Spanking-New Waterproof Coral ID Guide

Daddy likes! Thanks to a post by my friends over at Climate Shifts, I learned of a new ID guide to Indo-Pacific corals. The Coral Finder by BYO Guides is a practical, photo-driven (and best of all waterproof!) tool that makes quick work of keying-out the confusing Indo-Pacific coral diversity.

Corals in general can be maddening to field identify, even if you spend a lot of time diving on reefs. And the Indo-Pacific is home to the greatest coral diversity on the planet (over 500 species of hard coral by some counts). Sure, there are some excellent resources for identifying corals, like the three-volume Corals of the World. But these heavy volumes are expensive, a pain in the ass to haul around the world, and you always have to delay gratification in identifying mystery corals until you're topside and dry. By then, all I want to ID is a cold beer.

The 32-page Coral Finder appears to allow for rapid in situ identification of 66 of the most common hard coral genera found throughout the Indo-Pacific range. The guide breaks hard corals down into just a handful of relatively jargon-free common morphologies: branching, meandering ridges or grooves, massive or thick colonies, etc. Once you decide on a basic external anatomy and approximate size of individual coral structures, you flip to the corresponding color-coded section for a collection of genus-level corals that match this anatomy.

Granted, genus-level identification will only get you so far, considering that Acropora corals alone have over 300 identified species. But the Coral Finder doesn't leave you hanging. Once you get down to genus-level ID, the guide includes a reference to the chapter and page in Corals of the World where you can research possible species-level identification. The authors claim to get excellent and rapid results anywhere between the Red Sea and Easter Island. Bold claim, but they seem to back it up with results from their field tests in Fiji.

My one question is whether color-coding of sections might be problematic beyond 33 feet of water depth on a not particularly sunny day in the field. Beyond 33 feet, red wavelenghs of light are filtered out so red colors appear brown (or black). I presume the most common genera addressed in the guide are those that appear near the top of reefs or in relatively shallow water, so perhaps this is a moot point.

I see The Coral Finder becoming an indispensable new tool that will help in field monitoring and identification of Indo-Pacific reefs by citizen science teams or by students to build rapid familiarity with coral diversity. Recreational divers and snorkelers would also benefit from this tool. You can bet I'll be ordering a few of these for my field staff, and also taking one for a test drive on my next trip to the Pacific for field work.

The 3rd, Maybe-Annual, MBSL&S Spring Ocean Egg Hunt

Another year, another transit around the sun, and yes faithful readers, another chance at glory with The 3rd, Maybe-Annual, MBSL&S Spring Ocean Egg Hunt. I've been delighted to offer this little puzzler each year and even more delighted that readers go all out with a little healthy competition.

The rules are simple: Accurately identify the 12 ocean animal eggs pictured above (click on image to enlarge it). I've continued to ramp-up the difficulty. I'm looking for species-level identification where possible. Just answering "fish" won't cut it.

And to all you smarty-pants types who would be quick to squash the fun, Yes, I know, some of these are "egg cases" or embryos and not strictly eggs. And some may just be egg-like. But lighten up! It's just a game.

The first person to accurately identify all 12 eggs will receive a fantastic NEW PRIZE this year: the very first Maybe-Annual MBSL&S Spring Ocean Egg Hunt Trophy! Seriously! No Some expenses have been spared to produce this coveted award. It may not be the Ti-Wizard's Cup, but it's gonna look great on your mantle!

There will also be a few surprise additional prizes. How cool is that?!

In the event of photo-finish ties (or if I'm simply feeling generous) there may be runners-up prizes too! Good luck, have fun, and may the best oophile win!

It's The Little Things

FU, Ocean

Forget Fuck You, Penguin. When the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) wraps up its 15th triennial Conference of the Parties (COP 15) in Doha, Qatar, tomorrow, it will go down as one big middle finger to ocean health.

Andrew over on Southern Fried Science has a running tally of COP 15 marine conservation outcomes. Other than the addition of CITES II listing for Porbeagle sharks, [Update 3/25/10 OVERTURNED] Ocean species (including critically endangered Atlantic Bluefin tuna) got the shaft. While procedure allows for the possibility of an 11th hour intervention by third party delegates who can petition for reopening discussion on any of the previous decisions, it look as though the fat lady has sung.

A lot of analysis is sure to be written on the total ocean conservation fail at COP 15. I'm looking forward to hearing from several colleagues who were in attendance. But I thought it might be worth examining the CITES process.

How Do Species Get on a CITES Appendix?
At each COP, the 175-nations (or Parties) submit proposals to list species on the Appendices, remove species from the Appendices, or transfer species from one Appendix to another. Species proposals are discussed and either passed or defeated by consensus or voted upon. Each Party gets one vote. It takes two-thirds of the Parties present and voting to pass a species proposal.

Decisions to propose CITES listing is based on the best available scientific evidence on species biomass, distribution, genomics, ecological connectivity, and known threats and vulnerability to commercial trade. Consideration for CITES listing is, by mandate, to include species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival:

CITES RESOLVES that, when considering proposals to amend Appendix I or II, the Parties shall, by virtue of the precautionary approach and in case of uncertainty either as regards the status of a species or the impact of trade on the conservation of a species, act in the best interest of the conservation of the species concerned and adopt measures that are proportionate to the anticipated risks to the species.

What About This Secret Ballot I Keep Hearing About?
Parties may request a secret ballot to vote on proposals; this often happens on proposals that are highly controversial. At COP 15, the secret ballot was invoked for proposals on CITES listings for tuna, sharks, polar bears, and deep water corals. Secret ballots prevent others from knowing how a delegate from a Party has voted; secret ballots allow a delegate to cast a vote but not be held accountable to his or her government or the people he or she represents.

Currently, it takes only eleven Parties to support a proposal to hold a secret ballot. During the COP 12 meeting, Chile, supported by Australia and the US, proposed that the vote on the secret ballot motion be decided by one-third of the Parties to encourage accountability and transparency. However, South Africa, Namibia, Guinea, China, Cuba and Antigua and Barbuda opposed the revision, stating that secret ballots allow Parties to vote freely. Denmark, on behalf of the EU, proposed that the Standing Committee should examine existing rules of procedures and practices of the use of secret ballots in comparable international processes.

Why Is A Secret Ballot Invoked?
The answer depends on who you ask. Since this is my blog, I'll offer my own perspective. Secret ballots are typically employed to eliminate risks of coercion. We're familiar with examples of hard coercion, where somebody issues a direct threat to a voter. "Nice kneecaps you have there ... be a shame if something unfortunate should happen to them."

But coercion doesn't always have to involve threats, it can also be bought. In this case, secret ballots can insulate against easy detection of vote buying. For example, Japan was accused of vote buying prior to the 2008 International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting after it hosted seminars on the sustainable use of whales that was attended by 12 African and Asian countries - including landlocked Laos - that had recently joined the IWC or were considering doing so. While difficult to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is a strong link between the votes for Japan in support of commercial whaling and the aid money some IWC members have received in either international development funds or fisheries subsidies.

What Do CITES Deliberations Look Like?
See for yourself. Below is a redacted section from the COP 15 meeting summary documents (CoP 15 Com. I Rec. 10) that focuses on discussions for the defeated proposal seeking inclusion of red and pink deep water corals (Coralliidae) under CITES II listing. You can review any of the COP 15 summary documents here.

The United States introduced proposal CoP15 Prop. 21 for the inclusion of all species of Coralliidae in Appendix II, highlighting the need for sustainable management of the populations of the species involved in trade. They referred to the development of an identification manual for precious corals and related species, which should be published in 2010.

Tunisia, supported by Morocco, opposed the proposal, reporting that they had made considerable efforts to protect the species in their country and had various laws to conserve their extensive marine resources. They considered that adequate controls were already in place and that the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) was a more appropriate management body. They thought that listing in Appendix II would have negative effects on the conservation of the species, and concluded that, if a vote was taken on the issue, it should be by secret ballot.

Japan also opposed the proposal for several reasons: a) declines in amounts landed did not reflect declines in biomass but were related to economic factors; b) coral fishing in Japan was strictly controlled; c) there were substantial populations of Coralliidae outside of the known fishing areas, contrary to the proposal; d) none of the species was included in the IUCN Red List; e) they had developed new management measures in 2008, which they were currently implementing; f) they were concerned that the livelihood of traditional coral fishermen would be affected; and g) they believed that, if the precious corals were to be listed, consumers would think that buying them would be environmentally unfriendly.

The representative of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reiterated the view of their Expert Advisory Panel that the taxon did not fulfil the criteria for listing in Appendix II, adding that they had not reviewed additional information provided by the United States during the meeting. They noted that corals could face additional risks in the future from new fishing areas, particularly in vulnerable and ecologically important areas such as seamounts. Iceland, Indonesia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Singapore and Vanuatu all spoke against the proposal, with Malaysia referring to implementation problems relating to identification of specimens and control of pre-Convention specimens. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya agreed with Tunisia that the GFCM was the most appropriate management body for precious corals, urged the Parties to allow them more time to study populations of the species and emphasized the need to consider the socio-economic repercussions on local people.

Croatia, supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United Arab Emirates, spoke in favour of the proposal, describing the extreme threats to the populations in their territory. Contrary to other speakers, the Islamic Republic of Iran, supported by SeaWeb, felt that, unless the proposal was accepted, both the continued trade in precious corals and the livelihood of the people involved would be in doubt. Spain, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, also supported the proposal, referring to the longevity and slow growth of precious corals, which should be taken into consideration; the massive decline in landings since the 1980s; and that deep water stocks were likely to experience declines unless harvesting was regulated. SeaWeb, in a statement endorsed by the Pew Environment Group, questioned the FAO conclusions, explaining that it was difficult to apply the existing criteria to corals; they considered that the collection method for precious coral should be described as mining, rather than fishing or harvesting, because there was no renewal of the resource. They concluded by noting the relevance to this issue of an International Coral Reef Initiative recommendation on trade in corals, contained in document CoP15 Inf. 42.

The United States responded to the concerns raised by previous speakers, reiterated the particular vulnerability of precious corals, and showed their commitment to working with exporting range States by providing capacity-building support, and financial assistance for a workshop on species identification and the making of non-detriment findings.

The Chair noted that more than 10 Parties supported the request of Tunisia for a secret ballot and the proposal was then put to a vote by secret ballot. The result of the vote was 64 in favour, 59 against with 10 abstentions. The proposal was thus rejected. The United States withdrew document CoP15 Doc. 54.

Me, Me, Me...

As much as I hate tooting my own horn, I've been remiss to pass along a few interesting tidbits I've been involved in over the past few months. I'm much more comfortable in advancing an issue rather than drawing attention to myself, but it's nice to also get a little nod now and then for hard work and results.

First up, my undergrad alumni magazine, The Bridge published by Roger Williams University, invited me to contribute to a story they were writing on coral reef conservation. I guess I was an easy pick since I allowed them to check off two boxes at the same time: alumni and coral reef conservationist. Bonus!

What began as just a feature story eventually turned into the cover story. But honestly, with such vivid visuals as coral reefs why shouldn't it make the cover. I think I got some important points across relative to both the urgency of the coral reef crisis, as well as some of the complexity of coral reef conservation. You can be the judge. Just a heads up that the interface for reading the story online is a little annoying.

Second, I've recently been invited to write a few book reviews by the editors of American Scientist, the bimonthly magazine of science and technology published by Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society. My first review of the new book, Seasick: Ocean Change and the Extinction of Life on Earth, is available online. I have a few other reviews in the pipeline and will keep y'all posted.

End of self aggrandizing transmission!

What's A Queer Ocean Conservationist To Do?

This has been a particularly shitty week for ocean conservation and human rights.

In Doha, Qatar, the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, was discussing new proposals on regulating the trade in threatened shark species (almost exclusively targeted only for their fins for use in soup), an all-out ban on the export of seriously endangered Atlantic bluefin tuna, banning trade in polar bear skins and body parts (mostly used in Asian traditional remedies), and a bid to regulate the trade in red and pink deep-water corals (almost exclusively used in jewelry). As of this writing, plans to include CITES protections for sharks, tuna, and polar bears were defeated. A motion to reintroduce plans for CITES protections for red and pink coral (a 2007 CITES motion was rejected in the 11th hour) have yet to be made, but I suspect it too will face stiff opposition from coral-harvesting nations.

In this same week, Lt. Dan Choi, an American infantry officer in the United States Army who has served in combat in the Iraq war yet is facing discharge under the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy following his publicly coming out in March 2009, was arrested on March 18th after he and a fellow infantry officer, Capt. Jim Pietrangelo, handcuffed themselves to the White House fence. Choi founded the West Point GLBT group Knights Out and has been a prominent voice in the push to repeal the ban.

What do endangered marine species and gay rights have in common? Me, for starters. But I'm also beginning to think there may be some important lessons we can learn and share across these seemingly unrelated issues.

This week has been particularly punishing in regards to morale as both a conservationist and a queer man. Millions of dollars and untold hours are spent by governments and conservation organizations to develop plans to effectively manage marine species, only to see biodiversity and all the valuable ecosystem services we derive from it trumped by short-term economic interests. And decades of incremental "wins" that have been granted by the majority to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community lead to the seemingly final offer of, "Take it or leave it" by our Federal government and Commander in Chief with regard to the glacial pace in repealing DADT (all while GLBT soldiers are required to continue honorably serving this country while not remaining true to themselves).

How am I supposed to muster hope?

I've been reading the many (and growing) analyses of "What went wrong?" from both the biodiversity and the gay rights camps. And if my blood pressure wasn't already elevated from the week's bad news, I'm certainly flirting with a mild stroke from all the lofty-sounding promises for follow-up, "next time," and assorted armchair hand-wringing.

NOAA immediately updated its website as to the significant loss on blue fin tuna, yet promises that, "The U.S. is strongly committed to protecting the bluefin tuna and restoring the health of the fishery for the benefit of all nations." However with this defeat, there is the very strong likelihood that blue fin tuna will become extinct under NOAA's "strong commitment."

The Economist calls CITES decision on bluefin tuna dishonorable. Perhaps most heart-wrenching, they describe how the night before the defeat of a complete ban on international trade in the severely endangered species, a reception at the Japanese embassy prominently featured bluefin tuna sushi on the menu.

Now THAT'S some serious cajones!

Seriously, it's the oceanic equivalent of serving panda or tiger, yet CITES delegates no doubt filled their plates. (For a deeper dive into our collective inability to see seafood as wildlife, check out my colleague Jennifer Jacquet's thoughts on the subject.)

As for commentary from the ocean science blogosphere, Jennifer Jacquet on the Guilty Planet blog has weighed-in, as has David Shiffman on Southern Fried Science, John Bruno over on Climate Shifts, and Carl Safina has posted his thoughts on the bluefin tuna defeat on Facebook.

And Lt. Dan Choi's arrest is being similarly dissected. The Edge has done an adequate job at distilling the sequence of events leading-up to Lt. Choi's arrest. And Queerty has also provided their analysis. Admittedly, we will learn more about Lt. Choi's motives once some of the dust settles and we can sort through a lot of the he said/she said.

But curiously, most of the commentary thus far seems not to be coming from mainstream news outlets but from the GLBT community itself, with breathy online ponderings of, What does this mean? The GLBT community has embraced Lt. Choi's passionate, committed, and (up till now) reasonably polite approach to advancing the cause. But now that he has raised the stakes through civil disobedience, many armchair supporters have leapt to question his motives and strategy.

Stampp Corbin of the online queer news outlet GLTN, thinks Lt. Choi has shown himself to be more Hanoi Jane (Fonda) than a modern day Rosa Parks. Interestingly, most of his worry seems to focus on potential backlash on the GLBT community now that Lt. Choi chose to get all uppity, "The Choi protest also may raise the ranker [sic] of senior military officials and congress members who were leaning our way. Protesting in military uniform was not only inappropriate, but detrimental to our cause."

Over on HuffPo, Rob Smith, asks whether Lt. Choi may have Jumped the Shark with his act of civil disobedience,

"Let me be quite clear about one thing: what Dan Choi did yesterday was of questionable sincerity, most likely intricately plotted as to gain the most amount of press and attention, and undoubtedly will dominate the conversation going into the next Don't Ask, Don't Tell news cycle. It's big, over the top, political theater of the type that is destined to get tongues wagging about the issue once again and will definitely secure Lt. Choi's place as a major figure in gay activism. What it won't secure, however, is the title and rank that his entire public career thus far has been about retaining, which is why the behavior is simultaneously inspiring and baffling."

Well, now let me be clear about one thing, Mr Smith: Go fuck yourself, you bloviating horses ass.

You yourself admit that Lt. Choi's actions seem to hearken back to an era of gay rights, "that I've never really experienced." Well allow me to share some first-hand experiences. As a former Act Up member, Queer Nation noise-maker, and the proud founder of the short-lived gay rights group FUQ ME (Fed-Up Queers in Maine), I've recognized that there's a time for civil sitting around the table to discuss human rights and there's most certainly a time to disobediently make some noise. When we can't see assurances of achieving (or seeing progress towards) the former, it's sometimes appropriate to unleash the latter.

Yes, sometimes it takes an act of disobedience to get that seat at the table and to remind the majority that we're still waiting for our rights. And I am 100% in support of Lt. Choi's decision to raise the stakes of his fight, given that President Obama seems to once again need the reminder of promises he made not just on the campaign trail, but to the nation.

Or don't listen to me. Do your own homework on leaders such as Michelangelo Signorile or Larry Kramer who have been there, done that.

For both Stampp Corbin and Rob Smith as gay African Americans to NOT see Lt. Choi's civil disobedience as playing an important galvanizing role in the debate is startling. I ask them, what minorities were ever handed their civil rights on a silver platter without having to demand them loudly?

Perhaps we have all forgotten what activism sometimes needs to look like. We live in a time when the internet and new social networking outlets have turned noisy, physical activism into point and click slactivism. We have new generations of environmentalists and queers who never had to march, never had to mobilize, never had to experience personal inconveniences or loss of liberties to move the ball along in either endeavor. Perhaps that's why direct environmental action from groups such as Sea Shepherd Conservation Society seem so raw and aggressive. It only does because by comparison, groups like Greenpeace have become so mild-mannered. Yet it takes an episode from South Park to remind us that Sea Shepherd is actually doing a lot of nothing.

By the same token, the GLBT community has become equally passive and accommodating. We organize and get agitated only when it's too late, or when the hard fought "wins" are taken away.

I'm not sure what I'm calling for here, as I'm mostly just simultaneously hurt and incensed following a week of incredibly hard news. But I do believe, with all my heart, that for us to achieve anything meaningful in either ocean conservation or human rights, it's going to take personal actions–both obedient and disobedient. To quote Lt. Dan Choi, "Hope alone is not a strategy."