finned hammerhead shark (image from www.madmermaids.com)

Thanks to my friend, Perry Gan for writing this inspiring article about Sharks’ Conservation and the reason behind it. I am posting this article on behalf of Perry and hope that it inspires you as much as it did for me:

I have been meaning to write on the issue of Sharks’ Conservation for the longest time.  Why i believe in it and how important it is to us.  So here’s my take (it’s a little long so please bear with me. Please read it in its entirety, I would appreciate it tremendously as this means a lot to me. And nothing would please me more if you would offer your thoughts and feedbacks after reading this, i will write a Chinese version next week!) (ps: I might have sounded a tad emotional while writing this and i think it reflects in some paragraphs, i am not here to judge but to lay down the facts and share my thoughts.  I apologize to anyone who might feel offended or patronized after reading this. My conscience is clear):

Recently I was at a Wedding Banquet with a bunch of friends that I had not seen for sometimes.  The dinner had just started and we just had our 1st course.  Mid way through casual talks and wisecracks the waitress came with our 2nd dish – Shark Fin Soup. 

Shark Fin Soup: a Status food for wedding banquets.  Because of its scarcity and high price, some restaurants have resorted to mixing real Shark Fins with Mung Bean Vermicellies or Fake Shark Fins (made from fish glue) to bring down the costs.  For the host it was important to show that they had not intended to opt for this cheap trick.  Hence the fins had been prepared separately from the broth.  You could still see the translucent shreds of fins on the plate that almost took the shape of an entire fin. Nothing could be more dignified than letting the distinguished guests know that the fins are genuine.

I dutifully declined to take the soup, and explained that ever since I had become a diver I had stopped taking Shark Fin Soup and had been encouraging others to do the same.   For the ensuing hour or so I was bombarded with scores of questions by the uninformed/skeptics (sprinkled with some scorns, sneers and jeers I guess….):

“Come on, it’s such a waste, after all the soup has been prepared and there’s nothing you could do about it, not consuming it doesn’t mean you could save a shark right now, right?)

“If you pledge not to eat Shark Fin Soup out of considerations for animal cruelty, then why are you still eating meat? Isn’t it hypocritical?”

“Don’t be misguided by the Western cultures, the Whites are always teaching us what we should and should not do.  Shark Fins Soup is a delicacy passed down from generations, its part of our culinary culture. Why should we listen to a bunch of screwups who’d done so much in destroying our nature in the past 200 years?.  After all, they cut down the most trees, raised the level of Carbon Dioxides, wreaked the most havocs to the environments and we are forced to shoulder the mishaps.  Now they are pointing fingers at us? Enough is enough! How about a little respect (for our culture) please!”

“Why should we care? Sharks are such Monsters anyway!”

“What you are advocating may have huge implications and impacts to the fishermen and the restaurant owners, if nobody consumes Shark Fins, surely many people’s livelihoods will be affected.  Do you want to see that happen?”

A female mako shark being finned at a shark fishing camp, Santa Rosalia, Mexico. (Photograph: Brian Skerry/National Geographic/Getty Images)

I knew it for the fact that convincing people to believe in me and my cause would take a whole lot of efforts; the biggest plight that sharks face today is sadly still a lack of awareness from us.  Surely some may hold the skewed opinions that my so-called quest is nothing but a way to look cool and hip.  After all, Going Green is in vogue now! Yes, it may look cool to save species rather than destroying them. And conveniently posting and forwarding some “save the sharks” videos or articles in the Facebook may earn me a lot of friends, perhaps even some respects and popularities.

However, my pledge and my quest to conserve sharks really have nothing to do with getting my ego stroked.

Here is what I believe:  As a diver, I have had a chance to see underwater nature as both breathtakingly beautiful and relentlessly unforgiving.  In fact I find some of my most memorable dive experiences to be quite humbling and spiritual at the same time.  As I marveled at the diversity and colours underwater, I started seeing God’s best works in a different light. These moments washed away egos and prides and prepared me to act and defend for the oceans. 

As a diver, I have the vested interest in seeing the oceans thrive.  It’s not enough just to regale friends with how beautiful the underwater world is, or how interesting my last dive trip has been.  It’s also my responsibility to pass the words that the oceans are indeed at their limit (and in Deep trouble). I need to tell as many people as possible, that what we decide to eat today has a direct effect on how the ocean animals live tomorrow. Just as important, I can lead by example and make educated decisions about the food in my bowl.

shark fin soup (image from www.raptureofthedeep.org)

Why Shark Fin soup?

Simple:  We, the Chinese (and some Japanese) are the only ones that consume them!  If we resist so much as to letting others tell/teach us what to do, then we should work on this problem ourselves, from the inside (and I believe it works better too).  If it is about saving face to serve Shark Fin Soup in the big occasions, then how big a loss of face would it be if we were to be collectively labeled as the sharks killers by generations after us? At the rate sharks are taken out of the water, this is doomed to happen.

Just how serious is the case? 

73 to 100 million sharks are killed Every Year (that’s 280,000 every day). In average, 90% of sharks populations were lost in the past 15 years and 110 species of sharks (out of some 400) made the List of “Vulnerable/Endangered” by World Conservation Union.  With the increase of affluence among the burgeoning middle class Chinese, the problem can only aggravate.  But if there are enough of us puling in the opposite direction we can still slow it down and even stop it from growing. The key is to Act Now, one bowl of soup at a time, until it gains momentum that will result to big changes. It’s up to us!

So here is how I answered those fiery questions:

About being Wasteful not to consume and a little late since it has been turned into a bowl of soup:

I will tell you what is wasteful:  Shark fins (dorsal, pectoral and anal fins combined) constitute to an average of 5% to 9% of a shark’s body mass (depending on the shark species).  Since we do not consume shark meat, with each bowl that we consume, we literally waste about, in proportion, some 70% to 90% of the shark.  (Imagine culling a chicken just for its feet).  If I could stop the next bowl of shark fin soup from happening, how much of a waste would I prevent?

About Animal Cruelty:

Not much of an argument I presume (unless I turn vegan).  However, I still wish to highlight this:  With the farmed animals the abattoirs would normally have a set of prescribed techniques when it comes to culling the animals.  Some may develop painless and quick way of killing (eg. Stunting the animals to unconsciousness before killing them). 

I should not invite heated arguments or tradeoffs on the ground of which is more humane or which is the lesser evil. After all “a dead animal is a dead animal”.  However, let’s consider the practice of “Shark Finning”: 

Typically because Shark Meat has no value at all and the fishing vessels are normally small, in order to maximize their catches the fins are normally sliced off from the sharks alive and the bodies are disposed back into the sea. Hence the conveniently-chucked-away sharks are left to die a slow death, not from bleeding per se but due to drowning as they are unable to swim or circulate water through their gills, which enables them to breathe. The process may take 2 days or if the sharks are lucky, they would be eaten alive by other sharks or scavenger fish, to put them out of misery sooner.

On the argument that Sharks ‘campaign being a Western Movement with the aim to belittle us, or to tell us what to do, on respecting our culture:

A quarter of the known shark species are “Vulnerable” or “Endangered”. So Sharks are not “Just a Fish!” Shark fin soup is a culinary culture we cannot afford to “uphold”, or keep.  Shark Fin Soup came about during the Ming Dynasty, in a time where the cuisines fit for a King included:  Bears Palm, Monkey Brains, Elephant Trunks, Camel Humps and Deer Penis. (Don’t believe me, goggle The “Man and Han Banquet” “满汉全席”)  These are wild, endangered land dwelling animals that are illegal to consume nowadays.  So are Sharks! They are wild and endangered too!, the only different is that they live in the sea. So should it be “out of our consciousness, out of our care?”

Do we have any respect for people who consume Bears, Elephants or Monkeys, Camels?  So why the double standards here?  People hundreds of years from now aren’t going to have any respects for cultures that are fundamentally wrong.  Just as we don’t have any respect for the culture of Slavery, or Cannibalism. 

As for the conspiracy theory that the West using the “Stop the Shark Fin Movement” to control the East (don’t laugh! many still believe in this!), I can shrug or laugh it off but let’s be real, Science doesn’t lie.  Empirical Findings don’t lie.  To be deadlocked in these sentiments helps nothing!  The threats that the sharks face do not discriminate, and we are all in the same boat.  “Stop the Shark Fin Soup Campaign) needn’t be a “Western Movement” (and it shouldn’t be!).  It’s up to us to open our eyes and see what’s real and what’s conceived/concocted out of biasness, ignorance or fear. 

About Sharks being a nuisance, man-eaters.

Think again! How much do we know about sharks? Mindless vengeful monsters that terrorize the coasts and “bite the crap out of you”?  Google to find out how sharks have 2 more senses than us human (the sensory pores to detect magnetic fields and the lateral lines to detect movements), and google to find out how sharks have both short term and long term memories.  And while doing that, verify these statistics! Get them right!: 

Sharks kill approximately 5 people each year, Elephant and Tiger: 100, Crocodiles: 200, Executions and Capital Punishments: 2400, Flies; 10,000,  Illegal Drugs: 22,000, Road Accidents: 1.2 millions, Mosquitoes: 1.5 millions, Starvations: 8 millions. And to add more into the equations:  Vending Machines kill 13 people each year, Defective Toaster: 800, let’s not get into Hair Dryers and Wine Bottles shall we….

Don’t get me wrong, Sharks are wild animals and they do bite. But so are Tigers or Lions!  Would you run along a pride of Lions or venture into the African Savannas armed only with a bathing suit, a tube of sunscreen and a pair of sun-glasses? But that’s exactly what we do (in the millions) when we enter shark’s territories.

Nassau of Bahamas attracts tons of divers every year to witness a swarm of reef sharks in a feeding frenzy (image from http://aquaviews.net/)

About the economics, how a lot of people will be put out of businesses if none of us consume Shark Fin Soup:

Again, this is an existential quandary!  And given the fact that sharks have been largely decimated around the world it is already happening:  When supply dwindles the price of Shark Fins skyrockets, a cycle known as “Boom and Bust” begins.  The fishermen, The Restaurant Owners, the Middlemen can either pack up the family businesses (often that has lasted for generations), and face an uncertain future OR follow the demands, fish out the diminishing supply, feed their families first, and wait until the collapse in “Shark Stock” happens.   “Who cares? Catch now and worry later!”  

As consumers, the similar mentalities are prevalent too:  “Since we are not going to have much left, Better eat them while we can, and while they are still relatively inexpensive!” These attitudes, would only pronounce an even earlier demise to all the sharks and for that matter, the businesses that thrive on them.  

If we really have to bring in the pictures of the livelihoods of those who are involved in Shark Fin Trades, then what kind of financial future do these people have? Sure you can feed your family now but for how long? Needless to say the collapse of the entire Sharks population is not just an eventuality but inevitability!  So the question we should ask ourselves should be:  Are we really going to condone instant financial gratifications? Sure some people will lose their jobs, but compare how long it would take for these people to finding new jobs to how resilient shark stock will replenish itself (sharks takes over 20 years to mature), The answer is obvious!

“Sure there are other fishes to catch, So when sharks are gone we could go catch something else!”

I heard that rebut before, but does it hold its ground? Consider these facts (all happened in either 2009 or this year): 

In Australia, it’s been reported that low numbers of sharks have led to an increase in the number of octopuses, who without the predators to keep them at bay, devour the entire lobster population. So the Lobsters fisheries collapsed and people lost their jobs. 

At around the same time, with fewer sharks along the US Atlantic Coast, Cownose Rays have increased so much that they’ve wiped out bay Scallops by feeding on them. So the Scallops folks wrapped up and screamed and cried in front of TVs. 

Recently, Spain’s Ministry of the Environment said the decline of natural marine predators was likely the cause of jellyfish blooms that led to the closure of several beaches along the Costa Blanca. So the Hoteliers and Cold Drinks vendors by the beach closed down and became disillusioned. 

The scenarios are coming in at staggering rates, who are we to blame? So does it mean that we have to start eating Octopus, Cownose Rays (which I heard taste nothing like our beloved “Ikan Pari”) and Jellyfish? If yes, subsequently after we eat these animals to extinction, what’s next?

One gruesome fact about consuming Shark Fin Soup has eluded many of us so far: 

A wildlife group “WildAid” in Thailand recently presented a new study to back its claim that shark fin contains mercury poison (an allegation that provoked a $2.6 million lawsuit by the sellers of the Chinese delicacy and hence made the headlines). The samples that were tested had mercury concentrations from four to seven times above the FDA limit. 

Mercury is a dangerous poison to humans that enters the oceans from pollutions. Fish absorb mercury and it accumulates in their bodies. Fish we consume have relatively low Mercury content because they have a short life span, and not much of the Mercury could be accumulated in that short time.  As fish eat other fish, the mercury accumulates and concentrates further up the food chain. Sharks have more mercury than any other fish because they are at the top of the food chain, can live for 50 years or more, eat many fish during that lifetime, and continue to store mercury in their bodies during that time.

The long term effects of environmental industrial mercury poisoning on the local population in Minamata, Japan. Taken on the Japanese Island of Kyushu, we see an outwardly healthy mother bathing her fetal-poisoned 16 year old daughter, Tomoko Uemura, grotesquely deformed, physically crippled and blind since birth due to environmental industial mercury poisoning in the local water supply. (photo by W. Eugene Smith)

Mercury will not dissolve in cooking so when we eat shark fin soup, a lifetime’s accumulation of mercury is absorbed into our bodies.  Shark Fin Soup is incorrectly believed to increase virility, but its mercury content has been shown to do the very opposite: it lowers sperm count or can even cause sterility in men.

Many health organizations also warn pregnant women not to eat sharks while pregnant or if they plan to become pregnant. Babies could be born prematurely, become autistic or have low IQs (so much for the term “Shark Babes”!) The problem is even worse with dried shark fin than with fresh shark meat because when you dry the fin, you’re actually concentrating the mercury to even greater amounts (and guess what? 90% of the fins we consumed are dried fins).

And if these news fail to trigger your inner alarm, recent youtubes’ circulations bore some newer and gloomier facts:  Short clips containing footages of an underground shark fin processing factory in Guangzhou confirmed that industrial grade Hydrogen Peroxide and Ammonia are widely used to bleach fins (thanks Ivan for bringing this to my knowledge!) so my advice for those who adamantly want to continue to consume Shark Fin Soup (and regard how living in the laps of luxury means “using shark fin soup as a mouth wash”- “鱼翅漱口”) : buy a large “Critical Illnesses” Insurance Plan from me.

I have always advised my friends that the single most important reason why we should not consume Shark Fin Soup is this:  We cannot afford to disturb or meddle with the Ocean Food Chain.  And yet against all of nature’s odds, we are doing it (from top down), at a rate that many suspect will soon tilt the ocean ecosystem’s equilibrium to a point of no return! Let’s face it: we still don’t even know how bad it is, because it’s not visible on the surface.

Sounds farfetched? Heresy? Too academic? Vague? or hard to grapple with?  Well it is simple actually:

The sea (basically the life support system for planet earth), much like all life, has a finely tuned balance that has evolved over millions of years.  As any system in balance, it can be totally whacked out of joint if you take out one component (Nature will adapt to small changes, but can’t withstand a major disruption). The balance of the ecosystem is extremely important because all organisms belonging to the ecosystem depend upon each other to maintain this balance.

Sharks (which have been around for over 400 million years), as apex predators, have been keeping this balance. All animals evolved in the oceans have either been shaped directly or indirectly by sharks.  Sharks eat big and small fish, take out those which are weak, sick and dead and in doing so maintaining a healthy ocean ecosystem, enabling the fittest to survive and controlling the populations below them.

Phytoplankton is the foundation of the oceanic food chain (image credit: NOAA MESA Project)

Let’s view this now from the other end of the equation-the bottom of the food chain: Phytoplankton, tiny aquatic plants that consume 70% of earth’s Carbon Dioxide and convert them into Oxygen.  Out of every 10 breath we take on land, 7 of them were generated from the sea. Without sharks to prey on them, plankton feeders below sharks could grow out of control, consuming the Phytoplankton we depend upon for survival.

It’s not rocket science really.  By virtue of the big fish eat small fish’s analogy; we can formulate a simple equation that looks like this: 

Apex Predators (eg. Sharks) eat Large Fish (eg. Mackerels),

which in turn eat Small Bait Fish (eg. Silversides),

which in turn eat Zooplanktons (eg. Shrimps),

which in turn eat Phytoplanktons (eg. Algea).

Obviously this is a oversimplified model, and some large fish (even sharks) do eat zooplanktons or small fish instead of big fish, but we leave those out for simplicity.

Now consider this:  Cut Sharks out from the equation, then numbers of Big Fish will rise, then numbers of small fish will drop, then the numbers of Zooplanton will rise, and lastly zoom in on Phytoplanton, which numbers will drop. 

What does it say on the Oxygen we breathe, what about the effect on Global Warming? or on Climate (El Nino, La Nina, ring a bell?)

Are you still with me?

Now throw in some “Mathematical Constants” to make the equations more realistic:

Supposed if it takes 100,000 tons of Phytoplankton to feed 10,000 tons of Shrimps, and these Shrimps feed 1,000 tons of Silversides, and these Silversides feed 100 tons of Mackerels, and these Mackerels feed only 10 tons of Sharks at the end of the food chain (It’s not hard to see here that organisms higher up the food ladder tend to be larger in size and fewer in number than those at lower levels).  So if we are killing Shark in the numbers of close to 100 million a year, how many tons of Phytoplankton and Zooplantons we are affecting directly each year?

So eventually what we do here is not just about saving sharks, but about saving ourselves.

To begin with, I do not proclaim myself to be a shark-lover (only by default and with the love for the oceans, I became one); never fancy their serrated teeth or their lifeless, menacing black eyes.  Furthermore some of the accounts/pictures of shark “attacks” are grotesque enough to make me cringe and look away.  But, it’s not their faults if they look like some gruesome monsters that follow some trails of blood.  Sharks are just wild animals, and all ugly animals (think hyenas) deserve some hard love from us human, who have the ability to wipe out any life forms and decide which live at will.

Whether we like it or not, Shark Fin Soup as a culinary tradition will end.  The question is will it end before there is any shark left?

Unless enough people are prepared to stop consuming the Shark Fin Soup and influence others to collectively do the same, nothing’s really going to change. We are at a juncture that merely making a conscientious decision not to consume Shark Fin Soup will not be enough.  Like what has been argued before: “It’s a little late when it has been turned into a bowl of soup”.  And Time is really running out! 

There is no hope to rely on the governments, or policy makers to do something radicals to put an end to this practice. Think of the heavy lobbies and possible suits from those involve in the Shark Fin Trades.  If we look at history, all social changes came from the passionate interventions of individuals (not from some political parties). Sadly, resistance is the only way that is viable for now; hence we need a HUGE resistant movement to cause a dent in the Demand curve. And when the voices get loud, then the politicians might listen and take heed.

So if you hear that someone’s getting married and readily include Shark Fin Soup as a 2nd course, talk to them, try and change their point of views.  Help them persuade their parents.  The Statistic and Facts are overwhelming, and with the right kind of attitude I believe many would buy the idea! After all, we have so many other types of soup that would taste equally great! Have faith in Chinese Cuisines.

How difficult is it to persuade someone to say no to a bowl of Shark Fin Soup? 

Really……

Seriously…….

WWF - no to shark fin (image by Pucky)

The post Jaws wide open, eyes wide shut appeared first on juesatta (CJ Photography).

Phytoplankton in its myriad varieties is essential for life in the oceans

“Phytoplankton… produce half of the oxygen we breathe, draw down surface CO2, and ultimately support all of our fisheries”
Professor Boris Worm
Dalhousie University

The amount of phytoplankton – tiny marine plants – in the top layers of the oceans has declined markedly over the last century, research suggests.

Writing in the journal Nature, scientists say the decline appears to be linked to rising water temperatures.

They made their finding by looking at records of the transparency of sea water, which is affected by the plants.

The decline – about 1% per year – could be ecologically significant as plankton sit at the base of marine food chains.

Algal blooms can be imaged from space

This is the first study to attempt a comprehensive global look at plankton changes over such a long time scale.

“What we think is happening is that the oceans are becoming more stratified as the water warms,” said research leader Daniel Boyce from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

“The plants need sunlight from above and nutrients from below; and as it becomes more stratified, that limits the availability of nutrients,” he told BBC News.

Phytoplankton are typically eaten by zooplankton – tiny marine animals – which themselves are prey for small fish and other animals.

Disk record

The first reliable system for measuring the transparency of sea water was developed by astronomer and Jesuit priest Pietro Angelo Secchi.

Asked by the Pope in 1865 to measure the clarity of water in the Mediterranean Sea for the Papal navy, he conceived and developed the “Secchi disk”, which must be one of the simplest instruments ever deployed; it is simply lowered into the sea until its white colour disappears from view.

Various substances in the water can affect its transparency; but one of the main ones is the concentration of chlorophyll, the green pigment that is key to photosynthesis in plants at sea and on land.

The long-term but patchy record provided by Secchi disk measurements around the world has been augmented by shipboard analysis of water samples, and more recently by satellite measurements of ocean colour.

The final tally included 445,237 data points from Secchi disks spanning the period 1899-2008.

“This study took three years, and we spent lots of time going through the data checking that there wasn’t any ‘garbage’ in there,” said Mr Boyce.

“The data is good in the northern hemisphere and it gets better in recent times, but it’s more patchy in the southern hemisphere – the Southern Ocean, the southern Indian Ocean, and so on.”

The higher quality data available since 1950 has allowed the team to calculate that since that time, the world has seen a phytoplankton decline of about 40%.
Ocean cycling

The decline is seen in most parts of the world, one marked exception being the Indian Ocean. There are also phytoplankton increases in coastal zones where fertiliser run-off from agricultural land is increasing nutrient supplies.

However, the pattern is far from steady. As well as the long-term downward trend, there are strong variations spanning a few years or a few decades.

Father Secchi's simple disk has been used for more than 100 years

Many of these variations are correlated with natural cycles of temperature seen in the oceans, including the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation.

The warmer ends of these cycles co-incide with a reduction in plankton growth, while abundance is higher in the colder phase.

Carl-Gustaf Lundin, head of the marine programme at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), suggested there could be other factors involved – notably the huge expansion in open-ocean fishing that has taken place over the century.

“Logically you would expect that as fishing has gone up, the amount of zooplankton would have risen – and that should have led to a decline in phytoplankton,” he told BBC News.

“So there’s something about fishing that hasn’t been factored into this analysis.”

The method of dividing oceans into grids that the Dalhousie researchers used, he said, did not permit scrutiny of areas where this might be particularly important, such as the upwelling in the Eastern Pacific that supports the Peruvian anchovy fishery – the biggest fishery on the planet.

Absorbing facts

If the trend is real, it could also act to accelerate warming, the team noted.

Photosynthesis by phytoplankton removes carbon dioxide from the air and produces oxygen.

In several parts of the world, notably the Southern Ocean, scientists have already noted that the waters appear to be absorbing less CO2 – although this is principally thought to be because of changes to wind patterns – and leaving more CO2 in the air should logically lead to greater warming.

“Phytoplankton… produce half of the oxygen we breathe, draw down surface CO2, and ultimately support all of our fisheries,” said Boris Worm, another member of the Dalhousie team.

“An ocean with less phytoplankton will function differently.”

The question is: how differently?

If the planet continues to warm in line with projections of computer models of climate, the overall decline in phytoplankton might be expected to continue.

But, said, Daniel Boyce, that was not certain.

“It’s tempting to say there will be further declines, but on the other hand there could be other drivers of change, so I don’t think that saying ‘temperature rise brings a phytoplankton decline’ is the end of the picture,” he said.

The implications, noted Dr Lundin, could be significant.

“If in fact productivity is going down so much, the implication would be that less carbon capture and storage is happening in the open ocean,” he said.

“So that’s a service that humanity is getting for free that it will lose; and there would also be an impact on fish, with less fish in the oceans over time.”

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
[source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10781621]

The post Plankton decline across oceans as waters warm appeared first on juesatta (CJ Photography).