Post by jlibs on Nov 3, 2006 14:18:32 GMT -5
Study Sees ‘Global Collapse’ of Fish Species
What can be done now to protect marine life and many species of fish that could face extinction by midcentury if overfishing continues?
Related Article
109 comments
megan adams:
I think there should be a category system for all fish, like an ‘organic’ category for veggies, that tells consumers whether fish came from a sustainable fishery.
I also think that the markets in the developed world should simply shut their doors to fish that comes from collapsing fisheries.
Perhaps also trade sanctions against offenders should be allowed.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:02 pm
John McMillan:
As a former commercial fisherman and seafood processing administrator in Alaska, I have seen the value that a sustainable fishery offers to the economy and life style. I also am aware of rampant overfishing especially on the high seas and the damage this does to the environment.
Fisheries that show signs of sustainability are best regulated by limited entry permits or quotas. Fish stocks that are in danger or even questionable should be terminated to allow them to recover.
Unfortunately most of the political pressure that allows overfishing to continue is generated by large corporations with deep pockets.
There is one way that each of us can “vote” in this matter and that is by purchasing seafood (or ordering seafood) that is acquired in sustainable ways. Ask your grocer or waiter where the seafood comes from and if it is from sustainable stocks. Better still, purchase seafood locally, not from a fast food restaurant that has large corporation ties.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Leslie:
One of the best infromational pieces re over-fishing was from Monterey Acquarium. It included a simple red, yellow, green indication system of fish that are OK to eat, those you should only eat from wild catch and/or from certain areas, and those to avoid. I carried it in my wallet until it fell appart. The problem is that its focus was Pacific fish given Monterey’s focus.
I believe well informed consumers can make a difference. Likewise, restaurants need to get behind the effort to save the species we like to eat. Omit from menus with explanation.
- Leslie
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Robert LaPorta:
The primary cause of overfishing is the same cause of water shortages, urban sprawl, the release of excessive amounts of greenhouse gases and many many other problems. There are simply too many people in the world chasing too few resources. There are now more than 6 billion people on the earth and it the population is “suppose” to level off at about 9-11 billion people. If you think things are bad now, wait until we get to 11 billion.
Unless we can control our population levels we may be doomed to sterile seas, shortages of many materials, water, and a worsening of the lives of people.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Peter Moseley:
Stop the growth of the world’s human population. Human birth control is essential and should not be held hostage to obsolete religious notions.
If Bill & Melinda Gates succeed, the human race and the fish are in even deeper trouble unless the saved lives restrict their procreation.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Glenn Arnold:
If there can be farm subsidies that pay for not producing certain crops, perhaps a like scheme can be arranged for fishermen.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:08 pm
John R.:
If we take steps to slow human population growth around the world we can avoid or solve a number of enviromental problems.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Albie:
Halt all commercial and sport fishing for 10 years while scientists and fisherman sort out how to return to some form of sustainable fishing. The 10 years will allow fish populations to rebound. The fishing part of our economy will be dormant for 10 years, but will return healthier, just like the fish.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Greg Hacke:
One answer to to this problem is the same answer that applies to the energy crisis and all other environmental issues, but which is rarely talked about in the media: birth control. A number of scientists have estimated that the earth can only support a population of about 3 billion people at western living standards, and yet we currently have 6 billion and in the next 50 years we will have 9 billion people on this planet using up resources that can not be replaced. Imagine what an extra 3 billion people will do to the environment when the current population is already destroying the planet. Rational family planning is the only long term solution to saving the planet, but you rarely see it talked about in a media that is apparently afraid of the subject in the face of opposition from religious conservatives.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Mike L:
As an economics major it would be irresponsible for me not to recommend using fishing licenses to control the fish stocks. International trade organization/international law reform is another potential avenue for control of fish populations, since a lot of fishing occurs in international waters. Also, since people aren’t going to stop eating fish, regardless of their status as endangered or not (because it’s so good!), companies that farm fish should be given incentives to develop a sort of “organic” fish that doesn’t create the environmental problems that accompanies current fish farming methods, so that people who want that “wild” quality could be satisfied with an alternative to wild fish.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Michele:
(I make these comments as a consumer, and I don’t know much about the fishing industry, although I suspect that many fishermen (who actually know the trade - not giant commercial enterprises) would prefer to fish enough to make a living, and then let the oceans recover…)
Although the widely disparate economic status of different nations enters into this issue (i.e., fish is a great protein source, more readily available than chicken or beef, etc. to poorer nations whose populations need access to more foods with a high nutritional value…but, as Marx would say, if the goal of the system was to feed everyone, then everyone would be fed. ) - it seems to me our food chains in the Western world are luxuriantly over-supplied, and inefficient. We don’t need endless choice & bottomless plates of sushi, and we throw away much too much. I don’t think that I should be able to eat anything I want, 24/7, just because. Don’t even care to. Maybe some increased demand-side awareness would help this issue. Global issues must be understood as local issues now. Fish, air, water, oil, people…
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:27 pm
MARK KLEIN, M.D.:
Probably nothing. The days of enforceable global treaty making are over.
Globalization is already converting millions from subsistence diets, often locally caught seafood, to industrial foods. The problem today in most of the world isn’t starvation and malnutrition but the ravages of gluttony in the form of Type II diabetes.
By the time commercial fishing stocks are depleted most of the world will be eating Big Macs and frozen pizza. When the fishing fleets get beached because of poor catches, ocean life will slowly recover.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Darwin Vickers:
Obviously people are not going to stop fishing so why don’t we raise fish to re-stock the Oceans as we do with many lakes and rivers?
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Davy Davidson:
What can be done is humans can stop eating sea and all animals. Most of our human evolution was fueled by eating plants with small quantities of meat. There are now too many of us to sustainably eat animals of any kind. Even organically raised animals produce too much poop. Eating animals takes away biodiversity, is the second largest cause of global warming and is so last century. It is time to share our earth with all the animals of the sea, land and air. A vegan diet is without question the healthiest for ourselves and our earth.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:38 pm
jimstar:
This is a no-brainer. Let’s not allow commercial fishermen to harvest the ocean.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Julia Burgen:
Answers are in article and in common sense which has been stated already many times: Eliminate wholesale catching methods which focuses on elite species and throws away huge numbers and other species. Stop fishing habitats already in distress. International rules and policing must happen.
In the meantime people must change their eating habits, especially in the U.S. and other wealthy nations. We seldom eat shrimp because of the bycatch impacts. We only eat certain tuna which are not fished improperly. In fact we don’t eat much fish at all, because of not knowing total picture of the catch. When I do buy fish I consult lists prepared by Ocean Conservancy or Monterrey Bay Aquarium, etc. for safe fish to buy. And that means safe in terms of human health, but mostly in terms of health of fish species.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Kathryn McDonald:
We need to be very careful about what we eat. We also need to put pressure on other countries (and help those who depend on the fishing economy) to stop bottom fishing and net fishing.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Joe Shea:
Dat worm from da lousy university is depressin me!
Seriously , if we suspended (through state laws) the sale of threatened species right now, we could eat seafood by the ton five years from now. But the political will that would take? Don’t ask, not in this paralyzed country.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:04 am
Joel L. Friedlander:
If we have overfished certain species of fish and they will soon become extinct, it seems to be a no brainer to stop fishing those species. There are plenty of other sources of protein that can be substituted while we allow the fish stocks to return to viable levels. What is needed is a little self control. For a long time it looked like the striped bass wouldn’t be able to survive on the East Coast of the United States, well, we restrained ourselves and now there are plenty to go around both for sport fishing and for food. We are an old species ourselves; a little maturity is in order.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 am
robert frunzi:
Bush has to go and elect a democratic president who beleives
in global warming. We have to start bringing in to alternative sources
of fuel in a major way.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:22 am
Christopher Reader:
Stop overfishing.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:25 am
Gabriel Peterson:
Make better choices when we select seafood. Programs like Seafood Watch at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, www.seafoodwatch.org, give consumers and businesses all the tools they need to select sustainable seafood.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 am
Christine:
Stop eating fish and other seafoods. Stop buying and discarding toxic products. Eat organically produced foods (no runoff from farms). Stop using products that contribute to global warming (i.e., stop buying gas guzzlers). Simple changes can have profound results if enough people cooperate.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:47 am
Tom Gelsthorpe:
I’ve lived on Cape Cod for more than 40 years, have done a fair amount of recreational fishing and I’ve never seen a live cod, except in an aquarium. That tells you something, eh?
I recently read the book, Cod, and it basically says that the cod which were so abundant for centuries that they supported half of Europe and provided impetus towards settling North America, have long since been fished out.
Another statistical tidbit I came across recently claimed that Japan alone consumes something like one third of the world’s seafood. So the overfishing phenomenon is worldwide.
I get the distinct impression that fish have been mined rather than harvested, and that the long-term knowability of it demonstrates a textbook case of what Garrett Hardin called, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons.”
Seafood will continue to be nutritious and desirable, however, so how to prevent accelerating destruction? Except for a small number of devotees, mass vegetarianism seems like a fantasy. People don’t like to be lectured that their favorite sustenance is a sin. Party animals aren’t going to stop cracking oyster jokes anytime soon, nor stop trying to impress their dates by ordering shrimp.
Yet stocks can recover if they’re left alone. In Cod, the author noted how much North Atlantic fish populations rebounded when commercial fishing was interrupted for a few years during WW II. But there’s not a prayer that greed will expire any time soon, and we certainly don’t want to look forward to frequent global conflagration in order to reduce pressure on fish stocks.
I feel that aquaculture of various kinds holds great promise. Market hunting of land animals was replaced by agriculture & animal husbandry thousands of years ago in most areas, and it’s been a big improvement. There are some wrinkles in aquaculture — such as mining oceanic fish to make pelletized feed and worrying about escaped farm fish contaminating the wild gene pool — but I believe they can be ironed out. Probably when the first hogs and chickens were raised in pens, the worrywarts of that era raised a hue and cry about “tampering with nature,” too. Nobody wants to torture rodents in order to discover new lifesaving medicines, but as soon as the medicines are there, people expect them to be “free.” Greed and indolence take a lot of different forms. Still, nobody in his right mind really wants to return to hunting and gathering.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 1:01 am
Ruth Rendely:
Why not have people adopt a school of fish through a charitable donation?
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 1:06 am
Fred Sobel:
It may seem like a radical idea to many, but if humans were to adopt the feeling of compassion for other living beings, including sea-dwelling beings, the diversity of life would not face the threats it currently does. I can barely imagine what kind of world we would have if, rather than seeinfg all animal life life as things to kill and consume, we instead felt a sense of shared history, a familial sensibility for our shared ancestry, our shared struggle to endure amidst the trials and tribulations of life on our mutual home, a planet called Earth.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 1:12 am
Lacy Syverson:
Legislation must change to protect the ocean environment, even if it comes at the financial expense of some fishing operations. Certain types of fishing that are more detrimental to “by-catch” species and reefs should be outlawed, including long line and bottom trawling. Personally, I think fishing should be banned completely, but since that will not happen, it would be best to see some concern for the ecosystems involved.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 1:13 am
hpham:
At the least, we should be taking DNA samples from endangered species to ensure that there will be some way to resurrect species if the worse case scenarios do occur. This process is already being done with respect to other endangered species, and I hope that we are already doing it with endangered fish.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 1:14 am
Joel Kawahara:
I offer the following thoughts on keeping fish stocks from collapsing by mid century as well as comments on the article in Science.
In general, I agree with Steve Murawskin of NOAA Fisheries about fisheries management in the United States. The system of regional fisheries councils with decision makers from various sectors of the fishing industry can effectively manage fisheries for sustainable harvest. I have personal experience with the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) and I believe that sustainability of fisheries is foremost in the minds of the councilors as they decide fisheries rules. While there are some ways this process could be made better, the over all framework of industry/stakeholder participation with rigorous scientific guidelines can protect and recover stocks of fish.
Centralized, top down management does not work, as shown by evidence in Canadian fisheries. Managing for economic goals does not work, as demonstrated by the Georges Bank cod stock collapse. Managing in a scientific vacuum most certainly does not work, as demonstrated by over fishing caused depletion of West Coast Rockfish stocks. Politically driven decision making might be the worst possible way to manage fish stocks as shown by the fate of many West Coast salmon runs, including salmon from the Klamath, Columbia, and Snake rivers and Puget Sound.
The major shortcoming of the fishery management council system is the lack of authority over habitat necessary for the health of fish stocks and of the ocean in general. It was only in the last ten years that Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been identified and fishery plans altered to protect EFH. However, the councils only have authority to regulate fishing practices in EFH, while other agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries when their actions impact EFH. NOAA Fisheries does not have authority to veto non fishing activities that impact or damage EFH. Thus salmon spawning rivers are not protected by the fishery councils, but depend on an array of agencies, not all of whom feel it is their duty to protect salmon habitat. Such is the case on the Snake and Columbia River where the Army Corps of Engineers manage the dams for power and have to be sued to provide water ( flow and spill) for salmon. Likewise on the Klamath and Trinity rivers water for salmon is controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation who have shown utmost disregard for salmon in drought years , resulting in death to juvenile and adult salmon.
Political meddling plagues NOAA Fisheries. The spokesman for NOAA Fisheries Northwest must clear all statements with DC. The White House Council on Environmental Quality announces salmon policies that West Coast Salmon scientists and managers had no chance to review. There are numerous reports of NOAA scientists either having to change their results and conclusions of scientific investigations or face having the reports buried and never officially released. This interference destroys stakeholder faith in agency science and all but eliminates the ability to honestly deal with fisheries issues. Fisheries science, in fact all science, conducted by government agencies must be free of political interference or we face policy making by the government becoming an act of voodoo and mysticism.
Can fisheries councils work in developing nations? I have faith in fishermen, in particular small scale, barely industrialized ones. Give them the information and decision making power, and they will opt to scale their fisheries to sustainable levels. Every fisherman around the world has heard the stories of fishing right after World War Two from his elders and how good it used to be. Every fisherman wishes that it was still that good. I think that given the chance to manage their way back to good fishing, all fishermen would do so. Fisheries management tools such as Individual Fishing Quotas that are strictly regulated to maintain small scale fishermen can promote long term thinking in otherwise hand to mouth economies. Given a stake in their future, most rational fishermen would make sure they don’t blow it.
The most advances sustainable fisheries management scheme will fail in the absence of authority to regulate any and all impacts to fish habitat and ocean ecology. If the world wants to protect fish stocks and fisheries, we all must demand that land use and water use and pollution controls be re-written to provide a high degree of protection of aquatic and marine habitats and ecosystems. For instance, coral reefs are dying at an alarming rate. Global warming appears to be the culprit. Dying with the reefs are vast ecosystems that provide essential niches and services for large complexes of fish. Oil Spills in marine environments result in long term (at least decades) negative effects on populations of marine organisms. Fish stocks in spill areas not only show highly reduced productivity, but also carry high burdens of hydrocarbons, as shown in studies of Prince William Sound in the decades following the Exxon Valdes oil disaster. If we want fish after the middle of the century, we will have to tackle some of our most vexing and expensive environmental projects comprehensively and quickly.
A quick note about aquaculture. We can continue to raise fish, but with the loss of marine stocks predicted by Worm et al, we will have to feed our farm fish on terrestrial based food. We will not gain any of the benefits of eating marine fish because there will not be omega-3s of marine origin, meaning there will be neither eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) nor docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), important omega-3 fatty acids. In short, aquaculture will only raise chickens with fins.
What can be done now to protect marine life and many species of fish that could face extinction by midcentury if overfishing continues?
Related Article
109 comments
megan adams:
I think there should be a category system for all fish, like an ‘organic’ category for veggies, that tells consumers whether fish came from a sustainable fishery.
I also think that the markets in the developed world should simply shut their doors to fish that comes from collapsing fisheries.
Perhaps also trade sanctions against offenders should be allowed.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:02 pm
John McMillan:
As a former commercial fisherman and seafood processing administrator in Alaska, I have seen the value that a sustainable fishery offers to the economy and life style. I also am aware of rampant overfishing especially on the high seas and the damage this does to the environment.
Fisheries that show signs of sustainability are best regulated by limited entry permits or quotas. Fish stocks that are in danger or even questionable should be terminated to allow them to recover.
Unfortunately most of the political pressure that allows overfishing to continue is generated by large corporations with deep pockets.
There is one way that each of us can “vote” in this matter and that is by purchasing seafood (or ordering seafood) that is acquired in sustainable ways. Ask your grocer or waiter where the seafood comes from and if it is from sustainable stocks. Better still, purchase seafood locally, not from a fast food restaurant that has large corporation ties.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Leslie:
One of the best infromational pieces re over-fishing was from Monterey Acquarium. It included a simple red, yellow, green indication system of fish that are OK to eat, those you should only eat from wild catch and/or from certain areas, and those to avoid. I carried it in my wallet until it fell appart. The problem is that its focus was Pacific fish given Monterey’s focus.
I believe well informed consumers can make a difference. Likewise, restaurants need to get behind the effort to save the species we like to eat. Omit from menus with explanation.
- Leslie
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Robert LaPorta:
The primary cause of overfishing is the same cause of water shortages, urban sprawl, the release of excessive amounts of greenhouse gases and many many other problems. There are simply too many people in the world chasing too few resources. There are now more than 6 billion people on the earth and it the population is “suppose” to level off at about 9-11 billion people. If you think things are bad now, wait until we get to 11 billion.
Unless we can control our population levels we may be doomed to sterile seas, shortages of many materials, water, and a worsening of the lives of people.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Peter Moseley:
Stop the growth of the world’s human population. Human birth control is essential and should not be held hostage to obsolete religious notions.
If Bill & Melinda Gates succeed, the human race and the fish are in even deeper trouble unless the saved lives restrict their procreation.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Glenn Arnold:
If there can be farm subsidies that pay for not producing certain crops, perhaps a like scheme can be arranged for fishermen.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:08 pm
John R.:
If we take steps to slow human population growth around the world we can avoid or solve a number of enviromental problems.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Albie:
Halt all commercial and sport fishing for 10 years while scientists and fisherman sort out how to return to some form of sustainable fishing. The 10 years will allow fish populations to rebound. The fishing part of our economy will be dormant for 10 years, but will return healthier, just like the fish.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Greg Hacke:
One answer to to this problem is the same answer that applies to the energy crisis and all other environmental issues, but which is rarely talked about in the media: birth control. A number of scientists have estimated that the earth can only support a population of about 3 billion people at western living standards, and yet we currently have 6 billion and in the next 50 years we will have 9 billion people on this planet using up resources that can not be replaced. Imagine what an extra 3 billion people will do to the environment when the current population is already destroying the planet. Rational family planning is the only long term solution to saving the planet, but you rarely see it talked about in a media that is apparently afraid of the subject in the face of opposition from religious conservatives.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Mike L:
As an economics major it would be irresponsible for me not to recommend using fishing licenses to control the fish stocks. International trade organization/international law reform is another potential avenue for control of fish populations, since a lot of fishing occurs in international waters. Also, since people aren’t going to stop eating fish, regardless of their status as endangered or not (because it’s so good!), companies that farm fish should be given incentives to develop a sort of “organic” fish that doesn’t create the environmental problems that accompanies current fish farming methods, so that people who want that “wild” quality could be satisfied with an alternative to wild fish.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Michele:
(I make these comments as a consumer, and I don’t know much about the fishing industry, although I suspect that many fishermen (who actually know the trade - not giant commercial enterprises) would prefer to fish enough to make a living, and then let the oceans recover…)
Although the widely disparate economic status of different nations enters into this issue (i.e., fish is a great protein source, more readily available than chicken or beef, etc. to poorer nations whose populations need access to more foods with a high nutritional value…but, as Marx would say, if the goal of the system was to feed everyone, then everyone would be fed. ) - it seems to me our food chains in the Western world are luxuriantly over-supplied, and inefficient. We don’t need endless choice & bottomless plates of sushi, and we throw away much too much. I don’t think that I should be able to eat anything I want, 24/7, just because. Don’t even care to. Maybe some increased demand-side awareness would help this issue. Global issues must be understood as local issues now. Fish, air, water, oil, people…
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:27 pm
MARK KLEIN, M.D.:
Probably nothing. The days of enforceable global treaty making are over.
Globalization is already converting millions from subsistence diets, often locally caught seafood, to industrial foods. The problem today in most of the world isn’t starvation and malnutrition but the ravages of gluttony in the form of Type II diabetes.
By the time commercial fishing stocks are depleted most of the world will be eating Big Macs and frozen pizza. When the fishing fleets get beached because of poor catches, ocean life will slowly recover.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Darwin Vickers:
Obviously people are not going to stop fishing so why don’t we raise fish to re-stock the Oceans as we do with many lakes and rivers?
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Davy Davidson:
What can be done is humans can stop eating sea and all animals. Most of our human evolution was fueled by eating plants with small quantities of meat. There are now too many of us to sustainably eat animals of any kind. Even organically raised animals produce too much poop. Eating animals takes away biodiversity, is the second largest cause of global warming and is so last century. It is time to share our earth with all the animals of the sea, land and air. A vegan diet is without question the healthiest for ourselves and our earth.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:38 pm
jimstar:
This is a no-brainer. Let’s not allow commercial fishermen to harvest the ocean.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Julia Burgen:
Answers are in article and in common sense which has been stated already many times: Eliminate wholesale catching methods which focuses on elite species and throws away huge numbers and other species. Stop fishing habitats already in distress. International rules and policing must happen.
In the meantime people must change their eating habits, especially in the U.S. and other wealthy nations. We seldom eat shrimp because of the bycatch impacts. We only eat certain tuna which are not fished improperly. In fact we don’t eat much fish at all, because of not knowing total picture of the catch. When I do buy fish I consult lists prepared by Ocean Conservancy or Monterrey Bay Aquarium, etc. for safe fish to buy. And that means safe in terms of human health, but mostly in terms of health of fish species.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Kathryn McDonald:
We need to be very careful about what we eat. We also need to put pressure on other countries (and help those who depend on the fishing economy) to stop bottom fishing and net fishing.
posted on November 2nd, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Joe Shea:
Dat worm from da lousy university is depressin me!
Seriously , if we suspended (through state laws) the sale of threatened species right now, we could eat seafood by the ton five years from now. But the political will that would take? Don’t ask, not in this paralyzed country.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:04 am
Joel L. Friedlander:
If we have overfished certain species of fish and they will soon become extinct, it seems to be a no brainer to stop fishing those species. There are plenty of other sources of protein that can be substituted while we allow the fish stocks to return to viable levels. What is needed is a little self control. For a long time it looked like the striped bass wouldn’t be able to survive on the East Coast of the United States, well, we restrained ourselves and now there are plenty to go around both for sport fishing and for food. We are an old species ourselves; a little maturity is in order.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 am
robert frunzi:
Bush has to go and elect a democratic president who beleives
in global warming. We have to start bringing in to alternative sources
of fuel in a major way.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:22 am
Christopher Reader:
Stop overfishing.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:25 am
Gabriel Peterson:
Make better choices when we select seafood. Programs like Seafood Watch at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, www.seafoodwatch.org, give consumers and businesses all the tools they need to select sustainable seafood.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 am
Christine:
Stop eating fish and other seafoods. Stop buying and discarding toxic products. Eat organically produced foods (no runoff from farms). Stop using products that contribute to global warming (i.e., stop buying gas guzzlers). Simple changes can have profound results if enough people cooperate.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 12:47 am
Tom Gelsthorpe:
I’ve lived on Cape Cod for more than 40 years, have done a fair amount of recreational fishing and I’ve never seen a live cod, except in an aquarium. That tells you something, eh?
I recently read the book, Cod, and it basically says that the cod which were so abundant for centuries that they supported half of Europe and provided impetus towards settling North America, have long since been fished out.
Another statistical tidbit I came across recently claimed that Japan alone consumes something like one third of the world’s seafood. So the overfishing phenomenon is worldwide.
I get the distinct impression that fish have been mined rather than harvested, and that the long-term knowability of it demonstrates a textbook case of what Garrett Hardin called, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons.”
Seafood will continue to be nutritious and desirable, however, so how to prevent accelerating destruction? Except for a small number of devotees, mass vegetarianism seems like a fantasy. People don’t like to be lectured that their favorite sustenance is a sin. Party animals aren’t going to stop cracking oyster jokes anytime soon, nor stop trying to impress their dates by ordering shrimp.
Yet stocks can recover if they’re left alone. In Cod, the author noted how much North Atlantic fish populations rebounded when commercial fishing was interrupted for a few years during WW II. But there’s not a prayer that greed will expire any time soon, and we certainly don’t want to look forward to frequent global conflagration in order to reduce pressure on fish stocks.
I feel that aquaculture of various kinds holds great promise. Market hunting of land animals was replaced by agriculture & animal husbandry thousands of years ago in most areas, and it’s been a big improvement. There are some wrinkles in aquaculture — such as mining oceanic fish to make pelletized feed and worrying about escaped farm fish contaminating the wild gene pool — but I believe they can be ironed out. Probably when the first hogs and chickens were raised in pens, the worrywarts of that era raised a hue and cry about “tampering with nature,” too. Nobody wants to torture rodents in order to discover new lifesaving medicines, but as soon as the medicines are there, people expect them to be “free.” Greed and indolence take a lot of different forms. Still, nobody in his right mind really wants to return to hunting and gathering.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 1:01 am
Ruth Rendely:
Why not have people adopt a school of fish through a charitable donation?
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 1:06 am
Fred Sobel:
It may seem like a radical idea to many, but if humans were to adopt the feeling of compassion for other living beings, including sea-dwelling beings, the diversity of life would not face the threats it currently does. I can barely imagine what kind of world we would have if, rather than seeinfg all animal life life as things to kill and consume, we instead felt a sense of shared history, a familial sensibility for our shared ancestry, our shared struggle to endure amidst the trials and tribulations of life on our mutual home, a planet called Earth.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 1:12 am
Lacy Syverson:
Legislation must change to protect the ocean environment, even if it comes at the financial expense of some fishing operations. Certain types of fishing that are more detrimental to “by-catch” species and reefs should be outlawed, including long line and bottom trawling. Personally, I think fishing should be banned completely, but since that will not happen, it would be best to see some concern for the ecosystems involved.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 1:13 am
hpham:
At the least, we should be taking DNA samples from endangered species to ensure that there will be some way to resurrect species if the worse case scenarios do occur. This process is already being done with respect to other endangered species, and I hope that we are already doing it with endangered fish.
posted on November 3rd, 2006 at 1:14 am
Joel Kawahara:
I offer the following thoughts on keeping fish stocks from collapsing by mid century as well as comments on the article in Science.
In general, I agree with Steve Murawskin of NOAA Fisheries about fisheries management in the United States. The system of regional fisheries councils with decision makers from various sectors of the fishing industry can effectively manage fisheries for sustainable harvest. I have personal experience with the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) and I believe that sustainability of fisheries is foremost in the minds of the councilors as they decide fisheries rules. While there are some ways this process could be made better, the over all framework of industry/stakeholder participation with rigorous scientific guidelines can protect and recover stocks of fish.
Centralized, top down management does not work, as shown by evidence in Canadian fisheries. Managing for economic goals does not work, as demonstrated by the Georges Bank cod stock collapse. Managing in a scientific vacuum most certainly does not work, as demonstrated by over fishing caused depletion of West Coast Rockfish stocks. Politically driven decision making might be the worst possible way to manage fish stocks as shown by the fate of many West Coast salmon runs, including salmon from the Klamath, Columbia, and Snake rivers and Puget Sound.
The major shortcoming of the fishery management council system is the lack of authority over habitat necessary for the health of fish stocks and of the ocean in general. It was only in the last ten years that Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been identified and fishery plans altered to protect EFH. However, the councils only have authority to regulate fishing practices in EFH, while other agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries when their actions impact EFH. NOAA Fisheries does not have authority to veto non fishing activities that impact or damage EFH. Thus salmon spawning rivers are not protected by the fishery councils, but depend on an array of agencies, not all of whom feel it is their duty to protect salmon habitat. Such is the case on the Snake and Columbia River where the Army Corps of Engineers manage the dams for power and have to be sued to provide water ( flow and spill) for salmon. Likewise on the Klamath and Trinity rivers water for salmon is controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation who have shown utmost disregard for salmon in drought years , resulting in death to juvenile and adult salmon.
Political meddling plagues NOAA Fisheries. The spokesman for NOAA Fisheries Northwest must clear all statements with DC. The White House Council on Environmental Quality announces salmon policies that West Coast Salmon scientists and managers had no chance to review. There are numerous reports of NOAA scientists either having to change their results and conclusions of scientific investigations or face having the reports buried and never officially released. This interference destroys stakeholder faith in agency science and all but eliminates the ability to honestly deal with fisheries issues. Fisheries science, in fact all science, conducted by government agencies must be free of political interference or we face policy making by the government becoming an act of voodoo and mysticism.
Can fisheries councils work in developing nations? I have faith in fishermen, in particular small scale, barely industrialized ones. Give them the information and decision making power, and they will opt to scale their fisheries to sustainable levels. Every fisherman around the world has heard the stories of fishing right after World War Two from his elders and how good it used to be. Every fisherman wishes that it was still that good. I think that given the chance to manage their way back to good fishing, all fishermen would do so. Fisheries management tools such as Individual Fishing Quotas that are strictly regulated to maintain small scale fishermen can promote long term thinking in otherwise hand to mouth economies. Given a stake in their future, most rational fishermen would make sure they don’t blow it.
The most advances sustainable fisheries management scheme will fail in the absence of authority to regulate any and all impacts to fish habitat and ocean ecology. If the world wants to protect fish stocks and fisheries, we all must demand that land use and water use and pollution controls be re-written to provide a high degree of protection of aquatic and marine habitats and ecosystems. For instance, coral reefs are dying at an alarming rate. Global warming appears to be the culprit. Dying with the reefs are vast ecosystems that provide essential niches and services for large complexes of fish. Oil Spills in marine environments result in long term (at least decades) negative effects on populations of marine organisms. Fish stocks in spill areas not only show highly reduced productivity, but also carry high burdens of hydrocarbons, as shown in studies of Prince William Sound in the decades following the Exxon Valdes oil disaster. If we want fish after the middle of the century, we will have to tackle some of our most vexing and expensive environmental projects comprehensively and quickly.
A quick note about aquaculture. We can continue to raise fish, but with the loss of marine stocks predicted by Worm et al, we will have to feed our farm fish on terrestrial based food. We will not gain any of the benefits of eating marine fish because there will not be omega-3s of marine origin, meaning there will be neither eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) nor docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), important omega-3 fatty acids. In short, aquaculture will only raise chickens with fins.
