Read this very interesting NYT article today about trawlers and degradation of the marine environment. Recently there was a thread about what to do with Fluke bycatch in the trawling fishery. It is a very important issue by itself but I think the bigger issue is included in this article. Does this form of commercial harvest need to be addressed? I have nothing against responsible commercial harvest but it might be time to phase this method out and use another method. The attached photos are amazing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/15mud.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin


DZ

It is a very important issue by itself but I think the bigger issue is included in this article.

Most won't see the bigger picture until they're standing in the unemployment line.

DZ:

We took a look at this back when I was a rookie geologist using side-scan, so I was only doing the geology part, so my memory might be fuzzy on some of it..

Basically, the scars from the trawl doors is more persistent in muddy, low energy environments, in fact we had a hard time seeing ANY on hard sandy bottom near Whale rock. So as far as changing the bottom it works in that way. This was due to the sandy substrate being 'resurface' more frequently by waves and specifically tidal flow..

On a biologic scale though, the worst impacts were on gravel/hard bottom, where all the attached plant-type critters get mowed over...

Check the link below for some more info..

Bryan

http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/fisheries/presentations/collie.pdf

The damage done is directly related to the type of bottom and the depth. Sandy shallow bottoms recover after one good storm, deeper sandy bottoms recover more slowly, but they recover to a point where no one could tell that the doors were ever there. Hard gravel bottoms recover the slowest. Mud bottoms also recover slowly unless there is a great deal of tide or current. I've seen pitcures of the bottom in the open and closed areas of George's Bank ( gravel bottom) and the difference was amazing!

MM,
Yeah thats Jeremy Collie et al on Georges bank.. did you go to the Seagrant symposium a year or so ago?

MM,
Yeah thats Jeremy Collie et al on Georges bank.. did you go to the Seagrant symposium a year or so ago?

If you mean the series of meetings that URI sea grant put on for fisheries managers and other interested parties, yes I did attend.

Thanks DZ for posting the article- for sure, these issues have to be addressed. But it seems that we are at a point where there is a good deal of awareness that there is a potential issue/ problem looming re: potentially unsustainable forms of fishing. The question is how to translate that level of awareness into action.

need more articles like this one for the general public. its like because it offshore happening and out of sight, it seems that no one cares. its an issue that def. needs to be made public. if half the fishing techniques were used on farm animals likes chickens and cows, people would be going through the roof.

This matter will never be resolved as long as judgements are made by the powers that be based on special interest lobbyists rather than hard scientific facts. Using this issue as a political football rather than heeding the proven, indisputable evidence presented to them is the problem. As long as this practice continues, the slaughter of wasted fish and the degredation of the ocean floor will continue. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it." :wall:

I think if all the people who were against trawling, and the people for it, got their heads together and tried to think of new technology to make trawling more selective and less dectructive, then the problem would be resolved more quickly.