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 ...
I don't like fish, I eat steak, I could care less about fish stocks.
You saved me typing time as I was going to say the same. But, bottom line, we all know the problem is global warming. :-)
Japan is the leading seafood-consuming nation.
This article describes a solution, and it has a track record of success.
One of the problems with fish farming is that fish meal is being fed to the farmed fish. The source of the fish meal is wild fish stocks one rung down on the consumption ladder. And these fish (menhaden is one example) are filter feeders that consume phytoplankton, with a byproduct benefit of removing excess phytoplankton caused by excess nutrients. Losing fish like this is a serious danger to overall ocean health.
There are only a few species for which farming has demonstrated success. The big pelagics (swordfish, bluefin tuna, marlin) aren't candidates.
They haven't. There are very few pristine reef areas left in the world.
Most of the Pacific Ocean is "oligotrophic"; short way of saying low productivity. You have to have a base of the food chain to have a food chain. Big fish go where the food is, which is the little fish, and the little fish go where their food is, which is phytoplankton and zooplankton.
Modern technology allows the fishing industry identify the productive areas and go exactly where the fishing are going to be. Fish aren't capable of the intelligent choice of "hiding" from fishing boats.
In this case, (1). The NYTimes report is merely re-reporting items that have been in the news the last couple of months. The Senate has already held hearings where the subject was discussed (at times very heatedly).
Do a little research on how much the menu offerings have changed at Red Lobster over the past five years.
My wife and I used to go to a Chart House about once a year. The last time we went, about two years ago, the menu was totally unfamiliar. I asked the waiter why. He said "a lot of the fish we used to serve aren't certain to be available nationwide anymore."
I applaud your comments; I've said similar things on this thread, and you said it very well.
I'd like to know more. Some plankton may be more efficient at primary production (which removes CO2 from the atmosphere to make organic carbon) than others.
Last time I checked, there was more worry about human over-population than extinction. If they are worried about human extinction, perhaps they need some anti-anxiety medication.
You are one scary guy. I guess the UN would be the force?
Not, not at all. I don't understand. Who enforces the boundries of the US now? It would be the same thing... I would just be extending national terriories over the oceans.
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.