Centuries of Overfishing Push Ecosystems to the Brink

Scripps Institution of Oceanography ^ | Mario Aguilera

[No Truce With Kings]

"If fish populations are dwindling due to overfishing, I still favor building hatcheries and dumping them into the open sea once they've grown large enough to have a better survival rate."

Might work, might not. The biggest problem is fishing technology. A ground trawl will literally scoop up everything above the ocean bottom -- even hatchlings. That is what has cleared out the Grand Banks. The North Atlantic Cod may be facing extinction due to overfishing. Due to the life cycle of the cod, even using hatchlings may not work. The hatchlings get scooped up before they can breed -- and really before they reach a commercial size. (All of the non-commercial fish caught typically get ground into fish meal, and sold to Third World countries.) This factory fishing is done by governments, so your fears about multinationals corporations squeezing out the little guy are misplaced. The Little guys are getting squeezed out by governments, against which they have even less defense than they would against corporations.

Bag limits or size limits tend to work poorly as conservation tools. The fishermen catch as many as they can, then keep the largest, and dump the culls overboard -- many of which are dead, killed in the catching process.

About the only things that would give fish a chance to recover would be: (a) banning 20th-century fishing technology, and going back to hand-lines and such. (b) A new world war, that would keep humans too busy shooting at each other to fish commercially (both WWI and WWII allowed stressed species to recover). (c) Giving individuals the right to "own" the resource rights of patches of oceans.

I do not understand why ownership of ocean should be any more controversial than ownership of land. Remember that up until modern times (perhaps 1500) most land used for grazing or gathering purposes was not owned by individuals. It was owned in common or by governments. That is what led to the phenomena now affecting the oceans -- the tragedy of the commons.

Once private ownership of land was allowed corporate ownership followed. Corporations owned the big cattle ranches in Texas (remember XIT, anyone?), and yet no one would rationally argue that the dangers of corporate ownership of land should cause us to revert to holding land in common. Ownership of the ocean should not bar travel over that patch of ocean any more than owning land bars airplanes from flying over that land.

[No Truce With Kings]

"It can be fixed, but it won't be even close to easy.

Over fishing is REAL, it is not some enviro-wacko propaganda lie. But nothing about it is simple."

Yup. No easy answers. You outlined some of the problems I highlighted about conservation laws while I was typing my reply to Willie Green. The only sure thing about efforts to stop overfishing is that the law of unintended consequences always makes its presence felt.

[wildbill]

well, I suppose the reason for "over-fishing" is being "under-fed." I don't think anyone over-fishes in order to pile up loads of rotting stinking fish. The population boom creates a need for more food. I don't know of an answer that isn't Malthusian.

[Willie Green]

Might work, might not. The biggest problem is fishing technology.

Oh I certainly agree that it's no panacea and that there are other aspects that need to be addressed.

I'm simply tossing in my 2¢ by promoting a simple idea that should be of some help and can't really hurt. I'm sure there are many people more familiar with aquaculture and marine biology that could hash out the details a lot better than me. As a sportsfisherman, I'm simply expanding my favorable impression and appreciation of freshwater hatcheries, whose benefits I've enjoyed for many, many years.

[No Truce With Kings]

"As a sportsfisherman, I'm simply expanding my favorable impression and appreciation of freshwater hatcheries, whose benefits I've enjoyed for many, many years."

Yes, but that is what underscores the weakness of your analogy. You are a sport fisherman, and fish for pleasure. Hatcheries is a great answer for that need, and most are supported through user fees (fishing licences, etc.)

However, commercial fishing is a different breed of cat. There are different needs and expectation. In fact, sport fishermen are often direct competitors. In Texas, sport fishermen at times have attempted to kill commercial fishing for fear that the commercial fishermen would catch all the redfish.

I am an amateur gardener. I love fresh herbs in my food and grow my own. But the methods I use would probably leave me exhausted and broke, if I tried to make a living at it.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Did anyone count ALL the fish at the beginning of creation and have they counted them recently, then subtract the difference to see if this is true?

[Willie Green]

Hatcheries is a great answer for that need, and most are supported through user fees (fishing licences, etc.)

And similarly, I've proposed hatchery support through fees on commercial fishing licenses.

But the methods I use would probably leave me exhausted and broke, if I tried to make a living at it.

I'm afraid that's where your analogy is off.
I merely support freshwater hatcheries with the small fee that's part of my sports fishing license. I do not actually operate the freshwater hatchery myself. The larger fees that would be appropriate for commercial fishing licenses would also be suitable for sustaining the saltwater hatcheries.

[SteveSenti]

Did anyone count ALL the fish at the beginning of creation and have they counted them recently, then subtract the difference to see if this is true?

LOL! This is such a hilarious point. The irony of it, is that the question is truly legitimate. Of course the voo doo environmentalists refuse to answer because it throws their argument out the window.

[No Truce With Kings]

"I'm afraid that's where your analogy is off.
I merely support freshwater hatcheries with the small fee that's part of my sports fishing license. I do not actually operate the freshwater hatchery myself. The larger fees that would be appropriate for commercial fishing licenses would also be suitable for sustaining the saltwater hatcheries."

Actually, your answer demonstrates how dead-on my analogy is.

You fish for sport. You go out to catch a few fish -- perhaps enough for a few dinners with friends. If you do not catch any, big deal. Once you have enough, you go home. You would consider it unsporting to catch 20 fish, intending to keep five, then keeping the biggest five you catch, and throwing the rest back in, dead or alive.

A commercial fisherman is out to maximize catch. The most fish in the least time. If he does not catch any, he and his family do without.

That means he goes for profit-maximizing strategies. If he gets charged a flat fee for his licence, he loads the boat to the gunnales so that the fee is amortized among the most fish possible. If he is charged per fish, he pulls in as many fish as he can, keeps the largest, and throws the rest back. In neither case does he have an incentive for leaving anything. If he does not catch to his limit, someone else will get the fish.

Unless you limit the number of commercial fishing licences sold. (I don't know of a single state that limits sports fishing licences.) Once you do that, then the licence itself gains value, above and beyond the value of the fish. It becomes an entre to the market, like gates at an airport. The small guy gets muscled out by corporations with sufficient capital to buy the licences. Unlike an individual commercial fisher, corporations have no sentimentality for what they do -- maximize profits is their goal.

Thus, unless you somehow limit access to the resources -- which you seem unwilling to do -- we have the tragedy of the commons -- the fact that everyone using common resources has to rip them out as fast as possible, to make sure they get their before the hoarders do.

Of course, you could simply ramp up the fish hatcheries to meet demand. I suspect that there are hatchery limits that will be reached before demand limits are reached, especially if the government -- running the hatcheries in your scenario -- do not pass on the full costs of running them. In that case, they are subsidizing the fishers, in the same way that governments subsidize farming.

Remember -- as long as there is money to be made, more people will be attracted to an occupation. So while sport fishing demand stays pretty constant (it is a hobby) if governments subsidize fishing by providing hatcheries below the cost of running them, more and more people will go into commercial fishing as a way to make a living.

Plus there are other issues with commercial breeding that compound if breeding is done on a large scale in a centralized location. Genetic diversity for one. If one central hatchery uses the same stock for reproduction you can get a species that becomes vunerable to disease (remember the Irish potato famine?) Ocean-bred cod, for example, had disease-susceptible traits bred out of the gene pool relatively quickly. (This is less of an issue for sports hatcheries because the numbers are smaller. It also tends not to affect fish farming, when the farming is done in a decentralized manner.)

So, as I said initially, the quart-jar process of hatcheries for sport fishing may not easily ramp up to produce the water-barrel sized quantities needed for commercial fishing. I think ultimately, the best steward for a resource is an individual owner. Cattle production soared once the cattle were penned onto ranches owned by individuals rather than allowed to range and be harvested as a common resource (as was done in the Caribbean during the 1500s and 1600s -- giving rise to the buccaneers) or while owned by individuals wander on the open range (as done in the American West in the early 1800s). "Owning" the ocean is a new concept, but I am beginning to like it.

[Willie Green]

Thus, unless you somehow limit access to the resources -- which you seem unwilling to do --

Not unwilling, simply ignoring that aspect.
Too many people already yammering about limiting access.
It's boring tunnel vision.
All I'm doing is offering a positive suggestion for trying to increase the supply.
If you don't want to try to increase supply, and instead just engage in a nasty battle over which way of limiting access, that's your problem, not mine.

[tickles]

Doesn't the gov. already lease areas? A internet friend and her hubby raise clams off the coast somewhere in FL. From what she's said at times it sounded like they leased the area where he puts in the clams and later harvests them. Perhaps I misunderstood tho.

[SauronOfMordor]

The government may currently lease areas for things like clam harvesting just off the beach. What this thread is talking about is establishing private property rights to sections of ocean far outside the territory of countries.

[altayann]

CFC's and Ozone

And as for the claim that a heavier than air gas couldn't possibly rise far enough to damage the ozone layer, I'd remind you that steel is a substance heavier than water, but given the right set of circumstances it can float to the top. More details

[cogitator]

Check your food chains. An abundance of small invertebrates and microbes (food) will lead to an abundance of 'higher' predators. As food is easier to obtain, reproduction and survival rates for predators increase. It's seen all the time in nature.....cycles for rabbits and bobcats mirror each other, for instance.

The problem is, the higher predators have been drastically reduced and even the next trophic level down (species like menhaden) are being significantly depleted.

[cogitator]

Odd that sensitive ocean species like lobster and sea scallops are still about $10.00/lb (here in Indiana... think shipping costs). If the ecosystem was failing, they would be among the first to decline. If they declined, their prices would increase (darn those greedy capitalist pigs!).

See if you can find out where the scallops are from. In a trade of anecdotes, many seafood restaurants have had to remove popular choices like swordfish and snapper from their "everyday" menus (as opposed to catch-of-the-day specials) due to lack of supply combined with high prices. Restaurants such as Red Lobster and the Chart House have been affected in this manner.

[cogitator]

For it to work, we need to establish ownership over stretches of ocean. The owners can then establish hatcheries with confidence that they can get back their investments from fishing.

In a related vein, research published last year showed that protection of species in marine reserves results in higher-than-expected rates of recovery of species populations. The reserves then act as source areas to repopulate adjacent waters, which can be fished commercially. So the reserves have to be well-protected for this to work; the U.S. can do an adequate job of this, but poaching is rampant in vital areas such as the southwestern Pacific.

[cogitator]

But what will happen is, at the rate things are headed, someday we'll all be stuck eating tilapia, instead of tuna.

I'll hazard a minor prediction: for the period 2005-2015 or so, I think that many major commercial open ocean fisheries will be closed, and the consumption of "seafood" (including freshwater species like tilapia) will be primarily of farm-raised stocks.

(I wish those jumping carp that are invading the Illinois River were edible. Man, they're HUGE!)