WDC Blog - From the Front Line

Our friends at Cetacean Society International and ourselves are trying to make sure that President Obama realises what the US is doing in his, and the American peoples', name at the IWC.

We are especially concerned that the US is encouraging the resumption of commercial whaling though the '' Deal". If you have not seen it, please take a look at the following video and let President Obama that we expect more of the US.

On occasions when we have talked about climate change the more skeptical of our ‘friends’ have suggested that cetaceans ought to be pretty robust to all this warming and cooling. Some have even suggested that cetaceans ‘did all right in the last ice age, so should be fine now’.

To that I say ‘poppycock’.

WDCS has note the growing impact of acidification an its potential impact on cetaceans, but a recent report has again highlighted the problem of the silent death that is creeping through our oceans.

Les Blumenthal, writing in the McClatchy Newspapers writes; ‘Far away from our casual sight, something is going wrong in our oceans.’ Off the Pacific Northwest coast of the Unites States,  areas of lower level of oxygen are alarming scientists and conservationists.

 The report notes that in some spots off Washington state and Oregon, the almost complete absence of oxygen has left piles of Dungeness crab carcasses littering the ocean floor, killed off 25-year-old sea stars, crippled colonies of sea anemones and produced mats of potentially noxious bacteria that thrive in such conditions.

Areas of hypoxia, or low oxygen, have long existed in the deep ocean but in some spots, such as off the Southern California coast, oxygen levels have dropped roughly 20 percent over the past 25 years. Elsewhere, scientists say, oxygen levels might have declined by one-third over 50 years.



Scientists say the changes are consistent with current climate-change models.

'Previous studies have found that the oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

 As ocean temperatures rise, the warmer water on the surface acts as a cap, which interferes with the natural circulation that normally allows deeper waters that are already oxygen-depleted to reach the surface. It's on the surface where ocean waters are recharged with oxygen from the air.
 
Water that's pulled up from the depths is poor in oxygen, it's rich in nutrients, which fertilize phytoplankton. These microscopic organisms form the bottom of one of the richest ocean food chains in the world. As they die, however, they sink and start to decay. The decaying process uses oxygen, which depletes the oxygen levels even more.
'

Blumenthal reports further,  "It's a large disturbance in the ecosystem that could have huge biological changes," said Steve Bograd , an oceanographer at NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science Center in Southern California.

Bottom-dwelling species could be at the greatest risk because they move slowly and might not be able to escape the lower oxygen levels. Most fish can swim out of danger. Some species, however, such as chinook salmon, may have to start swimming at shallower depths than they're used to. Whether the low oxygen zones will change salmon migration routes is unclear. 



So why are we humans so reluctant to accept something is going on? Well I suggest its not because the evidence is saying that there is not a problem. The blip of debate over the IPCC reports is just that, a blip. In a year’s time we shall see more evidence and this will be forgotten.

But the traditional environmentalists in our younger generations are also being swayed by the naysayers. Its concerning to see a report that suggests ‘Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 are, for the most part, split on the issue of global warming and, on some indicators, relatively disengaged when compared to older generations.’

Is it that we do believe that man-made climate degradation is real, it’s just that by remaining skeptical to pollsters and the media, we put off having to take responsibility?

(Please note that I find using the phrase ‘climate change’ or climate warming’ can encourage a kind of positive view in some people’s minds; a view of a world of ‘gentle breezes blowing in over a Caribbean beach’ – not quite what it could really be – like a another frozen UK. Lets use a negative phrase to get people to understand what this could really mean)

Just as some people had ‘forgotten’ about whaling, and their governments have conveniently forgotten what a resumption of commercial whaling will do for whales and our oceans, - its just easier to ‘hope it will go away’ without having to do anything now.

The evidence in our oceans may be out of sight and therefore out of mind, but when these effects start to affect the cost of your fish, or mean that prey disappears for whales and dolphins and they themselves then disappear off your coastline, it may well be to late.

I for one don’t know what the absolute effects of man-made climate degradation will be. What I do know is that the possibilities are alarming, and I don’t want to gamble on those worse options happening for my children, but there again, maybe if I close my eyes and put my hands over my ears, and spin round three times, I could just ignore it…

If you have not read it yet, take a look at Richard Black's discussion entitled 'EU - bloc vote or blocked vote?'

Richard examines the EU voting system in relation to CITES and other agreements. As we experienced this first hand at the IWC meeting any clarity someone can bring to this subject is very welcome. Though having read Richard's piece, I am not sure the EU is clear about what it should be doing, either morally or legally.

Interviewed for the Orlando Sentinel, Neuroscientist Lori Marino tells of how she and a team of researchers explored the brain of a dead killer whale with an MRI and found an astounding potential for intelligence.

Killer whales, or orcas, have the second-biggest brains among all ocean mammals, weighing as much as 15 pounds. It’s not clear whether they are as well-endowed with memory cells as humans, but scientists have found they are amazingly well-wired for sensing and analyzing their watery, three-dimensional environment.

The article is well worth a read, especially as it references Lori Marino and Hal Whitehead, both friends of whales and WDCS

Many members of the public joined in with WDCS in opposing the Danish proposal to allow Greenland to hunt more humpbacks at last week's IWC meeting in Florida. What some of you will not know is that the Sea Life Centres throughout Europe also spoke out against the proposed hunt. Sea Life sent letters on behalf of their staff and their millions of visitors to their relevant host governments calling on them to oppose the hunt.

So on behalf of WDCS, 'chapeau' to Sea Life, - a new breed of company that is placing conservation at the heart of its approach to business.

You can see an example of how Sea Life engaged in this campaign here in Ireland.

Reported on ZIZ, Dr the Hon Timothy Harris, Senior Minister and Minister of Marine Resources for St Kitts and Nevis, a nation that is a very loyal supporter of Japan in all that Japan wants at the IWC, seems to believe that the IWC does have competency for small cetaceans, - that's dolphins and porpoises to most of us.

This is a remarkable turn around for Japan, sorry of course I mean St. Kitts and Nevis, as ZIZ reports the Minister as saying '...the role of the IWC as a foremost international body responsible for the sustainable management of whale resources and the range of other issues to do with our marine resources and how international developments are likely to impact us here, not just as a proponent of the sustainable use of marine resources but also as a country now investing in marine parks: dolphins and sea lions for recreational purposes'. You see Japan has always said that the IWC does not have competency for small cetaceans.

ZIZ goes onto report that, 'While IWC is best known as a whaling organization, it treats with more than whales and whaling, other species such as dolphins, and small cetacean are of concern to the IWC.'

I have a friend who is far more musical than I am. In fact, he is very musical and I, well I have a very poor ear.  Now he was reminding me that when he tunes a piano or a violin, the difference between a very small turn of the tensioning keys results in very different results.

At one point the violin, for example delivers a melodious and beautiful sound.  Tighten the string a small amount more and the sound, well the sound is very attractive to cats and other night prowlers.

At the IWC a small group of scientists are trying to tune the catch limit algorithm that the IWC has been testing for the last few years. This is the ‘black box’ into which information about whales in put in at one end, and quotas are ejected at the other end.

Just like a violin, the black box’s precautionary nature relies on the correct tuning level being selected, and in 1991 the IWC decided what that would be. It is science, but it is also policy based on science. The IWC Commission is the policy body that decides how precautionary whaling should be.  At the moment it says there should not be any commercial whaling and that’s why we should have full compliance with the moratorium.

Some nations are now agitating for a resumption of commercial whaling and the tuning level now becomes important again.

Now none of the whalers really liked the tuning level that the IWC decided on in 1991, and so, for example, every when the Norwegian Government has illsued itself with its own quota, it has used a more liberal tuning of the black box until it delivers the answer that was requested.

Now the IWC is faced with quotas that the whalers are demanding, and that some others are willing to concede to them. But what numbers are we talking about and what caterwauling tuning was used? Was it the tuning level that the IWC agreed on, or is it some new level that the whalers want?

Its important because if we are presented with “’the black box’ would give ‘X’ number of whales, but look, we shall only give the whalers X minus Y whales, you should be grateful for our prudence”, we would be entitled to ask ‘How did you get X in the first place?’

Nations should be wary of the ‘sleight of hand’ of scientific tricks. The scientist can be just as dangerous to a whale as the harpoon, and neither is independent of the person who wields them.


If you want to join in with the IWC discussions, we have a quiz that you can do. See if you can qualify to be a modern day Commissioner and take our quiz.

The citizens of Europe could find that they are inadvertently voting for a return to commercial whaling this week whether they like it or not.

In one of the most dramatic moves to remove the democratic rights of Europe’s citizens, European bureaucrats have created a procedural ‘Catch-22’, which means that a single pro-whaling country (Denmark) can now dictate the whole EU position on whaling. As a result, European citizens can no longer be assured that their elected governments are free to represent their views and, indeed, must go against their declared position to protect whales.

The whole shameful scenario is being played out at the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) intersessional meeting in St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, on the 4th and 5th March.  EU members have been legally advised that, if they cannot reach consensus on a proposal to increase Greenland’s quota by 10 humpback whales, they must abstain at the IWC meeting.

EU countries make up almost one third of the membership of the IWC and, because a vote of this type requires a three-quarter majority to pass, a mass abstention by the EU would almost certainly result in the proposal being adopted.

It's a farcical situation and the ludicrous EU voting system effectively means that the UK and other Members of the European Union who oppose Greenland’s proposal to hunt humpback whales can not act in the interests of whale conservation as their hands have been tied firmly behind their backs.

This is rule by brute bureaucratic force and Europe’s citizens have long opposed whaling but we now find ourselves forced into abdicating our strong, democratically established position because of the spurious guidance of unelected bureaucrats

There are also further reaching, and catastrophic consequences beyond this current proposal as the same situation is likely to arise at the annual IWC meeting in June when the IWC will consider a proposal to suspend the global moratorium and allow commercial whaling to resume.

We can only anticipate that the EU IWC Members will not be able to find consensus on this deeply controversial proposal. If they have to abstain en masse at the next IWC annual meeting (IWC62), and the proposal is adopted, the consequences for whales and the future of the IWC are devastating.

I bet they are all already preparing their press releases to try and sell the reasons why 'they had to vote for Greenland' in June 'why they had to vote for whaling'.

Well they don't have to!. They are hiding behind the voting process, with a few brave voices standing up to this bullying and threats. We know who is championing the whales and we know who is selling them out

We shall remember them

You can see our arguments about the abuse of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling on the BBC website

My feeling is that the EU has gotten itself into a farcical situation.

The ludicrous EU voting system means that the Members of the EU who oppose Greenland's proposal to hunt humpback whales can not act in the interests of whale conservation as Denmark has managed to have their hands tied firmly behind their backs. Where now democracy?