Roman, Joe,Dunphy-Daly, Meagan M.,Johnston, David W.,Read, Andrew J.
Lifting baselines to address the consequences of conservation success Journal Article
In: Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 30, no. 447, pp. 299-302, 2015, ISBN: 0169-5347.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: conservation success, Endangered species, historical abundance, management, Marine mammals, population trends, recovery, shifting baselines
@article{,
title = {Lifting baselines to address the consequences of conservation success},
author = {Roman, Joe,Dunphy-Daly, Meagan M.,Johnston, David W.,Read, Andrew J.},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534715000932},
issn = {0169-5347},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Trends in Ecology & Evolution},
volume = {30},
number = {447},
pages = {299-302},
abstract = {In recent years, many marine mammals, seabirds, and other species have begun to recover.
These changes are the result of legislation, international agreements, and conservation efforts.
Conservation efforts and legislation are lifting baselines for new generations.
Conservationists should help the public understand recovery by lifting baselines.
Managing wildlife abundance rather than scarcity presents an opportunity for human society.Biologists and policymakers are accustomed to managing species in decline, but for the first time in generations they are also encountering recovering populations of ocean predators. Many citizens perceive these species as invaders and conflicts are increasing. It is time to celebrate these hard-earned successes and lift baselines for recovering species.},
keywords = {conservation success, Endangered species, historical abundance, management, Marine mammals, population trends, recovery, shifting baselines},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In recent years, many marine mammals, seabirds, and other species have begun to recover.
These changes are the result of legislation, international agreements, and conservation efforts.
Conservation efforts and legislation are lifting baselines for new generations.
Conservationists should help the public understand recovery by lifting baselines.
Managing wildlife abundance rather than scarcity presents an opportunity for human society.Biologists and policymakers are accustomed to managing species in decline, but for the first time in generations they are also encountering recovering populations of ocean predators. Many citizens perceive these species as invaders and conflicts are increasing. It is time to celebrate these hard-earned successes and lift baselines for recovering species.
These changes are the result of legislation, international agreements, and conservation efforts.
Conservation efforts and legislation are lifting baselines for new generations.
Conservationists should help the public understand recovery by lifting baselines.
Managing wildlife abundance rather than scarcity presents an opportunity for human society.Biologists and policymakers are accustomed to managing species in decline, but for the first time in generations they are also encountering recovering populations of ocean predators. Many citizens perceive these species as invaders and conflicts are increasing. It is time to celebrate these hard-earned successes and lift baselines for recovering species.
Polacheck, Tom
Tuna longline catch rates in the Indian Ocean: Did industrial fishing result in a 90% rapid decline in the abundance of large predatory species? Journal Article
In: Marine Policy, vol. 30, no. 193, pp. 470-482, 2006, ISBN: 0308-597X.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Arabian Sea, Fisheries, High profile science journals, Indian Ocean, longline, Longlining, population trends, Press releases, Stock assessment, Tuna, Tuna abundance
@article{,
title = {Tuna longline catch rates in the Indian Ocean: Did industrial fishing result in a 90% rapid decline in the abundance of large predatory species?},
author = {Polacheck, Tom},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X05000539},
issn = {0308-597X},
year = {2006},
date = {2006-01-01},
journal = {Marine Policy},
volume = {30},
number = {193},
pages = {470-482},
abstract = {Myers and Worm claim that their analyses of catch rates following the commencement of industrial longline fishing for tuna and billfishes show that these longline fisheries rapidly depleted the abundance of these large oceanic predators by 90% (Myers RA, Worm B. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 2003;423:280–3). Their analyses were published in a high profile science journal along with an accompanying press release, which then attracted substantial international media focus and public attention. This media focus in turn has been used as a base for advocating major marine policy changes for pelagic tuna fisheries (e.g. a minimum of a 50% reduction in catches and establishment of extensive marine reserves). However, among numerous scientific experts involved in tuna and pelagic fishery research substantial concerns exist that Myers and Worm's analyses provide a misleading picture of the status of large predatory pelagic fishes. These concerns are reviewed using data from the Indian Ocean for illustrative purposes and indicate that the initial longline catches were not responsible for a rapid depletion of the main tuna and billfish stocks nor were they threatening the overall sustainability of these stocks. However, the status of a number of theses stocks is of concern as a result of large increases in catches in more recent years. The debate sparked by Myers and Worm's paper should not distract from the critical problem of developing and implementing effective international management policies. In addition to implications for fishery management, the publication, peer-review, scientific response and publicity process associated with the publication of Myers and Worm's paper are discussed. Concerns are raised that if these become standard practices for articles in high profile science journals that this would undermine the trust placed in such journal to provide an accurate and well-balanced representation of the most important new scientific findings and in their role to inform policy decisions based on these findings.},
keywords = {Arabian Sea, Fisheries, High profile science journals, Indian Ocean, longline, Longlining, population trends, Press releases, Stock assessment, Tuna, Tuna abundance},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Myers and Worm claim that their analyses of catch rates following the commencement of industrial longline fishing for tuna and billfishes show that these longline fisheries rapidly depleted the abundance of these large oceanic predators by 90% (Myers RA, Worm B. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 2003;423:280–3). Their analyses were published in a high profile science journal along with an accompanying press release, which then attracted substantial international media focus and public attention. This media focus in turn has been used as a base for advocating major marine policy changes for pelagic tuna fisheries (e.g. a minimum of a 50% reduction in catches and establishment of extensive marine reserves). However, among numerous scientific experts involved in tuna and pelagic fishery research substantial concerns exist that Myers and Worm's analyses provide a misleading picture of the status of large predatory pelagic fishes. These concerns are reviewed using data from the Indian Ocean for illustrative purposes and indicate that the initial longline catches were not responsible for a rapid depletion of the main tuna and billfish stocks nor were they threatening the overall sustainability of these stocks. However, the status of a number of theses stocks is of concern as a result of large increases in catches in more recent years. The debate sparked by Myers and Worm's paper should not distract from the critical problem of developing and implementing effective international management policies. In addition to implications for fishery management, the publication, peer-review, scientific response and publicity process associated with the publication of Myers and Worm's paper are discussed. Concerns are raised that if these become standard practices for articles in high profile science journals that this would undermine the trust placed in such journal to provide an accurate and well-balanced representation of the most important new scientific findings and in their role to inform policy decisions based on these findings.