Why do endangered whales keep getting entangled off New England?

The right whale's numbers have been particularly affected by fishing gear, according to an August study.

Stephan Savoia/AP/File
The head of a North Atlantic right whale peers up from the water as another whale passes behind in Cape Cod Bay near Provincetown, Mass., in April 2008. An August 2016 study found that the ability of the endangered whale species to recover is jeopardized by increasing rates of entanglement in fishing gear and a resultant drop in birth rates.

A 45-ton North Atlantic right whale, a rare breed whose numbers have been in decline recently, was found dead about 12 miles off of the coast of Maine over the weekend after it became entangled in fishing gear.

The case is the latest of three recent right whale entanglements – one of which also resulted in the whale’s death – that authorities with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration say could inform future regulations. The agency is in the process of using the gear to sort out whether the fishermen who owned it were in compliance with regulations, according to NOAA Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle program coordinator David Gouveia.

"We're on par for the course with the averages for the year for entanglements," Mr. Gouveia told the Associated Press. "Overall, if you look at entanglements of all large whale species, we're a little bit above our average."

The incidents come as scientists point to entanglements as an increasing source of danger for the whales.

Between 1970 and 2009, 44 percent of diagnosed deaths were because of entanglements, according to a study published this August in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science. Between 2010 and 2015, entanglements accounted for a full 85 percent of right whale deaths. Meanwhile, deaths from entanglements and collisions with ships, another common hazard, increased over that five-year period, compared to the preceding two decades. The whales' birth rate also fell sharply from 2010 to 2015.

"Right whales need immediate and significant management intervention to reduce mortalities and injuries from fishing gear," concluded the study's authors, adding that an explanation for the decline in new births was necessary before the species' return from near-extinction could be considered a success story. "Failure to act on this new information will lead to further declines in this population's number and increase its vulnerability to extinction," they wrote.

Entanglements also harm the whale's population indirectly even if the whale doesn't die, according to one of the authors of the study, Scott Kraus.

"They are carrying heavy gear around, and they can't move as fast or they can't feed as effectively," Dr. Kraus told The Associated Press in an interview this month. "And it looks like it affects their ability to reproduce because it means they can't put on enough fat to have a baby."

Other whales whose numbers were once under pressure from commercial whaling and other environmental hazards have seen a resurgence in recent years. This month, federal authorities removed the humpback whale from the endangered species list, reported The Christian Science Monitor:

The clearance for the majority of humpback whales joins another conservation announcement ... which removed giant pandas from the endangered species list. Together, the changes mark a significant moment of progress for conservation efforts around the world after nearly half a century of protecting two of the most iconic symbols of the movement. But conservationists still warn that despite the hard-won victories, the species remain vulnerable.

The beaching of a humpback whale only weeks later in New Jersey put attention back on the hazards still faced by species in recovery, as the Monitor wrote then:

Generally speaking, the threats are well known: entanglement, weaponized sonar use, and ship collisions are common causes of whale fatalities. But to neutralize these threats, conservationists must either work with – or against – commercial interest groups and military organizations.

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.