Hartmann+Annotation+2



Thomas Hartmann February 20, 2014 Word Count: 1,339


 * Title:** The End of the Line
 * Director:** Rupert Murray
 * Release Year:** 2009

The central argument of //The End of the Line// is that humans are overfishing the oceans and is not sustainable and results in a wide range of economic, ecological, food supply problems. The film describes how the problem of overfishing began when human’s assumed that the oceans could supply a unlimited amount of resources, which caused the world fishing fleet to grow exponentially in size and efficiency until its capacity far exceeded the supply of the world’s oceans. As a result, fish populations have crashed often to the point at which it cannot recover. The film uses cod fishing in the northern Atlantic, Bluefin tuna around the Strait of Gibraltar, the plague of rays in the Chesapeake Bay, and fishing of tropical fish in the seas of southern Asia as examples of overfishing and the problems that it can cause.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film uses both emotional appeal and scientific information in its examples to argue its points. For example, the film grabs the audience’s emotion when it draws out the extreme efficiency that fish are caught and the disasters that this has resulted in. For example, the film describes how humans have made it almost impossible for fish to escape being caught through technology such as sonar, aerial views, and fishing techniques such as bottom trawling. Further, the film uses many statistics of the fishing industry to make issues such as overfishing clear. For example, the film describes how a 10kT quota is required for Bluefin tuna stock to recover and a 15kT quota for it to be maintained. However, a quota of 29.5kT was set, twice as large as the quota recommended by scientists to maintain the stock and three times as large as the quota recommended for stocks to recover. The film also points out that in spite these quotas, it is estimated that 61kT of Bluefin tuna is caught each year.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The main sustainability problem addressed by the film is the ecological sustainability problem of overfishing. As more fish are caught than are replenished by nature, fish populations begin to fall and will continue to fall until the population can no longer recover unless action is taken to stop overfishing. The film also describes the economic problems that result when it becomes more difficult for fishers to catch enough fish, which is the primary source of income for people in many coastal areas of the world. Further, the film draws out the legal and political problems of fishing, which includes failures to regulate the fishing industry.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

The part of the film that I found most compelling was its argument that fish farming in its current form is not a solution to overfishing. The film begins by describing how the oceans is the one area that has not been controlled by humans and suggests that fish farming may somehow allow more fish to be produced. However, fish farms generally use less desirable wild fish such as anchovies to feed the fish on the farms. The film argues that this is very inefficient because of the loss of mass in the “conversion” from one fish to another. This is particularly compelling because it shows that food obtained from sources low down the food chain is more sustainable. Under this idea, it makes no sense to artificially add a level to the food chain simply because the fish at the higher level is more desirable.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

One part of the film that I was not convinced by was its argument that fish is one of the greatest resources that the earth has to offer. While I understand that many coastal communities revolve around fishing for food and for profit, the film argues that fish is a large resource. However, I understand that seafood is a very small fraction of the world’s food supply, which is insignificant compared to the amount of food that can be obtained from crops and animals from farms on land. How can fish be one of the greatest resources of the earth if we are already stretching the fish supply beyond its limits and still have only a small fraction of the food supplied by other sources?
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

This film addresses a relatively wide variety of audiences, including people well educated and not well educated in sustainability problems. The film begins by explaining each argument on a simple level and proceeds to give further details and examples that are less well known. For example, the film explains in simple terms that overfishing was originally caused by the idea that the world’s oceans were infinite and could supply an infinite quantity of fish. An example of a lesser known problem with overfishing that is more appealing to better educated people and that the film draws out is the unanticipated plague of rays in the Chesapeake Bay when the population of their predator, the shark, declined.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

It is difficult to suggest improvements to the film to enhance its environmental educational value because it was a very well made film. However, one way might be to eliminate some of the repetitiveness in some of the examples given. For example, the film seemed to repeat some of the problems with Bluefin tuna fishing. While this may help the audience remember the arguments of the film, I think it also increases the likelihood that the audience loses interest and misses other important points in the film.
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The film suggests that there are many ways to prevent overfishing and return the seas to a better state. For example, the film suggests regulations such as limiting quotas and the time given to fulfill these quotas can maintain fish stocks, which has been successful in Alaska. Another option that the film describes is setting aside areas of the ocean as reserves where commercial fishing is banned. Further, the film argues that it may be possible to change the way fisherman think about fishing. For example, fishermen must view the sea as a finite resource that must be preserved for future generations.
 * 9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

In order to confirm my suspicion that seafood accounts for an insignificant supply of food, I did some research on where our food comes from. David Pimentel, in his article, “Food Versus Biofuels: Environmental and Economic Costs,” in determining the effect of using farmland for biofuel as opposed to food, said that less than 0.3% of human food comes from oceans and other bodies of water with the remaining 99.7% coming from land. The film also compelled me to learn more about subsidies for fisheries. The film argued that it would take significantly less money ($12 to $14 billion) to manage reserves than is being used for subsidies that promote overfishing. Sumaila and Khan, in their article, “Subsidizing Global Fisheries,” state that in 2003, $27 billion was spent on fishing subsidies. Approximately 60% of this was found to promote overfishing. Sumaila and Khan argues that less of this money should be spent on increasing fishing capacity and more should be spent on promoting sustainable fishing, which includes better enforcing regulations and managing fisheries and protected areas.
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

Pimentel, David. “Food Versus Biofuels: Environmental and Economic Costs.” //Springer Science//. 29 Jan. 2009. <[]>.
 * Bibliography:**

Sumaila, U.R., A.S. Khan, et al. “Subsidizing Global Fisheries.” //The Pew Environment Group//. Sept. 2010. <[|http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/ News/Press_Releases/Protecting_ocean_life/Pew%20OSS%20Subsidies%20FINAL.pdf]>