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

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

This problem was long ago dealt with for freshwater fish with the explosion of fisheries and hatcheries that are dedicated to breeding table fish.

I find the farm-raised Atlantic Salmon to be a most delicious and affordable standard. Our local market had a sale last week on Salmon fillet of $2.99/lb. We bought extra for the freezer. It's tasty and very healthy.

Modern fish farming has created opportunity, profitability, and lessened prices for catfish, shrimp. and salmon. I'm sure other species will be added to the list.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Here, on the west coast of Ireland, our fishing stocks have been decimated by the signing of a European treaty about 15 years ago which not only gave other european countries access to Irish waters, but also restricted the Irish fishing fleet. European super-boats now hoover up our waters and regularly ram small Irish vessels (in some cases sinking and killing crew-members) that are in ‘their’ territory.

Sounds like the same polititions made our American immigration laws that severely limited the European quotas and flooded our country with Asian, African, and Arab hordes.

[monkey]

The jellyfish sandwich is not a metaphor

Shame. The "everyday you take another bite" possibilities are endless.

[Snuffington]

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

You'd be right if the high prices were caused by increased demand. But not if the high prices are caused by lower supply. In the case of low supply, the cost of finding and catching the rare fish should offset the profit to be had by selling them.

That's how it should happen anyway. As others on this thread have pointed out, there are pecularities with this resource that make it harder to predict.

[Bogie]

Fishing show? Funny that you should memntion the keys. I fished, with a friend of mine one time, about 5 miles south east of Bahia Honda State Park. Right where the coral rief drops off from aprox 20 ft to about 40 ft. That's where the large fish come in to feed on the small fish.

We were there with another aprox 35 boats, looking for a strike from a King Mackeral, maybe two strikse, if it was a good day. Suddenly, along came a comercial boat. It pulled in a thousand Kings, right in front of us, with a comercial cable.One after the other.

You Sir, are a fool, for believing everything you hear on the radio!

[orfisher]

About 20 years ago the stripped bass was on the verge of extinction because of commercial overfishing. A ban went into effect and now with stocks replenished, they're opening it up again. Same thing happened with the redfish in the gulf. It's not junk science.

[Bogie]

God bless ya Dave, for having your own mind. You're going to do "OK" in this world!

Regards, Bogie

[henderson field]

Rohry has a good point about species-limited fish. I was thinking about that myself. How many fish are killed when they happen to come up in a net, they are a regulated species, and they are thrown back into the ocean dead? What is the tonnage lost? Does anyone know? Of course this is another example of mismanagement by the government, but that is their forte. Also this has to have something to do with population growth ("litters not families") - I do not agree with the assertion by other posters that demand for fish has been static. It's a rediculous statment. Is that to say that all the "new" people have decided not to eat? I don't think so.

[elfman2]

"You Sir, are a fool, for believing everything you hear on the radio!"

Hmm…. You have no idea what I heard, but you have a little public temper tantrum and call me a "fool" for believing "everything" I hear. No wonder you're here alone on the Internet rather than out with "all your friends".

Don't talk to me.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

This is coming from the same environmentalists who promised us in the 1970s that the world would be uninhabitable by 2000. They also told us that global cooling was responsible for the winter of 1977 and that pollution was putting us into another ice age.

[Okiegolddust]

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

You are assuming most systems start from stable equilibrium in the first place. This is what I was disagreeing with. Assuming of course it is really relevent to compare manmade fishing to natural cycles anyway.

I don't see what's wrong with regulating fishing according to wildlife models. They are the basis for instance for every wildlife conservation department in the country - you limit hunting, fishing etc. to replacement.

[Physicist]

You'd be right if the high prices were caused by increased demand. But not if the high prices are caused by lower supply. In the case of low supply, the cost of finding and catching the rare fish should offset the profit to be had by selling them.

Let's assume that that's the case. While an equilibrium may eventually be achieved that prevents the fish from being hunted to extinction, it will still stabilize at fish population that is very much smaller than it is today, with no prospect of it coming back.

I think we can do better. In fact, I believe that the ocean fisheries can one day be more abundant than they were in the wild state.

[semper_libertas]

"Because people like to eat fish. "

Buffalo used to taste pretty darn good too. A veritable staple of the midwest. Had to eat something else though, folks ran out. Lately, however, there've been more buffalo available and about 10 years ago I started eating buffalo burgers occasionally. Heavy promotions to eat buffalo so as to boost the industry. I do prefer it to ostrich.

As far as objectivism is concerned, I am a fan. But it forms only a small segment of an overall worldview because it avoids much about economics and life in general. (fun to discuss at another time).

As for morality, I have no moral obligation to protect fish per se. I do accept a moral obligation to prevent extinction of fish provided human lives need not be sacrificed. But I don't think that is at all the issue here.

I have a moral obligation to defend individual liberties, so that they may help me defend my own liberty, and perhaps that is more to the point.

When fish populations begin to truly impact large ecomomies I have no doubt that the industry itself will seek alliances, cooperatives, compacts and self-management arrangements (involving government of necessity)such as may be necessary to protect their industry, and their profitability.

Look, if the fish dry up nobody will suffer more than the industry themselves. They will not eat at all, we at least will have the money to buy chicken.

So if we keep the cash flowing so that the most significant impact is to the very people who are doing the fishing, then it will balance itself. But if we monkey around with the cash flow by synthetic diversions by the government then who knows how screwed up things can become.

It's all a matter of trust as far as initial arguments are concerned. There will no doubt be regulation, but it must be driven by the needs of the industry itself, not by the outrageously unprincipled, and corrupt ecodoctrinarians.

The fisherman gain $$ by maintaining a viable industry, the ecodoctrinarians gain $$ by proclaiming an industry in crisis.

I know where to put my faith. (I don't necessarily have the answer, but then again I'm not a commercial fisherman)

[semper_libertas]

"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. "

Prices rise in response to the cost of business. The margins initially will become even tighter, until only the big boys remain because they can live off of smaller margins for longer periods, fish more efficiently (higher relative margins), or buy out smaller guys and consolidate the industry.

After the initial shake-up of the industry prices may again rise in order to increase profit margins and take advantage of lesser competition.

By the time those margins start to improve the start-up costs for new guys to put back in may be prohibitive.

The biggest problems will come from competitive governments however attempting to subsidize their respective industries.

It may be possible to experience a fishy cold-war in the future.

[parsifal]

"As fish become more scarce prises will rise, demand will drop and number of fishing vessels will drop accordingly. "--- Exactly, an equilibrium will always result and self-regulation will occur.

Like with Dom Perignon, Cadillacs, Rolex watches. . .???parsy

[Physicist]

The difference is that the fish populations really are crashing. Why do you think that's happening, and what do you think is to be done about it?

This, to me, is a true environmental issue. It doesn't really mean jack squat whether the snail darter or the spotted owl becomes extinct, or whether prairie dogs are exposed to PCBs. These things shouldn't be wished for, and should be avoided if unnecessary, but human beings don't depend on them. Human beings do, however, depend on ocean fishing.

A good environment is one that supports man. Killing off the dire wolves was good environmental policy. Plowing under the Great Plains and planting wheat was good environmental policy. Allowing (or worse, subsidizing) overfishing is bad environmental policy. We really do need those fish.

[elfman2]

"You are assuming most systems start from stable equilibrium in the first place"

Well… you may have just assumed that yourself. I assume the aggregate fish population was relatively stable since the last ice age. Perhaps not, there may have been other catastrophes, but I'm not aware of them. So now in the industrial/information age the fish/predator equilibrium is going to have to adjust.

I really don’t care it people want to ban together to preserve species for sport or economics. I only have a problem when people think we're going to drive them all into extinction without drastic new action.

[Harley - Mississippi]

The fisherman gain $$ by maintaining a viable industry, the ecodoctrinarians gain $$ by proclaiming an industry in crisis.

Nice theory. You left out one small part of your equation for bliss, and that of course would be GOVERNMENT. Government produces NOTHING. It consumes. Government is an IMPEDIMENT to capitalism. Unfortunately in some cases a necessary impediment, an evil that should only be marginally toleraterd. More unfortunately in most cases an impediment used by some businesses to thwart the efforts of other businesses.

In other words, government is a tool used by some businesses to keep other businesses from competing. Rather than letting the marketplace settle the question of,' who's or what's best', many businesses actively rely on government to be the deciding factor. They do so by having laws created and used as impediments and traps in which their competition is supposed to become bogged down in.

[Physicist]

Buffalo used to taste pretty darn good too. A veritable staple of the midwest. Had to eat something else though, folks ran out. Lately, however, there've been more buffalo available and about 10 years ago I started eating buffalo burgers occasionally. Heavy promotions to eat buffalo so as to boost the industry. I do prefer it to ostrich.

Buffalo is an excellent example. (I tasted some for the first time this past summer, and loved it. Bison: The Other Red Meat!)

When buffalo freely roamed the plains, they were hunted almost to extinction. It was touch-and-go for awhile. We very nearly lost the species.

Nowadays, people are raising buffalo, and the population is on the rise. Someday, I expect that there will be more buffalo than there ever were before. The more we eat, the more there will be.

The entire difference is attributable to the fact that nobody owned the buffalo of the plains, while the buffalo of today are almost all private property. Until the fish of the sea can--somehow--become the private property of profit-driven individuals, they are at risk of severe depletion or extinction. The limitless rapacity of the human animal that now threatens them is exactly what will save them, but only if ownership can be established.

You may not like my suggested method of establishing ownership. That's fair. Perhaps it is unworkable. Perhaps there's a better method. But I still maintain that private ownership must be established somehow before capitalism can rescue the fisheries.

[elfman2]

"an equilibrium will always result and self-regulation will occur." -- Like with Dom Perignon, Cadillacs, Rolex watches. . .???parsy

I guess.