To you, this picture may look like ants marching in a desert, but among ocean experts, it has gone as viral as Britney's shaved head. What you're seeing is an image of shrimp trawlers off the coast of China, taken from space. Those teeny tiny specs are responsible for destroying huge swaths of seafloor, and thanks to these images, which appeared in the prestigious journal Nature yesterday, scientists now have irrefutable visual evidence to prove what they could only conceptualize before.
Conservation ecologist Kyle Van Houtan of Duke University in North Carolina stumbled on the groundbreaking images from QuickBird satellite, owned by DigitalGlobe. Van Houtan turned to world-renowned fisheries expert (and Oceana board member) Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver to shed some light on what he was seeing.
The long plumes of sediment churned up by their nets -- dubbed "mudtrails" by Van Houtan and Pauly -- are a highly visible sign of the disturbance to sea-bottom ecosystems that they leave in their wake. The remote-sensing imagery captures details ranging from the number of trawl nets dragged behind a boat to the white dots of seabirds flocking nearby to feast of the unwanted bycatch that is dumped overboard.
The wow factor of being able to see this kind of detail from space is overshadowed by the "terrifying implications" of what these pictures reveal for the future of our oceans.
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Comments
View as Flat
Zarkov Posted 4:12 pm
10 May 2007
Great pic.
Either that or death.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:30 pm
10 May 2007
Put that in your model and smoke it.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 10:51 pm
10 May 2007
Andrew, given that there is now irrefutable evidence, what does this mean? Is there a course of action, or is this just another 'document the decline' episode?
Also, are the Chinese the undisputed kings of environmental annihilation, or do other nations support such a wide net of destructive practices?
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 12:24 am
11 May 2007
Wow, a very interesting photo. And yes, the implications beyond the technology behind the photo are great. I have seen similar photos (taken from aircraft) of my own coastal area of Texas, which also show the disturbance and suspension of bottom sediments, although on a much much smaller scale. The trawlers in the photos I saw were in water only 15-18 ft deep and were just fishing for bait shrimp primarily.
A point here is that there is trawling present practically everywhere in the oceans, and unless it is in deep waters, with a bottom too deep to be impacted, there is the same bottom disturbance, with all the ecosystem damage and loss of biodiversity. So not only is the impact very widely found, we are ALL to blame.
I find it interesting that some of the trawlers are actually the fourth wave going through the same area. I wonder why: is it laziness, desperation, ignorance, a dense resource, simply wasting Diesel fuel? And although this is said to be the coast of China, if in permitted waters, the boats could be from many countries.
All in all, another troubling biodiversity impact.
The resident trolls here seem to be just bitter little stooges who haven't enough talent to even achieve the bottom of the scale of stooges, so they have to content themselves with their truly pathetic remarks.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:30 am
11 May 2007
The only way to fish with nets that wouldn't kill everything would be some sort of underwater selection. Once the nets are pulled up the fish are doomed.
Without sustainable harvest of only the fish that are to be eaten, all life in the oceans are doomed. Even the plankton is in trouble from pollution.
Innovation and regulation is sorely needed in the area of commercial fishing. Regulation seems impossible because it takes international treaties. Innovation is difficult due to the immediate bottomline nature of fishing. Check out that very popular Discovery Channel show "Most Dangerous Catch".
The fascination with greed and destruction of nature is evidently a big draw for teevee viewers. It makes me sick.
By blaming China or Japan, the US fishing industry lobbyists can say that reform will only hurt our fishing industry. A common ploy on the GHG battle front by the payed pro-pollution crowd.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:19 am
11 May 2007
They are often the first to comment on a post, disrupting the conversation and giving the impression to outsiders that Gristmill is full of nuts and pointless discussion.
I confess that I'm becoming hesitant to link to Gristmill posts because of this.
It's sad to see Gristmill being sabotaged like this. Please note that this is not fun and games; this is an attempt to marginalize Gristmill as a voice.
WorldChanging has a good policy, which is posted above the "Post a Comment" form: The Worldchanging comments are meant to be used for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in our posts. Please note that, while constructive disagreement is fine, insults and abuse are not, and will result in the comment being deleted and a likely ban from commenting. We will also delete at will and without warning comments we believe are designed to disrupt a conversation rather than contribute to it. In short, we'll kill troll posts.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:46 am
11 May 2007
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 7:08 am
11 May 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:02 am
12 May 2007
Don't delete the troll, delete the individual post. If they post something worthwhile, leave it up.
I can see the point that the first two troll posts might discourage readers/writers from participation past those posts. These two initial posts were particularly devoid of useful content.
Right now I think discussing troll policy is more of a distraction to the thread than the actual trolls. Which must make the trolls very happy.
As I think their main goal is to destroy the conversation and atract attention to themselves.
Meanwhile what do you think about how to save ocean life from commercial interests? Will international treaties be enforcable even if they are done in time?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:28 am
12 May 2007
Don't forget: fishing vessels eventually have to come into port (though it is true some transfer their catch at sea), and that provides one point for inspecting gear. Fishing vessels are can be fitted with devices that allow authorities to monitor where they are (e.g., to enforce no-fishing zones). Satellite photos are, as we see from this example, powerful tools. And so forth.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:58 am
12 May 2007
Even a politician like Obama can't be made to see reason above money and power. His ethanol and liquid coal positions make this very obvious.
Humanity really does seem to pick leaders on the basis of appearance rather than substance time and time again. And with education now failing as well as media turning even more delusional than in the past, is their any hope for change?
No, this is a hopeless battle to save the living planet. Ocean treaty disputes put this into perspective in even starker terms than GHG negotiations.
I wonder if the soldiers at Valley Forge felt as hopeless? They went on anyway. Marching through the snow with rags wrapped around their feet.
Wrap up those rags again and keep on marching. We have no choice. Onward.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:18 am
12 May 2007
And I accept that the image indeed depicts what you say it does.
But, that is not at all obvious, really, is it. I take your word for it, because I like you and trust you. But otherwise, I would not be able to interpret the image (plus even the close-up detail) at all.
As for the trolls: Amazing is right, talking about them rewards them, inasmuch as that distracts from the true subject. But in this case, they are comical, and one can easily adopt BioD's attitude of insouciance.
Thanks for the recommendation of "World of Warcraft," whatever that is, PBrazelton. With your indulgence, I think I shall sit that one out.
Bart is right, in principle, and in keeping with what I wrote on that other recent troll-related thread, I entirely agree with him that the integrity of Gristmill is imperilled. It is interesting that in this case, it is not a matter of direct "insults and abuse," but rather of treating the subject of the original post as an object of mockery and ridicule. Which I guess is a form of insult and abuse.
But Amazing has struck the right sense of balance. Delete the (agreed upon, offensive) comment, but do not excommunicate the commenter.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 2:57 am
12 May 2007
I think the problem is on the verge of getting out of hand. If we don't address it, it will get worse. We have several active trolls which jump into many of the threads. Most of us don't see all their activity because we only follow a few threads.
The Oil Drum banished their trolls a few months ago, plus a few people who were sincere but who were consistent pains. Those people migrated elsewhere, grumbling, and the discussion boards were much improved.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:59 am
12 May 2007
That is, we delete neither comments or commenters, but we give authors (who take the initial step in co-creating this group project we call a blog) the chance to wipe graffiti off from one version and offer both versions (the one wiped free of graffiti and the one with all the graffiti intact) to readers, who are free to choose whichever version they prefer?
This post, for example, might have a bare few comments in the redacted comments thread, since only those few comments would be discussing ocean trawling. All these posts about posting and trolls and responding to trolls might be sent to the full thread--still available for any who care to read them, but not in the way of those who just want to discuss the subject at hand, rather than the discussions about how we discuss the discussion at hand ...
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:11 am
12 May 2007
Bart's comment gave me a start:
"The Oil Drum banished their trolls a few months ago, plus a few people who were sincere but who were consistent pains. Those people migrated elsewhere, grumbling, and the discussion boards were much improved."
Most forums exist to share a collective interest, belief or fantasy with others. They can be about Christians, Muslims, or UFOs and non-believers are neither welcome or tolerated. I am sure I would get the boot if I made a habit of visiting many biodiesel forums.
Grist is one of the few forums that promotes debate. It is under unending pressure to become another collective fantasy site. Those efforts have to be resisted and there is a price to pay. I have seen so much worse. They are not rude, violent, threatening, or even long-winded. Very tolerable.
Maybe Grist should act like forest rangers and start handing out citations for feeding trolls.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink