Once named world's ugliest animal, blobfish wins New Zealand's fish of the year
It was once crowned the 'world's ugliest animal' and now the disgruntled-looking gelatinous blobfish has a new gong to its name: New Zealand's fish of the year.
The winning species of blobfish, Psychrolutes marcidus, lives in the highly pressurised depths off the coasts of New Zealand and Australia and has developed a unique anatomy to exist. Blobfish do not have a swim bladder, a full skeleton, muscles or scales. Instead, their bodies are made up of blobby tissue with a lower density than water that allows them to float above the seafloor.
The species is believed to be able to live to 130 years old, is slow growing and slow moving, says Konrad Kurta, a spokesperson from the Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust that runs the annual competition.
'It sort of sits there and waits for prey to come very close and practically walk into its mouth before it eats them,' he says. It is also a 'dedicated parent' with females laying up to 100,000 eggs in a single nest, which they protect until they hatch.
The fish found fame over a decade ago after a crew member on a New Zealand research vessel snapped a photograph of the rarely seen animal. Its distinctive appearance was quickly adopted into meme culture.
The pressure of the water forces their shape into that of a regular – albeit bulbous – fish but out of the depths they can resemble 'a failed medical experiment', Kurta said.
'Regrettably, when it is pulled up … that sudden decompression causes it to become all disfigured,' Kurta says.
Little is known about their conservation status due to a lack of research, but their populations and habitat are considered vulnerable to deep-sea trawling.
'Blobfish are fairly frequently pulled up from the bottom-trawling of orange roughy,' Kurta said.
The Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust launched the Fish of the Year competition in 2020, inspired by the highly popular Bird of the Year. This year saw the highest number of votes cast in its competition – 5,583 in 2025, compared with 1,021 last year.
The blobfish won on 1,286 votes, pipping the orange roughy by 300 votes, despite the latter having powerful backers including Greenpeace, Forest & Bird and the Environmental Law Initiative.
'We are very pleased for the blobfish,' said Aaron Packard, a spokesperson for Environmental Law Initiative. 'From an ecosystem perspective, a win for blobfish is a win for orange roughy.'
New Zealand is responsible for about 80% of the global orange roughy catch. Environmental watchdogs regularly call for a halt on fishing the species due to the destructive effects of bottom trawling on ecosystems and vulnerabilities in fish populations.
Other contenders in the competition included the mysterious longfin eel – known as tuna in Māori language – a pygmy pipehorse, a critically endangered mud-fish, sharks and rays.
'We have a dizzying variety of native marine and freshwater fish,' Kurta says, adding roughly 85% are considered vulnerable.
'That [these fish] exist is often the first step to getting people invested and interested in what's happening below the waterline.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
29-05-2025
- Reuters
No sign of preparations to restart Zaporizhzhia, IAEA official says
VIENNA, May 29 (Reuters) - There is no sign Russia is preparing to restart the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine, an official from the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Thursday, after Ukraine complained about reports Russia was preparing to connect it to its grid. Zaporizhzhia, which is held by Russia, is Europe's biggest nuclear power plant. Its six reactors are shut down as war rages around it. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for a ceasefire, after which measures to improve the water and external power supplies needed to cool nuclear fuel could be taken. "Our teams continue to confirm there is no indication at the moment that there will be any active preparations for a restart of the plant now," the IAEA official said on condition of anonymity. A Ukrainian official said on Wednesday his country had protested to the IAEA about reports that Russia is building power lines to connect the Zaporizhzhia plant to its own grid. Yuriy Vitrenko, Ukraine's ambassador to the IAEA, told Ukrainian news agency Ukrinform that Kyiv sees any attempt by Russia to connect the occupied plant to its grid as a gross violation of international law and Ukrainian sovereignty. On Tuesday, the New York Times cited a new Greenpeace report which found that Russia had been building more than 50 miles (80 km) of power lines between the occupied Ukrainian cities of Mariupol and Berdyansk. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi told Reuters in March it could be possible to restart one of the plant's six reactors within months of a lasting ceasefire that is still proving elusive. That would, however, require increasing the plant's supplies of water and external power. Water has been a concern since the plant's biggest source, the nearby Kakhovka reservoir, was emptied when its dam was blown up in 2023. That led to wells being dug at Zaporizhzhia, which provide enough water to cool nuclear fuel in the reactors while they are shut down but not enough to do so if they are restarted. "The plant lost its main source of cooling water, so the whole system cannot work as it was originally designed," the IAEA official said. "The consumption of water is orders of magnitude higher (when the plant is operating) compared to cold shutdown. We don't see any easy, quick fix for it," they added.
The Independent
29-05-2025
- The Independent
UN official says Russia isn't imminently turning on Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant
Inspectors from the U.N. nuclear watchdog haven't seen signs of Russia moving to immediately restart the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, an agency official said Thursday, after Greenpeace raised concerns about Moscow building power lines near the facility. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest in Europe with six reactors and one of the world's 10 biggest, has been a focus of concern for the International Atomic Energy Agency and the world during the war amid fears of a potential nuclear catastrophe. The plant has been held by Russia since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, though it isn't producing power. The city of Zaporizhzhia, about 440 kilometers (275 miles) southeast of Kyiv, is held by Ukraine and attacks have occurred around the plant as the front line is close. The IAEA rotates staff through the facility to check the plant's safety and offer its expertise. Greenpeace sees power line construction In a report Tuesday, Greenpeace said that satellite photos showed Russia had been building 'an electricity high voltage power line' in Russia-held areas of Ukraine's Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia regions. An Associated Press analysis of satellite photos from Planet Labs PBC of the same area also showed the construction of power lines and pylons. 'This is some of the first hard evidence of Russian moving ahead with its dangerous and illegal plans for restarting Ukraine and Europe's largest nuclear plant at Zaporizhzhia," said Shaun Burnie, a nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Ukraine, in a statement. An IAEA official said that the agency's inspectors hadn't seen any major changes at the Zaporizhzhia plant suggesting Russia was preparing for an imminent effort to restart it, after being asked about the Greenpeace report. 'What I can say is our teams continue to confirm there is no indication at the moment that there will be any active preparations for a restart of the plant now," the official said on condition of anonymity to discuss the IAEA's assessment. Russia hasn't acknowledged the power line project. Ukraine sent a note to the IAEA and its membership on Wednesday raising concerns about the power line construction. 'These actions represent a blatant violation of international law and an infringement on Ukraine's sovereignty,' Ukraine said in its letter. 'The construction of this transmission line is a clear indication of the Russian Federation's intent to initiate an unauthorized restart of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant — a facility that remains the sovereign property of Ukraine.' It added: 'Any operation of the (plant) without explicit authorization of the Ukrainian nuclear regulator is illegal and poses a direct and unacceptable threat to nuclear safety.' Zaporizhzhia remains a concern for world Russia has suggested restarting the Zaporizhzhia plant in the past. IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi, told journalists Wednesday that the issue could be discussed on an upcoming trip he plans to make to Ukraine and possibly Russia. 'We are going to be continuing our discussions with both, in particular with the Russians on this idea of (the) restart of the plant," Grossi said. "It is a matter that requires very careful consideration.' Zaporizhzhia's six reactors remain fueled with uranium though they are in a so-called cold shutdown — meaning nuclear reactions have stopped. However, the plant relies on external electricity to keep its reactor cool and power other safety systems. That external power has been cut multiple times in the war, forcing the plant to rely on diesel generators on site. Further complicating potentially turning the plant back on is the 2023 collapse of the Kakhovka Dam on the Dnieper River. The plant relied on water from the river for its reservoir, forcing workers there to dig wells. 'The plant lost its main source of cooling water, so the whole system cannot work as it was originally designed," the IAEA official said. 'The consumption of water is orders of magnitude higher (when the plant is operating) compared to cold shutdown. We don't see any easy, quick fix for it.' The Zaporizhzhia plant also has been mentioned by U.S. President Donald Trump as he's sought to reach a ceasefire deal between Russia and Ukraine. In March, Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy discussed the plant, with the American president suggesting 'the United States can recover' it. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___
The Guardian
26-04-2025
- The Guardian
More than 100 landfills in England may be leaching ‘highly hazardous' waste
More than 100 old landfills in England that may be contaminated with toxic substances have flooded since 2000, potentially posing a serious safety risk, it can be revealed. Some of these former dumps containing possibly hazardous materials sit directly next to public parks and housing estates with hundreds of households, the analysis by the Greenpeace-funded journalism website Unearthed , in partnership with the Guardian, found. Although councils are supposed to keep track of the dangers of these sites, funding has long since disappeared and some local authorities had no idea they were responsible, the investigation found. David Megson, an environmental chemist from Manchester Metropolitan University, said most former landfill sites were 'likely to be quite safe and contain relatively inert waste, but some could be quite sinister'. 'Historic reporting of what went into these sites wasn't great, so in many cases, you've got little idea what is in there until you dig into it,' he said. The investigation took data on the 20,000 former landfill sites in England to identify the most high-risk – those used to dump 'special' or industrial waste, for example, which were used after 1945 and before the mid-1990s, when laws about keeping records on the contents of landfill sites came into place. This was then compared with Environment Agency flooding data, with help from Dr Paul Brindley, a mapping expert at the University of Sheffield, to find landfills where more than 50% of their surface area was flooded. Any dumps that only contained household waste, those known to be safe or where controls were already in place were removed from the data, leaving only those that may contain dangerous substances, including pharmaceuticals, 'forever chemicals', heavy metals or 'liquid sludge' – which could be anything from sewage to cyanide waste. A total of 105 sites were identified, which were disproportionately situated in poorer areas and in the north of England. Prof Kate Spencer, a historic landfill expert from Queen Mary University of London, who helped with the investigation, said that in hundreds of years of dumping waste humans had 'never really considered the consequences'. 'We now know far more about the potentially harmful effects of the waste materials and pollutants we've dumped, particularly chemicals like Pfas and PCBs, and how the impacts of climate change, such as flooding, could reopen pathways for those pollutants to enter the environment.' The investigation also found that 2,600 former dump sites with potentially hazardous contents were within 50 metres of watercourses. Charles Watson, the chair and founder of campaign group River Action said: 'Everywhere you look, polluters can find easily accessible loopholes in the enforcement regime to break the law and degrade the environment. However, the failure to provide adequate funding to regulate something as basic as landfill sites that could be leaching highly hazardous waste is all the more shocking. 'If our regulators can't sort out how to protect us from pollutants that in theory have already been 'safely' disposed of, then we have little hope of ever seeing a holistic approach to combating the wider sources of water pollution.' Until 2017, councils could apply for contaminated land capital grants, which were administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to remediate contaminated land. Since then, there has been an 'erosion of funding', said Dr Grant Richardson, an environmental consultant and expert on landfill and contaminated land. 'If there's no obvious risk of harm or pollution emanating from these sites, nothing will be done to investigate or remediate them unless sites come to be developed. That means there are likely hundreds or potentially thousands of sites that have not been properly investigated that could be leaching contaminants at harmful levels into the environment,' he said. The lack of funding in areas such as this could have 'devastating consequences', the Local Government Association warned, pointing to a wider funding gap for councils of up to £8bn by 2028-29. A spokesperson said local authorities 'desperately need a significant and sustained increase' in budgets to keep up with demands placed on them. The Green peer Natalie Bennett, whose party supports a law requiring better records of sites so they are not a public danger, said: 'The lack of adequate regulations on contaminated land poses a threat to human life and welfare, especially given climate breakdown, rising sea levels, increased rainfall and flooding. 'Greens urge Labour to add this law to the statute books and provide the necessary funds for local authorities to meet the requirements of such a new law.' The Environment Agency said it would 'continue to support' local authorities with their responsibility for dealing with former landfills. 'In circumstances where the Environment Agency leads on remediation, we work tirelessly with partners to reduce unacceptable risks to human health and the environment,' it added.
