The European Union set quotas for 2008, with an 18 percent decrease for cod in most trawling areas except the North Sea, where quotas were raised by 11 percent. Scientists had pushed for cuts to less than half of 2006 levels ...
... the Swedish Board of Fisheries found that no cod had spawned in the waters between Sweden and Denmark this year ...
... two New Zealand fishing companies aimed to earn the Marine Stewardship Council's environmental standard for their Patagonian toothfish (Chilean sea bass) catch ...
...Australia announced plans to send planes and a ship to surveil Japanese whaling ships, and will use the photographs and video gathered in potential future legal action to force Japan to recognize a ban on hunting whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary ...
... a new study suggested that the controversial idea of ocean fertilization, or dumping urea or iron into the ocean to encourage carbon dioxide-consuming algae blooms, would be ineffective ...
... a new study published in Science said that warmer, more acidic waters could kill all corals in the next 50 to 75 years ...
... the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sought more protections for elkhorn and staghorn coral, which used to be the dominant coral species in the Caribbean ...
... scientists blamed the receding ice shelf for a spike in walrus deaths ...
... Indiana University researchers found what they believe to be the wreckage of the Quedagh Merchant, the ship buccaneer William Kidd abandoned in 1699, in 10 feet of water off the Dominican Republic coast ...
... and an aquarium in Japan used an electric eel to light a Christmas tree.
My weekly recap of ocean news will go on hiatus until next year, so here's a wish for a happy New Year in advance. See you in 2008!
More power, less roadkill: How one professor’s landscape has shifted
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 2:58 pm
21 Dec 2007
No cod. Not good.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
dicynodont Posted 4:33 pm
21 Dec 2007
However, I think you miss the boat by repeating the assertion that the Lutz et al paper in JGR disproves ocean fertilization. Go ahead and read the paper before you quote from that press release again. The PR piece wasn't even written by a University associated with the paper. The actual paper concludes that large phytoplankton blooms result in more absolute carbon sequestration than other times of the year. I think this suggests that ocean fertilization might actually work to sequester carbon. It certainly does not suggest that ocean fertilization would be ineffective.
Two elements of ocean fertilization appear to be beneficial. First, it provides more food for things that eat phytoplankton - and there is ample support of this in the paleoceanographic record. Second, it reduces the acidification of surface waters by transporting CO2 into the deep ocean where it has no significant effect.
Your Permo-Triassic cousin,
Dicynodont
ps. isn't sustainable Chilean Sea Bass an oxymoron?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:00 pm
21 Dec 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3 ...
From this report, it is unclear what really the Japanese mean by "suspension," i.e., what they are planning after this fine-seeming delay; and, although Australian pressure generally is acknowledged to have had an effect, it is unclear, from these limited sources, what kinds of demands the Australians made regarding humpback whales.
My fear is that international pressure on the Japanese may lighten, now that they have swiveled their guns away from the 50 humpbacks, for the time being; and so, the Japanese whalers may go ahead and carry on their slaughter of minkes and fin whales, with the lazy indulgence of the international community.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:44 pm
21 Dec 2007
we expect better from you. You are well known to us, and indeed beloved, as one who respects science, engineering, clear thought, efficiency, economy, parsimony, directness, freedom from prejudice.
So we do not expect you to resort to fluffy, lazy rhetoric, and to throw out the term "faith-based," presumably to characterize every priority and decision of the Bush administration, trusting in a positive response from fluffy-minded, lazy-minded, prejudiced readers.
In fact, I do believe we agree, about as completely as one could hope for, in evaluating the Bushies. It is therefore all the more regrettable that you did not take the time to find a better, clearer modifier than the muddy "faith-based."
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:51 pm
21 Dec 2007
Is this the country of Kamo no Chomei, and Basho?
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:35 am
22 Dec 2007
hello, dear ol' cuz.
Yes, there are people such as our own Sammie Wells down in the Gulf who want to remind us that the fisheries scientists are good people and do good science and deserve credit for trying to get the fisheries managed well. Fine, quite right.
But there is plenty to feel cynical about, on top of all the best-intentioned planning.
You are right to highlight these unexpected unhappy discoveries in populations of marine animals, such as the Swedes made regarding the Skagerak cod.
We are plainly not doing enough to diminish demand for seafood -- but that has to happen, and soon. Like last month.
As for warming oceans and increasing acidity, I must admit I am more morbidly curious in seeing what happens when all the animals with calcareous body parts -- not just corals, too, but lots of them -- start dying off, than when there is no more ice for the polar bears and the walruses. Il buon Dio me ne perdoni!
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:09 am
22 Dec 2007
"God Under Howard: The rise of the religious right in Australian politics" by Marion Maddox. She is a religionist herself and is not pleased with the takeover of mainstream Christianity by the fundamentalist version.
Admittedly, the comment was fluffy and lazy, for which I apologize.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:25 am
22 Dec 2007
The book sounds interesting. I would have thought that fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity, with its political agenda, including its alliance with business conservatives and GW-denialists (though that is perhaps breaking up, what with Mike Huckabee as an emerging new leader), was a uniquely American phenomenon. But if that is what I thought, I guess I would have been wrong.
It would no doubt behoove us to know more about international efforts by conservatives, of one kind or another, to establish links and coordinate agendas with fellow travelers in different countries. E.g., I believe former Mexican president Vicente Fox is currently heading some sort of international group of right-wing pro-big-business politicians.
And of course conservative Christians have their networks; their disciples and allies in Africa and Latin America all too often turn out even more rabidly zealous in promoting their narrow moralist ideas than the original European or North American missionaries. And if that is true of Africa and Latin America, it should not be surprising if it is also true of the South Pacific.
By the way, was Mel Gibson already zooey back in Australia? Or did he only get that way after he came to Hollywood?
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:31 am
22 Dec 2007
Oh well, I guess you have a point, but I will miss it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:10 am
22 Dec 2007
And I guess that is how BioD was using it.
By the way, I heartily commend your girlfriend Hillary for being the first Democratic candidate (I am pretty sure) to denounce explicitly the Bushies' "war on science" (or an expression to that effect). That is one of the best things she has said during this campaign.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:53 am
22 Dec 2007
Ok I will continue to use "faithbased" sparingly, but only in a humorous context.
This is becoming one lively blog! Very fine work by the Gristmilling staff! All the best to you all. I think Grist is making the transition that Huffington and DailyKoss and Anna Marie Cox made already. Into the mass media.
And sticking to their principles as well. Very good! Somebody write some ready satire for DR and our other heroes to use when they get on fauxnews. That would help. I think we should all give it a try.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 11:57 am
22 Dec 2007
In other places of the world, the EU, China, Russia, and developing counties wanting to sell fishing rights or allow wholesale slaughter is simply a disaster. We're putting our US commercial fishermen out of work and these other folks are in a growth industry.
A story I might have told before, a Russian fishing crew visited Alaska and their salmon fishery. They were amazed that the salmon season for many breeds were so limited, and each boat or fisherman could only catch a few pounds, maybe a few hundred each. "In Russia we catch salmon all year, a metric ton at a time, until we fill up the factory ship" [heavily paraphrased from memory]. Apparently, they use a method called "sock netting" in which a whole bay is closed off and the fish are all decimated, like 90% kill rate.
What galls me is that the US has committed to having sustainable fisheries even if half the commercial fleet goes by the wayside. What galls me is that the recreational US lobby is even stronger, and threatens the very fisheries were are trying to protect. What galls me are people who don't know what is happening and simply say we shouldn't be eating fish in the first place.
You save your chicken, I'm still trying to save our greatest national legacy, our coastal fisheries.
Respectfully,
Sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 6:21 pm
24 Dec 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 11:13 am
25 Dec 2007
Reading about the Grand Banks and George's Banks is really something, should you have the time for some history. Really, the Revolutionary War had a lot to do with the cod trade.
But you raise a point about sunk or accidentally sunk toxics since WWI, although the Nazi mercury flask incident was probably over-blown. The fact remains that the US disposed of entire ships of nerve, blister, and other toxic agents by the ship, tens of thousands of pounds, prior to the environmental regulations of the 1970's. There was even a very good study that showed all the found and known wrecks of said ammunition ships, which were sometimes sunk in other countries such as the Bahamas. Most were US ships, my friend, and few or none were sunk in the North Sea. -sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 2:29 pm
25 Dec 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:51 am
01 Jan 2008
<<
What galls me is that the US has committed to having sustainable fisheries even if half the commercial fleet goes by the wayside. What galls me is that the recreational US lobby is even stronger, and threatens the very fisheries were are trying to protect. What galls me are people who don't know what is happening and simply say we shouldn't be eating fish in the first place.
>>
OK, so there I am, in the third sentence. Yes, you are absolutely right, I know little or nothing about how US regulations of fisheries work, and what success they may be having, and how that compares to what is happening in other countries. And yes, I am more than just a conservationist, I am a promoter of animal rights, and would like to discourage the consumption of all fish.
But let us not confuse the issues. Andrew Sharpless and our friends at Oceana understand these things, as well as our other friends at Greenpeace and Ocean Conservancy. If any of them recommend the indefinite closing of any fishery, presumably they have their reasons, and presumably they are making that recommendation for conservationist reasons, not animal-rights reasons.
Meanwhile, I shall continue to urge a reduction in demand for wild fish. Does that make me an enemy of US fishers? Well, they should not take it personally. Anyway, as the battle now stands, I am clearly on the losing side; and my position seems hardly gall-worthy.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink