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

[Physicist]

HABITAT is the key.

It's certainly one of the keys. But the point is this: it costs money to put in artificial reefs. Who is going to put up that money when nobody owns the fish? If you're a fisherman, it's better to save your dollars and wait for another sap to come along and spend his money, and then scoop up the fish he grew. Better even to wait for the inexhaustible American taxpayer to put up the money.

But if you own the fish, well, then, your incentive for building reefs and pumping iron solution into the sea is clear.

[b4its2late]

LOL! Did you stir it with a golf club? :-)

[Temple Owl]

I would suggest building more fish hatcheries, but I am fearful that PETA would violently object.

[zandtar]

Have you even tried to buy cod or haddock lately? And do you know what it's going for a pound? About nine bucks, when you can find it, in my neck of the woods. The overfishing charge is NO chicken little cry.

Reminds me of a story I saw last year out on the left coast. Seems the surfers wanted to be able to surf anywhere they wanted, and had a few shark attacks in an area they chose. So, instead of moving, the sharks in the area were hunted down. Nice surfing. One problem. The sharks at the otters, who ate the mussels that people liked. Now, with their preditor out of the way, the otter population sprang to life. Otters eat mussels, and left none too many for the humans.

I got quite a laugh over their whining. While I'm not an enviro-kook, I do understand there is a balance to things in nature.

[Mark Bahner]

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

Well...let's first ignore the fact that I'M an "environmentalist." I know the type of environmentalist you're talking about. They are wrong. We are NOT destroying the world for money. We're destroying the world for...wait, we aren't destroying the world at all! :-) But the destruction we DO cause is not "for money"...it's because of lack of property rights, and for LACK of money.

The solution to virtually every environmental problem is to: 1) set up a good system of property rights (make sure that SOMEONE owns EVERYTHING, and 2) make people RICH (not poor).

I just read a book called...something like "Shoveling Fuel into a Runaway Train." By Brian Scheck...or something like that. His operating point of view is that the world can't take infinite wealth...that world GDP per capita can't grow forever. He's wrong. Not only CAN GDP per capita grow forever, but the MORE it grows, the better off we'll all be.

Environmentalists have historically been very socialistic. ("Ohhhh...no one can own the earth!") Unfortunately socialism (where the government makes decisions about how land and other resources are managed) is almost always a terrible way to manage resources. The best way--almost always--is to set up private ownership rights, and allow the owners to make the decisions that are in their best interests. The collapse of communism let some environmentalists see how bad community (government) ownership is. Other environmentalists have seen how market-based systems, like sulfur dioxide pollution emission trading, work better than command and control. But there's still a lot of residual distrust/dislike of capitalism, and private property, in the environmental community. That's a shame.

Mark (environmental engineer, Libertarian)

[semper_libertas]

"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."

If we let industry take the lead (not the lawyers) I suspect the need for granting stakes in wild fishstocks will not ever become necessary. Corporate farming will likely grow at a pace sufficient to avoid such drastic measures (unless of course the government induces some radical imbalance in the process due to fear mongering, politics, and lawyers)

[Physicist]

The solution to virtually every environmental problem is to: 1) set up a good system of property rights (make sure that SOMEONE owns EVERYTHING

I agree. Throughout this thread I've been outlining a method for assigning property rights to wild fish populations. I'm not sure my method is the best method, or even necessarily a workable method; it's just what came to mind. You seem to know something about the issue; how would you go about turning the wild fish populations into private property?

Nice posts, BTW. Since you've been around since December, 2000, I'm surprised I haven't noticed you before.

[semper_libertas]

Do you see a difference in the ownership of "sea lots" as opposed to ownership of the fish?

When flying over S. Korea a few years ago I noticed "tracts" of sea marked by buoys and bound by nets. I don't know exactly what they were farming (sea weed? fish?) but it seemed clear that locals were making use of these parcels to farm a profit.

I can see ownership of parcels of sea in areas currently owned by the respective countries (no conflict there). Different parcels may be best suited for different types of farming, and would be subject to valuation via auction.

This doesn't deal with international waters, but does give incentive to negotiate or buy ever larger segments of ocean. Therefore the ownership would track with the ability to render it profitable in an incremental fashion.

In the early west we didn't parcel out ownership of the wildlife but rather the land itself. In time fences went up. Back then it was probably as inconceivable of fencing large tracts of land in the midwest as it seems inconceivable that we may someday fence off large tracts of sea and ocean. But maybe thats where we are headed. It would be ownership as you say, but ownership of sea not fish.

[semper_libertas]

I would suggest building more fish hatcheries, but I am fearful that PETA would violently object.

PETA who? They are laughable.

PS: If you ever want to really anger a leftist and let them know how useless they are, just laugh at them. It's what they deserve. They are all products of Monty Pythons Ministry of Silly Ideas.

[Physicist]

That certainly will work (and does work) for some species, but it is my understanding that the most important North Atlantic stocks are migratory. Cod and menhaden, for example, feed inshore but spawn offshore, while salmon, shad and herring do the opposite.

[altayann]

You sir, are obviously a communist, and I will be reporting to the Thought Police for double plus anti nice thoughts once the office comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. :)

I know that the codfish industry did in fact collapse in Newfoundland a few years back. Plenty of fisherman were banned from fishing simply because the cod stocks needed time to rebuild.

[altayann]

You sir are also obviously a communist and I shall be reporting you to the Thought Police for double plus unnice thoughts. :)

One the biggest problems with overfishing is that in some ways, the ocean is a huge case of a 'Tragedy of the Commons'. There's no easy way to prevent other actors from coming onto the scene.

And even if you were to get rid of some of the smaller actors, there are still some pretty big ones to deal with as well. And without perfect communication between each, overuse of the commons/oceans can still occur.

[semper_libertas]

"I am SO tired of people who don't know diddly about economics making these dumb assertions...."

perhaps you should get more sleep...

[altayann]

Cripes, by my count you're the third communist that need to be reported to the Thought Police I've found today. :)

No sir, I don't like it. I donts like it at t'all. :)

[altayann]

What part of down home are you from, by the way?

[LS]

Well, certainly you may be right on the late 20th century---I didn't carry the research that far. My point is that in the 19th century, when they were in severe danger, kerosene saved them.

[anymouse]

LOL, fin claps from the perch gallery (or would that be the perch perch. :)

[altayann]

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.

You're oh so close to drawing some very negative conclusions.

Losing one species of spotted owl? The odds are extremely good that, yes, both humanity and the environment would manage somehow to survive.

But losing all the spotted owls? That just might lead to some real, definable consequences. For example, an overabundance of a certain type of insects that are not generally beneficial to farmers, for example.

Sad truth is, at some point, you simply cannot afford to lose certain species. And I agree, we cannot afford to lose most fish species. As someone else has already pointed out, fish protein is typically what gets put into chickenfeed.

[altayann]

"...Soylent Green is made from PEOPLE! PEEEEOPLLLEEEE!"

And after Snapple bought out Soylent Green (TM)...

Snapple Soylent Green. Made from some of the best stuff on earth...People! :)

[Physicist]

But losing all the spotted owls? That just might lead to some real, definable consequences. For example, an overabundance of a certain type of insects that are not generally beneficial to farmers, for example.

Right. It's not a good thing. But what you describe is not a human disaster, while the loss of any one of many ocean fish species would be. On the other hand, don't get the idea that by calling a cut merely a cut, I am thereby advocating death by a thousand cuts. All I am doing is pointing out what our conservation priorities should be.

Sad truth is, at some point, you simply cannot afford to lose certain species.

Right. Let's concentrate on those species, first. There's no rhyme or reason to the causes championed by environmentalists, because they don't consider a species' utility to humans as being part of its value.

And I agree, we cannot afford to lose most fish species. As someone else has already pointed out, fish protein is typically what gets put into chickenfeed.

Right. That was I.