Posted on 08/07/2006 10:00:46 AM PDT by cogitator
Bottom trawling destroys deep sea life
New York: A long-awaited report by the United Nations shows the need for an international moratorium on bottom-trawling and other destructive fishing practices that damage deep sea life, Conservation International (CI) said.
The U.N. Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (DOALOS) reviewed measures to protect the vulnerable deep oceans of the high seas -- the 64 percent of ocean that lies beyond the national jurisdictions of any individual nation. Its review, ordered by the U.N. General Assembly in 2004, was based on reports from member states on steps taken to stop destructive high seas fishing practices.
A draft version of the review posted July 14 on the DOALOS Web site said extremely vulnerable deep sea habitats require protection, but that fishing for newly discovered resources in the high seas often proceeds unregulated to the point of serious harm.
"Many fisheries are not managed until they are overexploited and clearly depleted and, because of the high vulnerability of deep-sea species to exploitation and their low potential for recovery, this is of particular concern for these stocks," the review said.
The draft review called bottom trawling a particular concern, due to its tendency to over-fish both targeted and non-targeted species, and the damage it causes to vulnerable ecosystems that provide critical habitat for marine life. It cited an "urgent need" in some cases for interim steps such as a moratorium on bottom trawling until formal conservation and management systems can be set up.
Nations have until Aug. 7 to respond to the review, which will be considered by the General Assembly before the end of the year.
Marine scientists and developing countries have called for a moratorium against high seas bottom trawling, which targets deep sea fish species such as orange roughy by dragging heavy gear across the seafloor, causing widespread and potentially irreversible damage to deep sea life.
Sylvia Earle, the renowned deep sea explorer who heads CI's marine conservation division, likens bottom trawling to trying to capture a songbird with a bulldozer.
Costa Rica, which under former Environment and Energy Minister Carlos Manuel Rodriguez took bold measures to establish marine protected areas, was the first nation to call for U.N. action on high seas bottom trawling.
"The total destruction of deep sea habitats for limited short term rewards is inexcusable," said Rodriguez, now regional vice president and director of CI's Mexico and Central America program. "Proactive steps, specifically in the form of a moratorium, must be taken to control the impacts of high seas bottom trawling."
Only two Regional Fisheries Management Organizations with authority to govern deep water fisheries -- the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the General Fisheries Council of the Mediterranean (GFCM) -- have taken steps to regulate bottom trawling.
In 2003, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, in collaboration with a partnership of leading environmental NGOs, brought scientists together at the Defying Ocean's End Conference in Los Cabos, Mexico, to develop an agenda for maintaining healthy oceans. The conference recommended a U.N. moratorium on high seas bottom trawling and helped spawn the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition - an alliance of nearly 60 international environmental and conservation organizations campaigning for such a ban.
###
The U.N. review provides the final push necessary for the U.N. General Assembly to consider a moratorium, which is supported by mostly developing nations and opposed by a handful of countries with significant fishing industries, such as Iceland. The United States has indicated it wants to limit any expansion in high seas bottom trawling for now, with the possibility of a moratorium in 2009.
"Last month the U.N. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea released a report reviewing measures to protect the high seas. Ordered by the General Assembly in 2004, the report says that extremely vulnerable deep-sea habitats require protection but that fishing on the high seas often proceeds unregulated to the point of serious harm.
It notes that deep-sea bottom trawling is of particular concern, due to its tendency to result in the overfishing of both target and non-target species and to damage vulnerable ecosystems that provide critical habitat for marine life. The report cites an "urgent need" in some cases for interim steps such as a moratorium on deep-sea bottom trawling until formal conservation and management systems can be arranged."
Another earth-shaking U.N. revelation. The world has known about destructive fishing practices for over 100 years. No surprise the U.N. is just now figuring it out now -- but they have to try and do something to justify their useless, irrelevant, criminal existence -- just like our Democrats.
How did Jerry define it-----> Yada! Yada!
Next thing you know they'll try to stop us from using dynamite.
There's probably still sufficient catfish and mullet in the bayou.
Still, it's not worth spending a lot of time working out a workable system because LOST (Law Of the Sea Treaty) guarantees fishery collapse. Read LOST with a view towards human nature and you'll see what I mean.
* alternatively, Transferable
Worse gill netting destroys more fish than it catches.. Most netting is gill netting..
Just what we need! a U.N. Sponsored ceasefire between the fisherman and sealife.We know which side will win./Sarcasm.
No, in fact, it doesn't. Gillnetting, when properly regulated, is a clean way of fishing for many schooling species. It prevents targeting of undersized fish especially well. Restriction on when and where gillnets can be used, in conjunction with soft catch limits, is working very well in coastal New England (for flatfish especially), as a method to allow controlled catch on stocks that are being rebuilt to target levels.
PS, I'm not a gillnetter, but I am a little biased.
If, by 'success', you mean in reducing benefit to communities and small business, and causing harm to fishing families, communities and infrastructure, yes, ITQ's have been very successful. Just ask the residents of the Aleutians in Alaska, the most recent recipients of new ITQ's in the US. You can find them on the 1st and 15th of the month. At the welfare office.
ITQ's are praised by socialists and other progressives, as being of net benefit to society, despite individual sacrifice...which is why they are embraced by Dems and fruits/nuts from the planet California.
One thing I will concede- it is easier to manage fisheries when there are only 14 companies involved, as opposed to several thousand. But then again, the consumer suffers, from decreased efficiency through reduced competition, innovation and inititive.
Ah, but who do we 'award' ownership to, and why should they be granted exclusive access?
For bottom dwellers caught in pot fisheries (trap fisheries, to the landlubber), homesteading already takes place... the traps are designed to fish inefficiently, but are baited- studies have shown that removing traps from an area led to reduced numbers of lobsters in those underfished area in Maine. The bait is an energy subsidy... essentially making the traps a feeding station... so you can accurately say that the pot fishermen are farming crabs and lobsters.
This is not to downgrade what you're saying. I'll agree wholeheartedly that there are huge problems. BUT, with some notable exceptions, the vast majority of formerly-threatened foodfish populations in the US are rising rapidly because of industry efforts. We're doing something right!
I agree with you about the Law of the Sea treaty, which is about as big a paper tiger/white elephant as can be found. Most people who know a litle about resource economics will start spouting off about the tragedy of the commons, which is as outdated a concept as the treaty itself... people with a little more insight might comment more on the cost/benefit of increased administration and the creation of a whole suite of administrative jobs (an industry, in other words, complete with mission, training and academic openings) that is completely parasitic in nature... here's my point: numerous examples have shown that allowing market forces to dictate harvest levels of fish leads to stable, healthy fisheries (when there are no subsidies made for fishing businesses whatsoever), why would administrators close fisheries or open them completely? There would be no need of specialized administration then.
Anyhow, the private ownership idea has been done. Salmon in the UK belong to the owners of the land through which the rivers pass, if that owner has noble blood. Salmon in the UK are almost nonexistant. Private ownership doesn't work either.
If the fisheries collapsed, they'd be in the same place, wouldn't they? I would think a fisheries collapse would also harm fishing families, communities, and infrastructure. A local example is the loss of Chesepeake Bay oysters*; not a whole lot of watermen are oystering commercially any more.
* not due to overfishing, but due to an oyster disease
We had an improvement on one of the notable exceptions locally (though it wasn't foodfish), when Virginia negotiated a cap on annual menhaden take in the Chesapeake.
Question; wasn't the swordfish recovery due to a government/industry agreement to substantially cut the swordfish take to allow the fishery to recover?
It's good that the U.S. is making progress; now if we could extend that internationally, to species like bluefin tuna and Patagonian toothfish and sharks, we'd really be getting somewhere.
Those both are reasonable points... the Menhaden one, however, I took exception to... there is no scientific evidence that Omega Protein's seine boats have taken menhaden beyond a sustainable yield. There was some psuedoscience thrown about, using 'local abundance' as a key phrase... although this term isn't an actual scientific concept. Nonetheless, there are other users of the bay down there, and their voice was heard. The guys that worked for Omega are going to be in trouble financially. In the end, I hate seeing the money earned by commercial fishing consolidated in the name of political expediancy.
As for the Oysters... I agree with you.
The swordfish issue is so complex- the US reduced our swordfish take on the East coast first. The decision was a joint one, of sorts. Naturally, other nations picked up our slack, and without our restrictions on fishing, the sword population is still under increasing pressure. The treaties that touch upon highly-migratory species favor European governments that do not restrict fishing.
Now that the US is getting back into sword fishing on both of our coasts, I have hopes that we'll force the EU into either increased restrictions on their boats, or increased enforcement of existing regulations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.