[MARMAM] Kelp/shellfish aquaculture & entanglements
Does anyone have data on known entanglements between large whales (especially humpbacks) and nearshore aquaculture facilities that focus on sugar kelp and/or shellfish (mussels, clams, scallops)? I'd appreciate any observations or information. Thanks. -- Phillip J. Clapham, Ph.D. Seastar Scientific Inc. Vashon Island, WA ___ MARMAM mailing list MARMAM@lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/marmam
[MARMAM] Mike Donoghue (1949-2022)
It is with great sadness that we announce the death of our beloved friend and colleague, Michael Donoghue, who died on Tuesday following a major stroke. He was 73. Mike was tremendously influential in a wealth of actions regarding protection of the marine environment, and the conservation of marine mammals in New Zealand, the South Pacific and elsewhere. Put simply, he was a champion for a better world. Born in 1949, Mike Donoghue worked for years as a self-employed fisherman in the Hauraki Gulf. After earning a Masters of Science in Oceanography from Southampton University, he joined the New Zealand Department of Conservation in 1987, where he was responsible for the development of the government’s marine mammal policy. His many duties involved the management of whale strandings, as well as bycatch mitigation efforts for marine mammals, notably the endangered Maui and Hector’s dolphins. Mike also led successful efforts to establish marine mammal sanctuaries in the waters of the Banks Peninsula and the sub-Antarctic Auckland Islands. Mike’s influence was apparent everywhere in the waters of Oceania. He worked closely with the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) to develop their Marine Species Action Plans, an effort which brought together representatives from 21 Pacific Island states and territories covering over 30 million square km of ocean. Later, Mike joined the organization to take on the role of Threatened and Migratory Species Advisor. For several decades, Mike provided scientific advice to three New Zealand Commissioners to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), during which time he attended 22 Annual Meetings of the IWC; for several years, he led the NZ delegation to the IWC’s Scientific Committee. He was effective at promoting New Zealand’s strong anti-whaling policy while attempting to improve governance of the Convention, and maintain a dialogue with the pro-whaling nations. He will be remembered there as a tenacious advocate for living whales who was respected and liked by all, even those with whom he often battled. Beyond the impressive resumé outlined in the briefest of detail above, we will remember him most fondly as one of the founding members of the South Pacific Whale Research Consortium. The Consortium unites whale researchers across the entire South Pacific, from Australia and New Zealand, across the many island nations of Oceania, and to western South America. The Consortium has been directly or indirectly responsible for the establishment of numerous whale sanctuaries in the region, and Mike’s role in those many individual and collective efforts cannot be overstated. His knowledge of the region, his keen sense of political strategy, and his ability to charm and persuade people from a broad range of constituencies, were key to the Consortium’s work. We’ve often mused among ourselves that the core of our Consortium has always been a second family to us all, and Mike’s warmth and perpetual optimism contributed much to that atmosphere. And beyond all that, Mike was a delight to be around, with a frequent smile and an easy laugh that came from a sometimes deliciously wicked sense of humor. His kindness was boundless, and many people in the field today were helped in their careers by his advice and sheer generosity of spirit. As a conservationist, Mike Donoghue was a tireless and effective advocate for the ocean, and the species which depend upon it. As a person and a friend, he was irreplaceable. Farewell, old chum. Phil Clapham, Olive Andrews, Scott Baker, Simon Childerhouse, Rochelle Constantine, Ellen Garland, Claire Garrigue, Nan Hauser, Yulia Ivashchenko, Mike Noad, Dave Paton, Michael Poole, Debbie Steel and Juney Ward South Pacific Whale Research Consortium, Auckland, New Zealand ___ MARMAM mailing list MARMAM@lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/marmam
[MARMAM] Idelisa Bonnelley (1931-2022)
It is with great sadness that we must report the death of Idelisa Bonnely de Calventi, the founder of marine biology in the Dominican Republic and the driving force behind much of that country’s marine mammal research. Idelisa Bonnelly de Calventi was born in the Dominican Republic in September 1931. Her fascination with marine biology was hindered by the lack of any relevant academic programs in her home country, so at the age of 22 she enrolled at Columbia University, graduating with a Bachelor of Science in marine biology three years later; a Masters degree followed in 1961. The following year, Bonnelly returned to the Dominican Republic, where she taught the first courses in marine science at the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo. In 1966, she founded the Centro de Investigación de Biología Marina (CIBIMA), which became that nation’s leading institution in the field; she also established the Dominican Academy of Sciences in 1974. Idelisa was the recipient of numerous honors, both national and international. These included the Global 500 Roll of Honor of the United Nations Environment Programme, the Marie Curie Medal from UNESCO, and recognition as one of the ten most important women scientists in Latin America. She published extensively, and her work has been widely acknowledged as being influential for those working with the management and conservation of marine resources. In 1986, the Dominican Republic established the first humpback whale sanctuary in the world, focused on the North Atlantic’s largest breeding ground on Silver Bank (Banco de la Plata); Bonnelly was the initiator and primary driver behind this pioneering conservation action. The sanctuary has since been expanded to include other areas and additional marine mammal species. Those of us who had the privilege to work with this remarkable woman knew her not only for her considerable intellect and indefatigable drive, but also for her kindness, her wonderful sense of humor and her tremendous warmth. She was a generous hostess, and every meeting with her involved laughter; she was the kind of person who would always send you away smiling. Idelisa Bonnelly died on July 3rd of this year, aged 90, leaving behind a legacy of achievements in conservation and science that few can match. She will be greatly missed. -- Phillip J. Clapham, Ph.D. Seastar Scientific Inc. Vashon Island, WA ___ MARMAM mailing list MARMAM@lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/marmam
[MARMAM] Internship survey results
Awhile back, I posted a request for people to take a survey on internship (or similar entry-level) positions in their organization, whether paid or unpaid. I thank the 21 people (from a wide variety of projects and study areas) who took the time to respond to this. A summary of the results is given below. Phil Clapham INTERNSHIP POSITIONS SURVEY: A SUMMARY OF RESPONSES ∙ Number of surveys returned: 21 ∙ Geographic areas represented: US/Canada, UK/Europe, Russia, Arctic, Brazil, Uruguay, Africa, New Zealand ∙ Size of projects annual budgets: everything from $2,000 to $4 million; the really big budgets were from state institutions (federal or state government) ∙ Sources of funding: direct government support (4), grants (18), donations/memberships (11), ecotourism/public outreach (8), merchandising (1) ∙ Is the PI paid as part of the project budget: 100% (6), no but paid as permanent employee of an institution (5), <50% salary (4), 0% salary (6) ∙ Species studied: cetaceans (20 projects), pinnipeds (1), sirenians (1), other (5) ∙ Projects involving endangered or threatened species: 14 ∙ Projects taking on interns or similar positions: all 21 ∙ Number of interns taken per year: anywhere from 1 to 20 (average 6.5) ∙ Interns receive: accommodation and/or food (19 projects); pay always (3), pay for some (7), interns are self-supporting (6), interns pay a fee to be part of the project (6); some combination of the above (16) ∙ Value of interns to the organization: essential to the work (12), important (6), unimportant (3) ∙ Time spent training interns: anywhere from 10% to 80% (this question was interpreted in different ways so the numbers don't mean much - basically all interns require some investment of effort to train) ∙ What percentage of interns turn out to be worth the effort of training (i.e. they come to represent a useful addition to the project): 10% to 100% (average 68.7%) ∙ What do interns gain from the work: experience with research (all 21 projects), field work (20/21), college credit (13 projects, though not necessarily for all interns), management experience with an NGO or other organization (2), data for the intern's use in graduate or other study (8), mentoring for graduate or other work (4), experience with public outreach (3), combinations of some/all of the above (all 21 projects) ∙ Sex ratio of applicants: heavily biased towards women. One project reported a 50/50 female/male ratio, but all the others were 70-90% female ∙ Ethnicity breakdown: one project (in Africa) reported 50/50 white/black, another (in Mexico) had 80% hispanic interns; but other than that most project interns were predominantly white (60-100%, average for all projects 85.5%) ∙ Positions advertized on: MARMAM (14 projects); Society for Marine Mammalogy (3); other, such as a website, university, social media, other listservs etc (11) ∙ Impact of a ban on unpaid ads on the institution's work would be: little or none (5 projects), significant (5), critical (4), unknown or no answer (7). Eleven respondents felt that the impact on individual opportunities would be significant or high, but the question was probably too vaguely worded to put too much stock into these answers. ∙ Principal Investigators who started their careers in an unpaid, volunteer position: 20 of 21 ∙ Value of that experience to the person's career: pivotal (17 of 20), important (1), unimportant (1) ∙ What is the bare minimum that should be offered to interns (other than research experience): bed and board (10), pay for all (2), pay for some (2), pay and benefits for all (1) *Some observations* 1. Those respondents who believed that all interns should be paid all worked for state institutions with large budgets (i.e. in at least some cases they presumably don't have to spend a lot of time raising money for their projects). 2. Not surprisingly, the ability to pay interns - and their importance to the project's work - was a function of the budget; small NGOs where the PI and other staff were not paid, and for whom funding went into project operations, were consistently unable to offer support to interns, who were also usually deemed important or essential to the work. Many of these projects, however, provided at least accommodation and food when in the field (though of the 19 that did this, six charged people a fee to participate, so it's really only 13). Some institutions provided ongoing support for interns after their time was finished, either through graduate study help or (in a few cases) hiring good interns back later on as members of the research team. 3. Most of the less well-funded institutions said variations of the same thing: that they wished they could afford to pay interns, but the budgets wouldn't support that. It is interesting that most project PIs felt that accommodation and food should be a minimum requirement, at least when on field work. However, some also made the point that they didn't see why they should be spending sca
[MARMAM] Unpaid positions survey
In an effort to gather some data on the reliance (or otherwise) of research projects on entry-level labor (paid or unpaid), I'd appreciate *directors of research projects* taking a few minutes to answer some questions about their experiences. I am particularly but not exclusively interested in projects operating as either small non-profits, or in developing countries (or both); but I'm interested to hear from anyone who is actively conducting marine mammal research *and* in a position to take on interns or other entry-level positions. Please email me at phillip.clap...@gmail.com and I'll send you the survey. Thanks. -- Phillip J. Clapham, Ph.D. Research Associate Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History Senior Scientist Seastar Scientific Inc. Vashon Island, WA *"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."* - Anon. *"The young know everything. Unfortunately, they don't know anything else." *- Anon. ___ MARMAM mailing list MARMAM@lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/marmam
[MARMAM] Unpaid positions in marine mammal science: a response
At the risk of becoming unpopular with some good folks, I have to offer a different perspective on unpaid positions to that given in the letter posted by Eiren Jacobson on 2nd July, addressed to the leadership of the Society for Marine Mammalogy. The authors of the letter are of course correct in that unpaid positions favor those who can afford to work for free, and as such they exclude numerous people, including minorities. Maybe a few institutions do intentionally exploit younger people in this way. However, for many, this situation is a simple reflection of the state of funding in marine mammal science. Many institutions - notably smaller non-profits - have a hard time raising enough money to pay their own staff, support basic field work, and keep the lights on. If you ban advertisements of unpaid positions, you are depriving countless people of the only opportunity they may ever get to participate in marine mammal science. I'm a good example. When I arrived on Cape Cod in the fall of 1980, I volunteered at the Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown. They weren't about to pay me, a young guy with zero experience; no one at the institution was receiving much or any salary, and our research budget for the entire year was a few thousand dollars. Yes, I was able to support myself (barely) for a few months. And yes, that was forty years ago; but for many small institutions, life today isn't radically different in terms of funding. Indeed, these days there is more competition for money than there was when I entered the field. If I had insisted on being paid, or if the student internships we later offered were subject to a ban on advertizing, I and many other individuals who are today well known in the field would never have had that chance to work with a research program, and try out for themselves the idea of a career involving study of these fascinating animals. My wife, Dr Yulia Ivashchenko, has a similar story: had she not volunteered for an underfunded whale research project in Russia, she almost certainly would not be involved in the field today. By accusing underfunded institutions of unethical or illegal behavior, and depriving everyone of such opportunities just because some are disadvantaged, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We'd all like to see everyone who wants to be involved, paid and given health insurance. But the harsh reality of funding is that this is often not possible. Funding is hard enough to come by in the US, and far more difficult in many other countries. Do people really want to hobble projects in the developing world from recruiting assistance with poorly funded studies which sometimes involve critical conservation issues? There is a much broader issue here which the letter does not address, and that is the failure of society in general, and the education system in particular, to encourage minority and other under-represented school kids to enter science. During the ten years or so that I directed the internship program at the Center for Coastal Studies, we were able to offer internship positions that included accommodation and a small stipend; it wasn't much, but was at least sufficient to keep our interns fed during the two or three months they spent with us. Every year, we had anywhere from fifty to a couple of hundred applicants for the five or six internship slots we offered. They were almost all undergraduates - and, tellingly, close to 100% were white. I suspect that many institutions offering paid internships see a similar disparity in applicants today. Given that our internships were actually paid at a basic level, what this says is that the lack of minority applicants had little to do with financial inequities. Rather, the problem begins much earlier than the undergraduate level. As the infamous Sheldon Cooper once said in an episode of The Big Bang Theory in which they're trying to recruit more women into science, you have to start at least in middle school. As is well known, girls are still often actively discouraged from pursuing STEM careers early on, and by the time you're dealing with the university level, as Sheldon noted, it's too late. The same applies even more markedly to minorities. I've been involved in this field for forty years, and I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of African-Americans I've known who've been significantly involved in US whale or seal research. So yes, try harder to fund internships and other entry-level positions. But there also needs to be a concerted effort by the Society, and by the field in general, to reach out to schoolchildren, notably girls and minorities, and to aggressively promote programs that encourage kids from all backgrounds to see careers in science as achievable (and cool). Put bluntly, you can offer paid internships all you want, but you probably won't see people from under-represented populations flocking to apply when an interest
[MARMAM] New paper on Japanese whaling
The following was just published online: Clapham, P. 2014. Japan’s whaling following the International Court of Justice ruling: Brave New World - Or business as usual? *Marine Policy *51: 238-241. *Abstract* Since 1987, Japan has conducted extensive special permit whaling (“scientific whaling”) in the Antarctic and North Pacific. This has been viewed by many as a way to circumvent the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling, which was implemented in 1985. Recently, Australia took Japan to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over this issue. Using various criteria, the Court ruled that Japan’s whaling was not “for purposes of scientific research” as required by Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and ordered Japan to immediately cease its JARPA II whaling program in the Antarctic. Despite optimism that the Court’s ruling might spell the end of Japanese whaling in the Antarctic and even elsewhere, Japan has indicated that it will redesign its whaling programs and continue operations. Based upon Japan’s history at the IWC, I argue here that this was an expected outcome; I predict the course of events over the next months, and suggest that the ICJ ruling, while satisfying as an independent vindication of Japan’s critics, represents little more than a temporary setback for that nation’s whaling enterprise. Reprints are available from me, at phillip.clap...@gmail.com Phil Clapham Seattle ___ MARMAM mailing list MARMAM@lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/marmam
