>THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 unless fishing fleets are slashed and stocks allowed to recover, UN experts warned.
An important lesson from the Canadian cod collapse is that when populations drop below a critical threshold, the stocks never recover.
That may be due to the cod being an apex predator. I.e. has the total biomass of the region collapsed?
However this is a classic Tragedy of the Commons example and the fact that Canada dithered long enough for it to reach what looks like a point of no return is sobering (I was living in the Boston area in the dozen years leading up to Canada's closing of fishery and remember reading articles about this). Some governments are simply not going to handle this well for the regions of the ocean they economically control, and plenty of the ocean (although I don't know how much of it is how productive) is beyond those areas.
All that said, we're likely to see a continuation of farm raised fish replacing wild catched. Something akin to this happened thousands of years ago as we converted to agriculture.
Mostly that, but as a member of a family that hunts growing up in an agricultural region (SW Missouri) I also know that the process of converting to agriculture radically changed the environment, especially the fauna. By and large a lot of wild flora continued to exist on unfarmed land, but that provided a lot less cover etc. for animal species who's various requirements got zapped. Nowadays hunters work with farmers to e.g. leave enough quail habitat at the edges of fields.
Another thing that happened was that apex predators of domestic animals were suppressed and/or replaced by other predator domestic animals like the dog and cat. In general for lots of reasons the populations of humans grew substantially beyond what wild game could support.
Although deer in the US are something of a special case. They're really thriving, we could harvest quite a few more (and in a number of places desperately need to), heck, they're the most deadly animal in the US (through car crashes). This of course wouldn't happen in countries where meat was at more of a premium and/or where the population density was a lot higher.
In Australia they killed the megafauna but never went back to the agriculture they'd had and perhaps forgotten, or so said Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel.
Make sure to watch the film The End of the Line: http://endoftheline.com/ - which explains the Canadian Cod collapse,the current state of affairs, and potential solutions.
Also take the time to watch some of the recent TED talks from Mission Blue which offer a good outline of the state of the ocean's and potential solutions.
In my country for long there were no such problems because the government imposed the proihibition of fisherman to go out to get some kinds of species during their mating and growing time. That way fish was allowed to reproduce and grow. Every time the fish you're eating has eggs a few dozens of new fishes could have been spared if the reproduction was allowed to take place. Also sometimes the nets used to catch the fish are too tight not allowing baby fishes to get out.
The problem with the law was that it was in reality imposing a time of starvation every year to the fishermans and their families, while the same species could be bought at the markets imported from other countries. The measure was one of the first to be abandoned when the political regime changed.
I don't really know what is the possibility of fishing companies to cycle between the fishing species during the year to let the other species grow, but that still seems like an alternative to me.
I also think that a fish diet is much more healthy than a meat diet, so a danger like the possible extinction of fishing species shouldn't be taken lightly just because we can get the proteins somewhere else.
Living resources past this zone are free game. If any fishing companies pull out of a region to allow the populations to grow, it only opens up opportunities for other companies to come in.
when there's every incentive to take all you can before everyone else does, this is bound to happen. as someone has already said, this is a repeat of the tragedy of the commons
we need a system of property rights for the seas, rights to fish at certain places and times, that create incentives to not overfish and to protect this valuable resource.
If you own the rights to a stream of income, you don't have the incentive to gut it and sell whatever you can sell now before everyone else.
Agriculture is impossible without property rights also. Why would you plant and take care of plants if anyone can just take what they want?
I see your point, but the difference is that land is fixed and generally easier to enforce authority over. International waters are outside normal jurisdictions by definition, so how do you grant and enforce property rights in non-coastal fisheries?
Say you want to divide up Atlantic fisheries for this purpose, trying to balance the demands of 40 or 50 countries that operate fishing fleets is going to be a nightmare. If you go just by coastal size, where do you draw the line over which countries are allowed to participate? Developed countries with better fishing and food distribution industries, like Canada or the EU, are going to claim larger chunks based on the size of their existing economy, whereas poor countries on the west coast of Africa that don't have blue-water fleets are naturally going to object that they're being cut off from future access to resources.
That's the great thing about marine sanctuaries. You agree upon a region in the middle of the ocean to declare off-limits for fishing. The fish population of those regions repopulates the rest of the ocean, and you have the best of both words. Unrestrained fishing, and stable fish stocks. You can even find perpetrators using satellites, which helps with enforcement.
The hard part is agreeing upon regions both large enough and spanning enough biomes.
I think the really hard part is enforcement. E.g. see the Cod Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars) which were between two relatively developed and sophisticated European countries.
It could get much messier, e.g. imagine the USNavy trying to enforce restrictions in the open seas on trawlers from the PRC.
I'm not sure how useful satellites would be at finding perpetrators for the purposes of enforcement, at least not without sending a ship to confirm details.
"As a result, a fleet of Royal Naval warships and tug-boats were employed to act as a deterrent against any future harassment of British fishing crews by the Icelandic craft. The conflict involved several cases of vessels ramming each other."
Was that all it took to have a conflict classified as a war back then?
It was a definite case of Great Britain stepping way over its bounds as a nation and bullying a much smaller nation with a navy of much smaller proportions over a resource the British themselves had destroyed around their home Island.
Very bad episode, and really reflecting bad on the security council as well, which should have stepped in. Of course th e British had considerable clout politically as well.
If it hadn't been for that NATO base who knows what would have happened.
It was a conflict that was prosecuted by force instead of at negotiation tables, I think that'll suffice for the word "War". There was certainly a lot of treasure expended, if not blood.
Sell all rights to the highest bidder and then distribute the funds to each country according to population.
The ultimate guardian of any property right is the owner. Just as government is unable to keep squatters out of foreclosed properties, so to it is impossible to keep looters out of the seas with active interested owners.
I'm convinced that owners will come up with all sorts of ways to enforce their rights. It will be their money on the line, after all. And if the penalties for poaching are high enough, the incentives are going to be in favor of owners.
The practical effect of this is fish will cost more than just the cost of picking it up out of the ocean. And that's exactly what needs to happen. The price needs to reflect the relative scarcity of these resources in order for people to change their habits.
Property rights can accomplish what we need. Collective ownership has failed and its time to act accordingly.
I'm conflicted -- I enjoy eating fish because of its health benefits but I don't want to contribute to over-fishing. What's the ethical and healthy thing to do? Tofu all day every day?
Our ancestrors did not eat meat or fish every day, today's vegetarians do not eat tofu everyday either. The goal is to be complete in nutrients: you won't be much wrong if you associate cereals, legumes, fresh vegetables, fruits/dried fruits (to get glucids, fibers, proteins, vitamins and minerals) and possibly some dairy products/eggs for lacking nutrients. Think of the traditionnal associations (rice and beans, couscous, houmous and bread, fallafels and pitta ...) and try to be diverse and curious. Cooking is a form of hacking !
Who were your ancestors? How far back are you talking about? Hunter-gatherers? I think you'll find that people ate pretty much everything edible around and that meat was a highly desirable food and eaten whenever possible.
You're right - meat was highly desirable food and eaten whenever possible, HOWEVER - up until the 19th century, unless you were in the very small percentage of rich/privileged, you got a chance to eat meat once a week - tops. And in the agricultural societies, commoners wouldn't even get to eat steak and all the nice parts - when a cow was slaughtered, all the premium parts went to the lord.. all peasants got was some entrails to put in soup.
It's only when the 20th century rolled around, and meat became cheap/available everywhere, that people started eating meat once a day, leading to a spread of all kinds of diseases, heart attacks, cholesterol, cancer, etc.
Really? Is that true? What groups are you talking about?
> It's only when the 20th century rolled around, and meat became cheap/available everywhere, that people started eating meat once a day, leading to a spread of all kinds of diseases, heart attacks, cholesterol, cancer, etc.
Ok, interesting hypothesis. So assuming this is true, people in 1830 ate less meat and had less heart disease than people in 1930, right?
What if I told you, in the US, the opposite is true? That, on average, people ate more meat in 1830 and had less heart disease than people in 1930?
If people aren't eating meat, what are they eating? grains? sugars? How would you create a study to test your hypothesis than meat consumption causes heart disease? Has this been studied? What were the results?
What if I told you, in the US, the opposite is true? That, on average, people ate more meat in 1830
Then I would ask you what your sources are.
If people aren't eating meat, what are they eating? grains? sugars?
Vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, nuts, etc. Most people in the US who eat tons of sugar are not vegetarians.
Since most people eat too much sugar (the average American eats 20 teaspoons of added sugar each day), and only about 5% of the population is vegetarian this seems common sense to me.
> It's only when the 20th century rolled around, and meat became cheap/available everywhere, that people started eating meat once a day, leading to a spread of all kinds of diseases, heart attacks, cholesterol, cancer, etc.
It's not that simple. The Inuit are an obvious counterexample. In fact, if you look at many hunter gatherer societies (Ache, Yanomamo, Waorani, !Kung, etc), almost all eat some form of meat (I'm including arthropods as meat) almost every day.
Cancer, heart disease and other afflictions that appear later in life are probably more common in the 20th century largely because life expectancy is so much longer than it used to be, not because of regular meat eating.
This is a distorted view of history. Western societies in 1800 were among some of the sickliest and weakest that history has ever known, as population pressure was very high relative to available technology. Death in childbirth and childhood were both very common, and people from the Middle Ages enjoyed better health when using measures of average height. I've read speculation that the British Empire gained its edge because its people were able to get a small dietary advantage.
So we should not look at pre-industrial tradition for information on ideal nutrition. Those people were doing everything they could to survive, and they barely succeeded.
Just go back 50/100 years ago before the food industry. I mean in my previous comment I'm taking as example traditionnal dishes which where already quite complete even when people couldn't afford meat/fish at every meal.
You should start by questioning what health benefits people say you are getting. For example, you may not need omega-3 from fish if you reduce other sources of omega-6 in your diet. You should also question anyone that tells you to substitute beans for fish or any vegetable for an animal- the nutrient (and anti-nutrient) composition is going to be entirely different. Fish is generally a good source of vitamin D and iodine in addition to the nutrients of land animals. You can get iodine from seaweed. Eating more than small quantities of properly prepared tofu is making yourself a human experiment. Pasture raised meat is sustainable and healthy. Hopefully we can figure out some sources of sustainable seafood!
I'd assume this is slightly sensationalist? As in not all species of fish and areas are fished simply because of depth, remoteness and species unsuitable for eating.
The article is very shallow, but th problem is very real. the economist has had some very good coverage on this if you want to cruise their website for it.
The main scourge, the UNEP report says, are government subsidies encouraging ever bigger fishing fleets chasing ever fewer fish, with little attempt made to allow the fish populations to recover. The annual 27 billion dollars in government subsidies to fishing, mostly in rich countries, is "perverse," Mr Sukhdev said, since the entire value of fish caught is only 85 billion dollars.
This is the key issue. Being European, I remember since the 1970s that western European nations, particularly Spain, started ranging further afield because they had fished out most of the waters around their own coasts. The result was 'fishing wars' where trawlers would damage the nets or otherwise interfere with boats from competing nations, which resulted in a few diplomatic incidents. Now Euro fishermen catch way out in the mid-Atlantic, and indeed there have been clashes between Euro and Spanish fishing vessels.
Property rights are offered by some Economists as a solution, and I can see the logic of this; on the other hand I am unsure about the probity of just handing people property title for no value, and I'm uncertain about how these can be properly enforced in international waters anyway, absent solid maritime treaties. So in the meantime we have this idiotic subsidy system, which doesn't benefit anyone except the manufacturers of fishing vessels and equipment.
No, quite the opposite. It's actually tamed for public consumption. As bad and as short sighted as it is, over fishing is actually not the worst thing that we've done to the fish populations of the world.
For example, it ignores the fact that in the Pacific Northwest, in an orgy of short-sighted stupidity, we've managed to kill off nearly all of the greatest salmon runs in the lower 48. (Look around for the Elwha dam sometime.)
Nowadays, to find salmon runs the likes of which the Pacific Northwest was once known for you, there's only one place left: Kamchatka. And I have my doubts about how long they'll last. The only problem that the Kamchatka rivers don't have that the Elwha and Columbia Rivers had (some of the world's greatest salmon runs before human stupidity finished them off) is dams.
If the "low fruit" species are fished out, then the more remote, less desirable species are likely to be targeted. There is also the danger of damaging the eco system, or at least destabilizing it in unpredictable ways.
This already well underway. The book & film "End of the Line" is well worth a read. Also the massive disruption of the eco-system by removing large numbers of species has un-predictable knock on effects - for example massive numbers of jelly fish in some areas and of course the algae/plankton population explosions which in turn effect the ecosystem to the detriment of other species.
There is also a lot of deception in the naming of fish. Fish species are renamed in order to make them sound like fish we are used to. The fish species you get in British Fish and Chip shops are rarely the species our parents and grandparents ate
I've always taken that definition of 'planet' to mean, "the way it is now," or, "the parts that we like about it." No one truly believes that humans will cause the planet to cease to exist (at least in the non-SciFi near-future).
> The Earth, life, will go on with or without us.
That doesn't necessarily excuse the destruction that we leave in our path...
You made it abundantly clear that not only didn't you read the article, you're not the least bit interested in learning new facts, just in labeling any concern about the environment as "green scaremongering".
At a certain point economics would dictate that fish farms would be cheaper than commercial fishing due to scarcity. Plus you could probably charge a premium to gouge the hippies for their compassion, desire for 'clean-water' fish, saving the planet rhetoric, and whatnot.
Farmed fish eats fish. For each kg of farmed fish, you have to catch two to five kg fish in the ocean. Some of this is fast-growing and might be ok to harvest in large quantities, but most of it, we don't know.
Farmed fish also spreads disease and destroys the local ecosystem. Chiles coastline is in pretty bad shape because of extremely large scale salmon farming.
Though I'm struggling to think of even just one example of a human-created ecosystem designed to substitute for a natural one that's been at least as sustainable as those existing in nature.
Not really, unless you're willing to stretch sustainable to the breaking point.
As I understand it, after a few years the floor of the fish farm is basically a solid toxic layer of fish food and fish shit, and it becomes unsuitable for farming. That's not sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with the process, just the implementation. The bottom layer is not radioactive, it just needs to be processed properly. Since there is not going to be anything there of significance which is not organic there is not reason you could not move fish from pond A to pond B, and then process the bottom layer of the pond to be fertilizer that will help grow more food to feed to the fish, etc. Since you are talking about years of use in a single location it is pretty obvious that you are not actually talking about known sustainable processes but are tagging that label onto something else.
I think "properly processing" a 3 foot thick layer of sludge on the ocean floor might be a little more difficult than you're making it out to be. Or maybe it's easy. I don't know.
But as things stand right now, the process as implemented is completely unsustainable.
My guess is that at a certain point we will have to reconsider our animal based food habits, not based on ethics but on efficiency mainly. We gain some specific contributions from them (B12 vitamin etc) but for others (most proteins included) there should be more efficient ways to get them. The higher you are on the food chain, the more efficiency you loose on the process, so it would better be for something specifically produced at that point of the chain.
> THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 unless fishing fleets are slashed and stocks allowed to recover, UN experts warned.
I dislike the rise of sensationalism and exaggeration in the media quite a lot. I dislike the rise of sensationalism and exaggeration in the United Nations even more.
It's not sensationalistic. You know damn well they're talking about edible fish that we're accustomed to eating now. You're just being intellectually dishonest.
The thread title was "Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years" - the first line starts with "THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050..." That's sensationalism.
> You know damn well they're talking about edible fish that we're accustomed to eating now.
Actually, the thread title - "Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years" made me click on it, because I thought it was about ecosystems getting destroyed by oil spills, or pollution, or something. And then the article was just about overfishing. And it exaggerates the chances.
> You're just being intellectually dishonest.
C'mon now, that's totally unnecessary - nightmare scenario of fishless oceans is sensationalism. There's an important point there, but the hand-wringing is a bad trend in my opinion. Exaggerating the effects of terrorism, pollution, fishing, copyright infringing piracy, and so on - it's a bad trend in my opinion. And if you disagree, why not be civil about it? "I don't think it's too sensationalistic because x, y, and z..." would work.
But the point is that it IS a nightmare scenario, since the situation is virtually unrecoverable. Ask any marine biologist about the chances of restoring any ecosystem of such dynamics past a point of no return (I work with them, so I HAVE asked).
Again, you're making a huge fuss out of something that is a technicality, because it IS a nightmare scenario, it IS coming, and for us as humen beings it's as disastrous as claimed.
An important lesson from the Canadian cod collapse is that when populations drop below a critical threshold, the stocks never recover.