Home | Ocean Watch | Books | About Susan | Search | Email Susan

Ocean Watch

One of the best things about writing this column is the e-mail it generates.

Last week, a Minnesota minister wrote: "Recently I was preaching my Sunday night sermon, and in doing so I mentioned the 'boxer fish.' I couldn't think of anything else to call it -- I just knew there was a sea creature that packed a wallop. My congregation looked at me somewhat dubiously. ... I promised I would do some research and get the lowdown."

I couldn't imagine which fish this might be, and for good reason: It wasn't a fish. The pastor went on to say that one of my past columns explained that his "boxer fish" was actually a mantis shrimp. With one good punch, these shrimp can crack the shells of crabs and even shatter aquarium glass.

God must have a sense of humor, the minister thought, to create a marine animal that can box.

Other people lately are interested in whale feces. "Is whale poop really just like potatoes?" writes one reader. "I thought they were bigger. Is it safe for kids?"

Another writes, "Do you know the different colors of whale poop for the different whales? I know Right's are reddish and Fin's are brownish."

These questions didn't make much sense to me until I realized that the writers must have come across my 1996 column on ambergris. This substance, once used in perfumes, sometimes forms in sperm whale intestines and washes up on beaches.

And that is the one and only thing I know about whale poop.

Speaking of whales, a former Hawaii resident living in Norway writes that he keeps up with Hawaii's marine world through this column. Because most of us link Norway with whaling, I asked this musician what people there think about hunting whales.

He writes, "Most Norwegians feel that eating whales is just a part of an indigenous people's right. The way they see it, Norwegians have been fishing and whaling throughout their history, and the U.S. has no right to tell them to stop hunting the whales that Norwegians say are not endangered."

In this era of depleted marine life, this issue of who tells whom which animals they can hunt, and where, is a hot topic. A few months ago, I wrote in support of the state's proposed fishing ban at Pupukea and got several letters telling me to ... well, let's just say the writers strongly disagreed.

But that's OK. At least no one threw a fish. Last year, when California officials held public meetings about that state's plan to ban fishing in some areas, angry anglers flung dead fish around to make their point. That point was that researchers had no scientific proof that closing some areas to fishing increased catches nearby.

But now they do. Last month, a team of international marine scientists published their findings that both commercial and recreational catches increase significantly near reserves.

One study site was off St. Lucia where officials closed about one-third of a depleted coral reef to fishing in five small reserves. Five years later, researchers found that catches in areas adjacent to the reserves increased from 46 to 90 percent depending upon the type of fishing gear used.

Another place of study was a 15-square-mile area off Cape Canaveral closed to fishing for the last 40 years for security reasons. Data showed that sports anglers fishing around that area are landing a disproportionate number of state and world record fish from three species.

Baptist boxer shrimp, red whale poop, Nordic opinion and disagreement over marine preserves -- columns just don't get more fun than this. Thanks, everyone, for writing.