ACS Conservation Committee Report

ACS Conservation Reports are selected summaries of current news articles on whales, dolphins, porpoises, and their environment. These reports are offered to you under the fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law.

  Dolphin safe tuna label safe for now...   A federal judge has upheld the definition of the dolphin-safe tuna label and barred the Bush administration from altering it.

On Dec. 31, the Commerce Department announced that tuna caught by fishermen encircling dolphins with nets may be imported into the United States and bear the dolphin-safe label if observers certify that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured in the process. A group of environmental organizations sued. Under the old definition, set forth by Congress in 1990, any tuna caught using dolphins as targets were automatically barred from bearing the consumer-friendly label on cans sold in the United States. U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson's ruling upheld that standard.

"This is a victory for dolphins and a good start for our lawsuit," said Mark Palmer, spokesman for the Earth Island Institute's International Marine Mammal Project. "We can now go to trial over the next few months knowing that the integrity of the dolphin-safe tuna label will be protected by this injunction."

Environmentalists charged that the government failed to adequately address the stress to dolphins caused by chasing them with speedboats, encircling them in large nets and releasing them after they were caught with the tuna. The government said less than 5,000 dolphins are killed annually using the practices in Latin America and elsewhere, down from more than 100,000 killed per year in the 1980s. The new rule was strongly backed by fisheries in Mexico and Venezuela. But the government agreed not to activate it pending the judge's decision.     Associated Press

  Killer whale population in Puget Sound increases...   The population of endangered southern-resident killer whales off the coasts of Vancouver Island and Washington State is increasingly slightly, a Canadian scientist says.

Five calves have been born since last summer and one died, leaving the population at a still-precarious 84 orcas, said John Ford, senior marine mammal scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Pacific Biological Station. Usually one to two calves are born to the southern residents in a year. Even a few more offspring can make a big difference, Ford said, "but it may not represent the long term." More calves may be counted because two of the three pods are not nearby and are expected to appear the area next month.

Killer whales usually mate in the summer and have a 16- to 17-month gestation period. The calves, typically born in the winter, have a mortality rate of about 40 percent.     Associated Press

  Summary of cruise ship dumping issues...   There are many types of cruise ship waste, including waste fluids from photo processing, dry-cleaning, and print shops, plus unused and outdated pharmaceuticals, fluorescent and mercury vapor lamp bulbs, batteries, bilge and oily water residue, glass, cardboard, aluminum and steel containers/cans, incinerator ash, gray water, and backwater.

Typical volumes of waste generated by a cruise ship with 3000 passengers in a week:

Sewage: 210,000 gallons
Gray water: 1,000,000 gallons
Hazardous wastes: 110 gallons photo chemicals, 5 gallons dry cleaning waste, 10 gallons used paints, 5 gallons expired chemicals
Non-hazardous solid waste: 8 tons (some is incinerated and released as ash)
Oily bilge water: 25,000 gallons

Under U. S. law, ships can legally dump untreated sewage anywhere in the ocean as long as it is at least 3 miles from shore, and solid waste can be dumped beyond 12 miles from shore. (There are laws specifically prohibiting the transport of garbage from the US for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters, but ships bringing waste from outside the US can dump outside coastal waters.). Treated sewage can be dumped anywhere except where local regulations place more rigid restrictions, such as Alaska.

Many contaminants found in cruise ship waste are known to be harmful to the marine environment. There are, however, many causes of ocean pollution and no hard evidence linking cruise ship waste directly to contaminants found in marine waters and sediments or to resulting environmental damage.

Voluntary guidelines for cruise industry waste management have been developed and agreed on by the ICCL (International Council of Cruise Lines), an organization that includes 16 major cruise ship lines. ICCL president Michael Crye was quoted in a March 5, 2003 Reuters article: "By and large cruise lines do treat their waste. The cruise industry has cutting-edge wastewater treatment systems on board." Yet according to Jackie Savitz, director of pollution programs for Oceana, "not a single cruise corporation in Miami or anywhere else has committed to upgrade its fleet to state-of-the-art technology. Instead, they tout their voluntary agreements, which have no monitoring or reporting requirements and which have proven to be unreliable." (Miami Herald article Mar 20, 2003).

Cruise lines have paid millions in fines for illegal dumping over the years, and the issue is getting more attention. Alaska has laws in place that require strict monitoring, reporting and testing of treated wastewater that is allowed to be discharged in Alaskan waters. Maine's state legislation has just had two bills presented to regulate wastewater discharges from cruise ships: L.D. 1158, An Act to Protect Maine's Coastal Water, and L.D. 1271, Resolve to Prohibit the Discharge of Certain Wastewater into Casco Bay. Regulations that require testing and reporting by cruise lines will have financial impact on the lines, but a recent poll commissioned by Oceana showed that 72% of American cruise ship passengers are willing to pay more to ensure cruise lines improve onboard waste treatment.     Compiled by Joanne Lasnier, ACS San Francisco Conservation Chair

  Carnival Cruises ordered to stop dumping...   Carnival Cruise Lines was ordered by a Los Angeles County judge to stop dumping untreated ballast water that could spread "invasive species" to coastal waters. In an agreement announced in mid-April that settles a lawsuit filed last year by several environmental groups against four cruise lines, Carnival agreed to abide by a 1999 state law that controls how cruise ships discharge ballast water. The groups claimed that luxury ocean liners sailing into state waters from Mexico, Canada and other countries were ignoring the law, aimed in part at encouraging ballast water treatment.

In separate settlements, three other cruise lines -- Holland America, Princess and Royal Caribbean -- promised to follow state-mandated practices and spend $75,000 to find alternative ways to manage and treat ballast water. Under the settlement, none of the cruise lines admitted any wrongdoing. But only Carnival was ordered to stop dumping ballast water. Ballast water is seawater pumped into the bottom of ships to ensure stability at sea. The way cruise lines discharge it is a hot issue among marine biologists, who say ballast discharge is the largest source of invasive species found in the state's ports. The new species are killing native species, mucking up water pipes and wreaking havoc on the food chain, biologists say. In an August 2001 letter to Carnival President Bob Dickinson, Paul Thayer, executive director of the California State Lands Commission, warned the cruise line that it was illegally discharging ballast water in state waters on runs to Baja California. Superior Court Judge Stephen Czuleger wrote in his order that Carnival had violated the 1999 ballast law.

In its statement, however, Carnival said it has been at the forefront of treating ballast water to eliminate invasive species. However, Carnival pleaded guilty last April to illegally dumping oily bilge water and falsifying records, paying an $18 million fine.     San Jose Mercury News

  Channel Islands marine preserve opens...   Waters around the Channel Islands, off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., officially became part of one of the largest no-fishing zones in the United States in April, a move that pleased environmentalists and angered the fishing industry.

The California Fish and Game Commission voted Oct. 23 to create the 175-square-mile network of marine reserves, one of the largest in U.S. waters. The restrictions are meant to give endangered white abalone, rockfish, giant kelp forests and an array of other species a chance to recover from years of excessive fishing.

Commercial fishermen fear the move will lead to more no-fishing zones and conservation areas up and down California's 1,150-mile coastline. State law requires a draft map of such a network by 2005.

An economic impact report commissioned by the American Sport Fishing Association indicated that sport fishing and dive boat operators could lose as much as $6 million a year from creation of the reserve. Commercial fishermen could lose as much as $3 million a year.

A report by environmental groups, some sport fishermen and other backers of the initiative put the potential losses at $3.3 million for sport fishing and dive boat operators and $3.3 million for commercial fishermen. Violations within the aquatic preserve will carry fines of up to $1,000 and a year in jail.     Associated Press

  California coast offshore drilling...   President Bush should let 36 oil exploration leases expire, now that it knows state regulators can pass judgment on any new drilling plans off California's coast, said Gov. Gray Davis. The Bush administration dropped its challenge to court rulings giving California a role in the future of the 36 leases off Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

Gov. Davis said the administration should let the leases expire rather than pursuing the issue before the California Coastal Commission, as would be permitted by those court rulings. "It is time to take the next step and put an end to the threat these 36 leases pose," Davis said in a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton. "It is our best hope to avoid more costly litigation while protecting our magnificent coastline."

The Bush administration already is concentrating on buying out leaseholders, who are seeking $1.2 billion in federal compensation because California blocked development, responded an Interior Department spokesman. Davis and environmental groups want the federal government to buy back the leases, as it is doing for Florida. As the president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, was waging a tough re-election campaign last spring, Bush announced plans to pay more than $230 million to protect Florida's Everglades and Gulf coast areas from oil and gas development.

The administration wants the state to pay part of the cost, however. A federal government spokesman noted that, unlike Florida, California has taken $62 million in royalties from its offshore leases since 1978. The Clinton administration extended the leases for 10 years in 1999 as they were set to expire. But the courts upheld California's right to decide if offshore drilling in federal waters is consistent with the state's coastal protection plans.

The Coastal Commission couldn't void the leases outright, but could go back to court to stop them. Davis and Democratic legislative leaders, all of whom oppose more drilling, appoint coastal commissioners. California leaders' abhorrence of offshore drilling dates to the massive Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969. There have been no new oil platforms since 1994, and no exploration since 1989.

Offshore rigs account for a fifth of the state's petroleum production. The undeveloped leases hold enough oil to supply California refineries for two years and have enough natural gas to satisfy the state's demand for five months.     Associated Press

  Japanese whaling fleet kills 400 minkes...   A Japanese whaling fleet killed 400 minke whales during a five-month scientific expedition in Antarctic waters, the government said in early April.

The Japanese government says the hunts help it gauge the impact of whale herds on fisheries stocks and provide data on the mammals' migration patterns and population trends. Critics call the program commercial whaling in disguise because the meat from the slaughtered whales is sold later to wholesalers and ends up in restaurants. Whale meat is considered a delicacy in Japan, whose government says whale herds have recovered from near-extinction.

Japan, Iceland and Norway are among those nations favoring a lifting of the IWC ban on commercial whaling.     Associated Press

  Japanese whalers begin hunt for 260 whales...   A whaling fleet of six Japanese ships left port in mid-April, as part of the first phase of their plan to hunt 260 whales, the Japanese Fisheries Agency announced. The news came just days after the return of whaling ships that killed 440 whales, and despite worldwide criticism from governments and conservation groups.

Japan's current whale hunting plan calls for the fleet to kill 50 minke whales along the country's northeast coast, in a hunt that is scheduled to last 40 days. In May, the fleet will depart again, this time for a three-month hunt in the eastern North Pacific, where it will kill 100 minke, 50 Bryde's, 50 sei, and 10 sperm whales.

Since an IWC moratorium on commercial whaling came into effect in 1986, Japan has continued whaling under the pretext of 'scientific research,' despite the fact that the whale meat ends up on dinner plates in high-end Tokyo restaurants, little scientific data has been shared by the government with the international community. Last year, Japan announced it would expand its annual hunt to include endangered sei whales and increase numbers of minke whales to be killed, outraging conservationists worldwide.

Despite international condemnation for its whaling programs, Japan continues to lobby strongly, but not successfully, for legalized international commercial whaling. In May 2002, Japan failed to secure the support of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) at its Shimonoseki, Japan meeting.

The Japanese government then sought to end-run the IWC by submitting proposals to down list the protected status of minke and Bryde's whale species under the U.N. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which met in Santiago, Chile in November 2002. Japan's proposals all failed to be passed or to even garner a simple majority vote.     US Newswire

  Japanese dolphin drive slaughter canceled for the season...   The Ito City Fishery Cooperative Association had notified the Fisheries Agency that they had canceled all plans for the dolphin drive fishery at Futo Port of Ito City this season (September, 2002 through March, 2003) at the beginning of March.

The Association had modified the method of dolphin fishery, which animal protection groups criticized as inhumane and cruel, and had planned the fishery for the first time in three years. No fishing boat sailed out, however, because they observed almost no pods, the Association claimed. But both the Association and Mr. Ishii, a fisherman-cum-dolphin watching tour conductor, said that, on occasion, a pod of dolphins were observed near the coast during autumn through winter.

When a fishing boat found a pod, the crew is supposed to notify the Association but presumably fishermen found it too much trouble to stay on watch till the Association sent out other boats. Plus the Association officials and local fishermen were concerned about criticism from animal protection groups and this could discourage them from actually catching dolphins.

Dolphin fishery at Futo has been going on since the beginning of Meiji Era and average of 5,000 dolphins were caught annually in 1970s but has been in a slump in recent years.

In 2000, a German magazine reported it, with photos, as "Dolphin Massacre" and caused an international uproar. The Association plans to resume dolphin fishery the next season but with the average age of fishermen going up and not having enough successors, it might be at the point of becoming extinct.     Yomiuri Newspapers

  Iceland to resume large-scale whaling...   Upon rejoining the International Whaling Commission last year with a reservation against the moratorium on commercial whaling, Iceland vowed that it would not start commercial whaling before 2006. In early April it has broken that promise with the release of a plan to kill hundreds of protected whales for so-called scientific research. Although 'scientific whaling' is permitted under the terms of the IWC, the provision is dramatically abused by Japan where the hundreds of whales 'studied' are marketed commercially.

Iceland last conducted whaling in 1989, three years before leaving the IWC in protest at the commercial whaling ban. Now a member of the IWC again, it plans to hunt 100 minkes, 100 fin whales, and 50 sei whales over two years, with the hunt starting this year or next.

Iceland has such a small domestic market for whale meat, the high quotas strongly signal a desire to trade and illustrate the hypocrisy of the 'scientific research' label. It still has frozen stockpiles from the 1980s and even then exported a significant proportion of its catch to Japan. It is counting on Japan again as the destination for these whales as Norway already catches more whales than it can eat - dumping blubber at sea and recently finding two new export markets.

Although Iceland has declared that the 'research proposal' itself is confidential, details were leaked in the Reykjavik newspaper, Morgunbladid. The paper reports the claim of the Fisheries Minister, Arni Matthiesen, that the aim of the research is to investigate cetaceans' diet, their distribution and numbers, and their interaction with other marine species. Conservationists protest that all these data can be collected without killing the whales and that the results of the diet studies will only be used, as they are in Japan, to support spurious scientific arguments justifying the culling of whales to protect fish stocks.

Iceland says fin, sei and minke whales are abundant enough for it to resume a hunt, but the Red List of IUCN - The World Conservation Union lists fin and sei whales as endangered, and north Atlantic minkes remain protected by the IWC.

The stakes are high for Iceland with its fishing and tourism based economy so vulnerable to international protests. There is great concern that Iceland's decision to resume whaling will have a disastrous impact not only on the whales that are targeted, but also on Iceland's prosperous whale-watching industry that is dependent on whale-loving European tourists.

To protest to the Government of Iceland about its whaling plans, write to the Embassy of Iceland in your country. You can find the contact details at: http://www.iceland.org/     BBC, Morgunbladid

  Iceland private business group votes against whaling...   The Iceland Tourist Industry Association strengthened its stand against whale hunting at its annual general meeting held last week, showing strong opposition from Iceland's business community against plans by the government to resume whale killing.

At the April 3, 2003 meeting at the New Icelandair Nordica Hotel in Reykjavik, the association voted to reiterate its support for its existing resolution against whaling, in place since March 1999. The association noted that, "whale watching has become one of the most popular tourist activity in Iceland, providing considerable income for the economy, as well as creating a very positive image for Iceland."

Whale watching has become one of the fastest growing tourism industries in Iceland. In 1998 alone, conservative estimates show that the industry generated more than US $6.5 million in sales. By 2001 the direct revenue from whale watching in Iceland was more than US $8.5 million, while indirect revenue generated US $5.3 million. This realized a total value of whale watching for Iceland's economy in 2001 alone at US $13.8 million.

Iceland joined CITES in 2000 but refuses to be bound by its rules on several species, including the highly endangered blue whale. It rejoined the IWC in 2002, controversially making its objection to the whaling ban a condition of its membership.     Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

  Another killer whale slaughter in Greenland...   Three orcas were killed in southern Greenland in mid-March. Several more were wounded according to an eyewitness, but the exact number and their fate remains unknown. However, most whales struck but lost in whaling operations are expected to die from their injuries.

Orcas are highly intelligent animals, who live in complex and distinct social groups. In a society where calves learn to be fully functional whales from elders, the death or removal of one of these members from the group could have a disastrous impact on other individuals and the group as a whole. Little is known of the population status of orcas off the coast of Greenland and there is concerned such hunts could represent a conservation threat to these animals.

A local eyewitness, who wishes to remain anonymous, described the killing of the orcas by small caliber rifles shot by hunters in 18-24 ft boats. The use of unsuitable ammunition apparently prolonged the time taken to kill the animals, which measured up to 30 feet. The blubber was peeled from the dead orcas, but the rest of their meat was left to scavenging birds. The local people refused to eat the meat, complaining that it tasted unpleasant.

Last year, more than twenty orcas were shot by Greenland hunters, reportedly for scaring fish and seals while trapped by ice in Disko bay. After protests, the Greenland authorities then promised to work on regulations for the hunt. However a year later no progress has been made and orcas still have no formal protection in Greenland. The new Government entering power late in 2002 has shown no interest in reforming any of Greenland's atrociously managed hunts for whales and other wildlife.

The International Whaling Commission (IWC), which has imposed a ban on commercial whaling but permits aboriginal subsistence whaling, awarded Greenland a new aboriginal whaling quota at its meeting last May. However the Danish territory was strongly criticized for its orca hunts by several nations, including the UK, who believed that they constituted a violation of IWC rules.

According to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, the IWC permits Greenland to kill 19 fin whales and more than 170 minke whales each year for aboriginal subsistence purposes, but the management of these hunts is a disaster. WDCS is also deeply concerned about large hunts of belugas that are used to 'top-up' Greenland's aboriginal quotas and even exported for consumption in Denmark.     WDCS

  The status of Alaska's oceans & watersheds 2002...   A report is available (see below) on the status of Alaska's marine ecosystem; the information provided in this report is largely the result of a two-day symposium on Alaska's Oceans and Watersheds, held in Anchorage, Alaska on June 18, 19, 2002. The symposium consisted of five invited talks and seven panel presentations covering issues such as the effect of climate on ocean carrying capacity: status and trends in Alaska's marine fish, shellfish, birds and mammals: persistent pollutants in Alaska's environment: and how changes in technology and management can help ensure sustainable resource use.

The symposium was sponsored by the following organizations: State of Alaska, University of Alaska, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee council, North Pacific Research Board, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Alaska Coastal Policy Council, Alaska Board of Fisheries, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Electronic copies of the report are available from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council website: http://www.oilspill.state.ak.us?. Additional paper copies may be obtained by writing or calling: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 441 W. 5th Avenue, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501. Phone: (907) 278-8012 Fax: (907) 276-7178.

The full-text of this abridged report can be found as Chapter 5 of the EPA 2002 report "The Foundation for Global Action on Persistent Organic Pollutants: A United States Perspective."    

  Canada may protect the St. Lawrence estuary...   The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is presently examining the possibility of designating a Marine Protection Area (MPA) in the St. Lawrence Estuary in order to protect marine mammal habitat. This area would be adjacent to the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park that has been in place since 1998. The whale-watching industry in this area is evaluated at more than $100 million annually.

In total, 13 zones are being examined for designation as MPAs in Canada, including the Gully near Sable Island, an underwater canyon situated approximately 200 km from Nova Scotia. The official designation of the first MPA, the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Area, situated southwest of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, was announced on March 7.     Fisheries and Oceans Canada

  Impact on Western Pacific gray whales misinterpreted...   Scientists claim that in a February 25, 2003 press release titled "Whale of a Find: Researcher Says Oil Exploration Not Affecting Whales", the author misleads readers about research findings on western gray whales in relation to oil and gas development activities off northeastern Sakhalin Island, Russia. By using information out of context they say the article suggests that this population of whales has suffered no harmful effects from nearby oil and gas development activities. It further implies that the population can actually "thrive" under such conditions. Scientists say that these statements are counter to the original research findings.

The western gray whale population, estimated to contain fewer than 100 individuals, is in fact critically endangered and depends on its only known feeding ground off northeastern Sakhalin Island for the majority of its annual food intake. Oil and gas development operations in this area could have major negative effects on individual whales and the population as a whole.     Weller et al