Plenty more fish in the sea?

[Ceritus]

Whoo, this is some scary stuff

First of all, any of you that have kids, you are a giant contributor to this problem...you may not like that statement but its true

Have one on the way and planning on having eight to ten more.

I could care less about the fish as long as my genes make it off this rock one day.

So my great grand children may have to live in biospheres, so be it but I highly doubt it.

Since there may no longer be any fish by 2048, which is also very unlikely. I better stock up on tons of frozen fish now! Perhaps we all should!!!!!

That would be hilarious.

Fear mongering leads to extinction of fish. "We warned them that they were gonna run out" said an eco hippy. "I love to eat fish so much I had to turn my garage into a giant freezer to hoard all the fish I could, all my neighbors have been doing the same thing" says an average US citizen.

All around the country people who failed to stock up on fish must now resort to giving oral sex to their female partners to get a taste of the now extinct fish.

98% rise is lesbianism that immediately followed the collapse of the fish kingdom.

 

[Piscivore]

I'm sorry.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not trying to say we don't have a problem (Overfishing is an issue we need to do something about), but Rob does have a point.

The model makes it's predictions by projecting current trends. However, there are a several things that make this method unreliable (IMO, and I'd be happy to be shown data to prove my concerns unfounded).

As these fish become more scarce, costs for fishing them rise, which means prices rise, which means several things happen:

1. Consumption goes down, as some people are unwilling or unable to pay the increased price. A higher price with a smaller catch could, however, drive overall profit in either direction. There is, however, a point of diminishing return.

and a point at which the species is no longer viable, which one comes first?

2. Alternative species are chosen for commercial development (the rise in popularity of tilapia to a recent example).

Moving on from one depleted species to the next is not managing the problem.

3. Dedicated hatcheries become more profitable proposals, leading to the possibility of fish farms or dedicated breeding areas to promote growth of fishable populations.

If the fishermen care. Japan is the biggest consumer of blue fin tuna, and has depleted stocks to dangerous levels. It doesn't make sense, but that didn't stop it happening.

4. Working in the other direction, populations are likely to rise, meaning an increase in demand.

If they are still viable. The documentary I watched was about Indonesian pirates. They would take an old boat, stick the latest technology for finding fish in it, and send it out. It didn't matter if the boat was caught, the captain and crew fined or imprisoned. It only took two trips to pay for the overhead, the rest was profit. A boat load of southern blue fin tuna or orange roughy, etc, is worth millions.

So while I agree with you that it is a problem we should look to doing something about (although I'm not sure what would be effective), I don't feel that this study has accounted well for all factors. I'd view it as more of a thought experiment to show the extent of damage, rather than a reasonable prediction for the future.

That's the problem, are we dealing with reasonable people? Most Australian fishermen are well regulated now, and have been following an agreement, for example, on souther blue fin tuna, to keep fishing rates at a level that was sustainable. All along, the Japanese were lying, and catching way in excess of what was agreed on. The stock levels have crashed.

Rhino horns are a good example of the problem. As Rhino's get more scarce, the price goes up. But that means that people are more determined than ever to catch the poor buggers. That is, supply/demand actually helps to make them extinct, not limit the hunting.

 

[phildonnia]

The problem is capitalism. There is a lot of money to be made form illegal fishing.

It sounds more like the problem is illegal fishing.

 

[drkitten]

One thing that I think has not been pointed out that may influence this debate.

This isn't just about the disappearance of fish but about the disappearance of fish species.

Those of you who are say that "oh, supply and demand will take care of it" are arguing in the teeth of the evidence. A species that is fished to below 10% of its peak population (the definition they're using of "collapse") has a tendency to stay collapsed, regardless of what the price currently is on the open market, which is one reason that there aren't a lot of sperm whales out there. I don't care how expensive cod become -- there simply aren't that many left, possibly enough that the species will not be able to reproduce itself. Even if there are enough to eventually repopulate, they're starting off from a low enough curren t population that regrowth might take centuries.

So the real problem is how long will it be, not until there aren't any fish left in the ocean, but until there aren't any species left that are common enough to fish.

From the citation in the OP:

Between 1950 and 2003, 29% of fish and invertebrate fisheries within all 64 large marine ecosystems worldwide had collapsed.

That's basically 1/3 of the species in a fifty-year period, suggesting that by 2100, we will have run out of species. Of course, the rate is accelerating, so you can't do a simple straight line approximation. But it's also not as simple as "oh, we'll just find something else to fish for for a while." Because what we're running out of isn't just one particular kind of fish, but kinds of things to fish for.

 

[a_unique_person]

Correct.

 

[Dancing David]

Anytime, AUP.

If the commodity is dwindling, so too is the trend -- necessarily. The SD curve demands it.

Apparently the cost benefit ratio is not being considered, do some research, cod are being havested before they can reproduce.

The demand is high, the supply could be harvested to the point that the stocks crash. And in the case of cod, they may not be able to reproduce after the crash.

I suppose the fact that stocks of many species have already crashed, and overfishing shifts to new species proves what? Gee what happened to all the wild cherry trees in the US? Did the SD curve keep them from being harvested, now trees that were considered only good for barrels, crates and boxes are made into furniture(oaks). Why, because the cherry is all gone. It now grows as a trash tree in peoples yards but is not avaialable for harvest.

Other than that you are just grinding on AUP.

 

[Dancing David]

Not trying to say we don't have a problem (Overfishing is an issue we need to do something about), but Rob does have a point.

The model makes it's predictions by projecting current trends. However, there are a several things that make this method unreliable (IMO, and I'd be happy to be shown data to prove my concerns unfounded).

As these fish become more scarce, costs for fishing them rise, which means prices rise, which means several things happen:

1. Consumption goes down, as some people are unwilling or unable to pay the increased price. A higher price with a smaller catch could, however, drive overall profit in either direction. There is, however, a point of diminishing return.
2. Alternative species are chosen for commercial development (the rise in popularity of tilapia to a recent example).
3. Dedicated hatcheries become more profitable proposals, leading to the possibility of fish farms or dedicated breeding areas to promote growth of fishable populations.
4. Working in the other direction, populations are likely to rise, meaning an increase in demand.

So while I agree with you that it is a problem we should look to doing something about (although I'm not sure what would be effective), I don't feel that this study has accounted well for all factors. I'd view it as more of a thought experiment to show the extent of damage, rather than a reasonable prediction for the future.

Hmm, lets see the demand for bufalo collapsed and now we have bufalo roaming all over the US, demand for whale oil crashed and now the oceans are full of whales.

the recovery will happen, but on a very long scale, hundreds of years, and in some cases maybe never. Do you think that the fact that commercial operations are just harvesting all the fish they catch might be a problem, if you harvest all the juveniles then it won't matter.

And fish farms aren't going to be the same as the ocean. farming is likely to be in the poluted costal areas.

(I do think aqua culture is way cool, but those ready to cut forsts in washington state and orgegon are not as cool as old growth timber.)

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

What of the Asian rhinocerous? Only a few hundred of them left, but they're still being killed daily. Gotta have that horn so men can have erections!

 

[CapelDodger]

If the commodity is dwindling, so too is the trend -- necessarily. The SD curve demands it.

Well that's a relief. I was worried there for a moment.

 

[The Atheist]

What of the Asian rhinocerous? Only a few hundred of them left, but they're still being killed daily. Gotta have that horn so men can have erections!

Yeah, but luckily fish are harder to find than rhinos and I don't think they improve sex drive. Oysters, yes, fish, no.

I see orange roughy copped a mention above and that's a subject very close to us down here as we own a huge percentage of the fishery. The current fishery clearly isn't sustainable at the current rate and patagonian toothfish may already be near over-fished status.

A_U_P's naming Japan as the root of all evil is silly; while they've certainly decimated our neck of the woods, I think the poms and Euros have done their fair share as well. And the vast majority of fish exported by New Zealand is caught by Kiwi companies and exported to them, so I find it a little hard to blame their buying it when we catch it for them.

I suggest the OP is pretty close to the mark, although, a little like oil, there will be undiscovered reserves of fish around somewhere - the price is going to go up. I'm with the buffalo analogy here - also elephants in parts of Africa. The species will survive, but it may take a while.

We're [slowly] improving our aquaculture techniques and the point will come where the demand creates the investment and someone will make a lot of money out of it.

 

[jay gw]

If the commodity is dwindling, so too is the trend -- necessarily. The SD curve demands it.

Is that what happened with the American buffalo?

 

[fishbob]

Anytime, AUP.

If the commodity is dwindling, so too is the trend -- necessarily. The SD curve demands it.

In the case of a single species, that might be true, but not applicable in this case. When one species is depleted, another species is targeted, but fishing does not stop for the depleted species, just reduced.

 

[CapelDodger]

In the case of a single species, that might be true, but not applicable in this case. When one species is depleted, another species is targeted, but fishing does not stop for the depleted species, just reduced.

A lot of the take is about hoovering-up whatever's down there to make fish-meal for livestock and fish-farming. The oceans are being mined for protein, and that has the same long-term future as any type of mining. Depletion followed by exhaustion. How is this hard for some people to grasp? Beats me, and no doubt you as well.

 

[The Atheist]

A lot of the take is about hoovering-up whatever's down there to make fish-meal for livestock and fish-farming. The oceans are being mined for protein, and that has the same long-term future as any type of mining. Depletion followed by exhaustion. How is this hard for some people to grasp? Beats me, and no doubt you as well.

Mines don't usually regenerate.

 

[Amapola]

Mines don't usually regenerate.

Fishstocks won't either if we keep polluting them and killing them.

Try this experiment: get a 50 gallon aquarium and set it up for marine fishes. (Those that live in salt water.) Stock your aquarium and then see what it takes to keep those expensive little beggars alive. Good luck keeping anything alive for a year, let alone getting it to breed. I genuinely wish anyone who tries this the very best of luck. Warning: this is a very expensive experiment.

 

[fishbob]

Mines don't usually regenerate.

Regeneration takes time.
This ain't Doctor Who.

 

[The Atheist]

I didn't suggest it happened overnight - orange roughy could take a century to regenerate. Even already, we've seen the regeneration of inshore fisheries of species which were thought to be equally as slow to regenerate as orange roughy - especially snapper. Regulation of catches and fisheries have made improvements in a decade which was supposed to take generations.

Certainly pollution will play its part and warming of oceans may do as well, but I sincerely doubt species will be driven to extinction through commercial fishing. I'm not arguing the premise that depletion of stocks is bad, I just think it's an economic question rather than a conservation one.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Fitting movie quote time!!

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

 

[CapelDodger]

I didn't suggest it happened overnight - orange roughy could take a century to regenerate. Even already, we've seen the regeneration of inshore fisheries of species which were thought to be equally as slow to regenerate as orange roughy - especially snapper. Regulation of catches and fisheries have made improvements in a decade which was supposed to take generations.

Not to take issue with you about niche inshore catchments (not my area of expertise) but that's not really the problem, the problem is the mining of the oceans for protein. No efforts are being made to regulate it apart from exhortation, and even that's muted. As each species (or "vein") is exhausted the factory fleets move on to another that their scouts have located. The rate at which this is going on far outstrips the rate of regeneration of the devastated species. The Supply-Demand curve protects them from extinction - below a certain biomass they're not worth sucking-up any more - but doesn't change the fact that protein is being mined from the oceans.