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

[US_MilitaryRules]

Also. Stop eating fish caught with LONGLINES. Ask how the fish was caught when ordering your seafood. Longlines and driftnets are the most devastating ways of wiping out the fisheries. I'v been flying over the ocean for 16 years catching swordfish the old fashion way, by Harpoon. 1 at a time. We catch about 150 to 200 swordfish in a 4 month season, longliners catch 200 swords every 3 weeks all year, not to mention all the bycatch!

[LS]

Well, it's simply not true that demand stays the same. There is not much "demand" for filet at $15 a pound, or for caviar. People substitute (chicken, veggies, beef) when fish prices get too high.

There IS a point at which high prices will drive down ANY demand. And that IS basic economics.

[LS]

You make excellent points. Even with the buffalo, though, there got to a point where for WHATEVER reasons, both private and government sources stepped in and saved the herds. (Buffalo Bill's exposure of bison to easterners had a lot to do with that).

I agree on the issue of property rights, and this is a clear case of "tragedy of the commons." The problem with an ocean is you can "privatize" a chunk of the ocean, but unless you can build underwater fences, you have no way of controlling ingress and egress from that spot.

[LS]

Actually, your example about the elephants is right on target. A few years ago, in Kenya, the declining elephant populations---due to both poachers AND farmers killing them (because they trampled and ate crops)---led the government to create "campfire," a program in which tribes basically went out of the farming business and into the elephant business.

Some test-cases gave tribes ownership of the elephant herds. Now, instead of killing them, farmers had an incentive to protect them. The tribes (and nation) began to aggressively court tourists AND hunters.

Within a few years, the elephant herds had DOUBLED in number.

[LS]

I understand foreign subsidies, but at SOME POINT, when schools get phenomenally thin, all the subsidies in the world won't get new fish. Nor will governments continue to subsidize increasingly expensive practices (usually). I don't claim the market will fix this, but only that PRICES INEVITABLY will rise for someone.

[Rebelbase]

A forty mile long line of baited hooks will definately clean out and area.

[Rebelbase]

The book "The Perfect Storm" has section at its beginning that talks about the decline of the Grand Banks fishing.

[Physicist]

Raise chickens that taste like fish. Problem solved.

You're being arch, but there's a serious point there. Chickens are raised largely on fishmeal these days. That's where they get their protein. The collapse of the ocean fisheries will also cause the collapse of the poultry industry someday.

[lds23]

This could be a boon for the jellyfishing industry, though.

[Rippin]

Also the seals. I've fished of Chatham on Cape Cod and if they don't let us shoot a few of them thar seals there will be no Stripers coming around.

Rippin

[Capt. Tom]

Here is an anecdote on what happens when Govt. manages.
OK Semper you are commercially restricted to 88 days at sea. You have used up 20 days so far and have 68 days at sea (DAS)remaining. The cod restrictions on you are 400 lbs/day. You have to call in to the Feds.before going out and call in when you are back. If you call in for one day you cannot come back with more than 400 lbs of cod. If you call in for 5 days you can come in with 2,000 lbs of cod in that time period. All 2000 lbs in one day, or a combination of catches to equal the 2,000 lbs in that 5 day period.

You go out for 1 day and call in. You set 3 nets and get 100 lbs of cod. A few days later you go out for 1 day and since 3 nets got you 100 lbs of cod you set 12 nets hoping to get400 lbs. You haul back and have 1500lbs of cod. You have to dump 1,100 lbs.Since you only called in for 1 day which equals 400lbs.

But wait!!. Semper has 66 days of time left on his 88 days at sea. So you call in and say. "I have 1,500 lbs of cod onboard , I would like to be penalized 4 days at sea from my allotment rather than dump 1100 pounds overboard.

Sorry Semp you can't run the clock ahead. Dump them. Or if you want to call in now and extend your trip for 3 more days and stay out there for 3 more days that's OK.

"But there is a storm coming tomorrow and that is why I only took one day at sea." Well Semp if you are not willing to risk your life and want to come in today come in with 400 lbs or else.

[elfman2]

"Um, no, it'll mean more drastic measures to capture those remaining fish…Are more wells running when oil is $15 a barrel, or $30? "

Oil drilling is always stopped when the price to find and produce it drops below the its foreseeable sale price. The Texas economy collapsed for that reason just after I finished high school there in 1980. Market forces are inescapable.

I don’t understand exactly the effect of mile wide mile deep dragnets, but I do know that massive drift nets are illegal due to their destruction in the best of times. When a cod costs 10 times the price of a farm-raised catfish, talapia, salmon and trout, virtually no one will eat cod. And unless the fishermen can recoup the cost of deploying monster nets for minimal catches, they won't do it for long.

No one denies that overfishing is real. Few think that some degree of regulation is bad, but it appears that the market will find a balance that allows most species to exist in significant numbers. I'm not advocating that approach. I don’t know enough about it, but I don’t' dismiss it in general.

[mad puppy]

But government subsidies actually encourage overfishing, Watson says, with subsidies totalling about $2.5 billion a year in the North Atlantic.

Come on now, everyone nows that when the Gov't gets involved, things get better. Its not a big deal to me to wait until my Soc. Security checks start coming in before I can affort to eat fish again. Jellyfish probably tastes like grape jelly anyway. They sure sound alike.

[Torie]

Great post. You saved me some work. It is a big commons though, and not so easy to sell it off given that there are so many players, and then to effectively "fence" it.

[Redcloak]

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.

BBBBZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!! I'm sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Thank you for playing.

The "only hope" is to let the market take its course. As the fish become less plentiful, they become more expensive to catch. That, in turn, increases the price the consumer pays. As that price climbs, fish becomes less and less attractive as a food item. Less expensive items will become more attractive. Climbing operating costs and decreased market share will increase competition between the fishermen. That will drive many of them out of the fishing business and into other lines of work. With less boats working, the pressure on the fish will go down and the fish populations will recover. Government meddling in the process only delays the inevitable; and that could spell the end of the fish!

[TADSLOS]

Well, there goes the cod sperm supplied lipstick industry...it's all over now.

[kezekiel]

First lets ELIMINATE government subsidies so that the fish prices will seek a natural level, then lets see who is left...

Fair enough. That has my vote.

However, I fear that the problem is more fundamental than government subsidies propping up unprofitable fishermen. It's that we harvest in excess of the rate that populations can be refreshed. It's a math problem, not a market problem.

[semper_libertas]

"It's a math problem, not a market problem."

Indeed, but the math problem is closed-loop with negative feedback. Furthermore, any synthetic modeling we may attempt to provide will have less fidelity, and more inappropriate dynamics than the real application of market principles.

Current programs to subsidize the industry have no doubt already been justified in light of available models and mathematics.

Our math ain't that good, and our proposed solutions are always worse.

The best use of a government bureaucrat in the fishing industry might be as bait.

[semper_libertas]

"Well, there goes the cod sperm supplied lipstick industry...it's all over now. "

Perhaps a new program to enrichen destitute inner city males might be in the, ahem, offing?

[Rippin]

PS: Can you detail more about the striped-bass situation? Is it truly analagous?

The striped-bass situation is one which highlights my point that fish are not evenly distributed. Apparently (I'm no expert) virtually all striped bass spawn in the Chesepeake. Therefore, without some controls there, not only would the species thin, it could almost completely disappear. For some species, the idea that they can simply multiply off of banks where the fishing boats have abandoned their efforts may not always be true. The controls put in place proved to be quite effective at increasing the population of striped bass in the 28-36 inch sporting range. (Don't get me wrong, sportsmen would love 46 inchers but I haven't seen much of that. One problem the stripers have is they are so darn good eating. If someone catches 6 and takes home 1 it is probably one of the top 2 or 3 he caught that day that gets eaten. You can't know for sure since you make the call to keep it or put it back on the spot. Who can pass up 15 lbs of cleaned bass on the table?) It was an example of government enforced management practices that "worked" from the POV of most anglers I know.

On the whole I don't really disagree with anything you've said. I just wanted to highlight some of the market's rough edges that are especially apparent in the field of wildlife management and fisheries it seems.

Rippin