Watching Our Water Ways

Environmental reporter Christopher Dunagan discusses the challenges of protecting Puget Sound and all things water-related.
Subscribe to RSS
Back to Watching Our Water Ways

Archive for the ‘Business and industry’ Category

Amusing Monday: Old Spice ads break with reality

Monday, April 21st, 2014

Old Spice, maker of aftershave, deodorant and so much more, has gone wild with its television commercials the past few years.


I started out, as usual, to produce this “Amusing Monday” by looking for videos with a water-related theme. I located the first video on this page, which depicts a guy who cannot escape a fresh shower no matter where he goes.

After that, I started looking at other Old Spice ads. The company has produced so many weird videos it is hard to know where to begin and end. Should we talk about the Old Spice “prank ads”? Click here on “The Flattering Man” and then hang on.

These prank ads, as Greg Kumparak of Tech Crunch calls them, have been placed all over the Internet as part of the Old Spice campaign. He includes links to eight others in a story he posted in January.

Some people loved the ad that Old Spice calls “Momsong,” but others were seriously weirded out or offended. It’s a bit more than a mother’s lament that her son is coming of age with the help of Old Spice: “Now he smells like a man and they treat him like one.” At the end of the video, the screen includes links to two related videos.

I’m more annoyed than amused by a shouting Terry Crews, who was featured in a series of Old Spice commercials a couple years ago and was called back this year to hock an Old Spice shaver. See this YouTube video. In the commercial, he is both the person shaving and the hair about to be shaved.

I could go on like this all day, but someone named Chris John has compiled 21 Old Spice commercials in a single nine-minute video on YouTube. Check out the second video player on this page.

Hunter Whitworth of Paste magazine analyzes the Old Spice campaign, which is engineered by the advertising firm Wieden+Kennedy of Portland, Ore.:

“As fewer and fewer people watch live television—and as the audience that does is spread over an increasing number of channels—commercials are engineered with an eye towards their life on the Internet; they are designed to go viral as much as they are designed to sell you something.”

In his analysis, Whitworth makes an essential point: Unlike so many funny commercials being created today, these Old Spice ads actually place the product in the spotlight. As I once learned in an advertising class, you can’t forget to mention what it is you are selling.

There are many more Old Spice oddities to check out. The timeline on the Old Spice Facebook page is one way to get a wide-angle view. You can also visit the Wieden+Kennedy website and its Old Spice page. Of course, Old Spice has a YouTube channel, in which one video after another can be watched.

Finally, if you would like to see how far Old Spice has come — or fallen, depending on your viewpoint — check out the last video player on this page.


International court rules against Japanese whaling

Monday, March 31st, 2014

Japanese whalers who hunt whales in the Antarctic can no longer justify their actions as “scientific research” and must stop their annual whale roundup, according to a ruling by the International Court of Justice.

The court ruled today that Japan’s so-called “research” does not meet ordinary scientific standards. The court ordered Japan to stop killing whales under the guise of its research program, called JARPA II. As stated in a 73-page finding (PDF 649 kb) supported by 12 of the 16 judges:

“Taken as a whole, the Court considers that JARPA II involves activities that can broadly be characterized as scientific research, but that the evidence does not establish that the programme’s design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives.

“The Court concludes that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not ‘for purposes of scientific research’ pursuant to Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention (the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling).”

In the legal action brought before the United Nations court by Australia, the judges carefully scrutinized the JARPA II methods and procedures. They found that the sampling procedure and lethal take of minke, fin and humpback whales falls short of legitimate scientific study in many regards:

“The fact that the actual take of fin and humpback whales is largely, if not entirely, a function of political and logistical considerations, further weakens the purported relationship between JARPA II’s research objectives and the specific sample size targets for each species — in particular, the decision to engage in the lethal sampling of minke whales on a relatively large scale.”

A news release (PDF 174 kb) issued by the court does a fair job of summarizing the findings:

“Examining Japan’s decisions regarding the use of lethal methods, the court finds no evidence of any studies of the feasibility of or the practicability of non-lethal methods, either in setting the JARPA II sample sizes or in later years in which the programme has maintained the same sample size targets. The court also finds no evidence that Japan examined whether it would be feasible to combine a smaller lethal take and an increase in non-lethal sampling as a means to achieve JARPA II’s research objectives.”

After the ruling, Koji Tsuruoka, Japan’s representative at the court, addressed reporters at the Peace Palace in The Hague. According to a report by Australian Associated Press, Tsuruoka stated:

“Japan regrets and is deeply disappointed that JARPA II … has been ruled by the court as not falling within the provisions of Article 8. However, as a state that respects the rule of law, the order of international law and as a responsible member of the global community, Japan will abide by the decision of the court.”

He said Japanese officials would need to digest the judgment before considering a future course of action. He refused to discuss whether a new research program could be crafted to allow whaling to resume.

Australian officials were careful not to gloat over the victory as they emphasized the need to maintain favorable relations with Japan. Bill Campbell, Australia’s general counsel in the case, was quoted by the AAP:

“The decision of the court today, important as it is, has given us the opportunity to draw a line under the legal dispute and move on.”

The ruling was welcomed by environmental groups, including Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which has sent ships to the Antarctic to directly confront the whaling ships and interfere with their whaling activities, as seen on the television show “Whale Wars.” Capt. Alex Cornelissen of Sea Shepherd Global had this to say in a news release:

“With today’s ruling, the ICJ has taken a fair and just stance on the right side of history by protecting the whales of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and the vital marine ecosystem of Antarctica, a decision that impacts the international community and future generations. Though Japan’s unrelenting harpoons have continued to drive many species of whales toward extinction, Sea Shepherd is hopeful that in the wake of the ICJ’s ruling, it is whaling that will be driven into the pages of the history books.”


Earth Hour arrives this Saturday night

Thursday, March 27th, 2014

I admit it seems kind of quaint, but I look forward to turning out all the lights in my house once a year and sitting in the dark. It’s a time to contemplate all our marvels of technology while considering the needs of many people around the world.

Earth Hour is coming up on Saturday beginning at 8:30 p.m. The question of the hour: What can we each do to make things better?

If you get the chance, bring your family and/or friends together. You can go out to dinner or do other things before or after the designated hour, but for 60 minutes let your thoughts wander to other places in the world.

For me, that kind of reflection is enough for the moment, but the Earth Hour website talks about inspiring people to join environmental projects across the globe. By reviewing the website, Earth Hour can become a time of learning about worthwhile causes. Listen to Jason Priestly and others in the video player on this page.

If you want to make a difference, check out the five-step program for creating an Earth Hour event. Maybe think about doing something over the next year and sharing it on the Earth Hour website in 2015.

What I like about Earth Hour is that it unites people from around the world, if only for an hour. For those who wish to take a leadership role, Earth Hour is one place to start. As founder Andy Ridley says in a news release:

“What makes Earth Hour different is that it empowers people to take charge and use their power to make a difference. The movement inspires a mixture of collective and individual action, so anyone can do their part.”

Earth Hour begins each year in New Zealand, the first place the clock strikes 8:30 on the designated Saturday night.

Famous landmarks involved in the lights-out event include the Empire State Building, New York; Tower Bridge, London; Edinburgh Castle, Scotland; Brandenburg Gate, Berlin; the Eiffel Tower, Paris; the Kremlin, Moscow; and the Bosphorus Bridge connecting Europe to Asia.

See some photo highlights from previous years


Tidal power supply coming to Puget Sound

Friday, March 21st, 2014

A multi-million-dollar tidal energy project in Admiralty Inlet, north of the Kitsap Peninsula, has been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Tidal turbines for Admiralty Inlet are to be provided by OpenHydro. Graphic courtesy of OpenHydro

Tidal turbines for Admiralty Inlet are to be provided by OpenHydro.
Graphic courtesy of OpenHydro

The Snohomish County Public Utility District, which was granted a license for the double-tidal-turbine pilot project, says it will be the first “grid-connected array of large-scale tidal energy turbines in the world.” The twin turbines are designed to produce 600 kilowatts of electricity, enough to power several hundred homes.

“Anyone who has spent time on the waters of Puget Sound understands the power inherent in the tides,” PUD General Manager Steve Klein said in a news release. “In granting this license, the FERC acknowledges the vigilant efforts of the PUD and its partners to test the viability of a new reliable source of clean energy while at the same time ensuring the protection of the environment and existing uses.”

The federal commission acknowledged concerns for fish and wildlife brought forth by area tribes, whale-watch operators and environmental groups. But the pilot project has precautionary measures built in, according to the commission’s order (PDF 503 kb) issued yesterday:

“For these new technologies, where the environmental effects are not well understood, the risks of adverse environmental impacts can be minimized through monitoring and safeguard plans that ensure the protection of the public and the environment.

“The goal of the pilot project approach is to allow developers to test new hydrokinetic technologies, determine appropriate sites for these technologies, and study a technology’s environmental and other effects without compromising the commission’s oversight of a project or limiting agency and stakeholder input…

“A pilot project should be: (1) small; (2) short term; (3) located in non-sensitive areas based on the commission’s review of the record; (4) removable and able to be shut down on short notice; (5) removed, with the site restored, before the end of the license term (unless a new license is granted); and (6) initiated by a draft application in a form sufficient to support environmental analysis.”

Among tribes that fish in the area, the Suquamish Tribe raised concerns about the likelihood of underwater turbines violating tribal treaty rights to fish. The turbines have the potential for killing or injuring fish, according to the tribes, and they could become a point of entanglement for fishing nets and anchor lines.

Tidal turbine location in Admiralty Inlet

Tidal turbine location in Admiralty Inlet

“Though we respect the tribes’ perspective and concerns, we disagree that licensing this project will adversely affect their treaty rights,” the commission stated in its order. The license contains no restrictions on fishing, and it requires measures to protect the fish.

Suquamish Tribal Chairman Leonard Forsman said tribal officials have not had time to review the license conditions in detail but will do so over the coming days. He said he would consult with legal and technical advisers before laying out possible actions for consideration by the tribal council.

Michael Harris, executive director of the Pacific Whale Watch Association and a board member for Orca Conservancy, said he was disappointed that more people have not recognized the problems that can be created by these turbines — especially in Admiralty Inlet, a primary route for killer whales and many other species.

The turbines will create unusually loud and potentially painful underwater noise, Harris said. This installation is being developed at a time when researchers are coming to understand that noise can disrupt the behavior of killer whales and other marine mammals.

The turbines themselves have open blades that can injure any curious animal getting too close, he noted. And if the turbines become a serious threat, someone must swim down and mechanically stop the blades from turning, something that could take four days.

“I’m not against green energy,” Harris said when I talked to him this morning. “But let’s not put blinders on. I would like to see these turbines located in another spot. Why not Deception Pass?”

Harris said it is critical for people to pay close attention to the pilot project if it goes forward. Everyone should be prepared to stop the experiment if it proves costly to sea life.

The order by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission maintains that conditions of approval will protect killer whales and other marine mammals:

“The Near Turbine Monitoring and Mitigation Plan requires detection of fish and should provide observation of nearby killer whales. Those observations combined with the hydrophone monitoring required under the Marine Mammal Protection and Mitigation Plan will allow detection and observation of killer whales if they come near the turbines.

“The adaptive management provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection and Mitigation Plan will also allow adjustments to project operation if potential harm to killer whales is detected or, in the very unlikely event, a whale is injured….

“This license also contains noise-related requirements that will ensure the project does not have detrimental effects on killer whale behavior. The Acoustic Monitoring and Mitigation Plan of this license requires that if the sound level from turbine operation exceeds 120 dB at a distance greater than 750 meters from the turbine … the licensee shall engage the turbine brake until modifications to turbine operations or configuration can be made to reduce the sound level.”

According to several Internet sources, 120 dB is what someone might hear standing near a chainsaw or jack hammer. That level is considered close to the human threshold for pain.

In the Admiralty Inlet area, at least 13 local species are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

  • One plant: golden paintbrush, threatened
  • One bird: marbled murrelet, threatened
  • Two marine mammals: Southern Resident killer whales, endangered, and North Pacific humpback whale, endangered
  • Nine fish: Puget Sound Chinook salmon, threatened; Hood Canal summer chum, threatened; Puget Sound steelhead, threatened; bull trout, threatened; green sturgeon, threatened; bocaccio rockfish, endangered; canary rockfish, threatened; yelloweye rockfish, threatened; and Pacific eulachon, threatened.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service have concluded that none of the species would be in jeopardy of extinction because of the pilot project.

Experts have concluded that marine mammals, including killer whales, could be subjected to Level B harassment (behavioral shifts) as a result of noise from the turbines. That would be in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act without incidental take authorization. That means the Snohomish PUD must undergo consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service and possibly change its plans before moving forward.

The PUD chose Admiralty Inlet for its swift currents, easy access and rocky seabed with little sediment or vegetation. A cable-control building for connecting to the power grid will be located on Whidbey Island near Fort Casey State Park. The turbines will be located in about 150 feet of water about a half-mile from shore.

The turbines are manufactured by OpenHydro of Dublin, Ireland. Each turbine measures about 18 feet in diameter, with a 414-ton total weight.

According to the PUD, these turbines have been used in ecologically sensitive areas in other parts of the world. One location is Scotland’s Orkney Islands, which features a diverse and productive ecosystem that is home to numerous species of fish, dolphins, seals, porpoises, whales and migrating turtles.

The pilot project has been supported with about $13 million in grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and Bonneville Power Administration along with federal appropriations.

Partners in various aspects of the project include the University of Washington, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Sound & Sea Technology and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.


Any ideas for a no-discharge zone in Puget Sound?

Tuesday, February 25th, 2014

Washington Department of Ecology is pushing ahead with its plan to create a “no-discharge zone” for Puget Sound, which would prohibit the discharge of sewage from boats, even those with a Type II marine sanitation device. Check out my story last week in the Kitsap Sun, Feb. 19 (subscription).

Proposed no-discharge zone for Puget Sound // Washington Department of Ecology

Proposed no-discharge zone for Puget Sound
Washington Department of Ecology

For many people, it is disconcerting to think about mobile toilets traveling everywhere in Puget Sound and discharging their waste anywhere and at any time.

Kitsap Public Health District has gained a reputation for tracking down sources of pollution and getting them cleaned up. If you have a failing septic system, for example, you are expected to get it fixed. Many of the Dyes Inlet beaches between Bremerton and Silverdale were reopened to commercial shellfish harvesting, thanks in no small part to these persistent efforts to clean up bacterial pollution.

Sewage-treatment plants still discharge some bacteria, despite advanced treatment processes. Consequently, shellfish beds are permanently closed around treatment plant outfalls, with the closure zone dependent on the level of sewage treatment. And when there are sewage spills, long stretches of beach may be closed to shellfish harvesting for 10 days or longer.

When they are working properly, Type II marine sanitation devices aboard boats are fairly good at killing bacteria, although levels are still above state water-quality standards. Less certain is what happens to human viruses, including hepatitis, that may not be killed. In addition, marine toilets release chemicals — such as chlorine, quaternary ammonia and formaldehyde — into the water.

To delve further, check out:

It’s not hard to see why the goal would be to eliminate discharges of boater waste into Puget Sound, assuming that sufficient pumpout stations exist for people to offload their waste. Pumpout stations are connected to sewage-treatment systems, which do a better job of disinfection and remove most solids that can contribute to algae blooms and low-oxygen conditions.

Creating a no-discharge zone is one goal of the Puget Sound Action Agenda (PDF 16.4 mb) developed by the Puget Sound Partnership.

Ecology Director Maia Bellon seemed to strike the right tone when she announced the petition for a no-discharge zone (PDF 8.1 mb) in Puget Sound:

“We want to reach out and invite comments, questions and suggestions over this draft proposal. We’re working with boating, shipping and fishing leaders, and now is the time for broader perspective and feedback. Everyone who lives here has a vested interest in a healthy Puget Sound.”

Her approach leaves the door open to some creative solutions for getting everyone in compliance with the no-discharge zone. As I showed in last week’s story, the no-discharge zone could be a hardship for some tugboat and fishing boat operators. One estimate for converting a tugboat is $125,000.

Ecology’s solution so far has been simple: Give those without holding tanks three years to install the tanks and plug up theirs discharge pipes.

Other solutions may be possible, although they could create administrative burdens for Ecology. What about the idea of creating an exemption for boats that have no holding tanks? Boat owners could pay an annual fee for the exemption, and the money could go into a fund to assist owners with the cost of conversion. Maybe a conversion should be required, if necessary, at the time a boat is sold. It’s just an idea.

When applying for an exemption from the no-discharge zone, boat owners should agree to discharge treated wastes at a safe distance from the beach. Maybe they should be required to know where certified shellfish beds are located and stay even farther away.

I realize these ideas would complicate a simple plan, and maybe there are better ideas. In general, I believe that a reasonable solution should be proportional to the problem. We should not kill a rat with heavy explosives, while ignoring the cost of repairs.

To see how more than 20 other states are addressing no-discharge zones, visit the Environmental Protection Agency’s website on vessel sewage discharges and a state-by-state breakdown of no-discharge zones.

When I broke this story in September, I interviewed others who had thoughts on the issue. See Kitsap Sun, Sept. 25 (subscription).

For recreational boaters, check out “Beating the Pumpout Station Blues” by Capt. Mike Brough of the Coast Guard.


Amusing Monday: Super Bowl ads that never were

Monday, February 10th, 2014

In sorting through the Super Bowl commercials that never made it to the television screen, I came to realize that these so-called “banned Super Bowl ads” fall into three categories.

There are those banned because they fall short of network and NFL standards in the eyes of the censors. There are those BANNED because they jump well over the line of acceptable family viewing. Finally, there are commercials that were never banned but are gaining attention on the Internet by just claiming to be.

In most cases, excess sexual innuendo or too much bare skin will result in a rejection notice, but there are lots of other reasons for banning commercials, as we shall see.

Under our water-related theme, a banned commercial for Dream Water (video player) is creative, but it should come with a warning for young viewers.

The original Super Bowl commercial for Soda Stream, featuring Scarlett Johansson, included the line “Sorry, Coke and Pepsi,” which Fox network officials required to be dropped. USA Today has the story.

In last year’s Super Bowl, the approach by Soda Stream was far more entertaining, but it took on Coke and Pepsi in a much stronger way. The whole ad had to be rewritten. See the original dueling soft-drink companies in 2013 along with the revised one with competitors’ names removed.

If that’s not enough controversy over soft drinks, there is also some international politics behind the company. See Sara Stroup’s explanation in Huffington Post.

Other commercials banned from the 2014 Super Bowl include those for Colorado Kush, a marijuana manufacturer, and Daniel Defense, a gun manufacturer.

A thoughtful commercial that could have inflamed the debate over the name of the Washington, D.C. football team was produced for the National Congress of American Indians.

Newcastle, a beer company, took a unique approach by outlining the epic beer commercial the company would have produced if it had money for ads. Instead, Newcastle presents a video about the story that could have been. Actress Anna Kendrick talks about how she wishes she could have been in the commercial and how she can’t even use the words “Super Bowl.”

HLG Studios, an advertising agency, made satirical would-be Super Bowl ads for Monsanto, “Picking up God’s slack;” NSA, “Smile; we know when you’re not;” and Swiffle, “Inequality sucks!”

After all this, you might prefer to watch the real Super Bowl commercials. Anthony Venutolo of The Star-Ledger in New Jersey provides all the commercials arranged by quarter in the Super Bowl. He also rates them as “the best, the worse and the odd.”


Geoduck market expands to Chinese neighbors

Sunday, February 9th, 2014

The market for geoducks harvested in Washington state has shifted from China to other Asian countries, primarily Hong Kong and Vietnam, according to certificates issued by the Washington State Department of Health.

Kitsap Sun photo

Kitsap Sun photo

We learned a week ago that the Chinese ban on imports from the U.S. West Coast will continue until Chinese health authorities better understand the U.S. system of protecting public health. See Water Ways, Feb. 4, with links to other sources of information.

The ban caused exporters to find new markets. I reported these numbers in a story published in yesterday’s Kitsap Sun (subscription):

“Health certificates issued by the Washington State Department of Health totaled 757 in January — more than double the 373 certificates issued in January 2013, when shipments were still going into China. These certificates are required to identify the shellfish-growing area and ensure that a given shipment of seafood is safe to eat.

“Of the 757 certificates issued in January, 409 designated shipments into Hong Kong, while 243 designated shipments into Vietnam. Other shipments were to Malaysia, 38; Thailand, 24; Indonesia, 8; and a number of countries with smaller shipments. Because shipments were closed off to China in January, no certificates were issued for that country.”

Wild geoduck harvesting is a multi-million industry, bringing significant revenues to businesses, tribes and state government.

Yesterday’s story, which was picked up by the Associated Press, describes how state and tribal geoduck divers appear to be on track to take their allocations of deep-water geoducks.

How many of these giant clams are getting into China illicitly and by what routes has been hard to track down. I have collected many rumors and comments on background, but I’ve been unable to verify the most provocative stories.

A new harvest year begins in April with new allocations of geoducks for the state and tribes. Meanwhile, the Department of Natural Resources has scheduled a bid opening for state geoduck tracts later this month.

It will be interesting to see how the Chinese ban on imports from the U.S. West Coast affects the price of geoducks over the coming year. So far, after a short closure when the ban was imposed, prices for wild geoducks have been holding fairly stable, according to officials involved in the market.


China maintains ban on shellfish imports

Tuesday, February 4th, 2014

Business and government officials involved in the lucrative geoduck export market got some bad news on Friday, when federal authorities released a letter they had received from the Chinese government.

Kitsap Sun photo

Kitsap Sun photo

The letter raises many questions — at least from a Chinese perspective — about how the U.S. regulatory system protects public health. The message from Chinese health authorities dashes the hopes of industry officials for a quick lifting of the Chinese ban on shellfish imports from the U.S. West Coast.

I wrote about this issue for Saturday’s Kitsap Sun (subscription). My story was picked up by the Associated Press and distributed widely. (If you don’t subscribe to the Sun, see The Columbian, Vancouver, for the AP version.)

Washington state has a proud reputation for protecting public health when it comes to shellfish, and the letter from China does little to dispel suspicions among those who think that China may have ulterior motives. After all, Chinese authorities have done nothing to limit the geographic scope of the import ban or even limit the ban to geoducks only.

A statement (PDF 114 kb) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concludes that the letter contains about 20 separate requests for information about testing and safety.

You may wish to read the the letter from China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (PDF 150 kb). As translated, the letter includes this statement:

“We don’t not have a full understanding of the US regulatory system including the definition of sea region and management, the official monitoring on PSP and heavy metals and the responsibility among the relevant government agencies, and we have not conducted an on-site evaluation neither.”

The letter says the suspension of imports may be reduced to a specific area after certain questions are answered. It calls on the U.S. to develop an action plan for evaluation and outlines a review process, including a visit by an “expert team” from China to evaluate the geoduck inspection programs.

Officials at all levels in the U.S. say they are evaluating the questions posed in the letter and preparing a coordinated response.

Previous entries in Water Ways:

Jan. 9, 2014: Geoducks test OK, but what’s behind Chinese ban?

Dec. 24, 2013: Health officials to quickly test geoducks for arsenic


Will ‘endangered’ status change Lolita’s plight?

Tuesday, January 28th, 2014

The legal stage was already set for Lolita, the last killer whale from Puget Sound to survive in captivity.

Lolita lives alone in a tank at Miami's Seaquarium. Photo courtesy of Orca Network

Lolita lives alone in a tank at Miami’s Seaquarium.
Photo courtesy of Orca Network

Putting Lolita on the Endangered Species List, along with her wild relatives who were already listed, follows a pattern established over the past decade, going back to a 2001 court ruling about salmon. Now, the National Marine Fisheries Service intends to include Lolita among the listed Southern Resident killer whales. See “Petition to list the killer whale known as Lolita….”

But what the endangered designation will mean for Lolita herself is yet to be seen and is likely to be the subject of further legal battles.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which filed the petition along with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, hailed the latest decision by NMFS. The group said in a news release that the decision “opened the door to the eventual release of Lolita.”

Jarred Goodman, who handled the case for PETA, told me that it is PETA’s belief that holding Lolita in a small tank at Miami Seaquarium constitutes “harm and harassment,” which are violations of the Endangered Species Act.

After NMFS completes changes to the listing, PETA has several options, he said, although he is not authorized to discuss specific strategies. Calling on NMFS to take action on behalf of Lolita or filing a citizen lawsuit are among them.

Nothing in the NMFS findings would change anything for Lolita, however. The bottom line is that NMFS could find no legal justification in the Endangered Species Act (PDF 147 kb) or related court decisions for separating the captive orca from wild Southern Residents when it comes to identifying which ones are at risk of extinction.

As NMFS stated in the Federal Register (PDF 273 kb):

“While the ESA authorizes the listing, delisting, or reclassification of a species, subspecies, or DPS (distinct population segment) of a vertebrate species, it does not authorize the exclusion of the members of a subset or portion of a listed species, subspecies, or DPS from a listing decision….

“The ESA does not support the exclusion of captive members from a listing based solely on their status as captive. On its face, the ESA does not treat captives differently. Rather, specific language in Section 9 and Section 10 of the ESA presumes their inclusion in the listed entity, and captives are subject to certain exemptions to Section 9.”

In other words, the original decision not to include captive killer whales in the population at risk of extinction was a mistake.

In finding that Lolita is part of the endangered population, NMFS noted that agency officials agreed with a 2001 court ruling in which a judge determined that hatchery salmon should be considered part of the salmon population at risk of extinction.

Following that logic, the NMFS included captive fish in the listing of endangered smalltooth sawfish and endangered Atlantic sturgeon. Meanwhile, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided last year that captive chimpanzees should be included among the wild population listed as endangered.

The ESA does allow captive animals to be treated differently, provided they were in captivity at the time of the listing and “that such holding and any subsequent holding or use of the fish or wildlife was not in the course of a commercial activity.”

For Lolita, NMFS has stated that continued possession of captive animals does not require a permit under ESA and that Lolita can continue to be managed under the Animal Welfare Act. (See “Questions and answers …”)

Advocates for Lolita say NMFS may not have taken a position on Lolita, given the latest findings. The notice only says that holding an endangered animal in captivity is not a violation of the ESA per se.

I’ll continue to follow the case as it moves forward. Meanwhile, here are some past of my past observations about Lolita in Water Ways:

April 24, 2013: Lolita, the captive orca, could gain endangerd status

Oct. 24, 2012: Should captive orcas be listed as ‘endangered’?

Nov. 20, 2011: Legal actions swirl around orcas Morgan and Lolita

Aug. 8, 2010: Thinking of Lolita, the captive killer whale

July 15, 2010: Lolita’s fate could become linked to Gulf disaster


Amusing Monday: Mermaids are called to the job

Monday, January 27th, 2014

Movies about mermaids — notably “Splash” and Disney’s “The Little Mermaid” — apparently inspired a bunch of little girls who wished to become mermaids themselves. For some, the feeling never went away. And for a select few, the idea of being a mermaid has grown into a full-time occupation.

Perhaps the most impressive of these professional mermaids is Mermaid Melissa, whose training and job skills include actress, animal trainer, scuba diver and professional free diver. She is able to hold her breath for more than four minutes while swimming, which adds reality to her underwater performances as a mermaid.

The first video on this page shows Melissa swimming with fishes and marine mammals. The background music gives this video a surreal quality. (It is a little longer than I would prefer.)

But if you want to learn about the journey of the girl who would become a mermaid, check out the second video, or read her brief autobiography on her website, mermaidmelissa.com. Melissa’s blog also features some interesting videos and commentary, including her decision to legally change her name to “Mermaid Melissa” at the end of last year.

A new video by singer/song writer Sean Dennison features Melissa as the subject of the song “Mermaid.” Click on the last video at the bottom of this page.

Other professional mermaids, all with their own interesting stories, include:

And if those are not enough mermaids for you, check out MerPalooza, the international mermaid convention held the past two years in Tampa.


Available on Kindle

Subscribe2

Follow WaterWatching on Twitter

Food for thought

"In the end, we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught."Baba Dioum, Senegalese conservationist

Archives

Categories