Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" detected for first time off Texas

[Judi Lynn]

Source: KTEN/Associated Press

Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" detected for first time off Texas
Associated Press - July 31, 2007 1:35 PM ET

HOUSTON (AP) - Welcome to the dead zone -- off Texas.

Heavy rain that's left the state drought-free is being blamed for what a researcher believes is the first detected extensive "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico off Texas.
(snip)

DiMarco says fresh water runoff from the flooded Brazos River flowing into the gulf off Freeport has left an area 70 miles by 25 miles hypoxic, or oxygen-depleted. The situation threatens sea life about 30 to 35 miles offshore.

The dead zone is strongest at the river delta off Freeport and San Luis Pass, just west of Galveston, then extends down the coast toward Matagorda Bay, where it dissipates.

The Texas dead zone is estimated to cover about 1,000, 750 square miles.




Read more: http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=6865404

[LiberalFighter]

1. It is Bushwads new home

[Robbien]

2. First the Gulf coast near Louisiana goes dead, now Texas

It was surprising to learn that Canada now supplies most of our Ocean fish where previously it was the Gulf.

[Judi Lynn]

3. Hadn't heard. Sad. Thanks for the info. n/t

[youngdem]

4. To offer some balance....

I fish and have fished out of the Mississippi Delta in the Gulf my entire life.

NEVER has the fishing been better in my entire lifetime. More records, more fish, more baitfish, more limits, bigger fish on average. And we fish right in the middle of this 'dead zone', in the gulf, out of the mouth of the Mississippi.

They have been saying for decades that this was going to have an imminent effect on fish populations, but it's not materializing. In fact, it is a flat FACT that the mouth of the Mississippi is the most bountiful estuary fishery in the United States.

Now, I don't support enlarging the Dead Zone or worsening it in any way, but I am curious about how they say this problem is manifesting itself. I have read this article and many others over the years, but as a diver and fisherman, it just doesn't quite ring true. I hope they work to reduce fertilizer runoff to the Mississippi, and I hope they continue to work to replenish the marsh south of New Orleans, where most of this stuff could be filtered out by the healthy estuary.

But the gulf doesn't appear to be in crisis frankly. The new world record cuberra snapper was caught last month here, the red snapper are bigger and more plentiful than they have been in twenty years (despite what you may have heard), the billfish are plentiful, and the swordfish have returned after a two generation absence due to longline fishermen, pogies, cocahoes and shrimp are HUGE and numerous, crabs are at near record yields. And inshore in the Delta, the trout are huge and plentiful and redfish are more plentiful than ever -without a doubt.

So, what gives?

[karlrschneider]

6. Maybe it's a temporary thing? The article is about the Texas coastal area

near Galveston...I dunno...

[Nihil]

7. What gives?

When was Katrina?

Tell me again how many of the scavenging species are doing well?
Crabs, shrimp and associated detritus eaters will have done very well
indeed over the last year or so. This means that the fish that prey
on them will also have benefited. (We'll ignore the mercury and other
heavy metal poisoning as that tends to affect the higher predators,
the ones that eat ... oops).

The other "benefit" to a surface fisherman from a dead zone is that
their prey will be forced up and out (i.e., nearer to the surface
and nearer to the shore) both from the lack of oxygen in their normal
habitat and the lack of food (most of which having moved due to lack
of oxygen). This means that the catch will probably be good *now*.

The real danger of a dead zone is the effect on the future, not on
the present.

[youngdem]

10. I don't think you are right on any of the counts

First, detritus has been coming out of the swamp and the Mississippi Delta since before the days of the dinosaur. Katrina certainly stirred it up and cleaned it out a little, but if it were a major factor, the dead zone would be smaller this year and last than usual. It's not. It's larger.

Secondly, if you knew anything at all about fishing, you would realize that shrimp, snapper and grouper are all bottom dwelling species, yet all are here in HISTORIC numbers. So, this 'prey forced up and out' is preposterous, uninformed bullshit. They could no more be forced up and out than you and I could be forced to fly to deal with ozone levels. They live on the bottom, among structure.

I scuba dive, as do many people here. ALL uniformly report HUGE snapper and grouper, amberjack, lobster, et al numbers. The bottom is very well alive. And inshore, shrimp, blue crabs, croakers, redfish and gaftops, ALL BOTTOM FISH are doing just beautifully, but have been for YEARS as a result of better fishery management paying off.

And I am well aware the risk is supposed to be in the future, but the future is NOW if you have been warning of an imminent risk for three decades.
They have been saying this dead zone is gonna cause imminent damage for thirty years now, and NOTHING seems to be happening, outside of their pretty pictures growing more red as their instrumentation and computer programs become more exacting.

[Nihil]

12. I'm not a fisherman so maybe I didn't phrase myself properly.

> Katrina certainly stirred it up and cleaned it out a little, but if it
> were a major factor, the dead zone would be smaller this year and last
> than usual. It's not. It's larger.

You seem to have misunderstood my Katrina remark.
That event will have provided a lot of food for the detritus eaters (albeit
with some poisons too). On the other hand, any of this food supply bonanza
that is *not* snapped up will travel further and decay at the bottom of
the water column. As the organic supply increases, the amount of oxygen
required for the decay process increases, depleting the oxygen in that
area - hence the size of the dead zone increases.

> Secondly, if you knew anything at all about fishing, you would realize
> that shrimp, snapper and grouper are all bottom dwelling species, ...

Well I knew that shrimp were bottom dwelling but happily admit I know zilch
about the other types. Thanks for increasing my knowledge.

> ... yet all are here in HISTORIC numbers.

Yes, in certain areas. The areas where they have the additional food
supply can be used will be wonderful for such species that can use it
(and, obviously, for those higher in the food chain in turn). The areas
where the additional food supply exceeds the consumer demand at that time
will see a depletion in oxygen.

> So, this 'prey forced up and out' is preposterous, uninformed bullshit.

Nope, just poorly worded it appears.

> They could no more be forced up and out than you and I could be forced
> to fly to deal with ozone levels.

Think of it this way: if you and I were suffocating due to heavy fumes
in the basement, would you stay there to die or would you climb the
stairs to get to a place you could breathe?

I'm not talking about species deciding to cross marine environment zones
just for the hell of it one day, I'm talking about species moving out of
a toxic area and into a more productive (food-plentiful) area.
In geographical terms, this means it is moving to slightly shallower
water, nearer to the food source (the land), hence my "up & out" comment.

(On edit: Strictly speaking they don't really "move" that much ... what
happens is that the ones where the food supply has increased can simply
breed more and their offspring have a better chance in turn of surviving
and breeding whereas the ones in the area that has become depleted in
oxygen have simply died. It is not intended to show that individuals have
moved but rather that the area where they can survive & thrive has moved.
It only *appears* that the species has moved en masse from population
studies.)

> They live on the bottom, among structure.

And they still do ... just in a different part of the bottom and different
areas of "structure". Not because there are more jobs there or the grazing
rights have been outsourced but simply because they can't live in the old
devastated homeland any more. Marine refugees I suppose.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.
:hi:

[KingofNewOrleans]

14. Well, the Mississippi Delta didn't exist in the time of the dinosaur

but otherwise I can second your info.

[Mugweed]

11. I don't fish

Could you post some GPS coordinates where you're catching well the next time you're out? Describe the water quality a little more precisely? Maybe could you take some photos while you're out there? Maybe fill a clear glass jar and photograph it, then take that jar in and take it to an environmental lab (I can give you the names and phone numbers of all the ones closest to wherever your closest boat ramp is) for analysis? How about taking a dissolved oxygen meter out there? They're cheap to rent and they usually come with calibration instructions, so it would be easy to document that your readings aren't crap. I'm not doubting your claims. I just think your information might be helpful in the overall picture.

[tom_paine]

13. You guys don't EAT that stuff you catch, do you?

I mean, catching in the polluted Gulf is bad enough from the point of view of number of toxins per g of fish eaten, but do you undersatand how deeply polluted the Mississippi is? How many millions of tons of effluent are dumped each year by the chemical, fertilizer, plastics, and other factories that line it (and, with the exception of Illinois it gets worse the farther South you go, Louisiana has the highest concentration of chemical plants lining the Mississippi and they dump by far the most toxins into the ruver on a stat-by-state basis)?

Or at least that was the case about 10 years ago, when I became familiar with the topic.

Please tell me you do not eat the apparently bountiful, but very toxic fish that you catch there.

[galileo3000]

5. Is there difference between a dead zone and a red tide?

I grew up spending my summers near Galveston on the Beaches slightly to the East. Every so often we would get red tides that according to one of Fish and Wildlife Game wardens had no oxygen in them. The Red Tides would be filled with all types of deceased sea creatures.

[0rganism]

8. and for the sixth year in a row off Oregon

Low-oxygen zone found again off Oregon Coast
For the sixth year in a row, low-oxygen water has been surveyed off the Oregon Coast, raising the possibility of another dead zone forming this summer that can kill bottom-dwelling sealife.

"It does, indeed, appear to be the new normal," said Jane Lubchenco, professor of marine biology at Oregon State University.

"The appearance of the low-oxygen water again is consistent with predictions of climate change. The fact that we are seeing six in a row now tells us that something pretty fundamental has changed about conditions off our coast."

...

Unlike the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, which is caused by fertilizer washing down the Mississippi River, the Oregon Coast dead zone is triggered by northerly winds, which create an ocean-mixing condition called upwelling.

more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003813875_deadzone31m.html

[AnneD]

9. To add some balance here.....

Katrina and Rita had a beneficial impact on the aquatic and wildlife in the Gulf. There was a lot of turnover and cooling of the Gulf. Fishing, shrimping, and crabbing have never been better. Our estuaries (breeding ground) are close in and away from the dead zone. As long as the nurseries are safe we stand a chance of recovery.

The recent rains have been the most that I (I'm 53) and my mom (she's 71) have seen. The flow of fresh water into the Gulf has been unprecedented. I really am a "green" nut, but I am not too worried about this yet. The ecology of the Gulf is out of balance due to the rains and it will take a bit to regain equilibrium.