A pair of right whales swim in the Atlantic Ocean. Today the whales are severely endangered, with only about 400 individuals left. (COURTESY OF NOAA)
Right whales entangled by politics
To researchers’ chagrin, measures that might save more of the rare animals have been held up by the White House.
By Colin S. Woodard | August 26, 2008 edition
Correspondent Colin Woodard has encountered many sea species in his reporting career, but he’s never met the North Atlantic right whale, one of the most endangered species on the planet.
Correspondent Colin S. Woodard
SAINT JOHN, N.B., CANADA
At the New Brunswick Museum, the right whale skeleton is a hit. Children gaze up in awe at the 40-foot-long assembly, which hangs from the ceiling with dinosaurlike grandeur. One boy points out to his mother that she could fit the family car inside its ribcage.
But for right whale researchers, this is more than a skeleton: It’s the remains of Delilah, a female whale they’d studied for more than a decade, observing her courtships, the parenting of her first calf, and, sadly, her death in 1993 off Grand Manan Island, 50 miles southwest of here.
“When you study these animals, it definitely gets personal,” says Laurie Murison of the Grand Manan Whale and Seabird Research Station. She saw the whale with her calf two weeks before she was struck by a passing ship. “You lose too many that just shouldn’t die,” she says.
The North Atlantic right whale is one of the most endangered species on Earth, with a population of fewer than 400. Slow, docile, and rich in oils, whalers saw them as the “right” whale to target until the 18th century, when they became too rare to seek out. Despite being protected from hunting for more than a century, it remains on the verge of extinction, with far too many being struck by ships or fatally entangled in fishing gear.
“Basically it’s a political decision,” says Michael J. Moore of the Woods Hole (Mass.) Oceanographic Institution, who does forensic autopsies of whales. “There are a lot of things we could be doing to help these whales that we apparently are not willing to do.”
For the past quarter century, scientists have been struggling to understand and protect the species, deploying boats and planes, satellite tags and listening buoys, and even dogs specially trained to sniff out whale poop for analysis.
In the process, the North Atlantic right has become one of the most thoroughly documented species in the world, with an estimated 90 percent of its individuals cataloged, often including their relationships to one another. The scientists’ findings have put them in a collision course with lobstermen, shipping firms, and the White House, which is accused of obstructing measures to protect the whales from ship strikes.
Scientists have found that preventing the deaths of just two female right whales each year could make the difference between survival and extinction. The National Marine Fisheries Service has drawn up new rules to protect them.
While new regulations will come into effect next year requiring many lobstermen to use only nonbuoyant lines with their traps, rules to prevent ship strikes have been blocked by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The rules require ships to reduce speed to 10 knots when traveling in places and at times when the whales are likely to be present. Research has shown that whales can avoid ships moving at this speed.
But an OMB review of the rule, which normally takes 90 days, has lasted more than 18 months. In April, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of California wrote the OMB urging them to release the rule without further delay. He wrote that the “delay appears to be due to baseless objections raised by White House officials including officials in the Office of the Vice President” and noted that Executive Order 12866 required the agency to complete their review within 120 days.
“Here’s a crystal clear example of this administration impeding any progress on endangered species that might impact big business,” says Scott Kraus, a leading expert on right whales. “Someone in the vice president’s office apparently has decided that it’s not worth the cost of slowing down ships to save whales.”
In a new development Aug. 25, the Bush administration proposed watering down the rule, reducing the area affected by the speed limits.
An OMB spokeswoman, Jane Lee, said she could not comment on rules that are undergoing review. “However, we are confident the … process will provide an approach that will achieve our shared goals,” she said. She maintained that the delay did not violate Executive Order 12866, but declined to elaborate.
Unlike their colleagues who study fruit flies or mice, right whale researchers invariably get to know individual whales, even their behavioral tics. The whales live to be 100 or more.
“There’s definitely an emotional component,” says Amy Knowlton of the New England Aquarium. She cried when she saw Delilah on the beach. She’d been studying her for more than a decade.
The species is particularly hard to study. They travel long distances – from Florida to Nova Scotia and beyond – but not in a predictable migratory pattern. They shy away from people.
That’s where whale poop comes in. Samuel Wasser of the University of Washington adapted fecal sampling techniques he’d developed for studying grizzly bears and elephants. His lab isolates and analyzes not only diet and parasite loads, but also stress, reproductive hormones, and, using DNA, the animal’s identity and family relationships.
“It’s the most abundant animal material in nature, and it’s packed with information,” he says.
The trick: finding whale poop in the few minutes before it sinks. That meant training dogs to sniff them out as they ride in the bow of an open skiff, no mean feat given that the dog has to communicate when the scent is lost and regained so the boat driver can close in on the target. Dr. Wasser trained a tennis-ball-obsessed Rottweiler to do it in exchange for a tennis ball. Other dogs have since been trained to track killer whales.
“One of the dogs we use now was from a pound because he was unmanageable,” Wasser says. “But in pairing detection of fecal samples with the reward of a tennis ball, it channels their motivations and they become really well-behaved dogs.”
DNA samples reveal a struggling population. All calves were born of parents who were more genetically dissimilar than the population’s norm, suggesting that more closely related animals can’t reproduce. This may help explain their slow recovery, says Tim Frasier of the University of Trent in Peterborough, Ontario, who conducted the analysis.
Dr. Frasier found good news, too. Researchers thought they had sampled the DNA of 70 percent of all male right whales, so they’d expected to identify the fathers of 70 percent of the calves. “Turned out we only had 45 percent of the fathers sampled,” he says. “That means there are more habitat areas that we don’t know about yet.”
( More stories )
Comments
2. Pragmatus | 08.26.08
Just one more sad example of the Republican willingness to savage anything if it means a few more cents in some businessman’s pocket.
3. waterboy | 08.26.08
I have had to avoid these creatures in the past. These animals need to be protected, however, we don’t understand nearly enough to draft maps in the ocean. This article states “That means there are more habitat areas that we don’t know about yet.” Therefore, whatever areas are drafted out in this protection plan are arbitrary. If there was better information for shippers to use to avoid, both parties could probably coexist in relative harmony. Vast swaths of ocean, especially when those swaths essetially barricade the eastern seaboard, make traversing them increasingly difficult. If you think the price of oil is bad now, add a day or two to the shipping time and watch the prices rise.
4. Peter Lindstrom | 08.26.08
In reference to waterboy’s comment: I would like prices to rise. Then people would quit buying foreign products, the trade deficit would go down, our reliance on foreign oil would go down, and these whales would be protected. I haven’t bought something made in a foreign country in months, and plan on continuing to do so. Even today it’s still able to be done, and would be come much easier if foreign products became more expensive. Then there would be an economic incentive to produce more products domestically. Prices would go up, but consumption would go down to compensate. And honestly, aren’t we consuming more than we need?
5. David Olsson | 08.26.08
I’m sure waterboy is right that our maps of habitat areas are incomplete. That doesn’t mean, though, that the areas we have mapped are “arbitrary”.
I hope we can care enough about these beatiful creatures to let them survive.
6. TJF | 08.26.08
I hate to say this, but right whales are just about the poorest adpated species I can think of. Why do we have to try and save every species? Extinctions have happened throughout Earth’s history, with and without man’s help. The right whale lacks the capability to get out the way of ships, likes to loll around at the surface and essentially takes up space in the ocean. If you believe in survival of the fittest, then you should also agree that the right whale isn’t it. Save something else.
7. TJF | 08.26.08
Right whales are not endangered by politics, they are endangered by their own lack of survival skills.
8. Barney | 08.26.08
And to add to what waterboy sez, I quote from the article: “They travel long distances – from Florida to Nova Scotia and beyond – but not in a predictable migratory pattern”. So, how can they possibly determine when and where they might be in the shipping lanes? As usual, there are two sides to every story - but it’s easy to make Cheney the villian, so why bother w/ all the nuances involved?
9. sfsinger | 08.26.08
TJF, how much do you know about whales or marine life? I’m guessing very little. How many animals can match the speed of a motorized vehicle going full speed? Few, if any. Slowing down 10 knots would allow them to get out of the way. That’s not a huge concession to make. Even waterboy, who has had to avoid these animals, agrees they need to be protected. Yes, more research should be done and naturalists should work with captains to come up with procedures that can be followed and will minimize any damages to business.
What gives you or any of us the right to decide that a species deserves extinction? Nothing, that’s what. Anyone who’s studied biology or ecosystems knows that every creature fills a niche, they play an important role and if one is removed, the whole ecosystem is effected. Whales have been around a lot longer than we have. They deserve our respect. As humans our role is stewardship, not domination, if we want to survive.
10. Jason | 08.26.08
What absurd logic TJF. Should we allow fish to go extinct because we poisoned the oceans to remove all oxygen?
“If they can’t adapt to breathe new gases, they should die” would fit your logic.
11. Poecile | 08.26.08
jp:
You asked; “who ever gave this man so much power?” and the sad truth is, we did. No matter who you voted for in the last election, we, the American people gave Bush and Cheney the power they enjoy today. Those who didn’t vote for the Bush/Cheney ticket didn’t take enough action when it mattered, and we have only ourselves to blame for the way things turned out. And nothing is going to change until it matters enough to ALL of us that we demand change, and actively work for it.
For the rest of you:
As for saving the right whale, all that’s necessary is preventing TWO collisions per year. Just two. Protecting areas where we know these animals live and congregate will go a long way toward that. Sure, evolution and survival of the fittest is dandy, but we, as a species have a responsibility to keep this world in good condition for our descendants. I certainly don’t relish the idea of telling my grandkids that the right whale went the way of the dinosaur and the dodo while I stood by and did nothing.
12. awenshok | 08.26.08
This is shocking. I had no idea that the right or even the left Wales were endangered. Next time we got to the UK, let’s all help save the Wales and drive more slowly around the Welsh.
13. WClark | 08.26.08
To TJF:
Funny…if humans randomly disappeared off the face of the earth those whales would be just fine. WE are the problem. We bring new threats into their environment that they probably can’t even understand. So since humans are at fault for these problems we have the obligation to protect these animals.
Your comment was disgusting btw.
14. Ed weirdness | 08.26.08
When you consider that the maximum speed of large ships is seldom greater than 30 knots, and none run “full out” during any crossing, requiring such vessels to slow to 10 mph for a particular segment of their passage, isn’t that excessive a request. We’re not talking about speed boats running into Manatee’s here folks, we’re talking about very large living creatures being run over by verey, very large ships.
I’m surprised that given the state of the art radar and sonar available, and the fact that most modern vessels are already equipped, this issue has even come up. Indeed, the fact that it has can only be attributed to the greed of shipping and fishing interests. If you were driving in a community where you know children might be present, don’t you slow down? Why then would this be an unacceptable choice for shipping? Once the 10 mph rule is implemented, all concerns and costs will become the non-issue that they truly are. No one benefits from the extinction of any creature!
15. BBarkley | 08.26.08
TJF:
Classic Republican thinking. Given your theory, if I machine-gunned every right-wing idiot and they couldn’t get out of the way, that’s OK, just poor evolutionary skills? Actually, we should give this theory a try.
16. Whalewatcher | 08.26.08
Whales were swimming the ocean before humans were walking the earth but the whales should evolve to prevent their own extinction from manmade dangers. Hmmm, that’s a heck of an argument. The human race is dimished every time a species leaves this earth so, yes TJF, it’s necessary to try and save every species.
17. timmy | 08.26.08
But honestly, even if we can save this species from extinction, what chance do they have, long term? Their habitat is ours now. Unless we give it back and don’t take it away again in the future, this population is gone.
18. LM | 08.28.08
All the more reason to get out the vote in November - only another 145 days left for the microcephalic and his merry crew of destroyers. Undoubtedly, the Bush-Cheney team will go down in history much as Nero has, fiddling while Rome burned. While Russia is reviving a new Cold War and China becoming a superpower, our way of life has been changed, our reputation globally tarnished. Cheney’s involvement in preventing this proposed legislation from being enacted is just one more example, among so very many, of this appalling Administration’s tactics, that of gradually dismantling our hard-won freedoms and quality of life. Would this story have been published had the Democrats taken the White House in 2000? Of course not. It’s all politics, then, with Republican politics geared to its business constituency.
19. Maureen Wright | 08.29.08
It may prove that these whales or other species contribute a specific purpose to the ecosystem, or that they have features which could be beneficial in contributing towards the human society’s future welfare . If you do not want to work to encourage the survival of other species just for the sake of life and beauty, Perhaps your own children’s possible future destiny might entice you to embrace this idea. There may be a purpose for the wildlife on our planet, which we do not currently understand. Keeping them around may indeed help in the survival of our species. What if one of the fish species which are now extinct contained a rare oil which assists in curing cancer?? Or what if a certain species held together the chain of nature which helps keep balance in our ecosystem?? What if you do not have a good understanding of the greater purpose of other species in nature and on our planet?? And what if your future is dependent upon the survival of most of these other species who you are now so simply dismissing?? Would that awareness or facts change your mind?? Might it not be too late, by the time you have this understanding of the purpose of each species in nature and in our world??
20. bill | 10.22.09
I’m a maine lobsterman that can’t stand tree hugers you guys are never happy until fishing will be band. Tankers have killed more whales then lobster trap lines have.All you animal lovers should get a job and do something with your lives instead of destroying someones living
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. jp | 08.26.08
Is “chagrin” the right word here????? Wouldn’t “DISMAY” be more correct????
To soften the blow, to sugarcoat, the reaction to another prime example of White House interference, especially the VICE Presidency (who ever gave this man so much power???), to vital new rulings that would protect our quickly diminishing animal world is jounalism that speaks of a strong relationship with those in said power.