10 May 2007

Eastern Pacific grey whales malnourished: an unexplained phenomenon

After a long migration, grey whales are arriving thin and exhausted on the Mexican coast and appear to be searching for food. Such are the observations of researchers from the U.S. group, Earthwatch Institute, who are preoccupied by the survival of these whales who may either be too numerous or have fallen victim to climate change.

Grey whales undertake 8000-km long annual migrations. They spend the summer feeding in the Bering Sea and in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea, along the coast of Alaska, British Columbia and California. Winter is given over to mating and calving along the coast of Baja California, Mexico.

A protected species that is more abundant than before whaling

This Northern Hemisphere species, which has disappeared from the Atlantic Ocean, is present only in the North Pacific where it had been hunted intensely since the XVII Century, bringing to the brink of extinction. Protected since 1937, the Eastern population, estimated at 24 000, is now more numerous than it was before commercial whaling. For this reason, it was down listed from an endangered species in the United States in 1994 and is often cited as model for population recovery. The Western population off the Russian coast, on the other hand, is estimated at approximately 100 and is endangered, having fallen victim to commercial whaling, accidental entanglement in fishing gear and oil and gas exploration activities.

What is emptying the pantry, El Niño or the whales themselves?

Animals that appear undernourished have been observed since the late 1990s, suggesting that they may have reached or even surpasses the carrying capacity of their environment. Too numerous, they may have depleted their prey. In 1997-1998 the warming of Pacific Ocean waters by El Niño provoked a drop in oxygen levels that led to a sudden decline of the biomass. Species affected were mostly benthic amphipods, a staple food source for grey whales. The melting of the Arctic may also deprive the whales of a rich food source, which accumulates along the edge of the pack ice.

According to researchers from the Earthwatch Institute, while this population cannot continue increasing indefinitely without causing an imbalance that may threaten its very survival, the present lack of food goes beyond the natural cycle of the predator/prey ratio. It could be an early warning of the global warming of this Ocean, necessitating further study and urgent action. [BBC News, Fisheries and Oceans Canada]

I want to know more

On BBC News:

19 April 2007

Subsistence hunting for beluga whales in Northern Quebec 2007: a tense season

Inuit hunters in Nunavik, Northern Quebec, plan to defy quotas set by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) aimed at conserving the endangered beluga whale populations of Eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay.

Despite the fact that the will to conserve beluga whale stocks for future generations is common to both protagonists, the situation is becoming increasingly tense. After 20 years of regulations and chronic exceeding of quotas, communication problems and an increasing concern for the survival of the Inuit culture associated to traditional hunting are adding to an already complex situation.

A misleading mix

DFO estimates the Western Hudson Bay beluga whale population at around 60 000; it does not appear to be threatened. The Eastern Hudson Bay population is estimated at 3 100 and, according to COSEWIC, is endangered. The Ungava Bay population is estimated at less than 200, is also endangered and is protected under the Species at Risk Act, as are the beluga whales of Eastern Hudson Bay. In 2001, DFO models predicted the extirpation of the Eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay populations by 2010 or 2015 if hunting pressures were not eased. Since then, lower quotas and the closing of Eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay to all hunting activity has checked the decline of these populations and supplied a glimmer of hope for their recovery.

These three populations are very distinct from a genetic point of view. In the summer they frequent the shores of the Hudson, James and Ungava bays. In the fall, all three populations migrate towards Hudson Strait where some of them spend the winter, only to return in the spring to their respective territories to give birth. It is during their passage through Hudson Strait that 20 to 30 percent of kills target animals from the endangered Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay populations. For the Inuit that observe the whales and hunt them along the shoreline, this seasonal influx of beluga whales leads them to believe that beluga whales are abundant, shedding doubt on the scientific methods used to count them.

Why are these populations at risk?

Nunavik beluga whale populations underwent a sharp decline due to commercial hunting that was terminated at the beginning of the XX Century. Only subsistence hunting has since been authorized and has been managed since the mid-1980s. Annual capture quotas are set for each village or community by taking into account the most recent estimates for each population. Seasonal restrictions and the closure of certain zones are also used.

These quotas have constantly been surpassed. From 1996 to 2000, 240 captures were authorized per year, yet between 267 and 302 animals were taken, depending on the year. In 2001, 395 beluga whales were taken, despite a quota of 370. Quotas have been more faithfully respected since 2002, although they have still been surpassed every year. The exceeding of quotas has led DFO officers to take legal action against unlawful hunters. Furthermore, the three-year management plan, in place from 2006 to 2008 also includes a measure whereby quotas surpassed one year will be cut back the following year by the number of animals that exceeded the quota.

What do the Inuit want?

The Inuit feel that their economic and cultural way of life is threatened; in these Arctic regions, beluga whales represent an essential staple for certain families. The president of the Anguvigaq hunters and trappers organization has asked DFO to lift quotas, put a hold on its management plan and drop charges against hunters. Hunters have expressed their determination to continue hunting even if, by doing so, they are breaking the law. This painful deadlock will require a consensus to ensure both the survival of beluga whales and of hunting traditions in Northern Quebec. [Nunatsiaq News, Fisheries and Oceans Canada]

I want to know more

On Nunatsiaq News site:

19 April 2007

Subsistence hunting for beluga whales in Northern Quebec 2007: a tense season

Inuit hunters in Nunavik, Northern Quebec, plan to defy quotas set by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) aimed at conserving the endangered beluga whale populations of Eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay.

Despite the fact that the will to conserve beluga whale stocks for future generations is common to both protagonists, the situation is becoming increasingly tense. After 20 years of regulations and chronic exceeding of quotas, communication problems and an increasing concern for the survival of the Inuit culture associated to traditional hunting are adding to an already complex situation.

A misleading mix

DFO estimates the Western Hudson Bay beluga whale population at around 60 000; it does not appear to be threatened. The Eastern Hudson Bay population is estimated at 3 100 and, according to COSEWIC, is endangered. The Ungava Bay population is estimated at less than 200, is also endangered and is protected under the Species at Risk Act, as are the beluga whales of Eastern Hudson Bay. In 2001, DFO models predicted the extirpation of the Eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay populations by 2010 or 2015 if hunting pressures were not eased. Since then, lower quotas and the closing of Eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay to all hunting activity has checked the decline of these populations and supplied a glimmer of hope for their recovery.

These three populations are very distinct from a genetic point of view. In the summer they frequent the shores of the Hudson, James and Ungava bays. In the fall, all three populations migrate towards Hudson Strait where some of them spend the winter, only to return in the spring to their respective territories to give birth. It is during their passage through Hudson Strait that 20 to 30 percent of kills target animals from the endangered Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay populations. For the Inuit that observe the whales and hunt them along the shoreline, this seasonal influx of beluga whales leads them to believe that beluga whales are abundant, shedding doubt on the scientific methods used to count them.

Why are these populations at risk?

Nunavik beluga whale populations underwent a sharp decline due to commercial hunting that was terminated at the beginning of the XX Century. Only subsistence hunting has since been authorized and has been managed since the mid-1980s. Annual capture quotas are set for each village or community by taking into account the most recent estimates for each population. Seasonal restrictions and the closure of certain zones are also used.

These quotas have constantly been surpassed. From 1996 to 2000, 240 captures were authorized per year, yet between 267 and 302 animals were taken, depending on the year. In 2001, 395 beluga whales were taken, despite a quota of 370. Quotas have been more faithfully respected since 2002, although they have still been surpassed every year. The exceeding of quotas has led DFO officers to take legal action against unlawful hunters. Furthermore, the three-year management plan, in place from 2006 to 2008 also includes a measure whereby quotas surpassed one year will be cut back the following year by the number of animals that exceeded the quota.

What do the Inuit want?

The Inuit feel that their economic and cultural way of life is threatened; in these Arctic regions, beluga whales represent an essential staple for certain families. The president of the Anguvigaq hunters and trappers organization has asked DFO to lift quotas, put a hold on its management plan and drop charges against hunters. Hunters have expressed their determination to continue hunting even if, by doing so, they are breaking the law. This painful deadlock will require a consensus to ensure both the survival of beluga whales and of hunting traditions in Northern Quebec. [Nunatsiaq News, Fisheries and Oceans Canada]

I want to know more

On Nunatsiaq News site:

5 April 2007

A British study reveals the effects of seismic surveying on cetaceans

This study, aimed at understanding the effects of compressed air guns on cetaceans, has just appeared in the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management (C.J. Stone et M.L. Tasker-The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters). These guns are mainly used for oil and gas exploration of the ocean floor. They emit powerful detonations every 10 seconds, 24 hours per day, for weeks and sometimes months at a time. These detonations essentially produce low frequency sounds that invade the underwater environment, extending over great distances. The resulting noise pollution is cause for concern for bioacoustitians, such as Chris Clark, director of bioacoustic research programmes at Cornell University in the United States, who considers that, with the exception of military acoustics, seismic surveying is the worst form of noise pollution.

Because mysticete whales mainly use low frequency sounds, while small odontocetes (toothed whales such as dolphins and porpoises) tend to use high frequency sound, biologists are especially concerned about the former group of whales. Numerous studies conducted to investigate the risks to these animals have documented behavioural changes that could potentially affect the survival or reproductive success of cetaceans. The effects can be as serious as loss of auditory sensitivity, injury and even death.

The British study, based on four years of data, is intended to extend knowledge about the effects of seismic surveying on cetaceans, small odontocetes in particular. Results demonstrate that cetaceans were disturbed by seismic exploration and displayed divergent reactions depending on species. When the air guns were active, small odontocetes swam away from the zone; mysticetes and killer whales that were en route to the exploration boat changed direction and distanced themselves from it, without leaving the zone; pilot whales changed direction. Statistically, no significant effect was noted for sperm whales. Odontocetes swam faster while mysticetes increased their dive times.

The authors specify that this study was only concerned with the short-term effects of seismic surveying on cetaceans and that other, long-term studies conducted over greater areas should be carried out. If an animal does not react specifically at the moment of a detonation, this does not mean that it will not be affected over the long term, notably by the masking of its vocalizations or through the loss of auditory sensitivity. Furthermore, the biological importance of documented short-term changes is not known; they could have long-term repercussions on the ability of marine mammals to carry out essential activities such as feeding, reproduction, care of their young and migration, to name a few.

Finally, the authors emphasise the importance of adhering to the precautionary principle. This is in line with GREMM recommendations concerning oil and gas exploration in the St. Lawrence Gulf and Estuary. The effects documented in the British study suggest the possibility of similar effects on the threatened resident St. Lawrence beluga whales population. Offshore oil production is such a touchy enterprise that several countries have adopted bans or special laws, judging that the risks are far too heavy when weighed against the potential benefits (Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park, United States, Costa Rica, Denmark, Australia). [Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, Whales Online]

I want to know more

On Whales Online:

22 March 2007

Japanese whalers forced to leave Southern Ocean

Special collaboration: Genevièvre Laprise

The Japanese whaling fleet leaves the Antarctic Ocean after a fire aboard its mother ship.

For the first time in 20 years, Japan had to shorten its whaling season. All Japanese whalers had left Antarctic waters by the end of February. The Nisshin Maru, the fleet's main vessel, managed to restart its engines that had been shut down since February 15. A major fire had broken out in the engine room, forcing the evacuation of the crew and costing one crew member his life.

During a press conference in Tokyo, Takahide Naruko, an official representative of Japan's Fisheries Agency, declared that, “…given the damage to equipment from the fire, continuing whaling would be difficult.” He further added that the reduced number of whales taken, 505 minke whales and 3 fin whales as opposed to objectives of 850 and 10 respectively, would not have a major effect on the price of whale meat.

The controversial Japanese scientific whaling programme, which is run by the Institute of Cetacean Research, has many opponents. The governmental organization recently published a letter denouncing the actions of certain environmental groups. This letter accuses groups like Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace of terrorism, stating that they are responsible for dangerous harassment of Japanese whaling ships. These accusations follow a declaration by Japan's Fisheries Agency that, “We don't think there was any direct connection. On the other hand, we can't say for certain that there was none.” New Zealand naval authorities, called in to intervene during the fire, have declared that it is unlikely that Sea Shepherd or Greenpeace are responsible for this incident. The anti-whaling groups, that were harassing the Japanese fleet a few days earlier, were not present in the area on the day the fire occurred.

Greenpeace sent a radio message to the Nisshin Maru to the effect that, “We acknowledge your grief at the loss of your crew member. But this must be the last time your government sends you to the Southern Ocean to hunt whales and threaten the Antarctic environment. For the sake of the environment, the whales and your crew – never again!” The Nisshin Maru is scheduled to return to Japan by the end of March. An investigation and inspection of the engine room will enable authorities to determine the true cause of the fire. [The Register]

I want to know more

8 March 2007

The calls of blue whales are divulging their secrets

Two recently published studies by Scripps Institution of Oceanography reveal new details about blue whale calls. One of these studies reveals links between types of vocalizations on the one hand and behaviour and gender on the other. The other study demonstrates that dialects exist for every blue whale population in the world.

The first study used various techniques, such as acoustic tags, observations at sea and genetic analysis in an attempt to determine the significance of blue whale vocalizations. It turns out that only male blue whales produce “AB” calls, while “D” calls are produced by both genders, typically while feeding. The “AB” sounds are likely associated with reproduction.

The second study used recordings of blue whales from all over the world to create a new map that categorized blue whales into nine regions according to dialect. The authors believe these categories could reflect the different global blue whale populations better than old data based on hunting.

In the St. Lawrence, another study published by Catherine Berchok and her colleagues from Pennsylvania State University also hints at the existence of blue whale dialects. For this study, acoustic recordings that were carried out between 1998 and 2001 imply a sub-division in the North Atlantic blue whale population. While vocalization characteristics of St. Lawrence blue whales and those recorded elsewhere in the North Atlantic are similar, distinctive features were noted in the composition of “phrases”.

This fascinating data teach us a little more about these mysterious giants. It also represents a new way to imagine more efficient protection for this endangered species.[Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Catherine Berchok and her colleagues]

I want to know more

On Scripps Institution of Oceanography's website :

1 March 2007

Cruise line must pay $880 000 for breaking speed limit in a National Park

Last January 29, Princess Cruise Lines pleaded guilty in an Alaska court to knowingly failing to operate its ship, the Dawn Princess, at a slow, safe speed while near two humpback whales in Glacier Bay National Park. The cruise line is now obliged to pay a fine of US$200 000 (CN$235 140) as well as US$550 000 (CN$646 635) in restitution to the National Park Foundation, which is dedicated to conservation efforts. This prosecution was the first of its kind in the United States.

On July 12, 2001, the Dawn Princess was navigating park waters at a speed in excess of what is considered to be a slow, safe speed supported by the anti-take provisions of the U.S. Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Four days later a pregnant humpback whale was found dead near where the ship had passed. The whale had succumbed to major injuries that included a fractured skull, eye socket and cervical vertebrae. These injuries are consistent with a ship strike. Researchers had known the dead whale as “Snow” since 1975.

Humpback whales gather to feed in this Alaska Park during the summer months. Princess Cruise Lines' directors regret the circumstances that involved the Dawn Princess and stated that the company takes its role as good stewards of the environment very seriously. The cruise line, which has planned 84 trips to Glacier Bay National Park this year, has instituted procedures and speed restrictions for its vessels of 18.5 km/h (10 knots) for the area.

Ship strikes: a real threat

Despite the fact that ships tend to be noisy and cetaceans have good hearing, ship strikes are relatively frequent. For, even though cetaceans are quickly able to react to danger, at certain times they are less alert. Examples of this include sleeping or resting periods, which take place near the surface, as well as feeding, nursing or mating periods. When caught off guard by a ship, whales do not necessarily have time to react or move. This is especially true of slow-moving species. Depending on the angle and the force of the impact a ship strike can either injure or kill a cetacean. Propellers can gash and slice skin and blubber, and in some cases cut up the tail. Given the force necessary to break the bones of a large cetacean, it is unlikely that cranial, jawbone and vertebral fractures are unlikely to be caused by anything but a collision with a ship.

According to a study conducted by the Marine Mammal Commission on collisions between motorized vessels and great whales—baleen whales and sperm whales—in various regions of the world, fatal ship strikes date back to the end of the 1800s when ships began attaining speeds of 13 to 15 knots (24 to 28 km/h). At the time ship strikes were rare. They began increasing in number between 1950 and 1970 with the increase in the number of ships and speed. The authors of the study recorded collisions with 11 different whale species. It appears that most fatal or serious injuries are caused by ships that exceed 80 m in length travelling at speeds in excess of 14 knots (25 km/h). However, ships of every size and type can hit whales and inflict injuries. [National Park Service Morning Report, Associated Press]

I want to know more

On the Environmental News Network site:

15 February 2007

Japan organizes a meeting to push for the lifting of the whaling ban

This week Japan invited the 72 members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to an impromptu meeting in Tokyo. Most countries opposed to commercial whaling—including the United States, Australia and Great Britain—boycotted the meeting; in total 34 countries declined the invitation. The main topic of discussion at the meeting was a strategic plan to ensure the lifting of the worldwide ban on commercial whaling. The results of this meeting, which was held from February 12 to 14, will be presented to all IWC members at the annual IWC meeting to be held next May.

This week's meeting calls for the “normalisation” of the IWC in accordance with the terms of the “St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration”, adopted by a slight majority at the last annual meeting in June 2006. This declaration stipulates that the IWC should return to its original mandate: the sustainable management of commercial whaling that ensures the protection the cultural heritage rights and the economic development of coastal communities. According to the organizers of this week's meeting, the debate around commercial whaling is dominated by emotions. For their part, countries and organizations that are opposed to whaling denounce Japanese propaganda and are worried about a poorly managed scientific hunt, which they describe as a smokescreen for the eventual resumption of commercial whaling.

Between an untenable status quo and the absence of a solution to the crisis, the IWC is spinning its wheels; without a clear prospect for the resumption of commercial whaling, a parallel international organization of exclusively pro-whaling countries could be created. For now, IWC management tools (moratorium, sanctuaries, etc.) have not been able to control whaling activities that have been taking place since 1986. For several years now, the IWC has been attempting, without success, to come up with new management strategies that all member countries can agree on. This would lead to the lifting of the ban and a resumption of commercial whaling. It remains to be seen if this hunt can be carried out in a sustainable manner in light of the whaling activities of centuries past that brought all great whale populations to the brink of extinction. [New York Times]

I want to know more

25 January 2007

North Atlantic right whales fall victim to fishing gear

On Thursday, January 25, a right whale was freed of most of the fishing line that it had been dragging around in its mouth since at least the month of September. Meanwhile, biologists are proposing modifications to lobster fishing practices in the Gulf of Maine to reduce accidental entanglement.

Last September, researchers from the New England Aquarium spotted a young right whale in the Bay of Fundy, where this species generally spends the summer. It had fishing line caught in its mouth, knotted behind its blowholes and trailing about 12 metres behind it. The whale was not seen again until January 15, when it was spotted from the air on the right-whale calving grounds off the coast of Georgia. Biologists from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the Center for Coastal Studies equipped the whale with a satellite-transmitting buoy in order to track it. The next day they returned to the area in an attempt to free the whale, but it dove and swam away from its would-be rescuers. Using satellite signals from the buoy, the researchers were once again able to locate the whale several days later in Onslow Bay, off North Carolina. The team then approached it, slowed it down and came in close to cut the line. Unfortunately, numerous attempts to remove the line near the mouth did not succeed. At the end of their intervention, the team recovered the satellite buoy and the whale dove deep, still trailing fishing line in its mouth. Researchers now hope that the remaining line will fall away on its own.

With a mere 350 individuals left, the North Atlantic right whale is one of the most threatened great whales of the planet. Despite international protection they still fall victim to human activities, either through ship strikes or accidental entanglement in fishing gear. A study published earlier this month proposes a shortened lobster fishing season and a reduction in the number of traps used in the Gulf of Maine. According to this study, these changes would not affect the profitability of this type of fishing. On the contrary, they would mean savings for fishermen and reduced risks of accidental entanglement. [ESPN, Current Biology]

I want to know more

On the ESPN site:

A bad year for North Atlantic right whales

On the eve of New Year's Eve, Saturday December 30, 2006, the carcass of a right whale was spotted drifting off the coast of Georgia. This was the sixth such observation of 2006, a disastrous year for this endangered species. The body of the young male, approximately two years old, had twenty large propeller cuts along the right side of its head and extending down its back. This is the mark of a ship strike. A necropsy confirmed that the lacerations did not occur after the death of the whale. Five of the deaths reported in 2006 were caused by human activity: four whales died from collisions with ships and one was the victim of fishing gear entanglement. The sixth carcass was not recoverable; cause of death could not be established.

This most recent victim was the offspring a whale known to New England Aquarium researchers as Columbine. Every individual of this species can be recognized by patterns formed by white callosities on their heads, which are like fingerprints that enable researchers to catalogue them.

The North Atlantic right whale population is estimated at approximately 350 individuals who feed during the summer months in northern coastal waters, such as the Bay of Fundy. These whales then migrate south along the East Coast of the United States. Thus, gestating females make their way to their calving grounds off Florida and Georgia. Researchers contend that this population cannot support such a high death toll linked to human activities; they estimate that the North Atlantic right whale could disappear within 100 to 200 years. However, conservation measures are being devised and implemented for the recovery of this species. Speed limits in areas frequented by right whales have been established in certain areas and the shipping lane in the Bay of Fundy was actually moved to accommodate feeding right whales. A similar project could see the light of day in the Boston area.

I want to know more

On the New England Aquarium site :