2008 In Review

To my Austral-Asian readers a very happy New Year! To those of us still awaiting 2009, gird your loins for any late night commute or driving where you need to dodge over-zealous celebrants!

I thought I'd take a brief stroll through 2008, looking at some of the best (or worst?) of Malaria, Bedbugs, Sea Lice, and Sunsets. Granted, any such collection is entirely subjective--after all, it's all great stuff here, right? So to add an element of objectivity to this exercise, I've scanned my Google Analytics, Blogger Stats, and Technorati to identify highest traffic, multiple return hits, most linked, most comments, yadda, yadda, yadda.

So what MBSL&S post got the most traffic in 2008? Hand's down, it was my comic homage to the PZ Myers/Expelled expulsion. Thanks to a single PZ link (then a whole lot of Pharyngulites and Expelledites--aka Luddites--dropping by for a look-see) I received a whopping 5,264 hits over two days. For complete transparency, that's just slightly more than my monthly average total hits. See what an hour of Photoshop-ing can do?

Second most hit post (1,841 unique hits) was my speculation of a deep sea origin to the Cloverfield monster. I was just goofing around with that post (though I was tantalized by the movie build-up and did enjoy the CG carnage). But man, did I ever piss-off a lot of serious SciFi geeks on that one. I got linked to on a variety of Cloverfield discussion sites and royally chewed-out for not being up to speed on the latest gossip. Yeesh!

From a conservation impact perspective, my post from May, How to Kill a Reef: A Continuing Series, that focused on the ludicrous plans to build an artificial resort (Star Island) in the middle of a marine protected area in the Turks & Caicos Islands had the most satisfying of results. The pictures and post were picked-up by several news outlets and helped spur-on significant discussion among conservation-minded residents of the Turks & Caicos. The net result was that the Star Island project was officially halted when it was ruled that permits to proceed with dredging were illegally approved in the first place. Score one for conservation!

I'll be the first to admit, we don't get a lot of comment chatter here at MBSL&S. Being a niche topic in the science blogging world (ocean blogs) and then being even nichier within ocean blogs (coral reef conservation), and even further nichifying myself by occasionally throwing in political, social, and cultural commentary, I suspect I may be too all-over-the-map at times. But looking at comments over 2008, there were some peaks among the overall flat comment topography.

My post on Great Ocean Blogs got a lot of kind words (14 comments) from many of the blogs to which I linked. Not surprisingly, my Comic Guide to the Expelled/Science Blogs Kerfuffle got a spike of 13 comments. After that, there's a smattering of reader commentary equally dispersed across posts such as my photo essay on When EcoTours Go Bad on Maui, my quasi-live blogging of the 2008 Science Blogging Conference with Real-Time Blogging in the Marine Sciences, and a flurry of comments as I redesigned the front-end of my blog.

An apparent favorite for both comments and cross-linking appears to have been my silly Science Blogging Drinking Game. Maybe it hit a little too close to the mark? Maker's Mark, that is! Regardless, I got both kudos and traffic spikes as the little game wormed it's way through the intertubes.

Switching to a somewhat more personal tally, I have to admit enjoying the tag-team blogging (which began in 2007) and pressure collectively leveraged upon Planktos by Craig at Deep Sea News, Miriam at The Oyster's Garter, and yours truly. Perhaps I'm overestimating our impact on the nose-dive that for-profit iron fertilization schemes took in 2008, but I think the sort of collaboration we demonstrated shows the strength and influence that blogging can have, particularly as an education and conservation tool.

And what were some of my favorite posts from a sheer "pleasure of writing" perspective? I must admit I enjoyed researching and writing an answer to Christopher Taylor's question regarding what we know about moray eels primarily from museum collections. It was great to talk with curators from some of the most prestigious fish collections in the world, and it warmed my Grinchy heart to see how quickly busy scientists responded to my somewhat odd questions.

My essay on the challenges facing the people of Kwajalein Atoll in the former US territory but now Republic of the Marshall Islands, The People Who Harvest the Flowers, tugged at my heart as I researched the history of US military activities in this beautiful Pacific coral reef destination.

Some impromptu blogging from the field (in this case from the Big Island of Hawaii) and documented in Breakfast With Republicans was a swift bit of personal journaling, but it's impact is still with me.

And finally, my take on the morning after the historic November elections, Yes We Did, Except in California, exposed some very personal feelings of joy and pain as I attempted to sort through a confusing landscape of hope and defeat. I was touched deeply by the words of encouragement that came through comments or emails after that posting, and it reminds me that despite setbacks, a more enlightened future is hopefully before us.

Well, that's about all I care to look back upon. I hope some of your favorite posts were mentioned. If not, feel free to share any favorites with me. It's time to look forward now. Here's to 2009 and more opportunities to share some thoughts with my readers!

Line Drawing And The Canadian Seal Hunt

In looking at the picture above, does the image on the right of a man leveling a gun at a seal pup make you feel somewhat better about the act of seal hunting than the image on the left of the same man about to drive a metal-spiked club into the seal pup's skull? The Canadian government is hoping you do. If so, then you've "drawn a line" for yourself to separate what is (at least for this example) permissible vs impermissible.

Last Saturday, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa drew their own line by releasing a report on amending the Marine Mammal Regulations (MMR) to make the annual seal hunt more humane. Chastised for decades for the cruel and now needless culling of seals using a spiked club called a hakapik, the Canadian government now faces pressure from the European Union which has threatened to ban imports of seal products next year from "countries which practice cruel methods."

Canada's answer? Institute a three-step process called Stun, Check, and Bleed. The line drawing will stipulate that the hakapik will now be reserved for use on seals of one year of age or older--apparently splattering the skulls of adult seals is less traumatizing in the minds of seal product consumers than the same act being carried-out on pups. Depending on the seal's age, seals will first be stunned with either rifle or hakapik, confirmed dead by palpating the smashed heads, and then bleeding the animal for one minute prior to skinning just to be sure.

Line drawing is nothing new. It's how we've come to rationalize most of the fuzzy distinctions involved in difficult choices. Where does life begin and end? Where you draw that line as a doctor, lawyer, scientist, or citizen inherently parses your decision making and comfort level. Why are marijuana, morphine, and heroin illicit while alcohol, tobacco, and methadone licit? Is alcohol and tobacco any less addictive or potentially deadly? Both heroin and methadone are powerful opiates, yet a line has been drawn for methadone as a preferred treatment for heroin addicts. As Steve Gould once remarked, "Curbing your appetite for heroin with methadone is like curbing your appetite for Coca Cola with a Pepsi."

Line drawing may be necessary for legal processes, but it's not particularly helpful when we start applying it to define ethical or moral distinctions. Canada's annual commercial seal hunt is the largest commercial hunt of marine mammals on the planet, and by whatever metric you wish to use or lines you wish to draw, it is stunningly cruel and completely unnecessary.

Because sealers shoot at seals from moving boats, the pups are often only wounded. The main sealskin processing plant in Canada deducts $2 from the price they pay for the skins for each bullet hole they find––therefore sealers are loath to shoot seals more than once. As a result, wounded seals are often left to suffer in agony. Many slip beneath the surface of the water where they die slowly and are never recovered.

Despite the proposed Stun, Check, and Bleed protocol, training for sealers is woefully inadequate and promotes continuation of illegal and cruel hunting methods.

Cruelty aside for the moment, the annual seal hunt is also incredibly wasteful. The seals are killed for their skins, which are sold in overseas fashion markets. The carcasses are almost always left to rot on the ice because there are virtually no markets for the meat. The seal hunt provides very low economic returns for Canada, Newfoundland and individual sealers. So why continue to hunt seals if it's so unprofitable? It can't simply be keeping good old traditions alive, can it?

Look closer. The seal hunt is such a losing economic venture that the government of Canada regularly provides subsidies to the sealing industry through Human Resources Development Canada, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and other federal programs. These subsidies are provided in the form of grants and loans to seal processing plants, sealing industry associations and private companies, and cover capital costs, employee salaries, operating expenses, and product development and marketing.

Sound familiar? It should, since it's the same formula for disaster that has set-up most commercial fisheries for the collapse they are now realizing worldwide. Why do many fishers continue fishing even in the face of reduced catch? Fisheries biologist Daniel Pauly has outlined numerous times how receiving subsidies as supplemental income to offset poor fish catch results in a lack of incentive to leave fishing--even if it is a meager living. All the while the fisheries resource continues to erode.

In the case of the seal hunt, subsidies are supporting an annual exercise in cruelty that should have ended decades ago. According to Rebecca Aldworth, spokesperson for Humane Society International, "the overwhelming majority of Canadians want the seal hunt to be ended." The most recent public opinion survey, conducted in August 2005 by Environics Research, shows nearly 70% of Canadians holding an opinion opposed to the commercial seal hunt outright. Opposition to specific aspects of the seal hunt was even higher with some 77% of voters calling for a ban on the killing of seals under three months of age and 78% opposed to government subsidies for the hunt. Seventy-eight per cent felt that killing seals by clubbing them is inherently cruel. Only 4% of respondents stated that they would be very upset if the hunt were ended.

For me, my line drawing on this issue has less to do with population dynamics, resource management, or public opinion polls than it has to do with the simple acts of compassion and mercy. While I can't possibly know how a seal perceives its surroundings, I am reasonably confident that a seal feels pain. I've said this before, so I risk sounding like an echo chamber, but while kindness to animals may not be our most important duty as human beings, it should certainly not be treated as our least important. Clubs that crush skulls, rifles, bleeding to death, leaving skinned carcasses to rot while harvesting pelts to satisfy human vanity is humane and the best we can do?

If I'm destined to go down as the bleeding-heart conservationist then so be it. But that's what heart's do... they bleed. And I could not even imagine remaining engaged in the important work of conservation with a heart hardened to suffering. The seal hunt is cruel and promotes suffering. The same can be said of factory farms for pigs, chickens, and cattle. My point here is not to proselytize for vegetarianism--though it wouldn't be a bad lifestyle choice. But of all the possible cruelties that could easily be relinquished for the betterment of both the ocean and our humanity, certainly putting an end to the annual Canadian seal hunt is a no-brainer.

Coral Recovery Story

The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) today announced that four years after the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004, badly-damaged coral reefs along the Indonesian province of Aceh are making a comeback. The Boxing Day tsunami killed more than 225,000 people in eleven countries, and inundating coastal communities with waves up to 30 meters (100 feet) high. Areas of once submerged coral coastline in Aceh were uplifted above sea level, and remaining coastal reefs were pummeled by debris carried in the tsunami's surge.

But WCS researchers looking at 60 sites along nearly 500 miles of coastline in Aceh, Indonesia, observed robust recolonization by resilient coral species. But active coral recruitment is just part of this success story. Researchers also attribute the recovery to more sustainable fishing practices by local communities as well as decreased cyclical threat from coral predators such as the crown-of-thorns seastar.

This encouraging recovery story speaks directly to the importance and value of community-based conservation work and local management of coastal resources.

The Advantages Of Being A Biologist, Too

See Pharyngula for the context. And thanks for some afternoon distraction, PZ!

Bad Harvest, Little Demand, Big Bills

The confluence of a weak crab harvest due to increased fishing earlier this year, ocean conditions that disrupted the marine food chain, and the natural cycle of crab populations which tend to peak every seven to 10 years has resulted in troubled times not just for San Francisco Bay Area crab fishers, but fishers in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington as well.

Combine that with an economy that remains in the toilet and people that normally buy crabs not shelling-out for crab meat during the holiday seasons from Thanksgiving through Christmas (historically the busiest time of the year for crab sales in San Francisco). In most years, low supply means higher prices, but this year crab fishermen are getting paid less than they got in more abundant years.

"With this crab season being slim at best, it's going to be pretty hard to make it through to the next one," said 58-year-old Duncan MacLean, a commercial fisherman since 1972. "I would suspect there are going to be lots of people falling by the wayside."

"It's disappointing to everybody because you want to support your family," said 45-year-old Steve Mills. "Even though we're not catching crab, the bills still pile up."

Not Faceless

Perhaps the 52.3 percent of California voters who supported Proposition 8 couldn't imagine there were actually faces and lives attached to their vote to change the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman and eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Perhaps. But thanks to the Courage Campaign, now you can flip through a photo album of California lives and families who now face an uncertain future. I've posted a few of the hundreds of images here. Check it out yourself and maybe feel the mix of joy, anger, sadness, and hope as well. If you feel inclined, support the Courage Campaign efforts for a more progressive California.

Rethinking Tsunami Protection From Mangroves?

Four years to the day of the devastating Boxing Day Tsunami which claimed nearly a quarter of a million lives around the eastern Indian Ocean, researchers have issued a strong warning against coastal communities and governments putting their trust in mangrove and tree barriers erected as a means of protection from earthquake-driven tidal waves.

One of the investigators in this study, Dr Andrew Baird of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University explained, "Following the Boxing Day Tsunami scientific studies were released which claimed that the damage to coastal communities had been less in places where there was a barrier of trees or coastal vegetation." As a result, a lot of tree planting projects were undertaken in coastal areas affected by the tsunami, in the hope it will protect coastal communities in future from such events.

"However these studies looked only at the presence or absence of vegetation and the extent of damage, continued Baird. "They did not take account of other important variables, like the distance of a village from the shore, the height of the village above sea level or the shape of the seabed in concentrating the tsunami's power."

The message here? Many variables were at work in determining how the force of the tsunami driven water affected people and structures on land, and these all need to be taken into account – not just a few of them. And importantly, coastal communities should not be lulled into a false sense of security simply because one of these variables appears to be in place. Researchers also urged governments in tsunami-prone areas to invest in early warning technology which has demonstrated success in Hawaii and Japan.

Benefits we receive from ecosystems such as storm protection from healthy coral reefs, sea grass bed, and intact mangrove systems are called ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are distinct from other ecosystem products and functions because there is human demand for these natural assets. Conservation organiztions often leverage ecosystem services as yet further rationale for protection of a species, habitat, or entire ecosystem. This new Arc Centre report points out the potential dangers of rushing the scientific analysis (or conclusions) that, while beneficial for immediate conservation value, can prove devastating to future safety.

Papua New Guinea Sea Floor Gets A Break

As first reported over at the tasty-sounding Southern Fried Science (does that come with a side of corn and buttermilk biscuits?), it seems that even Nautilus Minerals is not immune to a sour economy.

In a news release dated December 17, Nautilus announced it had decided to adopt a more cautious strategy by delaying the construction of the equipment for the Solwara 1 mining system. Is that code for nervous investors jumping ship on an untested, unproven, and potentially environmentally disastrous mining process? The press release goes on to explain that to preserve capital, Nautilus contracts and purchase orders will be suspended or terminated depending on their criticality (sic) to the revised development program. Most satisfying for me, their Mining Support Vessel agreement announced on June 20, 2008 is in the process of being terminated.

Regular readers will recall that I've been following Nautilus Minerals since they first announced plans to mine deep sea vent systems in the exclusive economic zone of Papua New Guinea. Craig McClain with Deep Sea News has also been following Nautilus' activities with interest.

Nautilus’s first major exploration site, the Solwara 1 Prospect, is located in the Bismarck Sea, 50 kilometers north of the active volcanic island of Rabaul and approximately 670 kilometers east of Madang. The Company also has a total of seven other named Solwara prospects throughout the Bismarck Sea, 33 total tenements, and 57 applications for exploration. Nautilus had planned to begin development and construction in Solwara 1 in 2009, and commence mining in late 2010. The Company estimated an average of two megatons of ore per year would be extracted by Nautilus in a singe strip mining operation.

And speaking of criticality, the global biodiversity conservation community still awaits a full environmental impact study from Nautilus for any potential damage resulting from an unprecedented deep sea vent mining operation. Perhaps a delay while Nautilus awaits a more solid financial landscape will encourage them time to answer many environmental safety questions regarding their operation.

Holiday Cheer From MBSL&S

An Alternative To The Yule Log

Not A Creature Was Stirring

Well, that's not entirely correct. While the CORAL offices are empty and staff scattered to the winds for the holidays, I'm here stirring my second cup of coffee and trying to bring form and meaning to an article I'm hoping to publish in the new year. My editors have kindly given me an extension till end of day today, so it's easier to work on this at the office with zero distractions than at home where all I can think about is honey-baked ham.

While I've poked my head up for a breather, I wanted to share news of an important report that was released in November that for the life of me I couldn't get around to blogging about. The Healthy Reefs for Healthy People initiative released the first Eco-health Report Card for the Mesoamerican Reef on November 15. The Report Card presents an easy-to-understand overview of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef’s ecosystem condition and stewardship by providing a straightforward five-point grading system from ‘very good’ to ‘critical’ for seven reef indicators, combined into a novel Integrated Reef Health Index which synthesizes all the ecological reef data into one “Dow Jones” style index.

So what sort of grades does the Mesoamerican Reef--stretching over 1,000 km from Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula, through the entire Belize Barrier Reef complex, along the coast of Guatemala and out to the Bay Islands of Honduras--get? This first Report Card shows the overall picture of a reef in danger, in need of immediate protection. Many of the reef health indicators (particularly for fish abundances) are now in worse condition than the Caribbean average and threats like coastal development and tourism are rapidly accelerating.

Now I ask you (since we are using the "report card" analogy), if your kids came home with report cards that demonstrated poor performance (and not just poor performance, but performance demonstrably worse than the last reporting cycle), wouldn't you take action? I don't even have kids (nor even want any) but I can assure you my reaction to such a scenario would hardly be sanguine. And yet we continue to hear such fair to poor prognoses for reefs. This summer I made precisely this point at the US Coral reef Task Force meeting in Kona when a then freshly released NOAA report indicated that half of all US coral reefs are in poor to fair condition, with one-third of all reefs facing extinction.

Poor grades on a student report card might have this non-parent looking at degrees of culpability from several possible causes. First, in an act of sheer paternalism, I might consider there's nothing wrong with my child. Instead, there must be something wrong with the teacher. Perhaps this steward of my child's mind is slacking in their responsibilities.

Second, I'd have to consider the failing student. What's happening in that child's attitude, life, or environment to not only allow for academic failure, but create a downward trend over time.

And finally, I'd need to consider my role and responsibility as a parent. If failing grades come as a surprise, where was I during the process? Failing grades on a report card don't just happen. They are the aggregate scores following multiple opportunities to measure progress, make course corrections, and build towards success. So for a failure to catch me by surprise, I'd really need to have been "checked-out" of my role as parent/guardian.

I may have stretched this analogy to it's breaking point, but there is nonetheless a point I'm hoping to make. Whether we talk about failing grades in school or failing grades on an ecological report card, a failing grade is not a prediction of future grades or ultimate outcome (either of a student or an ecosystem). It is certainly a warning sign, and if the overall trend in performance is a downward slide, then urgent action must be taken. But inaction, disinterest, or finger-pointing should be nowhere to be found in our repertoire of possible reactions to failure.

"Sorry Timmy, you are failing and will always fail. Time to cut my losses and focus on Briana." The idea of such a response to a failing child gives me goosebumps, and not just because it's Christmas Eve. And I've certainly heard the horror stories of parent friends who have been locked in blame game shouting matches between teachers, students, and parents over who's ultimately responsible for poor student performance.

In my world of coral reef conservation, the players may be different but the dynamics are roughly the same. Who's to blame for a declining coral reef? It's the resource managers! It's the tourists! It's the fishers! It's the developers! It's the normal reef cycle! It's global warming! It's the policy makers! The blame goes around, the reef health declines.

Dr. Melanie McField, Healthy Reefs Initiative Coordinator (and friend and colleague), provided some context to the Meoamerican Report Card saying that, “While the picture could certainly be worse, the report card signals the urgency for stronger actions to protect our reefs." “With so many reefs in fair to poor condition," she said, "their condition could easily turn in either direction (for better or worse) depending on our current management actions. We need to do the right thing for the reefs and for the people who depend on those reefs to sustain their livelihoods”.

Hear-Hear, Melanie! Hear-Hear!

I'm Booked, Baby!

Start fermenting a batch of Aquavit, Zelnio! Hold on to your kreplach, Goldstein! Start polishing your head, McClain! And get ready to toast Darwin's 200th birthday early, James! I finally booked my travel for the ScienceOnline'09 science blogging conference that's rapidly approaching on January 16-18 in Raleigh-Durham.

Why am I excited? Many reasons, not the least of which is that this is my best chance each year to see many of my favorite ocean bloggers face-to-face. There's word of a planned evening (or two?) involving festive (and likely inebriated) ocean nerds singing sea shanties. Über geek Karen James even claims to have a binder of said tunes! Since she's coming from the UK, I can only hope they feature bawdy and ribald lyrics.

If I can still manage to get my co-presenters to show-up, I'm excited to be organizing a panel discussion on the final day of the conference entitled, Hey, You Can’t Say That! We'll be exploring some of the peaks and valleys of free expression in the science blogging community. I know I'm looking forward to learning as much as sharing. I'm hoping that Mark Powell, ocean blogging royalty and the deranged Michael Phelps of frigid ocean swimming, is gonna make an appearance this year too.

I'll also be participating in another panel entitled, Blogging Adventure: How to Post from Strange Locations, which could very well be the unofficial second title to this blog. One of my favorite science bloggers, Vanessa Woods, is also co-presenting on that topic and I'm looking forward to chatting her up about her work with bonobo.

Expect plenty of live-blogging, fun pictures, and unexpurgated reviews of sessions. I can't wait!

That's A Moray Monday: A Bonaire Update

Last week on Shifting Baselines, Randy Olson posted some recent statistics of moray eel mortalities on the Island of Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles. This was an update on a story I first reported while on Bonaire last September. Randy also posted a YouTube video of a Bonaire eel in apparent death throes. Snooping around YouTube, I also found the above video showing a graphic example of a Spotted moray undergoing convulsions and biting it's own abdomen.

Randy's post was a catalyst for me to reach out to a few Bonaire colleagues for new info. According to the Marine Park, a final epidemiological report is nearing completion and the scientist compiling the report in San Juan, Puerto Rico, feels confident that he may not just identify the culprit but may even have enough evidence to suggest what started these events. As I hear news I'll certainly share findings here.

A naturalist friend on Bonaire, Jerry Ligon, forwarded a presentation that was given to the public a week ago which provides a summary of info so far collected. The data was compiled and presented by Kara Kozak from Simmons College who is on island and participating in the CIEE Tropical Marine Ecology and Conservation Program.

Cool? No. Nerd? Definitely!

I'm not one for self-promotion. I'm more of a behind-the-scenes sort of guy. So imagine my quandary when I was contacted recently by Annie Crawley, creator of the ocean education website Dive Into Your Imagination, for inclusion in her Cool Scientists You Should Know series.

Scientist? Yes. Ocean lover? Absolutely. But cool? Not by any stretch of the imagination. I've never worn a leather jacket, slicked my hair (what hair?), nor ridden a motorcycle (or Jet Ski for that matter). When I think cool, I think George Clooney and Ocean's 11. Anyone who knows me can vouch that I'm much more comfortable and happy talking about major evolutionary marine faunas through time, researching novel proteins present in cnidarian venom, and discussing the distinctions between customary marine tenure across Oceania.

But I can understand for marketing reasons why the series might not be called Big Ocean Science Geeks You've Never Heard Of.

In any event, I'm utterly flattered and felt the urge to share (if only to show my brothers that I actually have a day job).

Coral Reef Alliance Supports A Proposed Mariana Trench Monument

You can too!

I'm proud to say that CORAL is joining a chorus of other international voices in support for the proposed Mariana Trench Marine National Monument. We are encouraging our members, partners, and friends to urge President Bush to follow the bold precedent he set when he created the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawaii in 2006. This is an unparalleled opportunity to protect a diversity of interconnected oceanic habitats including tropical coral reefs, seamounts, and deep canyons. In so doing, President Bush would establish one of the world's largest no-take marine reserves in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and truly affirm his legacy as an ocean champion.

But we need your voice to join in support as well by sending an email to President Bush today.

You can write your own message or copy and paste the following letter into an email addressed to President George W. Bush and send it to comments@whitehouse.gov:

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20050

Dear President Bush,

I'm writing today to show my support for designating a Mariana Trench Marine National Monument. I urge you to conserve this valuable ecosystem with full protection for the unique geological and biological features of the area, including (1) designating the area as a no-take zone and (2) extending the boundaries of the monument to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone around the three northern islands, including the submerged lands, the water column, and the biological life.

There are precious few marine areas on the planet where extraction is now prohibited. It would be a missed opportunity to recognize this very remote site with only half-measures. Closing the monument waters to all extraction will have no negative economic impact on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In fact, designating this area as a no-take zone will enhance tourism and help the commonwealth economically.

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands represents an attractive opportunity for establishing one of the world's largest no-take marine reserves. It is a highly unique area adjacent to the deepest undersea canyon on the globe with an enormous variety of unusual habitats.I urge you to follow the bold precedent you set when you created the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in 2006. Setting aside an entire ocean ecosystem will capture the world's imagination-and confirm the United States as the global leader in marine protection.

Thank you,

[Sign your name, or remain anonymous if you choose.]

The Madness Of King Tides?

Since more than half of the conservation projects I oversee are scattered across the Pacific Rim, I tend to stay up late (sometimes into the early morning hours) to read the news across several time zones (and dates). I was alarmed to read the news reports this morning from Papua New Guinea (PNG) about unusually high tides wreaking havoc in New Ireland Province. According to several sources, more than 25,000 people from New Ireland Province and Bougainville have been driven from their homes by the high tides since Tuesday.

What struck me as puzzling, however, was that almost every report attributed the damage to what they called "king tides." "Huge waves caused by king tides smashed into dozens of villages and towns in northern Papua New Guinea, destroying homes and flooding businesses and a hospital," writes the New Zealand online news outlet Stuff. Australia Broadcasting News reports, "A relief operation is slowly taking shape in Papua New Guinea's New Ireland province to help thousands of people displaced by huge king tides that struck the island two days ago." And Radio New Zealand has several stories under headlines that read, "King tides hit PNG’s Gulf province."

So what's a king tide? I Googled the term and found that Wikipedia describes a king tide as a name given to exceptionally high tides. Well, okay. But I always referred to the monthly highest of the high and lowest of the low tides as spring tides (having nothing at all to do with the season). These are the tidal cycles (during new and full moons) that result when the Sun, Earth and Moon are in a line.

But these are monthly occurrences. If king tides are spring tides, why are PNG tides so violent and destructive now rather than as a monthly phenomenon? Is there something else going on with a king tide?

According to the Queensland Government Maritime Safety website, the term king tide has no scientific definition although in popular usage it refers to any high tide well above average height. The popular concept, however, is that king tides are the annual highest of the monthly high tide occurrences (or the annual highest of the monthly spring tides). In the Pacific basin where PNG is located, this annual highest of the high tides tends to occur around Christmas time.

What now appears to be behind the destructive PNG is not actually a king tide but a particularly strong storm surge. As reported in The National, one of PNG's daily newspapers, "The National Weather Service said the sea swell was not the result of a king tide but a product of the “La Niña” (wet weather) pattern PNG is experiencing."

According to the PNG National Weather Service, accumulation of high sea levels is typical during La Niña events. No seismic activity and no tsunami activity could account for the destructive sea swell. Manasupe Zurenuoc, chairman of the PNG National Disaster Committee and Secretary for Department of Provincial and Local Government Affairs, explained that the unusually high seas were a result of a combination of abnormally high sea levels and tropical depressions. Pacific Magazine and the PNG Post-Courier appear to corroborate this explanation with a headline that reads, "Weather, Not 'King Tide,' Caused PNG Wave Destruction."

Two People Who Don't Understand the Power of Television in America

The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, a global alliance of partners involved in collecting ecological and socioeconomic data to track trends in coral reef health, today released their much anticipated 2008 update of the world’s reef status. Their findings were announced today by the Director General of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

In case you missed the live announcement, fear not. It was taped, uploaded to YouTube, and can be viewed above. All I can say is that if we are relying on these distinguished spokespeople to generate a sense of urgency, then coral reefs are indeed doomed.

The report's findings are no great surprise to the coral reef scientific and conservation communities: if current trends in carbon dioxide emissions continue, many of the remaining reefs may be lost over the next 20 to 40 years. This will have alarming consequences for some 500 million people who depend on coral reefs for their livelihoods.

Globally, the downward trend in reef health of recent years has not been reversed. Major threats in the last four years, including the Indian Ocean tsunami, more occurrences of bleaching, outbreaks of coral diseases and ever-heavier human pressures, have slowed or reversed recovery of some coral reefs after the 1998 mass bleaching event.

Clive Wilkinson, my colleague in coral reef conservation and Coordinator of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network says that, “The report details the strong scientific consensus that climate change must be limited to the absolute minimum. If nothing is done to substantially cut emissions, we could effectively lose coral reefs as we know them, with major coral extinctions."

Bush Administration Gets Fitted For New Suit

Here in the 600 block of California Street in San Francisco's Financial District, our offices share floors with conservation neighbors the Center for Biological Diversity.

I've been a huge fan of the Center even before we were neighbors. Their mission is to use science, legal expertise, and media attention to protect endangered species and ecosystems. While they utilize a diverse arsenal of approaches, you may know them as the "environmental lawsuit people." And perhaps rightly so. A snapshot of their personnel shows a brain trust of talented, aggressive attorneys who have chosen to eschew partnerships, fat salaries, and exorbitant compensation packages at private law firms in favor of fighting for a healthy planet. As a result, the Center boasts an impressive record of 93 percent favorable outcomes on their lawsuits.

But a recent announcement by the Center of their intention to file a suit against the Bush administration for failure to protect endangered coral reefs might, at first blush, leave you scratching your head. On November 26, 2008, NOAA announced that it will designate almost 3,000 square miles of coral reef area off the coasts of Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. The new rule, published in the Federal Register, was required by a court-approved settlement of a 2007 lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity.

Shouldn't the Center be celebrating? Have they gone sue crazy?

Well, take a closer look. The Endangered Species Act requires that when a species is listed under the Act, the federal government must protect habitat that is essential to its survival and recovery. Thanks to efforts by the Center for Biological Diversity, Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) and Staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2006. In the new critical-habitat rule, the federal government designated important areas to be protected for the corals, but created a giant loophole that disregards the primary threats to coral habitat: elevated seawater temperatures and ocean acidification.

Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, explains that, "On one hand, the law required the federal government to identify areas to protect for the threatened corals. On the other hand, the administration skirted the real threats to coral habitat, global warming and ocean acidification, by inserting language into the rule that carves out an exception for those threats. It is not only irrational, but it is illegal under the Endangered Species Act.”

You've heard me go on at length before about once magestic stands of Caribbean Elkhorn and Staghorn corals that have been reduced to shadows of their former glory due to a combination of diseases and elevated sea surface temperatures. But I've also outlined the emerging issue of ocean acidification, a concomitant byproduct of global warming caused by the ocean’s absorption of carbon dioxide that impairs the ability of corals to build their protective skeletons. Some scientists have predicted that most of the world’s coral reefs will disappear by midcentury due to global warming and ocean acidification under a business-as-usual emissions scenario.

What the Center's intended suit seeks from the Administration is language that sets substantial reductions in carbon dioxide pollution, the ultimate cause behind coral habitat destruction. The Center for Biological Diversity filed an official 60-day notice letter to the Bush administration on November 25 outlining their intent to sue over the Administration’s inadequate critical-habitat rule.

Burn With Envy, DSN Guys!

What's 250 feet in length, packs state of the art technology, has a cruising speed of 25 knots, and is guaranteed to make the boys at Deep Sea News wet themselves in awe?

I give you the Oculus, the crown jewel in design concept from luxury mega yacht manufacturer Schöpfer Yachts. Don't get too excited yet. It's still just concept, but the CGI overview is certainly pretty! The bio-engineered Oculus, designed to accommodate 12 guests in extraordinary comfort and style, features a 12 foot high ceiling in the main salon, a cylindrical double height dining room, central stair and (of course) an elevator tube.

As an ocean scientist, I can honestly tell you that deploying and hauling-in equipment like secchi disks or plankton tows on conventional vessels is a royal pain. All that pesky distance before my instruments actually touch water!

But no more. With its revolutionary “low rider profile,” the Oculus is simply perfect for accommodating a crew of oceanographers. And when surveys are through and seas get rough, a push of a button activates lateral retractable side panels that close for a watertight seal.

While I'm sure Craig wants first dibs on one of these puppies, I'll happily settle for a six-month berth in the third level aft private salon in exchange for offering an evening seminar series on coral reefs. Schöpfer Yachts? Feel free to ring me.

Excuses Are For Sucka's

I've been out of the blogging life for so long, I needed to relearn how to use a keyboard again. Q-W-E-R-T-Y... ahh, it's all coming back.

No excuses for you, my dear, loyal, faithful, understanding reader (and I do mean singular reader at this point!) All I can do is come back with a bang. To wit: Nothing at all to do with oceans I'm afraid, but hopefully it makes you smile.