Spartz+Annotation+3

Annotation #3 10/9/12 //The End of the Line//

//The End of the Line// was directed by Rupert Murray and was released in2009. The main point of the movie was to point out that the biggest danger to the oceans’ wildlife is humans. The human population is both ruining underwater ecosystems and depleting the population of fish. The primary enforcer of information in this movie was emotional appeal. While there were lots of numbers to back up the claims of the documentary, I felt that the major goal was to make humans seem to be the monster that was attacking oceans. There was a lot of imagery that stressed the gore and the predatory nature of the fishing industry. This may not have been an effective filming technique, or at least not as convincing as the director might have wanted it. I thought that it may have alienated the audience a little bit. The movie also focused on how fishing affects family life for consumers and industry workers. Since the fishing industry has been declining, many people have lost their jobs so major lifestyle changes have had to be made. The same can also be said for consumers. Consumers no longer have the same access to the fish they are familiar with which causes a need for a shift in daily household life, especially in areas where fish is a primary food source. By drawing out all of the ways that family life is affected, the film further tries to draw on the emotional aspect of the issue. The film also stresses the changes that can be made on a local level by consumers. I think this film is directed towards those people who eat fish on a regular basis for how they can change their lives to make sure that they are eating fish sustainably.

The film brought out many different sustainability problems that make sustainable fishing difficult. Ecological, technical, and economic issues were the primary focuses of the argument. The decline of fish populations was the focal point of the movie as well as the strongest ecological argument presented against overfishing. Many species of fish including cod and bluefin tuna are becoming endangered. The movie argues that this is due to the larger demand or growth of the industry. The fish left in the ocean are not capable of reproducing at a fast enough rate and are dying out. Fish farms are also not as sustainable as they are made out to be as they tend to kill more fish for food than they are actually producing. Other than just endangering the fish that humans eat, other aspects of underwater ecology are also being harmed in the process of overfishing. The bottom trawls that have been developed are tearing apart the plants and other species that live on ocean floors. This also brings in a technical threat to the environment. Technology is progressing rapidly and advances like bottom trawls and sonar do not give fish a chance at survival. Unfortunately, progress is something that is always desired in industry and in this case it requires more fish to be caught per line cast. This translates to more money being brought into the company which is the bottom line. To protect the bottom line, more fish are being caught and sold. As certain fish become scarcer they have the possibility of bringing in more money since they will most likely be seen as delicacies. This shows a problem with society’s way of thinking that the movie pointed out had to change in order for fish to become a renewable resource again. Fish have become a finite resource and unless we treat it that way, the problem will only escalate. The movie asked consumers to start focusing more on where fish comes from (how it was caught and whether it was a legal practice) before purchasing them.

I thought the movie was, overall, fairly convincing. The most compelling argument made, in my opinion was that humans see the ocean as “inexhaustible”. While I can honestly say I have never sat down and thought about it before now, I can definitely see now why that claim makes sense. I have always thought of the ocean as this large expanse of potential resources. I have been taught of course about how pollution affects the oceans and the life in it, and I have seen clips of large nets full of fish, but for some reason I guess I didn’t really see the whole impact of humans on aquatic wildlife. I find it interesting that just the thought process of: “we can always find more” can be so damaging. It makes sense; I just hadn’t really considered it that way before. I also thought it was interesting when the movie went into killing off the predators, like sharks and cod, in the ocean is making it easier for other species, like rays and lobsters, to thrive. I thought it was a smart way to say that for now things are fine, but what will we have left when we reach the bottom of the food chain? The thing I found the least compelling about the movie was that it made humans out to be monsters taking advantage of innocents. While this may be a fitting analogy, the imagery chosen was very gory and as a viewer, I tend to try and avoid watching those sorts of things. I don’t think documentaries can be very effective if people don’t watch them so if the film producers had chosen to make that statement with a little less blood, I think it would have been more effective as a film. I was also not compelled by the statement that it is too late to do anything. I don’t really believe that. I don’t think that the producers of this movie think that either. If they truly believed this, then why would they bother making a movie on it in the first place with suggestions to viewers as to how change can occur. Fish populations will never reach the points that they were at before human interaction with them, but I definitely think awareness of the situation will help prevent further problems.

One thing that the movie caused me to want to look into further was what are the alternatives to bottom trawling? I was really not very familiar with this technology before the film and I didn’t know why it had to be dragged across the bottom of the ocean floor to be effective. It appears that other nets are available that aren’t designed to drag along the ocean floor since there are fish that don’t swim as deep, but as nets get filled, sometimes they will drag along the bottom floor anyway (Oceana 2012). There is some legislation that prevents usage of trawls but clearly it isn’t very well regulated. The other thing that I looked at was the marking for MSC. The movie mentioned them as the marking that one should look at when buying sustainable fish and I wasn’t sure why their marking was the one that should be considered trustworthy. According to the Marine Stewardship Council’s website, their standards require that their seafood be sustainably caught and able to trace back to a sustainable fishery. They also require that testing of the fishery be done by a third party to ensure credibility (MSC). There was not much when I looked into other possible sustainable fish markings. MSC seemed to be the only semi-reliable marking, but even then fisheries that are progressing towards sustainability can apparently get the markings (Greenpeace).

References: “About Us.” Marine Stewardship Council. Accessed 10/10/12. <[]>. “Bottom Trawling: Overview.” Oceana. Accessed 10/10/12. Revised: 2012. <[]>. “Sustainable Seafood – frequently asked questions.” Greenpeace. Accessed 10/10/12. <[]>.