Wolf Hunts: U.S. gray wolves, no longer protected by Endangered Species Act, are hunted down

It's official. The gray wolves of the U.S. northern Rockies are getting exterminated.

Government agencies are calling it "predator management" or "harvesting" but the numbers are staggering. In Idaho, from a population of 750 to 1,000, hunters are being allowed to reduce the wolf population to just 150 animals. That's up to 85% of the population - gone. Montana intends to take down 220 of their 556 to 645 wolves. That's nearly 35% to 40% wiped out. Many scientists are concerned that the reduced populations will collapse as they will be so widely dispersed that healthy reproductive patterns will be difficult to maintain. They will literally be spread to thin to sustain themselves.

How has this come about? Weren't wolves protected by the Endangered Species Act at one time? Was it the result of political lobbying by ranchers and hunters? Yes on both accounts.

As reported by James Gibson in the Earth Island Journal, "The recent anti-wolf campaign represents an extraordinary cultural and political victory by the far-right wing in the Rocky Mountains. A loose coalition of some ranchers, hunters, and anti-government zealots demonized the gray wolves reintroduced to Montana and Idaho from Canada in the mid 1990s by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. They cast the animals as huge, aggressive, disease-ridden monsters bent on ravaging livestock, elk, deer, and even people. Wolves became symbolic representations of the hated federal government. In time, both the mainstream Republican and Democratic Parties came to accept this vision of demonic wolves invading from Canada.
In April, 2011, Senator John Tester, Democrat of Montana, facing a tough 2012 reelection challenge from Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg, led a campaign among fellow Democrats to remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act using a federal budget bill rider, while Idaho’s Congressman Mike Simpson did the same among House Republicans. The rider passed with little dissent, marking the first time a species has been removed from the protections of the Endangered Species Act by Congress."
That's a key point in all of this: For the first time, politicians - rather than scientists - have decided whether an animal is endangered and entitled to protection under the Endangered Species Act. The danger here is not just the immediate and ongoing threat to the wolves; there are also the implications that this action can mean for a host of other species whose protection under the law might be inconvenient for some lobbyist-represented industry. Do you see a slippery slope building here? If so, you're not alone.

A long list of environmental organizations have been fighting this change in how the Endangered Species Act is wielded. There have been lawsuits and legal appeals - and there will certainly be more.

The Center for Biological Diversity reported, "The Center and its allies are in court to challenge the congressional rider that removed these wolves from the endangered species list. 'The Endangered Species Act rightly put scientists, not politicians, in charge of deciding which species get protection,' said the Center's Noah Greenwald. 'Wolves once roamed most of North America, but were wiped off the map by intolerance and persecution -- which persist today. Wolf recovery is far from complete.'"

But for the moment, gray wolves are more than important natural predators which maintain balance in the Rocky Mountains ecosystem. They're also, now, targets.

Click here to view pictures taken by Maureen Mitra of the ongoing hunt for gray Wolves.

Read more about the wolf hunts in Earth Island Journal.
Read about what is being done on the legal side in The Center for Biological Diversity.

Octopus Takes a Stroll: tide pool visitors see mollusk on the march

Marine researchers and aquarists are familiar with the amazing abilities that the octopus has up its sleeve . . . or tentacle. As a mollusk, or more specifically, a cephlapod, the octopus does not have a bony skeleton and this allows it to crawl through the tiniest of cracks and inhabit seemingly cramped quarters from small crevices to discarded teapots to even soda and beer bottles. This skill can be a source of frustration for aquarists as the clever octopus is notorious for seeking out and escaping from its aquarium exhibit through the tiniest of spaces.

Add to that, it's incredible camouflage ability, changing not only its color but the very texture of its skin to match its surroundings. Try doing that, guys, the next time your told to take out the garbage. The one thing that ties these two skills together - as an escape artist and camouflage expert - is the octopus' inherent shyness.

However, for a group of tide pool watchers at the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve in Moss Beach, south of San Francisco, one bold eight-armed cephlapod decided to be adventurous and go for a walk, literally. A popular YouTube video captures an octopus exiting the water and moving over the sea grass and algae-covered rocks at low tide. Carrying a crab which it later discarded, perhaps to aid in a hastier retreat, the octopus actually walks in a very wide circle, heading back into the water to nearly the exact same spot from where it came.

Although not that uncommon for shoreline octopuses to move from one tide pool to another, it's still fascinating to watch because you can see its arms not only pulling itself along but also pushing its body upwards, acting like strong legs. And you can get a sense it is looking around to get its bearings, seeing where it wants to go and how to get back to the water. All very deliberate-looking in its movements and direction. And all taking place with an enthralled crowd watching and snapping pictures.



One commenter on YouTube had the right idea, suggesting the octopus came from the sea to present an offering of goodwill. "We mean you no harm. Here's a crab. Now go. And leave us in peace."

ICCAT PostScript: silky shark afforded greater protection but other species ignored

Follow up to yesterday's post, "Sharks of the Atlantic: new report cites dismal international conservation efforts" . . .

The results of the ICCAT's 22nd Regular Meeting of the Commission in Instanbul, Turkey produced a mixed bag of results, leaning towards more disappointment than satisfaction. ICCAT agreed to establish greater protection for the silky shark - one of the most sought after sharks in the Atlantic shark fishing industry - but protections for the porbeagle, blue, and shortfin mako sharks were passed over, along with other important shark conservation measures that were recommended by Oceana and other conservation groups.

Maintaining a diplomatic stiff upper lip, an Oceana press release stated, “'It is a great day for silky sharks,' said Elizabeth Griffin Wilson, senior manager of marine wildlife at Oceana. 'ICCAT should be commended for its continued effort to protect the oceans top predators. Today’s decision to protect silky sharks is a strong step forward in protecting one of the most commonly found species in the international shark fin trade.'

Oceana did voice concern that ICCAT failed to reach consensus on several important shark measures, including those to protect vulnerable porbeagle sharks, establish science-based precautionary catch limits for blue and shortfin mako sharks and improve the current finning measure by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins wholly or partially attached in a natural manner."

Also in attendance at the ICCAT meeting were representatives of the Pew Environment Group. "Protecting one shark species a year and adopting no other measures for their conservation will not be enough to ensure the survival of these animals across the Atlantic Ocean," said Max Bello, senior advisor on global shark conservation for Pew.

Progress with international organizations can be painfully slow and patience is one of the founding principals of diplomacy. However, incremental steps at this stage may not be enough to preserve endangered shark species like the porbeagle which, it has been reported by scientists, would need a minimum of several decades and possibly more than 100 years to fully recover.

Read Oceana's press release on the results of the ICCAT meeting.
Read comments from the Pew Environment Group in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Sharks of the Atlantic: new report cites dismal international conservation efforts

Over the past several years, we have been seeing progress made in conserving sharks through the establishment of shark sanctuaries or protected zones that have included entire island nations. The latest measure has been taken by the U.S. state of Florida which initiated a prohibition on the catching of tiger sharks and three species of hammerhead sharks inside Florida state waters. Additionally, we have seen legislation aimed at shark fin bans which, at best, puts pressure on the shark finning industry and, at the very least, forces them to fold up their tents and move elsewhere.

As positive as these steps are, they are regional efforts, globally-speaking, and many sharks species, particularly those considered the most endangered, are known to travel great distances whether traveling along migratory routes or randomly covering a lot of ocean territory and, in so doing, they move in and out of protected areas frequently.

Since these sharks will move in open international waters, it therefore becomes the responsibility of multinational fishery management organizations to ensure that sharks are being properly managed and, in many cases, prohibited from commercial shark fishing.

This could not be any more truer than in the Atlantic Ocean. A just-released report from Oceana cites as much as 75% of the migratory sharks in the Atlantic are classified as threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) but less than 1 percent are protected by the organization that is most responsible for protecting these sharks.

The ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, is that responsible organization. According to Oceana, "The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the primary international maritime treaty, establishes that fishing nations must cooperate to ensure the conservation of highly migratory species both within and beyond their exclusive economic zones, through appropriate international organizations."

"Because highly migratory species require international cooperation for effective management, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) have been established to manage fisheries for these species with the goal of long-term sustainability. In the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is the most relevant and appropriate international organization to manage highly migratory species, including sharks."

Unfortunately, ICCAT's scorecard has not been a particularly winning one. Heavily influenced by commercial fishing interests, the organization has set catch limits for tuna that are consistently way below levels recommended by their own scientific advisers, and only a few species of sharks have been afforded any degree of protection.
The ICCAT has been holding its 22nd Regular Meeting of the Commission this past week in Istanbul, Turkey and Oceana is there to present the 48 member nations with the facts and to make recommendations as to actions ICCAT should be taking regarding Atlantic Ocean sharks.
Just how many sharks are being taken? Well, trying to answer that question is also part of the problem because as many as half of ICCAT's member nations did not report any shark catches in 2009 - there's no data. Based on what figures are available, combined with scientific and anecdotal observations, the current state of affairs is not good. But until there is reliable data from all member nations, the full extant of the problem can not be appreciated - which is just fine with the commercial fishing industry representatives whispering in the ears of ICCAT delegates.
In its 10-page report, Vulnerable Sharks in the Atlantic Ocean: The Need for International Management, Oceana puts forth the following recommendations to the ICCAT:

1. Prohibit retention of endangered or particularly vulnerable shark species, especially porbeagle and silky sharks.
2. Establish science-based precautionary catch limits for blue and shortfin mako sharks.
3. Require reporting of catch data as a prerequisite for landing a particular shark species.
4. Improve the ICCAT finning measure by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins wholly or partially attached in a natural manner.

I have reported on the ICCAT's dismal record in the past regarding tuna catch limits and so if the organization's history is any indication, Oceana has probably had it's hands full this past week. But it's a fight worth taking on so, as the meeting in Turkey comes to a close this weekend, let's hope that some decisive progress has been made.

Perhaps someday, with regional protections in place, a growing public awareness and clamor as to the problem, and catch levels reaching limits that are economically unsupportable, the ICCAT will live up to its environmental responsibilities. The sharks are betting their lives on it.

Download Oceana's report: Vulnerable Sharks in the Atlantic Ocean.
Read about the status of Atlantic sharks at Ocean's website.

NOAA Aquarius: and undersea home for scientists, divers and even astronauts

Where would you like to spend a faraway vacation? A remote chateau in France? A cozy cabin in the high Sierras? Well, here's one that is on my wish list: over 60 feet below the surface of the waves, off the coast of Florida, nestled in the Aquarius undersea research station.

Currently, the only permanent undersea habitat and research facility, Aquarius is owned and funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and operated by the University of North Carolina Wilmington. It has been home to a wide array of scientists and researchers since it was first deployed in the Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary in 1993.

One of the advantages of an undersea habitat is the ability to extend the amount of bottom time (time spent diving and conducting research outside). If you were to dive from the surface to 60 feet, you would have only about one hour of dive time before you would find yourself having to deal with decompression (waiting to discharge accumulated nitrogen) as you surfaced. However, by staying below in a pressurized facility, a scientist could spend a full working day outside, for up to 10 days or more. At the conclusion of the mission there would then be an extended period of time spent decompressing before stepping on dry land, but the ability to spend days at a time underwater is extremely valuable for many types of scientific ocean studies.

Additionally, a facility like Aquarius is ideal for testing how men and women can function in confined environments like they would encounter in deep space missions. NASA just concluded its latest deep space training exercise, NEEMO 15, which stands for NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operation. With NASA's future deep space missions, like ones being considered to the moons of Mars, Mars itself, and even to an asteroid (calling Bruce Willis), it is important to know how astronauts can function effectively and independently, with little or no contact with mother Earth. Medical emergencies, software and hardware repairs, and of course, long-term isolation - all need to be considered and studied.

From reef growth to acidification to developing new techniques in biodiversity studies - or even preparing astronauts for future space missions - Aquarius is a vitally important ocean research center. NOAA understands the value of public awareness and has established and interesting website for Aquarius, containing background information on missions and other accomplishments, videos, pictures, and even a live feed camera for when it's catering to visitors.

So, champagne and strawberries in a New York hotel suite? Fresh tempura in a Tokyo high-rise? A warm fire and a soft couch in Yosemite? All very nice, but give me a cup of hot chocolate, a bunk, a porthole, and a set of diver gear at the ready and I'll be just fine, thank you.

Read about Aquarius at NOAA's Aquarius website.
Read about NEEMO 15 and its work with Aquarius in the Huffington Post.

REDONDO BEACH PIER & INTERNATIONAL BOARDWALK

A favorite location for dining, snacking over the ocean or just walking through the shops and buying souvenires, the Redondo Beach Pier is a popular local and tourist attraction. Sport fishing from the end of the pier is a popular event and there is no fishing license requirement. In the summer there are weekly concerts and special events. Just North of the Pier is the famous International Boardwalk with the Largest Amusement Center on the Coast which includes the Fun Fish Market Restaurant, Fish Markets, shops, eateries and gift shops line the International boardwalk and the area connects the Pier with the harbor.

David Shiffman: new generation of shark

As a filmmaker, one of the reasons I write the RTSeaBlog is because through my work I have come to see that there is a tremendous amount of important research and data which is not making its way to the decision makers or the general public. This is true in the environmental and ecological field as well as in other disciplines. But I am certainly not alone in this understanding and there is a growing group of young scientists determined to change that status quo.

David Shiffman, also known as "Why Sharks Matter" at the Southern Fried Science blog, is one of a new generation of marine scientists who both relishes in research and understands the importance of communicating that research to the widest possible audience through today's various online mediums. He currently is working on his doctorate as a research assistant at the R.J. Dunlap Marine Conservation Program of the University of Miami.

David is also currently in the running as a finalist in the CollegeScholarships.org program that recognizes the efforts of college students and researchers who are utilizing the world of blogging to get the message out. The program is a cash prize awarded to the person with the greatest number of votes from the public.

"[The scholarship] will provide me with $10,000 towards my dissertation research, focusing on the ecological importance of sharks to coral reefs. I'll also use the money to support our lab's citizen science program, which has taken over 1,000 high school students and teachers into the field to learn about sharks and participate in an active research program. I'll also adopt a satellite tagged shark in the name of Southern Fried Science's readers, let them name it through a contest, and post regular updates about where it is and what it's likely to be encountering."

Voting ends November 30th, and it's going to be close. David is the only ocean blogger among the finalists. It would be great if all the finalists could receive cash rewards and maybe someday, with a change in the economy or the mindset of those who don't see conservation as a critical issue, that could happen. But, for the moment, this is what we have.

I have cited David and his blog work in previous posts. I met David several years ago at the first BLUE Ocean Film Festival and can attest that he is dedicated to both sharks and the need for making people aware as to the plight of these animals and what it means to the future of the oceans as a whole. He's got my vote. How about you? You can vote for David by clicking here which will take you to the CollegeScholarships.org voting page (it accepts one vote each day).

Or you can cut and paste their web address: http://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2011/11/18/2011-blogging-scholarship/
http://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2011/11/18/2011-blogging-scholarship/