Lippsett, Lonny. "An Ocean That's No Longer Wild." : Oceanus Magazine. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 18 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/an-ocean-thats-no-longer-wild>.
Summary:
There are around 500 species of sharks in the world’s oceans, and this number may start to drop. In many Asian countries, there is a large demand for sharkfin soup. About 100 million sharks are killed per year, and most of the shark is wasted. The fins are cut off, and the body thrown back into the sea. This is a very large waste, and is harming the ocean’s ecosystem. Being at the top of the food chain, sharks are not evolved to have to deal with large predators, and are not able to reproduce as fast as an animal that is. They are rapidly dying, and scientists at places like Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution are attempting to help them. The big problem being we don’t know a lot about them. They can be hard to find, and because of this, and the fact that they are always underwater, we can’t even figure out the basics like their population size, and mating spots. In order to start finding information, scientists are tagging animals. They plant a tag into muscle tissue below the dorsal fin of certain fish, or sharks. They are programmed to release from a fish usually after a year, and during this period it collects depth, temperature, and light level data. When the tags release, they float to the surface and connect to a satellite to give the information back to the scientists. These tags have been very effective at collecting large amounts of data so far.
Relevance:
This is relevant to humanity because many people rely on fish for a living. If we cannot collect enough data fast enough, then many different species of sharks could die out, and this would have a major negative effect on the marine ecosystem, and food chain. Without sharks, other fish would overpopulate the oceans, and cause problems for other marine life too. If there are too many of one fish, they could start killing other fish and causing major problems for humans. Fish is a major source of food, and without a lot of fish many people will starve, and die. This is also a problem for humanity because we created the problem, and it is our job to fix it.
Critique:
I thought the author, Lonny Lippsett, did a very good job at providing the reader with a sufficient amount of information to understand what was happening, and why, while keeping it clear and concise. She used a ask and answer format which was a very good way of communicating the information to the reader. There were plenty of details and numbers, and it was easy to understand. I would have liked this article more if the reader had included more details about the data that was collected by the tags, and how this data is being examined. It would have been very helpful to understand what was being done with the data, and how we can help.
I really liked reading your article. I thought it was written really nicely the way you put it. It was boring to read after a long time, and though a quick read it was, it was packed with valuable information for anyone who would want to help with this issue! A second element that I liked about your summary was the topic itself. You made a good decision writing on this topic, it's truly intriguing for me and I hope that it would be for others too! It wasn't one of those boring articles about something that no one really notices these days, it was something that really involves humanity as a whole. Lastly, I loved the paragraph you wrote on the relevance of sharks dying out because if I was writing on this article, I wouldn't have known what to write and it probably would have taken me a while. It seems you've got a skill for bringing environmental issues back to their causes and the effects of them. I was able to understand it easily.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I learned was that about 100 million sharks were killed every year! That sounds awful to think about it and I'm really glad that you brought people's attention to it.One thing I found really interesting is what scientists are doing to try to help. Tags on sharks? Sounds very cool if you think about it. I'm not a huge marine biology fan but with what you informed me with in this article, you made me want to be part of the scientists' team to put tags on sharks and see what information we get back from them!
One suggestion to make your article better would be to include a little more detail in your summary. Yes, even though it is supposed to be a summary, you got me so hooked with your introduction that I wanted to know more about the issue starting off. Other than that, great job I really enjoyed reading this!
Your article was a very interesting read. It was packed with information, most of which I had no previous knowledge of. Although I haven’t read many articles on sharks, following your report on the danger they are in, I might stop and read a few. I thought your post was very clear and to the point, and I liked that you didn’t waste any time getting your point across. You did a very nice job explaining the part with the tags and how they function.
ReplyDeleteI was very happy to see that you brought this issue to the blog, because hopefully it will spur on some discussion about the topic, seeing as it is a very interesting one. I was curious, however, as to how scientists are able to “tag” the sharks. As you said, the sharks live for the most part, deep underwater. Does that mean the scientists have to bait the sharks to the surface? And what happens if they get one near to their boat? Do they pick it up with a crane? I think it would be helpful if you elaborated a bit more on this part.
Another thing I thought you might have done a little bit better was the way you wrapped up your reference paragraph. The last two sentences were very unclear and hard to follow. Did you mean that the fact, “…without a lot of fish many people will starve, and die.” was a problem created by humans?
All in all, I thought you did a great job reviewing the article and you wrote a very nice report. In the end, I do have two questions to wrap up my comment. First of all, what caused you to pick sharks as your topic? And secondly, have you ever tried shark-fin soup?
In this review, I personally liked how Jason was able to shorten the information into a very clear and concise paragraph long summary. This was very helpful because the readers were able to quickly understand the information of the article without much effect or think which is very crucial to a review. Jason also does a good job in getting powerful facts and number into the review like the fact that we kill 100,000 sharks per year. Another good thing Jason does is closely he relates this problem to us in our lives when he talks about our consumption of fish and that possibly dying out. The author of the review does good job in connecting the reader to the article and making it personal so that the message is really driven home. Finally, in Jason’s critique, he does a good job in sating what isn’t know from the article so that if we were to pursue this topic we would know what other information to look for.
ReplyDeleteI was shocked to learn how many shark we kill per year and how gruesomely we do so. Along with the fact that we waste most of the shark, besides it fins, is upsetting because of how little a gain there is compared to such a big problem that it causes. I was also shocked by how little we actually know about sharks and their habits. I know that sharks spend their whole lives under water, but shouldn’t we be able to learn more about them with all the technology we have today?
One suggestion I would have for the author of this review would be on the style of his writing. The author doesn’t use a large variety of transition words which causes the review to sound very choppy and blunt. I feel like the review would have been easier to read if the paragraphs flowed easier. Besides this, the review was spectacular and was very interesting to read.