King Crabs invade Antarctica

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Mmmmmm. we're gonna need a whole lotta butta!
I'll grab the napkins, see ya at the pole !

The crabs were known to inhabit the Ross Sea, south of New Zealand, but now they can be found south of South America

Call me thick but the Ross Sea is in Antarctica. (look it up) Yes its south of New Zealand but its still in Antarctica.

So they've invaded Antarctica where they already live and moved a little west. Wow.

And if you draw a line straight west from the Ross Sea to below Argentina, they would have to inhabit a more NORTHERLY expanse of sea due to the land mass of Antarctica.

No wonder the propaganda is strong with the AGW crowd.

I wish they would invade my refrigerator.

Or it could just be that all those King Crabs from Alaska want to get the heck away from all those fishing boats - They've seen the menu at Red Lobster and they're on it !

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Byrd

 

Great link.

Thanks.

...So the models were too conservative? Is that the message here?

The real answer (speaking as a scientist) is that models are never accurate predictions (though they're accurate generalizations.) However, yes, it's happening a lot faster than we expected.

I suspect it's not one factor, but many (including importing them (accidentally or otherwise) and destruction of native species along with warmer temperatures.) The drought here in Texas, for example, is devastating niches statewide. Things that manage to move in and establish are going to be hard to move out when the drought ends (like the sesbane... the stuff that's underwater will drown out, but there may be a number of survivors on the pond margins and if there's a flood event, it could be spread to other waterway areas.)

...so far, no zebra mussels in the Trinity River, thank the gods, but that's a likely scenario within the next 10 years.

reply to post by Byrd


The OP report seems to indicate King Crabs appeared in Antarctica about 100 years sooner than expected. That would be much faster, right? And agreed - more than one factor - that's the thing about complex systems. "One thing always leads to another, and another."

Have you any thoughts on the idea that invasive species are not necessarily bad? ...Just messengers?

Courting Controversy with a New View on Exotic Species

A number of biologists are challenging the long-held orthodoxy that alien species are inherently bad. In their contrarian view, many introduced species have proven valuable and useful and have increased the diversity and resiliency of native ecosystems.

When biologist Mark A. Davis talks about exotic species, he eventually comes to LTL, his shorthand for Learn to Love them. Flying in the face of the conventional wisdom among biologists that exotic species are harmful to native ecosystems, Davis and a small cohort of biologists espouse a heretical viewpoint: Exotic species are here to stay, so get used to them, and forget about ripping out the fast-spreading shrub, buckthorn, on a large scale or throwing Asian carp on the bank to die.

If the newcomers are only changing the ecosystem but “not causing significant harm,” then “altering one’s perspective is certainly much less costly than any other sort of management program,” Davis writes in his recently published book, Invasion Biology.

reply to post by soficrow


Yes, its true that "invading species" may be the wrong way to look at the issue. This process surely has taken place since the beginning of time, and yet here we are relatively safe and sound. The ecosystem is ever changing; and never static.

Of course, we want to be sure that we (humans) are not throwing things off kilter too fast and drastically, because we as individuals are not so good at making quick adaptations to such changes, but over time, it is natural for the ecosystem to evolve, slowly or otherwise.

I am all for encouraging bio-diversity as a principle, but in the real world, sometimes the opposite will happen; even without our interference. So yes, learn to live with it, and with all changes in the ecosystem, like a climate that is warming or changing on a global scale.

Everyone...

Global warming is not man made.
The earth goes through cycles.

A warm phase is better for life on earth than a cold phase.

We will fight this invasion on the beaches!
Troop load out [asking for volunteers] will include a nutcracker, small fork and flak bib with pots of boiling water camouflaged and buried as trip mines. At the first sign of their landing we will open up with a hellish shore bombardment of Butter & Garlic raining down all that goodness!

Then from our concealed concrete reinforced fortified bunkers [Stocked with Beer] just beyond the seawall we will deliver the coup de grâce, a dash of Lemon....


All's fair in love and dinner

Invade my dinner plate instead!!!

Originally posted by VforVendettea
Everyone...

Global warming is not man made.
The earth goes through cycles.

A warm phase is better for life on earth than a cold phase.

I disagree. A warm phase might be better for a beach bum wanna be like me, but all phases have their merit or role in the big picture. How can you say one is better than the other when the whole point of the thing is unknown? If you can't identify the objective (point of life on earth) how can you judge that one thing is better than another along the way? It all just happens. Learn to live with it is a good notion IMHO.

reply to post by wayno

we want to be sure that we (humans) are not throwing things off kilter too fast and drastically, because we as individuals are not so good at making quick adaptations to such changes, but over time, it is natural for the ecosystem to evolve, slowly or otherwise.

Aye, there's the rub. Accelerating change.

We're designed to adapt to slow change - we can survive one big bump - but our bodies and systems can't take a constant bombardment of major environmental shifts and modifications.

Why don't people get that? ...Could it be the phoney "evolution debate"? ...Misdirection and distraction, plus if people think we don't evolve, then it's inconceivable that we might not be able to evolve fast enough.

Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by CynicalDrivel

 

My question is what is the King Crab killing off to run around in these waters? If it's not affecting other populations in a negative manner, it's another, "So what?" moment.

It is usually a good idea to read the linked articles before commenting.

That way you don't look the cynical fool.

Their impact on the environment is reported to be catastrophic. They are decimating the usual inhabitants of the area. Sooo .....there.

It's called an if-then statement. If there not damage, so what? All it made me look like is someone who didn't read the article, not an idiot. You can have sound reasoning without ever having read and article 1.

Besides, what's the point in my name if I can't play the fool on occasion? Insulting me with your "superiority" doesn't do a damn thing to me. (By the way, my first comment's generally a place-card, not the ENTIRETY of my thought. Also, I'm not prone to making grandiose dissertations when it distracts me from chat--if I was in there right now, this wouldn't be happening. )

"But, but ... you responded and gave excuses! That means I got to you because you are a fool!" No, I explained because I have more respect for you as a human being than you do for others. Respect doesn't call people a moron or anything close to it unless there is no alternative--and preferably, you only tell them that what they did was moronic, not that they are the moron. Subtle, but a huge difference. You jumped the gun. Besides, even an intelligent Troll knows that you bait people, than switch to a much wider stance. I dare you to call me that next. *waggles eyebrows*

Now, I've bothered to read it. Wiped out starfish? Those are not always hard to repopulate, if you find even 1 native--if they are the regenerative type:

You find 1, cut along the division lines for the legs and watch it regrow--if you're scared you'll kill it by dividing all the legs at one time, then only cut one off at a time, then wait for the new legs to gain an inch, and move on.. Man, I remember reading an article when I was about 16 of the issue they used to have in New England, when they had too many starfish competing for the clam population. The fisherman, to wipe them out, were cutting up the starfish in 1 leg chunks and throwing them back in, as they came across them. Yet they came back again, in larger numbers because they were one of the types that has regeneration due to the vital organs being in the legs. I sincerely hope this will be the case.

Sea urchins: the large adult populations are decimated, in those areas, certainly, but unless they're turning over rocks (either the predators or those who are studying the situation), where tiny sea urchins live, then we're not getting a full picture here.

Now, sea urchins is a food humans eat. I'm quite sure we've decimated a tropical population somewhere, and and there's already scientists who are on the case of bringing them back elsewhere. If so, great! Apply it. What are we waiting for to fly these experts in? If they are already on the case, then what we can immediately do is already being done.

But as for starfish, few, if any, eat them. But we do eat crabs. To save the starfish, we need to eat more crabs. So all those who are cracking jokes about "Eaten Dem Crab!" are giving the best immediate solution. (I gave that solution already, I shouldn't have to give a dissertation to back it. )

Generally speaking, when you have an invading animal, the nearby governing bodies tends to reward you for for your kills. We have that problem with Nutria. They're not native. They compete with native wildlife, and the state, until recent year at least, had a bounty per kill (bring in the tail), and as long as you don't have a full grown male, I've been told that they are "good eats".

I am not worried. There are still some things we can do, and it's not like they took over the whole area. There are still unaffected areas. It's not healthy to live a life of fear.

Now, if you were starting this mess with me because we've GOT to reduce our carbon footprint because We're The Cause? *sigh* There are better arguments to use than global warming, like direct results that are impossible to find another cause for (fish kills by a paper mill). Why people insist on skipping over the things that are far more grounded in reality for the sensational, I'll never understand that rationality. Especially if and when these people call me a fool for it. Notice, If-then statement. If you are not that type, then it wasn't directed at you, but a fictional you, for all I'm responding to you.

Originally posted by charlyv
This is a great scenario of what has been going on. Originally, in 1995, Readers Digest did an article on why King Crab was becoming so expensive, and their answer was that the crab fishermen were dropping (the new) large metal traps over their spawning grounds and crushing the spawn (in restrospect, pure BS) , and they said that that was why the catch totals were down.

The prices went up because the Government started setting up quotas on how many were allowed to be caught.

Originally posted by pez1975
I thought global warming was a hoax any ways climate change is real imo and with warming near the north pole it will cause the gulf stream to speed up, warmer water faster current and we will see a mini ice age in norther Europe in our life time im predicting..

That scenario is a theory, for all that they built a model to show it. The last mini-ice age did not happen during global warming in England, so that model doesn't back anything in reality...yet.

Originally posted by Byrd
The real answer (speaking as a scientist) is that models are never accurate predictions (though they're accurate generalizations.)

I'd back off just a little further. They're often/mostly accurate generalizations. Some scientific models are thrown out due to not being accurate at all... Yes most models are sound, otherwise we'd have no jumping-off point for a lot of the work y'all do.

I've often wondered that with our limited understanding of Earth's true cycle of warmth and cooling if we are not still in the very tail end of the last ice age melt off.

From what I usnerstood of th ewhole mess, we're still not up to the temperatures in the middle-age's warming period. So, if the Globe is doing what the Globe did then, we may see more of this issue to come.

abit off the tangent. but i wonder if there is a correlation between an increase of crabs/bottom feeder variety/shrimp whenever there is some type of natural disaster where dead bodies increase on the ocean floor?
yeah, abit macabre and nothing to do with king crab, but i've never seen a post regarding the relationship. if there is one, even.

reply to post by JIMC5499

Not so.
In those years the government really had no limits on crab in the Aleutian chain, and really did not get involved until
after the millennia.

In the 70's thru the early 90's, Giesha owned the majority of crab exports at the time, and they were Japanese based, even though they bought just about everything they could from fisheries in Seattle and Vancouver as well.

The price was supply vs demand based, and the supply went down while the demand kept on climbing.
When the government finally stepped in, the price went up again. The combination of all of this is why we are
seeing $20.00 /lb today.

I was in Vegas in 1979, one of the first Comdex events.... The MGM Grand, hosting the majority of the event, had a pile of free king crab legs the size of a volkswagen in the center of the room. Imagine something like that today!