Fish flee a warming equator
Global warming has rendered oceans around the equator less rich in wildlife , according to new research . Analysis of the changing locations of 50,000 marine species between 1955 and 2015 found that species associated with mid-water life have been moving away from the equator .
“ Species attached to the ocean floor had not declined , but the diversity of freeswimming species such as fish had dropped significantly between 1965 and 2010 ,” said Professor David Schoeman , a co-author of the study , published by Scientists from New Zealand ’ s University of the Sunshine Coast .
The research analysed some 7m pieces of data covering 48,661 species – from large marine mammals such as whales to jellyfish and corals . The database indicates that freeswimming species declined at the equator as temperatures rose .
Dr Jodie Rummer , an associate professor at James Cook University , said the findings of the research were sobering . She said : “ There is a concentration of developing countries in the equatorial zone where fish are crucial to the livelihoods and survival of millions of people . Climate change may lead to redistribution of global catch potential , with the most significant declines likely to occur near the equator .”
Return of the white whale
A white whale has been spotted off the Victoria coast , sparking hopes the ‘ rock star ’ humpback Migaloo has returned to Australian waters . Migaloo is one of the thousands of humpback whales that migrate from the cold waters of the Antarctic to the warm waters of the Great Barrier Reef and back again each year . They can usually be seen from May until November , but this year whales have been spotted in New South Wales and Victoria earlier than usual .
The inconvenient untruths of Seaspiracy
The latest Netflix documentary advocates that we stop eating fish to combat a morally bankrupt global fishing industry , but is it really that simple ? Shark Trust MD Paul Cox looks at the issues raised
Currently trending # 1 on my list of opening lines in WhatsApp messages is “ Have you seen Seaspiracy ? What do you think ?” Before I ’ ve got my thumbs to craft a response , these two questions are generally followed with a range of opinions anywhere from “ inspiring and shocking ” to “ absolute tosh ” and everything in between . It reminds me of a story of a couple of students who took an Arts Council grant and used it to go raving in Ibiza . When it blew up in the press , their answer was simply that “ good art creates a reaction !” By that measure alone , it ’ s a good documentary .
Nobody can say that Seaspiracy hasn ’ t created a reaction . If you ’ ve not watched it yet , then you should . In August last year , I ended the first of my SCUBA articles with the words : The one word that ’ ll keep coming up , I promise , is overfishing . So how can I not be pleased that the issue has found its way into the mainstream through this documentary ? As with all things , it ’ s not straightforward . The release of the film has let rip a wave of criticism for its use of out-of-date science , misleading interview footage and even accusations of casual racism . And I think it ’ s fair to say that it ’ s not a perfect piece of investigative film-making . But it shines a much-needed light on the scale and nature of industrialised fishing in the 21st century . That has to be a good thing .
So , I sat down this morning determined to write my take on Seaspiracy – the good , the bad and the ugly . Then I made the mistake of looking at Twitter and to be frank , it wasn ’ t pretty . Scientists and NGOs having to defend themselves against perceived “ collusion ”. And people claiming to have been subjected to abuse and intimidation for disagreeing with aspects of the film , or with its conclusions . Healthy debate is a good thing . And it ’ s encouraging that the whole world seems to be talking about
the impacts of destructive fishing practices . But turning it into a war of words about who ’ s got the best way to solve the problem ? That ’ s not good . It ’ s yet another opportunity for people to polarise and divide .
So , I ’ m sorry if this is fence sitting , but I ’ m neither going to completely endorse or dismiss Seaspiracy . I applaud large parts of the film , especially the critique of the plastic straws issue . But there are a number of factual errors that have the potential to undermine how seriously it ’ ll be taken in the long run . That ’ s a real shame .
And , for many , the primary conclusion from watching the film is to stop eating fish . But to end overfishing , we need to go much , much further . While abstention is an option for some , it ’ s not so simple for many around the world . So , we require change on multiple levels . It ’ s complicated and nuanced . And it needs people to work together rather than waste energy bickering over which route to take when we all basically want to get to the same place .
But that ’ s the challenge that the filmmakers have thrown down to those of us striving to create positive change . To make the scientific case clearly and calmly , to reach across the divide and make sure that , once on the agenda , ending destructive and unsustainable fishing remains at the forefront of ocean conservation .
www . sharktrust . org
33