbreeding is fairly rampant in this industry.  Morgan’s new blood line represents the life-line for this industry, where the average age for a captive orca less than nine years (compared to wild orca, where the average age is more than 40 years and individuals are known to live beyond 80 years).

RTS: Another court hearing is scheduled for November 1st in the Netherlands to review the judge's ruling on Morgan.  What strategy are you and your colleagues taking to argue for Morgan's release, and what do you think the counter-arguments are going to be in favor of maintaining Morgan's captivity?

IV: Morgan’s court case is an on-going case.  The strategy remains the same as the last two hearings, in that we believe that legally the Netherlands Government has violated various laws, treaties and conventions and we call them to task on those aspects.  Additionally, we will be presenting documentation that shows that Morgan is suffering immensely at Loro Parque, where she has been transported.  At that entertainment park, she is made to perform in shows (which is a violation of her EU CITES Transport permit), she is subjected to intense sexual pressure from an adult male (because as explained above, the industry desperately wants to breed from her, but additionally, if she is pregnant it will present a number of problems with regards to releasing her as her calf would be a hybrid and furthermore she would be an unnaturally young mother – orca in the wild don’t normally give birth until they are around 12-14 years of age – and Morgan is roughly half that age.  Loro Parque has bred one of their other female at the tender age of 7, the youngest any orca has been forced to breed).  We will also be presenting evidence that shows that the park do not know how to deal with a wild-born orca and that they are negligent in their care of Morgan.

Loro Parque is now claiming (after Morgan had been given a ‘clean bill of health’) that she is ‘deaf’.  Their claims are based purely on some behavioural responses that she gives (or rather doesn’t give).  They state that she doesn’t respond to their whistles.  I have personally watched her not respond to some of the whistles, but respond to others.  Furthermore, she also chooses which hand-signals to respond to as well.  By their logic this would mean that Morgan was also blind!  Regardless, Loro Parque has had more than 11 months to text Morgan’s hearing, yet they haven’t.  This begs the question, why not?  And my suspicion is that they don’t want to find out that she isn’t deaf.  The seed of doubt is enough to cloud the arguments and that is all they require.

RTS: The Free Morgan Foundation's website (www.freemorgan.org) has amassed a considerable amount of detailed information regarding Morgan's history, the legal positions and motions filed, and even information about Morgan's family pod.  Of course the foundation would welcome any financial support from concerned individuals and organizations, but what else can concerned people do to help?

IV: We have a ‘How to Help’ page, with some suggestions.  We certainly want the world to sit up and notice Morgan.  She isn’t the first orca (or dolphin) to be taken into captivity for ‘rehabilitation and release’ and then ended up in a life of performing circus tricks in a featureless box.  She won’t be the last and sadly, for these animals, the only retirement they get is when they die.  We need the public to realize just how bad the industry is and that they have been misleading the public for years.  The truth has to come out. 

We have ‘pledges’ that people can take (such as to never by a ticket to a park which holds whales or dolphins), we have a petition, which at the time of writing is at around 35,000 signatures, for Morgan’s release (which we will show the Judges and tell them ‘be careful what you do, as the world is watching’).  We have a facebook page (www.facebook.com/freemorgan.org) and we are trying to spread the word through the social media.  We have a twitter account @free_morgan so you can get info about her as we get news.  If any of your readers know of any celebrities who would be willing to stand up and say something for Morgan, on their own twitter account or their own facebook page, they would help spread the world exponentially.

Visit www.freemorgan.org.     

Making Waves in the Rockies: Colorado Ocean Coalition holds ocean symposium/film festival

This weekend, October 20-21, the Colorado Ocean Coalition will be holding its Making Waves ocean conservation event in Boulder, CO.  On Saturday, attendees will be entertained with films from the recent San Francisco Ocean Festival while Sunday will be an ocean conservation symposium followed by a gala honoring Jean-Michel Cousteau.

You can check out the full schedule of events at the Colorado Ocean Coalition website.

I will be attending - another opportunity to catch up with colleagues and network with people who are passionately and professionally involved in protecting our marine resources.  And it will give me a chance to gauge the attitudes and interests of people more "landlocked" or removed from direct contact with the seas.  

This isn't to say their commitment is any less.  In fact, living near the Pacific Ocean as I do, it can be refreshing to meet with people not bound to the coast who are just as committed as I am to preserving our oceans.  And if they do have a different perspective based on where they live, that can be very enlightening; it can add some color to explain positions or attitudes of the decision makers who represent these people and are involved in national or international environmental policy.  

The health of the oceans is truly a global issue whether you live in Hawaii or Iowa.  What is happening to the seas impacts food supplies, medicines, and climate - temperature, changing weather, and air quality - everywhere.

If you are in the Denver/Boulder area, come check out the Colorado Ocean Coalition's Making Waves weekend.  Maybe I'll see you there.

Source: Colorado Ocean Coalition