Saving Seafood

Native Hawaiian researchers take a groundbreaking field trip to Papahanaumokuakea

August 19, 2021 — Nine researchers and community members recently traveled to Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument for a 15-day expedition.

It was a groundbreaking field trip. All of them are Native Hawaiians.

“Together as a group of Native Hawaiians we went up there to really assess and to learn from the place through a Hawaiian perspective,” Haunani Kane said.

Kane is an assistant professor at Arizona State University’s Center for Global Discovery and Conservation Science. She led the study.

“When you look at the representation of native people that get PhD’s in ocean and earth sciences, we aren’t represented by number. We’re represented by two letters, ‘NA,’ because there’s less than 20 of us in the world that’s pursuing this research,” she said.

The team documented conditions on the eastern side of the monument that was hit hard in 2018 by Hurricane Walaka, especially East island.

Kane said the perspective is very different when you see it in person as opposed to looking at satellite imagery.

“When you go out there and you are able to stand there on the island and see it from sea level, you see that the island still is not as tall as it was before, which is really important for sea-level rise, for high tide and things like that,” she said.

Read the full story at Hawaii News Now

How media mistakes threaten global shark survival

June 19, 2020 — The following was released by Arizona State University:

Sharks are among the most threatened animals in the world, and more people than ever now want to help. But a deep analysis of news coverage of shark conservation issues over 10 years reveals an alarming pattern of inaccurate reporting. This misinformation results in broad misunderstandings of the true issues among both media consumers and policymakers.

David Shiffman, a marine conservation biologist at Arizona State University’s New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, led a team that analyzed nearly 2,000 media articles dating back to 2008. The analysis reveals that worldwide media coverage of shark conservation topics is biased and inaccurate, omitting or misrepresenting key facts and not reporting on expert-backed solutions that have scientific data demonstrating their effectiveness.

“Sharks face many threats, and there are many available policy solutions to address those threats. However, you wouldn’t know that from reading newspaper coverage of this important and complex issue,” Shiffman said.

Examples of media misinformation include an overemphasis of threats, such as the shark fin trade verses the shark meat trade, which is a major and growing threat that’s less well understood. This skew in coverage has led in part to shark fin trade bans despite no evidence that these trade bans actually help sharks. The research notes that shark finning has been illegal in the United States since the 1990s, an important point that is often confused in media coverage of these issues.

Read the full release here

To Save Endangered Sharks, You Sometimes Need to Kill a Few

January 9, 2020 — Sharks are some of the most fascinating, most misunderstood and most threatened animals in the world. Many scientists of my generation chose to study these amazing animals explicitly because they’re threatened, and because science can help; this was a major motivation for my choice to pursue a career as a marine conservation biologist, and a major influence in similar decisions by other shark researchers whom I surveyed. As we progress through our education, some of us are surprised to learn that effectively protecting entire species of sharks sometimes requires killing individual sharks—and many non-expert shark enthusiasts are outright shocked to learn this.

Every once in a while, this conflict between the goals of animal welfare and the goals of species-level conservation spill out into the world of social media, when non-expert shark enthusiasts discover that sometimes scientists work with fishermen to gather research samples from the sharks those fishermen have (legally) killed. This happened again recently, when just such a partnership was criticized on twitter by some non-experts.

The truth behind this ‘controversy’ is simple: many of the most important types of scientific data that we need to effectively monitor and conserve shark populations require lethal sampling. To quote a  2010 essay on this topic, “Although lethal sampling comes at a cost to a population, especially for threatened species, the conservation benefits from well‐designed studies provide essential data that cannot be collected currently in any other way.”

Nonlethal methods are being developed and should be encouraged (note: this paper about developing of nonlethal alternatives linked to above is co-written by my PhD supervisor and an Arizona State University colleague)., but they’re a long way from being ready for widespread deployment.

Read the full story at Scientific American