R.I.P. Caribbean monk seal

January 7th, 2010

by Hilary L. Maybaum

Did you know? I sure didn’t. But in 2008, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association confirmed what many in the National Marine Fisheries Service already suspected: the Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis) was extinct. Last seen in 1952, this seal once inhabited the entire Caribbean Sea, from the U.S. Gulf Coast to the northern shores of South America.

historic range map of Caribbean monk seal

Historic range (in red) of the Caribbean monk seal. Created by Peter Maas for The Extinction Website.

Christopher Columbus first discovered the Caribbean monk seal, just two years after discovering America. By the late 1800s, however, the species was already considered rare. According to The Extinction Website,

It [the Caribbean monk seal] appears in the account of Columbus’ second voyage to America. Columbus promptly ordered his crew to kill eight of the animals, which he called "sea-wolves", for food, paving the way for exploitation of the species by European immigrants who came in his wake. Since then, the once abundant seals have been hunted for their oil and slaughtered by fishermen, who regarded the animals as competitors.

It saddens me to think how little has changed. Many local fishers in the Hawaiian Islands consider the Hawaiian monk seal—a close relative of the Caribbean monk seal— as competition, too. The endangered Monachus schauinslandi is an opportunistic feeder, eating a wide variety of fish and shellfish. It’s doubtful that the 100 or so remaining speciesindividuals in Hawaii would have a large impact on the seafood stocks around the Hawaiian Islands. However, their opportunism gets the monk seals into trouble. They are known to "steal" catch and bait from fishers. Year after year, agencies such as the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources attempt to manage public relations on behalf of the seals. And year after year the fishers get angry. Some of them try to get even.

Hawaiian monk seals

Hawaiian monk seal mother and pup. Public domain image from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Digital Library System (http://images.fws.gov)


I’ve seen a Hawaiian monk seal mother and pup hauled out on the North Shore of Oahu, and it melts the heart. Let’s hope that our government agencies continue to be empowered to preserve the few remaining specimens for the sake of our future and theirs.

  • Share/Bookmark

Dolphins are not persons, no matter how smart

January 5th, 2010

Only philosophically could the word person be applied to a non-human, sentient being, which is why the U.K.’s Times Online article, Scientists say dolphins should be treated as "non-human persons", isn’t exactly a crock of anthropomorphic dreck, but it’s close. It’s clear that the author is trying to deal with the ethical treatment of dolphins by humans. However, he might as well have published his article on Greenpeace’s Web site, for it reeks of activism and not necessarily good science.

It’s long been known that the ratio of brain size to body mass is most closely matched to humans by dolphins. And though the concept of intelligence in dolphins has been hotly debated for at least the last 50 years, training even one Tursiops truncatus for a few months will relieve any doubt of their advanced cognitive capability.

dolphin in a pool

To be captive or not to be captive? That is the question.

Yes, dolphins are smart, empathetic, curious, and adaptable to new situations. Yes, they can recognize and respond to human language. Yes, they call each other by name in the wild, have better memories than many people (including me), and can make up their own games.

Quirky, yes. Intelligent, definitely. But persons? Bah!

I don’t know much about the researchers who are showcasing their neurological and behavioral findings, except to say I have gained respect for Lori Marino, a zoologist at Emory University, merely for her comment on the Times article:

The work I’ve done on dolphin brains shows that, when relative brain size is taken into account, some dolphin species are second only to modern humans and have larger brains than chimpanzees. However, I do not think we can “declare” that dolphins are the second smartest animals on the planet on the basis of just this information. I do not want to make categorical or hierarchical statements about matters that are clearly too complex to warrant a simple interpretation. The point of our upcoming session and arguments is this. Given what we now know about dolphin brains and intelligence we need to rethink our “accepted” cultural standards of treatment – from slaughter to capture to confinement in amusement parks. The scientific evidence is clear that the suffering imposed by these activities on dolphins is on a par with what humans would suffer under the same circumstances. That is the message of the article.

And a good message it would be, were it successfully executed. After all, some dolphins are known to become depressed in captivity, showing aberrant behavior akin to what a human might experience under similar conditions. One dolphin I know who was held captive in a Hawaiian hotel pool for years came to be abnormally attached to a ragged old baseball cap and kept it as his constant companion.

It’s unfortunate that Dr. Moreno did not have more of a say over how the article’s message was conveyed. By putting dolphins in a human context and saying they should have the same rights, the author invoked sneering criticism instead of thoughtful persuasibility. Is this the best use of science journalism?

  • Share/Bookmark

Cows of the sea

December 30th, 2009

by Hilary L. Maybaum

I just can’t get excited about manatees. For one thing, they don’t do much except munch sea grass and reproduce.

Manatee photo

Because of their place in the food chain, some people refer to manatees as "cows of the sea." To me, they are more like amoebae, slow-moving and blobby.


There are no great displays of aggression or emotion, no jaw-dropping feeding methods, just… a bunch of sea potatoes hanging around the subtropics. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Yes, they’re cute, in an ugly sort of way. I know, I know, they’re endangered and for that reason alone I should be interested. Oddly, I’m not.

I do, however, perk up at any mention of military/marine-mammal conflict. So when Peter Kobel (@TheEcoist) pointed out this recent L.A. Times article on a pending manatee habitat ruling, I sat up and took notice.

The U.S. Navy is balking at the proposed expansion of manatee "critical habitat" in Florida and southern Georgia. The proposal stems from an organized group of environmental advocates who state a compelling case for expansion. The Navy’s position is that more habitat for the manatees will mean less habitat for submarines and other forms of military defense.

The Navy claims to "coexist with various endangered species" and to "do all kinds of things" to help protect them. To a large extent, this is true. I have worked as an environmental consultant on many Navy contracts, and can personally vouch for their stewardship. The Navy does conduct marine-mammal surveys when needed; for example, on Environmental Impact Assessments and the like. However, I also know that the Navy, in general, prefers the conclusions of such assessments to match their a priori assumptions.

Now it is up to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make a ruling. What should they decide? If it were me, I’d say that each side needs to give a little bit. Yes, folks, I’m advocating the C-word: compromise. Given that the manatee population numbers less than 4,000, and their habitat designation has not been reviewed since the 1970s, it seems they are due some additional area. For decades, manatees have sacrificed their lives and health for Floridians’ well being. Those gentle personalities put them in harm’s way far too often; is it not time for some payback? On the other hand, we are (lest we forget) a nation at war, and we need to maintain a strong defense system, at least for now.

  • Share/Bookmark

Sonar and strandings

December 28th, 2009

by Hilary L. Maybaum

Why do mass strandings of marine mammals happen? Researchers have been trying to answer this question scientifically for decades. Various hypotheses have been put forth, from parasitic diseases to anomalies in Earth’s magnetic field. Now, manmade sonar can be added to that list.

Sonar—an acronym for SOund Navigation And Ranging—is the technique of using sound propagation to navigate, communicate, or detect underwater objects. Originally deployed on a massive scale during World War I for enemy submarine detection, sonar has since become a mainstream navigation and fish-finding aid for military, commercial, and recreational vessels alike. It relies on variations in underwater sound speed, determined mainly by temperature, pressure, and salinity (saltiness). There are two kinds of sonar systems. Passive sonar simply “listens,” without transmitting any sound. Active sonar—such as that used in fish-finding—emits sound pulses, sometimes called pings, for detection of objects. The pulses can vary in frequency, loudness, and duration.

I actually did my Master’s Thesis on the effects of an active 3.3 kHz sonar systems on humpback whales in Hawaii. A group of sonar engineers in Massachusetts had a National Geographic grant to test a prototype system on its detection of humpback whales in Stellwagon Bank. They were getting lousy results, mostly because of the shallowness and sound opacity in the bank’s waters. I invited them to come test their system in Hawaii, where the waters were clear and deep. They did, and I investigated the behavioral effects of their system on the whales. It turned out there were some observable effects, and we all concluded it was not a plausible system to use for this purpose.

But I digress. This post is about beaked whales.

Cuvier's beaked whale

Public domain image of a Cuvier's beaked whale from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

In 2005, a group of scientists studied a mass stranding of beaked whales off the Canary Islands and found lesions apparently induced by mid-frequency sonar sounds. Previously, other scientists had suggested a link between mass stranding of beaked whales and mid-frequency sonar, but were unable to establish a causal relationship. This particular stranding event of 14 whales occurred about four hours after the onset of an international naval sonar exercise conducted between the coast of Fuerteventura Island and 40 km offshore.

Postmortem examinations of the whales found no external trauma or bruising, with the exception of one postmortem shark bite. No pre-existing health issues were indicated. The researchers did, however, find severe internal hemorrhaging, swelling, and congestion in the head and neck areas, including the jaws, ears, and brain. They also found evidence of nitrogen supersaturation (“the bends”) in the blood vessels and tissues of vital organs. Beaked whales are known for their deep diving capabilities, and don’t normally get the bends unless their dive behavior is dramatically altered (see this press release from Peter Tyack’s group at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution).

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the Navy over the use of mid-frequency sonar after this and similar findings were published. I’m interested in finding out where that lawsuit stands.

Update: The lawsuit was settled this time last year, in favor of the Navy. A precedent had already been set by the Supreme Court. According to a 12/29/08 NY Times article:

…in a ruling on a council lawsuit challenging the Navy’s sonar training exercises off Southern California, the Supreme Court ruled that military training trumped protecting whales.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained antisubmarine fleet would jeopardize the safety of the fleet. He also wrote that it was unclear how many marine mammals the Navy’s sonar exercises might harm.


Many thanks to Dr. Joseph Mobley for sending me the original article on the mass stranding event from Vet Pathol 42:446-457 (2005).

Thanks also to Mary Beckman (@sciwriter) for the update on the Navy’s lawsuit.

  • Share/Bookmark

Acid oceans may alter marine mammal messaging

December 27th, 2009

by Hilary L. Maybaum

I already knew that carbon dioxide affects the pH level of seawater, and that increased levels of dissolved CO2 could therefore cause the oceans to become more acidic by lowering seawater’s pH. While writing a book on climate change, I learned that ocean acidification is already happening in response to increased levels of atmospheric CO2; that is, the ocean can no longer buffer itself in response to global climate change with natural acid-base (chemical) reactions. Further, ocean acidification can, in turn, dissolve the tests (shells or exoskeletons) of crustaceans, corals, and other critters that depend on calcium carbonate for their bodily protection.

What’s news to me—and bad news at that—is how ocean acidification can also affect the transmission of underwater sound. According to recent articles in Science Daily and in Scientific American, scientists at my alma mater, SOEST at the University of Hawaii, and a scientist at my dream institute, California’s MBARI, found that ocean acidification lowers the ability of seawater to absorb low-frequency sound. In other words, increased CO2 levels make the ocean more transparent to sounds with frequencies up to about 5,000 Hz.

Dolphins, killer whales, humpback whales, blue whales, and scores of other marine mammals rely on the clear transmission of underwater sound to communicate with each other in the wild. They already deal with continuous low-frequency noise from waves and whitecaps. They also contend with constant low-frequency noise from anthropogenic (manmade) sources such as daily ocean traffic—ships, barges, and the like— as well as tourist and recreational activities. [I'm not even going to get into the cacaphony of naval testing of low-frequency sonar and explosives in this post.] I and others have found behavioral effects associated with increased noise levels and changes in existing underwater sounds. My colleagues have referred to some of these effects as whales “running away with their fins covering their earholes.” Of course, my esteemed colleagues exaggerate, but you get the idea.

Think of a beautiful house high on a hill, overlooking a long stretch of sandy, white beach. When you go to sleep, you are lulled by the gentle sounds of ocean waves hitting the shore. Now imagine that someone decides to put a superhighway between your house and the coast. You can no longer hear the ocean waves because of the traffic noise. That’s the kind of acoustical interference we are talking about. What happens when marine mammals can’t get their messages across because the cruise ships are louder, the jet skis are deafening, and breaking waves are giving them headaches? Will they run away, adapt, or die?

  • Share/Bookmark

Plastic is like poison to marine life

December 24th, 2009

by Hilary L. Maybaum

I have seen sperm whales from the air in Hawaii, and they are awesome to behold. Odd-looking, with their huge rectangular heads and wrinkled bodies, but awesome nonetheless. It breaks my heart to learn now that ingesting plastic was the cause of death for seven sperm whales in Italy.

Plastic bags floating in the ocean can resemble marine organisms, such as jellyfish and squid. We’ve known for some time that this is a problem for sea turtles—especially leatherbacks, as jellies are their favorite food item (see this Science Daily article and this page from the National Academies Press). Sperm whale diets, on the other hand, consist mainly of squid, which are eaten whole. Nothing like a nice plastic bag resembling a large cephalopod to tempt one’s pelagic appetite, eh?

Young sperm whale

Young sperm whale - public domain photo from U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

So, good readers, here is my Christmas-Eve plea to you: Stop using plastic bags. BYO non-plastic bags when you shop, or request paper. Let’s do our nektonic friends a favor and refrain from killing them with plastic. They may be out of sight, but let’s not keep them out of mind.

  • Share/Bookmark

HIHWNMS – more than a mouthful

December 21st, 2009

It stands for Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, and it’s a government agency under NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. NOAA is, by the way, one of my all-time favorite government organizations, so don’t put it down, okay?

The sanctuary was established in 1992 to protect humpbies and their habitat in Hawaii. It currently seeks to fill sixteen—16!—seats on their Advisory Council. That’s eight primary seats and eight alternate seats. If I still lived in Hawaii I would definitely apply, but since I’m about 5,000 miles (8,000 km, or 4320 nautical miles) away, I’m going to leave these vacancies to those who are more geographically desirable. If you fit that bill and are interested in advising the HIHWNMS, visit this page immediately.

Applications are due by 31 January 2010.

  • Share/Bookmark