100% bycatch-free fish

Pygmy killer whale longline bycatch

In a four-year study, weekly records of prices of nearly 100 different frozen fillets of cod, haddock and Alaska pollock were collated for seven UK supermarkets. The most striking result from the analysis is that line-caught fish achieved a price premium of some twenty-two percent.

“The fact that the chains choose to label products with ‘line-caught’ is probably related to the fact that the capture method is perceived to be more gentle on the seabed and thus fits well into chain's endeavours by acting responsibly”, says Geir Sogn-Grundvåg, senior scientist at Nofima, who carried out the study.

However, the label 'line-caught' can be deceptive. Fish caught on handlines by artisanal fishermen is relatively environmentally friendly, whereas industrial longline fishing is hugely destructive with regular bycatch of cetaceans, seabirds, turtles, sharks and other vulnerable marine life.

Despite fish stocks being pushed to the brink there is still huge demand for wild-caught fish, but also increasing awareness of the damage caused to the marine ecosystem by commercial fishing. 

If the fish buying public are prepared to pay nearly a quarter more for fish harvested by less destructive methods, then there is almost certainly a lucrative market for fish labelled and promoted as '100% bycatch-free' and caught without harming any non-target marine wildlife at all.

Secret slaughter of Europe's harbour porpoises

The harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) has the misfortune to live in some of the most heavily fished waters on earth. Thousands of these little cetaceans are killed by the fishing industry every year and numbers have declined dramatically. Dolphins grab the headlines, whilst the mass slaughter of porpoises goes almost unnoticed.

Marine mammal bycatch in commercial fishing is a secretive subject. But if you do a bit of digging, what little information that is available is truly horrific. 

The IUCN lists the harbour porpoise as 'Least Concern', but this classification is based on woefully inadequate information. 

Under 'Threats' the IUCN says this about the harbour porpoise -

"Today, the most significant threat in most areas is incidental catches in fishing gear, primarily gill nets. Incidental mortality in fishing gear is likely to occur throughout the range of the species, but substantial incidental takes have been documented (summarized in Donovan and Bjørge 1995) for the Gulf of Maine (1,200-2,900/year), Bay of Fundy (80-400/year), West Greenland (1,400/year), North Sea (4,600/year) Celtic Shelf (1,500/year), and also off central California during the 1980s and 1990s (tens to hundreds per year; Barlow and Hanan 1995). More recent monitoring programs of Danish set-net fisheries in the North Sea revealed an average of 5,591 porpoises taken annually in the period 1987-2001 (Vinther and Larsen 2002). However, most North Sea gillnet fisheries were not monitored for marine mammal bycatch (ICES 2002)"

The last sentence is crucial here "most gillnet fisheries were not monitored for marine mammal bycatch". This makes the IUCN listing almost worthless. As the IUCN itself touches on, gillnet fishing is one of the most destructive forms of commercial fishing and the most likely to incur marine mammal bycatch.

An International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) report that studied two Norwegian gillnet fisheries found that the estimated total number of porpoises caught as bycatch in Norwegian gillnet fisheries in the period 2006-08 to be nearly 21,000 animals (Or approximately 3,500 porpoises per fishery).

The report also says that "according to the criteria advised by ASCOBANS (bycatches should not exceed 1.7% of the best population estimate), a population in excess of 400,000 is required to sustain an annual bycatch of 6,900 porpoises".

And here's where the problem lies. According to the IUCN "in the waters of the European Atlantic, abundance in 2005 was estimated at 385,600 [CV=0.20] (P.S. Hammond pers. comm.), of which about 335,000 [CV=0.21] were estimated in the North Sea and adjacent waters, where abundance was estimated at 341,000 [CV=0.14] in 1994 (Hammond et al. 2002)".

On this basis, the porpoise bycatch in Norwegian gillnet fisheries alone is unsustainable. Add to this all the other European fisheries that have significant porpoise bycatch, and the long-term outlook for the harbour porpoise is dire to say the least.

The IUCN is the benchmark by which environmentalists gauge their response to what is needed to help to protect animals which are threatened and accuracy is essential to implement effective conservation measures. More accurate information on marine mammal bycatch is available from fishermen, but at what cost to the reputation of the commercial fishing industry? It seems that when it comes to marine mammals, and the harbour porpoise especially, the conservation world is turning a blind-eye to the most horrendous slaughter.

Highly endangered sharks and sport fishing competitions

Rules are rules, no matter how endangered the species is, according to some American sport fishing competitions.

The scalloped hammerhead shark (pictured) which recently won the biggest shark prize at the 2012 White Marlin Open, is listed as Endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Species. Numbers have declined by 98% in the last 30 years, but amazingly still no laws were broken.

This is because, although under review, the scalloped hammerhead shark is still listed by US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as an Authorised species for recreational fishing (see NOAA 2012 Recreational Compliance Guide).

A selfish minority are sticking rigidly to rules set by a ponderously slow governmental organisation, whilst conveniently ignoring international guidelines and the plight of a highly endangered species.

Sport fishing rodeos should have to take into account all the evidence when they set the rules for their competitions, and if it is plainly obvious that a species is in deep trouble, the responsible action would be to disallow that species from the competition.

Future ocean

If you had travelled the world in 1812 the natural wonders seen on earth would be jaw-dropping. Plains full of grazing animals and attendant predators, huge forests covering much of the land and a sky full of birds. Wildlife in such abundance that it is hard to imagine now.

Over the next two centuries human encroachment chopped down the forests, ploughed up the plains and hunted the animals to a fraction of their pristine numbers. Some animals thrived under these new conditions, but 95% did not.

At the beginning of the 20th century, shortly before destruction was absolute, some enlightened people decided to act and national parks like Kruger, Yellowstone, and Etosha were formed.

Unless we learn from our terrestrial mistakes, what happened on the land can give us an accurate glimpse of what is in store for the world's ocean.

Ultimately we will deplete the vast majority of the ocean through overfishing, leaving only small pockets of biodiversity - effectively the national parks of the sea. Farmed animals will replace wildlife, with aquaculture cages ringing our coasts and filling the open-ocean in their thousands. Wind farms and tidal generators will festoon the waters that once teemed with life, whilst new technology and ice-free conditions will open up once inaccessible regions to the mining, energy and shipping industries.

It isn't too late though. We still have an opportunity to do for the ocean what we failed to do for the land - protect the ecosystem holistically. There is still enough marine life left to repopulate the entire ocean, but the protection must be interconnected. This is where we failed so miserably on land by creating small, isolated nature reserves that are more akin to zoos than places where nature can thrive.

If we protect 30% or more of the world's ocean from all destructive activity now, with a network of carefully chosen marine reserves, the resultant proliferation of marine life could allow for enough sustainable exploitation to feed a rapidly growing human population. But if we act too slowly, or do not do enough, the future ocean may become as devoid of biodiversity as the vast majority of the land has become. 

The media and shark slaughter

Effective shark protection hinges on changing the public perception of sharks, and judging by recent media reports there is still a very long way to go. Some might even say that we haven't moved forward a jot since the bad old days of the 1970's.

Two recent media articles covering the slaughter of a large, female short-fin mako shark (pictured) by leading American news outlets is particularly depressing for shark lovers.

Msnbc.com covered the story with the opening line "A monster of the sea was killed and brought in to Marina del Rey – a shark so heavy that it damaged the brand-new scale at the dock." Full story here.

The LA Times wasn't much better, but seemed reluctant to use the word shark "The fish was so big, it was too heavy for the scales. It was so big, in fact, that it couldn't be hauled aboard the boat and had to be dragged into the dock by the tail." Full story here.

What is most worrying is not just the way these leading news outlets glorify the killing of these increasingly rare animals, but that they can't even be bothered to temper their blood-lust by mentioning that sharks are in dire trouble worldwide.

MSNBC and The LA Times should really know better. It's long overdue for the media to take some responsibility for shark slaughter, after all, how many people may be inspired to kill a shark after reading such sensationalist rubbish? 

Public outcry would prevent the publication of an article like this about the unnecessary killing of a land animal, and it's time for the media to give sharks equal respect. 

World Oceans Day: Celebration or wake?

Happy World Oceans Day 2012. A day to celebrate the wonder of our amazing blue planet. But can we still celebrate? Just, maybe, but the world's ocean is in a perilous state.

The ocean is dying. This is not some scare story, or exaggeration. We have pushed the marine environment to the brink through overfishing, pollution and acidification. It is not yet too late to stop the rot, but it will be soon. If we do not protect a significant proportion of the world's ocean from all types of damaging activity right now, over seventy percent of the planet may become a biological desert.

Some people have been warning of this crisis for years, but few have listened. If the oceans are to have any hope at all, it is time we all started listening. If we don't, in 20-30 years or so, World Oceans Day may be held as a wake.

We all need to start caring more about the world's ocean and the life it contains. But sometimes we need a little inspiration. To follow are the views of some inspirational people.


"Imagine what people would say if a band of hunters strung a mile of net between two immense all-terrain vehicles and dragged it at speed across the plains of Africa. This fantastical assemblage, like something from a Mad Max movie, would scoop up everything in its way: predators such as lions and cheetahs, lumbering endangered herbivores such as rhinos and elephants, herds of impala and wildebeest, family groups of warthogs and wild dogs. Pregnant females would be swept up and carried along, with only the smallest juveniles able to wriggle through the mesh. Picture how the net is constructed, with a huge metal roller attached to the leading edge. This rolling beam smashes and flattens obstructions, flushing creatures into the approaching filaments. The effect of dragging a huge iron bar across the savannah is to break off every outcrop and uproot every tree, bush, and flowering plant, stirring columns of birds into the air. Left behind is a strangely bedraggled landscape resembling a harrowed field. The industrial hunter gatherers now stop to examine the tangled mess of writhing or dead creatures behind them. There are no markets for about a third of the animals they have caught because they don’t taste good, or because they are simply too small or too squashed. This pile of corpses is dumped on the plain to be consumed by scavengers." Charles Clover, Author, The End of the Line


"The fisheries as a global system have expanded in space. We can compute the expansion rate, and see that it’s coming to an end because there’s no more space to expand into. The expectation that there will always be more fish for us to eat cannot be met. Basically, we have this concept from before that we can expand, we can do more, that the growth can be sustainable—and it’s simply not true. We cannot expand our population and expect that we can produce the food that everybody needs. We cannot expect to increase our consumption of fish and expect that there will be fish for everybody. In the case of fisheries we have overshot already. People think this model can be resolved by eating the right fish, but in this concept there is no right fish: there’s too much fishing of everything." Dr. Daniel Pauly, Fisheries Scientist


"With species loss and food web collapse comes dangerous instability. The seas are undergoing ecological meltdown. Fishing is undermining itself by purging the oceans of species on which it depends. But its influences is far more menacing than simply the regrettable self-destruction of an industry. The wholesale removal of marine life and obliteration of their habitats is stripping resilience from ocean ecosystems. Moreover, it is undermining the ability of the oceans to support human needs. Overfishing is destabilizing the marine environment, contributing to the spread of anoxic dead zones and the increasing prevalence of toxic algal blooms, for example. Nature's power to bounce back after catastrophes or absorb the battery of stresses humanity is subjecting it to is being eroded, collapsed fishery after collapsed fishery, species by species, place by place. It is easy to point fingers and say this is the fault of greedy corporations with their factory ships, or faint-hearted politicians overeager to please the fishing industry, or the great masses of poor people reduced to bombing and poisoning their seas to extract the last few fish. But blaming others is unhelpful. Every fish and meat eater shares responsibility for the losses, and only by working together can we restore the seas' bounty." Dr. Callum Roberts, Marine Conservation Biologist


"Ten percent of the big fish still remain. There are still some blue whales. There are still some krill in Antarctica. There are a few oysters in Chesapeake Bay. Half the coral reefs are still in pretty good shape, a jeweled belt around the middle of the planet. There's still time, but not a lot, to turn things around." Dr. Sylvia Earle, Oceanographer


"We're now in the midst of a third World War, but this time the enemy is ourselves, and the objective is to save the planet from ourselves. There's no hope for masses of humanity to do anything - they never have, they never will. All social change comes from the passion and intervention of individuals or small groups of individuals. Slavery wasn't ended by any government or any institution. Women got the right to vote not because of any government. The civil rights movement, the same thing. India with Mahatma Gandhi, South Africa with Nelson Mandela. Again, it's always individuals. You need those individuals with the passion and the energy to get involved. In fact, I don't know of any government or any institutions that are doing anything to solve any of these problems. All over the world, all I am seeing is individuals and non-government organizations that are passionately involved in protecting ecosystems and species." Capt. Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd


"Whatever you want to do in this world, it is achievable. The most important thing that I've found, that perhaps you could use, is be passionate and enthusiastic in the direction that you choose in life, and you'll be a winner." Steve Irwin, Conservationist

Open your eyes to commercial fishing

After stripping the seas of life with impunity for decades, serious questions are now being asked of the industry that makes its living from exploiting marine wildlife.

For too long we've held a highly romanticised view of the fishing industry, one of bountiful seas and hardworking fishermen who risk all to put fish on our plate. Only recently are we starting to get a glimpse of the truth. A high-technology industry run by very wealthy people who are systematically emptying the world's ocean for profit. And that's just the half of it, if we knew the full truth about what goes on out at sea far beyond prying eyes, there would be an outcry.

All commercial fishing is destructive but there are three methods which stick out as particularly damaging - bottom-trawling, purse-seining and long-lining.

Most of us will never get a chance to view these fishing methods first-hand, so here are three short videos which will give you a flavour of what is happening to the world's ocean.

Bottom-trawling

Purse-seining

Long-lining

Q&A: The Antarctic krill fishery

We ask Dimitri Sclabos, of Tharos Ltd., a world-leading krill consultancy, what the future holds for the Antarctic krill fishery?

Q: What aspect of the boom in commercial krill usage worries you most?

That the market demand pushes the catch effort above the ability to sustain a permanent at-sea and on-board inspection regime and a lack of minimum safety standards on fishing trawlers rushing to get in on the market.

Q: What affect will climate change have on krill in the Antarctic?

Climate change will affect phytoplankton growth and with it krill's food sustainability. Krill's habitat is a low temperature one, with sea water around 0°C, a rise in sea temperature will affect spawning, reproduction, egg mortality and growth etc.

Q: What is the biggest threat to Antarctic krill?

A lack of continuous at-sea research on biomass condition and a lack of industry support for on-board inspectors as specified by CCAMLR (Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources).

Q: What is most likely to be the biggest industrial use for krill?

Foods, lipids and proteins, will take the greatest share. However, feed applications also sustain several operations, either for feeds for aquaculture, or whole round frozen krill for sports bait.

Q: Does China have the technology for large-scale krill exploitation?

The Chinese have had fishing vessels trawling for krill since 2009/10, targeting whole round frozen krill, plus other end-products. Currently two Chinese operators have Government support to remain fishing, increase fishing efforts, and design new processing ideas. Their fishing effort will depend on their own internal market, so I would expect this to grow.

Q: What worries you most about China's desire to harvest krill?

a) The Chinese demand for krill end-products, which will require a much higher fishing effort, which means more and more trawlers.

b) The lack of on-board sanitary working practices, which will eventually lead to the pollution of nearby fishing areas.

c) The lack of Standard Operating Procedures that prevent contamination. 

d) The lack of support for CCAMLR on-board inspectors.

Q: How many boats could be harvesting krill at the maximum exploitation level?

It is not the number of trawlers we need to worry about, but rather the catch effort of each trawler. In the past each trawler could catch around 100-250 tons a day, current trawlers can catch around 400-600 tons a day, or as much as the on-board processing facility is able to process. On some trawlers it is a continuous pumping system.

WWF and krill: conservation gone wrong

Updated Thurs 21 Feb 2013

The Wikipedia entry for the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) states that 'WWF is an international non-governmental organization working on issues regarding the conservation, research and restoration of the environment'.

No surprises there then, just as you imagined, WWF working hard to protect nature, wildlife and the environment. Commercial exploitation would be the last thing you'd think WWF would be involved with. And that's where you'd be wrong.

Since 2009 WWF Norway have been in partnership with Aker Biomarine, a Norwegian company that runs the largest krill fishery in the Antarctic. Aker Biomarine pays $178,000 annually for the privilege of putting the WWF logo on its products. In October 2012 WWF Australia signed a new partnership deal, this time with Australian fish and krill oil producer Blackmores. WWF have not yet disclosed how much this new partnership is worth.

Some might think that it is an oxymoron for a conservation organisation to be raising funds from entering into partnerships with companies that rely on the commercial exploitation of wild species to make their products. After all krill are a keystone species and numerous animals rely on them for food. There is also serious doubt about what the environmental impact a krill fishery would have in the Antarctic.

Even WWF are worried about krill.

In a report entitled 'Blue Whales - Under Threat' WWF stated that 'the problem of declining krill threatens most of the Antarctic food chain, but it is especially serious for the blue whales because there are so few of them'. Stuart Chapman of WWF goes further saying 'when you get this kind of warning shot that indicates something is going terribly wrong in the Antarctic, we need to sound the alarm.'

You'd expect consistency of communication from one of the world's largest conservation organisations, but WWF's apparent confusion over the krill issue is worrying. Either that or WWF are just mere opportunists who garner funds from leaping on the nearest bandwagon?

Krill exploitation is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel. It is the final frontier of marine exploitation, and a frontier that shouldn't be crossed. The Antarctic krill fishery is in its infancy and could still be nipped in the bud. WWF's endorsement not only encourages the expansion of the fishery, it lends respectability to the commercial exploitation of the whole Antarctic region.

If you think that WWF have made an error by endorsing the Antarctic krill fishery, please sign this petition.

Whale sharks disappearing before our eyes

After watching this video of a pregnant female whale shark caught recently in Pakistan, it will come as no surprise that whale sharks are in fact getting smaller.

Over a ten year period the average size recorded by observers has shrunk from 7m to 5m.

Whale sharks are caught for food and their fins in some Asian countries and Australian researchers suspect this is causing the decline.

The data comes from companies which run expeditions to watch whale sharks in Ningaloo Marine Park off the north-west coast of Australia.

Whale sharks do not reach sexual maturity until they're 6 or 7m long, so the signs are not encouraging.

More research on whale shark biology and worldwide protection is needed if the world's largest fish is to be saved from extinction.

Download the original report

Ecological disaster as 300,000 farmed salmon lost?

Over 300,000 farmed salmon have been 'lost' by Meridian Salmon when 12 salmon cages broke loose in Shetland on Christmas Day.

A spokesman for Meridian said “It’s important to make a distinction between fish loss and fish escape. Over 300,000 adult Atlantic salmon were involved in the incident, but it remains unclear whether an escape of live farmed fish did occur or whether the fish died during the incident.”

Which means that there is a strong possibility that 300,000 farmed salmon are swimming about in the North Atlantic creating havoc in the marine ecosystem.

Why we need to be worried

When farmed salmon escape they can interact with wild salmon causing significant changes in the wild salmon stocks during ten salmon generations (about 40 years). In rivers with a high number of escaped farmed salmon it appears that the population is gradually dominated by the offspring of farmed and hybrids of salmon. Even after many decades without new escapes, it is possible that these populations will be dominated by descendants of escaped farmed fish.

Other consequences:

• Farmed fish have lower genetic variation than wild fish.

• Farmed fish hybridise with wild fish.

• The fitness of wild populations is reduced by immigration of farmed fish.

• Escaped farmed fish destroy, and compete with wild fish for spawning beds.

• The progeny of escaped farmed fish out-compete wild fish in the competition for resources in the river, both as fry and as parr.

• Farmed salmon increase the hybridisation between salmon and trout

• The size and fitness of the populations of salmon stocks will be reduced if the percentage of farmed salmon continues to be high.

Reef fish: worth more alive than dead

Despite the precarious state of our marine environment scuba diving is still one of the fastest growing sports in the world. Perhaps it is because the world's ocean is entering the end-phase of its existence that people are keen to experience a last glimpse of the underwater world.

Reef fish are some of the most sought after food fish in the world, but despite their high value as an eating fish, most are worth far more alive than dead.

People will be surprised to learn that threadfin bream (see photo) are the fish most commonly used to make Young's seafood sticks. Young's only feature a fork-tailed threadfin bream, but there are about 60 species found in the tropics, and each serve a different role in the ecosystem of a reef.

When you see a large shoal of small fish in a TV programme about tropical reefs, threadfin bream are more often than not the fish you are seeing. Without them the reef becomes a lifeless and barren desert.

The predators of the reef, the groupers, are also threatened. Coral trout and rock cod are two of the misleading names often given to groupers by fish retailers. These are the fish beloved of divers for their friendly nature and large size.

Manta rays, currently being decimated for the Chinese medicine market, are thought to be worth $1 million each over their lifetime as an attraction for divers.

Divers are some of the highest spending of all tourists and without reef fish the divers will not come.
The short-term gain from the commercial fishing of tropical and sub-tropical reefs is far outweighed by the money a healthy reef will provide in tourist revenue.

Governments must act now to give reef fish the same protection that is given to the animals in national parks. Tropical and sub-tropical reefs are the national parks of the sea and the marine life contained in them should be given the same protection.

Seal cull shames Scotland

1,340 grey and common seals may have been shot in Scotland to protect farmed salmon and wild salmon fisheries in 2011. The quota for 2012 is 1,100. It beggars belief that there has been so little outrage about this completely unnecessary slaughter.

The reason for this hugely damaging cull may lie in the Scottish psyche. Scotland has traditionally been reliant on the sea, and seals are classed as pests by many Scottish people. The relatively new £500 million farmed salmon industry is seen as a Scottish success story and the seals are a victim of an over-protective attitude to anybody who provides a job in remote areas.

This attitude is short-sighted to say the least. What should be realised is that 'nature tourism' is worth £1.4 billion to the Scottish economy annually, and seeing a seal will be top of the wish list of most visitors. The quickest way to see an end to this cull would be if the Scottish Government and people felt that tourism could be threatened by the killing of seals.

The crying shame is that this cull needn't take place. In 1990 the 'dolphin safe' label was introduced by the US Dept. of Commerce and has spread so successfully around the world that it is now almost universally accepted that you make canned tuna as cetacean friendly as possible. Salmon farming could just as easily do the same for seals.

Scotland has ample history to learn from. Seals are being culled for the same reason that made the wolf extinct in the 17th century (to protect livestock), and Scottish otters are still reeling from when they were killed in their thousands to protect wild salmon and trout. Thankfully otters have since received full protection and are recovering.

It is time to stop the cull. The seal is Scotland's largest wild predator and millions of people will pay good money to see them alive and in their natural environment. The reputation of Scotland is at stake here, and the current seal cull shames Scotland and the Scottish people.

Gannet success story to end along with discards?

Seabird populations have plummeted in the UK over the last few decades, mostly due to the overfishing of fish like sandeels, a vital food species for many seabirds. There has been one exception to this depressing trend, the northern gannet.

The UK gannet population has doubled since 1970, from roughly 100,000 birds to well over 200,000 today (56% of the world's population). It is believed that the reason for this spectacular success is the horrendous EU fishing industry policy of discarding unwanted fish.

The gannet is unique amongst UK seabirds in that it can dive from a great height, plunge into the ocean and grab fish that other seabirds cannot reach. It is also a large seabird, allowing it to outcompete most other seabirds when scavenging or foraging. When fishing boats throw unwanted and undersized fish overboard the gannet is well placed to take advantage of this completely unnatural bounty. Gannets may have also come to see fishing boats that are discarding fish as a reliable source of food. Dr Hamer, from Leeds' Faculty of Biological Sciences thinks that "gannets have different aptitudes and specialities and for some, that skill might be finding and following fishing boats."

If as expected gannet numbers plummet after discarding is banned, the one European seabird success story of the last few years will be seen to be due to nothing more than human folly. The folly of overfishing and waste, which benefited one specialised species of seabird for a time, but saw the greatest decline in overall seabird numbers in human history.

How much is a blue shark worth?

The blue shark in the photo was bought for £5 from Brixham fish market this morning.

Is £5 a fair price for the life of one of the UK's most spectacular wild predators? Even the fishmonger was horrified at the wholesale price, but he has to make a living and almost unbelievably he's not doing anything illegal.

How is this any different to the African bushmeat trade, endangered animals on sale for a relative pittance and serving no imperative nutritional need?

It has been suggested that, throughout the course of its life, a single shark could be worth as much as $2 million in tourist revenue. And that's before we even consider its worth to the planet.

If you can buy the carcass of an animal as valuable and threatened as a blue shark for a mere £5 in a conservation minded country, what hope is there for worldwide shark conservation?

We are squandering our marine wildlife for peanuts, and the protection of sharks and other threatened marine species needs to be drastically overhauled if we are to continue to see magnificent animals like the blue shark in the wild.

The world's ocean has reached crisis point

There are alternatives to the way we treat the marine environment, but they require a change in the way we think and act. Land conservation had its period of enlightenment in the 1950’s and 60’s and it is now long overdue for the world’s ocean to command equal resources and focus. The world’s ocean is unique, and should be treated as such; it hides the damage humans do to it, and hides it so well that it may be too late to do anything by the time we fully realise the extent of our stupidity.

If we take the current rate of over-exploitation of the ocean to its natural conclusion (in about 2050), 71% of earth will be a biological desert, save for a few billion jellyfish. We must wake up to this fact, and we must act now.

Stopping the loss of species and ecosystems is essential but not sufficient. The goal should be to ensure that animals do not become endangered in the first place. This means keeping not only the parts of an ecosystem, but also the processes that generate and maintain the parts.

Saving the planet is not a luxury that can be left to someone else. It requires all of us to make fundamental changes. At present, individuals and corporations are free to act until it is proven that their actions are harmful. This needs to be changed. Commercial fisheries, the oil and gas industry, mining companies, developers, and others must be made to prove that their activities are not harmful to the world’s ocean before engaging in them.

Public education needs to be stepped up significantly too, and this can be done relatively quickly if the conservation sector educates the mass-media first. It should no longer be acceptable for the media to scream ‘shark attack’, or killing game fish for sport to be seen as something to be proud of. In other words, wild marine animals should be afforded the same treatment as wild animals on land. Only then will marine animal consumption go down.

Whichever way you look at it, the world’s ocean has reached crisis point and much more action is needed if we are to avert a global catastrophe. Some people say that humans are at their best when faced with dire choices, that they only act decisively when they are on the precipice of such a catastrophe; well that time has come for the world’s ocean. If only humans had evolved the ability to breath underwater, this message probably wouldn’t be taking such a dangerously long time to sink in.

Switch the fish, spread the problem

Supermarkets, led by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's Fish Fight and Sainsbury's Switch the Fish campaigns, have recently been encouraging us to eat lesser-known and so-called sustainable fish species in a bid to make more sustainable choices.

What they haven't told you is that the majority of fish sold in UK supermarkets is already from sustainable sources such as Iceland, the Barents Sea, or from the Baltic.

And that's not the only problem with this well-meaning campaign. The market for fish is now a global business and fish wholesalers are able to find other outlets for threatened species such as cod, haddock and monkfish. If the UK market won't buy the fish someone else will.

By encouraging us to eat less popular fish species such as mackerel, megrim, pouting, gurnard, coley or dab, all that will be achieved is to increase the market for fish. And this is already happening with overall sales of fish at supermarkets hitting record levels. In the weeks after the Fish Fight campaign was launched Marks & Spencer and Waitrose reported increased fish sales of 25% and 15%.

If we are seriously going to tackle the problem of overfishing then people are going to have to eat less fish, fishermen are going to have to catch less fish, and supermarkets will have to sell less fish. Creating a whole new market for previously unpopular species is just spreading the problem not solving it.

The ocean is a wilderness

The ocean is a wilderness reaching round the globe, wilder than a Belgian jungle, and fuller of monsters, washing the very wharves of our cities and the gardens of our sea-side residences. Serpents, bears, hyenas, tigers rapidly vanish as civilization advances, but the most populous and civilized city cannot scare a shark far from its wharves.
Henry David Thoreau 1817-1862

Keeping what's left of the world's ocean

The oceans are a shadow of what they once were, and it is unlikely we can keep what little we have left unless we act right now. Here's a combination of ideas, which if used together in one concerted effort, may stop the rot.

1. More marine reserves. Eleven-percent of the UK landmass is protected but less than one percent of our entire surrounding seas. Our first national park was created in 1951 but it was only 2003 when the tiny Lundy Island Marine Reserve received a no-take zone status. The situation is similar or worse in most of the world's seas. It is time to stop treating our oceans as second-class ecosystems.

2. Subsidies for the fishing industry must stop. The EU has been subsidising the denudation of our oceans to the tune of €4.4 billion over a 12 year period. Spain, possibly the most rapacious fishing country on earth, got 48% of the subsidies dispensed. It would be hard to imagine a similar situation on land, where wild animals are hunted to near extinction with the aid of European taxpayers money. It is legalised, government-funded destruction on an unimaginable scale. It must stop.

3. The sportfishing industry should change its practices and image. As is the case with land animals there is now no excuse for killing endangered large marine fish for sport and trophies. Despite this a significant minority of people in the sportfishing community are still killing these fish as proof of their endeavours in a similar vein to the great white hunters of the 1950's. This is the acceptable, media-friendly face of marine animal slaughter and it should no longer be tolerated.

4. Stop expanding the commercial exploitation of marine animals. There has to be a point where we draw a line under marine overexploitation. Krill, the food of numerous marine species, may over the next 30-50 years be sacrificed as feed for farmed fish and for an oil that has intangible human health benefits. We have to stop fishing down the food-web and the industrial krill fishery is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

5. Intergovernmental Panel on Marine Exploitation. Two-thirds of Earth is fast becoming a biological desert. If the destruction of our marine ecosystems is to be halted, and ultimately reversed, bold, systematic, and effective measures are needed now. An intergovernmental panel on marine exploitation, backed up by impartial fisheries science, may galvanise world opinion in a similar way that the IPCC has done for climate change.

At this rate the oceans will be empty before we know it

Over-exploitation of ocean animals is happening at such an alarming rate that it seems likely that we may lose some species before we can actually do anything concrete to save them. Sharks are the most obvious example of this. Not since the North American buffalo or the passenger pigeon has a species been so ruthlessly slaughtered by humans.

It has been estimated that the current species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than it would naturally be (IUCN), and with no precedent in human history we can only guess at the consequences (but we're all pretty much agreed it won't be good).

As Asia has its 'industrial' revolution and appears to be taking a decidedly more pragmatic and less sympathetic approach to the 'harvesting' of our oceans the pressure is not going to be relieved any time soon. With so many mouths to feed this is not entirely unexpected, but there is something that can be done.

Shark fin soup will not save anyone from starvation, it is a status symbol which is used a bit like champagne, for celebrations, special occasions and to show off. The Chinese people can survive without it.

Education, demand and popularity are the key here, no restaurant survived by serving unpopular food. If we all took a few minutes to scan the menu of every Chinese restaurant we pass and if they serve shark fin soup having a quiet word with the owner, we could make shark fin soup a thing of the past. Outside of China at any rate.

The IUCN sees red

Our marine ecosystem is under threat like never before in the history of humanity. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 33% of cartilaginous fishes and 15% of bony fishes are now threatened.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) report states that due to overfishing, catches are seeing fewer and fewer large-bodied predatory fish, and more species lower on the food chain, such as jellyfish. Furthermore, overexploitation has put 20 species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List as threatened with extinction.

Due to overfishing, 19% of all fish stocks are now overexploited, 8% are depleted, 52% fully exploited, with only 1% showing signs of recovery according to the (CBD) Technical Report for the Global Biodiversity.

The UN biodiversity meeting in Japan has agreed a 10 year plan aimed at preserving 10% of the oceans by 2020. These are regarded as too small by many conservation scientists, who point out that the existing target for oceans is already 10%.

Japanese financial giant Nomura profits from lack of fish

Japan's list of environmental sins is growing. If it wasn't already pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour by killing whales in the Southern Ocean and slaughtering dolphins in Taiji it

now seems that Japan's industrial and financial giants want to get in on the act.

Mitsubishi have tried to corner the market by stockpiling 40% of the world's supply of critically endangered bluefin tuna and now Nomura Securities Company appear to be doing similar with other overexploited fish and 'seafood' marine species.

As the world's fisheries fail and demand for fish increases, Nomura hope to make a killing by creating the world's first investment trust specifically targeting global 'seafood' and fisheries related businesses.

For more on this story visit here http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=9&id=37607&l=e&special=&ndb=1%20target=

Please sign a petition to stop Nomura Inc. from investing in ocean extinction http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-nomura39s-16-billion-ocean-raid/

Protect sharks before it's too late

Very few pictures sum up the plight of sharks quite as well as Alex Hofford's photos of the shark processing factory at Kesen-numa City, Japan.

Unless sharks are given some form of worldwide protection within the next couple of years or so it is looking increasingly likely that we will lose the vast majority of this facinating and ecologically vital species forever.

See more of Alex Hofford's disturbing pictures here -

http://www.alexhoffordphotography.com/node/2333

On the brink of a marine meltdown

Spot the difference. Will we ever learn?

Why is it that with over two-thirds of the Earth's surface covered in water marine conservation still lags behind land conservation? One reason might be that you can't put a fence around a marine reserve like you can with land reserves like Etosha or the Kruger National Park. This makes it vitally important that we give robust protection to individual marine species, especially the ocean wanderers, such as marlin, bluefin tuna and sharks.

Whilst it is commendable of Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace to do their utmost to protect bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean, why wait until a species is on the verge of extinction before you put in a concerted effort to protect it? There is no doubt that this great publicity surrounding the bluefin will influence the decision to formally protect the species, but why was this not done a decade or two ago?

Although not as glamorous or iconic as whales and bluefin tuna, if Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace were to send their boats to Antarctica right now to try and safeguard the future of krill (a vitally important marine species which is just beginning to receive the attention of the serial over-exploiters), it is possible that we could actually close the stable door before the horse bolts for once. This is the true meaning of marine conservation, having the foresight, seeing the problem clearly and early, and doing something about it long before it's too late.

If businessmen and governments, whose motives are greed and power, can see the massive commercial potential of krill, then surely those who care passionately about the future of our fragile marine ecosystem should always be hot on their heels?

China eyes krill fishery - The beginning of the end?

Krill, the final untapped commercial marine resource is now the target of one of the most populous and destructive countries on earth - China.

China is acutely aware of the massive decline in fish as a source of fishmeal for aquaculture and farming and sees krill as an excellent alternative.

If we are to learn from our disastrous management of our fisheries, and assume the same will happen to krill, stringent safeguards need to be put in place now to protect this keystone species.

See article http://en.mercopress.com/2010/04/23/china-interested-in-krill-fisheries-to-cut-foreign-dependence

Krill - The final frontier

There has to be a point where we draw a line under marine over-exploitation.

Ideally we should have done this some time ago, but since we haven't, we now have the perfect opportunity.

Krill, the food of numerous marine species, may over the next 50-100 years be sacrificed for an oil that has intangible human health benefits and that is available from other less important living sources.

Omega 3 oil can be obtained from linseed and flaxseed and need not be derived from a species so vital to the marine ecosystem.

The exploitation of krill is where the line needs to be drawn in the sand.

Accidental death of huge marlin must call sportfishing into question

This recent article in the LA Times about a huge 865lb blue marlin that died, possibly from heart failure, whilst a sportfisherman attempted to fight and land it will disturb marine life lovers the world over.

Massive blue marlin are now so rare as to be threatened with extinction. Ninety percent of all large predatory fish like this one have disappeared from our oceans due to overfishing and to see a mature, possibly breeding female, hanging upside down on dry land breaks my heart.

I appreciate that this angler would have released this magnificent animal had it not died, but surely we must now ask ourselves that if the marlin is so stressed by the ordeal that it dies from it should we not now consider stopping harassing these beautiful animals in the name of sport?

Lions, tigers and most other endangered large land predators stopped having to endure an early death in the name of sport many decades ago, surely it is now time to include iconic and rare predatory marine fish in that decision?

Certified sustainable: A recipe for disaster?

Sustainable is the latest buzzword in fisheries management and seafood retailing. But with experts predicting that fish stocks will be gone by 2048, can any commercially exploited marine species be classed as truly sustainable?

In 1997, with the backing of Unilever and WWF, the Marine Stewardship Council was formed. Fisheries that are assessed and meet the standard can use the MSC blue ecolabel. The MSC mission is to reward sustainable and environmentally friendly fishing practices.

In an ideal world, and for the MSC to work effectively, the assessments would have been carried out from a pristine fish stock level and monitored continuously. But this is now impossible. At least eighty percent of commercial fish stocks are now classified as fully or over-exploited. On this basis what purpose does the MSC label serve, except to encourage the increased consumption of already severely depleted fish?

Several of the world's fishery stocks have been granted MSC certification in the face of growing opposition. Despite protests from California’s Monterey Bay Aquarium and the marine conservation group Oceana, MSC in October 2009 issued an ecolabel on fish products made with Pacific hake from the Pacific Northwest. Ben Enticknap, Pacific project manager for Oceana, maintained that “The Pacific hake are at an all-time low population. There’s no good signs of recovery.” Enticknap also said that the Pacific hake population has fallen 89 per cent since the 1980s, so regulators should restrict commercial fishing and develop plans to rebuild the population.

The MSC certification of the Alaskan pollock fishery in 2005 stirred up a similar controversy with Greenpeace stating in 2008 that "the world’s largest food fishery is on the verge of collapse. Pollock, used to make McDonald’s fish sandwiches, frozen fish sticks, fish and chips, and imitation crabmeat, have had a population decrease of 50 percent since last year".

The MSC base their sustainability criteria on current scientific data gathered about fish stocks, but with  illegal fishing all too common, and under-reporting of catches rife, how can we be sure that eco-labelling is a safe way of judging a fish species' health?

Before we can strike a balance between exploiting the oceans and sustainably harvesting them we must realise that, as it stands, very few so-called 'sustainable' fisheries can be sustained at current levels. As we move from one depleted species to another, the under-exploited fish becomes tomorrow's over-exploited fish.

Even now companies are exploiting the keystone species krill to fill the commercial demand for fish oil left because of over-exploited fish stocks. Talk about fishing down the food chain, what will we do when the fish and the krill have gone?

Shark protection is finally gaining some momentum

There have been some small but significant developments recently in the fight to save sharks from possible extinction. Let's hope that it's a sign of more to come and that it is not too little too late.

Conservative estimates reckon that between 30 and 70 million sharks are killed annually in commercial and recreational fisheries, and some conservation organisations put that figure closer to 100 million.

Sharks are killed for a whole manner of reasons, their meat is used for food, fins for soup, cartilage in health supplements, livers for oil, skin for leather and teeth for curios, some are even killed just for the sheer pleasure of it.

Some species of pelagic shark such as the oceanic whitetip, blue, porbeagle and mako, have been pushed to the brink of extinction. As they travel the world's oceans they are susceptible to capture, particularly by longline fishing.

However, there might be some light at the end of the tunnel. The Pacific island nation of Palau recently declared that they would be creating a marine reserve for sharks. The sanctuary covers the full 230,000 sq miles of Palau's Economic Exclusion Zone, which stretches 200 miles out from its coasts. Within this region, all commercial shark fishing is banned. Previously, protection measures existed but certain levels of shark-fishing were allowed.

The Maldives in the Indian Ocean have also vowed to stop commercial fishing for sharks in its waters by 2010.

In the USA, a group calling themselves Shark Free Marinas was set up in 2008 to encourage marinas to operate a strictly catch & release policy for the shark fishing boats that operate from them.

Shark protection is also getting more support from celebrities such as January Jones from the HBO smash hit Mad Men, and a video featuring Olympic double gold medalist Amanda Beard has been released.

Even in Asia there is growing unrest over the practice of shark finning, most notably the Hong Kong based shark conservation website Shark Rescue.

In the Philippines the latest issue of Healthy Options Lifestyle Newsdigest is encouraging consumers to support eco-friendly habits rather than unwittingly supporting environmentally damaging practices like shark finning.

Unfortunately the shark conservation message isn't yet getting across to a wide enough audience, only last week in Florida, USA, a mature 750lb mako shark was gaffed from a boat, just for the fun of it apparently.

And whilst this kind of mindless slaughter of sharks is allowed to continue (and attract uncritical media coverage - the LA Times was an exception) sharks, and the people who want to protect them, still have a huge battle ahead.

Lack of predators boosting Scottish shellfish?

In 1975 roughly 262,413 tonnes of demersal fish and 20,000 tonnes of shellfish were landed at Scottish ports.

In 2003 99,654 tonnes of demersal fish and 65,000 tonnes of shellfish were landed at Scottish ports. (Source: Realm of Scotland).

Demersal fish are the primary predators of shellfish and include cod, haddock, ling, monkfish, halibut, hake, and plaice, in other words all the fish that live and feed on or near the bottom of the sea.

As demersal fish stocks have dwindled due to overfishing it appears from the statistics that the shellfish on which the demersal fish feed are thriving.

With fewer and fewer predators except man, I expect Scottish shellfish and the industry that depends on them, to continue to thrive.