Never wear a Pink Hat while Salmon fishing in the Pacific Ocean!
Posted on 08/26/2005 9:10:48 AM PDT by cogitator
BIMINI, Bahamas — The bulldozers moved slowly at first. Picking up speed, they pressed forward into a patch of dense mangrove trees that buckled and splintered like twigs. As the machines moved on, the pieces drifted out to sea.
Sitting in a small motorboat a few hundred yards offshore on a mid-July afternoon, Samuel H. Gruber — a University of Miami professor who has devoted more than two decades to studying the lemon sharks that breed here — plunged into despondency. The mangroves being ripped up to build a new resort provide food and protection that the sharks can't get in the open ocean, and Gruber fears the worst.
"At the end of my career, I get to document the destruction of the species I've been documenting for 20 years," he lamented.
Such sentiments have become increasingly common in recent years among a growing number of marine biologists, who find themselves studying species in danger of disappearing. For years, many scientists and regulators believed the oceans were so vast there was little risk of marine species dying out. Now, some suspect the world is on the cusp of what Ellen Pikitch, executive director of the Pew Institute for Ocean Science, calls "a gathering wave of ocean extinctions."
Dozens of biologists believe the seas have reached a tipping point, with scores of species of ocean-dwelling fish, birds and mammals edging toward extinction. In the past 300 years, researchers have documented the global extinction of just 21 marine species — but 16 have occurred since 1972.
Since the 1700s, an additional 112 species have died out in particular regions, and that trend, too, has accelerated since the mid-1960s: Nearly two dozen shark species are close to disappearing, according to the World Conservation Union, an international coalition of government and advocacy groups.
"It's been a slow-motion disaster," said Boris Worm, a professor at Canada's Dalhousie University, whose 2003 study found that 90 percent of the top predator fish have vanished from the oceans. "It's silent and invisible. People don't imagine this. It hasn't captured our imagination, like the rain forest."
Relatively few activists have taken up the cause of marine species. Ocean dwellers are harder to track, and some produce so many offspring they can seem invulnerable. And, in the words of Ocean Conservancy shark-fisheries expert Sonja Fordham, often "they're not very fuzzy."
Although a number of previous extinctions involved birds and marine mammals, it is the fate of many fish that worries experts. The large-scale industrialization of the fishing industry after World War II, a global boom in oceanfront development and a rise in global temperatures are all causing fish populations to plummet.
"Extinctions happen in the ocean; the fossil record shows that marine species have disappeared since life began in the sea," said Elliott Norse, who heads the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond, Wash. "The question is, are humans a major new force causing marine extinctions? The evidence, and projections scientists are making, suggest that the answer is yes."
Large-scale fishing accounts for more than half the documented fish extinctions in recent years, Nicholas Dulvy, a scientist at Lowestoft Laboratory in England, wrote in 2003. Destruction of habitats in which fish spawn or feed is responsible for another third. Warmer ocean temperatures are another threat, as some fish struggle to adapt to hotter and saltier water that can draw new competitors.
But nothing has pushed marine life to the edge of extinction more than aggressive fishing. Aided by technology — industrial trawlers and factory ships deploy radar and sonar to scour the seas with precision and drag nets the size of jumbo jets along the sea floor — ocean fish catches tripled between 1950 and 1992.
In some cases, fishermen have intentionally exploited species until they died out, such as the New Zealand grayling fish and the Caribbean monk seal; other species have been accidental victims of long lines or nets intended for other catches. Over the past two decades, accidental bycatch alone accounted for an 89 percent decline in hammerhead sharks in the Northeast Atlantic.
Today, sharks, along with sturgeon and sciaenids (known as croakers or drums for the sounds they make undersea), are among the most imperiled of the species that spend most of their lives in the ocean.
Populations of sharks, skates and rays — creatures known as elasmobranchs that evolved 400 million years ago and have skeletons of cartilage, not bone — have difficulty rebounding because they mature slowly and produce few offspring. Shark-fin soup, an Asian delicacy that sells for more than $100 a bowl, has intensified shark hunting in recent years.
Despite the sturgeon's fecundity, overfishing and habitat destruction have caused that population to dive as well. Beluga sturgeon, the source of black caviar, release 360,000 to 7 million eggs in a year, Pikitch noted, but they have declined 90 percent in the past 20 years. Just this month, scientists in Kazakhstan reported that they failed to find a single wild, reproducing beluga female, leaving them with no eggs for hatcheries.
Croakers' large swim bladders — air-holding sacs that help them maintain buoyancy — account for their imminent demise. Traditional Chinese medicine prizes the bladders, and the sound they make when pressed against vibrating muscles can reveal croakers' location to fishermen through sonar.
"They've been survivors on an evolutionary scale, but they've met their match, and it is us," said Pikitch, who writes about sharks and sturgeon in an upcoming book, "State of the Wild 2006."
Despite scientists' warnings, American and international authorities have been slow to protect marine species. The only U.S. saltwater fish to make the protected list is a ray, the smalltooth sawfish, which was added in 2003.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service is charged with protecting 61 threatened or endangered marine species.
Director Bill Hogarth said his agency focuses on protecting vulnerable populations so they will not have to be listed.
"That's our job — to make sure species don't wind up on the endangered-species list," he said.
But conservationists said NOAA officials are reluctant to classify fish as endangered because doing so conflicts with the agency's mission of promoting commercial fishing.
Michael Hirshfield, chief scientist at the advocacy group Oceana, said he has repeatedly seen government officials provide shifting estimates of how many threatened or endangered sea turtles can acceptably die each year in eastern scallop fisheries.
"You never get an answer to the question how many turtles would have to be killed before you would say, 'That's not OK,' " he said.
On re-reading, one question does occur to me: why were fishermen exploiting the Caribbean monk seal?
Anyone know if lemon sharks are good eating?
They taste like lemon chicken.
"Extinctions happen in the ocean; the fossil record shows that marine species have disappeared since life began in the sea," said Elliott Norse, who heads the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond, Wash."
The difference is that none of these extinctions was caused my mankind.
I have lived my life on and near the sea, and have many clients that are in the commercail fishing industry. Pushing the oceans over the edge will be disastrous for us all.
Counting fish is a tricky business, especially when some removes their neighborhood.
In order to arrest this decline in marine diversity, intelligent beings must design interventions which counter natural selection, which doesn't seem to "care" about extinction all that much.
You just have to look at what the collapse of the western populations of the Atlantic cod did to coastal commnities in eastern Canada. Its now happening in Europe as well, and communities like my own home community in south Donegal, Ireland are being hurt badly.
I don't think overfishing and pollution can be really be termed natural selective forces.
Whyever not?
People are part of the natural environment, are they not?
What makes a dam built by humans less "natural" than one builty by beavers?
Why is predation by humans less "natural" than predation by other species?
a: how do we know that many of these fish aren't moving further out, and further down to avoid fishers?
b: how many species live in the depths of the middle of the oceans that we haven't even begun to discover yet?
Yes, I can see that argument. However, the pressures we bring to bear are not part of the normal workings of nature - they're much more severe. A beaver dam is temporary and the species that exist along with it are adapted to it - it'll never block the migration of salmon or eels. A factory ship vacuuming up massive shoals of fish is not the same as a school of dolphins taking out a small percentage of the shoal.
Answer to a) fishing practices are too good, the fish can't hide, and though the oceans are vast, the places where fish congregate are much smaller (conditions such as ocean circulation determine where food supplies are high).
Answer to b) there may be a lot of species in the mid-depths, but very few of them are commercially desirable.
It is unfortunate that the leftist liberals have taken over a lot of good conservation programs. They have cried wolf so many time that I don't believe a lot of what they say. The have also had a LOT of mission creep from their original objective.
(b)The deeper down you go, the fewer species there are, as they're dependent on whatever organic matter sinks from the surface (aside from chemosynthetically-based hyrdothermal vent communities). There are undoubtedly lots of deep sea species to be discovered, but they're never going to rival communities closer to and at the surface in terms of numbers and diversity.
So by your definition of natural selective forces, a nuclear bomb would apply?
and Rhino horns, and Bear gall bladders...
I think that it's time to outlaw "traditional Chinese medicine".
How can we be both a part of nature and not? Is human culture distinct from the natural?
"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! "Hamlet, Act II, Scene II.
You don't think we've risen above nature at this point? What other species has existed in the 4.6 billion years of earth's history that wields such power over nature? That's not to say that we're immune from the effects of certain natural phenonemna, but to contend that we're merely just another species existing amongst all the other species of the planet is nonsense.
Can't believe I mispelled "phenomena"!!!
You seem to have missed my point. We ARE part of nature. As such, nothing we do can possibly be "unnatural."
That doesn't mean everything we can do is a good idea, of course.
I just find it hilarious that those who claim to be most promotional of the idea that we are part of the natural environment simultaneously, by their use of language, separate us and our activities as being artificial and foreign to nature.
I've thought that for awhile. They go after tigers, too.
For a a nuclear bomb to be "unnatural," it would have to be produced by some agency that isn't part of nature. If you believe in evolution, man is just as "natural" as any other animal.
Man cannot be simultaneously part of nature, and outside or above it.
And you seem to have missed mine. We bring a completely unprecedented set of interactions to the natural world. If you want to think of us as completely natural, fine, but we're arguing over labels. We're far from normal components of the natural world.
Christians have a basis for distinguishing between man and the rest of nature since man bears the image of God and can thus mishandle his regency over nature. However, the kinds of materialistic scientists who normally give us these reports are in a state of utter incoherence as you correctly point out.
They appear to be very concerned about their virility, since most "traditional Chinese medicine" is an alleged aphrodisiac. Haven't they heard of Viagra?
With their population in the 1.2-1.3 billion range, virility would not appear to be a significant concern.
Agreed.
However, my point was entirely with regard to labels.
As Rippin points out, correctly, Christians and other believers in a God who assigned man a position over nature have a logically coherent way to discuss man as being part and simultaneously not part of nature.
Those who believe in a strictly random origin of man cannot do so in a rational way.
Never wear a Pink Hat while Salmon fishing in the Pacific Ocean!
What's wrong with Traditional Chinese Medicine? As a student myself, I'm amazed that you'd want to outlaw something that I love and cherish. It reminds me of the smoking nazis, telling other people how to live.
The main problem illustrated by this entire thread is easy to sum up. Community property is a stupid idea: No one takes care of it.
Private property is the only sane way to live. If I own something then I suffer the consequences if I mistreat it.
Over fishing happens because if I don't get the fish, someone else will. It's a race and a free-for-all. With private property you can farm and prepare for the future without interference from outside forces (except for government and the market).
And by the way... If I need parts of a tiger to mix with some herbs, why can't I buy that at market prices from a tiger farm? Does the tiger score too high on the cute rating system?
Take viagra? That is such a western thought. The human body is connected. The problem isn't the penis; a flaccid penis is a symptom of an unhealthy body. The main problem is probably breath related. Check out a book called "Chi Yi: the art of breathing". The second problem is probably diet.
Popping a magic western pill doesn't fix the problem; it only masks the problem. An unhealthy body is still unhealthy even with an erect penis.
I'm a non-believer, and this doesn't pose any problem for me. We're here as a product of nature, but our intelligence renders us extremely powerful in the face of nature and able to manipulate and nurture it to suit our needs. My concerns are about how we actually use and affect nature, not on philosophical discussions of our position within and/or without nature. They're interesting philosophical issues to discuss, no question, but not very important in the overall scheme of things, unless they're used as a fall-back to rationalise some policy.
Tigers and other carnivores aren't exactly easy to farm. There's the problem of getting them to mate, and then there's the issues of keeping carnivores that normally wander over huge home ranges in tiny enclosures. Zoos around the world are trying to improve carnivore husbandry through exhibit enrichment (which means providing more space and designing enclosures to challenge and stimulate the animals e.g. lots of scope for climbing or hiding food to make the animals work). It remains to be seen how successful they'll be.
So your answer is yes, as far as you are concerned, a nuclear bomb would be included as a natural selective force? I'm curious, what would you consider a non-natural selective force in this world? Or is the term redundant as far as you are concerned?
Some species will adapt and survive, though - we're just another selective pressure, as far as the world is concerned. By your definition of "natural", cities and other human habitats are unnatural, and yet some species adapt to live alongside them - raccoons and pigeons come to mind.
This is not to say that hoovering every fish from the ocean is somehow a good idea, but the pressures we put on animal populations are not qualitatively different than any other predator - adapt or die is the way of the world. The pressures we put on animals may be quantitatively different, but not qualitatively - it's a difference of degree, not of kind, IMO.
I personally consider humans as being part of and at the same time separate from the natural world, as we have been assigned to a position of stewardship over the resto f the nature world by the Creator.
My point is that, absent a belief that man was created, or perhaps some other rationale for separating man from "nature," there is no logical basis for claiming that anything man does is not "natural." A-bombs, being human artifacts, are no more or less natural than an stone axe or a Ford Taurus.
So from my point of view the term "non-natural" is not redundant. From that of most believers in the randomness of the universe I contend that the term is by definition redundant.
Where do volcanos fall in your world? Or, because they can bring "unprecedented set of interaction to the natual world" also be consdiered bad. I don't imagine a volcano knows are care when it explodes and wipes out the entire ecosysm?
Is this bad or good? On one hand it is "nature" on the other hand a it will be years before the area around the volcano returns to normal.
Perhaps we should pass a law restricting volcanos from exploding, or at least make them file an envionmental impact statement.
I wonder how many species went extinct when Krakatoa erupted in 1873 or in 1816 when Tambora in Indonesia came to life and created "the summer without sun" all over the world.
Tell me Youngblood, do you think we, man, could in one instant, create enough energy to put enough dust and debrie into the air that would prevent summer?
I don't think we are there, yet. We are not as powerful as you give us credit. Compared to the destruction capability of nature itself, we are nothing.
Volcanoes are generally localised in their effects, and the affected ecosystems normally recover in a matter of decades. Besides they are beyond our control. Overfishing, pollution and so on aren't.
For crying out loud, there was a gargantuan waterfall recently re-discovered in California. If a waterfall of that size had been missed for so long in such a small -- relative to the oceans -- area, is it really plausible that scientists really know how many fish are out there? I don't think so.
I'm also not convinced that these fish are going extinct because of so many environmentalists' less-than-stellar track record of objectivity and honesty.
Sorry, but it is all you are worth.
You may have some good points, but when the socialist took over your movement, and began using environmental laws to control us, then I have nothing but contempt for you and all tree huggers.
Propose reasonable solutions to a problem I may support you, but put a a blanket demand that all action taken by "man" is evil, and you get no support. (The "you" here is not necessarily you youngblood, but the views as expressed by the environmentalist.
Species come and species go. I would venture to guess that 99.999999% of all species that have ever lived on this planet when extinct long before man had any influence.
I find it almost laughable that there are those that believe we (man) can have a world wide affect on the earth. I would guess if we ever wake up to a real world war where biologial or chemical weapons are used, then it may be true, but that should please the environmentalist, as it would mean we have removed man from earth the stated goal of some.
So, I guess we are not going to have a discussion. Bye bye.
the problem with human preditation is that we don't do it regionally like nature does...my example would be that lions in Africa don't get to have white tail deer from Minnesooota on Friday nights.We are artificial and foriegn to nature in that way.
Yeah, its very easy to lump everyone you disagree with into the treehugger category. All discussion can end there and then...
Some will survive us, by virtue of the fact that we're not especially interested in them, which is another way of saying that we've permitted them to survive. And some will be quick enough to adapt that we can't drive them out. We've been battling cockroaches and influenza for some time now, with no prospect of success in the near future, for example. But as for the ones we can drive out of existence, whether those changes we can make are a good idea or not is something that we'll have to consciously decide. Which is at least one more advantage we have over other predators - the lions would quite happily eat every single zebra in the world without a second thought, if they could ;)
But there are numerous animals that migrate vast distances. The arctic tern travels from the arctic to antarctic and back each year. That's somewhere around 25,000 miles a year, a good deal more than I travel.
What is the rationale for deciding that it is "natural" for some animals (terns) to travel vast distances, and "unnatural" for others (humans) to do so? Indeed, if humans evolved naturally on earth, what is the possible basis for claiming that anything they do is any more unnatural than the behavior of a sea lion or ptarmigan?
I do not do this with every subject, but there are some I have discovered in my many years, that you can not discuss anything with. Environmentalist fall into this category.
I will read this thread and see if anyone puts forth an argument that can convince me that turning the clock back to pre-industrial life will do some good.
So go out and give it your best shot.
Well, you can start by pointing out where someone suggested returning to a pre-industrial life...
I could attach a bunch of links to this post supporting the article above and ask you to read them. Dr. Boris Worm, quoted in the article, is an easy Google search to recent articles and papers. But I'm not going to feed you links -- I invite you do a bit of research yourself. If you do, report back to me/this thread and tell me what you've determined. If you don't -- well, then you can't say you effectively challenged what the article (and the supporting research) says.
Fair enough? Take your time.
You must have forgotten, I have have included you into all environmentalist, that includes the extremist.
Do a google, you will find there are some on your side that consider "man" to be a virus to the planet and earth would be better without us. Not able to do that, the next best thing is to restrict all the product that came out of the industrial revolution. So, while I may not find and exact quote, the desire is to do away with automobiles, industry, power plants, and so on. The effect would be pre-industrial revolution.
Another example of that alien species known as the Copernicans. Some scientific disciplines seem particularly susceptible to that affliction known as "I'm the center of the universe".
It's all about me.
My interests are the most important in the universe.
What I feel trumps the rest of humanity.
Sorry Charly. That's not the way it works. That's not the way it worked until 1972.
I would guess that most people are unaware that when the Environmental Quality Act and the Endangered Species Act were being argued prior to adoption, it was quite explicit that they would never, ever be used to prevent a project; It was intended solely to bring into the open all possible impacts, so none were "overlooked". Further, it was to be applied only to federal projects, or projects that impacted several states.
The lead agency could go ahead with the project; mitigation measures were to be optional.
We've come a long way, Baby.
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.