Plenty more fish in the sea?

[CapelDodger]

Regulation of catches and fisheries have made improvements in a decade which was supposed to take generations.

"Supposed" by whom? I'm not demanding links or quotes or references, crass behaviour I calls that, I just wonder where you picked up the impression. Not to knock LQR, if available and relevant please spread it around .

 

[The Atheist]

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.

Agree entirely, but I think there are bigger fish to fry!

Oceanic fishing isn't feeding starving people, just the opposite in fact - prices even now for decent fish preclude that. I just don't rate it highly as a problem. Pick any one of these: World poverty, climate change, war/terrorism, drought, Amazon basin/rainforest destruction, whaling. Depletion of fish is just a little further down the list. Given that we can't even start to sort out the things above it, what chance any action on overfishing?

I'm not disagreeing with your premise that it's a problem, just that it's a problem which actually matters in the scheme of things. New Zealand is home to a number of the world's rarest birds, reptiles and amphibians. Getting funding for animals at the brink of extinction is hard enough, why add another fight? Especially one which looks to be unwinnable, given the purchasing power of the consumer on the other side of this equation.

 

[The Atheist]

"Supposed" by whom? I'm not demanding links or quotes or references, crass behaviour I calls that, I just wonder where you picked up the impression. Not to knock LQR, if available and relevant please spread it around .

No, fair question.

I'd have to go back in time bfore the internet days, but what I'm referring to is the situation here about 20 years ago. The main inshore fishery for snapper was based around New Zealand's Firth of Thames and Hauraki Gulf. Overfishing led to a drop in recreational catches which was then followed by the collapse of the commercial inshore fishery. The thought of most people, and the advice of interested parties is that it would take 25 years or more to effect a regeneration of the species to commercial levels. It took well under ten years as while snapper didn't grow any faster, the reduced levels of fish drove predators away, so that as soon as the fishing pressure disappeared a far higher number of young survived and the fishery recovered in ten or twelve years. It's been improving even mroe quickly under government regulation since then.

This article from NZ Gov't archives gives a little bit of background.

 

[robinson]

A small bit of good news

.....apparently not....look's like our grandkids will need to use another post-breakup consolation....

Hi Andyandy.

Here in Florida a net ban was passed and enforced.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE123

The rebound of the species that net fishing impacted has been astounding. All other species benefited as well. Along with efforts to stop and reverse pollution of breeding grounds, the ban on tangle nets has allowed fish to breed and flourish both in the lagoons and the ocean.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Hunter gathering as a lifestyle is all but extinct.

Tell me which of the following animals are "threatened ":-
Cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, horse, chickens.

We need to adapt farming techniques to the oceans. This means selective breeding and stocking of marine invertebrates, fish and mammals. It also requires ownership legislation and enforcement.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Farming the oceans first requires domestication of the animals in it. Many plants and animals humans have used for food were not domesticated, for many of the reasons marine life will probably not be domesticable.

There are six tests of a potential domesticate:

1. Diet easily supplied by humans.
2. Growth rate and birth spacing short enough for breeding.
3. Disposition--zebras are nasty beasts, that's why they were never domesticated.
4. Animals must be willing to breed in captivity. Pandas are a good example of animals that are very reluctant.
5. Dominance hierarchies are essential. Animals are more easily domesticated if humans can insert themselves into the hierarchy as the dominant animal.
6. Animals must not panic when confined, or when they see a predator. Humans count as predators.

Domesticated animals passed all six of these tests. Some rejcted species failed only one, but that was enough to rule out domestication.

(Chris Scarre, The Human Past)

 

[The Atheist]

Farming the oceans first requires domestication of the animals in it. Many plants and animals humans have used for food were not domesticated, for many of the reasons marine life will probably not be domesticable.

There are six tests of a potential domesticate:

1. Diet easily supplied by humans.
2. Growth rate and birth spacing short enough for breeding.
3. Disposition--zebras are nasty beasts, that's why they were never domesticated.
4. Animals must be willing to breed in captivity. Pandas are a good example of animals that are very reluctant.
5. Dominance hierarchies are essential. Animals are more easily domesticated if humans can insert themselves into the hierarchy as the dominant animal.
6. Animals must not panic when confined, or when they see a predator. Humans count as predators.

Domesticated animals passed all six of these tests. Some rejcted species failed only one, but that was enough to rule out domestication.

(Chris Scarre, The Human Past)

My word, there's some silly stuff in there. New Zealand and Australia have thriving aquaculture industries and the only two of those which apply in any way at all are the first two, which fish readily qualify for.

The rest of it might apply to mammals, but has no relevance whatsoever, unless you're going to farm dolphins.

 

[robinson]

Clams are big business in Florida. They is bred and raised in hi-tech nurseries, and growed on leased underwater plots.

 

[luchog]

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 tacit assumption in all these sorts of comments is that harvesting has ended. It hasn't. Whales haven't recovered because harvesting, particularly illegal harvesting, hasn't ended. If all harvesting was ended, then populations would recover, though slowly due to the whales' slow reproductive rate. The faster reproductive rate of fish species would result in a much faster bounce-back if harvesting was ended.

Bison (not buffalo) were not hunted to near-extinction by commercial harvestering; but by elimination hunting. They were killed wholesale without regard to commercial or personal usage for three main reasons: they intereferred with railroad operation, in order to displace First Nations populations by eliminating their keystone resource, and by ranchers seeking to eliminate competition for natural resources. They're still endangered today partly due to their near-elimination, and therefore likely being below the bounce-back threshhold; and partly due to the lack of adequte habitat.