Saving Seafood

FLORIDA: Shark fishing workshops, red snapper announcement coming soon

July 9, 2018 — In April, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission bridged a controversial topic among Florida’s millions of beachgoers and anglers — shore-based shark fishing. Emotional public comment presented by more than 25 speakers convinced the 7-member governor-appointed volunteer commission to request FWC staff to develop more comprehensive regulations to address shore-based shark fishing from the Sunshine State’s more than 2,000 miles of beaches.

That day in April, no one logged any comment in support of shore-based shark fishing. And I warned you all, if you don’t show up, your voice will not be heard.

Now, the FWC has announced a series of public workshops around the state beginning next week to further address the practice as a step in the process towards developing regulations aimed at conserving sharks better and protecting beachgoers, too.

The problem, according to recommendations provided to the FWC by David Shiffman (@WhySharksMatter on Twitter), noted shark researcher at Simon Fraser University and marine conservation biologist and science writer, is several species commonly caught from the beach do not survive the fight very well, and if they do, they may not survive the photo session or release.

“Two of the top ways that angling stress kills fish are long fight times which exhaust the fish and air exposure,” Shiffman wrote in recommendations he provided to FWC — “Promoting Conservation-Friendly Shark Handling Practices in the Fishing Capital of the World: A Science-Based Proposal to Revise Florida’s Land-Based Shark Fishing Regulations.”

Read the full story at Treasure Coast News

U.S. Shark Fin Ban “Will Not Work,” Would Likely Hurt Shark Conservation Efforts, Expert Tells Rep. Doug Lamborn

May 2, 2018 — WASHINGTON — In response to a question from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), shark expert Dr. Robert Hueter wrote that a U.S. ban on the trade of shark fins would not work and would potentially lead to more unsustainable or finned shark fins in the global market.

Dr. Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, previously testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans on April 17 in favor of a sustainable shark trade bill and against a fin ban. His most recent comments came in response to a follow-up question from Rep. Lamborn about the message a fin ban would send to other nations.

“U.S. fishers do not fin their sharks,” Dr. Hueter wrote. “So the consequences of this action will be to punish the fishers doing it right—U.S. shark fisheries—and reward the foreign fisheries doing it wrong. That is a terrible message to send the world.”

John Polston, a fisherman and representative of the Sustainable Shark Alliance, also testified in April in support of the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act and in opposition to the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act. The Sustainable Shark Alliance is a member of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities.

The full text of Rep. Lamborn’s question and Dr. Hueter’s response is reproduced below:

Question from Rep. Doug Lamborn for Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of the Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory

  • Supporters of H.R. 1456 have argued that such a ban on shark fin sales would send a message to other countries. What message do you think this ban would send?

RESPONSE FROM DR. HUETER [emphasis added by Saving Seafood]:

The supporters of H.R. 1456 are hoping the message the U.S. will send to other nations with a domestic fin ban is that shark fins should no longer be tolerated as a consumable product.  This U.S. leadership, they hope, would end the global fin market, eliminate all shark finning, and recover shark populations worldwide.  Analogies are made to past U.S. leadership in the elephant ivory trade and in commercial whaling.  But as explained in Dr. David Shiffman’s and my 2017 peer-reviewed paper in the journal Marine Policy, this approach is flawed and will not work, for several reasons.  Unlike in the case of elephant ivory where the U.S. was the world’s major consumer, we are only a 1% player in the world shark fin market, and thus our withdrawal from that market will not have the same type of direct effect on world trade of fins as happened with the ivory trade.  In fact, it’s reasonable to conclude that the small market share of shark fins that U.S. fishers currently supply will be taken up by nations fishing sharks unsustainably, probably even finning the sharks.  Recall that U.S. fishers do not fin their sharks—that is, they do not remove the fins and discard the rest of the animals at sea, because American fishers are required to land all their sharks with the fins still “naturally attached” (with the exception of the northeast dogfish fishery, which is allowed to remove the fins at sea to begin processing the meat and fins on the fishing boat).  So the consequences of this action will be to punish the fishers doing it right—U.S. shark fisheries—and reward the foreign fisheries doing it wrong.  That is a terrible message to send the world.

Furthermore, our position at the international negotiating table where shark conservation issues are discussed will be compromised if we withdraw from the fin market.  The message we will be carrying to that forum is, no matter what other nations do to create sustainability in their shark fisheries, it will never be enough to allow them to harvest the fins, in our view.  This loss of leverage will backfire for U.S. attempts to advance shark conservation around the world.  In addition, consider today’s realities with elephants and whales: elephants are still being poached as the ivory trade has been driven underground, meaning we can no longer track this commodity through world trade routes, and elephants are still declining.  And whales are still being hunted commercially by those nations who do not share our preservationist beliefs about marine mammals.  Along these lines, a domestic fin ban also sends a message to Asian cultures that even if they are using the entire shark, even if the sharks are not being finned and the level of fishing for them is sustainable, their use of fins to make soup is unethical.  This creates a clash of cultural values, both internationally and domestically, and our moral position will be difficult to defend.

Finally, by focusing our legislative efforts solely on the fin trade in the U.S., we send a message to American citizens that we are solving the worldwide problem in shark depletion by banning the fins here. Conservation groups then declare victory to their supporters, Congress moves on to other issues, and the U.S. public thinks the problem has been solved.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as sharks will continue to be caught by other nations for their meat and fins and suffer unsustainable levels of bycatch mortality in foreign fisheries.  This is where H.R. 5248 represents an evolution of thinking in how to address the issue, by not simply focusing on the fins and also including the rays, which are in as serious trouble as the sharks worldwide.

Therefore, in my view the message we will be sending the world if we implement a nationwide, domestic ban of the shark fin trade is this:  The U.S. does not believe in sustainable fishing for sharks, we do not subscribe to the full use doctrine for marine resources as laid out by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, we condemn Asian cultures for their consumption of shark fins even from sustainable shark fisheries, and we are okay with damaging our own domestic fisheries to construct a purely symbolic but misguided and ineffective message for shark conservation.   

 

Could a Shark Fin Ban Actually Be Bad for Sharks?

Two scientists have argued that the United States’ proposed shark fin ban may not have the intended benefits.

September 26, 2017 — At first blush, a proposed national ban on shark fins in the United States would seem like a good thing for sharks. Shark fishing has been blamed for the decline in a number of shark species, and specifically fins, which typically find their way into shark fin soup, create their own problems. Since the fin is the most valuable part of a shark, some fisherman use a practice called “finning”—already banned in the U.S.—where the fins are removed from the shark (sometimes while still alive) and then the rest of the animal is disposed of. Banning the fins all together sounds like a simple way to end all these issues once and for all. However, in a paper published this month in the journal Marine Policy, marine scientists David Shiffman and Robert Hueter present a different argument: such a ban actually “would undermine sustainable shark fisheries.”

According to the office of New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, over 100 scientists have come out in support of the bill he introduced this past March seeking to ban shark fins. But of course, there are two sides to every story, and according to the Associated Press, Shiffman and Hueter essentially state that when it comes to shark fishing, America is one of the few places that actually practices sustainability, so why mess it?

“Removing that from the marketplace removes a template of a well-managed fishery,” Shiffman told the AP. “It’s much easier for us to say, here’s a way you can do this.” His paper also suggests that since the U.S. is such a small part of the worldwide shark fin trade, a ban in the U.S. would simply be made up for by more fishing elsewhere.

Read the full story at Food & Wine

Shark fin bans might not help sharks, scientists say

September 25, 2017 — PORTLAND, Maine — As lawmakers propose banning the sale of shark fins in the U.S., a pair of scientists is pushing back, saying the effort might actually harm attempts to conserve the marine predators.

Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced a bill this year designed to prevent people from possessing or selling shark fins in America, much to the delight of conservation groups such as Oceana. But marine scientists David Shiffman and Robert Hueter said this approach could be wrongheaded.

Shiffman and Hueter authored a study that appears in the November issue of the journal Marine Policy, saying the U.S. has long been a leader in shark fisheries management and that shutting down the U.S. fin trade entirely would remove a model for sustainability for the rest of the world.

The U.S. also is a minor contributor to the worldwide shark fin trade, and countries with less regulated fisheries would likely step in to fill the void if America left the business altogether, Shiffman said.

“Removing that from the marketplace removes a template of a well-managed fishery,” Shiffman, a shark researcher with Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, said. “It’s much easier for us to say, here’s a way you can do this.”

Shark fins are most often used in a soup considered a delicacy in Asia. Shark fins that American fishermen harvest are often shipped to Asia for processing.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Bangor Daily News

A US ban on shark fins is a bad idea, say researchers

September 22, 2017 — Earlier this year, United States senators put forth S.793, a bill they’ve named the “Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act”. With the noble goal of protecting shark populations, which are in decline all over the globe, the document proposes a total ban on the buying or selling of shark fins in the US. Sounds like an unambiguously good thing, right? Well, the straightforward answer to a problem is not always the best one – and some shark researchers worry that this approach could do more harm than good.

In a recently published paper, shark researchers David Shiffman and Robert Hueter argue that banning trade in fins would not prevent many shark deaths at all – but it might hinder successful conservation practices, and sow confusion by misrepresenting the true threats to these animals. What they recommend instead is prioritising the continued sustainable management of shark fishing.

The finning issue

Let’s start with the broad problem: sharks are in trouble. And losing them is a threat not only for the ecosystems in which they serve important roles, but also for economies all over the globe that rely on them for food, including the United States. Worldwide, many populations are dwindling, their decline driven largely by overfishing, including hunting for meat, bycatch, as well as the lucrative fin trade, which supplies demand in some countries for a delicacy known as shark-fin soup.

This fin trade has led to a phenomenon called shark finning. As the bill describes, “Shark finning is the cruel practice in which the fins of a shark are cut off on board a fishing vessel at sea. The remainder of the animal is then thrown back into the water to drown, starve, or die a slow death.” This practice is not only cruel, but also wasteful – in contrast with conservative shark-fishing practices that make use of meat and parts from the entire body.

Shark finning has actually been banned in the US since the 1990s, but as long as the animal’s body is not discarded at sea, fishers are generally free to do what they will with the fins; indeed, these are typically harvested along with the meat. The new bill, however, presented by Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, proposes a total ban on possessing, transporting, selling or purchasing shark fins, under threat of a fine of up to $100,000 or more.

Read the full story at Earth Touch News

Shark Fin Ban Is Misguided, Would Undermine Sustainable U.S. Shark Fisheries, Say Experts

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – September 14, 2017 – A ban on shark fin sales in the United States would undermine some of the planet’s most sustainable shark fisheries while harming global shark conservation efforts, according to two prominent shark scientists.

In a paper published this month in Marine Policy, Dr. David Shiffman, a Liber Ero Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., and Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Fla., call proposed Congressional legislation banning the sale or purchase of shark fins in the United States “misguided.” Environmental group Oceana is pushing the legislation, known as the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act.

In an interview with Saving Seafood, Dr. Shiffman said the legislation was “well-intentioned” but “overly simplistic.” By withdrawing from the global shark fin market, the United States would remove incentives for its trading partners to build sustainable shark fisheries, and would eliminate an important example of sustainable shark fisheries management, he said.

“We’re a relatively small percentage of the overall trade in shark fins, so banning the trade of shark fins within the U.S. will not have that much of a direct impact on shark mortality,” Dr. Shiffman told Saving Seafood. “But we’re a really high percentage of the sustainably caught, well-managed shark fishery. So removing us from the global marketplace for fins doesn’t help save that many sharks, but it removes this sustainable fishery from the marketplace as a template that can be copied.”

According to Dr. Shiffman, U.S. shark fisheries are built on a strong mix of “scientific research infrastructure” and “management and enforcement infrastructure,” which has helped make them some of the most sustainable in the world. His coauthor, Dr. Hueter, told Saving Seafood that enacting a shark fin ban would undermine decades of progress that went into building those sustainable fisheries.

“We have done a great job working together to rebuild the fish, and at least make the fisheries sustainable and profitable,” Dr. Hueter said. “And that is why this fin ban, in our opinion, is so misguided. Because after all these decades of work to get us to a great point with a bright future, this sort of ban would just cut the legs out from underneath the fishery. It would cause waste, put people out of business who are doing things right, and reward the folks in other nations who are not doing things well.”

Much of the public remains unaware of the sustainable status of most U.S. shark fisheries, a phenomenon the authors attribute to confusion over key issues related to shark conservation. In particular, many do not understand the difference between “shark finning” – the inhumane and illegal practice of removing a shark’s fins at sea – and sustainable landings of whole sharks required by U.S. law. Finning is “just this boogeyman of shark conservation activists,” Dr. Shiffman said. “People don’t understand what shark finning means in many cases.”

“We have sounded the alarm now for 20 years or more about this thing called finning to the point where we’ve gotten people so upset about it that they no longer listen to the subtle difference between finning and fishing,” Dr. Hueter said. “And they think that all sharks that are caught by commercial fishermen are finned animals.”

Should a total fin ban be enacted, rule-following U.S. fishermen would be economically harmed, the authors write in their paper, noting that nearly a quarter of the total value of shark meat sales comes from shark fins. Forcing fishermen to throw out fins from sustainably caught sharks would be wasteful, contradicting a United Nations plan of action to create “full use” in global shark fisheries, they write.

Instead of a fin ban, Dr. Shiffman and Dr. Hueter support policies focused on sustainable shark fisheries management. Dr. Hueter recommended five ways fishery managers could pursue this goal: increase penalties for those caught finning sharks, which Florida did earlier this year; stop imports of shark products from countries that don’t practice sustainable shark fishing; incentivize the domestic industry to process shark fins within the U.S. and provide for the domestic demand; closely monitor U.S. shark populations and support strict measures for sustainability; and increase public education about the problems facing global shark populations.

“Banning is always the easiest thing,” Dr. Hueter said. “Making the fishery so it’s regulated and sustainable and smart, that’s hard. But we shouldn’t be choosing things based on what sounds good or what feels good. We should be doing things based on what works.”

There is broad support in the scientific community for sustainable shark fisheries. In a recent survey of over 100 members of scientific research societies focusing on sharks and rays, Dr. Shiffman and Dr. Neil Hammerschlag, a marine ecologist at the University of Miami, found that 90 percent preferred sustainable management to a total ban on the sale of shark products. Dr. Shiffman believes that sustainable fisheries can go hand in hand with shark conservation.

“I am glad to see that the best available data, over and over again, is showing that we can have healthy shark populations while still having sustainable, well-managed fisheries that employ fishermen and provide protein to the global marketplace,” said Dr. Shiffman, who also writes for the marine science blog Southern Fried Science and frequently comments on shark conservation issues on Twitter. “We don’t need to choose between the environment and jobs in this case if we do it correctly.”

Dr. David Shiffman: The rare Trump appointment that is actually making scientists very happy

July 14, 2017 — The following is excerpted from an analysis piece written by Dr. David Shiffman, a fisheries scientist and Liber Ero Fellow based at Simon Fraser University, and was published in The Washington Post yesterday. The analysis referenced and linked to Saving Seafood’s previous coverage of widespread industry support for Chris Oliver’s appointment as NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator, found here:

[T]he appointment of fisheries biologist Chris Oliver to lead NOAA Fisheries — the agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that is charged with sustainable management of commercial fisheries worth more than $140 billion — represents a striking departure from the Trump administration’s scientific and environmental personnel and policy choices.

Oliver has worked as the executive director of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council since 1990. He has won the praise of both conservation groups and industry.

The position he will assume is one of the most important science, environment and natural resource management positions in the federal government. Its responsibilities include not only fisheries management but also conservation of marine species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Fisheries operates offices and research stations in 15 states and territories and employs more than 3,000 people.

Environmentalists and fishermen were following this appointment nervously. A mismanaged NOAA Fisheries could do severe and long-lasting environmental harm to U.S. marine and coastal waters, and economic harm to the millions of Americans who depend on those ecosystems.

The ocean conservation nonprofit sector, which has been strongly critical of the Trump administration, is praising this appointment. “Chris Oliver brings years of past experience working with fishermen, conservation groups and scientists, and a deep understanding of the practices and importance of science and ecosystem based management to the federal fisheries arena,” said Chris Dorsett, vice president of conservation policy at the Ocean Conservancy, a leading marine conservation nonprofit.

The seafood industry, which called for Oliver’s appointment in January in what was called “a nearly unprecedented display of unanimity,” is also pleased. “We are extremely supportive and excited about Chris’s appointment because he brings to NOAA Fisheries the skills and experience necessary to affect positive change during the challenging times that lie ahead,” said Lori Steele, executive director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association.

“It isn’t often that the U.S. seafood industry unites together to support an appointment, but it was easy, thanks in large party to Chris’s experience and long-standing reputation as a fair, honest and successful leader in fisheries management,” she said.

“I am delighted that Chris has been well received by the fishing community in his new position,” said Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of Commerce, in a statement provided to the Post. “I have the utmost confidence that he will do a great job working with stakeholders to manage our nation’s vital fisheries – that’s why I recommended him to the president.”

Read the full story at The Washington Post

ENGOs Renew Push for Shark Trade Elimination Act Passage; Industry, Scientists Push Back

May 16, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Like sharks in a feeding frenzy, a group of scientists, students and Oceana are circling, renewing their push to pass the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, threatening sustainable U.S shark fisheries. The scientists and ENGOs also say sharks are in decline.

On the other side, the Sustainable Shark Alliance, a U.S. seafood industry trade group, opposes the legislation. It’s unnecessary, they say, won’t make a dent in the global shark trade and ultimately penalize responsible fishermen.

“Oceana presents a false choice between a sustainable domestic shark fishery and other uses, such as tourism,” Shaun Gehan, a lawyer for the Sustainable Shark Alliance, said in a statement. “University and federal studies alike show growing domestic populations.”

The practice of shark finning, using only the fins and releasing the shark, has been banned in the U.S. since 1993. Some states have passed legislation banning trade of some shark parts or some species.

“The Shark Finning Prohibition Act ended the brutal practice of finning, the removal of the sharks’ fins while discarding their bodies at sea, and the Shark Conservation Act eventually closed some of its loopholes ensuring that sharks are landed with their fins naturally attached to their bodies,” the scientists wrote in their May 9 letter to Congress. “However, the United States continues to allow the buying and selling of fins. Five of the 11 countries that export shark fins to the U.S. do not prohibit shark finning. Therefore, while the U.S. bans shark finning in its own waters, it indirectly promotes this practice elsewhere and perpetuates the global trade in shark fins.”

Alliance members and other scientists counter that the Shark Trade Elimination Act will, by removing sustainably sourced shark parts, result in the increase of illegal trade of shark fins.

“Oceana and their partners are grossly misinformed and are misinforming the public,” said Bob Jones, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association. “The U.S. shark fishery is the most sustainably run shark fishery in the world. Oceana should be promoting the responsible practices of the fishery instead of working to dismantle it.”

Dr. David Shiffman, a renowned shark conservation biologist, also is against the proposed legislation and wrote about it on the marine science and conservation blog Southern Fried Science.

“Shark fin trade bans do not allow for a sustainable supply of shark fins to enter the marketplace, punishing American fishermen who are doing it right,” Shiffman wrote. “Sustainable trade is incompatible with a total ban on trade, at least in the same place and time. The United States has some of the most sustainable managed shark fisheries on Earth. When these fisheries provide fins to the marketplace, it shows that fins can absolutely come from a well-managed shark fishery.”

Moreover, using the sustainably managed U.S. shark fisheries as examples would be better in the long run when the U.S. is negotiating with other countries, Shiffman said.

“This can be an important example for international fisheries negotiations and associated advocacy (e.g., ‘the United States manages their shark fisheries well, and so can you, here’s how.’),” Shiffman wrote. “According to Dr. Robert Hueter of Mote Marine Laboratory, a nationwide ban on the shark fin trade ‘will cause the demise of a legal domestic industry that is showing the rest of the world how to utilize sharks in a responsible, sustainable way.’ (And yes, sustainable shark fisheries absolutely can exist and do exist, although there are certainly many more examples of unsustainable shark fisheries.)”

While not affecting illegal international shark populations, the bill will hurt U.S. shark fishermen who play by the rules. It will force fishermen to dispose of shark fins on every shark they catch, which currently account for 50 percent of a shark’s value. Proper management can only occur when U.S. shark fisheries are allowed to collect the full value of their catch – without this revenue, shark fisheries will not be able to afford fuel costs and will cease to exist, the Alliance said in the statement.

“Our members are struck by the intolerance of the proponents of this campaign. It is clear that they are indifferent to the potential loss of income. I guess the livelihoods of fishing families are insignificant to the folks who support Oceana’s agenda,” said Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association.

Other respected shark scientists have come out in opposition to the legislation as well, including Dr. Robert E. Hueter. Hueter is the Director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota Florida, and has more than 40 years of experience in shark research.

“This bill will do nothing to effectively combat the practice of finning on the high seas and in other countries, where the real problem lies, and it will not significantly reduce mortality of the sharks killed in global fisheries every year,” Hueter wrote in a letter to Congress.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission. 

DAVID SHIFFMAN: The Case Against Shark Fin Trade Bans

May 15, 2017 — The following is an excerpt from a story published in Southern Fried Science on May 13:

The United States Congress is considering a nationwide ban on buying, selling, or trading shark fins. While several of my posts and tweets have briefly discussed my stance on such policies, I’ve never laid out my full argument in one post. Here is why I, as a shark conservation biologist, oppose banning the shark fin trade within the United States.  The short answer is that the US represents a tiny percentage of overall consumers of shark fin, but provide some of the most sustainably caught sharks on Earth, as well as important examples of successful management, to the world. This means that banning the US shark fin trade won’t reduce total shark mortality by very much, but will remove an important example of fins coming from a well-managed fishery while also hurting American fishermen who follow the rules. Also, a focus on these policies promotes the incorrect belief that shark fin soup is the only significant threat to sharks, and that addressing the tiny part of that problem locally represents the end of all threats. For the longer answer, read on. And for the case for shark fin bans, please see this guest post from Oceana scientist Mariah Pfleger.

Shark fin trade bans do not allow for a sustainable supply of shark fins to enter the marketplace, punishing American fishermen who are doing it right. Sustainable trade is incompatible with a total ban on trade, at least in the same place and time. The United States has some of the most sustainable managed shark fisheries on Earth. When these fisheries provide fins to the marketplace, it shows that fins can absolutely come from a well-managed shark fishery. This can be an important example for international fisheries negotiations and associated advocacy (e.g., “the United States manages their shark fisheries well, and so can you, here’s how.”) According to Dr. Robert Hueter of Mote Marine Laboratory, a nationwide ban on the shark fin trade “will cause the demise of a legal domestic industry that is showing the rest of the world how to utilize sharks in a responsible, sustainable way.” (And yes, sustainable shark fisheries absolutely can exist and do exist, although there are certainly many more examples of unsustainable shark fisheries.) Several experts in international fisheries negotiations have privately told me that the US has more negotiating power when we can say “manage your fishery sustainably like we do” instead of “you should manage your fishery sustainably, but we decided to stop participating in this market entirely”/ “we won’t buy your product regardless of how sustainable you make it.”

Most shark scientists, including me, prefer sustainable trade to banning all trade in general. As part of my Ph.D. research, I surveyed the members of the world’s largest professional societies focusing on sharks. 90% of respondents believe that when possible, sustainable fisheries exploitation is preferable to banning all exploitation or trade. (Shark fin bans themselves received the second-lowest support, and second-highest opposition, of any policy tool I asked about.)

Read the full story at Southern Fried Science