WDC Blog - From the Front Line

Why do you care about what I have to say? Because I sign your paycheck. Well, obviously it’s not my signature on everyone’s check but under the signature you’ll see "RAS", my initials. My initials are on your check because I was smart enough, many years ago, to invest in a banking scheme as to where I get a percentage of all issued paychecks. Of course, it’s only for vested full-time employees of corporations which employ more than 25 people, so perhaps there are a few checks I’m not on- Go ahead, and don’t believe me? Go look. I’ll wait.

What do you mean you don’t see it? But I said it in a definitive statement. I substantiated what I said; therefore it must be true, right? I bet, at least someone, actually thought it might be true. Trust me, if I had set up such a sweet deal with a bank I wouldn’t be sitting in the dungeon (my basement office) writing it on a blog - perhaps I’d be blogging from my own island in the Pacific. My point being, when someone says something as fact - someone else believes it. No questions, it’s just the way it is. However, my degrees are in science - scientists are trained that nothing is absolute- absolutely nothing (and therein lies the irony). None of that seemed to be a problem until I dipped my toe(s) into the policy arena. Scientists don’t write policy, and for good reason- it would never get done because there would always be some looming question and “what if” scenarios. Policies are rules- fairly black and white- “don’t hit a whale”, “slow down to 7 knots when you’re within 500 meters”. Scientists would say “we think that 7 knots is a speed where the whale appears to have a reduced reaction to the approaching vessel but we haven’t taken acoustic considerations into account……”

Commercial industries (shipping, fishing, energy facilities, etc) aren’t scientists. Things are pretty clear to them- “building an offshore energy facility will not have an impact on the marine environment”, “We can’t slow to 10kts, it’s a safety hazard”, “we can’t fish with sinking line, it won’t work”. End of story- just the way it is. Scientists say “According to our studies, we think that the construction will display animals” or “based on the best available data, 10kts is a speed where injuries are less likely to be fatal”. Always qualified, because it’s science and science has to be qualified.

Unfortunately, the folks that make policy, i.e. the elected officials, aren’t scientists either. What they hear is “we can’t” (said definitively”) and “we think” (said with some question).Guess who wins? Ding, ding, ding- we have a winner! Yes, industry. It doesn’t matter if they don’t have science behind them (why would they?), it just matters that they say something as fact, so it is. There is no way, any credible scientist, including myslef, will ever stop qualifying data. Yet, we do need to be clearer about what that means and better at presenting more forceful arguments to policy makers, and poking more holes in the arguments made by industries. That’s much of my job now- reviewing data to support conservation policy and poking holes in counter proposals from industries. It may not sound like fun, but it can be rewarding, and it is incredibly important. I spent the better part of yesterday going through an industry proposal and the rush of instantaneous gratification I got from using science to take apart their claims and demonstrate the further need for more protective measures was……… a feeling I probably shouldn’t be blogging about. It was a good day.

And seriously, go look at your check…………………………………..

Whilst we have talked in this column about the UK Governemnt potentially allowing noisy and disruptive exploration in especially fragile dolphin habitats in the UK, the US Governemnt has been trying to overturn all scientific and legal measures to prevent its Navy from operating unhindered in the use of potentially damaging sonars.

A US judge has just ruled that the US Navy must adhere to a curb on the use of strong sonar in waters off California. Judge Florence-Marie Cooper overturned an exemption granted last month by President George W Bush.  The US president had cited national security when he ordered the Navy's submarine detection exercises should go on.

I always thought the military were about protecting us and our chosen way of life. For me thats also means protecting the enviornment around us. So good for a judge who knows when a Presidential move to limit such protetction rubs up against this fundamental balance of liberty and security. Its a balance between our liberties to peacefully enjoy the natural world around us, whilst also allowing those who are there to protect us to do so without sacrificing the first for the latter.

I think a lot of Naval personal might just agree.

Whilst I write this, WDCS is gearing up to challenge the UK government on the future of the Moray Firth Special Area of Conservation (SAC). At stake is not just this area of outstanding natural beauty, but the Moray Firth dolphins themselves and indeed perhaps the fundamental principals of marine conservation in the UK.

There's a desparate irony to this situation. Here we are, as a species, chasing down the last few million barrels of a compound that is based on the long dead remains of marine life that has gone before whilst simultaneously (some of us) try to preserve similar life for the future.

We're not so idealistically blind as to underestimate the value of oil and the staggering mountain we and others have to climb to change attitudes. After all, the world's economy is totally dependent on this stuff; our civilisation cannot function without oil and it's many derivitives - thus far.

But at what terrible cost? Putting aside the very real human cost - the human lives that are squandered globally for this destructive industry - we are losing biodiversity at a staggering rate. The Moray Firth dolphins are but the top of the pyramid, the most visible element of an ecosystem that would be damaged - destroyed? - by futher human intervention in this environment. Who cares about 130 dolphins? Well, you might care if they were the last 130 dolphins - and in fact, they are. They are the last of their kind. Extinction is forever.

If we can't save these few animals on our doorstep, what chance do we have of saving whole species? They say charity begins at home - so does conservation.

I was asked recently over the phone by a buddy of mine "What did you get up to today?" I replied "Oh, not much, just watched a perfectly healthy young whale being euthanased by a vet..." My friend didn't say anything for a minute, he was actually quite choked himself, and he hadn't even been there!

"You are mad, how can you photograph that sort of thing happening?" the conversation went on. We might be mad but I also think that the passion that we in WDCS have for the animals that we represent shines clearly through, like when Sarah and I had a microphone shoved in our faces as the little whale was put to sleep. It was a harrowing afternoon, and I'm not ashamed to say that I shed a few tears too - joining Sarah and Emma having a good snivel on that freezing, rapidly darkening beach at Fortrose. The day that I lose all emotion when attending a stranding of any whale, dolphin or porpoise, or when speaking to the media about our dolphins in the Moray Firth, is the day that they put me in a box - I'm sure that you feel the same.

Cheers Everyone,

Charlie.

Further to my last posting on the UK Government's position on protecting the remaining UK dolphin populations, here last night's UK Channel 4 News piece on WDCS's campaign in the Moray firth to protect the SAC. and the dolphins. 

And I make no apology for the fact that WDCS colleagues were found to be compassionate and open in their feelings about the stranded whale. If you haven't worked it out by now - we kind of think these guys need compassion and not the violence humankind is sometimes capable of dishing out. Nice one Charlie and Sarah. Again, see what you think and let us know.