On May 14, 9:35*am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:50:04 -0700 (PDT), Bil
wrote:

The Belgian Ministry of Environment is happy to inform you about the
release of a folder on ship strikes with whales. Ship strikes are now
a recognized cause of mortality for whales globally.

They have also been recognized as a source of mortality for sailboats
and their occupants. *Are you suggesting that we should ban shipping
to save the whales?

The effects of whale strike on sailboats is why I, as a cruising
sailor, posted the message from the Belgian Ministry of Environment.

Far from suggesting a ban on shipping, the documents at the Belgian
Ministry of Environment suggest (1) collect data about the risks; and
(2) consider mitigation strategies. To date, mitigation strategies
include re-routing shipping lanes and changing ship speed slightly.

A good database of whale/sailboat strikes might lead to mitigation
specific to cruisers. At the moment, we don't know whether - for
example - sailing with a sonar depth sounder operating avoids whale/
sailboat strikes. That's why a database with details of where/when/
under what conditions would be valuable.

See the text as it reads today on mitigation:

Mitigation measures

It may sound obvious but the most effective way to reduce collision
risk is to keep whales and ships apart. This is not as easy as it
sounds for both scientific and logistical reasons, but it has been
achieved in some areas. In particular, it relies on good information
and predictable patterns of whale (and vessel) distribution as well as
a practicable alternative route for shipping. For example, in the Bay
of Fundy off the east coast of Canada, long-term data on North
Atlantic whale distribution allowed a small adjustment to the shipping
lane, adding minimal passage time to shipping, but achieving a
substantial reduction in collision risk. A similar approach has been
used for shipping lanes approaching the port of Boston on the east
coast of the USA.

In other areas, there is no practicable alternative route for shipping
and other solutions need to be considered. There is good evidence that
ships travelling at slower speeds pose less of a collision risk4. In
areas where there is a particular concern, vessels have been requested
to slow down. For example, there is an area in approaches to the
Strait of Gibraltar that appears particularly important to sperm
whales, but would be difficult for vessels to avoid. Measures to
regulate shipping, such as modifying mandatory shipping lanes or
establishing areas to be avoided, are decided by the International
Maritime Organization. In 2008, the Marine Environment Protection
Committee of the IMO included the development of a guidance document
on minimizing the risk of ship strikes with cetaceans into its work
programme.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:31:15 -0700 (PDT), Bil
wrote:

A good database of whale/sailboat strikes might lead to mitigation
specific to cruisers. At the moment, we don't know whether - for
example - sailing with a sonar depth sounder operating avoids whale/
sailboat strikes.

Well here's another data point for your research. We were recently
approached by a pod of 3 minke whales south of Guadaloupe. The first
was clearly on a collision course so we immediately slowed down to let
him pass ahead. The other 2 passed close astern. The whales were
all about 25 feet long and could have clearly done some serious damage
to us and vice versa.

For the record we are a twin engine displacement trawler with 3 depth
sounders operational, black bottom paint, and white top sides. Our
speed at the time was about 8 knots and the whales seemed totally
oblivious to our presence. Two of the depth sounders operate at 200
khz and the third is a dual beam 200/50 khz.

Back in south Florida we have frequently observed bottle nosed
dolphins seeking us out from large distances away. They like to play
in the wake but we think it is sound that attracts them.

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:31:15 -0700 (PDT), Bil wrote:

A good database of whale/sailboat strikes might lead to mitigation
specific to cruisers. At the moment, we don't know whether - for
example - sailing with a sonar depth sounder operating avoids whale/
sailboat strikes. That's why a database with details of where/when/
under what conditions would be valuable.

Really, how stupid does a whale have to be in order to "bump into" a
boat?

Think about it.

People walk in front of moving cars, OD on drugs, have unprotected sex, use
tobacco, etc, etc ,etc.......we are the most self destructive species.

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:06:27 -0400, "mmc" wrote:


"WaIIy" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:31:15 -0700 (PDT), Bil wrote:

A good database of whale/sailboat strikes might lead to mitigation
specific to cruisers. At the moment, we don't know whether - for
example - sailing with a sonar depth sounder operating avoids whale/
sailboat strikes. That's why a database with details of where/when/
under what conditions would be valuable.

Really, how stupid does a whale have to be in order to "bump into" a
boat?

Think about it.

People walk in front of moving cars, OD on drugs, have unprotected sex,
use
tobacco, etc, etc ,etc.......we are the most self destructive species.


Well, then should we ban cars, sex, tobacco and elevators.

If we did. there'd less obesity! I was just pointing out that sometimes sh*t
happens.


Anyway, what does a whale swimming in a gigantic ocean running into a
a boat which is taking up one billionth of space have to do with sex.

Should we make whale condoms?

Oh wait, I have some.

Haha.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:20:26 -0400, wrote:

How stupid does a ship manned by many people and all the latest
electronics, have to be, to run into a whale?

A big ship would not see them in time, and if they did, would not have
time to avoid them. We are a lot closer to the water in our boat,
but did not see the minke whales until they were about 100 feet away.
A large ship would probably not see them at all.

In article ,
Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:20:26 -0400, wrote:

How stupid does a ship manned by many people and all the latest
electronics, have to be, to run into a whale?

A big ship would not see them in time, and if they did, would not have
time to avoid them. We are a lot closer to the water in our boat,
but did not see the minke whales until they were about 100 feet away.
A large ship would probably not see them at all.

Old whales also have human frailties: deafness, blindness..

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:06:27 -0400, "mmc" wrote:


"WaIIy" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:31:15 -0700 (PDT), Bil wrote:

A good database of whale/sailboat strikes might lead to mitigation
specific to cruisers. At the moment, we don't know whether - for
example - sailing with a sonar depth sounder operating avoids whale/
sailboat strikes. That's why a database with details of where/when/
under what conditions would be valuable.

Really, how stupid does a whale have to be in order to "bump into" a
boat?

Think about it.

People walk in front of moving cars, OD on drugs, have unprotected sex, use
tobacco, etc, etc ,etc.......we are the most self destructive species.


How stupid does a ship manned by many people and all the latest
electronics, have to be, to run into a whale?

Most Commercial Shipping Vessels do carry any type of electronic
equipment that could, or would, show a whale in near vicinity of a ship.
At most they carry a Depth Sounder, which on the High Seas, is likely
turned OFF, and only used when entering, or leaving Port. AsK "Me" How I
know... I did SOLAS Inspections on 300 GTon and up Vessels for a couple
of Decades. Duh.....

On Sat, 15 May 2010 10:22:44 -0800, You wrote:

Most Commercial Shipping Vessels do [not] carry any type of electronic
equipment that could, or would, show a whale in near vicinity of a ship.

I agree assuming that you meant "do not carry". Military vessels are
more likely to carry high tech gear like that in my somewhat informed
opinion, side scan SONAR and the like.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 17:54:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2010 17:03:27 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2010 10:22:44 -0800, You wrote:

Most Commercial Shipping Vessels do [not] carry any type of electronic
equipment that could, or would, show a whale in near vicinity of a ship.

I agree assuming that you meant "do not carry". Military vessels are
more likely to carry high tech gear like that in my somewhat informed
opinion, side scan SONAR and the like.

Ships hitting whales has nothing to do with whales being stupid.

In some areas of a lot of whale activity, they mandate that large
ships travel slower so the whales can get out of the way.

I wonder whether whales feel any incentive to "get out of the way"?
After all, porpoise seem to be attracted to small boats and frequently
seem to play in he wake or dive under the boat.
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Sun, 16 May 2010 07:59:26 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

After all, porpoise seem to be attracted to small boats and frequently
seem to play in he wake or dive under the boat.

We see that all the time, most recently yesterday at the SW corner of
Puerto Rico. We had two big ones playing in the bow wave for several
minutes, sometimes jumping at right angles to each other in front of
the boat. They are very fast and agile, never getting hit as far as I
know.