Category: Conservation

On Thursday, September 26th, I spoke on a “Biodiversity Leaders for Harris-Walz” zoom call. This is the text of my remarks, including links to learn more.

Good evening. I’m Dr. David Shiffman, an ocean conservation scientist who studies threats to marine life and how we can solve those problems using wise evidence-based policymaking, through equitable processes in which everyone has a seat at the table. You can follow me on social media @ WhySharksMatter, where I’ll be sharing links to learn more about all of the issues I discuss here tonight.

The ocean connects and affects all Americans, but faces many threats, including climate change, habitat loss, pollution, and overfishing. Making the wrong policy choices here can have devastating ripple effects that last for generations, hurting coastal communities, costing countless jobs, and driving beloved species to extinction.

The Biden-Harris administration have been leaders in science-driven evidence-based policy for the ocean and coastal communities. They’ve committed the United States to the global goal of 30×30, fully protecting 30% of the ocean by the year 2030, and with the leadership of our amazing Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, have made huge progress accomplishing these important goals. In contrast, Donald Trump is the only US president in history to actually remove protections from a marine protected area, the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument.

The Biden-Harris administration have also taken other important steps in protecting wildlife and wild places and sustainably managing natural resources, resulting in the first-ever National Nature Assessment, the first ever National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy, the first ever Ocean Acidification Action Plan, and many more documents that will be held up as exemplars of science-based environmental policymaking for years to come. They’ve created new National Marine Sanctuaries, and started the process of protecting nearly 700,000 square miles of ocean, an area 4 times the size of California in the Pacific Remote Island National Marine Monument. They’ve also invested billions in decarbonizing the transportation sector through the clean ports program. The Harris-Walz administration would continue these amazing and important strides.

In contrast, Project 2025, a blueprint for a second Trump administration, would be a disaster for the ocean, marine life, and coastal communities. Among other things, it calls for the total elimination of NOAA, the US government agency that houses the National Weather Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service who makes sure that US fisheries are sustainably managed, and many endangered species biologists who work to protect whales, coral reefs, sea turtles, and more. I have friends and family in Florida and am worried about Hurricane Helene, and cannot imagine if US citizens had to rely on a paid subscription to a private company to get severe weather alerts as Project 2025 calls for! Even the CEO of Accuweather says that’s a terrible idea! Project 2025 would also cripple the EPA, making it easier for wealthy companies to pollute our drinking water and food and air while causing incalculable harm to the marine environment. They’d also destroy progress made on protecting wildlife and wild places, and would eliminate the Antiquities Act, a powerful tool that allows US Presidents to protect new areas.

The choice here could not be more clear. To protect the ocean, coastal communities that depend on a healthy ocean, and beloved marine life, we must make sure that Donald Trump is not elected to a second term, and that Kamala Harris is elected. We are not going back.

Thank you.

My “Follow ocean science and conservation experts on Bluesky and Instagram” assignment

February 23, 2025

Jeff Prescott

bluesky Conservation Education Science science communication science education No Comments

As an informal learning assignment, I have my students use social media to follow ocean science and conservation experts for the semester. Each week, they’re asked to check social media for a few minutes, and report on something interesting they learned about marine science or conservation (and why they thought it was interesting.) I’m sharing that assignment here so that others can use or modify it, either for a class or for your own informal science education.

ASSIGNMENT BACKGROUND:

A great deal of science communication takes place online, where modern communication tools like social media and blogs make it easier than ever before in human history for experts to share their expertise with the public on a large scale. Lots of ocean science and conservation experts use these tools for a mix of public education, stakeholder outreach, and professional interactions. Observing this, and in some cases participating in it, can be wonderful for students’ professional development and education! Therefore, for this course, you will follow scientists and science communicators on social media for the semester, checking briefly (or more regularly) every week, and reporting on something interesting you learned.

Some accounts you follow will be from a list I provide, and some will be accounts you find yourself.
Each week, you’ll report something interesting about ocean science or conservation you learned on social media on Canvas, noting not only what was said, but who said it, why it caught your eye, and what you learned from it. We’ll also open class discussion each week with “what’s something interesting you learned on social media about ocean science or conservation this week, and why did you think it was interesting?”

For the last five years, I’ve had students, including non-major undergraduates, senior major undergraduates, and graduate students, do versions of this assignment, which I’ve published here. We used to use Twitter, we are not doing that anymore following the decline of Science Twitter. Instead, I’m now using Bluesky and Instagram. If you’d like, you may also use another service in addition to (not instead of) one or both of these two.

You may use an existing social media account if you want, or if you’d prefer you may create a new one just for this assignment . If for whatever reason (and I do not need to know the reason) you do not want a public social media account featuring your name, you may create an anonymous account (e.g., MarineBiologyStudent_Orca or Georgetown_Swordfish or NSU_CoralReefEnjoyer or something). You absolutely may NOT pretend to be a real person who you are not, that is against social media platform policies.

Please note: if for whatever reason (and I do not need to know the reason) you absolutely refuse to use social media, there is an alternative assignment, please contact me to receive it.

Please note: Scientists and conservationists are human beings and they talk about things other than the ocean, and A Lot is happening in the world right now. If someone says something distressing, just unfollow them, don’t argue with them. If you want to talk about it, talk about it with me, not with them.

Please note: You may ask the people you follow questions if you are genuinely interested in doing so, but you are not required to do so for this assignment. Please do not ask a question just to ask a question!

Each week, there will be a Canvas prompt for you to respond to, asking you to identify a post you saw on social media that you found interesting, and why you thought it was interesting.

BlueSky Accounts to follow

If you are using Bluesky for this assignment, you will be asked to follow at least 25 accounts from this list, and at least 10 accounts that you find on your own (some suggestions on how to find accounts are included below).

Here is a brief introduction to Bluesky, and here is how you sign up for an account if you don’t have one already.

Unlike on Instagram, if you are choosing to use Bluesky, I would recommend that you follow me because I share a lot of relevant content there, but it’s not required.

I have created a “starter pack,” a list of accounts that I think meet this course’s needs. Once you are logged into your account, please view my starter pack here. From here, examine the 50+ accounts I’ve highlighted and select at least 25 of them to follow.

To find other accounts, you can explore the marine science feed and see who is posting there. You can also search for keywords of interest (e.g., sea turtles, coral reefs, sustainable fisheries) and see who pops up. Additionally, there are lots of other great starter packs out there made by other Bluesky users. Ones that could be of interest here include: “Marine Biologists,” “Deep Sea Science,” “Coral Reef Science,” “Fisheries and Aquaculture,” “Zoos and Aquariums,” and “Marine Social Science,” or you can find your own on this list. Please note that these Starter Packs are all user-made with no quality control or fact-checking, which means they may contain people who don’t post very often and may contain people who post inaccurate information, so please explore carefully. I also made a Starter Pack of Shark Scientists.

Instagram Accounts to follow

Here’s how you make an instagram account if you do not have one already.

If you are using Instagram for this assignment, you will be asked to follow (at least) 15 accounts of your choice from the list below, and then add at least ten that you find on your own by searching hashtags or keywords of interest (like #MarineBiology or #SeaTurtles or #CoralReefs or whatever). The accounts on my provided list are a mix of scientists, conservationists, educators, government managers, and photographers and artists. It also includes institutional accounts like museums, aquariums, and government agencies. I suggest you briefly examine all of them when finding a mix that you like.

You can, but do not have to, follow me/your instructor here.

Here are my suggested Instagram accounts, with a link to each:

Oceana (@oceana) • Instagram photos and videos

Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum (@chesapeakemaritime) • Instagram photos and videos

Jaelen Myers (@stingray.savvy) • Instagram photos and videos

Emily De Sousa | Seafood, Travel, Sports (@seasidewithemily) • Instagram photos and videos

MSU Marine Fisheries Ecology (@msu_marinefisheriesecology) • Instagram photos and videos

Seafood Watch (@seafoodwatch) • Instagram photos and videos

Project Seagrass (@projectseagrass) • Instagram photos and videos

NOAA (@noaa) • Instagram photos and videos

National Aquarium (@nationalaquarium) • Instagram photos and videos

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (@fisheriesoceanscan) • Instagram photos and videos

Keith M. Cowley (@sharkhistorian) • Instagram photos and videos

Nautilus Live (@nautiluslive) • Instagram photos and videos

DOSI (@deepstewardship) • Instagram photos and videos

Angel Shark Project (@angelsharkproject) • Instagram photos and videos

Sharks4Kids (@sharkeducation) • Instagram photos and videos

Save Our Seas Foundation (@saveourseasfoundation) • Instagram photos and videos

HavenworthCoastalConservation (@coastalelasmos) • Instagram photos and videos

Summer Brooks (@summer.scientist) • Instagram photos and videos

Paul Nicklen (@paulnicklen) • Instagram photos and videos

FishGuyPhotos (@fishguyphotos) • Instagram photos and videos

Ocean Conservation Society (@oceanconservation) • Instagram photos and videos

MATILDA BISHOP (@artworkbymatilda) • Instagram photos and videos

kendy (@intertidalkendy) • Instagram photos and videos

Minorities in Shark Sciences (@miss_elasmo) • Instagram photos and videos

Smithsonian Marine Station (@smithsoniansms) • Instagram photos and videos

MSC Certified Sustainable Seafood 🐟 (@mscbluefish) • Instagram photos and videos

Miami Waterkeeper (@miamiwaterkeeper) • Instagram photos and videos

Sharks and Rays Australia (@sharksandraysau) • Instagram photos and videos

Coral Restoration Foundation™ (@coralrestorationfoundation) • Instagram photos and videos

Project Seahorse / iSeahorse (@projectseahorse) • Instagram photos and videos

Hakai Magazine (@hakaimag) • Instagram photos and videos

FSU Coastal & Marine Lab (@fsumarinelab) • Instagram photos and videos

US National Marine Sanctuaries (@noaasanctuaries) • Instagram photos and videos

NOAA Fisheries (@noaafisheries) • Instagram photos and videos

Ocean Conservancy (@oceanconservancy) • Instagram photos and videos

Monterey Bay Aquarium (@montereybayaquarium) • Instagram photos and videos

Coral City Camera (@coralcitycamera) • Instagram photos and videos

If you are a fellow educator and you choose to use or adapt this assignment, all I ask is that you let me know how it goes! Happy learning!

The wrongest belief about the deep sea is wronger than you know

February 23, 2025

Jeff Prescott

azoic hypothesis Blogging Conservation deep sea deep sea biodiversity deep-sea mining edward forbes Exploration Featured Science No Comments

More people care about marine biodiversity and saving the ocean than ever before. But progress towards evidence-based conservation is hindered by widespread public misunderstanding of the key issues in play.

You’ve heard versions of this rant from me for 15 years, but this is not a post about sustainable fisheries, or shark conservation.

This is a post about the deep sea, and the potential threats to the deep sea’s incredible biodiversity from mining.

Far too many people wrongly believe that nothing lives in the deep sea…and therefore that there’s nothing we need to conserve.

The idea that the deep sea cannot possibly support life was widely popularized by British Naturalist Edward Forbes in the 1840’s as the “azoic hypothesis.” Forbes participated in an early marine biodiversity survey of the Mediterranean and Aegean seas, where he worked to catalogue life found in the ocean. He found lots of life in shallower waters, and a decrease in both biodiversity and biomass as the HMS Beacon sampled deeper water. He extrapolated this data to hypothesize that life can’t exist below 300 fathoms, which we now know is wildly incorrect.

Edward Forbes, as seen in Anderson and Rice 2006.

Most marine biologists learn about this as a brief passing aside about what we used to wrongly believe about the ocean until new evidence became available, if they learn about it at all. However, some of broader context surrounding Forbes’ development of the azoic hypothesis, and how the scientific community and wider public accepted it, is informative.

For example, here’s something that’s been well documented by historians of science, but is not mentioned in any of the introduction to marine biology textbooks I own: scientists had already found life thriving well below 300 fathoms decades before Forbes’ expedition! Some of the most fascinating samples were discovered in 1818 by Arctic explorer John Ross, who, interestingly, was the uncle of Antarctic explorer James Ross, who the Ross Sea is named after.

This specimen of Gorgonocephalus arcticus was sampled by John Ross in 1818.
As seen in Anderson and Rice 2006.

There are also two other key details about the expedition that resulted in the azoic hypothesis that should be better known. Firstly, the Aegean Sea doesn’t just have that much biomass relative to other parts of the ocean—Forbes’ observations are a bit like failing to find lions in Canada and concluding that lions aren’t real. And secondly, the scientific dredges used by the Beacon expedition were inadequate to sample the mostly-small invertebrates that live in deeper waters.

I (and many other marine biologists) were taught that Forbes made a reasonable guess that would later be disproven by new evidence and new technology. In fact, he used the wrong tools to look for life in a small area where there wasn’t that much life, and he ignored already-existing evidence that he was wrong. And Forbes’ wrong view of life shaped scientific understanding of the ocean for decades, and public understanding of these issues for much longer.

Even more troublingly, one could read the original formulations of the azoic hypothesis not as “this is the way things obviously are, I know, I am a scientist and am very smart and I checked,” but “here’s an interesting pattern we observed based on some limited data, someone should check if it’s true more broadly.”

What does a bad idea from nearly 200 years ago have to do with modern conservation issues?

There are many reasons why mining the deep sea is a bad idea that we should not pursue. To me, the most compelling argument is that extractive industries can damage or destroy fragile ecosystems, causing ecological harm, or even a serious risk of extinction, to fascinating and beautiful species found nowhere else.

But making this argument requires that people know that the unique biodiversity of the deep sea exists. Many of the same people who are horrified by the destruction of coral reefs have no objection to deep sea mining, in many cases because they simply didn’t know that anything lives down there.

“Save the whales” is a relatively easy conservation campaign, because everyone knows what a whale is, and many people love whales. “Save the chemosynthetic tube worms” is harder, because you have to start with “what is a chemosynthetic tube worm, and why should we care about them?”

Modern people unaware of the unique organisms found in the deep sea probably aren’t citing the azoic hypothesis of the 1840’s in their arguments, but their ignorance has been implicitly influenced by this bad idea, and it’s wrong interpretations, nonetheless.

Save the deep sea, which is, in fact, full of life.

People and Ideas You Should Know: 5 Questions with Anupa Asokan

February 23, 2025

Jeff Prescott

Conservation Education Featured Policy Reviews and Interviews Science No Comments

Anupa Asokan, founder and executive director of Fish On—a new fishing interest organization working to advance ocean conservation policy—recently published a peer-reviewed perspective in Frontiers, “Marine Protected Areas as a Tool for Environmental Justice.”

Anupa is a lifelong fisherwoman and has become a passionate advocate for ocean conservation and justice. I’ve known her for several years, and shared the stage with her at the first Upwell conference in Washington, DC in 2023.

Anupa Asokan speaking at an event — Anupa Asokan speaking at Upwell

She sat down with me recently to answer 5 questions about her new paper on environmental justice. Here’s a transcript of that conversation (edited for length and clarity):

Angelo Villagomez: Congrats on the paper! What a great way to start the new year. Where does this rank in terms of your career accomplishments?

Anupa Asokan: Thank you! To be honest, while this definitely feels like a highlight worth celebrating, I don’t know that I’ve stopped to think about my career accomplishments in this way. My career has felt more like a winding road (or maybe a rollercoaster!) of discovering how I can best contribute to the issues I care about. For me, this paper helped chip away at an obstacle I felt like I was constantly up against in my advocacy work. It articulates viewpoints I’ve developed through my career and life experiences to date, and (I hope) also offers something we as an ocean conservation community can reference and build on moving forward.

Angelo: I understand this is your first scientific paper. What was going through the peer review process like, and why did you decide to focus on the topic of environmental justice and marine protected areas (MPAs)?

Anupa: My first connection to the ocean was through fishing. I don’t exactly fit the stereotype of a fisher, but it’s something I still do regularly and it has shaped my approach to advocacy. People of color and women are grossly underrepresented in ocean management and I see opportunity to support people that look more like me in the fishing community. MPAs are the quintessential topic that pits fishing against conservation, but as a fisherwoman I see their value, and as a scientist I understand the opportunity MPAs present for conservation.

There is rightful criticism of parachute approaches to conservation. And there is a lot of literature out there discussing the ramifications to communities around the world where this approach has taken place. In the U.S. however, the context of our ocean policy and management is lost in that argument. There are real opportunities to support marginalized communities through meaningful conservation, but not enough research that explores what that looks like. I spent so much time trying to put the ideas in this paper under the U.S. policy context that I missed the potential for these ideas to be relevant in other places. The peer review process helped this emerge and helped me see other gaps and potential opportunities in the ideas presented.

Angelo: A lot of the scientists and ocean advocates I’ve known over the years talk about the importance of using science to make ocean decisions – and I’m assuming most of the readers of this blog accept that as a cornerstone of the conservation movement. You write that “social context is often presented as burdensome.” Can you explain what you mean by that?

Anupa: You once told me that the villains in superhero stories are also science-driven! Science can be used for good or for evil; it’s our values that drive how we interpret and apply that information. Our vision of what the future of the ocean should look like is what ultimately defines our values and underpins the policies we advocate for.

A common argument against conservation policies is that they are a burden to the people that rely on something for their livelihoods. There are examples of outsiders trying to establish a protected area somewhere else in the world without understanding how they will truly impact a local community. But I found this idea repeatedly misrepresented and used by the fishing industry here in the U.S. to undermine potential or existing MPAs that have benefited local communities, including fishing communities. Without understanding the enabling conditions, I think it’s unfair to trivialize all MPAs as burdensome to communities.

Angelo: Some people have been talking about these “enabling conditions” you mention for many years. What are those and why are they important to ocean conservation?

Anupa: In conservation policy, I see the “good vs. evil” trope boiling down to protecting the planet for everyone for the long term, or using up what we have right now. In reality, we have a spectrum of options somewhere in the middle of that. And we have the context that influences which option we choose—data, science, policy, anecdotes, people and their needs, how information is presented to people, political will, and so on. In academic circles, that context is what we call “enabling conditions,” which, essentially, are the circumstances and the details that make an MPA work or not.

Angelo: And what’s the next step for this work, not just for you, but for the national conservation movement?

Anupa: I just started a new conservation organization called Fish On. My goal is to educate and empower other fishers to step into the conservation movement. It’s time to break the stereotype of what a fisherman looks like and more importantly, what we value. I hope that the conservation movement—and the ocean—will be better for it.

To learn more about Anupa’s work you can follow her on Bluesky or LinkedIn.

Angelo Villagomez is a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress, where he focuses on Indigenous-led conservation and ocean justice.

Related

We’re making a new marine conservation science and policy textbook. What do you want to be in it?

February 23, 2025

Jeff Prescott

Academic life academic writing Conservation conservation poliy marine conservation ocean conservation ocean conservation science Science textbook No Comments

The leading textbook in Marine Conservation Biology (Norse and Crowder) is 20 years old. It’s great and it shaped the field for a generation, but a lot has happened since it came out. There are new conservation threats, new policy tools, and new research methods to study them. And in that time, we’ve radically changed how we approach a lot of these questions.

It’s time for something new, so we’re making a new textbook, and we need your help.

Who are we?

Longtime readers know that I am a Ph.D. conservation scientist and author, and that I teach ocean conservation policy at Georgetown. I’m collaborating with longtime colleague Dr. Catherine Macdonald, a Ph.D. interdisciplinary marine scientist who teaches marine conservation biology at the University of Miami. Together we are the lead authors of the new book.

We also have assembled a team of subject matter experts including deep-sea ecologist Dr. Diva Amon, and marine mammal biologist Dr. Asha de Vos. We will likely be seeking additional subject matter experts- stay tuned!

The book will be published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

What is our goal for the book?

Our goal is that this book will be rigorous enough to be used as a textbook for an undergraduate or graduate level course, but accessible enough for the interested public or for a frontline practitioner without an advanced degree.

The book will focus on conservation threats as well as their solutions (including policy/regulation/law solutions and voluntary behavior change solutions.) It will focus on success stories as case studies. And it will focus on the science showing how we know. It will be interdisciplinary, addressing the role of humans in creating and solving conservation problems, including the need to approach these problems with an understanding of the need for environmental justice.

It will contain practical, evidence-based advice for all levels of decision-making, from individuals to community organizations to national governments.

It will contain diverse perspectives, interviews, and case studies from experts and key stakeholders all over the world.

And it will contain an extensive focus on careers and professional development, including key skills and how to learn them, for aspiring ocean conservation professionals.

What do we need from you?

If you teach ocean conservation science and/or policy, we’d love to hear about resources or exercises that you use for your class that you would recommend to other teachers. And we’d love to hear about any features of our book that would make it more useful for your class and your students, or more likely that you’d use it for your course.

If you are an ocean conservation professional, we’d love to get suggestions from you on topics or perspectives to include, on case studies to feature, on things you wish early-career professionals learned in school, and more.

And if you’re interested in potentially contributing as a subject matter expert, let us know on what topic and in what way.

How can you get in touch with us?

You can provide feedback using this Google Form, you can email me directly at WhySharksMatter at Gmail, or you can join a session of an upcoming Zoom LIstening Tour where we’ll talk about this together.

Dates/times where we are hosting Zoom sessions include (all times are US east coast time, all sessions are one hour):

Tuesday, February 25th at 9:00 a.m.
Thursday, February 27th at 4:00 p.m.
Monday, March 17 at 9:00 a.m.
Friday, March 21 at 4:00 p.m.

Sign up here. And if you’d like to share information but can’t make one of these Zoom talks, please share it via this form, or email me.

Related

Related

Related

Related

Related

Navigation