We have to be careful with this as well, though, since sometimes the alternative species aren't in a very robust position either. For example Orange Roughy was championed as a potential replacement for the dwinding stocks of Cod. Unfortunately it turned out that Orange Roughy lives longer and breeds later than anyone expected, so that stocks take a very long time to recover if they are heavily fished. Even after realising this and placing quotas on the catch it's probably that Orange Roughy won't be sustainable at the current rate.
There are two current models for this; one which breeds large numbers of fry until they're reasonably large and have decent survival chances, and one which breeds fish to harvesting size. The former seems to be working pretty well for things like lobster. The latter is coming along, but we still have issues with the sheer difficulty of getting successful farm strategies up and running. Not to mention problems with feed and such like (heavy metals can be concentrated in the fish if you're not careful). I think we'll probably succeed, but it's not as easy as was hoped.
Yeah, I agree. But the thing is all of these factors will stretch that "no commercial fish by 2048" part out by an undetermined amount. It comments like these that make me doubt some of the studies. Although they do say if a few times, why even supply a date? And the quote: "We can predict when we are going to run out of species." Well, sure, in theory, but only if you've accounted for all these other factors that will change current trends by that time.
I'm immediately skeptical of any study that "follows the current trends", just because the current trends in almost anything rarely last more than 10 years. To borrow from Scott Adams, consider the case of a puppy. Following the current trend, the puppy will continue to grow until, in a fit of uncontrollable happiness, it wipes out a major metropolitan area.
But I think most of us agree overfishing is a problem and something needs to be done, I just feel uneasy at the positive statements made about when we'll run out of fish. Smacks of scare tactics and fear-mongering.
And on the hatcheries, that's part of my point as well. As the fish become harder to find, the price to catch them increases. The price to grow them in hatcheries is static (relatively). So the profit margin on hatchery-growing increases, making it more attractive. This will attract more investors, more people, and more businesses, meaning more reasearch will get done, etc. This is bound to have an effect on the time it will take to fish ourselves out.
In the short term I think we have to get a global consensus on quotas and get everyone to stick to the bloody things. Fishermen complain that they will go bust and unfortunately many will, but the alternative is simply to wait until the stocks they're fishing go the way of the herring, and then they'll all go bust anyway.
Edited to add: There are other things that could be done as well to help make things more sustainable- replacing diamond nets with square meshed nets that don't close up under tow and that let the small fry escape to grow on and breed, for example. And numerous other small things. But the trend seems to be towards more and more industrial scales that just hoover everything up, unfortunately.
Well, yeah, the solution is simple in theory...like the solution to lowering the crime rate is for peopel to stop committing crimes
But with illegal fishing already a problem, will quotas and such make that much of a difference? What about smaller nations where fishing is the major source of revenue?
I do agree, though, that the techniques is a good place to start. Seems to me that some ideas, like nets that release smaller fish, would be of benefit to all concerned (small fish usually aren't good for product, AFAIK, so seems that would save everyone some trouble).
I dunno though, on that all I can do is speculate. Well, that's true for most of this topic, but I like to think at least it's reasonable speculation
