- Top 10 Marine Biology Searches
www.About-Marine-Biology.com
Latest Posts On Marine Biology
• MindBody Relaxation Series• Freshwater Fish Cookbook – Freshwater Favorites
• How To Build Your Own Tiki Bar, Tiki Hut or Tiki Furniture
• Cichlid Fish Secrets
• Experts Guide to Saltwater Aquariums Plus 3 Bonus Reports
Top Marine Biology Categories
Aquatic Sciences conservation Degrees In Marine Biology Discovery Ecology Environment environmental science http://gdata.youtube.com/schemas/2007#video Marine Biology Marine Biology News marine conservation Marine life Miller Library of Marine Biology news News & Resources oceans Reefs in the News RSS News TV & Film World news
Tens of thousands of sea turtles were trapped and killed by commercial fishing fleets over the past 20 years, but real total could number millions Millions of sea turtles have been inadvertently trapped and killed by commercial fishing fleets over the last 20 years, a global survey has found. Six of the seven species of sea turtle are under threat. The study, published in Conservation Letters, said the biggest danger to their survival was being inadvertently caught up by commercial fishing gear - long lines which can stretch for up to 40kms studded with hooks or vast nets - to become what is known as bycatch. Once snared, the turtles are unable to come to the surface to breathe. Although turtles, the second largest reptile species on Earth, are still hunted for their meat and shells, accidental entrapment is a greater threat. "Bycatch, writ large, is the most serious, acute threat to the sea turtle population globally," said Bryan Wallace, the lead author. "Trawlers are completely indiscriminate. The target might be shrimp but for every pound of shrimp that might comp up with a given haul, there might have five or 20lbs of bycatch. That could be turtles, it could be all sorts of things," said Wallace, a professor at Duke University and science adviser to Conservation International. The study is the first global survey of commercial fishing operations, gauging the effects on sea turtles of three widely used methods of fishing gear: long lines, gillnets and trawls. It reviewed existing records from fishing fleet operations around the world. All the data was based on direct onboard observations or interviews with fishermen. According to those records, more than 85,000 turtles were snared between 1990 and 2008. But Wallace said the figure covered barely 1% of fishing operations, and did not cover smaller fleets. "A conservative estimate is that the true total is probably in the millions of turtles," he said. However, he said the adoption of different equipment - such as turtle excluder devices or escape hatches which allow turtles to swim free of large nets - could dramatically reduce the numbers of bycatch. Some countries have now made such precautions mandatory. One of the report's recommendations was for consumers to be conscious of where their fish was sourced. The report also recommends seasonal bans on fishing to avoid turtle migration routes. The report identified four regions where urgent conservation measures are needed: the Mediterranean, the eastern Pacific, and the south and north-west Atlantic off the coast of the United States. It said the crowded, heavily fished Mediterranean had some of the highest rates of bycatch because of heavy use of long lines and trawling. The coast off Mexico's Baja Peninsula, a crucial nesting area for sea turtles, was also deadly. According to the IUCN red list of endangered species, five species of sea turtle - hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp's Ridley, green and loggerhead - are either endangered or critically endangered. The Olive Ridley is classed as vulnerable while flatback turtles are classed as "data deficient", meaning there is not enough research to make a conservation assessment. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Foreign secretary David Miliband's action condemned by British MPs, Mauritius government and native Chagossians Anger mounted today over Britain's decision last week to create the world's largest marine protection zone around the Chagos islands as an influential group of British MPs joined the government of Mauritius and a large group of islanders to condemn the way the decision was made. The world's leading conservation groups welcomed the move to ban fishing across an area the size of France, but the Mauritian government, which claims the Indian Ocean islands, and the largest Chagos refugee group, which is fighting for the right to return to the islands, have deplored the way they claim the, foreign secretary, David Miliband rushed out the decision without their consultation. "Perfidious Albion is dishonest. I am very angry," said Mauritian foreign minister Arvin Boolell. Olivier Bancoult, chair of the Chagos Refugees Group, the largest collection of exiles, said he was "shocked" that Britain had not shown the islanders even a draft of the proposal. Speaking from Mauritius, he said: "The British government has shown its true face in the way it does things with no respect for democracy and consideration for others' opinions. We have been taken for a ride." Details of the conservation zone have not been made public, except that it is to become a full "no-take" area. This ban on fishing, previously Chagossians' main livelihood, could make it impossible to live on the islands if the islanders won the right to return. "Everyone would have been happy with the creation of a marine protection area providing it had made provision for the interests of Chagossians and Mauritius, which it could so easily have done," said David Snoxell, former British high commissioner in Mauritius and chair of the Marine Education Trust. "The Foreign Office statement completely disregards the Chagossians who are not even mentioned in it. They have been airbrushed out," he said. Miliband also attracted the ire of the all-party Chagos committee, whose members complained that parliament had been sidelined. In a letter to Miliband, chair of the committee Jeremy Corbyn said: "The action of the Foreign Office flies in the face of world opinion in respect of the Chagossians' right to return. "I am shocked that you did not see fit to honour the undertaking given to parliament that there would be full consultation with islanders and MPs." The Foreign Office had committed in a debate on Chagos two weeks ago that MPs would be briefed before any final decisions were taken on the marine protected area (MPA). The all party parliamentary group wants to know what the urgency was for the MPA's creation and how the Foreign Office had time to properly examine 450 contributions, many of them complex, to the consultation. The MPs are expected to ask Miliband to put the decision on hold pending a verdict on the islanders' right to return, due in the summer from the European Court of Human rights. The islands were ceded to Britain in 1814 but were evacuated in the 1960s to allow construction of a US military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia. About 2,000 people were deported to Mauritius, and Diego Garcia is now populated by an estimated 1,700 US military personnel and 1,500 civilian contractors. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
The foreign secretary's announcement (UK sets up marine reserve in controversial area, 2 April) of the establishment of a marine protected area (MPA) around the Chagos archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory) following the recently completed consultation is welcome news in principle. The area's conservation value is undisputed. However, as John Vidal's article (Good news for the warty sea slug is devastating for Chagos islanders, 30 March) indicates, there are important associated controversies regarding the displaced Chagossians' right of return and Mauritian sovereignty claims. The FCO's unilateral action over the MPA is exacerbating these tensions and unnecessarily undermining what should have been near universal support. The Mauritian foreign minister is reportedly furious, having repeatedly requested a bilateral approach to the MPA process. Many Chagossians are similarly angered that the "no-take" commercial fishing zone may damage their future livelihood prospects. Their right of return – at least to the outer islands – could easily also have been granted magnanimously as part of the deal, thereby resolving what even the British government admits to have been a shameful historical injustice. Thursday's announcement repeats earlier assertions that the MPA should not prejudice resolution of either of these issues. Significantly, it also implicitly leaves open the possibility of subsistence fishing and implies that Diego Garcia, site of the massive US military base, will be included within the MPA. However, it ignores the key fact that once established under international conservation instruments, MPA status is hard to change or rescind. Why does the FCO never fail to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity over the Chagos/BIOT? David Simon Royal Holloway, Universityof London •?While some Chagossians are undoubtedly concerned by the marine reserve, there are many others who support its establishment. The Pew Environment Group and others supporting protection of the Chagos Islands have been working closely with the Diego Garcian Society, the largest Chagossian group in the UK. Designation of Chagos as a protected area means the islands and their resources will be protected for the future, whatever it holds. If the Chagossians are one day granted the right to return, conservation arrangements could be modified to accommodate their needs. Without protection, the Chagos' resources will continue to be damaged and diminished by commercial fishing. It is difficult to think of anyone other than a few distant water fishing fleets that would be disadvantaged by the protection of the Chagos' resources, whereas millions would be advantaged, including those benefiting from the replenishment of the Western Indian Ocean's marine resources and those benefiting from better climate and marine science. Alistair Gammell Pew Environment Group guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
UK government proposals a ploy to block displaced Chagossians from returning to their homeland, say campaigners The 55 islands and the sparkling seas around them are famed for their clean waters and pristine coral reefs. They are described by naturalists as the "other Galapagos", "a lost paradise" and a "natural wonder" and are officially recognised as a biodiversity hotspot of global importance. This week the British government, backed by nine of the world's largest environment and science bodies, including the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, the Royal Society, the RSPB and Greenpeace, is expected to signal that the 210,000 sq km area around the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean will become the world's largest marine reserve. If it does, all fishing, collection of corals and hunting for turtles and other wildlife will be banned across an area twice the size of the British isles. More than 275,000 people from more than 200 nations have sent messages in support of Britain's full protection of the Chagos Islands and their surrounding waters, but one group is distinctly uneasy. The original Chagossians, who were deported between 1967 and 1973 to make way for a giant US nuclear air force base on the largest island, Diego Garcia, say they would in effect be barred from ever returning because the marine protection zone would stop them fishing, their main livelihood. "There would be a natural injustice. The fish would have more rights than us," said Roch Evenor, secretary of the UK Chagos Support Association, who left the island when he was four. The islanders, who number about 4,000 and live in exile in Britain, Mauritius and elsewhere, have battled through the British courts for nearly 20 years for the right to return and appeared to have won an important victory in 2000 when the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook, decided in their favour. But following the September 11 attacks, the UK government reversed Cook's decision and the Chagos case has migrated between courts. Most recently, the House of Lords ruled against them after Britain cited American security concerns. Their last hope is that the European court of human rights will overturn the decision in their favour in the next few months. Today, Chagossian supporters accused the government of duplicity. "The British government's plan for a marine protected area is a grotesquely transparent ruse designed to perpetuate the banning of the people of Mauritius and Chagos from part of their own country," said Ram Seegobin, of the Mauritian party Lalit de Klas, in a letter to Greenpeace seen by the Guardian. "The conservation groups have fallen into a trap. They are being used by the government to prevent us returning," said Evenor. They were backed by Clive Stafford Smith, director of the human rights group Reprieve, who has challenged the UK government on the use of Diego Garcia by the US to render suspected terrorists. "The truth is that no Chagossian has anything like equal rights with even the warty sea slug. There is no sense that the British government will let them go back. The government is not even contemplating equal rights for Chagossians and sea slugs." Supporters of the islanders also suspect that the timing of the announcement of the protected area is highly political. "Clearly, the British government is preparing a fall-back plan; if they lose the case in Europe, then there will be another 'reason' for denying the banished people their right of return," said Olivier Bancoult, a Chagossian leader in Mauritius. Today, scientists and conservationsists denied that they were being "used" by the government. "The UK government agrees that a marine protection area will not create a barrier for the Chagossians to return. The two issues are separate. If the Chagossians are given a right to return, any conservation measures will be adjusted. The aim is to protect the reserve now so that the resources there would be available for the Chagossians if and when they return. As it is, the seas there are being heavily depleted by French and Taiwanese fleets," said a spokeswoman for the US-based Pew environment group, which is expected to contribute millions of dollars to establish the reserve.In a letter on its website, Greenpeace said: "[We] acknowledge and support the Chagossians in their struggle, and hope that they are successful. But at the moment, the Chagos Islands are being administered by the UK government, and whatever way you look at it, taking steps to protect the marine life there is a good idea. If and when the Chagossians are repatriated, then the protection of the seas around the archipelago will need to be readdressed, and yes, that may well involve allowing fishing by the islanders." But David Snoxell, former high commissioner to Mauritius, said the marine reserve would set up a significant barrier to the Chagossians' return. "The environment groups were beguiled [into giving their support]. If the government were to designate a protection area they would be erecting a psychological, legal and economic barrier against the Chagossians, and send a strong message that they would not be welcome in their homeland. It would be highly prejudicial." guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
|
|
Subscribe To Marine Biology By Email | ||
|
|
Marine Biology RSS Feed | ||
|
|
Marine Biology Comments Feed | ||
|
| Have A New Idea For Marine Biology? | ||
|
|||
