Ever since Mark over at blogfish had the great idea of a monthly round-up of ocean blogging, Carnival of the Blue has been a one-stop, all you can Head over. And bon appétit!
Ever since Mark over at blogfish had the great idea of a monthly round-up of ocean blogging, Carnival of the Blue has been a one-stop, all you can
On July 25, 1946 at 8:34 a.m. local time, Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands was rocked by the underwater detonation of a 23 kiloton atomic bomb. This was the second test explosion of Operation Crossroads, a test conducted by the United States Navy to study the affects of nuclear weapons on ships, equipment, and material. The first detonation (Test ABLE) had taken place on July 1, with an aerial detonation of nuclear device at an altitude of 520 feet. The July 25 underwater detonation (Test BAKER) used a device anchored 90 feet underwater, sealed in a watertight steel caisson. For the test, a target fleet of 90 vessels was assembled, including old and surplus U.S. warships as well as three captured German and Japanese ships. The U.S. Navy unconditionally moved the people of Bikini off their atoll to facilitate the nuclear testing program.
Sixty-one years later, Marshall Islands residents continue to call on the US Congress to provide adequate nuclear test compensation. In fact, Congress has been sitting on nuclear compensation legislation since its introduction in 2000. Does it come as a surprise to anyone that this administration reacts with arrogant defiance to calls for compensation? As reported in Pacific Magazine, U.S. Department of Interior official Tom Bussanich told the Senate panel that the Bush Administration does not support any part of the proposed legislation including funding for health care because the U.S. government has satisfied all of its obligations for compensation and health care to islanders affected by the weapons testing.
Oy! What a horrible picture. Here's a sidebar piece from The Bonaire Reporter describing (badly) my presentation at the Tourism Corporation Bonaire annual meeting last week. Aside from the scowl and the misspelled last name, I stand by the adage that "there's no such thing as bad press."

Which really should not come as much of a surprise to readers. Decades of social marketing have demonstrated that information alone is insufficient to change behavior. Indulge me in an anecdotal aside. I consider myself to be a moderately intelligent individual. I know about heart disease, cholesterol, diabetes, and that regular exercise should be a part of my life. Yet I'm probably 40 pounds overweight. I lost a father and mother to heart-related issues complicated by high blood pressure, yet that awareness didn't stop me from eating that stack of Oreos while watching Family Guy last night. Information alone is insufficient.Issues at the intersection of science and politics, such as climate change, evolution, and embryonic stem cell research, receive considerable public attention, which is likely to grow, especially in the United States as the 2008 presidential election heats up. ... scientists must learn to actively "frame" information to make it relevant to different audiences. Some in the scientific community have been receptive to this message. However, many scientists retain the well-intentioned belief that, if laypeople better understood technical complexities from news coverage, their viewpoints would be more like scientists', and controversy would subside.The recent Cummings and Breakthrough reports in part support this position. But the current dilemma does not appear to be focused on convincing people that climate change is a reality. Polls seem to indicate that we may be over that hump. What remains a challenge is framing the issue in such a way as to move climate change higher on the public (and policy maker's) perception of priority issues requiring immediate attention. And here it may be less of a framing issue than it is one of demonstrating vision.
In reality, citizens do not use the news media as scientists assume. Research shows that people are rarely well enough informed or motivated to weigh competing ideas and arguments. Faced with a daily torrent of news, citizens use their value predispositions (such as political or religious beliefs) as perceptual screens, selecting news outlets and Web sites whose outlooks match their own. Such screening reduces the choices of what to pay attention to and accept as valid.
Not to get all Phil Plait here, but the Apollo-type investment strategy that so resonates with voters is a telling example. The Apollo space program was many things: a spectacular marriage of science and engineering, a Cold War space race, a demonstration of human determination, and some may say a tremendous waste of resources. I could go on. But the vision it demonstrated and the potential applications and investments in the future, from computer technology to Tang, captured the public attention, interest, and buy-in. As a result, it commanded the attention of policy makers as well.
Worldwatch Institute has an online Oceans in Peril quiz, and it's tougher than you might think. Head over and match wits with the quiz to find out your ocean threat IQ. Not one to brag, but my test results indicated I should have gills. How did you score?
It takes a particularly head-up-your-ass sense of blind allegiance and stupidity to publicly demonstrate your zenophobic tendencies and impugn a segment of society, move on, then repeat the process all over again. Why, one would have to be high military brass to possess those qualities and beef it that badly.
Fresh back from my trip to the southern and eastern Caribbean, I've been mulling over the hot button issue of cruise ship sustainability. On Bonaire, local concerns were at a fever pitch over the imminent arrival of cruise tourism which will almost double the islands tourism arrivals over the next year. I've written here before about cruise tourism and coral reefs, and after visiting Bonaire and listening to different stakeholder views I'm not sure I have any greater clarity on the topic. In many project sites I manage (Mexico, Belize, Hawaii, Fiji), cruise ship tourism is one of the top perceived reef threats identified by stakeholders. But it's important to emphasize that these are perceived threats. Unfortunately, scant site-based empirical data exists that directly ties cruise tourism to reef health decline.
The combination of all these issues makes for a constantly moving target in any effort to build and promote sustainable tourism in coral reef destinations. You might imagine then that before working to build sustainability, it's important to have some sort of idea of what sustainable tourism looks like. But sustainability means different things to different stakeholders. There's a certain Clinton-esque quality to defining sustainability (I often hear colleagues using phrases such as "Well that all depends on what sustainable means.")The optimal use of natural and cultural resources for national development on an equitable and self sustaining basis to provide a unique visitor experience and an improved quality of life through partnership among government, the private sector and communities.So what really stands out in this definition of sustainable tourism? What I like is that this definition includes the need for tourism to be equitable and self sustaining, provide a unique visitor experience, and ensure an improved quality of life for destination residents. Sustainable tourism isn't just about safeguarding natural resources such as coral reefs. The principles behind sustainable tourism speaks also to ensuring equity and cultural sustainability as well. If local residents do not receive support or fair benefits from tourism, they are unlikely to support conservation activities to protect those natural resources that are often the primary draw for tourism visitation in the first place.
Opponents to cruise tourism are often quick to claim that by it's very nature, cruise tourism is antithetical to sustainable tourism. And in many examples one might point out, this is unfortunately true. The Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, second largest barrier reef system on the planet--extending from the the tip of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula to the Honduras Bay Islands--has been a cruise ship destination for decades. If you query most environmentalists along the Yucatan, they would probably not point to current cruise tourism practices or volume as sustainable. Not surpirsingly, you'll get a different story from cruise line executives.
Cruise ships are not asked to pay a concession fee (essentially a fee to conduct business) for operating in or around MPAs. While many larger cruise ships have their own on-board sewage treatment facilities, some cruise ships still off-load their sewage and gray water to port sewage facilities that adds greater processing burden on destination systems. In many ports of call, cruise passengers looking to spend cash on souvenirs are often offered "duty free shops" or similar contrived shopping areas convenient to boats that ferry passengers to and from the ship. As a result, passengers are not offered an authentic experience with locals and revenue generated may not necessarily stay within the destination. And finally, cruise ships often negotiate lowest-bid contracts with local marine tourism operators (snorkel-dive-fishing) who typically have no group size limits, and provide minimal visitor supervision in sensitive coral reef areas.Assessing the carrying capacity of an MPA involves a number of factors, though some scientists suggest there may be general capacity limits for particular habitat types, like coral reefs. However, actual implementation of these hard limits on numbers of tourists can be politically difficult. For this reason, some experts suggest an alternative way to manage tourism impacts: estimating the "limits of acceptable change" for protected sites instead.The concept of limits of acceptable change, or LAC, was first suggested by Stephen McCool (best last name, ever!), a professor at the School of Forestry at the University of Montana, Missoula. His framework for estimating the LAC for an ecosystem involves four major components:
• Specification of acceptable and achievable resource and social conditions, defined by a series of measurable parameters;Importantly, the process involves combining the technical expertise of planners and scientists with personal knowledge contributed by local public stakeholders. None of this LAC characterization is accomplished without a lot of work. Nor does it come cheap. Engaging stakeholders and experts to this degree requires significant funding. And in contrast to a carrying capacity--which, once established, entails little monitoring apart from counting visitors--a LAC system requires regular measurements of changes in resource and social conditions to ensure that the values assigned to an ecosystem reflect current realities.
• Analysis of the relationship between existing conditions and those judged to be acceptable;
• Identification of actions necessary to achieve these conditions; and
• A program of monitoring and evaluation of management effectiveness.
So back to cruise tourism. Do we have exemplars of cruise destinations that reflect a serious consideration of the tenets of sustainable tourism, and have undergone a robust analysis of either carrying capacity or limits of acceptable change? If anyone knows of such a destination in the Caribbean, I'm eager to hear about it. As mentioned before, the Mesoamerican reef system currently receives the bulk of Caribbean cruise traffic. Anyone who has been "fortunate" enough to be in Cozumel or Playa del Carmen when multiple ships are in port can testify that the destinations hardly provide a unique visitor experience or optimal use of natural and cultural resources. More recent cruise markets to coral reef destinations in the Pacific (Hawaii, Philippines, Australia, Fiji, etc.) have less traffic volume than their Caribbean counterparts. And being a younger market with less competition, some cruise lines have been very receptive to work with conservation groups to maximize sustainable practice.
After leaving Bonaire, it was a night in Montego Bay, Jamaica, and then another night in Los Angeles before finally getting home. I'm pooped. And my weary brain isn't coherent enough to whip-up a quality Moray Monday. So, it's time for a little improvisation.
Though typically solitary creatures, this species of moray is always seen in pairs. They have been described from only two known individuals, identical in every respect with the exception of opposite eye coloration. This moray species inhabits depths in excess of 30 meters, finding shelter within slowly decaying sea monster carcasses. Quite atypical for the moray family, the species appears to prefer the company of chubby, aging, diva-esque, sociopathic sea witches. It would appear that this moray species is particularly susceptible to coercion by such nefarious personalities and are resultantly prone to do their bidding as willing minion.
Greetings from the island of Bonaire in the Netherlands Antilles. I've been crazy busy since the moment I landed, but have also found time to get into the water in the spectacular Bonaire Marine Park. So since it's all about Bonaire this week, I thought I'd bring you a native moray found in the park.
The Chain moray can be found throughout the Western Atlantic, from Bermuda, Florida, and the Bahamas to the Antilles and Brazil. In the Eastern Atlantic, it has been documented in Cape Verde and Ascension Island. I wouldn't say they are common in Bonaire, but if you are observant you can just see their snouts protruding from holes in dark, shaded areas of the reef.
This moray species is identified by a short blunt snout, yellow chain-like markings along the length of its body, and bluntly pointed or molar-like teeth, even on the roof of its mouth. A benthic and solitary species, the Chain moray is found on reefs and rocky shore areas. They feed on small fishes and crustaceans. Off NE Brazil, the Chain moray forages for shore crabs on exposed reefs at ebb tide and in tide-pools during the day. Amazingly, this species is able to withstand up to 30 minutes out of water while foraging.
Okay, it's just a letter. But I'm still proud. A previous contributor to Science made a claim that finger pointing or education and awareness efforts targeting divers is unnecessary since this community is already savvy when it comes to coral reef conservation. I respond that this goes against most of what I have personally observed, as well as what the research indicates.
Yep, I'm becoming predictable. I'm on my way to LA to change planes and then endure 10 glorious, economy seat hours of air travel to the island of Bonaire, in the Netherlands Antilles. That's right, it's time to get my Dutch on. Can you say, "Smoke and a pancake?" (Sorry, insider Austin Powers joke.)
But the bar is called the Red List, and it's not a place you wanna be seen in. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN or more commonly known as the World Conservation Union) is the world’s largest conservation network and creators of the Red List. The Union is comprised of 83 States, 110 government agencies, more than 800 NGOs, and some 10,000 scientists and experts from 181 countries in a worldwide partnership.
For the second time in two weeks, a Leopard seal has been found stranded on the beaches of Australia near Sydney. This is an incredibly rare event since Leopard seals are Antarctic ice dwellers which seldom wander further north than Macquarie Island. Both the male seal found last week and the female discovered yesterday showed signs of attack by Cookie-cutter sharks. This pair of Leopard seals joins five other sub-Antarctic fur seals that have also been found washed up on Australia's New South Wales coast this year
Leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) are large and muscular true seals, with dark grey backs and light grey on their stomachs. Their throats are whitish with the black spots that give the seals their common name. Leopard seals are the second largest species of seal in the Antarctic (after Southern Elephant Seals), and are keystone predators. Young Leopard seals likely feed on krill swarms in the Antarctic seas, but adults have been observed preying upon fish, King, Emperor, and Chin-strap penguins and, less frequently, other seals such as Crabeater Seals. They have unusually loose jaws that can open more than 160 degrees allowing them to bite larger prey.
Asked to speculate on the appearance of these Antarctic species in Australian waters, Geoff Ross, a wildlife management officer with the National Parks and Wildlife Service suggested that Southern Ocean storms may have driven the pair north.
A study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that scientists may have underestimated the historical number of gray whales from Mexico to Alaska. If accurate, then one of the great success stories of rebound from the brink of extinction in the ocean may not be as successful as originally thought.So you stone-throwers determined to "defeat" religion and expunge "superstition" from our culture. Go ahead and shout about why nobody cares about science in the US if you want, but if you really want to change things (instead of just hearing yourselves rant), then go learn from Carl Safina about changing the world.I'm not gonna jump into the fray here given that I have nothing to say on the subject that hasn't already been contributed via the comments on either blogfish, Pharyngula, or other blogs.
While getting the imams … I mean, evangelical priests to support you now is a shortcut to achieving a specific goal, it's going to bite you in the ass in the long run when you discover you've vested your scientific authority, as well as moral authority, in a group of unqualified leaders who make decisions on the basis of poetry in an old book.Where I certainly agree with Mark and Safina is that we should always be open to discuss ideas, even when we disagree. I'm proud to say that the conservation world has been taking active steps as of late to do just that. I've recently joined the newly formed (and still forming) Religion and Conservation Working Group of the Society for Conservation Biology. Open to any member of the SCB with an interest and focus in the topic, the group has some ambitious goals and calls for growing cooperation between science and religion in addressing environmental issues.
Another Monday, another moray. I've been spending a lot of time on some of the more exotic morays over the past few weeks, but I think it's time to get vulgar. And I'm preferring to use the more neutral definition of vulgar here to mean "common". And what's more common than the Green moray?
Also known as the black moray, green conger, green congo, green eel, and olive-green moray eel, the Green moray is one of the most common and one of the largest of the moray eels, averaging 1.8 m in length, but can grow up to 2.5 m (8.2 ft.) long and weigh up to 29 kg. (about 64 pounds!).
Like most morays, the Green is a benthic and solitary species found along rocky shorelines, reefs, and in mangrove habitats. Depth ranges from 1-30 m. The Green moray is a nocturnal predator with poor eyesight that uses its sense of smell to hunt for fish, squid, octopuses, crabs and occasionally even other eels. I found out first hand how poorly sighted Green morays can be during a night snorkel in Roatan, Honduras. I was snorkeling around the turtle grass beds just offshore behind the reef when I felt something against my belly, under my loose-fitting t-shirt. I focused my light beneath me to see a meter-long Green moray exiting my shirt. Charming.
