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

[Bounceback]

Sea bass is $22.00 per pound in the midwest. At that price, you buy it and put it into your safe deposit box.

[LS]

I agree, but I don't necessarily agree with your solution to "market rights" to the fish. I don't know how that can be enforced. Even if governments can legally extend a 500, or 1,000-mile "fishing zone" around their countries, I don't see how that can be practically enforced.

There has to be some market incentive for people to actually BREED ocean fish, even though some of them may swim into other waters. But I sure don't know how that's done.

But, let's all remember that whales were nearly extinct until Rockefeller refined kerosene, making whaling too expensive. The whale population stabilized---well below where it had been, but certainly not extinct. The fish population may indeed drop to low levels before the prices go up so astronomically high that even then it becomes prohibitive to "get into fishing." In that example, all I could see is a substitute of some sort coming out, not necessarily "more fish." What do you think?

[LS]

Your theory is right, but the example of whaling is wrong. I've actually written about this and looked at the studies. The whaling industry CHANGED when Rockefeller refined kerosene, making whale oil (forget food---it didn't comprise that much of the market) relatively more expensive. The transformation was pretty abrupt. Whaling was virtually dead as a major American industry by the 1880s.

[LS]

Er, actually capitalism DID save the buffalo. Buffalo Bill Cody---the man who killed more than anyone else---maintained a herd for his Wild West Shows. He took them back east, where private (and public, too, I won't distort) investors decided to act, starting buffalo farms. But the first herds, from what I have found, were PRIVATE.

There are several new studies on this, if you would be at all interested in informing yourself. You might try Dan Flores book.

By the way, how did socialism do on this issue? The latest work by anthropologist Shepard Kretch, "The Ecological Indian," found that despite vastly inferior technology, the Plains Indians were probably slowly killing more buffalo than could be replenished, especially because they seemed to have an affinity for bison fetuses. (Sounds oddly liberal and "socialist" in the modern sense, doesn't it?) Capitalism is the ONLY alternative, and our challenge is to find a way to ensure that there are genuinely enforced "property rights" or market rights in the oceans. Then, like the forests under Weyerhauerser's control---where they PLANT FIVE TIMES MORE TREES than they cut down---we'll have all the fish we, or anyone else, needs.

[Physicist]

I agree, but I don't necessarily agree with your solution to "market rights" to the fish. I don't know how that can be enforced. Even if governments can legally extend a 500, or 1,000-mile "fishing zone" around their countries, I don't see how that can be practically enforced.

Once the fishing countries recognize the fish as property (this has to be done by international agreement in any case), it would be done at the ports where the fish come in. It is true that countries don't always live up to their trade agreements, but in such a case the other countries (and perhaps some privateers, if the amount of money is large enough) would work on interdiction, just as they do with the drug trade. Of course a fishing boat is a lot easier to pick out than a drug runner.

Once the problem of ownership is solved--and I'm not saying it would be easy, just that it needs to be done--the incentive to increase fish stocks would be in place.

[nfldgirl]

My mother is from the east side of Newfoundland, north of St. John's. Fishing WAS the main, practically ONLY industry for the livelihood of those living there. I say "WAS" because in most of the small towns along the coast of Newfoundland, the fishing industry is now virtually non-existent because of overfishing in the Atlantic waters by commercial fisheries. The Canadian government sold away fishing rights off the coast of Canada and now they're reaping the consequences. Because most folks cannot make a living through fishing, there's very little for them to fall back on, and it's created such an enormous welfare mentality throughout most of Newfoundland.

When I was a young girl...11-14 years old, we took a couple vacations up to Newfoundland...my brothers and I would go fishing off the rocky coast near my mother's home, and the fish was so plentiful that it actually was a bit boring catching them. They were every where! Because the water was so clear you could see thousands and thousands of them. These were big fish...cod fish and flounder. The last two times I was up there, in '86 and '99, there were no more fish to be seen. There was NOTHING in/around/near the very same docks we fished off of as kids. It's really sad. So many people now have come to depend on welfare for their very existence instead of the local fishing industry that at one time provided so well for most folks' livelihood.

[Washington-Husky]

Apparently American chickens are fed on menhaden from the Chesapeake. Some call it The Most Important Fish in the Sea.

Thanks for that informative link. I stand corrected. As Johnny Carson used to say, "You see, I did not know that!"

Yes, I've long known that fishmeal is an excellent protein supplement for livestock feeding, but I had always thought that American farmers used feed products that were not fish-based, due to reasons cited in my previous post. (Just shows you how much time I spend on the farm! ;)

Interesting side note: last night, while watching the Olympic coverage on the Canadian station (which thankfully we receive up here in the Seattle area), there was a commercial break, and one of the ads was for some brand of Canadian poultry (don't remember the name) but prominently displayed on their label was the claim "exclusively grain and vegetable fed chicken." (Or words to that effect).

Now I'm intrigued. I live fairly close to the Canadian border... I don't know, now I'm tempted to drive up north, cross the border, and pick up some of this chicken, cook it, and do a taste comparison.

[Physicist]

Your theory is right, but the example of whaling is wrong.

The introduction of kerosene only delayed the crash, which in any case came at different times for different species. Whales were still hunted almost to extinction. Here's a nice page about sperm whales that contains the following:

...The development of the harpoon gun in the 1860s brought more hunting of the large baleen whales and less emphasis on Physeter.

By the 1930s a decline in some of the baleen species had resulted in renewed interest in sperm whale hunting. Floating factory ships could remain for lengthy periods within the prime habitat of Physeter, especially the North Pacific. In the 1936/37 season, for the first time in many years, the annual kill rose above 5,000. Subsequent efforts at international regulation were largely unsuccessful. In the 1950/51 season the take was 18,264 sperm whales, in 1963/64 it peaked at 29,255, and it remained above 20,000 in all but one season until 1975/76. About one-fourth of the total catch was made by shore-based operations, and the remainder by pelagic expeditions. Finally, in response to immense scientific and public concern, the International Whaling Commission began to reduce quotas substantially. The kill in the 1978/79 season was 8,536, the quota set for 1980/81 was only 1,849, and no kill was authorized for 1981/82. ...

...Physeter now is thought to number only 5,000-10,000 individuals in the Southern Hemisphere, having been nearly exterminated by the intensive commercial kills that continued through the 1970s (Marine Mammal News 15[1989]:5). There doubtless are fewer in the Northern Hemisphere. The official USDI classification of Physeter as endangered, which had been criticized by some parties as being alarmist, now can be recognized as fully accurate.

Kerosene bought the whales a hundred years, which is a more stunning result than anything any environmentalist will ever achieve, but in the end it couldn't do away with the Tragedy of the Commons.

[Phantom Lord]

I cooked my wife a big Valentines Day dinner of Dolphin. One of the best tasting fish there is. Especially blackened.

OH! You were talking about porpoises.

[pabianice]

"Excellent news!" -- McDonald's spokesman.

"So, what's the problem?" -- Burger King VP.

"That will stop the evil exploitation of fish!" -- PETA spokeslunatic

[mrustow]

Scientists are supposed to be such smart folks, with such high IQs. Then why can't they see, that the more they cry wolf with hoaxes, the closer they bring us to the day when the wolf really is at the door, but no one listens to their cries?

[Thorn11cav]

The solution is simple....One reason for the lack of fish is habitat. Take the California coast, in the 50's and 60's you could go to Malibu Pier and you could sometimes catch Yellow Tail, large Halibut and other sport fish right from the pier. As a small child I saw a man catch a Halibut in the surf that was bigger than me !

Then Japanese kelp fisherman were permitted to harvest kelp off the California shore...result "bye bye fish". Today, you can catch NOTHING large or special off the coast.

HABITAT is the key.

1. Restrict foreign fishing to the 12 miles off shore.

2. Take debris like the WTC, old car bodies and create reefs offshore.

3. Set strict size limits with huge fines for violations.

Nature will replenish itself with 5-10 years. Fishing will be better than it ever was, and it will ALL BE OURS. CREATE A FISH FARM off America's coast...for America, by America. All other nations KEEP THE HELL OUT.

Our fish will return and flourish, an industry will provide food for America with just some instant commonsense.

[semper_libertas]

"Once the problem of ownership is solved--and I'm not saying it would be easy, just that it needs to be done--the incentive to increase fish stocks would be in place."

To establish ownership will require warfare. The concept being discussed is analagous to the land Grants of 18th and 19th century USA. As payment for services to the government, or merely with the promise of making the land productive the US government allocated parcels of land to average citizens.

Ownership of the land at that time was not wholly uncontested. We had conflict with the natives, which was overcome in time, but required systems of frontier forts and overwhelming power. For the pioneers to be successful that power had to be close at hand and effective.

Unlike the American continent of 200 years ago, the seas are not as lightly contested. To consider establishing "Sea Grants" whether by parcelling the sea or allotting quotas in international waters would certainly result in conflict, but not with a relatively impotent opponent. It would be conflict of a massive global scale.

Any country which may currently dominate particular sectors of the sea, the Russians for instance, would have no incentive to give up their "production" for the sake of some other country being allocated a stake in that sector. They would defend their "ownership by possession" with full military force.

Many countries who would of necessity be party to such ownership arrangements also have no working concept of capitalism, free-markets or investment planning. Indeed, they may be at the brink of extinction themselves (Vietnam, various small island nations, African states...) and therefore MUST maximize their harvest just to stay alive.

Ownership can be established, but only by traditional means. It would require the military exertions of a super power. It would require a massive Navy, Air Force and Army (much larger than we have now). The conflict would also rapidly escalate beyond the seas. Such military dominance would incur the wrath of the world, of course, and the resultant social upheaval may have a far greater consequences on global economies than a severely depleted fish population.

The USA would sooner eat chicken, than have Motorola or Boeing kicked out of China, Russia, Europe, etc...

I'm not convinced that ownership of EXISTING wild populations of fish need be established. I don't believe ownership of international waters need be established. I do believe that NEW populations of fish that are farmed within existing territorial boundaries would pose a much better long-term solution.

In this way, the competition becomes not one of ownership of the sea, or wild populations, but a contest to produce the greatest amount of fish in the most efficient, cost-effective manner.

We must rearrange the economy of fishing from that of a mining operation to that of a production operation. Instead of an economy of fur trappers and wild game hunters we would have an economy of farming. Ownership of wild fish cannot be successful.

Once the profits of farmed operations match or exceed the profits of mining operations we can expect to see a gradual reduction of "strip-mining" and an eventual recovery of wild populations.

With ever greater $$ expended in farming operations we also create incentives to advance production technology and genetic engineering. Both are areas in which the USA may take substantial leads today without shooting anybody.

[semper_libertas]

One can have a high IQ and still be ignorant and immoral. All that is really required is a high AQ (arrogance quotient).

High AQ people such as Hollywood stars believe they know better than the little people in most any matter.

Socialist promoters are almost by definition high AQ people. IQ is not a factor at all.

[Wm Bach]

Awww, the NWO is just fishing around, if you'll pardon the expression, for an excuse to kill off a good chunk of the human population. Not enough fish is as good a reason as any I suppose. Probably use the old reliable methods: more free abortions, WOD to keep the drugs flowing, and designer plagues, with a dash of media-gined-up war thrown in to keep the herd from getting uppity.

[mrustow]

"AQ"? I love it!

[Physicist]

And to top it all off, they've made sure that tin foil is no longer available in stores, replacing it with ineffective aluminum.

[semper_libertas]

" The environmentalists are right..we are destroying our world for money!"

Nothing has done more to protect the environment, save human lives and improve the world conditon than...money.

Free-market capitalism and the pursuit of profit is the single greatest POSITIVE influence on the environment. I of course include humans in the scope of the word "environment".

American agriculture is now so abundant we can freely GIVE food to starving peoples of the world.

American profits are so high that we can GIVE free medical care to people who could not afford it otherwise...

We can GIVE free medical care and equipment to 3rd world countries...

We can GIVE clothing and shelter to 3rd world people...

We can freely teach the world how to improve their own world for themselves...

We have more TREES in the USA now than we did 200 years ago..WHY? PROFIT! MONEY! We plant them for harvest...we plant them for beauty as well since we can AFFORD too..

We can AFFORD to clean up our air because money has made us able to afford the equipment.

The more money we make, the MORE we can afford to protect the environment. First we must survive, then we can plant flowers, tree's and protect the animals.

The animals in desperately poor 3rd world countries are the MOST at risk.

Heck in the US we are so rich we can afford to protect TIMBER WOLVES of all things...and DEER. Heck, when deer become too abundant in some neighborhoods we tranquilize them and transport them out by helicopter. UNHEARD of 20 years ago.

Abundance of MONEY protects the environment, lack of money causes the environment to be plundered.

Every so-called environmentalist that exists should pray to God for the benefits of free-market capitalism and republicanism.

Environmentalists are not welcome in authoritarian, communist or dirt poor countries of the world.

[Physicist]

Your arguments apply to any and all international trade. Why are the seas not swarming with more pirates than we can shoot? The cargo carried on ships is far more valuable than the fish in the sea.

Nobody would ask the Russians or Vietnamese to surrender their rights. If they are party to the agreement (as I'm sure they would want to be if they value international trade in other goods), they would get shares enough to represent their rights. Negotiating who gets what shares will be a tough battle on all sides, but it will be waged at the table and not at gunpoint.

As soon as Russia owns its fraction of the world's fish, its attitude towards exploiting it will change completely. That's the way it is with ownership.

Your assertion that the Vietnamese must max out their catch in order to survive is wrong. Even in the worst-case scenario, at some point it would be to their economic advantage simply to sell the shares and stop fishing, which is a big improvement over the "stop fishing" scenario they will otherwise face. Right now they max out their catch not because there is no alternative, but because it is the most economically attractive alternative. That can be changed through ownership.

The process of granting land as property in the U.S. was indeed a painful process, yes. But you must agree that SOME process to do that was absolutely necessary. If it hadn't been done, the U.S. would be a barren mud patch by now. I'm hopeful that the granting of ownership to wild fish stocks will not need to be that painful, but even if it is, it is just as necessary.

[Physicist]

Ditto to all of #258.