In a study sure to enrage extreme greenies everywhere, scientists in California have discovered that bottom trawling may not be systematic environmental pillage.
In fact, it may even be good for the seabed.
As reported in the latest issue of New Scientist, a five-year study by The Nature Conservancy is looking at the impact of bottom trawling on a strip of seabed 23km off Morro Bay, between Los Angeles and Monterey.
The scientists marked out eight plots, each 1km by 330m, that had not been trawled for a decade or more. Four would remain untouched and four would be trawled.
Last year the trawling zones were hit twice and photographs of the seabed taken after each trawl. More photographs were taken six and 12 months later.
"Early signs indicate that marine life survived, even thrived, after last year's trawls," the New Scientist wrote. "Donna Kline, a fish ecologist at California State University in Monterey Bay, thinks that far from destroying a habitat, the trawl may have created a new one by etching grooves into the flat bottom."
This would be a remarkable conclusion, but it is way too early to be sure. A more intensive series of five trawls in each zone took place last month and time must pass before the impact can be assessed. Any conclusions may also be inapplicable to New Zealand seas.
Still, it is an interesting study.
Read the complete story from Business Day.
PLEASE NOTE:
The Nature Conservancy had concerns about the headline added to Mr. Hunter's article and submitted the following:
To the editor:
Tim Hunter’s recent article (“Bottom Trawling is Good,” November 30.) is a mischaracterization of The Nature Conservancy’s five-year trawl impact and recovery study which is only in the second year of research.
It’s inaccurate and premature to make a claim like the article’s headline that trawling is good for seabeds; our study aims to quantify the impacts of bottom trawling in soft bottom habitats on the continental shelf off California, as well as the recovery of those habitats over time, and not to make a value judgment about trawling. At this stage, we are still in the long process of analyzing dozens of sediment samples, hours of video footage and hundreds of photos from the first year of data and do not yet have any results to report. This is a five-year study, and no conclusions should be drawn until the full study has been completed and due diligence given to the scientific analysis of the data.
The article should have focused on the amazing collaboration between a conservation group, academics and fishermen on a unique study that, when results are in, will help inform best management. This study is part of a broader Central Coast Groundfish Project that over the past four years has resulted in the protection of 3.8 million acres of seafloor habitat from bottom trawling and reduced trawling effort in the region through private buyouts and conversion of trawl effort to hook and line. We are working closely with local fishing communities and other partners to improve the environmental and economic performance of the groundfish fishery in California. For further information, see http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/california/initiatives/ccgp.html
Mary Gleason
Senior Scientist
The Nature Conservancy