Commentary
 The Prince George Citizen - Saturday, February 16,1991 - 5
All is not well in the world of whales
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                by JOANNE MILLS Southam Syndicate
   For hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years, cetaceans (small whales, dolphins and porpoises) have held a special appeal and allure for humans. The ease with which they sprint through the ocean or leap to great heights, simply for the joy of it, Fills us with wonder and delight.
   Unfortunately, all is not well in the world of these mammals. Many species are now on the world’s endangered lists and yet even with protection, their numbers are not increasing. The possible causes arc numerous.
   Around the world, die-offs (large numbers of dying or dead mammals) are occurring with increasing frequency. Without a doubt, the most devastating dieoff occurred in 1987, when the bodies of ulcerated and lesioned bottlenose dolphins began to wash up on the shores of New Jersey.
   By early 1988, the numbers had risen to over 740. Experts believe that was just the tip of the iceberg, with the remains of hundreds more washing out to sea. It is thought that half the coastal bottlenose population died in those few months.
   An investigation was conducted by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the official explanation for the deaths was that the dolphins had eaten fish contaminated with a naturally occurring toxin made by ‘red tide’ algae.
   Marine mammal specialists and environmentalists question that conclusion. They believe the role of ocean pollution was not adequately explored. 1987 was also the year when large amounts of garbage, sludge and medical waste closed the normally crowded New Jersey beaches.
   As well, autopsies revealed the highest level ever found in cetaceans of organochlorines, particularly PCB’s. The world’s present fishing practices arc also a major threat to these creatures. It’s been estimated that, since 1959, as many as six million dolphins have died as incidental catches in tuna nets.
   For some unknown reason, lucrative yellowfin tuna swim below herds of dolphins. Fishermen set their nets around the tuna, catching the dolphins as well.
   The situation has improved since die 1960s, when new techniques were developed to adow an escape route for the dolphins. However, accidents still occur where entire herds are destroyed.
   Drift net fishing, the technique that uses non-biode-gradable nets up to 60 kilometres long, has also wreaked havoc on the ocean inhabitants. It has been reported that approximately 20,000 dolphins fall prey to these nets every year but accurate numbers are impossible to determine.
   Many fishing vessels simply do not report the kill numbers or they limit their fishing to deep ocean territories, where there are no protective laws. There are other threats to cetaceans as well.
  Employing small whales and dolphins as amusement or entertainment for humans is also taking a toll. The last few decades have seen an increase in city zoos and marine parks where people can watch these graceful mammals frolic, leap, catch balls and perform other sundry tricks.
  According to Greenpeace, over the last 30 years, more than 4,600 small whales, dolphins and porpoises have been caught for this purpose. And now we have a whole new business: dolphin swim programs.
  Thousands of people pay anywhere from $40 to $65 US for a half hour “encounter” with dolphins at hotels and marine centres. One such hotel, the Hyatt Waikoloa in Hawaii, reportedly had over 15,000 customers in the first year of operation alone.
  The dolphin swim programs are hailed by some as excellent educational tools for school children and the general public alike. Opponents say that swim or spectator programs aren’t necessary for educational purposes now that television can keep millions of people up to date and informed in a much less intrusive manner.
  They also argue that the excessive close contact poses possible health dangers to both dolphin and human. In addition to the passing of diseases, there have been reports of aggressive behavior by captive dolphins to their human swimming partners.
  Do you believe there’s nothing you can do? You’re wrong. Dolphins and other marine mammals need your help. Educate yourself on the plight of small cetaceans. Look for books on the subject such as the
excellent new publication, The Greenpeace Book of Dolphins ($34.95, Century).
  You should also visit your library or get into touch with conservation and/or environmental groups for more information.
  And write to your local MP or Prime Minister Mulroney (House of Commons, Ottawa, K1A 0A6) asking that Canada get actively involved intemation ally in eliminating the use of destructive fishing practices. Write a separate letter demanding new legislation to prohibit the dumping of toxic chemicals and pollutants into our waterways.
  Don’t forget, we can’t survive without clean water either.
 Destructive fishing practices and pollution of the oceans threaten small whale species such as this pilot whale breaching in English Bay.
Global warming spells disaster for char
                                                                                                        by DENNIS BUECKERT
   OTTAWA (CP) — Lake trout could be wiped out in many Canadian lakes if temperatures continue to rise at the rate of the past 20 years, says a study published recently in the United States.
   Warmer temperatures have already reduced the layer of water that is cold enough to provide refuge to lake trout in the summer time, indicates research carried out at a site in northwestern Ontario.
                                                                                            Fish like lake trout can only survive in cool water.
   Average summer temperatures are expected to rise by as much as nine degrees over coming decades due to the greenhouse effect, said University of Alberta ecologist David Schindler, who led the study, which was published in Science, a U.S. journal.
   The greenhouse effect is caused by the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Computer models indicate that it will have the greatest impact at northern latitudes.
   “Most of the computer models indicate that the area we’re talking about (northwestern Ontario) should be one of the areas of most rapid temperature increase in the summer,” says Schindler.
   Average air and water temperatures at a scientific research area near Kenora, Ont., rose two degrees in the period from 1969 to the mid-1980s, says the study.
   The ice-free season increased by three weeks over the same period.
   “That’s fairly consistent with what we’re seeig
worldwide,” said Schindler. He noted that last year was the warmest since temperature records began and the five next-warmest years occurred in the 1980s.
  Schindler said the temperature rise in northwestern Ontario could be part of the natural variability of climate, but it could also be due to global warming.
  Regardless of the cause, the warming trend offers a preview of how Canadian forests and lakes will be affected by higher global temperatures, he said.
  The findings contradict the common view that global warming will on the whole be good for Canada because it will produce more comfortable weather and a longer growing season.
  Researchers found that higher temperatures have been accompanied by a decline in average rain and snowfall, an increase in evaporation and dryer conditions overall. These conditions have brought more frequent forest fires.
  Recurring fires can destroy the thin layer of soil that is vital for forest growth, says Schindler.
  “When an area has been burned twice, it bums not only the trees but all the organic soil so we’re left with just bedrock with a little charcoal lying around on it and the charcoal mostly blows off into the lakes.
  “The watersheds that have burned twice in the ’70s and ’80s look something like northern Labrador. They’re pretty stark-looking.”
  Lower rainfall also slows down the rate at which lakes are renewed by fresh water and reduces their
 Warming trend may wipe out trophy-sized char.
ability to flush out contaminants. Concentrations of most chemicals in lake water increased over the study period.
   Higher water temperatures mean that there is less summertime habitat for fish like lake trout, which can only survive in cold water, says the study.
   Such changes “could cause the extirpation of cold water species . . . that include some of the world’s most valuable fisheries.”
   Overall, the changes could transform forested areas of central Canada into a scrubland like that of northern Labrador, says Schindler.
   “We are probably going to go from a resort-like area with good fishing and nice forests to large areas of scrubland where, if there are fish, they aren’t going to be the ones that have been traditionally valued.”
   The Experimental Lakes Area, where the study was done, is one of the most closely-monitored ecosystems in the world, wilh continuous records on lake chemistry, weather, water flow, fish and plankton from 1969 to the present.
   The study was carried out by a team of 10 scientists, most of them associated with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg.
DO YOU CALL MOTHER ‘MUM’ OR ‘MOM’?
Your vocabulary can be one-of-a-kind
   OTTAWA — None of us has precisely the same vocabulary as anyone else.
   Our lingo is as unique as our fingerprints.
   But it’s still a bit of a shock when it seems one of us is practically alone in using a certain word.
   With me, it’s “rels,” meaning “relatives.” I’ve been using “rels” in that informal sense for a few years and assumed others did, too. But when I asked friends and associates, they’d heard it mainly from one person, me.
   That started a dictionary and data-base search.
   Only a dictionary of Australian colloquialisms (wouldn’t you guess?) listed “rels” as a synonym for relatives, along with “rellos” and “rellies.”
   They like such short forms in the Land of Oz.
   But I got a bit of Canadian sup-
port from the Vancouver Sun. In October, a story about parents travelling with their grown children was headed: “Tips for going with the rels.” But was that just a desperate headline writer looking for a short word? Or even an Aussie expatriate?
   I can’t believe “rels” is as rare as it seems. If you use it or hear it, let me know.
   Mervyn Nicholson of the English department at Cariboo University College in Kamloops raises another question of relative lingo, a “remarkable change” in the word “Mom.”
   “When I was growing up in the 1950s,” he writes, “it was universally pronounced ‘Mum’ as in the British manner. I remember how odd it sounded to hear a boy on ‘Lassie’ say ‘Mawm.’ Now my own 10-year-old says ‘Mawm’ even though I refer to his mother as ‘Mum’.”
Don McGillivray
   Nicholson says this American pronunciation is used by Canadians in general, not just children, a “telling cue to what is happening to Canada as a whole: it is becoming more and more totally and tightly subject to American control.”
   Another change in the same word is that it is being used more and more as a job description as
well as a name. Women who look after children at home tend to describe their occupation as “being a mom.”
  We’re living in a time of change in regard to the names used for family members and relatives. Women are more likely to keep their own names when they marry. And more parents are having their children address them by their first names, John and Margaret, for example, instead of Dad and Mom.
  But Adele Dueck recently wrote in Western People (the magazine supplement to the Western Producer of Saskatoon) about the unsolved problem of what to call a mother-in-law.
  Her new mother-in-law told her, “Call me Mum.” But she wasn’t ready, it seemed, to have a second Mum. So she called her “my mother-in-law” to friends and “Bob’s Mum” to relatives.
  “But to her face, I called her nothing at all.”
  Even when Adele phoned for a pickle recipe and the phone was answered by her father-in-law, she was reduced to asking, “Is She in?” and hoping he would understand who was meant.
  The ultimate solution to this noname problem, she wrote, “wears diapers and takes up more space in a three-room apartment than the wedding gifts.”
  There’s no longer any need to call the in-laws “Hey, you” when you can call them “Grandma” and “Grandpa.”
  But I say, hold on a minute. How do you distinguish between the two sets of grandparents? Do you say, “Grandma Jones” and “Grandma Smith” or “Grandma Mary” and “Grandma Margaret?”
  From family names to family cooking. What do you do to food
when you put it in the microwave oven? Do you “zap” it or “nuke” it?
   Jack Todd, the Montreal Gazette columnist, prefers “nuke” but has been told by a reader that this is the American term, while “zap” is Montreal English or French.
   Todd has vigorously rejected the suggestion.
   Asking around, I’m told “zap” and “nuke” are interchangeable in Canadian English. But some suggest “nuke” is winning in regard to microwaves because “zap” also describes what you do to TV commercials with the “clicker.”
   If you can shed any light on these matters, write Don McGillivray, 512-151 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario. KIP 5E3.
                             DOLPHINS, PORPOISES DYING OFF IN DROVES