Complete collapse of North Atlantic fishing predicted

New Scientist ^ | 10:30 18 February 02 | Kurt Kleiner, Boston

[semper_libertas]

Complete collapse of North Atlantic fishing predicted

The entire North Atlantic is being so severely overfished that it may completely collapse by 2010, reveals the first comprehensive survey of the entire ocean's fishery.

"We'll all be eating jellyfish sandwiches," says Reg Watson, a fisheries scientist at the University of British Columbia. Putting new ocean-wide management plans into place is the only way to reverse the trend, Watson and his colleagues say.

Concentrations of biomass of "table" fish have disappeared

North Atlantic catches have fallen by half since 1950, despite a tripling of the effort put into catching them. The total number of fish in the ocean has fallen even further, they say, with just one sixth as many high-quality "table fish" like cod and tuna as there were in 1900. Fish prices have risen six fold in real terms in 50 years.

The shortage of table fish has forced a switch to other species. "The jellyfish sandwich is not a metaphor - jellyfish is being exported from the US," says Daniel Pauly, also at the University of British Columbia. "In the Gulf of Maine people were catching cod a few decades ago. Now they're catching sea cucumber. By earlier standards, these things are repulsive," he says.

Off limits

The only hope for the fishery is to drastically limit fishing, for instance by declaring large portions of the ocean off-limits and at the same time reducing the number of fishing ships. Piecemeal efforts to protect certain fisheries have only caused the fishing fleet to overfish somewhere else, such as west Africa.

"It's like shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic," says Andrew Rosenberg, at the University of New Hampshire. He says the number of boats must be reduced: "Less is actually more with fisheries. If you fish less you get more fish."

Normally, falling catches would drive some fishers out of business. But government subsidies actually encourage overfishing, Watson says, with subsidies totalling about $2.5 billion a year in the North Atlantic.

However, Rosenberg was sceptical that any international fishing agreements currently on the table will turn the tide in a short enough timescale. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization and the OECD have initiatives but these are voluntary, he says. A UN-backed monitoring and enforcement plan of action is being discussed but could take 10 years to come into force.

Pauly says only a public reaction like that against whaling in the 1970s would be enough to bring about sufficient change in the way the fish stocks are managed.

The new survey was presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's 2002 annual meeting in Boston.

Kurt Kleiner, Boston

10:30 18 February 02

[semper_libertas]

There weren't no problems with fish before governments now, were there...

(tongue(mine) in cheek(also mine))

[semper_libertas]

"Finshing rights should be transferable property. "

kinda like broadcast rights? Would apply only within state controlled waters though...

[a history buff]

Look up tragedy of the commons in any elementary economics primer, and come back to us.

[VOA]

bump

[elfman2]

"Well, the equilibrium point could be zero table fish. The problem IMO is that fishing rights are not transferable property. The stock of fish itself therefore has much less value to the fisherman "

I'm not much of a fisherman, but I presume that harvesting that last 5% would be prohibitive.

It seems that making fishing rights transferable increases management requirements. What about people who've been guiding or doing something else the last few years? What about people who are on their way out, but now have something worth a fortune? What about the up and comers who are saving for their own boat and don't get in the door in time? If we still have too many fishermen, will we start paying people not to fish after they bought these expensive permits with the understand that they could fish with them?

Why stop at fishing? I think the quality of lumber today is lousy. It's over competitive. It might help to limit the number of logging and milling licenses that are handed out, maybe making them transferable.

From what I can tell, fishermen don't lack for a sense of ownership in the species. They generally like the lifestyle and have too much invested to want to see it deteriorate. They're just willing to individually cheat if it will multiply their income, just like anyone else.

[semper_libertas]

"The shareholders would be the "producers" and the fishermen the "consumers". "

Well, thats creating a false economy and encumbering a market with an added level of "middlemen". Regulators you might say.

The problem is your "producers" are not producers. They do nothing explicitly to grow supply, they simply reject demand by setting false prices to recoup their investment in the shares.

Let actual fish farmers be the producers. No need to muddy the waters. When fish stocks become insufferably low, the real producers will have a field day (bay day?).

Within territorial boundaries it makes sense to allow property rights for real producers. But a simple allocation of shares for an equity that is neither contained, produced (at large), or otherwise controlled will do nothing but create a market in shares, not protect the profitability of the fisherman.

Your approach sounds very much like that described by US_MilitaryRules, wherein they have to apply ahead of time for an allotment of fish. He explains in his post #111.

Perhaps you approach may avoid this?

[semper_libertas]

"The situation stabilizes with a very small number of fish in the sea. "

...and why is that a problem?

[rohry]

Sorry I don't have time today for a proper reply to your info, but briefly:

You may be right about lobsters being smaller and being taken younger and younger than before, but I was just trying keep the lobster discussion seperate from the commercial fish discussion.

I believe that Federal regulation of the oceans, rivers and lakes has been a disaster and we need to try a different way. "Physicist" had the most intriguing idea discussed on this thread, trying to figure out a way for indivduals or corporations to take ownership of certain areas that are now viewed a "communal." Like private game preserves or private stewardship of forests there would be an an incentive to protect and manage private property. The problem with Government regulation is that they only respond to political pressures from a wide myriad of pressure groups. One need only look at how much better private enterprise manages their forests compared to the massive government forests.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm going to re-read your intriguing ideas later when I have a bit more time.

[eleni121]

You are right on this one. Commercial overfishing is real and really does destroy native fisheries just as happened in the Grand Banks.

Get rid of government price supports!

[eleni121]

I have noticed in the past several years that fully 50-75% of all seafood is now farm raised and sold as regular "wild" fish. This is especially true with salmon. Try buying or finding wild salmon - it's twice as much as the salmon sold in most supermarkets. And don't bother asking the fish clerk - they are clueless about the origins of the seafood they weigh and wrap.

[Dan Day]

Obviously fish prices have not gone up nearly enough. When they do, that will be the end of the "overfishing" problem.

Wouldn't higher prices only encourage more fishermen to hit the seas hoping for huge revenues, thus making the shortage even worse?

Pay fifty bucks a pound for pigeon, and watch how fast NYC develops a pigeon shortage...

[oldironsides]

I know nobody likes Greenpeace but they have been arguing that the floating processing fish plants.They have been using anything and everything for years. They suck up young fish along with most anything else and use it. Call Tyson Corporation. They used to own one or more of these floating factory ships.

[Okiegolddust]

Exactly, an equilibrium will always result and self-regulation will occur. This is just like the greenhouse effect (in a way). If worldwide CO2 is on the rise, plants will grow better (that's been proven) and CO2 goes back down. It's like you said, "a concept totally lost on most leftist".

What natural science theory do you base this on? You really have no basis for these assertions. Natural cycles are actually highly unstable with huge overpopulations and die-offs every few years. The North Atlantic fisheries system will reproduce this, just as the writer predicts.

[elfman2]

"Wouldn't higher prices only encourage more fishermen to hit the seas hoping for huge revenues, thus making the shortage even worse? Pay fifty bucks a pound for pigeon, and watch how fast NYC develops a pigeon shortage... i>

But the higher prices are the result of poor catches. So even if more fishermen get lured onto the seas and fewer fish really do become available, they'll each be catching less and less. They'll need prices to be even higher and higher to make a profit. At some point fishermen can't pass their expense for going after rarer and rarer fish to consumers who're almost as happy with farm raised at $3-$5 per pound.

Your analog presumes that pigeon's can't be farm raised or substituted with farm raised chickens.

[semper_libertas]

"Look up tragedy of the commons in any elementary economics primer, and come back to us. "

The model is so simplistic compared to real-world economics it's useless.

Comparing that model with what we are discussing is like comparing a light switch with a 4th order predictive filter. (maybe even more extreme)

[Askel5]

Fascinating thread.

[Physicist]

...and why is that a problem?

Because people like to eat fish.

Look, the main argument in favor of capitalism, once you get outside of objectivist moral theorists (of which I am one, don't get me wrong) is that capitalism delivers abundance. Leonard Peikoff might denounce that as pragmatism, but people from the shanty towns to the boards of directors look only at the bottom line. Whatever it is, be it widgets or fish, capitalism is supposed to deliver more of it at a lower price. If capitalism can't make good on that promise, most people will ditch it in a heartbeat.

For that reason, the ecofreaks would love for everyone to believe that capitalism is all about expoiting resources until they are no good to anyone. I say they're wrong, but you seem to be agreeing with them, except that you tack the words "so what" on the end. I doubt you'll change many minds in favor of a free market approach.

[elfman2]

"What natural science theory do you base this on? You really have no basis for these assertions.

Where do we disagree? External factors frequently affect systems that were in equilibrium, and fluctuations occur.

[Redbob]

"As fish become more scarce prises will rise, demand will drop and number of fishing vessels will drop accordingly."

While it's true enough that increasing prices would reduce demand, it's also likely that increasing prices will INCREASE the number of fishing vessels, since any catch at all becomes more profitable.