News
Shark Finning maybe legal in Australia’s Great Barrier
Robotic submarine set to transform environmental monitoring
Fish: healthcare workers of the reef
Robotic submarine set to transform environmental monitoring
Australian researchers have developed a low cost, miniature submarine for underwater research on ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef.
At around 25kg and 1.2 metres long, the Starbug, developed by the CSIRO ICT team in Queensland, Australia, is an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) small enough to be operated by one person from the shore, floating platform or small boat, without cranes or other specialised equipment.
Existing research submarines are power hungry and expensive to build and operate, and need to be tethered to a vessel so they are not lost. Human divers can only spend limited time under water and often work from research vessels which are expensive to operate.
Dr Matthew Dunbabin, leader of the Starbug team, looks forward to “platforms like Starbug to be deployed in large numbers to greatly improve data collection rates so that reef research can leap ahead."
Monitoring large areas necessitates large scale data collection, which is a challenge for Great Barrier Reef researchers.
Starbug is one of the first AUVs in the world designed specifically with vision as the primary sensor for navigation and control. So it does not need to be tethered and does not need an operator. Remote communication with Starbug occurs on the surface (eg GPS coordinates etc), and once the machine dives, it follows the mission control data that has been loaded onto the onboard computer. So it is “on its own” while it is under water. And so far, it has reliably popped back up on the surface as required.
Says Dunbabin, “The software has been developed over time to perform a variety of missions that are typical of those conducted by marine scientists. Many experiments have been conducted to verify and update software to ensure reliability. With no "life-line" to the surface, we want to make sure the vehicle returns home.”
“We have tried to make the operator interface as simple as possible. Using a set number of mission types, such as go from here to there at this depth then surface, the vehicle's on-board vision-based navigation system plans its own path and negotiates terrain and obstacles.”
"We chose vision for the navigation system due to its relatively low cost and its suitability for use in clear water, terrain-rich, reef environments. Furthermore, as marine researchers often need to acquire images, the same sensor can be used for navigation and image collection," said Dr Dunbabin.
Two cameras provide forward stereo images, with two more providing downward stereo images. These estimate distance to objects for odometry and obstacle avoidance, so the machine recognises obstacles in its path. The downward cameras are used to continually assess height above the sea floor. All processing is done on-board the vehicle.
The cameras also provide the visual record of the sea floor that is important to researchers, in a series of stereo still photographs.
"We are currently developing systems to allow Starbug to identify marine pests such as crown-of-thorns starfish based on their shape and texture. This will make it possible to accurately monitor population changes and design strategies for managing them."
Depending upon what kind of battery power is employed, missions can last from 3 to 8 hours.
Environmental monitoring may be its origins, but other applications such as offshore industry, pipeline survey, cable survey, detailed bathymetrics and port security are also being considered.
In its current form, the Starbug is designed for use at depths to 100m. Limitations include the available on-board energy storage and visability conditions. However, it can perform a number of purposeful missions in low-visibility conditions such as mid-water transects.
Fish: healthcare workers of the reefng
Reef Studies (CoECRS) in Australia have been assessing the role of fish "grazing" in the ability of reefs to successfully recover from potentially devastating coral-bleaching events related to rises in ocean temperatures.
The research, published in Current Biology, focused on experimentally testing the ability of reefs to recover under two different conditions: the presence of abundant predatory and herbivorous (plant- and algae-eating) fish, and the absence of significant numbers of these fish. The latter condition mimicked the conditions under which coral reefs would recover from a bleaching event in areas also experiencing chronic overfishing.
The experiment assessed coral recovery in a region of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park that is strictly protected from fishing, such that only coral stands under experimental cages experienced the depletion of large predatory and herbivorous fish. The researchers found that the two groups of coral underwent very different courses of recovery from the bleaching event: Whereas reefs subjected to grazing by large herbivorous fish species exhibited resilience in recovery, recruiting new corals to the reef and keeping algal growth in check, the reef areas from which large fish were excluded showed a distinct erosion in reef quality, with assemblages of algae and plant life overgrowing the reef and preventing the recruitment of new coral.
The study's findings indicate that grazing by large herbivorous fishes – such as parrot fish and surgeon fish - plays a key role in the ability of coral reef ecosystems to recover from bleaching events and maintain resilience in the face of thermal stress due to rises in ocean temperatures, and were also important in keeping recovering corals free from weedy overgrowth.
"The result was dramatic. The coral cover virtually doubled where the fish had access, while the fenced-off areas became overgrown with slimy weed and the corals failed to recover,” team leader Professor Terry Hughes said.
Asia Turtle Trouble
On 8 May 2007, 296 Hawksbill turtles and 90 Green turtles preserved with formalin, were found on a Chinese fishing vessel that was intercepted by the Indonesian authorities, off the eastern coast of Kalimantan. The Hainanese boat carried over 20 Chinese seamen was detained. Besides the Turtle Foundation, the major news agencies also reported the hideous haul.
Major Turtle Seizures in the past 4 years:
| No | When | Where | Who | What |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Mar 2007 | 17.5 nautical miles from Pulau Menggalum | Chinese fisherman in Hainanese trawler | 240 hawksbill and 20 green turtles. 20 were alive. |
| 2. | Mar 2007 | M'sian protected waters near Mantanani Kecil | 19 Chinese fisherman from Hainan | 78 protected turtles |
| 3. | Jun 2005 | Pulau Panjang, Berau, East Kalimantan | Appx 300+ green turtles and 5 Hawksbill rotting in a net near their feeding grounds | |
| 4. | Mar 2005 | Berau Turtle Conservation Area, Kalimantan | 90 hawksbill and 25 green found dead and preserved in formalin. | |
| 5. | May 2004 | Pulau Manggalum | Chinese fishermen | 160 dead turtles |
| 6. | Nov 2003 | Labuan, M'sia | Chinese fishermen | 148 dead turtles |
The interval between the dates, suggests that this may be the tip of an iceberg we know very little about, whilst the Chinese fishermen in boats from Hainan appear as the main culprits. Years go by and the statistics don't really change for the better. Experts in the field say that if this pattern persists, the protected species can be wiped out in about 3 years! There are organizations aplenty for turtles that have numerous meetings all over the world; reams of documents, Agreements and MOUs have been signed that neither those who drafted it or those who are subjected to it can humanly remember. People have problems remembering what they had for breakfast and here we have all these details that the average man in the street or on some fishing boat from some distant country is expected to know, let alone bother to remember and adhere. Quite a tall order.
What's with the turtles anyway? Whether they get sick, tangled in nets or caught for decorative use or some gastronomic delicacy, what's the big deal? Didn't the dinosaur go extinct or the Dodo bird for that matter? Life goes on; it's called evolution! None of us is going to live forever! If we had $1, do we spend it tagging turtles or would we feed a hungry human child? There are lots of hungry people without homes all over this world. Should we not sort that out first before even lending a dime to some long living creature that we rarely see, work, have interaction or do business with! So who really benefits from this hue and cry about turtles? The poachers or the conservationists, or the rest of humankind? If we conducted a poll of all the human beings in the world, guess what, the vast majority may not even have seen a turtle in their lives, let alone know their sad and precariously endangered status! So what exactly are the benefits and to whom?
Ironically, the poachers feed some hungry human beings. Of course they handsomely enrich their rich masters. Now how different is that from the fossil fuel situation? They too feed many mouths, and put a lot more in the pockets of a few, besides being the cause of the occasional war between human beings every now and again. Many reports suggest that the biggest polluters of our air are the ships that ply our seas and oceans. How ironic! They float and sail upon the sources of energy and fuel that is literally available for free, namely the wind, the sun and the hydrogen in the water, and yet for some strange reason we continue to pay astronomically for the use of fossil fuels to move them! Don't they affect our ecosystems in some astronomical way? In that perspective, what are a handful of turtle poachers compared to them?
Drafting and ratifying more MOUs and Agreements that prosecute the fishermen whilst the masterminds remain free and anonymous in big fancy houses decorated with formalin stuffed turtles, is one route. Yet, Leatherbacks aren't really things we could stuff in a false-bottomed suitcase to smuggle around; but with all the hyper security between our borders, the turtle smuggling appears alive and kicking. How does that happen?
It appears that whatever drives the use and sale of fossil fuels, apparently drives turtle poaching too. There's a need and a demand. Get rid, or change this 'driver' to a more eco-friendly one, and hey presto! we virtually clean up our skies and turtles survive! So why are we not doing this in a big way? Your guess is as good as mine, though speculation is rife and aplenty. Instead of the 'whys and wherefores', what if we asked ourselves, 'How can we change the present eco-unfriendly 'driver' to an eco-friendly one? It suddenly ceases to remain the domain of the few who own and run fossil fuel organizations or turtle conservations. It empowers each and everyone of us instead. We can be collective owners of the situation and become responsible for the outcome. We can leave this power in the hands of few who do the least and earn the most and dictate how we live, or we could empower ourselves and be responsible for the quality of our lives be it human, fish, animal, insect, plant or forest. Utopian?
Well being a conservation directed almanac, we had the choice to angle this story accordingly. We chose a provocative one, and conservation is still the goal. We look forward to the awakening and sharing of thoughts to make this world a better one each day. Share them at our website, or send them to us. It will make great reading and inspiration for our next issue in September!
Joe
editor@OGSociety.org
Japan is out to KILL 1035 whales, the humpbacks included.
The Japanese whale hunt is an act of war on the world’s natural heritage and an act of war against the economics of Australia.
On 19th November 2007, the Japanese whaling fleet, including the 8000 ton Nisshin Maru and three chaser vessels, left southern Japan for its biggest hunt since commercial whaling was officially banned more than two decades ago. Adding to its annual haul this season, they are also aiming for humpback whales from Australian waters, escalating the environmental dispute over whaling to new heights. Humpback whales have not been legally hunted in the Antarctic since 1963 and never since the moratorium on commercial whaling came into effect in 1986. This is the Japanese at their worst. Under the guise of scientific research 50 humpbacks have been added to the Japanese target, with 50 giant fin whales, and up to 935 minkes. The Japanese are indeed reverting to a bygone dark era. Real scientists don't need to kill whales to study them. This is really commercial whaling badly dressed up as science.
Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research disclosed that the hunt would take place in Antarctic waters south-west of Australia. This means that many of the whales are most likely to be slaughtered in an Australian whale sanctuary off the coast of the Australian Antarctic Territory. The humpbacks would come mainly from stocks that breed and migrate off the east and west coasts of Australia. The London Panel, a team of legal experts assembled by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, has advised that the Japanese plan to kill humpback whales breaches international wildlife trade law. Humpback whales are listed as endangered under CITES - the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which protects the humpback from trade. In this case the panel says, "trade" includes Japanese whaling boats catching and landing whales in international waters. However prosecution or any robust defensive action by the Australian authorities at least up till now appears to be highly unlikely and cursory.
Nevertheless Kevin Rudd, the new Prime Minister elect of Australia said that he will send the Navy and RAAF planes to monitor the Japanese whaling ships. While seemingly an ineffective effort but at the very least, a demonstration of force compared to the ousted Prime Minister John Howard who in political ambiguity, waffled, "I totally disagree with what the Japanese are doing in relation to whaling and our responses have got to be completely in accordance with Japanese law and every time I meet a Japanese prime minister I raise this issue and I'll continue to do so.” Ugh...Japanese Law in Australian waters? This is a blatant case of a government saying one thing - that they're opposed to whaling but doing far less than is satisfactory to try and stop it. At least the ex Australian foreign affairs Minister Alexander Downer was honest about it, stating that the federal government does not want to take action against Japan over whaling if that would harm Australian interests.
It will be difficult for any reasonable person to understand the justification or lack thereof in this instance, as the whaling is conducted in Australian Exclusive Economic Zone. All Australia would need to do is send a warship and demand that the Japanese leave or be apprehended. The Japanese whaling industry is in defiance of both Australian and International law - killing a whale is similar to a poacher killing an elephant, koala or a panda.
An outspoken Yoji Kita from the southern whaling town of Taiji, Japan, strangely but correctly pointed out that by global standards, there are lots of double standards. Much less to killing a whale, it is illegal for Australians to swim with whales. This law is vigilantly enforced in Australian waters and is a jail-able offence. Apparently this is not so for the Japanese.
Remember, Steve Irwin, the much loved Crocodile Hunter with carte blanche to get up close and be smothered by any animal of any size, even the endangered ones? Well, even for Steve, in 2004 he was subjected to an Australian Commonwealth Government investigation for a criminal breach of wildlife laws after allegedly clowning around with whales and penguins while filming a documentary in Antarctica. Under Australian law, interacting with Antarctic wildlife is strictly forbidden, attracting fines of up to $1 million and two years jail. At that time Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage Dr. Sharman Stone confirmed that the Government had granted Irwin's company a permit to film whales, but she added "It certainly wouldn't have said you can jump in and pat them,". Dr Stone’s comment also implied that though many countries shared jurisdiction over Antarctica, Australians working there are bound by Australian laws. Well apparently not so for killing whales and if one is Japanese. Of course, they make the Sonys, Canons and Hondas.
It is crystal clear that the governments involved are not being transparent or sensible at addressing the issue nor have the gumption to enforce any effective action such as economic sanction or use of force to dissuade the whalers. It is up to us the average folks who proclaimed to be disgusted to take a stand and be heard. In a nutshell, Japanese products should be boycotted until Japan stops killing humpback whales. Apparently only 11% of Japanese are pro whaling, and 14% are anti-whaling with the vast majority sitting quietly in abstinence. Perhaps by our standing up, vocalizing and even boycotting Japanese products till the whaling stops may persuade this majority to join forces and push their authorities to stop this whaling massacre under the guise of scientific research. OceanNEnvironment
The TERRORISM against Whales
Eco-tourism is quite the buzz word these days; a response to the growing awareness to conserve and preserve the earth’s ecology. Destructive practices and habits have been turned around through Eco-tourism. The Butanding Festival in the Philippines celebrated the hunt and killing of the whale shark. Today tourists flock there to swim with them instead. The goal in the end appears to be ‘economics.’ From the basic need to survive to the acquisitive nature to be extremely wealthy, this common denominator has been used to destroy as well as restore.
As the battle wages on, the competition gets more aggressive and the spirit of winning leads to some bizarre strategies. Morals and realities of finite elements get forgotten in the short term causing much long term damage. Nature’s genetics of the hunter and the hunted, the predator and prey is tampered or ‘new’ enemies created and the ecological balance begins to wither one or the other into extinction. The seeds of Eco-terrorism are unwittingly sown.
‘Eco’ or otherwise, the ‘terrorist’s’ main weapon is the total disregard for human civility. They know, if the non-terrorist world gives up ‘civility’ then, we will all be terrorists like them. And as long as non-terrorists continue to practice and remain civil, the terrorist will always have the upper hand. It’s like the inveterate queue jumper and the annoying road hog who care little for common courtesy and seem to always get the upper hand, leaving the courteous bloke at the loser’s end.
Many are indeed baffled that a trespassing vessel was not at all cautioned or arrested when encroaching another’s territorial waters. Aussie courtesy being exploited or just political apathy and hidden agendas, one wonders. Even more baffling and intriguing is the association of the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research to the Nisshin Maru and the need to kill the cetaceans to ‘study’ them. Is this an economically motivated exploit or are there other more than economic motivators? The International Whaling Commission’s fundamental role of seeking common ground for the common good of all through respectful compromise for the beholders of the various views and interest groups appears to have suffered a hard blow for the moment. If it does not recover, then eco-terrorism’s emergence and growth is inevitable. If the interest groups and the beholders of the different views keep hyping and rousing up the accusation campaign with barbs and arrows, then most certainly one or some will perish and become extinct; and the terrorist knows, that so long as civility remains, they will always have the upper hand.
Although in the beginning the ‘economics’ appeared as the ‘common denominator’ perhaps in this instance, there is more than ‘economics’; perhaps it’s about values, ideology, tradition, culture, generations of harboured anti-americanism etc ? And we know from experience that against the ‘hara-kiri’ terrorist, the only hope is to prevent the tipping of ‘conversions’. Whatever our sentiments, are we prepared to suspend them and move towards an equitable and respectful solution, or remain entrenched in misplaced righteousness, and unwittingly nurture the habitat for ‘eco terrorism?’
OG, from its inception has categorically positioned itself to favour effectiveness more than blind or misplaced and evocative righteousness. It firmly believes that chest thumping activism loaded with sentiments does not resolve issues, neither does proving one party being more right than the other. Conservation is not a glory contest for the more dedicated or ardent conservationist. It’s about persuasion, it’s about providing useful and truthful information; it’s about winning hearts and transformation through respect and recognition of the other’s position. And there the challenge for the undefiled conservationists beckons. Joe Moreira, Editor, Ocean Geographic
The Japanese whale hunt is an act of war on the world’s natural heritage and an act of war against the economics of Australia. Hundreds and thousands of passionate people, scientists and wildlife societies spend millions of dollars and uncountable research hours to preserve the last remaining whales for future generations. The Japanese whalers are out to destroy these efforts is disrespectful. It is an act of war against humanity. We cannot sit back and do nothing. It is obligatory for us to demand on those in power to insist the Japanese to stop their whale hunt immediately.
Michael AW, Director, OceanNEnvironment
What do we think about the recent news that Japan has expanded their completely faux "research quota" and are now including humpback whales? It is a sickening display of government and cultural ambivalence to conservation. Japan leads the world with some of the greenest innovations this century has seen but then reaches backward in a barbaric display of in your face anti-marine conservation to slaughter long lived social marine mammals that exist by a thread on this planet. We are mad as hell but moreover disappointed in the lack of motivation of a supposedly enlightened society and citizenry to end the practice of whaling. Does the Toyota Prius have a harpoon option?
Jennifer Hayes & David Doubilet – National Geographic Photographer in Residence
I am outraged by the Japanese action, which is equivalent to an act of war against the environment, and against a benign intelligent race that has been conditioned by decades of whalewatching to treat humans and their vessels as harmless and friendly, and is helpless against the killing implements of industrial whaling. It is also an act of economic war against Australia's tourism industry, to which you would expect Australia to respond with economic sanctions at the least. You can count on my support for your campaign to show our outrage, and push our governments to exert some serious pressure on Japan. Doug Perrine, Wildlife Photographer
There is no excuse for Japanese whaling anywhere, but when it happens in Australia's backyard you might hope to have stronger responses. Boycotts brought on by Japanese whaling have been tried before if I remember correctly. It is obvious that the Japanese will not be easily shamed or dissuaded, and Australia itself will have to show more backbone to protect the whales in its waters. Emory Kristof, Deep Sea Explorer
I believe I speak for my 600,000 collectors throughout the US and 100 countries around the world when I declare a worldwide boycott on all Japanese companies that enable the killing of whales. It should be an embarrassment to the people of Japan that a culture so reliant on the health and vitality of the oceans allow the killing of an animal that is now protected by most of the nations in the world. It is now time for the Japanese people to take a stand against the minority population that continue this barbaric killing of our planet’s greatest mammals. It is now time for the Japanese to declare a permanent band on whale hunting, now and in the future.
WYLAND, Marine Artist
Whaling is a barbaric activity which serves no worthwhile purpose. It is time for our new government to make a stand to protect the whales in Australia’s Antarctic territory. We should not have to pay lip service to diplomacy. The time for action is now.
Christopher Lee, Editor Emeritus OG.
This hunt is going to be a gruesome "scientific" experiment in how long these amazing animals may take to die. For the Japanese whaling fleets to be able to come here and kill our whales is barbaric. We are starting to show a sign of how healthy the population of humpbacks has become; a female and her calf paid a short visit to Sydney Harbour not too long ago. They're targeting endangered species in a whale sanctuary. I support the Call for Action whole heartedly; It is a shame there are not more people like you around. Jayne Jenkins, Naturalist
It all boils down to dollars. The only way a government will take action for an environmental cause will depend on the power of the commercial interests that impact on a legislature. If our own lobbies for our environmental concerns are powerful enough to convince our government - or any government - to economically put pressure on miscreant governments that are supporting the commercial lobbies we may win some points. When has it ever been different? If I am not mistaken our side convinced the Equadorian government to control the commercial pillage of the Galapagos marine environment. "MoneyTalks". Ecotourism had become a big and valuable factor in the economy. Pressure through trade embargoes can serve the cause.
Stan Waterman, Underwater film producer and photographer, Winner of 5 Emmy awards
Shark Finning maybe legal in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef
We are speechless, befuddled… dumbfounded by the Queensland Government proposal, to legitimize one of the most unsustainable forms of fishing on the planet - shark fin fishing, exerts that with over 90% of the world's sharks and other big fish gone from our oceans, this project is unsustainable, unethical and will be flatly rejected by the Australian public. If and when the Queensland Government’s proposal comes into effect, specific fishing licenses for shark fin fishing will be issued, which will entrench the practice for years to come. It will also legitimize shark finning in the Great Barrier Reef, a World Heritage Area and in the Marine Parks of Moreton Bay and the Great Sandy Straits
Shark Finning maybe legal in Australia’s Great Barrier
Shark finning where the fins are cut of the shark and the carcass is thrown overboard is currently banned in Australia. However, shark fin fishing, where sharks are targeted for their high value fins but their carcasses are kept and sold as low value waste products, continues. Will this help eradicate or stem the demand for shark fins or is this just a poor disguise to fan the demand? The Australian Marine Conservation Society, AMCS reports that during 2000-2004 shark fishing in Queensland increased four-fold with a massive 1240 tonnes of shark being landed in 2004*. The main pressure on sharks in the Great Barrier Reef is fishing, and this pressure is increasing. More than 90% of the commercial shark harvest is taken by the gillnet fishery with the remainder taken by the line and trawl fisheries. However recreational fishers catch and retain a significant number of sharks. Sharks biologically like whales and dolphins. are extremely vulnerable to fishing impacts, for they are slow growing, have extremely low reproductive rates and are mostly long lived. Thus they are very slow to recover from impacts on their populations. Many shark fisheries around the world have collapsed. Sharks are apex predators, helping to control populations of prey species. Consequently, reducing the number of sharks may have significant and unpredictable impacts on the ecosystem.
How does such a proposal arise in an environment and eco-conscious state is very disappointing. It is a stark reminder to the environment conscious that we must remain vigilant; for amidst us remain the unscrupulous and powerful villains who give scant regard to things sacred, waiting for the moment to pursue their pecuniary goals. OG Society invites the world at large to support the call to the Queensland Government to revoke this proposal and commit to a program with fishers to preserve sharks. We strongly encourage anyone who have a passion for sharks to have their say.
Read more on this issue at www.marineconservation.org.au <http://www.marineconservation.org.au/> . Better still write your objections to:
East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery RIS Response Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries GPO Box 46 Brisbane QLD 4001
Fax: 07 3229 8146 Online: >www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb <http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb>