Harbor seals might be called “pooch vitamin” and gray whales
“scratchiest robot” — or at least those are a couple of the wacky
names I derived with the help of spell-checking software.
“Pooch vitamin” for harbor
seal
Photo: Meegan Reid, Kitsap Sun
Scientific names don’t normally give me much of a problem —
primarily because I don’t use them all that much. If I’m writing an
article about an animal or plant, I sometimes include the
scientific name for the sake of precision, since some species are
called by different things in other parts of the world.
I don’t know how to pronounce most scientific names, and I
almost always need to double-check the spellings. As Sloan
Tomlinson of Entomology Uncensored
points out, auto-correct is no friend of scientists stuck with
using proper taxonomic names.
It’s always been troubling to me that the Southern Resident
killer whales, which frequent Puget Sound, have struggled to
maintain their population, while other fish-eating resident orcas
seem to be doing much better.
Killer whale chases a chinook
salmon
Photo: John Durbin, Holly Fearnbach, Lance
Barrett-Lennard
Now several researchers have analyzed the energy needs of all
the seals, sea lions and killer whales that eat chinook salmon
along the West Coast, from California to Alaska. The study provides
a possible explanation, one that is consistent with what many
scientists have suspected all along. Here’s how I explained it in a
story written for the Encyclopedia
of Puget Sound:
“Puget Sound’s endangered killer whales are waiting at the
end of a long food line for a meal of chinook salmon — basically
the only food they really want to eat.
“Ahead of them in the line are hundreds of salmon-craving
killer whales in Alaska and British Columbia. Even farther ahead
are thousands of seals and sea lions that eat young chinook before
the fish have a chance to grow to a suitable size for
orcas.”
My story contains plenty of numbers to explain what this is all
about.
This issue of competition for food is not a simple one to
discuss or resolve. But the new paper, published in the journal
Scientific
Reports, adds an important perspective when trying to answer
the question: “Do we have too few salmon or too many marine
mammals?”
From a historical viewpoint, the answer must be that we have too
few salmon. But from a management perspective, we might have to
conclude that the ecosystem is out of balance and that we have been
restoring some marine mammal populations faster than we are
restoring the salmon that they eat.
In an intriguing study published in March in the journal
Nature Ecology & Evolution (PDF 840 kb), a group of West Coast
researchers investigated whether it is better to recover
populations of prey species first, followed by predator species, or
if it is better to recover predator species first, followed by prey
species.
Protecting predators first — which is usually the way humans do
things — may slow the growth of prey species or even trigger a
population decline, the report says. That creates a problem for
predators that specialize in that one kind of prey as well as for
those that have no access to alternative prey.
It may seem logical to rebuild the prey species first, the
authors say. But, with some exceptions, recovering prey species
first causes the combined predator and prey populations to peak at
high levels that are unsustainable in the overall ecosystem.
“In the real world,” the paper states, “transient dynamics like
these that result from eruptions of prey populations can lead to
surprising cascades of ecological interactions and complex but
often mismatched management responses.”
The authors conclude that the fastest way to restore depressed
populations is through synchronous recovery of predators and prey
by carefully rebuilding two or more populations at the same
time.
Management tactics may include culling predators even before
optimal population numbers are reached. Such actions require
careful study, as culling may produce unexpected consequences,
according to the report.
Other options include protecting multiple species within
protected geographic or marine areas or focusing on single species
by protecting select habitats or reducing human exploitation.
For Southern Resident killer whales, the question will be
whether populations of other marine mammals — particularly harbor
seals in Puget Sound —should be controlled. If so, how would people
go about doing that?
One related issue that needs more study is the effect that
transient killer whales are having on the Salish Sea population of
seals and sea lions. As the Southern Residents spend less time
searching for chinook salmon in the inland waterway, the
seal-eating transients are being spotted more and more by people
along the shores of Puget Sound.
Some studies estimate that the transients need an average of one
to two seals each day to maintain their energy needs, although we
know these whales also eat smaller sea otters and larger California
and Steller sea lions, as well as an occasional gray whale.
Are the transients culling the population of harbor seals in
Puget Sound or at least limiting their growth? Even before the
transients were showing up frequently, biologists were telling us
that the overall harbor seal population appeared to be peaking and
perhaps declining.
It would be interesting to create a future-looking computer
model that could account for populations of salmon and marine
mammals under various scenarios — including possible management
actions by humans and the ongoing predation by transient killer
whales.
If we want to keep things more natural while helping out the
Southern Residents, maybe somebody could come up with a strategy to
attract and maintain a healthy population of seal-eating transient
orcas within the Salish Sea.
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
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
“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
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.
A new calf was spotted
today in L pod. The baby, L119, is the offspring of L77,
Matia.
Photo courtesy of Jeanne Hyde via Capt. Jim
Maya
UPDATE, June 3
The Center for Whale Research has reported the apparent absence
of two additional Southern Resident killer whales as a result of an
encounter last Tuesday by center researchers Dave Ellifrit, Erin
Heydenreich and Barbara Bender.
In addition to L-112, the 3-year-old female found dead near Long
Beach in February, and J-30, a 17-year-old male who has not been
seen since December, the research team reported that two older
females appear to be missing. They are L-5, estimated at 47, and
L-12, estimated at 78. (Their ages are estimates, because the
annual census that keeps track of every birth and death began 36
years ago.)
“We will wait for a couple more good encounters with L pod
before writing them off to make sure they were not just missed,”
the researchers said in their report
of the encounter, which also includes 10 photos.
The unusual death of L-112, a young female orca apparently
killed by “blunt force trauma,” continues to fuel discussions about
what may have killed her and what should be done about it.
Kenneth Hess, a Navy public affairs officer,
posted a comment today on the recent blog entry
“Balcomb wants to know if young orca was bombed.” In his
comment, Hess repeats that the Navy did not conduct any training
with sonar, bombs or explosives in the days preceding L-112’s
death. He called it “irresponsible and inaccurate” to blame the
Navy for “blowing up” the whale.
Another new development today is an e-mail I received from Lt.
Diane Larose of the Canadian Navy, responding to my inquiry about
any explosive devices used in the days before L-112 was found dead
on Feb. 11.
Read the e-mail (PDF 16 kb) I received:
“On February 6, 2012 HMCS Ottawa was operating in the Straits of
Juan de Fuca, specifically in Constance Bank, conducting Work Ups
Training including a period of sonar use and two small under water
charges as part of an anti-submarine warfare exercise. These small
charges were used to get the ships’ company to react to a potential
threat or damage to meet the necessary training requirement.”
In talking to experts involved in the investigation, it seems
unlikely that L-112 could have been injured or killed in the Strait
of Juan de Fuca and then wash up dead on Long Beach five days
later. So the mystery continues.
In
tomorrow’s Kitsap Sun, I’m reporting that environmental groups
on both sides of the Canadian border are calling on their
respective navies to disclose all the specific activities during
the 10 days leading up to the discovery of L-112’s carcass at Long
Beach on Feb. 11. The groups also are calling for a complete
cessation of sonar use for training and testing in the Salish
Sea.
Check out three letters submitted to the navies involved,
including one from U.S. and Canadian scientists: Continue reading →
Ken Balcomb, the dean of killer whale research in the Northwest,
has looked at the evidence and believes he knows what killed L-112,
a 3-year-old female orca found along the Washington Coast in
February.
L-112 in happier times. The
3-year-old orca died in February, and her death is the subject of
an intense investigation.
Photo by Jeanne Hyde, Whale of a Porpoise (Click on image to see Jeanne's tribute
page)
When I asked Ken to explain, he provided a lot more detail and
informed me that he was calling for a law-enforcement investigation
into the whale’s death by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Why he is seeking more than a biological analysis of the death will
become clear in a moment.
What Ken is suggesting is that L-112 was killed by a bomb,
possibly dropped from an aircraft during a training event in the
Navy’s Northwest Training Range off the West Coast. His evidence is
circumstantial, but he wants some answers.
What we know for sure is that this young female orca washed up
dead at Long Beach on Feb. 11 in relatively fresh condition,
allowing a complete necropsy, including CT scans of the head and
dissections of the internal organs and head.
Joe Gaydos, a veterinarian with The SeaDoc Society who
participated in the necropsy, said the whale showed signs of “blunt
force trauma” with injury to the right and left sides of the head
and right side of the body. Blunt force trauma might be what a
human would experience if dropped from a helicopter onto soft
ground, he explained. Continue reading →
Advocates for the release of Morgan have failed in their appeal
to overturn the court ruling that transferred the young killer
whale to Loro Parque, a Spanish amusement park. An appeals court
ruled that the transfer was not unlawful. See
today’s Dutch News
“Morgan is provisionally kept in Tenerife. Fortunately, in Spain
animal protectors are attracting the fate of the orca and want to
continue our fight there. We’ll continue to monitor Morgan and we
will help where we can. And in the Netherlands we focus on the
future, to ensure that stranded cetaceans will no longer fall in
the hands of the commercial industry. The fact that the license for
the care of these animals is no longer in the name of the amusement
park Dolfinarium, but in the name of SOS Dolphin, is a good first
step.”
—–
UPDATE: Nov. 29
Morgan was loaded into a plane today and flown to her new home
in Loro Parque, an amusement park on the Spanish island of
Tenerife. The transport, which involved trucks on both ends of the
trip, was uneventful.
Toby Sterling covered the story for the Associated Press.
—– UPDATE: Nov. 21
A Dutch court ruled this morning that Morgan may be sent to live
at Loro Parque aquarium, ruling against advocates who had hoped to
reunite the young orca with her family in Norway.
In a written finding, Judge M. de Rooij said chances of the
female whale surviving in the wild were “too unsure,” according to
a report by Toby Sterling of the Associated
Press.
“Morgan can be transferred to Loro Parque for study and
education to benefit the protection or maintenance of the species,”
she was quoted as saying.
Reactions among supporters for her release are being compiled on
the Free Morgan
website.
Ingrid Visser, who helped lay the scientific groundwork for
Morgan’s release, was quoted as saying the only hope for Morgan now
now lie with the Spanish courts or the Norwegian government.
“Personally, I am devastated that after all these months of
fighting the good fight, to find that reason and science lost over
money and ulterior motives,” Visser wrote on the Free Morgan page. “Our long-term
goal of establishing laws to ever prevent an animal in need being
turned into an animal used for profit and personal gain will not
stop with Morgan’s incarceration.”
—–
Separate legal actions continue to swirl around two famous
killer whales, Morgan and Lolita.
The fate of Morgan, the orphan killer whale, lies with an
Amsterdam judge who is scheduled to decide tomorrow if the orca
should be moved permanently to an aquarium in Spain or be taken to
a coastal location where she might be reunited with her family.
said
Steve Hearn, head trainer
at Dolfinarium Harderwijk, plays with Morgan at feeding time two
weeks ago.
Associated Press photo by Peter Dejong
Morgan, estimated to be 3 to 5 years old, was rescued in poor
condition last year in the Wadden Sea and was nursed back to health
in a marine park called Harderwijk Dolfinarium. Advocates for her
release say Morgan is being commercially exploited in violation of
international law regarding marine mammals.
As for Lolita, animal-rights groups in the United States filed a
lawsuit last week regarding the killer whale captured in Puget
Sound in 1970 and kept in the Miami Seaquarium almost her entire
life.
The new lawsuit contends that Lolita should have not have been
excluded as part of the “endangered” population when the federal
government listed the Southern Residents under the Endangered
Species Act in 2005. The Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals say if Lolita is included among
the endangered orcas, it will lead to better treatment and possibly
a reunion with her relatives.
Morgan’s story
Advocates for Morgan’s release say her caretakers at the marine
park did a good job nursing her back to health, but the law
requires that every effort be made to release marine mammals after
rehabilitation is complete.
The dolphinarium filed a report saying that it is unlikely that
Morgan would be able to survive in the wild and that finding her
family was unlikely. Some experts who supported that initial report
have since changed their minds, however.
Dutch Agriculture Minister Henk Bleker sided with dolphinarium
officials, saying moving Morgan to a large tank at Loro Parque is
best under the circumstances. That decision was unchanged after the
judge ruled that the ministry must conduct its own evaluation,
independent of the dolphinarium.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals are asking that Lolita be included in the
population listed as endangered under the Endangered Species
Act.
It isn’t clear what this would accomplish, but the groups make
the point that the Endangered Species Act makes some exceptions for
listing animals kept in captivity, but the focus is on using those
animals for recovery of the listed population and does not apply to
animals kept for commercial use, the groups argue. Quoting from the
lawsuit
filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle (PDF 92 kb):
“In its final listing decision (in 2005), NMFS provided no
explanation for its decision to exclude all of the captive members
of the Southern Resident killer whale population from the listing
of that population as endangered.
“Because of its final listing decision, NMFS has excluded Lolita
from the protections of the ESA, thereby allowing her to be kept in
conditions that harm and harass her, and that would otherwise be
prohibited under the “take” prohibition of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. §
1538(a), including, but not limited to, being kept in an inadequate
tank, without companions of her own species or adequate protection
from the sun.”
The group asks the court to set aside the portion of the listing
decision that excluded Lolita from the endangered population,
because it was “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion,
and not in accordance with law.”
Morgan, the young orca rescued at sea and nursed back to health
in a Dutch marine park, will stay put in the Netherlands while an
Amsterdam judge considers her ultimate fate.
Killer whale activists around the world are thrilled that Morgan
will not be shipped this week to a marine park in the Canary
Islands of Spain, where she reportedly would become part of
SeaWorld’s corporate collection of captive orcas.
A judge in Amsterdam District Court ruled today that more
research should be done to determine whether Morgan should be set
free or stay in captivity. For now, the judge said, Morgan should
remain in Harderwijk Dolphinarium but be moved into a larger tank
with other marine mammals.
“This is a massive victory,” Wietse van der Werf of Orca
Coalition told a reporter outside the courtroom. (Read the story in
Stuff from New Zealand.) “This is the first time in history
that the export of an orca has been blocked by a judge. It exposes
the international trade among dolphinariums as a very lucrative
industry.”
The judge ruled that advocates in the case — including Orca
Coalition, Free Morgan and the dolphinarium — should work together
to find a common solution. Also the Agriculture Minister in
Holland, which last week issued a permit to move Morgan, must take
more responsibility in deciding the future of the whale and not
abdicate his decisions to the dolphinarium, according to the
judge.
A statement from Orca Coalition includes
this comment from van der Werf:
“Of course the fact that she now remains in the Dolphinarium for
the short term is not ideal and it is definitely not a solution.
But as she is temporarily moved to a larger tank and we continue to
fight for her freedom, this really is an important first step in
the right direction.
“It is clear that the judge saw a lot of dubious things in the
Dolphinarium’s plans, and his ruling now opens the door to the
possibilities of release. The decision today is definitely an
unprecendented one and puts a spanner in the works for the ongoing
lucrative and illegal trade in these magnificent animals.”
Moving Morgan to the larger tank will allow her to socialize
with dolphins that she has heard from a distance.
According to a report by Jason Garcia of the
Orlando Sentinel, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment was behind the
proposed move to Loro Parque on the Canary Island of Tenerife,
where five other SeaWorld-owned killer whales are on display. Many
killer whale advocates assert that SeaWorld is eager to obtain
Morgan for breeding purposes.
A plan
to release the whale (PDF 552 kb) was developed by a group of
killer whale supporters, including Ken Balcomb of the Center for
Whale Research and Robin Baird of Cascadia Research, both in Puget
Sound. The idea would be to place her in a good-sized sea pen,
where she would be trained to follow a boat and respond to acoustic
signals. Morgan could then be released with observers nearby to see
how she responds to other killer whales.
On the other side of the argument is a report
(PDF 1.6 mb) from seven killer whale experts who said Morgan
was not a good candidate for release, because:
She had already imprinted on humans and probably would approach
boats, which would create a hazard,
She may lack the appropriate hunting skills,
There may be a reason, psychologically or socially, that she
became separated from her pod, and
Returning her to her home region would be difficult challenge
because of rough winds and waters.
For background on this story, see my previous entries in
Water Ways:
Killer whales of the Salish Sea and Puget Sound returned to the
San Juan Islands with a newborn calf yesterday, as I described in a
story for
tomorrow’s Kitsap Sun.
The newborn orca, K-44, was
photographed with his mother in Haro Strait in the San Juan
Islands.
Photo: Center for Whale Research
While J pod and portions of K and L pods have been seen in
inland waters lately, the major portion of K and L pods have not
been around for weeks.
I was ready in early June to write about their return, because
that is often when they arrive in Washington state to spend much of
the summer. On Tuesday of this week, when L pod was reported off
the West Coast of Vancouver Island, I began checking with marine
mammal and salmon experts to find out what might be keeping the
orcas away.
I was getting ready to write something about the missing orcas
and their search for chinook salmon when they suddenly showed up
with the new baby. I will save some ideas about the orca-salmon
connection until I can put my thoughts into a coherent form. For
now, it’s good to celebrate the arrival of the newborn with no
apparent deaths among the orcas seen so far.
Of course, nobody knows how long they will stay or where they
will travel over the next few months before heading into Central
and South Puget Sound in the fall.
The new baby, designated K-44, is one the youngest calves ever
identified by gender. (He’s a boy.) Frequently, months or even
years will go by before researchers get a good look or photograph
of their undersides. Check out diagram at Center for
Whale Research (click on “Questions & Answers”) to see how you
can tell males from females.
In a most unlikely accident, a 30-foot humpback whale breached
out of the water during a sailboat race in the Pacific Ocean
Thursday, snapping off the mast of L’Orca, one of boats in the
race.
A breaching humpback whale
crashed into this sailboat, L'Orca, breaking off the mast and
leaving other damage.
Associated Press photo
Then the whale was gone, leaving behind only bits of scraped-off
skin and blubber, a broken mast and some messed up rigging. The
boat could not continue in the Oregon International Offshore
Race.
The accident occurred about 30 minutes into the race, which
began at 9 a.m. at Buoy 2 near Astoria, Ore., with a destination of
Victoria, B.C.
Ryan Barnes, son of boat owner Jerry Barnes of Sandy, Ore.,
provided this account to U.S. Coast Guard officials in a video
posted by the Daily Astorian:
“Our boat speed was about 9 knots over the water. All of a
sudden, a few inches or a foot maybe off the starboard side, a
whale came breaching out of the water … hit the mast about halfway
to three-quarters of the way up and proceeded to fall forward off
the starboard side of the boat.
“The mast came down as well as the forestay and all the rigging,
and our toe rail and all our lifelines on the starboard side of the
boat were demolished as well. No crew was injured. The crew was all
in the cockpit at the time.”
After the whale was gone, the crew came out on deck and cleared
the lines and other hazards. Other boats in the race came to assist
before the Coast Guard arrived to provide assistance to Astoria.
The Coast Guard video
also shows the damage to the boat and bits of blubber left
behind.
The incident sounds similar to a whale-boat encounter last
summer off South Africa, when a southern right whale crashed into a
sailboat. In a video by CBS
News, technicians were able to slightly enhance the original
video taken from another boat. Here’s an interview
on The Today Show with the boat’s occupants.
