Saving the Vaquita: Immediate Action, Not More Data

The recent likely extinction of the baiji (Chinese river dolphin [Lipotes vexillifer]) (Turvey et al. 2007) makes the vaquita (Gulf of California porpoise [Phocoena sinus]) the most endangered cetacean. The vaquita has the smallest range of any porpoise, dolphin, or whale and, like the baiji, has long been threatened primarily by accidental deaths in fishing gear (bycatch) (Rojas-Bracho et al. 2006). Despite repeated recommendations from scientific bodies and conservation organizations, no effective actions have been taken to remove nets from the vaquita’s environment. Here, we address three questions that are important to vaquita conservation: (1) How many vaquitas remain? (2) How much time is left to find a solution to the bycatch problem? and (3) Are further abundance surveys or bycatch estimates needed to justify the immediate removal of all entangling nets from the range of the vaquita? Our answers are, in short: (1) there are about 150 vaquitas left, (2) there are at most 2 years within which to find a solution, and (3) further abundance surveys or bycatch estimates are not needed. The answers to the first two questions make clear that action is needed now, whereas the answer to the last question removes the excuse of uncertainty as a delay tactic. Herein we explain our reasoning.

The whaling issue: Conservation, confusion, and casuistry

Morishita’s “multiple analysis”of the whaling issue [Morishita J. Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: Understanding the dispute by a matrix. Marine Policy 2006;30:802–8] is essentially a restatement of the Government of Japan’s whaling policy, which confuses the issue through selective use of data, unsubstantiated facts, and the vilification of opposing perspectives. Here, we deconstruct the major problems with Morishita’s article and provide an alternative view of the whaling dispute. For many people in this debate, the issue is not that some whales are not abundant, but that the whaling industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself or to honestly assess the status of potentially exploitable populations. This suspicion has its origin in Japan’s poor use of science, its often implausible stock assessments, its insistence that culling is an appropriate way to manage marine mammal populations, and its relatively recent falsification of whaling and fisheries catch data combined with a refusal to accept true transparency in catch and market monitoring. Japanese policy on whaling cannot be viewed in isolation, but is part of a larger framework involving a perceived right to secure unlimited access to global marine resources. Whaling is inextricably tied to the international fisheries agreements on which Japan is strongly dependent; thus, concessions made at the IWC would have potentially serious ramifications in other fora.