Welcome to the Speak Up For Blue podcast session 135. Just to note, I'm a little frustrated right now because this is the third time that I've recorded this intro and outro and something's bad's happened. So hopefully this will be the last time. Anyway, it is Ocean Talk Friday. We have some, I have Nathan. We talked on blab.im. We had a great time. We had actually one person who joined us during the live stream. And she stayed with us the entire time, putting in her comments and it was really good feedback. And she actually had some really good things to say. And we talked about four stories that I'm going to tell you in just a minute. So stay tuned for the Speak Up For Blue podcast. Welcome to the Speak Up For Blue podcast, helping you get involved in ocean conservation. And now, here's your host. He still puts his hands in the air because he doesn't care. Andrew Lewin. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to another exciting episode of the Speak Up For Blue podcast, your voice for the ocean. I'm your host, Andrew Lewin, founder of Speak Up For Blue dot com, marine ecologist and self-proclaimed ocean prener. And today is Ocean Talk Friday. It's one of my favorite days. And today that I look forward to every week because I get to talk ocean conservation with my good buddy, Nathan Johnson. We did this recording on blab.im, which is a live streaming site that we've been kind of getting into for the last four weeks, like I said, fourth week doing it. We actually had one person who stayed with us the entire episode because we scheduled it properly. If you want to join in and we can actually open it up so you can actually have video and audio and become part of the podcast, you can do so by going to blab.im sign in with your Twitter account and then just follow us at Speak Up For Blue on blab.im. So it's really cool. It's really easy to watch. It's really easy to take part in. You don't have to be on audio or video. You can just put in some comments, ask some questions. It's a lot of fun. We have a great time doing it and we want to include you. So I'm going to be doing two episodes a week, hopefully, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I'm going to try and make that more regular as I get more involved in this and get hopefully more interviews on Tuesdays so it goes for the interview Wednesdays. But it's going to be great. So stay tuned for that and we'll give you more information. If you actually follow us on blab.im, you will get an email every time we schedule a podcast or a blab session, whatever you call them, and then you can, there's a link and then you can follow them at the specific time that we say. So it'll be at night. It'll probably be a nine or 10 Eastern, but you can get into it then. So today, like I said, is Ocean Talk Friday. We talk, if you don't know what Ocean Talk Friday is, I get on with my good buddy Nathan who writes the blogs for these, for Speak Up For Blue. And we talked about four stories. One, I'll give you a quick description of what they are. One was with an article that Andrew David Taylor wrote on Southern Fried Science. It was about a paper that got retracted from plus one PLOS one that I usually do my research Thursdays on. And this article got retracted. It had nothing to do with ocean conservation, but it was interesting because it got retracted because it had language that resembled creationism. So a quote unquote creator was used and people took that as a creationist sort of take on the methodologies and results, which were correct no matter what the interpretation was. And Andrew's position on was quite interesting. It was right. I agree with him. So does Nathan. And we talked about that today. So that was kind of interesting. It actually ended up being a bit of a misunderstanding and a mistranslation. The authors were Chinese and they had a different interpretation for the word creator. So that was kind of interesting. Anyway, the next story was the Ocean Twilight Zone and whether we should, people are starting to say that we should harvest the biomass there next because we're running out of fish or running out of protein or running out of omega three fatty acids. So we should look at the Twilight Zone, the zone, the deep sea zone that we don't see. And they think that there's high biomass and that we should go there next. We talk about the ethical aspect of going down, you know, fishing down to depths instead of down the fish of the food chain, but fishing down to depths where we don't know anything about. We talk about that on this episode. We also talk about a cool thing. There's six countries that are gained together in the Arctic to monitor melting Arctic flows by having a floating ice station. So monitoring using an ice, a floating ice, like a scientific station on a floating ice that is monitoring melting Arctic flows, melting ice. So on ice, monitoring melting ice. Let's see how fast that sets in on you guys. And if you get it, because I don't. But I think it's cool. I think it's really cool that they have these temporary stations and we need to monitor melting ice. And we talk about that in today's episode. And finally, finally, the thing that we've been waiting for for the last three years since Blackfish has come out. And of course, for advocates who have been protesting captivity of orcas for the last 30 years, we have finally heard from SeaWorld on what they're going to do with their orca breeding program, as well as their orca program in general. And it's very good news. It's a big win for ocean conservation. We're going to talk about that. We also talk about what SeaWorld should do in the future. And we have some pretty interesting takes on that. We want to get your opinion on that so you can go to the Speak Up for Blue show notes at speakupforblue.com/session135, all one word. And you can actually put a comment on there or you can hit us up on Twitter @SpeakUpForBlue or you can go to our Facebook page, facebook.com/SpeakUpForTheBlue. And you can put up your comments on what you think where you think SeaWorld should go after you listen to this episode, of course. So here is the episode with Nathan, Johnson on Blab, enjoy and I'll talk to you after. What's up, Nathan? Welcome back for another Ocean Talk Friday, even though it's Thursday recording this live on Blab again. I think these are fourth week in a row. We've done a month. Wow. Not bad. How are you doing? I'm doing well. How are you doing? Good. Good. Yeah. We're getting used to this a little better. You know what I've noticed is Blab keeps changing. I guess it's in Bay that it keeps changing because today, usually what happens when I go on and I like I scheduled it pretty early, I scheduled it yesterday. So I scheduled it for today's time at 10 o'clock Eastern. And then I said, usually what happens, I get an email from it. I didn't get an email this time. That's how I usually get the link. But when I went on my profile, it had us on there ready to schedule, which it didn't have last week. So I noticed every week there's something new about this. So it's kind of cool that it does that. So anyway, today, we're going to be talking about four stories that, oh, hey, how's it going? We're going to be talking about four stories that I've hit the news relatively recently over the week, I guess, one is from our friends over at Southern Fried Science, Andrew David Taylor. Now, we're going to talk about a paper that got retracted for, well, what was thought to be mentioned, mentioning some sort of creationism sort of language, ended up being something else got retracted and Andrew was saying that it shouldn't have been retracted and he's got specific reasons we're going to talk about that. We're also going to talk about, can we harvest the twilight zone, the fish biomass in the twilight zone? And should we harvest? We're going to be talking about the pros and cons of that kind of stuff, about fishing for the future, I guess. We're also going to talk about a new ice station, international ice station, it's a collaboration between Russia, Greenland, or Iceland, Monaco, Norway, and the UK, it's going to be a monitoring station in the Arctic and it's going to float, which is kind of cool. And lastly, the big news of the day is SeaWorld has come out and said that they are going to stop their breeding program. And I have my thoughts on that. I'm sure you have your thoughts on that, Nathan. I think it's kind of funny that they're stopping the breeding program because they're supposed to stop the breeding program, but it's good news for the conservation industry, it's good news for future orcas that might have been caught or might have been bred in captivity. And I think the conservation community is just chocking up as a big win, but we're going to talk about that last. Let's get to the show. Let's talk about the Southern Fried Science. Why don't you give us a description there, everybody? Alright, so first of all, let me just ask, have you heard of this, they're talking about a scientific manuscript from the journal plus one, that in, well, in the abstract, but a couple of times throughout the paper, they reference the creator capital C in there. And you've seen this paper before today? I haven't seen it before today. I just read it when I read the blog post, I read like the abstract and a couple of lines in the introduction. Yeah, because I saw it passing around through like Facebook and some other social media sites. I didn't actually read the paper, but there was a bunch of headlines that say like creationist paper retracted from major science publication, something like that. So, and I think, I got to be honest, I think probably most people who've heard about this, that's probably what they did, is just saw the headline, didn't really actually look at it, didn't go too much in depth, and we're like, well, you know, that's just creationist trying to push their agenda into science, and project, right. So Southern Fried Science, Andrew David Thaler wrote a piece about this, it's called This Paper Should Not Have Been Retracted, hashtag handofgod highlights the worst aspects of science Twitter. And well, apparently, so he links to the article, it talks about, let me see, there's one sentence in the abstract that says it's about biomechanical characteristics of hand coordination. So it's not ocean science, but so one of the sentences says the explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanic characteristic of the tenderness, connective architecture between muscles and articulation is the proper design by the creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way. You can make the argument that that definitely sounds like a creationist sort of thing to sort of push for an agenda, but so they, you know, plus one retracted it after looking through it, they communicated their retraction both to the authors and to the site. And then what apparently happened is that the authors who are Chinese of the article responded to the retraction saying that it wasn't actually some sort of introduction of creationist dogma or whatever you want to call it, but it was basically just a mistranslation. So they were, they were translating a Chinese phrase into English. The phrase roughly meant nature, well quoted in Southern front signs as nature as guided by natural processes like selection, and when translated into English, I guess the best available word that they could come up with was the creator, which obviously is a mistranslation, but what Andrew argues is that a mistranslation is by no means a cause for retraction. And journals don't retract papers over little things. They have huge consequences if you're involved with the journal retraction or article retraction. It's very bad for your job and your career for you to have that hanging over you. So what he's saying is that like, first of all, yes, if it's mistranslation that should have been caught by the reviewers, probably also should have been caught by the subject editor, whatever, even if that slips through the cracks, you have a situation where this red flag is raised, you go back, figure out what the issue is. But the whole point of communicating science is to communicate processes that have been scientifically vetted. So your methods and your results should be sound. You don't necessarily have to have the perfect conclusions because that's how you have papers that come built on other papers that come built on other papers. So apparently in the retraction, so in the statement they put out, plus one said that the evaluation confirmed concerns with, quote, the scientific rationale, presentation and language. But it sounds like from everything that you hear about people who actually examine the methods and the results of this paper, it's not the science. It's just the phrasing in the translation. And so what Andrew is saying is like, there are plenty of times you submit a paper where the methods and the results are great, and your discussion and intro aren't that great. And you have to change that. But rarely do you get something flat out rejected if the science holds up, you just misinterpret it or you use the wrong language. Yeah, and this was an interesting one, one. It's just retracted based on like you said, a mistranslation, you know, or a misunderstanding of the translation. Actually once you put in anything referring to creationist or creationism, you get a lot of people sort of putting up and saying, whoa, what's going on? Like, is it a gender? Is it not a gender? I like the argument that Andrew takes it regardless of whether it was referring to creationism like the creator creationism or not, the methods and the results were sound that you write. They weren't incorrect. The interpretation was incorrect. And the reviewers thought the same thing and that's why they accepted the, you know, the paper. Now, with that said, they could have, like Andrew mentioned, it could have been, well, at best, they could have just, if you don't get the interpretation right or there's a term in the interpretation, so that means the discussion or maybe even in the introduction. It could be, okay, well, this term doesn't really buy because, look, we know you're from China here in the West or where most people think, you know, this is, you know, about the Bible and it's very controversial and I don't think it's what you mean or can you clarify that. And then it gets clarified. It gets maybe rewritten a little bit, reviewed, and then it goes back out and it gets published. So it's one of those things where, one, it's a misunderstanding, so it shouldn't have been retracted. You know what's funny, you say plus one, I always say PLOS one, but I guess it does spell it a plus one. I never thought about that. I'm just saying PLOS one, I've always had trouble doing that. I'm sure they don't care. Yeah, I'm sure they don't care. But it's just interesting. Now it's so much easier to say plus one, but you can read, like, even though they retracted it, you can still read everything. So that, I found that interesting, like, they didn't take it out. So you can actually still read the article as of today. I don't know if they just, I don't know what the process is if they put a notice out because this, the notice was, I guess it was published March 4th. Yeah, when you link to the article, it has the full article, but then it also has their retraction statement on top. On the top. Yeah. If that's the end goal or if that's just sort of like, you know, until they figure out how to get, take it down or what. Yeah. Interesting, because I mean, it's March 4th, what day is the March 17th? I have to say, by the way, it's March 17th now. So it's been quite, it's been quite a while, you know, I don't know when it got retracted and if there's like a period, like you said, that they wait and let people see and maybe get feedback and support of the retraction or against the retraction, I don't know. And because plus one use, it's a different way of doing things because it's not a physical journal and it's open access. So I like how you can still read the article and judge for yourself and I mean, it is. It's just a thing of, oh, you want the link, I can give you the link here. We'll, I'll post the link just to here in the, in the discussion. There you go. So yeah, so I just think it's interesting how that got retracted and it really goes to another discussion that we can, that we could probably make the whole show about this, but we won't. But the fact that what if it was referred to as a creator, as in God and the creationist sort of theory of intelligent design, you know, I find, I've always found that interesting is like you look at, you know, evolution versus creationism and, you know, who was it? I think it was Ben Stein made a documentary. It's called expelled, no, no intelligence allowed. And he made a documentary saying that there should be a valid case for both the sort of thought processes, you know, and he kind of talked about, like, you know, the Smithsonian Institute and how he says no institution should ban it because the science is there. So I find that that's always an interesting dilemma. It's like, you know, scientists are supposed to be unbiased. Is there enough science to, you know, to say creationism has a case or is it not? I don't think it does from the reading that I've done what I've, what I've, you know, people I've talked to. But as scientists and being unbiased, should we let that happen? Is it always the debate, especially like what the way Andrew's saying it is, regardless of, and I think I'm interpreting this right, regardless of whether the interpretation, you agree with the interpretation, the methods were right and the results were correct. So maybe as you read the article, you can make a different interpretation and say you, you know, you're for the evolution, like we're both for evolution. And we believe in that, you know, that process, you know, we can make a different, a different conclusion from the results and methods, because they were correct. And what should be based on, so I find that interesting and I find it, it didn't get a rewrite or it didn't go back, but I just always find that debate really, really interesting. What do you think? Yeah, I mean, I, so the thing about science and the reason it's so powerful and the reason it stands the test of time is because like you said, it doesn't matter what your, it shouldn't matter what your biases are, what your opinions are as long as those don't come into play in your interpretation of the facts. So if you go out and you collect these observations and you collect them, you know, as accurately as possible, you reduce as much bias as possible, you interpret them as best you can given the knowledge that you have. And then, you know, someone comes to you and says, oh, you didn't think about this thing that changes how you interpret that. And you're like, oh, yes, it does. Let me, you know, reinterpret this data based on now what I know differently. I mean, that's, that's the whole point of science. So you, you make the argument or you can make the argument that even if they had been pushing this sort of creationism agenda, even if, even if that were the end goal of these authors, which it wasn't, if they interpreted their data correctly and their discussion wasn't necessarily thrown into any sort of creationism agenda, their discussion was sound based on their methods and their results, then you make the argument that that should have been published anyway, whatever these scientists believe, if they did science properly and throughout the peer review process when compared or when brought up with other scientists in their field and when this was openly discussed and we didn't find any criticisms, it doesn't matter what sort of beliefs they may hold if that didn't come into play in the publication of this specific article. So, you know, I don't know if that's the argument Andrew's making on this, you know, he's mostly seems like he's just saying they retracted it when they should not have based on all evidence that's come out since, but you can even take that a step further and say, well, you know, whether they believe in creationism or not, whether they believe in evolution or not, is this paper scientifically sound? And if it is, you should let it go because if you don't, if you retract or if you don't accept papers based on other beliefs of researchers, even if it doesn't play into their science, then science loses its ability to withstand the test of time because then you're throwing in personal biases and everything. Yeah, and yeah, it's interesting like, do you, if it's not in the methods and the results, those are fine, but it's in the introduction and conclusion, do you write them back and be like, look, this thought process is not right for this journal, the methods and results are fine. This will be accepted if you rewrite and take out, you know, the references of creationism because like, it's not when you publish in science journals, it's not necessarily a freedom of speech issue, you know, I mean, it's more of what's correct and what's not correct. What's happening? How are we explaining specific things in this case, you know, how are we explaining hand to eye coordination, right, in grasping the activities of daily living? So it's not did God, you know, give us the power to grasp something, it's did this, you know, did this, what's the null hypothesis and did it disprove the null hypothesis, right? Well, and if it's, yeah, and if it's just a discussion or introduction thing, then like Andrew said, a lot of times you just write them back and say, just revise it, you know, there's some guidelines for how to revise it, but we don't think you interpreted the data correctly or you did your interpretation properly, the data's good, just rework how you're going to interpret it. And to be honest, in this case, and being more of a misunderstanding than anything else, right, right, so I think, you know, the journal made a couple of errors, the journals made a couple of errors and then other people made a couple of error, like the authors made the misinterpretation and then going from going on from there. So it's kind of interesting, you know, I don't really know if that works or not, but hey, you know, that's what we do, you know, that's why we're debating it, right? So, but of course there's, you know, there's some errors that happen and that's what happens and we just kind of go on for, you know, and hopefully the next, the next way it's handled, the next time this happens, it's handled a little bit better. So we'll see, we'll see what happens. Let's move on to the next story. We're going to talk about, what are we talking about here, the Twilight Zone or the Twilight Zone. What's happening in the Ocean Twilight Zone and why, and it should we actually start thinking about harvesting it? Yeah, so for those of you not familiar with it, the Twilight Zone is just the region of the Ocean that sunlight doesn't penetrate. So we're talking about a certain depth range. And so a study was published in frontiers in marine science entitled, "A Dark Hole on Our Understanding of Marine Ecosystems and Their Services Perspectives from the Meso-Pelagic Community," which also refers to the type of depth that we're talking about for this. So below the sea surface, below areas where light typically reaches, what these researchers found doing a variety of community abundance estimations is that this area is a lot more populous than we thought it was with a lot of different species of fish. One of them, let me get the name right, bristlemouth cyclotone. It's a small fish, 10 to 15 centimetres, but it's estimated to be the most abundant vertebrate on the planet. This is one of the fish that they find on the Twilight Zone. You also get the lantern fish with the funky looking headlights on their head that always seems to scare people. You have a lot of different zooplankton that participate in these diurnal migrations along with a lot of the rest of the community. So it's just this diverse ecosystem. And the point of the paper is that there's a lot more going on here than we might have thought before. These fish are really important food items for a lot of larger economically important fish like Duna and whales and other sorts of things that we actually do care about, that we do have a fishery for. Because of their diurnal migrations, they play a large role in carbon cycling and nutrient cycling from the deep water to the surface water. So from a chemical point of view, they're really important to the ocean. Then the last thing that they bring up is that we are currently putting a lot of pressure on our coastal fisheries. So we harvest a lot of our seafood from relatively near shore areas. So this could be an area that, you know, 10 to 20 years from now, if we don't develop some sort of sustainable methods to prevent a lot of the overfishing going on for the current stocks, people might turn to these mesopelagic communities in the Twilight Zone. Maybe not necessarily for seafood, just because of the size of a lot of these animals, but for pharmaceuticals, for nutritional supplements, a lot of the fatty acids that you get from fish, these are huge potential industries for that, or could be potential industries. And what the article and the manuscript make a case for is that, A, if we go down this road, it's something that we need to think about heavily. We're not saying that there's a fishery for these things right now, but they could hypothesize a situation where it does become a very big deal. And B, if we do, when we're factoring in these things, we really have to make sure that we don't over harvest this area that we still know very little about. So we do know that it's an important food source, we do know that it plays an important role in carbon cycling. Those are all good reasons not to overfishing, but there's also so much we don't know because it's difficult to study because you have not only a horizontal space underneath the ocean, but a vertical space as well. Light doesn't reach there, so a lot of the only things you can do are acoustic surveys or some other sort of light independent methods. So it's kind of an interesting thing to think about, and I think it's good to see these types of proactive measures. We're not saying that we can't fish any of this, we're not saying we can't harvest any of this, but what we're saying is if coastal resources start going away, then these mesopelagic or these twilight zone areas might be sort of the next big opportunity. Yeah, and then you wonder, because we don't know not much about it, and it's very difficult to know much more about it, do we even consider harvesting it? Right? It's because it's the area that we don't know, it is very diverse, there's lots of biomass, it's almost feels like it's quote unquote untouched, even though we're probably affecting in some kind of way, because it seems more and more research has indicated that we are affecting the ocean, even though we don't know what those effects are, even to the depths, because we don't have that much information. The most we would have is sticking our OVs down there and just checking things out, but by that point, right now we're more of discovering new things than finding out what the problems are if we are affecting them. So that makes me very cautious in saying yes, we should go out and consider harvesting them. It's probably the next move based on what we've done and what we're doing to the fisheries sort of in the photic zone, which is really a shame, and it doesn't look like it's changing very much sort of in the future. So what do we do? Do we even consider harvesting it? Do we start studying it? Should we study it? I mean, obviously we should just to know what it's like, but more information leads to people being greedy and saying, hey, let's go for it. Let's harvest it. Now, on the other hand, Brian Tisott, he was on the program. I forget what session he was, but I interviewed him back in September, and he was saying we should proactively protect the deep sea. He was focusing more on the Pacific, just off the coast of California, but at the time, he was saying, hey, maybe we should focus more on the deep sea and say, let's proactively protect these areas before we affect them, before deep sea harvesting occurs and already have them protected, and then we get to research them and find out more about them. So that's kind of my thought on this one. I don't know. What do you think? I think that's a good way to go. I mean, as scientists, we're trained in sort of practicing caution, which I think is where scientists differ a lot of times from other policymakers or, you know, people in industry is that we're more likely to say, we don't know much about it, so don't do anything to it until we can find out more about it, whereas, you know, other people will say, we don't know much more. We don't know much about it, but we're going to keep, you know, exploiting it or harvesting it until we have definitive events that what we're doing is harmful, and that's kind of thing you run into. So I would agree. Right now, when no one really has a stake in this area, it's going to be a lot easier to get it protected if someone were to actually go through that process. So yeah, if we're thinking about protection, now's the time to do it as opposed to 20 years from now when we have nutritional supplement industry saying, no, don't protect that because that's where we get our fish oil from. Yeah. So and that's what Brian was saying on the earlier podcast is no one's using it now. So if we're protected, it's going to be a lot easier to do now. And I agree, I think, I think then you just kind of open it up. So, and I don't know if this is actually how it would go, but then you bring it forward and say, we want to protect this, and then people are saying, what are you protecting it from? And you're like, Oh, well, it's got all these benefits. And then they're like, all right, let us, you know, let's read through some of the stuff you're saying and we'll get back to like, actually, we're not going to protect it. Thanks for introducing this sort of thing to us. Yeah. I mean, that's the thing, right is, you know, I think if you start researching it and developing it and, or like looking at it, people are going to start to see what is there and start to get ideas and there's going to be opportunities there. We have to make sure, yes, you can maybe take advantage of opportunities, but also we need to protect those opportunities, you know, we need to make sure that those opportunities last a long time and they end up being sustainable, which we haven't had a good track record of doing. So that's why we want to protect as much space as possible before they get into this kind of area. Because I mean, especially now, holy cow, we do not know anything about the deep sea. We barely know about the stuff that's in the photo zone, you know, let alone the twilight zone. So it just doesn't make sense to say, hey, you know, let's, let's just develop this and hopefully it'll be better. But I think, I think we really need to be cautious on this. We really need to focus in on protecting these areas just proactively. Even if it's just arbitrarily, just say, hey, you know what, we're going to protect this area here because it's, it's had, it's been studied and we know there's a lot of biomass. So we're going to protect this amount of area and it'd be interesting to see how you would do that. You know, you're protecting the twilight zone, but how much depth do you protect all the way to the ground? Or do you protect just that section that you know of? And you're just kind of like, oh, okay, I see now we're looking at 3D sort of MBAs. We already have trouble with the horizontal boundaries. Now we're going to have to deal with vertical boundaries too, right? You can barely protect areas that we can see. And now we're talking about protecting an area that light doesn't reach. Exactly. Well, then do you, do you just protect from surface all the way to the ground? I guess that's, that's, that would be the conservative move to do and just be like, yeah, we'll just protect everything because then how do you, because you can't enforce that. You can't enforce a wall, I wasn't at depth, you know, 1000 meters. I was at depth, 950 meters. And then you just build a giant tube and straight down and say, we're protecting this cylinder. You can come into it. You know, if, if you want, there's a key somewhere, but you have to put an application to get the key. So don't touch our cylinder. Yeah, don't touch the, I could just see that. I can just see animals just kind of jumping in and out. I know. They're really fine. They can't. They'll be for larger anyway. They'll have no idea. Yeah. They'll, it'll be so big. They'll, it'll be like one of those like African parks, right after the African safari park. It's like sea world in the twilight zone. Yeah. Ooh. You said the bad word. You said, I'm bad joke for people who aren't actually advocating for that. You're not advocating to put a giant cylindrical dome on the ocean. Yeah. Oh, now it's a dome. It's going to be open. Okay. Now you're changing. Well, you can. You're adapting. Yeah. I know. I put that in a cool situation. It can be either. All right. This is a good segue. Maybe we just stopped talking about this part. But yeah, no, let's look at it. We got to be cautious. We got to look at what we need to do. We need to discover what's under there first, realize how much is actually under there and then protect the hell out of it and don't let people touch it. That's what that's all I say is, you know, just be very, very cautious on that kind of thing. All right. Let's get to our third story. This is kind of cool. An international ice station that will monitor melting Arctic flows. What's that about? That sounds awesome. It's a team of researchers from six different countries, Canada, Iceland, Monaco, randomly enough. Yeah. Yeah. Good for them, though. Seriously. Norway, Russia, and the UK. So all areas except for Monaco that seem to have a stake in the Arctic areas itself. And so we've talked about how, you know, the Arctic regions are warming at a faster rate than most of the rest of the ocean. Sea ice melting is a huge problem up there. These are really pristine systems compared to a lot of the other ocean ecosystems throughout the world. And so, you know, it's kind of even more important that we protect these. So what these countries have done is collaborate to create basically a melting, or not a melting, a floating research station to measure and monitor some of this Arctic ice flow. How much of it is breaking apart? What's the rate at which it's melting? How, where is it moving towards if it's being broken up and redistributed in certain areas? So, you know, it's really just nice to see sort of this international collaboration based on climate change in the Arctic, an area that I think is very easy for a lot of governments maybe to not care so much about it as their own backyard and as their own inclusive economic zone. So this new station will launch in 2017 in April. It's going to carry out. It says year-long research in a number of areas, including marine biology, physics, and geology, and they're currently working on sponsorship to fund a lot of these things. So hopefully it'll give us a lot more information on climate change rates, climate change impacts in the Arctic in areas that we can't easily access. And hopefully all of this because it's being collected by multiple different countries, hopefully it'll sort of help lay the foundation for an international tangible effort against climate change. And that we now have data, we now have access to this area, and now we can develop ways to prevent this or mitigate the types of detrimental climate change impacts that are going on here. Right on. It's kind of as you were reading, as you were saying this, the description, I was intrigued by the fact that Monaco was involved in this. And apparently it goes back to Prince Albert I of Monaco, he died in 1922, but he was alive, what was his life, 1848, I think he was born. He actually was an explorer and almost created sort of the science of oceanography, or sort of dedicated life to oceanography, and it says here that he actually spearheaded a lot of explorations with Norway and who else, Norwegian Polar Institute, and somewhere else. And he did a lot of reconnaissance and stuff like that. So it's kind of interesting, and he even got awards from National Academy of Sciences, and the American Geographical Society, and he got awarded honorary member at the Explorers Club. So I think that's where, so just a quick tip of what information, I think that's kind of a cool kind of thing of why Monaco is involved in the art. He actually led two expeditions, one to the Arctic and one to the Antarctic, so very promising. I'm assuming they just keep having ties to that kind of exploration and science. So now let's talk about these floating station, how does that work? It's on a piece of ice, like, did it say in the article? Well, yeah, so it's a drifting ice station, I mean it's physically on the piece of ice. Let me see, they talk a little bit about what types of things they'll be working towards. Well so it sounds like from what this article is saying, these are very temporary sort of situations, obviously, because you're on a floating piece of ice. The last one that Russia sort of worked on only operated for about seven months, it says, then in 2015, the station only operated for four months. So I would imagine it's got to be some sort of, like, makeshift station, something that will get you the data while you're out there, but it's not something that they invest a whole lot of money into because you know that if it breaks up, they're probably not getting a lot of the stuff back. Well, if you think about it, so you think about it, they're monitoring melting ice on a piece of ice. That's probably going to melt. Yeah, eventually, right, so in that case, I wouldn't want to be a scientist on very long because that thing's going to get smaller and smaller every time they go across. I think it's cool how it's it's multiple nations. I find it interesting how the US isn't involved, that's kind of interesting. But I like how it's it's, you know, a multiple nations and it floats from Siberia all the way over to the West. And I think that's that's kind of cool. And you're right, it's it's a definite necessity. I know a lot of the monitoring that goes on is by remote sensing, but it is hard to get. I mean, there are ice sensors. So radar set, which is a Canadian satellite monitors ice flow and monitors the amount of ice and ice flow. It's very good for that. However, you know, you have to, you know, it's not perfect, I'm sure. So having somebody taking samples while they're there, water samples, ice samples, as this ice is melting, I think this year has probably been the worst. I think the Arctic is that really had a good winter and the Antarctic as well. So, you know, this is obviously an important year because it's been one of the hottest years on earth and it's been breaking records since we started monitoring. So it's important that they start, you know, they continue to do this kind of stuff. So it'd be interesting to see the results of what comes out of these, out of the station and we'll probably have to follow up on that and see what kind of data they collect, what they use it for and how this ice is doing because I know it's not doing very well at the moment. Yeah. So, yeah, it's kind of a, it's kind of a cool story. There's not really much to talk about because it's just cool. It's just, it's just, it's just, you know, floating ice, like kind of a nice vacation for a month for a month. People will probably pay to go on that, on that business, right, watch scientists work, or become citizen science, good citizen science project. Yeah. Definitely. Good citizen science project. All right. Let's get the story of the day. This came out today, SeaWorld will end breeding of killer whales. It's like, it's like Christmas came early, right, for the, for the conservation world. And I, you know, I think this, this has been, Blackfish obviously is, was epic in getting the word out of captive dolphin, or captive orcas and what it has done and what has caused the orcas to do and how it's continued to just be bad. After that, it was like organizations who were already protesting the captivity basically had carte blanche in terms of what they could do and the impact that they could do. They put campaigns together, pulled, joined up and, you know, put campaigns together. Naomi Rose has been phenomenal in what she's put out in terms of the science, bringing the science we've had her on the episode, on the episode back in September. And of course, Chris Parsons, Dr. Chris Parsons has also been really phenomenal in getting the word out and just people have just gotten the word out. And it seems like the pressure for SeaWorld is just too much. Now, I also have to say with this that it was kind of inevitable that they, that their breeding program was going to stop because I think it was before Christmas, it was in December that California passed a law saying, I think it was California, and then maybe, maybe toward that they were putting a bill in federally. Yeah, it was back in November. It was back in November, right. So, you know, it was like, it was like, okay, you know, let's get, you know, let's get, let's get this bill enacted. So it was kind of funny how SeaWorld's coming out and saying, oh, yeah, okay, we're going to stop our breeding program and we're not going to take any more from any more orchas from the wild, which they've already said they weren't going to do. So this is the last set of orchas that we're going to have huge win, but really, they were kind of forced to do it anyway, because I know the only breeding program that they had was in California. They didn't really have anybody else. Tillicum was really the only orca that they were, they were taking sperm from, I believe, according to the movie, anyway, it was the major one. He was the major one. Yeah. Because if you look on the movie, they had like his sort of lineage and all of them were laid, all the new captive bred that were born in captivity. Right. Because they were born in captivity were, you know, basically, they were, they were, they were all born from Tillicum sperm. So that was his dad, that was their dad at some point, right? Huge win. Like, I think this is great. It's really going to change SeaWorld, but SeaWorld is changing anyway because this year has been their worst year, their worst year ever in terms of gaining money. They lost millions and millions of dollars this year because of their inability to change. I think they went the completely wrong way in terms of what they could have done. A lot of people, you know, I, I, this is my theory. When the movie came out, if they came out and said, you know what, you're right, let's do what we can, you know, stop the breeding program right away. Let's do what we can to make these animals feel better, whether it be really releasing them, putting them in pens, whatever that might be. Let's do the best we can. Let's work with, you know, some great organizations that are out there. But they took, and then, and then try and, and try and move things. I think people would have understood, I think people would have kind of been like, okay, you know what, you got caught, but, but you're owning up to it now. You're owning up to it and you're trying to do something about it. So that's a good thing, right? And they could have maybe salvaged something, but no, they went the opposite way. They tried to discredit the scientists. They, you know, they're very aggressive in, in their media campaigns, they, and it was just like, what are you doing? Like why are you doing this? Every time I was just, I was, yeah, I was just surprised. I was like, you keep going the opposite. It's a losing battle, and it has been a losing battle for them because, yeah, they're just, they just want the money. And they just say, no, this is our bread and butter and we're going to do it. And then they came out, said we're going to stop in 2017 with the shows and we're going to try and make the, the habitats more relatable to the wild, which I think it's funny because it's like, how do you make it more relatable, they need tens of thousands of kilometers, you know, a year, you're not going to be able to do that. So you're not going to make it. What are you going to do? Put a couple of rocks in there and make it, you know, like, I don't know, I don't know what they can do. But anyway, that's my thoughts on it. I think they just got the wrong approach and now they're paying for it. And now they got to completely switch their model and people are still going to be like, well, yeah, they're switched their model, but remember when they tried to, to fight it and, and try to discredit people and ruin their careers? Yeah. I mean, there's still, I'm sure going to be some, some bad blood. I mean, I don't think this is going to bring back all the sea worlds doubters and say now we're coming back, but my initial reaction at first was kind of like, it's about time. Yeah. Also kind of like, should this really be this big of a win, like the fact that we're really scraping by, but the more I thought about it, I think yes, I think this has to be a big win. And I think people like you and I, people who have been very vocal about, you know, we should treat these animals more humanely. We should not be putting them in these tanks. We should not be breeding them. We should not be making them perform. I think it's really important that these people consider this a win. And I'm not saying that they have to give up fighting for, you know, additional things. There's been people who say, you know, well, in New York as they have should be reintroduced as best as possible. SeaWorld stance is pretty much going to die if we reintroduce them. So we'll let the ones that we have carry out the rest of their years here, but then we won't, we won't capture any, we won't collect any, we're not going to breed anymore. So that'll be the end of it. So I'm not saying that they shouldn't keep working if, if you're someone who believes that they should be reintroduced, keep going for that. I think it's really important to see this as a victory because when you think about it, this was all coming from a documentary that just came out three years ago, it was 2013 was Blackfish. Yeah. Or a documentary like that to have three years later completely reversed SeaWorld business model that is insanely productive. Yeah. Like, I mean, other documentary, the cove hasn't done something, you know, the cove isn't really in the news these days. It's still a very important issue, but not the same way that Blackfish is. Blackfish took people who weren't necessarily, people who've never been to SeaWorld didn't really care about orcas probably and got them to really be invested in this. And I think that in itself is a huge victory. And yes, it took three years and yes, there's a lot of legal apex and yeah, they should have just come out right away and said, you know what, you caught us? What can we do to better this? But at the end of the day, that's what they're going to have to do anyway. They could have, they're a huge organization, huge company, they could have dragged this on longer if they wanted to. They probably could have fought the court rulings, you know, found ways to maybe not breed orcas, but still let them perform, things like that. So I guess what I'm saying is this is by no means the end of it. No. But I think if we, if people focused on the welfare of these animals, if we just keep trying to push and push and don't really step back and recognize how big of a deal this is, I think it's going to turn a lot of people off to the cause. It's going to really not let people appreciate what was accomplished here. And then, you know, after we have an ability, then yes, by all means keep going. But I think, you know, as much as my gut instinct was kind of like, yeah, obviously we should not be breeding orcas. I think it's easy for me to say that. And it's another thing to have SeaWorld come out in a statement just three years after an independent documentary came along and said, yeah, we're not going to breed them. Yeah. You know, what I found was interesting, it compared them to the two other sort of documentaries that had a big impact on ocean conservation. You have the cove, which really brought to light what was happening around in that part of the world. You know, we had dolphins, pilot whales getting killed, getting murdered for, and being shipped off to captivity. For no reason. For really no reason. Yeah. You know, the meat was bad, it was heavily subsidized. It was just a terrible situation. And then the cove actually showed, you know, these dolphins getting hacked, you know, and bloodied and everything. And it was emotional and it was just had a huge impact. And then you have shark water, which had another huge impact. Not necessarily direct, but it really unveiled, you know, what started to be just a movie about sharks, it really unveiled the complexity and intricacy of the shark fin industry. Right. Right. The thing with both of those movies, they have made a bit of a difference in terms of they've focused, like they've gotten the public's attention and they've been able to capture the public's emotions. And that turned into some changes. The biggest difference is those changes had to happen in a foreign country where a lot of those organizations are based in the U.S. or Canada, or maybe even in the West, or maybe even Europe or Africa. There's a lot of cultural differences thrown in. A lot of cultural differences and it's first started off by anger, right? And then like not understanding the culture. And then it got to the point where, I mean, with shark fin soup and shark finning, it got to the point where organizations like WildAid actually went over there and moved in and teamed up with local organizations there and educated the public. And now you see a 70% reduction in shark fin trade. That is massive. So it had a difference, but it took longer because when did Sharkwater come out? 2008? It was before these other ones. Right. It was like one of the first, it was before COVID, I think, right? Yeah, 2006. 2006. So it's taken 10 years to really get a 70% reduction, which is a huge win. But again, it took longer because it was in a foreign, it was a bunch of foreign countries. It was easy to ban here, right? Like in Canada and North America because people understood what it was. And you had most people saying, no, this is wrong instead of sort of that cultural aspect. With the cold, I don't even know if it stopped. I think it still goes on. I think it does. Yeah, it's been kind of like the, you know, the, the, the Southern, the Pacific Southwest whale hunt, it still goes on because Japan's really holding on to that. And it's more of like direct government interference and support for those, both of those sort of harvest, you know, harvest or murders, whatever you want to call them. But with blackfish is, it was in the States, it was based in the States. And people in North America who visited SeaWorld, I mean, now that's a common tourist thing to do. You know, and when you watch the shows, you don't see anything wrong with the whales. You don't see anything wrong with the orcas. You see these massive orcas. It's entertaining. It is very entertaining. And what blackfish was able to do was go from, yes, it's entertaining. But these orcas are being tortured and with them being tortured psychologically and physically, they're starting to, they're starting to react. And this is what happens behind the scenes in SeaWorld. I mean, do you remember watching that movie and the scene where I think it was Tillicom. I think, I think it was Tillicom was grabbing the guy by the leg and he, the trainer by the leg and he kept sinking him down and then bringing him back up and then sinking him down and then being bringing him back up. And the guy eventually got away that I was, I was on the edge of my seat. I was like, holy cow, this, this, this orca has so much power. This guy is powerless. He just had to wait it out. That could have gone completely that other way. And I think people saw that and really just said these, these orcas need to, need to get out of captivity. We didn't realize, you know, a lot of people didn't realize when you take an orca away from its mother, that's, it's used to, you know, genetically and, and as part of their life cycle, they stay with their mother the entire life. And these, these animals are emotional. You, you're just like, oh my God, now it's in this little tank, it can't swim thousands of kilometers. It's in this little tank. And now, you know, what do we do? We can't go back and won't survive. Right. Right? Because of what, what happened with Keiko. What do we, you know, what do we do? So I think that power and then you have the power of social media and you have a lot more advocates on, on Twitter, on Facebook, on all the social media sites saying, no, we got to do something. And if you went, like, Jack Hannah came out, started to say, no, SeaWorld's good. He got it. Bumbard it. Anybody who came out to speak against Blackfish or tried to discredit Blackfish or say that no, this, you know, the orcas should be in captivity because they were a good educational tool got shot down. Yeah, they were just, it was just one of those things, whether it was right or not, it didn't matter. The public had spoken, Blackfish had spoken for them, gave them the tools and information for it. And then it was backed by scientists saying this is the tool that you need to listen to. And it was great because it was, it was in perfect sort of form. It was good for the public to consume and react to it. And it did. And I think that's why it did so well because it even got to politicians, right? Organizations said like, it was an, it was an easier win than going into a front country and trying to explain to them what they're, the degradation that they're doing to the ocean. You know, you have the cultural background, which takes a while. You got to get their trust, you know, because they're coming in thinking, oh, you're going to give us help for wanting a specific food. Whereas SeaWorld in being in the States, it's like, oh, we know how this goes. You know, you got the big, bad company. It goes, you know, there's a little movement that goes against it. A movie comes out, then the big, bad company fights back, but people don't react anymore to it. They're just like, no, no, we're going to make a bigger fight, you know, and we're going to start petitions. We're going to start, you know, protesting even harder. We're not going to go. And that's what him. It's the fact that they lost money. If they didn't lose money, none of this would happen. They would come up saying anything. They lost so much money that they actually had to come out and say, okay, you win. And that's what the big win is, is because it, the sort of stubbornness of advocates and conservationists and just people that got together and said, this is wrong, I understand that this is wrong. And I'm not going to see world. Right. Plus it's freaking expensive. Yeah. Right. So yeah, 63 bucks for kids. I'm sorry. That's expensive. Yeah. I mean, I agree, I think the main reason this worked, like you said, because we hit them where it hurt in pockets. But and this would be something interesting to actually take a look back at, but just thinking about it over the last like five, 10 minutes, I'm trying to think of documentaries that have a been as like well received, like great documentaries, but also have had like such a cultural impact where they've actually made a difference before Blackfish. The only ones that I'm really thinking of that I can think of are inconvenient truth, which you know, was kind of the big first, you know, we're changing the climate sort of thing. And then supersize me or something like that when it really spoke up against like fast food, because I can't think of many other documentaries that have actually in so short of a time gotten the public so against something or so for a certain cause that I've actually changed it. And I mean, three years is nothing for this. Yeah. Think about it back on this. It is really impressive what's what's actually been done on. Now I think what helps is that SeaWorld is a luxury. Right? SeaWorld is something that you don't need. Yeah. You know, it's a tourist attraction. You go there and it's fun to go like any other aquarium. It's fun to go to. But once you realize there's something wrong with it, people are like, oh crap, I'm not going to that. I don't have to. Like think about what's in SeaWorld, like what's in San Diego where the SeaWorld is? There's the beach, right? There's the San Diego Zoo, which is like phenomenal. Right. Plenty of other attractions. Plenty. Legoland. There's La Jolla, like there's so many things, man, like that you can go to with your kids or just on your own. I mean, San Diego is a great city, San Antonio as well is a great city. You don't need to go to SeaWorld. It's a luxury. So to say, to realize that, oh crap, you know, these orcas are actually being tortured. The best thing I can do is just not go. So I'm not going to go. I'm going to do something else. Yeah. Right. And I think, you know, you look at, you know, you mentioned inconvenient truth, we are tied to oil. Right. We are so tied to oil that we don't know the products that a lot of the products that we use, other than gas, are oil based. Right. We don't even know what's oil based in person. You know, we can't just refuse to give up oil that easily. Right. It's not a luxury. It's a necessity. Right. We use it so many, like, I mean, a lot of houses are still powered by oil. So it's something, even if you don't want to use it or you want to start using like solar power and stuff like that, it's crazy expensive. Yeah. Like here, if we want to get solar power on my house, it's, and we don't want to buy the solar, like the solar panels, it costs 25 grand to put solar panels on. Now with the programs that the government has a few years ago, you got to pay, you got paid 80 cents per kilowatt hour every month. You got to check. So like, I have a neighbor who does it and he gets about $380 because that rates stays for like five or 10 years and the return on investment is like seven years. So he gets a nice check every month and he's on solar power. But even then he's on solar power, but all he's doing is providing energy for the grid. He's not providing energy for the home. He still gets energy from the hydro company, which could be oil-based or whatever it is. So we are so dependent on oil that and fossil fuels that we just can't get away from, but SeaWorld is a luxury. Yeah. Right. If an aquarium came out and all of a sudden, and it was known for doing some bad things, we'll just stop going because they don't need to. You know what I mean? And I think that's the difference. And until we get enough alternatives to a specific thing that we need, we will not stop. You know, for instance, you know, you look at plastic straws, there are people are making glass straws now that are reusable, they even come with like a little cleaner that comes and I ordered some and it was amazing. You know, my kids use them all the time now, they don't use plastic straws. So there's an alternative for that, but it's not very well known, it's not very well used, right? Because it's probably a little more expensive than plastic straws. So until then, we're really, really not going to know. Yeah. So yeah. Last thoughts on this story and then we'll end here is a big win. And I think we should just take the same Patrick's Day night and make next like three or four days or however long you feel comfortable, but just accept that this is a big win. And don't, I didn't like that groups like PETA came out right away and said, oh, well, we still need to reintroduce the ones that are there like, okay, maybe we do, but maybe wait a few days to make that statement. And instead say something like, you know what, SeaWorld is going to be around a little bit longer. They're not going to be breeding orcas, they're not going to be doing orcas shows, but you know, they're smart business people, they're going to be around longer. They're going to find a way to stay in existence. So maybe now used as an opportunity to say like, hey, welcome to the conservation club. It took you guys longer than it should have, but we're happier here. Now let's figure out a way that we can work together to do some other things and make you money and help our agenda as well. Well think about the fact like, think about what they can do. Yeah. You know, they could actually go right into rescue and their veterinary science. I mean, it's, it's state of the art and they can really focus on that and start putting out materials saying, hey, you know, we've saved this many sea turtles or we're teaming up with the Marine Mammal Center to house some of these, these sick animals. And then we're, and then show videos of them putting them back in. Right. Right. They could fund a lot of research on these animals. They could, you know, do get into ecotourism, maybe somehow, you know, they still have a lot of money. They still have a lot of power. They could do them a lot. Absolutely. And I think they can really go from that. And to be honest, you can show, you can display the hurt animals and then say, hey, you know, this guy's not going to be with us for very much longer because we're going to put them back in, you know, or he's doing really well or this one, this girl, she's not doing very well. So we have to kind of keep them, you know, it's, it goes back and forth. But Quinn mentioned another video to food ink. That was a big one. That was a big, that was a big movie that changed the world. And again, that actually, we have more, we're getting better in the power of alternative foods. We don't always have to buy, you know, the food that's, that's sort of the, that's not how it has much of a necessity anymore. Exactly. Exactly. So a lot of people at Quinn went vegan after that movie. A lot of people did, but I, I haven't gone vegan and, and, and I'm, I've got my reasons, but now I'm searching more, I eat less fish, I search, I search more for organic kind of food, organic meats and things like that, local farmers, and really focus on that. So there are more opportunities for that. Right. We've discussed them before. But yeah, SeaWorld's coming around. And I'm glad. Let's see if they kind of, if they, they kind of get into the conservation bit like they used to. Yeah. We got some great ideas for them. Exactly. Invertible week. Invertible week. We talked about this before, SeaWorld needs some new business. Absolutely. Absolutely. I think, yeah, if they take more of a conservation approach, I mean, obviously the Orca thing is going to haunt them for a long time, as long as there's Orca's in captivity. And then, I mean, then you look at, okay, what about dolphins, right? They're marine mammals. There are a lot more improvements that can be made. And yeah, for sure. It's like, do you release them? Like there's a lot more things like going on other than Orca's. I mean, Orca's are the main show, but they used to have, they used to have dolphins in the show too, and seals and stuff like that, and who are just as prone to getting sick, dying in captivity, you know, mental social relationships. Absolutely. Absolutely. So, I mean, they're smaller, but still, they're still just as smart and they swim just as far. So there's still got a lot of, a lot of ways to go, but this is a win. This is, this is a win that I think we should be, as a conservation community, we should be proud of. Yeah, it's a big win. Yeah. Yeah. But anyway, we're going to end it here. Quinn, thank you very much for your comments and everything like that. We really appreciate it. Yes. And for all the people listening on the podcast, we really appreciate you guys listening to us week in, week out, or, you know, the podcast is going to go through a little bit of changes over the next couple of weeks. You guys will tell you through the podcast. So go to SpeakUpForBlue.com/podcast and you can subscribe to us through iTunes. You can go to Stitcher as well and you can search for SpeakUpForBlue and you can find us and subscribe. We're going to go through some changes, but we're still going to provide you with some great content. Actually, we're going to even provide you some better content the way we're talking about it. So, yeah, Nate. Thanks a lot, man. I really appreciate you coming because I know you're exhausted and you've been in the field for like four or five hours today. And it's late and I highly appreciate you coming on and being as entertaining as normal and intellectual as usual. It is my pleasure. Thank you for having me. You're back. You're back. All right. Thanks a lot, man. Stay on the line, bro. And then we'll chat in a minute. Okay. So thank you very much for listening. That was an interesting, an interesting Ocean Talk Friday because of the SeaWorld, mostly because of the SeaWorld news, that's some big, big news for ocean conservation. The fact that they're not going to have orca breeding program is a huge win because we've been, the world has been protesting it for the last three years. Since the movie Blackfish came out, it's one of the most successful movies to actually see something happen so quickly and actually happen for a matter of, you know, matter three years. It doesn't happen often, but it's because we actually hit them below the belt. We hit them with the money. We'll stop going. And that was awesome because we realized it was not right to go. And that's what we need to do with other things, especially if there's alternatives. Like I said, in the, in the show, you know, SeaWorld is a luxury. We don't need to go there. And once we find out there's something wrong, it's a bigger reason why not to go, plus it's crazy expensive. Anyway, that's our show for today. If you have comments on where you think SeaWorld should go, let us know on the, on the show if speakupforblue.com/session135. Let us know in the comments. You can hit us up on Twitter @speakupforblue or you can go to the Facebook page, speakupforblue or facebook.com/speakupfortheblue. That was the original name of the website. So anyway, thank you very much for listening. I really appreciate it. Tune in on Tuesday when we're going to talk to Roy Mulder, who is in charge of the Marine Life Sanctuary's organization, and he has helped establish a Marine protected area in his local area, also works to enforce it with the local government and, and federal government. And we're going to talk about that. And we're going to talk about some major wins for him. And we're also going to talk about the SeaWorld, more about the SeaWorld talk or announcement and the win that it was for conservation. He sits on a citation board, a whale advocacy board, and you know, they did a good job as well as other organizations. So we're going to talk all about that on blab.im on Tuesday of either 9 or 10. All you have to do is register on blab by using your Twitter account, go to blab.im, use your Twitter account to sign in, and then you just follow @speakupforblue and you will get a notification when I schedule the podcast. So thank you very much for listening. I hope you have a great, great weekend. I'm your host, Andrew Lewin, happy weekend, happy Friday, and happy conservation. See you later. Bye.
