Deep-sea Invertebrates

galeogirl

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 15, 2002
Messages
1,197
These animals washed up on the beach at Seaside, Oregon, along with several deep-sea fish. Biologists think that it's an after effect of the recent tsunamis around Asia.
 

galeogirl

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 15, 2002
Messages
1,197
And these as well. I have several photos of the fish, too. PM me if you're interested in seeing any of those.
 

Elizabeth

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
504
Wow! Are these your pictures? How well done! If things didn't rot so fast, I'd be planning a trip up there... These are just laying around on the coastline? Is there a super-wow smiley? :clap: ? :eek: ? :worship: ?
 

galeogirl

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 15, 2002
Messages
1,197
These pictures came from a friend of a friend who happens to be a biologist for the state of Oregon. They are very cool pictures, but I'm worried about what a large wash-up could mean for ocean ecology.
 

Crotalus

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
2,433
Im would guess more on deep sea fishing nets then a tsunami flushing those creatures up. A tsunami wave dont vacuum a sea bottom and flushes it on shore. I seen a similar thread but with deep sea fish that was claimed to get flushed up aswell.

/Lelle
 

galeogirl

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 15, 2002
Messages
1,197
Whatever the root cause, it's probably a bad sign to have so many animals wash up on shore at once.
 

Crotalus

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
2,433
galeogirl said:
Whatever the root cause, it's probably a bad sign to have so many animals wash up on shore at once.
Thats true. However, even if its the tsunami which caused this - its nothing compared what devastation deep sea dragging fishing nets causes every day 365 days a year around the worlds oceans.
Watching pictures on how a sea bottom looks like after that net gone through... its horrible that its still are allowed.

/Lelle
 

galeogirl

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 15, 2002
Messages
1,197
Have you seen photos of the damage done by dynamite fishing? Horrendous. Miles and miles of dead reef.
 

Crotalus

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
2,433
galeogirl said:
Have you seen photos of the damage done by dynamite fishing? Horrendous. Miles and miles of dead reef.
Yeah, and the stunned and barely alive fish are sold to pet industry. Dynamite have disappeared more or less now (too much noise?) so the more scrupelfree "fishers" use some chemical to stun the fish... insane. And they sell it to pet industry, no wonder many saltwater fish die within a month at the hobbyist...
The effects on nature by collecting tarantulas seems like childs play in comparison to the damage saltwater fish collecting does to the ocean. But I guess one should never compare two evils.

/Lelle
 

galeogirl

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 15, 2002
Messages
1,197
They use a form of cyanide in reef fish collecting now. In places like the Phillipines, though, fisherman still use dynamite to harvest fish for eating. It's driven the already rare pelagic thresher sharks further out into the ocean and away from areas where they normally fed and mated.
 

Crotalus

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
2,433
You might expect a local fisherman to have more common sence then to eradicate the future generations foodsupply in the sea where they live but appearently not...

/Lelle
 

demolitionlover

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
114
This is horrible, but very interesting. I saw stuff that looked just like that at the museum of natural history. One more reason I wish I can go to shool to be a biologist.

fishing nets= bad news : (
 

biznacho

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
129
Down here in Souther California a bunch of deep sea squid just washed up on shore. It sent alot of the fishing outfits to setup some night runs to try and catch 'em.

biznacho
 

Wh1teshark

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
258
And what about the worlds largest fishing vessel that is a floating cannery (although most of the catch is either released back, dead, or ground as animal feed.) It's owned by a Norwegian (or however that is spelled) which believe it or not got funding from the European Union. It vacuums the seas out of some african countries that were to poor to stand against the preassure to let the company buy all their fishing rights! Total insanity!

There is less and less fish in the oceans and the few (un)lucky ones that are left are being hunted by bigger and bigger boats with larger nets and more sophisticated electronical equipment...
 

Freddie

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
268
What you guys can expect when "the wise human" is doing all this?
*thinking of whale fishing and other stuff like that*

99,9% of all species in the world have died out so... Of course human hasnt caused everything but most of it.

I understand that some philippine kill a shark and eat it all but that they kill tons of sharks and take only fins? A bit of topic :D

Nice pics are those but i cant believe that it would have been the tsunami that killed them. It cant be that simply. And like someone said - the wave didnt go on the sea bottom. Or maybe it did kill, i cant say that. Maybe we should also start to think how plastic bags effect to deep-sea fish's sex life ;)
 

Dark Raptor

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
1,062
Freddie said:
99,9% of all species in the world have died out so... Of course human hasnt caused everything but most of it.
I think, you overestimated man part in global extinction :D

In Permian extinction losses were something like that:
93-96% of species (marine organisms)
more than 70% of families (land organisms)
We had 5 big extinctions and large number of smaller ones.

We cannot say everything about extinction rate, caused by mankind. We don't even know how many species lives on earth. But the truth is, that disappearance of many species was caused in 100% by man (generally large vertebrates).
 

Freddie

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
268
Dark Raptor said:
I think, you overestimated man part in global extinction :D

In Permian extinction losses were something like that:
93-96% of species (marine organisms)
more than 70% of families (land organisms)
We had 5 big extinctions and large number of smaller ones.

We cannot say everything about extinction rate, caused by mankind. We don't even know how many species lives on earth. But the truth is, that disappearance of many species was caused in 100% by man (generally large vertebrates).
I didnt say that "all extinction is caused by humans". :)

And i know pretty well that we dont know not even close all species that lives on the earth. Like life at sea - we know about 1-2% of al species and the same percentage is when talking about how big part if sea had been studiet.

What's the percentage how much of the world's species lives in the rainforests? 90 and something. Almost all. Soon we kill ourselves and rest of the animals (sorry - i just wrote 5 pages essay about greenhouse effect LOL).
 

Dark Raptor

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
1,062
If global warming is caused by man :)

Earth remembers greater climate changes in much shorter periods of time than our "global warming". Maybe we should expect the new ice-age, because we have now interglaciar.

I'm studying biology (especially insects ecology and paleozoology)

But don't be afraid... roaches will always survive ;P (Ok. this is off-topic, sorry)
 
Top