Riding Manatees, or, living with Endangered Species (Sea Turtles: Part II)

So, this post was supposed to be about sea turtles until I became completely upset about that fact that people will not, apparently against all better judgement, STOP RIDING MANATEES! They won't stop and it is upsetting me horribly.

In February of this year, The Daily Show broke the story that Tea Party members in Florida were fighting for the right for people to ride manatees after Anna Gutierrez was caught in photos trying to ride one in Fort De Soto Park. According to Tea Partiers, everyone should be able to ride manatees; it's our God-given constitutional right and no one should interfere (make of that what you will and watch this ridiculous video which may sway you that it's a stupid argument).

When I heard the story about Gutierrez in October, I was really confused. Manatees are not an animal that I see and think, "that must be an awesome thing to ride." In fact, they look proficient at very few things, including swimming, and seem to only have floating down as a form of mobility. In truth, I'm as confused about manatee riding as I am about the sea turtle riding I wrote about in my last post. But, people keep doing it. Some people are even belly flopping onto manatees from piers. Why? Because it's Florida and seriously, craziness shakes south (Think Texas or Antarctica)

Does this look like something you would want to ride? Take note of the tiny appendages and the obvious delight it takes in floating. 

My rage at manatee-riding fits nicely into the post I already had planned about living with endangered species, a topic I've been thinking about quite a bit lately. Alison Reiser's book examines the debate over ways to save the green turtle. According to Reiser, Archie Carr and other activists and scientists believed that the best way to save the species was to have it placed on the endangered species list, so that it would be illegal to sell, trade, transport, or purchase pieces of the organism in the United States. While Carr knew that other steps had to be taken to ensure the survival of the species, especially protecting nesting grounds, he felt that stopping all trade in the turtles was the best path. The other alternative, farming green turtles to supply the market with sustainable products from the species (including meat and shell) was deemed too risky, mostly because of the difficulties with getting these organisms to breed in captivity.  Reiser's work raises some questions about this debate (farming versus protecting as endangered species) but, in my opinion, farming remains an unconvincing avenue because of the difficulty of breeding green turtles in captivity. If you always have to collect turtle eggs from wild sources, are you really going to be able to grow the species in any appreciably manner? There's room for debate, but that's not necessarily what this post is about.

Instead, after reading Reiser's work I came across the manatee business listed above, and then a couple news articles that really made me think about the impact of endangered species conservation on human-nature interactions.

There are a lot of reasons that an animal might become threatened or endangered. In the case of the green turtle, it's tastiness (we'll call this over harvesting). Turtles, bison, passenger pigeons, many many other animals have been over harvested as a commodity, be it food or fashion.

Recently, sea turtles have been back in the news. In early June, Jairo Maro Sandoval was murdered by drug traffickers in Costa Rica while patrolling a beach for sea turtle nests. Maro Sandoval had previously called attention to the link between drug trafficking and turtle endangerment- the same beaches used by nesting turtles are also used by drug smugglers. In addition, it seems that many drug cartels with access to these beaches are poaching turtle eggs to trade for drugs. The ivory trade has been linked to larger networks of terrorism, illegal firearms dealing, drug and human trafficking. Last year, six Kenyan Wildlife Services Rangers were killed by poachers for trying to protect endangered elephants and rhinos.

The intersection of poaching and other illegal activities has caused a crisis, not just for endangered species, but also in the environmentalist community- where deaths of conservationists is on the rise. Below is the chart for the number of environmentalists killed in 2002-11 (see how they compiled the data here).  Animals are still over harvested for commodities. The combination of violent drug cartels, illegal poaching, and a concerned international community of environmentalists has caused a rise in violence.

Another route to extinction is human encroachment upon habitat. In some ways, this is probably the most overarching of the problems. The manatee falls into this category- as do many species, especially plants, that occupy a niche ecosystem and don't evolve quickly enough to combat human interaction, introduced species, or other results of human habitation. Manatees can't get away from boats and they have a very limited range in which to feed and breed- a range that is now inhabited by the dreaded power boat and screaming children. Hence, decline.

The Florida panther is an animal that struggles to co-exist with humans. Most of the deaths of panthers can be linked to automobile accidents. As of April 29, 2013, 6 panthers have been fatally struck by cars in Florida, and the number will rise throughout the summer season. Efforts have been made to build wildlife corridors that will allow panthers to range broadly without encountering humans (or where humans will know to be cautious) but more corridors are needed. The car is not the only danger for Florida wildlife. A highly endangered key deer was found last week on Big Pine Key with its head caught in a Doritos bag. Luckily, a sheriff's deputy saw the deer and removed the bag, but the detritus of human habitation directly effects animals. No need to bellyflop on the deer (although I'm sure someone in Florida has tried- see above statement about insanity shaking south).

But there is another form of extinction that links these two- endangerment due to human intended decline. Let's face it- when we think about extinction, we'd rather think about these other two forms- humans needed food or they just didn't know better. But there is a more pointed form of animal extinction and it usually involves predators that feed on animals we find tasty. Mark Barrow has written about the systematic killing of raptors by Europeans because they were considered unwanted pests that killed the beautiful and yummy birds we wanted around. Other animals, including wolves, big cats, and pennipeds (seals, sea lions, etc) have all been targeted by human ranchers, fishermen, and farmers as nuisance predators that literally take food out of human mouths.

It's easy to think that humans might have outgrown this ridiculous stage of over killing large predators. It makes sense in some respect that a rancher would protect their cattle by shooting a single predator that has found a tasty hunting ground, but merely killing animals because they are of a predatory species doesn't make much sense. We understand, right, how important these creatures are to a healthy ecosystem? But it's clear that humanity hasn't outgrown the inclination to kill "pest" species and this has made the news lately.

In an interesting article in the New York Times Magazine entitled "Who Would Kill a Monk Seal" Jon Mooallem looks at a spat of recent monk seal killings in Hawaii. In a previous post, I talked about the Hawaiian monk seal and the lengths that are being taken to preserve this species. Since 2009, several monk seals have been viciously killed- beaten to death or shot. But no one has come forward regarding these killings, even though there is a sizable reward involved. But why would someone kill a monk seal?

Protection of the monk seal has changed the environment of the Hawaiian islands- not just for the seals but for humans. When endangered animals move back into human populated areas, human use of those areas can be changed- fishing rights might be revoked, access to resources decreased for humans and increased for the seals; even beach goers have to monitor their activities so as not to startle monk seals that may be nesting on the beach. This protection of nature is seen as coddling by many human inhabitants of the islands- if an animal cannot survive on its own, it should not survive. But, it is also seen as inherently unfair to the human population and the protection of these animals has lead to violent episodes against endangered species. Mooallem highlights the bizarre overkill of endangered species throughout the United States. Check out the horrible list of killings:

In North Carolina, for example, hundreds of brown pelicans have recently been washing ashore dead with broken wings. The birds, nearly wiped out by DDT in the 1970s, are now plentiful and often become semi-tame; they’re known to land on fishing boats and swipe at the catch. One theory is that irritated fishermen are simply reaching out and cracking their wings in half with their hands. In March, in Florida, someone shoved a pelican’s head through a beer can.

Around the country, at any given time, small towers of reward money sit waiting for whistle-blowers to come forward. This winter four bald eagles were gunned down and left floating in a Washington lake (reward: $20,250); three were shot in Mississippi ($7,500); and two in Arkansas ($3,500). Someone drove through a flock of dunlins — brittle-legged little shorebirds — on a beach in Washington, killing 93 of them ($5,500). In Arizona, a javelina, a piglike mammal, was shot and dragged down a street with an extension cord strung through its mouth ($500), and in North Carolina, 8 of only 100 red wolves left in the wild were shot within a few weeks around Christmas ($2,500). Seven dolphins died suspiciously on the Gulf Coast last year; one was found with a screwdriver in its head ($10,000). Sometimes, these incidents are just “thrill kills” — fits of ugliness without logic or meaning. But often they read as retaliation, a disturbing corollary to how successful the conservation of those animals has been.

It's clear that some animals, especially predators, are considered more dangerous than other endangered species. The debate over legal wolf hunting seasons has escalated in the last few years- spreading from the west to Wisconsin and the midwest. In an article today in the Times, Guy Gugliotta reports that the spread of large cats has caused less problem than wolves, possibly because cats scare easier or perhaps because a larger cultural stereotype of wolves (which they consider vermin and disposable).

Regardless of cultural perception of certain species over others, the reintroduction and success of certain  endangered species has hit an unexpected roadblock: What happens when you successfully bring back a population of animals that might not be able to co-exist with humans? In Mooallem's article, he raises an interesting point. While it is scientifically proven that these animals were part of the food chain and the environment before they started to decline, they are not perceived by the humans inhabiting the area now as being part of the natural landscape. They are perceived as dangerous interlopers.  Instead of seeing these organisms as a triumph of human action and science, they are seen as soaking up human resources and changing an environment that can and does exist without them. And in a sense, it's hard to argue with this reasoning: if you've lived your entire life in the same spot and never seen a bear in your neighborhood, is it going to seem very natural to see a grizzly strolling down your street?

Environmental Historians have often struggled with the problem of how humans perceive "wilderness." It's a question that has been asked consistently in the field. Something to add to this is the question that seems to come from reintroduction of species: how important is the lived experience of environment to the conception of "nature" and "wilderness?" And how does this lived experience limit certain aspects of conservation and environmentalism? While we might be able to scientifically save species, will the culture developed around their absence allow them to be reintroduced and thrive next to human populations?

I hate to be such a debbie-downer about species preservation. And I hate to leave you with such a sad taste in your mouth. I suggest reading Mooallem's article- it is both informative and even handed. The voices of islanders who clearly dislike the encroachment of monk seals are balanced by those of conservationists and I think presented the issues from both sides nicely (something that is rarely done even-handedly in my opinion). It is sometimes easy to dismiss individuals who would kill an organism we ourselves find precious and worth saving- but often the reasons for the resentment and killings are dehumanized. I'm not saying that there is anything right about ivory poachers or anyone that has killed a monk seal, but the reasons that these people believe are valid deserve to be reported on and Mooallem does this nicely.

But I hate to leave you in such a sad state. Really, not everyone is out there bellyflopping on endangered species all summer- and conservation efforts at zoos, aquariums, and public schools has lead to more and more children and adults that recognize the importance of preserving endangered species. So here's something huge:

This week, U.S. Fish and Wildlife suggested that chimps in laboratories be added to the endangered species list. Read here for the implications of this suggestion.

The very fact that I am forced to ask the questions above means that the efforts of conservation and environmental groups have, in so many ways, surpassed expectations. We are struggling with how to live with panthers, manatees, chimps, monk seals, and key deer. 10 years ago, I don't think many environmentalists would have thought this would be a problem. Instead, they saw a clear and quick path for all of these species to extinction. So we keep trying, and in the process, we address the issues above. Because it matters.


**I apologize for all the Florida Bashing but really, my fellow Floridians make it too easy**

Turtle Soup- Sea Turtles Part I

I've been away from the blog for a few weeks experiencing the marine environment instead of just writing and dreaming about it. I just got back from spending some time in Cape Canaveral, Florida. While I was in Florida, the sea turtle nesting season started, and everyday while walking to the beach I saw signs like the one below warning me about not disturbing nesting turtles from May 1-Oct. 31.

In addition to being reminded daily about the nesting season, Frederick (Fritz) Davis (my Master's advisor at Florida State University) gave me a beach reading book: The Case of the Green Turtle: An uncensored history of a conservation icon   by Alison Rieser. I'd previously read Fritz's book, The Man Who Saved Sea Turtles: Archie Carr and the Origins of Conservation Biology  and Rieser's book dove-tailed nicely with that story of Carr, his research, and political action to save sea turtles from extinction.  

Both books are difficult to read- partially because I'm a Florida State girl so I have trouble reading books that place Florida Gator's in the spot light- but mostly because, sitting on the beach in Canaveral, having just passed a sign suggesting that communities care about these creatures, I was appalled to read about the horrific treatment of these defenseless ocean giants in the past. The pictures in Rieser's book are jarring to say the least, so I'll only recount one disturbing portion. In Chapter 2, the author discusses the treatment of green turtles in Australia in the mid 20th century. In the 1940s and 50s, turtle riding was a popular attraction on the Great Barrier Reef. During nesting season, people would turn nesting female turtles on their back so that they could not return to the ocean after egg-laying- preserving them alive but immobile for riding the next day. 

The next day, tourists got their chance to ride the females as they struggled to return to the water. Although this practice didn't involve killing the animals, it seems particularly cruel to ride an animal who is ponderously slow and out of its element. According to the National Geographic caption of the second picture, once the turtles made it into the water, the process of riding became much harder and this turtle shook off her rider and plunged deeper within moments. Good on you, turtle!

The largest threat to sea turtles wasn't riding them; it was the use of turtles and tortoises around the world to supplement sailor rations and stave off scurvy during the age of exploration. Today, we associate scurvy and its cure with fresh fruit, specifically lemons and oranges. But this is a colloquial and limited understanding of vitamin C and how to get it. If vitamin C was only obtainable via citrus, how did peoples in Artic areas avoid this painful condition? In fact, many marine organisms contain vitamin C in their flesh. The chart below shows the vitamin C content of the marine diet of animals the constituted the Inuit diet before the arrival of Westerners. After contact with explorers, Inuits began to rely more heavily on canned foods, or adopted the process of cooking their food instead of eating it raw, which you can see below would lead to a rise in scurvy pretty quickly.

Garci and Smith, "Vitamin C in the Diet of Inuit Hunters in Holman, Northwest Territories" Artic 32:2 (June 1979)  135-139.

Explorers in warmer climates also developed scurvy, ran out of rations, or longed for fresh meat instead of dried tack for months on end. They satisfied dietary and gustatory cravings with sea turtles. Sea turtle meat is high in Vitamin C and apparently quite tasty if consumed fresh.

While sailors developed a taste for turtle out of desperation, the importation of the delicacy into their home ports caused a new culinary craze. Consuming turtle soup was an indication of class- served at royal dining tables and in the newest restaurants. Wealthy people looking for a way to distinguish themselves through food consumption found turtle soup fit all the bills of culinary exclusivity. The best turtle soup relied on fresh turtle flesh and fat- meaning that turtles had to be transported live from warmer waters to Northern docks. In addition, the preparation was no easy task. The chef had to dismember the turtle, and this was gory and time consuming.

Trubek, "Turtle Soup" Gastronomica, The Journal of Food and Culture 1:1 (Winter 2001) 10-13.

Turtle soup was supposedly tasty, but more importantly, it was expensive and the mere inclusion of the delicacy at a European table demonstrated enormous wealth. Many different types of turtles were eaten by sailors, including the Galapagos Tortoise, but European and American turtle soup relied on two species: black diamond terrapins from the Atlantic Coast of America, consumed in fancy New York Restaurants like Delmonico's, and the green turtle, shipped and consumed throughout the rest of the world.  

Marine zoologists, ecologists, fisheries biologists, and aquarists became aware of the rapidly declining tortoise and turtle populations by the turn of the 20th century. The United States Bureau of Fisheries, under the direction of Huge Smith, set up a captive breeding facility for terrapins at their marine laboratory in Beaufort, North Carolina as early as 1912. In 1928 Charles Townsend, the Director of the New York Aquarium, imported some of the last remaining Galapagos tortoises to points throughout the United States for captive breeding. And by the 1950s, Archie Carr among others began steps to establish marine sanctuaries and protected breeding and nesting grounds for green turtles. 

Even though it was the last of these three to be protected, the green turtle was the only one still being hunted for food. Americans had lost their taste for terrapin by the time Smith began his breeding program and the damage to the Galapagos tortoise population was then primarily caused by introduced predators, not consumption for food purposes. But due to advanced canning techniques, the demand for green turtle meat for turtle soup was at a high when Carr began his crusade. 

Because sea turtles usually returned en masse to only a few beaches to lay eggs, they were especially vulnerable to egg and turtle poachers. Carr urged governments to protect known nesting grounds, but the harvest of turtles in other locations continued to deplete the species. In addition to protecting beaches, Carr and other concerned scientists and citizens sought to prohibit the legal trade and sale of any products from the green turtle. Reiser's book highlights the importance of getting the green turtle placed in the "red book"- the first listing of species thought to be critically endangered or close to extinction (first published in 1964- the green turtle was added in 1966). It's difficult to describe a "normal" year of turtle activity merely by numbers: Carr and other biologists struggled in their conservation efforts because turtle visitation to particularly nesting grounds varied greatly year to year (see the chart below). It was difficult to get an accurate count of the species because they only nest once every few years (and they often return to the same beach up to three times in the same season).  The struggle to get the species listed as endangered revolved around the effort to accurately estimate the number of turtles left with such variable data and Davis and Rieser both highlight these difficulties in their work. 

The acknowledgement of the green turtle as endangered effectively stopped the trade in green turtle (something with implications I will talk about in Part II) and helped environmentalists raise awareness about the plight of the species. 

While vacationing in Cape Canaveral, I didn't see any see turtle nests- it was a bit early in the season. But just south of that location is the Archie Carr National  Wildlife Refuge near Melbourne, Florida. Established in 1991, the refuge provides protective habitat for another type of endangered turtle- the loggerhead- although green and leatherback sea turtles also nest on the 20.5 miles of beaches. So far this year 12 leatherback turtles have laid egg clutches on the beach but no green or loggerhead turtles. The chart below shows the nesting numbers from 2001 to the current season. 

Sea Turtle Nests by Year and Species 2001 - 2013 (Includes south Brevard County, Sebastian Inlet State Park, and north Indian River County)
	2013	2012	2011	2010	2009	2008	2007		2006		2005		2004		2003		2002		2001
Loggerhead	0	18,809 (record year!)	11,841	14,468	10,374	11,410	7,902		10,828		11,085		9,138		12,598		14,209		15,645
Green	0	3,419	6,023 (record year!)	4,479	1,332	3,138	4,490		1,609		3,638		982		670		2,970		198
Leatherback	12	51	77 (record year!)	59	41	29	74		19		68		19		53		19		47

http://www.fws.gov/archiecarr/updates/index.html

Sea turtle conservation efforts are ongoing. Turtle soup is a thing of the past, you would be hard pressed to find a large group interested in riding turtles on vacation (although you can volunteer at the Archie Carr Sanctuary for "turtle watch"), and through public outreach and education beach goers are warned they should be conscious of light pollution and dune trampling. But humans continue to expand into the environment that nesting turtles require to survive and conservation efforts sometimes depend on the economics and culture of local populations- something I'll write about in Part II.

But I'd like to leave this blog post on a happy, if incredibly vulgar, note- so enjoy this hilarious Onion article about loggerhead turtles that was published a week ago. I ran across it while researching this blog post and laughed my butt off. Disclaimer: it is vulgar. http://www.theonion.com/articles/animal-facing-extinction-in-2003-fucks-its-way-bac,32417/?ref=auto 

Hashime Murayama: Immigration, WWII and the Importance of the Scientific Career Path

On Friday, this photo of George Takei at the Rowher Internment Camp in Arkansas came up on my Facebook feed. The image, combined with my current research on marine science illustrators, led me to think about why internment camps, and the history of immigration, matters greatly to both the history of science, and to individuals who may be interested in pursuing scientific careers in today. 

Betty Smocovitis has written a paper on the impact Masuo Kodani's status as a Japanese immigrant had on his career as a geneticist in the mid- 20th century. Unlike other immigrant groups, Japanese immigrants had less support structure within the United States, and during WWII this lack of support lead to a drastically different war experience. Kodani was born in California and was a citizen, but his wife was a Japanese citizen (they met as students at Berkeley), and the Kodanis were interned at Manzanar during the war. Masuo continued to work on genetics in Manzanar and published work with Ledyard Stebbins. His experiences during the war were difficult, but the end of the war did not alleviate his suffering. Continued stress over the threatened deportation of his first and second wife lead to an unstable career after the war. In response to threats of deportation, the Kodanis moved to the United States, back to Japan, and after his second marriage, eventually to Columbia, Missouri- a career trajectory based, not on new and better opportunities  but fears of deportation. 

Smocovitis states that:

"Neither attaining the status of lead researchers in a stable work environment, nor being rendered entirely invisible in the scientific power structure at the time, Kodani occupied a social and intellectual space where his skills could be exploited and his insights make the occasional news, but where he was nonetheless doomed to play the role of temporary assistant or associate in any laboratory setting." (365)

Masuo's experience during and after the war are mirrored by those of a man I have been studying, the scientific illustrator Hashime Murayama. Unlike Kodani, Murayama was a Japanese immigrant, as was his wife. He came to the United States in 1905 and married his wife Nao in New York City in 1910. His sons were born in 1911 and 1919. 

The Murayama family in 1925.

Hashime was hired by National Geographic as the first staff illustrator in 1921. Known for his meticulous attention to detail combined with a romanticized style, his paintings were printed not only in National Geographic but in other scientific publications.

While little information exists on Murayama's work before or after WWII (although his paintings are readily available online- google him and you'll find little or no personal data but loads of beautiful watercolors being sold as prints), some stories survive. In Alice Carter's book on the history of illustration in National Geographic, she tells the tale of the Hashime's visit to the New York Aquarium to view living trout and salmon for a new illustration. The director of the Aquarium, Charles Townsend, had fresh fish brought in for Murayama to paint, but all of the fish died within days because the water temperature was too high. Despite the difficulties, Murayama produced amazing images from living specimens (see the one above). 

In 1941, Hashime was fired from National Geographic because of his immigrant status (even though, similar to Kodani's biography, his German immigrant counterparts were not fired) . He was interned with his family twice during the war- although little information exists about where they were relocated. These internments were short; Hashime's work with George Papanicolaou was considered important to American health and therefore a priority by the government. Before his work at National Geographic, Murayama worked at Cornell illustrating cell cultures. As Papanicolaou's work on cervical cancer accelerated during WWII, he chose Hashime to illustrate the cultures. It was this highly technical work that kept the family out of relocation camps- but the damage had already been done to his career path. 

It is somewhat easy today to find Murayama's marine illustrations; it's equally as easy to find his name in academic publications written by Papanicolaou who never failed to give Hashime credit for his amazing illustrations--but Murayama's accomplishments and his role as one of the principal scientific illustrators of his generation have been largely forgotten. 

In some sense, the fading of Murayama into history involves the change in his work during and after the war. Before he was fired from National Geographic, Murayama was a scientific illustrator, but in a certain sense he was also an independent artist. His style and his paintings were utilized in multiple ways- not just magazines but scientific publications and as stand-alone art. Hashime signed all of his work, a detail that is telling. His work, which is today sold in print form as "art", was also regarded in the early 20th century as both "art" and "illustration." 

Murayama in his studio at National Geographic. Known for his meticulous but romantic painting style, many of his scientific illustrators were also seen as stand-alone artwork.  Carter, The Art of National Geographic, 18.

Because of his immigrant status and treatment during the war, Hashime Murayama switched careers- from somewhat independent artistic illustrator to cell culture illustrator and an extension of the scientist's toolbox. Murayama was able to utilize one aspect of his artistic ability, his highly meticulous eye, but his romanticized vision of nature was stripped from his work. Hashime didn't sign his cell culture drawings for Papanicolaou, and even though he was acknowledged continuously be the researcher for his efforts, his work later in life failed to achieve the vision, or the personal freedom, exhibited by his work before the war. In fact, his images of cell cultures don't come up readily in google images and must be accessed in the papers for which they were published (Papanicolaou and Trout, 1941). Most of Murayama's drawings for Papanicolaou's research remained behind the scenes- part of the scientific process of understanding cervical cancer smears- not meant for public consumption. 

Murayama's biography is the exact opposite of many scientific illustrators during this period. Individuals like Charles Bradford Hudson and Charles R. Knight went from operating as an extension of researchers' tools to painting independently as naturalistic artists with a developed vision of their own.   Hudson and Knight were lauded for their artwork later in life and considered themselves independent artists, not scientific illustrators, during their final years. Murayama had found the success of an artist before the war, but due to his immigrant status, was pushed back into the laboratory work out of which he had advanced years before. 

Kodani and Murayama's biographies highlight the importance of internment and immigration research to the history of science. Both men experienced life altering events during WWII- not necessarily based on their experiences within these camps, but the changes in life course and career course that their immigrant status imposed. We must ask ourselves, what is the proper path through a scientific career? And what happens when that path is upset by circumstances beyond a person's control? If it is the case that the scientist or scientific worker must follow very specific paths through their career in order to achieve certain status, and those that are derailed are relegated to sideline, but still highly important, positions- what might this say about the role of race, class, and gender in science?

Photographing Octopuses

A short post as I'm currently trying desperately to write something of my chapter these days (epic fail as of now).

There seems to be a general understanding that certain sea creatures are more popular with humans than others. Of course, visitors to aquariums commonly flock to cetaceans- dolphins and whales are all the rage with crowds even though few small aquariums have them. After mammals come the less popular but still exciting toothy exhibits: sharks and piranhas and alligators. Several public aquariums I've visited have feeding times for these carnivores and children especially seem to love to watch these animals feed. To each his own I suppose. After these exciting exhibits, there's a few others that grab attention: pennipeds (if the aquarium has them), penguins (even though the exhibits smell so horrible) and sea horses (everyone's favorite, am I right?). Eh, the fishes are okay- but they are just swimming around- whatever.

One other marine organism, popular both in public aquariums and in the early 20th photographs I've been studying, is the octopus.

Fabre-Domergue, La Photographie animaux aquatiques (1899)

John Oliver La Gorce, National Geographic Magazine (1921)

Unknown photographer, Scripps Institution of Oceanography  (1931)

The three images I've lined up above were all taken with a stationary camera on a tripod with some sort of illumination (the type changes throughout the time I've covered) from above. All of the images were taken through the glass of an aquarium- the first was taken through a special "photography aquarium" built specifically for photographing marine organisms. The two other photographs were taken through aquarium glass at public aquariums. The second photograph was taken by John Oliver La Gorce, a rather famous fellow who was the editor of National Geographic and if you're from Miami, has a whole fancy island (Gorce Island) named after him. He was an explorer when people still got to call themselves explorers and he loved taking photographs. This one was taken at the newly-opened Miami Aquarium and marine laboratory. The third photograph was taken at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, although I've got little information on the photograph as I found it in the New York Aquarium papers at the Wildlife Conservation Society archives.

Cephalopods are very popular images during this period- as photographers sought to refine the techniques needed to accurately capture marine organisms either underwater or in the aquarium, they often took pictures of organisms that they thought looked "interesting" or "exotic". In addition to an interesting subject to photograph, there's a better reason that there are so many pictures of certain marine organisms during this time: it was a heck of a lot easier to take pictures of things that didn't move quickly.

These photographers were taking low light photos- most public aquariums and marine laboratories utilized natural light from overhead to illuminate their buildings. Artificial light was still touch-and-go in some places, and the organisms seemed to respond better to natural light. In addition, many of these creatures are most active at night. These photographers were usually working in aquariums at night after everyone else was gone- just waiting around until they could get a lobster or fish or octopus to turn towards the camera for long enough to try to snap a photo. So, the octopus was a great subject- it was visually striking, seemingly exotic, and still enough to capture on film that might need longer exposure in lower light.

There were few other organisms that were as photogenic as the octopus- the lobster, starfish, and molluscs (you can see what looks to be an abalone in the third photo)- but the cephalopods really made such startling subjects. I hope you enjoy the photos- I find them visually striking and they give me something to think about:  how do I envision the ocean? Is my image of underwater based mostly on experience, or upon the images presented to me by photographs like those above?

The Arcturus Expedition: Illustrating a Scientific Voyage.

In 1926, G.P. Putnam's and Sons published The Arcturus Adventure: An Account of the New York Zoological Society's First Oceanographic Expedition. The book was a popular account of the high-profile voyage of The Arcturus from New York to the Sargasso Sea on to the Galapagos and then back, lead by William Beebe. The expedition took 6 months; during that time, Beebe and the crew kept the public updated on the adventure by sending word about the voyage to newspapers.

The Arcturus Adventure made William Beebe a household name. During the expedition, he used a diving helmet (seen above on the back cover of the book) to describe underwater regions never seen by humans. While Beebe was not the first scientist to work underwater with a diver helmet, and not even the most systematic, his popularity immediately marked him as the cutting edge of marine exploration to the general public. 

My interest in the Arcturus Expedition stems from my current chapter writing. I'm working on the history of taxonomic illustration in marine science. Basically, I'm interested in how scientists illustrated their specimens. While the Arcturus Adventure is a popular work, it is also a scientific publication. Beebe and his crew spent much of the voyage dredging off the boat, pulling up as many deep sea creatures as they could, and somehow preserving these organisms for scientists and interested parties on dry land. 

They did this in a variety of ways- and the different avenues they took to documenting these creatures is very telling to me as a historian. Here is the list of crew on board the Arcturus as it appears in the 1925 publication:

William Beebe- Director

W.K. Gregory- Associate in vertebrates (Elizabeth Trotter is his assistant)

L. Segal- Associate in Special Problems

C.J. Fish- Associate in Diatoms and Crustacea (on loan from the USBF)

John Tee-Van- General Assistant

William H. Merriam- Assistant in Field Work

Isobel Cooper and Helen Tee-Van- Scientific Artists

Ruth Rose- Historian and Technicist

M.D. Fish- Assistant in Larval Fish (wife of C.J. Fish, also on loan from the USBF, mislabeled- real name is Mary Poland Fish)

Elizabether Trotter- Assistant in Fish Problems

Dwight Franklin- Assistant in Fish Preparation

Jay F.W. Pierson- Assistant in Microplankton

Don Dickerman- Assistant Artist

E.B. Schoedsack- Assistant in Photography (listed as assistant in cinematography in subsequent editions)

Serge Chetyrkin- Preparateur

D.W. Cady- Surgeon

It's a varied group of people- but by far the largest group of specialists were those individuals brought on board to illustrate the work of others. Isobel Cooper, Helen Tee-Van, Dwight Franklin, Don Dickerman and E.B. Schoedsack were all included in the expedition for this purpose. On a scientific expedition, almost 30% of the crew was there to provide lasting images of the work. In addition to the individuals whose sole purpose it was to render accurate illustrations or materials in whatever form seemed most appropriate (more on this later), other members provided illustrations from their individual work. Charles Fish and Mary Poland Fish both illustrated their work on diatoms and larval fishes. 

But hey, what were these people actually doing on board?

Isobel Cooper, Helen Tee-Van, and Don Dickerman were illustrators. They were in charge of drawing and painting specimens that Beebe felt were either special or important to capture in this medium. A scientist might ask one of these illustrators to draw and color a particular specimen that was integral to their work, or they might systematically go about drawing and painting specimens that appeared to be new or had interesting coloring. One might ask, why would you need illustrators on board? Couldn't you just bring specimens back that were preserved? 

It was important that illustrators be on board for the journey because it is very difficult to preserve the color of marine organisms after their death. Because of this difficulty, many of the organisms these three individuals drew and colored were still alive when they did so. Below is a photograph from the voyage of Isobel Cooper illustrating a specimen from life. 

The first was caught in the open ocean and then placed in a special tank to be held still during illustrating. This way, Cooper would be assured she was not misremembering the color of the specimen. In addition to the difficulty of coloring, many of the most novel organisms identified during the expedition were deep sea specimens such as the little sea devil first described by Beebe during the voyage. 

The "little sea devil" that Beebe pulled up during the voyage was illustrated by Dwight Franklin. Most deep sea organisms pulled up during dredging could not survive the handling and change in pressure (fish get the bends just like anything else that is pulled from the bottom of the ocean too quickly). Many of these forms died quickly, so having an illustrator on hand made it easier to accurately capture color and other features of these organisms on paper. For more information on Isobel Cooper- her grandson has a blog here that might be interesting.

In addition to drawing and painting, Franklin also made models of the specimens. In a photo posed similarly to that of Cooper painting, Franklin is busy in front of a aquarium fashioning a plaster replica of a specimen from life. Just as coloring was important to illustrators who were painting, it was equally important to individuals making casts and molds of organisms. In addition to these casts, Franklin and Serge Chetyrkin worked to find the best way to preserve actual specimens in alcohol so that they could be transported back to the New York Zoological Society. Preserving specimens did not merely require dumping them into preserving alcohol, but instead required careful preparation of the dead organism so that it maintained as much structure and color during preservation that was possible. Some organisms, especially jellyfish, easily dissolved in the alcohol and required special preparation. 

In addition to illustrations and molds of fishes, Beebe also brought along a photographer/cinematographer. Ernest B. Schoedsack, best known for being the co-director of the movie King Kong, needed money for his next film so he signed on to document Beebe's voyage. He thought it would be interesting to shoot underwater. Many of his pictures appear in the Arcturus Adventure, one of which includes his future wife Ruth Rose diving at Cocos (in Bermuda) in 15 feet of water (unfortunately I can't find a copy of this picture on the internet). Schoedsack's supplemented the illustrators and preparateurs. When specimens were brought up and placed in an aquarium on deck, Schoedsack would immediately take a picture in case the organism died quickly or the color changed when exposed to the air. These photos became the basis of many of the illustrations and molds by Cooper, Tee-Van, and Franklin. 

The whole crew of The Arcturus  was amazing. On another day, I'll tell you about my new hero Marie Poland Fish, one of the pioneers of bioacoustics. If you're interested in learning more about William Beebe, check out this biography written by Carol Grant Gould. Gould is best known for co-writing books on bees and animal behavior with her husband Jim Gould. The story of Beebe's life, and especially his married life, is circuitous. Beebe did not want his second wife to write his biography after death, so he gave his papers (the few he didn't destroy) to his assistant and told her to seal them until she found someone she thought could write a proper biography. In turn, she let Gould see the papers (and no one else has had access to these highly personal papers). Much of the history of Beebe and his professional and personal life has been lost, but Gould's book is an interesting read none the less. 

By looking at the illustrators and visual media created during the Arcturus Expedition, we can see that during this period, the act of scientific exploration and discovery was not merely the act of finding, but of documenting; not only of describing but of preserving.  

McNamara's big wave: How the technology of personal water craft changed the sport of surfing

On January 28, 2013, Garret McNamara broke his own world record by riding an estimated 100-foot wave off the coast of Nazare, Portugal. While the wave has yet to be officially measured (experts say it is between 85-100 feet high), it's clear that McNamara has broken his previous record of the 78-foot wave he rode last year in the same location. I find it very difficult to imagine what a 100-foot wave would resemble.  So here's a picture: That's McNamara surfing down the side of that wave.

Big wave surfing has risen to prominence in recent years because of the Billabong XXL Global Big Wave Awards. The 2013 cycle for entries actually ended March 20. The rules for Big Wave Award given by Billabong are thus:

The Billabong XXL Biggest Wave Award will be won by the surfer who, by any means available, catches and successfully rides the single biggest wave of the year based on objective analysis and measurement of the available images. The prize will be awarded in the amount of $15,000.  The photographer who captures the winning still or video image will be awarded $4,000. 

There are other awards, including "Ride of the Year" ($50,000) and "The Monster Paddle Award" ($15,000). The Ride of the Year is given to a rider by a panel of judges based on the most committed and advanced level of big wave surfing during a single successful run. The Monster Paddle Award is more telling: it goes to the individual who self-paddles and manages to ride the biggest wave based on available photographic evidence. So what's the difference between the "Monster Paddle" and "Big Wave"?  

Often, when people who aren't surfers, or who don't think about surfing that much in their daily lives, imagine surfing, they visualize a sport that hasn't changed in recent years. People go out with a surf board, they hop on and paddle out, and then they ride that wave towards the shore. They hop off and repeat. Sometimes, in my mind at least, they look like Patrick Swayze and rob banks and surf forever because "he's not coming back."

Point Break actually contains a lot of information about big wave surfing. Big wave surfers travel the world looking for breaks- perfect ocean terrains that allow waves to break further bigger and better, so that they swell big without curling and crashing too soon. You don't get a 100 foot wave just anywhere in the world and there are a few places, at only a few times of year, that this type of break occurs. Big breaks have well known names- "Jaws" in Maui, "Mavericks" in Northern California, "Cloudbreak" in Fiji, "Ghost Tree" in Northern California, and "Torquay"- the point break at Bell's Beach, Australia featured in the clip above. Waves break for various topographical reasons- a point break is when a wall of water hits an elevated point of land or rocks jutting out from the coast line. There are also reef breaks, sand breaks, and shore breaks- all of which you can extrapolate the definition based on that of a point break. Nazare, on the coast of Portugal, is a shore break- waves break as they run into shallow land closer to shore. But there is also something really special about Nazare's underwater topography that makes it a perfect place for catching huge waves: running vertical to the shoreline is an underwater canyon 16,000 feet deep (that's almost 3X the Grand Canyon's depths). This canyon has been described as an arrow pointing directly at the shore line. As waves approach the shore, they are funneled into this canyon. Deep water becomes focused as the water fills this canyon and what was a fairly flat deep wave becomes higher and higher as it approaches the shore. By the time it breaks, the wave is enormous. During the winter, when storms hit Portugal at just the right angle, the waves become monstrous. And that's when the big wave surfers arrive. 

So, what's the big deal? How is this new if people have been searching for these waves forever? Well, big wave surfing is still about the wave riding, but it doesn't involve much paddling. In the Point Break clip above, a surfer calls those waves "death on a stick" and to someone paddling out, or trying to ride, or even getting back in, they would be. But jet skis have allowed surfers to go after bigger waves, ratcheting up their rides and the risks involved. 

If you check out the clip below of McNamara's ride, you'll see he's never alone in the water- there is always a jet ski near him while he's riding. There are multiple reasons for this. The first is that he would have never gotten on the wave without the help of the jet ski. In big wave surfing, a jet ski pilot takes the ski out to the place where the waves break, pulling a surfer behind on a rope line. The jet ski gets the surfer close enough to "catch" the wave and then gets out of the way before the wave takes the craft as well. This type of surfing is called "tow-in" surfing and it allows big wave surfers to catch bigger and bigger breaks.



BIG MONDAY the video from Surftotal TV on Vimeo.

Jet skis also perform two other functions. The first is that they pick the surfer up after their ride. Big wave surfing involves big wipe outs- and these wipe outs can be deadly if the surfer isn't picked up out of the water soon. Surfers can be knocked unconscious by their own boards, or get smashed on the rock breaks, and if they are pitted and can't get out of the surf on their own, they are going to have to endure break after overhead break underwater. The likelihood of severe injury or death is high. So jet skis are near by to pluck a surfer out of the water and whisk them away from danger. If they weren't there, the death toll from big wave surfing would probably be dramatic (Or more devastating than it already is). 

In addition, jet skis carry photographers and videographers.  If you notice the awards given by Billabong, you'll notice that a. you can't win a surfing award without photos and video for judges to inspect and b. photographers are also part of the award. It isn't enough that you ride a large wave, the photos and videos count as evidence. Where ever there's a big wave surfer, there's a photographer waiting to put it on film. Many of these guys sit on the back of jet skis or in boats (if the waves permit) and capture these runs at the risk to their own lives. 

Big wave surfing such as McNamara demonstrated on Jan 28, 2013 wouldn't be possible without jet skis. It's a fairly new sport (tow-in surfing was popularized in 1992 by Laird Hamilton and Derrick Doerner), and an extremely dangerous one. Without jet skis in the area, death is a definite threat. 

Jet skis sparked debates in Northern California at "Mavericks" in 2011 when a surfer, Sion Milosky, died while surfing. Surfers in the area blamed the ban on personalized water crafts in the area, and pushed for a year round ski patrol to assist surfers in trouble. The ban on water craft in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary began in 1994. Jet skis were restricted to four areas of the Sanctuary, one of which included "Mavericks"; later it was decided that personalized water craft would only be allowed at the popular surf spot when the National Weather Service declared a high-surf warning. During the high-surf warning, tow-in surfing was allowed. The concern on the use of water craft was for local fauna- it is a nesting site for many bird species and there is a nearby rookery for seals. It also hosts migrating gray whales and sea otters have been seen in the area. 

The fight over the ban erupted at the death of Milosky, and the near death of another surfer earlier in the 2011 season. The battle for jet skis at Mavericks still continues. Who knows the right answer. Breaks are singular events and surfers take certain breaks and rides seriously- but it does seem to me to be a personal risk- one that doesn't have to be mediated by the federal or local government. There are marine sanctuaries for a reason. Surfers who complain that they must tow-in surf, or that they must have a jet ski to save their comrades when the going gets tough, blame the local government for not providing these services. But is it the job of the government to keep surfers safe if they chose to ride big waves? 

Surfing has changed in the last 20 years- the introduction of tow-in surfing, and the competition to ride bigger and bigger waves has created a sporting arms race that is potentially deadly for everyone involved. But it is also amazing. Surfers search out these epic events based on meteorological and topographical data. I can't imagine a hundred foot wave- let alone imagine riding one. But these men and women are committed to this sport- and to pushing it beyond the boundaries set by human limitations. The technology of jet skis and other personal water craft has allowed boundary expansion. 

If you're interested in big waves surfing, or big waves in general, I suggest you check out The Wave by Susan Casey. Casey was creative director for Outside Magazine and helped to develop and edit the pieces for Into Thin Air, The Perfect Storm, and Blue Crush. The Wave examines all aspects of big waves- the physics behind trying to understand them, the current excitement around big wave riding, and my favorite part, the history of rogue waves. During the Rogue Wave chapter she looks at the amount of ships lost to rogue waves throughout history- visiting Lloyd's of London and interviewing wrecking crews who rescue these ships. The book is really entertaining and well written. 

I'm off to watch Point Break and dream about the beach. 

Finding Fault with Us All: The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Civil Trial

A bird covered in oil after the DWHOS on the Louisiana Coast

If you read this blog, you might know that I get a lot of my daily news from the New York Times. There's a personal reason for this- when I was a freshman at Florida State in my very first class ever (Intro to Cultural Anthropology) an old professor pronounced that any young adult that did not read at least one print news publication of a creditable variety (he gave us a list) would never be a good citizen. Worthless Slugs. The list was pretty even as far as political leanings- NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, Economist, Guardian, and several others. I chose the NYTimes because a. we got it free everyday on campus and b. they had a food, fashion, and arts section- my favorite things to waste time reading instead of reading the actual world and national news. Knowing what critics are saying about the newest Met Opera debut made me feel cosmopolitan, even if I had never been to New York before.

This week, I'm regretting my decisions. The New York Times is really letting me down and the Guardian is picking up the slack. On what you wonder? The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Civil Trial (DWHOSCT).

Last October, a judge in New Orleans made the choice to move the start of the civil trial to Feb. 25, 2013 because of fears that the Super Bowl and Mardi Gras would disrupt the proceedings. I thought this was a bit fishy: the trial is important but business can be conducted in cities that hold big events. Should we continuously push back much needed judicial cases because of the Super Bowl? And then I thought, how very American. And then I thought- what does this move suggest about how much attention the American public, and press, give the event? More, because they don't have those pesky football games to work around? Or less, because really after the Super Bowl we're all too exhausted until March Madness to do much of anything but finish leftover french onion dip and feel bad about the amount of football shaped cupcakes we consumed? Well, I don't know how many cupcakes the New York Times consumed during Super Bowl Sunday, but they must be pretty tired to have dropped the ball on reporting so much. In fact, it seems every major news outlet must still be in a food coma- where's the coverage?

The DWHOSCT is going on, and man is it a doozie. I'm not even sure I could do justice to the crazy shit storm of obvious corner cutting the American government and BP seemingly engaged in to practically assure the destruction of the Gulf Coast ecosystem and economy. They actually couldn't have done a better job of causing major destruction if they had actually set out to do so; it was that poorly/well planned. So let's take a look at how not just BP is responsible, shall we?

The MMS and the mysterious "walruses" in the Gulf of Mexico:

Ever head of the Mineral Management Services? Maybe not. It's okay- they don't exist anymore- they are now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Following the DWHOS it was found that MMS was actually not really a "management" service at all, but something along the lines of a terribly lazy, blind Cerberus easily bribed by sex, money, and the promise of high paying positions in oil companies. If it were a Sphinx, it would probably have just asked you to pull its finger. The MMS was created in 1982 and had two major jobs: collecting oil and gas drilling revenues for the government and overseeing and approving permits that generate that revenue. They were torn in half from the beginning- should they allow as many drilling permits as possible to enhance revenue, or should they deny obviously dangerous and foolhardy plans without thought to the impact on revenues?

In the end, it seems that the more the United States government and the American public imbued the price of gas with the signification of proper leadership (I'll come back to this later), the push came to allow more and more ill-formed plans to get through the gates. At the beginning of Obama's administration, in an effort to get gas prices down and to perhaps appease right-leaning politicians with some cowtowing that seemed less tree-hugger and more "Drill, baby, Drill", the President exempted BP from an important environmental impact analysis required by companies before MMS signed off on permits for drilling.

It is clear that not only was the environmental impact analysis not required, but knowledge of the surrounding environment wasn't apparently required at all. In BP's formal 583-page Gulf Spill Response Plan, they calculated that the largest spill that could occur would would last up to 30 days and had a 20 percent chance of reaching the shore. In addition, they listed the wildlife resources in the area as "walruses, sea otters, seals, and sea lions." There was no listed plan on how to respond to a deep sea blowout.  Just in case you haven't been to the Gulf (or you wrote this plan and are reading this) none of those organisms live in the Gulf Coast. BP had no idea what surrounded their drilling operation, they low balled the risk, and they didn't include any plan for a disastrous situation that was not unforeseen.

Most MMS employees were former oil rig workers or administrators. Old Buddies. Risks were not noted, the permit was given, and the damage was definitely done. To read a really amazing story written in 2010 at the Denver Post at the MMS scandal, click here. (unless you're an angry person already and then I wouldn't read that because you'll probably throw your computer at a kitten or something equally horrid)  Let's move on to BP's role in this mess.

British Petroleum:

11 men died aboard the drilling platform during the explosion. Randy Ezell, a survivor, testified at the Civil Trial on March  5, 2013.

1. BP, and the Former CEO Tony Hayward, have been accused of cutting corners on safety measures to ensure more profits for shareholders. According to employees and consultants say they continually told BP management, quite pointedly, that there were safety issues. Bob Bea, a consultant with BP (who has worked in some way on just about every major disaster in the last 30 years- Columbia shuttle explosion, Exxon Valdez, PetroBas P36) said he warned BP that safety measures were no joke. According to Bea, the cornerstone of safety in BPs industry is the operating management system (OMS). He reports that this system has greatly increased safety throughout BPs operations. But, the system was never put into place on the DWH oil rig. Bea suggests that this was to cut costs in that operation, but Tony Hayward denies this claim. Regardless of the he said/ he said, it remains clear that others had major concerns about safety on BP rigs. Kevin Lacey, who gave testimony after Tony Hayward, was a drilling official for BPs operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Lacey resigned several months before the Oil Spill, citing concerns about cost cutting and safety concerns. Lacey said he felt pressured to cut costs by cutting safety.

2. Another major point that has come up in the trial is the misinterpretation of a test performed an hour before the drill explosion. This is an especially tricky issue- of the 11 men who died on the drilling rig, 1 of the men is considered to the be the (mis)interpreter of this test. Jason Andersen, a "toolpusher" on the rig (a term on non landlocked rigs that means boss or management) Other reports have suggested that another leader on the rig, Donald Vidrine (a well site leader), contacted a BP engineer on shore an hour before the explosion to discuss the recent test and results (a call which is in question), which he also apparently "misinterpreted." The test in question showed abnormally high pressure readings in the well, which were apparently interpreted by Andersen as "bladder effect" an interpretation that officials say Vidrine and the other well site manager Robert Kaluza, should not have believed scientifically sound at the time. Both Vidrine and Kaluza have been indicted on manslaughter charges and await their own trial. According to officials, if Andersen's report had been questioned, or if the engineers who might have spoken to Vidrine from onshore had been properly concerned with safety, they would have taken the test as indication to shut the well down immediately- thereby diverting the whole disaster. Randy Ezell, the first man who survived the explosion to testify had few answers as to Andersen's motives- he may have just misinterpreted the results, simple as that. But lawyers are more concerned about the systematic interpretation of concerning results by BP officials, perhaps stemming for a corporate inclination to try to skirt disaster by barreling through the drilling process.

So far, we have lack of government oversight and some great corporate cost cutting. But what is the public's role in this farce? Let's bring in the clowns!

Us: 

American's are super oil crazy. We love our huge gas guzzling cars and low gas prices. Who doesn't? During the last election cycle, people got it into their heads that a. the President can do a lot to reduce gas prices and that b. one of the things he could do is to increase drilling on American soil. Well, heads up people: there are multiple factors that determine the price of gas, many are out of control of our government, and one of the things that appears to influence gas prices the least is drilling in America. Truth: according to economists, US supply and increase in drilling doesn't really make a difference in the cost of oil because the cost is a global market thing and American produced oil is, pun intended, a drop in the bucket. Check it out. There's a destructive feedback mechanism operating in the American Psyche right now- Politicians mistakenly point to gas prices as a problem that can be helped by more drilling; the public picks this up- agrees drilling is awesome and that they would love to be able to afford to take their family of 6 to Yellowstone in a rented Hummer this summer-Politicians hear the outcry of the American public and are reassured that drilling will solve everything.  Of course, we should be able to trust politicians to know when things are false promises, but since most of their business involves making them (and some dude in Washington State apparently believes bicyclers are causing major CO2 problems and has ruined my belief in the intelligence or scientific knowledge of elected officials) and I'm convinced you don't even have to literate to be in Congress these days, let's make a point: the blame partially falls on the American public. We've bought gas and the Drill Drill Drill narrative hook, line, and sinker. And now we're paying dearly. Apparently all the walruses are extinct in the Gulf and only BP knew they were there! No, seriously. We're paying with a continued blindness towards the real issue: many new drilling schemes are unsafe (check out my earlier post on Artic Drilling) and they won't make a dent in the world oil economy. We need to be thinking about alternative energy or even just how to downgrade our expectations of gas prices.

What's at Stake:

Finally, I thought I'd write a little something on what's at stake in this whole circus. Obviously, the goal of the trial is to ascertain ultimate blame for the disaster. Far be it me to say who's at fault, as I've just laid out a particularly horrible network of fault for all of us (read this article for more spreading of blame). How many of the people or organizations that I've mentioned are indictable? But here's the thing: if the court finds BP merely "responsible" the pay out will be something like 3.5 billion in fines. If they are ruled "grossly negligent", that's 17.6 billion. This fine would be added to the 20 or 30$ billion they've already paid out for various economic impacts in the region. The Gulf States have just filed a lawsuit for damages up to 34$ billion. The total bill for BP could amount to almost 90$ Billion US. The Washington Post claims this is too much- something you can decide for yourself. But it doesn't fully account for the stake in this mess.

Just yesterday, Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu called for the EPA to lift the restrictions it has placed on BP's drilling operations because of concerns regarding "lack of business integrity." The restrictions block BP from securing sensitive government contracts, even though it does nothing to previous contracts which BP an still operate according to those agreements. Landrieu suggests that these restrictions constitute a "double jeopardy" for BP- they've got to fight in court and for government contracts. You can make up your mind about this issue as well- although I will weigh in by saying that it appears Landrieu has learned absolutely nothing about the cost of making huge mistakes. I'm always a little confused how the South can be so hard on petty crime and so light on corporate greed and the fact that their people get the shaft constantly.

Finally, the biggest stake for me is that the public doesn't seem to be watching anymore. This trial offers an amazing resource for understanding the dangers of a topic that has divided American politics in recent decades.  In the last election, energy independence, gas prices, and off shore drilling were huge topics- yet it doesn't seem that people are interested in understand what went wrong- both with government oversight and corporate corner cutting. The American public is allowing this trial to proceed as if it was merely a formality- when in fact it should be one of the biggest fact finding missions for future decision making during energy debates. The fact that BP did not settle out of court should have the American public jumping for joy- for once we get answers to huge questions about corporate negligence. But instead, the story is being buried in the press and ignored by the very people who were injured the most by this disaster. Almost all of the up-to-date articles utilized in the post were written by The Guardian. While the Huffington Post has published several pieces, it appears other major media outlets have dropped the ball. Why?

I'm going to continue to follow the trial- and I'll keep this blog updated. But I beg you- check the facts for yourself. Do it for the endangered Gulf Coast sea otter.