Scientists Say Cod Off Nova Scotia Declining

First, its a misnomer to say that only 10% of the worlds are charted. What you intend to say is that the exact topography of the oceans floor is not charted. This has zip to do with cod.

Are you saying that there are vast unknown fishing grounds in the world's oceans?

Are you saying that the cod are still out there in the ocean, but living at the bottom of some trench?

The article points out that the North Atlantic has been depleted of cod. I'll stand by analogy as quite appropriate. If the cod were out there, they'd be finding them in their nets.

What's your point?

Quite simple. Nature abhors a vacumn, and a decline in one species will generally be offset by proliferation of another.

According to the article the usual large predators such as cod have been reduced in numbers, meaning that now man can directly consume the now abundant herring, shrimp, crab and lobster that would have been eaten by the cod. How is this bad? How many pounds of lobster does it take to grow a pound of cod? Personally I enjoy lobster more than cod, and it is more efficient for me to eat the lobster than to let cod feed on it, and then eat the cod.

Likewise with your analogy with elk and buffalo, the ecological niche once dominated by them has now been filled with deer, cows, and people. Personally I enjoy eating venison and beef more than elk and buffalo. I also enjoy the company of my friends more than that of elk and buffalo. Is this bad?

No one is claiming that elk, buffalo, or cod are in danger of extinction. There has just been a shift in the proportional space these species occupy in the environment. I know of no "Divine Law" that holds that the numbers of these species must be maintained at the level they were in 1890AD, 1490AD, or 15,000 BC for that matter.

I see nothing inherently bad in a changing enviroment. Environmental change has been occurring since life began. I also believe that most humans are able to adapt to change, and can learn to get by on shrimp and lobster, or venison and steak when cod and buffalo are not plentiful.

Well then, you're contesting a point that no one else (especially me) has made. Your point that it might be beneficial to people that cod have declined crossed my mine too, as an interesting possibility.

My post to which you originally replied, however, was in answer to what I thought was an illogical assessment that the oceans are so vast, that it can't be proven that the cod have actually declined in numbers, as they could just be hiding.

It is my point that no cod in the nets can be taken as a factual indicator that the number of cod has declined.

Having said that, I prefer cod to lobster. Sure lobster tastes better, but cod doesn't give my an allergic reaction.

you're contesting a point that no one else (especially me) has made.

You are correct that I was contesting a point you were not trying to make. The author had intimated that cod have declined and this is bad, and that if for some unknown reason lobster declined, fishermen would be doomed. I was contesting that argument.

In my haste this morning I had misinterpreted your comment as being similar to the authors, it was not. I apologize. Josh

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.