- 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
Pet food manufacturer launching seafood varieties containing only marine stewardship council-certified fish For the environmentalist who has done it all, from greening their home to decarbonising their travel, there's a new frontier: greening their pet. Later this year the UK's 8m cat owners will, for the first time, be able to feed their kitties their favourite fish with a clear conscience. In a move announced today, Whiskas and Sheba pet foods are to become the first to sell products using Marine Stewardship Council-certified fish, which is caught sustainably and without threatening further dwindling stocks. While eight out of 10 cats are likely to have no opinion on the provenance of their fish, Mark Johnson of manufacturer Mars Petcare said people were increasingly aware of the importance of sustainability. "The End of the Line film [a documentary about overfishing] has had a big impact," said Johnson, the company's UK general manager. "We are now the first pet company to make a commitment to sustainable fish, and we hope that will act as a catalyst for the whole industry." Supermarkets have been quick to respond to rising human demand for sustainable fish, with the Co-operative eliminating threatened species from its own-brand products and Marks & Spencer recently becoming the first high-street name to sign up to WWF's new seafood charter. But pet lovers have so far been limited to giving their animals human food such as sustainably caught tinned tuna: an expensive way to limit their pets' ecological impact. While cats and dogs may seem unlikely environmental villains, UK pet owners buy 1.5m tonnes of food a year and globally there are an estimated 750m pets who consume 20m tonnes annually. The authors of a recent book, Time to Eat the Dog?, warned that the energy required to feed a cat is the same as that required to build and drive a Volkswagen Golf for 6,000 miles a year. Robert Vale, one of the authors, has said that poultry and rabbits have a lower impact than red meat and fish when used as pet food. "When feeding a pet… the advice is to think feathers and long ears, not horns and fins," he said. Under the Mars Petcare plan, MSC-certified fish will be available in Whiskas and Sheba brands to all European consumers by Christmas, with certification eventually coming to all the company's fish products in Europe. It pledged to source all its fish globally from sustainable sources by 2020. The MSC badge is awarded through a voluntary process whereby fisheries approach the council to be assessed under 23 different criteria, followed by an annual audit. The process can cost $150,000 (£100,000); Mars has said it will absorb the cost of buying the more expensive fish. Conservation groups WWF and the Marine Conservation Society welcomed the news. Jason Clay of WWF US said: "There is no quick fix to this problem but when companies as influential as Mars take a leadership role, it is great news for the world's oceans." However, experts also argue that pet food companies need to reduce the prime fish in their products, which is included as whole fillets in some of Mars Petcare's products but will be phased out under the new initiative. Callum Roberts, professor of marine conservation at University of York and the author of Unnatural History of the Sea, said: "Clearly it's more sustainable using certified products than uncertified ones, but what makes me uncomfortable is we are feeding so much fish protein to pets when there isn't enough fish in the world to give everyone a healthy amount of fish in their diet. "I say this as a cat owner: Pets are definitely second rate when it comes to eating fish, and should be largely fed by the trimmings market." guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
This monstrosity surfaced on the Web this week, after first surfacing attached to a remotely operated undersea survey sub. While this 2.5-foot specimen is indeed more monstrous than most of its species, it's really just a harmless, friendly giant isopod, a sea scavenger that dwells in the deep, cold waters of the oceans. Resembling giant woodlice, isopods are oceanic bottom-feeders, dining mostly on whale carcasses and the like. The vast majority of them are found at depths below 1,200 feet, so they are not generally sought out in any commercial capacity and therefore we don't see them very often. However, we hear isopod is something of a delicacy in Taiwan, where its white, lobster-like meat is boiled and enjoyed in seaside restaurants.  Isopod is Ready for Its Closeup: Gwynzer Most isopods reach lengths of just over one foot at the high end of the spectrum, so either this one truly leviathan-sized or the description of its length has been a bit exaggerated. But hey, what's a good fishing story if you don't embellish a little bit.
|
|
Subscribe To Marine Biology By Email | ||
|
Marine Biology RSS Feed | ||
|
Marine Biology Comments Feed | ||
| Have A New Idea For Marine Biology? | ||
|
|||