Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Has the Sea Given Up Its Bounty?
NY Times ^ | July 29, 2003 | WILLIAM J. BROAD and ANDREW C. REVKIN

Posted on 07/29/2003 9:42:51 AM PDT by presidio9

ost of the earth's surface is covered by oceans, and their vastness and biological bounty were long thought to be immune to human influence. But no more. Scientists and marine experts say decades of industrial-scale assaults are taking a heavy toll.

More than 70 percent of commercial fish stocks are now considered fully exploited, overfished or collapsed. Sea birds and mammals are endangered. And a growing number of marine species are reaching the precariously low levels where extinction is considered a real possibility.

"It's an incipient disaster," said Richard Ellis, author of "The Empty Ocean."

A rush of recent studies, reports, books and conferences have described the situation as a crisis and urged governments and the industry to enact substantial changes.

Behind the assault, experts say, are steady advances in technology, national subsidies to fishing fleets and booming markets for seafood. Demand is up partly because fish is considered healthier to eat than chicken and red meat.

Directed by precise sonar and navigation gear, more than 23,000 fishing vessels of over 100 tons and several million small ones are scouring the sea with trawls that sweep up bottom fish and shrimp; setting miles of lines and hooks baited for tuna, swordfish and other big predators; and deploying other gear in a hunt for seafood in ever deeper, more distant waters.

Flash freezers allow them to preserve their catch so they can sweep waters right to the fringes of Antarctica. The trade is so global that an 80-year-old Patagonian toothfish hooked south of Australia can end up served by its more market-friendly name, Chilean sea bass, in a San Francisco bistro.

Seafood industry officials say overfishing and disregard for environmental harm peaked a decade ago. They point to the spreading adoption of gear that avoids unintended catches, acceptance of quotas and other limits, and agreements to conserve ocean-roaming fishes like tunas.

"We now have a better understanding of the limitations of the resources," said Linda Candler of the National Fisheries Institute, an industry lobbying group.

Federal fisheries officials note that although 80 American fish stocks have serious problems, restoration plans are in the works, and other stocks are rebounding. The North Atlantic swordfish is often cited as a sign of success. After limits were imposed four years ago, it has now largely recovered.

Pietro Parravano, who trolls for salmon out of Half Moon Bay, Calif., said fishery critics tended to overlook damage done by pollution and destruction of coastal wetlands. "It's not just our activity that's leading to this decline," he said. "If fishermen are doing something wrong, they're willing to adapt."

The Problems Experts Worry About Extinctions

Marine scientists have recently reported that improvements in fish stocks, where seen, are from depleted base lines that are a dim hint of the ocean's former bounty.

In the early 20th century, harpooned swordfish were routinely 300 pounds apiece. Swordfish caught on long-line hooks by the mid-1990's averaged less than 90 pounds, barely big enough to reproduce. Improvements since then, biologists say, hardly represent a resurgence.

Cod, which once could reach six feet in length, have essentially vanished off eastern Canada. Despite closures of fishing grounds, they may never come back, biologists say, because overfishing has so profoundly changed the ecosystem.

One consolation to biologists measuring such changes is knowing that commercial extinction — the point when a fishery is abandoned because of plummeting yields — generally comes before outright extinction.

Regional extinction appears to be possible, though. In 2000, the American Fisheries Society, representing fishery scientists and managers, reported that populations of 22 species, including various skates, sturgeons and groupers, had almost vanished.

As industrial fleets push into new waters, experts say, the danger and damage spread. The laws and international pacts that do exist can be circumvented, producing persistent illegal markets in coveted species.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: anotherstupidexcerpt; cantreadinstructions; fisheries; idontreadexcerpts; stopexcerptmadness; thisisntlucianne; wheresthefullarticle; whytheexcerpt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

1 posted on 07/29/2003 9:42:51 AM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Don't these people ever stop?
2 posted on 07/29/2003 9:44:01 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
It's a simple property rights issue. The world's nations need to divvy up fishing rights to areas of the Ocean. Within each area, ideally, the nation then auctions off rights to specific sections. If you structure the zones right, you will create an incentive for responsible fihsing.

I'm sure that the environmentalists are overreacting like they always do, but the economics do suggest a huge incentive to over-fish.
3 posted on 07/29/2003 9:46:58 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
Is there anything in the article that you disagree with? Seems to me this is a serious problem.
4 posted on 07/29/2003 9:49:06 AM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Who's eating it all anyway? China, Japan, Norway, Russian?

You wouldn't know that from the article in our paper this morning which was exerpted from the NYT.
5 posted on 07/29/2003 9:50:49 AM PDT by OpusatFR (Presidents Hillary R. Clinton and Bubba....scares the pants of ya' doesn't it? I know I won't sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
It's a simple property rights issue. The world's nations need to divvy up fishing rights to areas of the Ocean.

Your prescription is the exact opposite of property rights. You're basically assigning the oceans to something like the U.N., which parcels them out in some highly political manner, and then those governments parcel the oceans out to ... whom, and how?

6 posted on 07/29/2003 9:53:17 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Problem is fish move around a lot. What happens when the country controlling one zone wipes out a school before it gets to the next zone?

Luckily this kind of thing tends to be self correcting, when there aren't enough fish to catch profitably we cut down on the catches (already are with many breeds we're now farming) this gives that fish time to recover population, which will eventually result in them being profitable for massive fishing again.
7 posted on 07/29/2003 9:53:51 AM PDT by discostu (the train that won't stop going, no way to slow down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
If you structure the zones right, you will create an incentive for responsible fishing.

I have to imagine this would have been impossible before GPS.

8 posted on 07/29/2003 9:54:29 AM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I've often wondered why scientists (or at least some) worry so much about extinctions, et al. After all, hasn't extinction been a part of the evolutionary process all along?
9 posted on 07/29/2003 9:55:14 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Demand is up partly because fish is considered healthier to eat than chicken and red meat.

I see who to blame! Let's find the wackos who told us to stay away from red meat and punish them! It's their fault the fish are being depleted. I resolve to never listen to their foolish advice ever again!

10 posted on 07/29/2003 9:58:07 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (France delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
"I've often wondered why scientists (or at least some) worry so much about extinctions, et al. After all, hasn't extinction been a part of the evolutionary process all along?"

They're worried about ours?
11 posted on 07/29/2003 9:58:57 AM PDT by Acolyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Problem is fish move around a lot. What happens when the country controlling one zone wipes out a school before it gets to the next zone?

Right, that's why it would be difficult, but would also require structuring zones properly so that different nations had control based on fish patterns as opposed to straight geography.

12 posted on 07/29/2003 9:59:26 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
This is so stupid. I just did a search on fish farming and saw why we are catching less. We are trying less!

Imagine how much red meats and poultry would cost if every bird and animal had to be hunted down and shot! Fish farming is producing a glut of almost all seafoods and the prices are coming down. So far only crab and lobster seem not to be farmable.

13 posted on 07/29/2003 10:00:57 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrisssssssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu; Rodney King
The problem is (a) fish tend to congregate in territorial waters (that's why countries claimed them in the first place), and (b) outside of territorial waters there is no workable way to enforce the boundaries.
14 posted on 07/29/2003 10:01:19 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Bluecrabs appear to be breedable

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/950030/posts
15 posted on 07/29/2003 10:02:45 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Loran worked, as did dcelestial navigation, although with far less precision.
16 posted on 07/29/2003 10:02:46 AM PDT by ctlpdad (Please don't let my post be the last on the thread!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Your prescription is the exact opposite of property rights. You're basically assigning the oceans to something like the U.N., which parcels them out in some highly political manner, and then those governments parcel the oceans out to ... whom, and how?

It's not the opposite of property rights to recognize government control over something. If you go and buy land in Canada, you are operating under the laws of Canada. All I am doing is proposing, in essence, the extension of natural borders out into the ocean.

Ideally, each country would auction off areas which may or may not have certain restrictions of them to commerical fishermen. If you have a better idea that is "real property rights" what is it? Somebody has to recognize that its your property, unless you plan on just heading out there with a shotgun and claiming it.

17 posted on 07/29/2003 10:03:00 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The problem is (a) fish tend to congregate in territorial waters (that's why countries claimed them in the first place), and (b) outside of territorial waters there is no workable way to enforce the boundaries.

Well, if fish congregate in terretorial waters, that makes my plan easier to implement, as you don't have to worry as much about over fishing by one country impacting another. Enforcement would hopefully be by treaty, and ultimately by force.

18 posted on 07/29/2003 10:04:27 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
It is a serious problem, not a laugher.

In FL we passed the net ban to stop the gill netting of everything that swims. Now years later some of the stocks are coming back, slowly. But what happened to the fisherman? Well they all rigged up for crabs. We used to get a few crabs off our dock on the bay. Now NADA. Offshore the gulf is loaded with crab traps. Most can't make enough to survive on now that the crabs are fished out. So instead of legal take I will bet they take both claws, which kills the crab.

So with modern technology, gps, cell phones, radios, and fishfinders, the sealife doesn't have a chance anymore.

We stopped market hunting of most species, it's now time to stop market fishing. Else all the fish will be gone. The resource is showing it can't take it much longer. That would be a shame.

Sheesh, did I just agree with the NYTs? I think I need a shower ....
19 posted on 07/29/2003 10:04:53 AM PDT by snooker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Thanks! Does that leave only lobsters!

I love this whole food production issue. It shows God's provision to see how many ways He has given us to come up with food, showing the overpopulation humanist crowd to be wrong generation after generation.

20 posted on 07/29/2003 10:04:57 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrisssssssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson