Slashdot Mirror
Overfishing Responsible For Declining Fish Population (theguardian.com)
iONiUM send word of a new study into fishing practices around the world that found official reports have dramatically underestimated the number of fish caught over the past several decades. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, global catches peaked at 86 million tons in 1996, and began a slow decline after that. This study suggests the peak was much higher — around 130 million tons — and subsequent catch rates are falling three times faster. Significantly, they believe the decline is not due to less fishing activity, but rather the exhaustion of supply in many areas. One of the study's authors, Daniel Pauly, said, "I expect a continued decline because I don’t expect countries to realise the need to rebuild stocks. I don’t see African countries, for example, rebuilding their stocks, or being allowed to by the foreign fleets that are working there, because the pressure to continue to fish is very strong. We know how to fix this problem but whether we do it or not depends on conditions that are difficult."
Overeating responsible for obesity.
Summation 2
Man catches fish. Oh sorry, that is TFS.
And not be part of the problem.
This is it, you had a good thing and you tried to exploit and sell it until there was no more to sell. Decide now whether you live or fucking die.
So one set of experts is saying one thing, and these guys are saying another. Why should I believe these guys instead of the others? Because of FUD?
I'd rather make all animals on the planet go extinct, and all life end, than become a vegan/vegetarian hippie hipster zoophile.
Thanks, Dice!
The Cartesian Doubt at its finest. Anyway, the study is not so useless as it sounds, but a better headline would be "Blaming overfishing for fish population decline not just guesswork".
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
Better known as "fuck you, I've got mine."
More people eat more. 7 Bellion people eat alot more. I do not see this ending well.
They spent money studying the bleeding obvious?
Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and the oceans will eventually be depleted.
And not be part of the problem.
Well, I mean, if we're going full retard, let's do it right.
Or we could just find a solution to the problem at hand that involves everyone getting what they want AND making sure there's lots of fish. You know, instead of your idea or my idea where most people don't get what they want but the problem is solved.
Otherwise they'd just call it "fishing."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
We shall take this moment to thank Discovery channel and other TV "educational" channels for providing us with such great boat/fishing/competition shows that put on great rock music every time a catch is valued at over $10k and contribute to the masses of stupid people oversaturating the fishing business because of the attractive pull of these shows. Thank you "educational TV" for putting more emphasis on how much money is earned from fishing than how the fishing industry goes way beyond the demand threshold for fish, thus wasting fish and reducing their own income source in the process by over-fishing.
>> Overfishing Responsible For Declining Fish Population
What? You mean UNDERfishing didn't cause it? (File under "no shit, who gives a shit" next time, eh?)
[nt]
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Light causes lack of darkness.
Yeah, let's get larger and larger factory ships which are capable of staying at sea longer and process the catch directly. Let's also implement massive drag nets that also destroy the sea bed, coral and any other habitable environment for fish nurseries and you'll have massive extinction areas which are already forming. Great job progress! Winning!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
We know how to fix this problem.
The implication is that we should dial back fishing in order to let the stocks replenish.
Which means, hypothetically, you need to take all the fishing boat owners in, say, Boston Harbor and say "30% of you have to stop fishing".
And with no plan for what to do with the out-of-work owners and their families and some deck hands and their families. Just "stop fishing", that's how to fix the problem.
We actually *don't* know know to fix the problem. We *should* ease up on fishing, but that presents other problems which must then be fixed.
Studying overfishing is done by scientists, not fishermen. That should cover the STEM part. With better data on overfishing, we can make better policies, based on science, to try to reverse the problem. It was technological advances (sonar, etc) that allowed the cod fishery in eastern canadian waters to be overfished to the point that it collapsed.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
click to find out what is wetterer!
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
Soon the amount plastic floating in the oceans* will exceed the mass of live fish - eat the plastic and if that does not work, GMO yourself so it works out.
*) Google is your ....
CLASSIFIED : Soylent Oceanographic Survey Report, 2015 to 2019
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
How feasible would it be to seriously upscale fish farming efforts to large numbers for the stocks people want to eat? And is the taste about the same?
Save a whale, Spear a fisherman? =)
another "click bait" story brought to you by your flawed, bribed, and not willing to understand, DHI.
ya I ca see why this would be news for nerds, on "NATURE.COM"
So foolish..
You're a retarded political faggot. Go somewhere else.
The way i see it, the problem is income based. Rather than having fishermen hunt large quantities for money, fishermen should be subsidized by governments with a set income, in addition to fishing quota limits, while free fishing and selling to markets should be restricted. That is to say, markets that are capable (and thus willing) to pay up over a $1000 to fishers, should be restricted from actually doing this.
Or some such thing if you get what i'm getting at.
It's either 30% lose a job, or 100% lose a job when fish go extinct. The appeal to emotion jerking is pointless in the face of this little detail.
I agree with your logic, but not the conclusion.
Appeals to emotion are what convinces people. For some reason, logic and evidence don't seem to be very persuasive in real life, so I'm trying to branch out into emotional appeals to see what effect that has. It seems to work in the MSM for various subjects.
(As for example, the recent article showing the number of excess deaths caused by the VW emissions scandal, which is dwarfed by the number of excess deaths due to invasive airport screening, which is higher and has gone on for much longer.)
In any event, "solving the problem" will take more than a blanket statement "just reduce fishing".
Hopefully we can point out the difficulties, and maybe researchers will put more thought into the total problem instead of focusing on narrow issues.
Perhaps the government could pay fishermen not to fish, in the manner that it used to pay certain farmers not to grow certain crops? There's some logic to this: the fishermen incur less cost if they don't have to take their boats out, so the government would have to pay somewhat less than their gross catch worth.
All they'd hafta do is visit a Las Vegas buffet - how the hell do we maintain the shrimp population??
Pretty much sums up what a "tragedy of the commons" is. Only fix is cooperation and regulation. Not holding breath.
When the europeans first arrived on the shores of the United States, there was a climax hardwood forest from near the coast west to the Mississippi River valley. That was all cut down.
In the central US the topsoil was 30 to 50 feet deep. Erosion and poor resource management has reduced that to a few inches. Also the undergound aquifers were so full that and individual could dig a well by hand that would provide enough water for a homestead. Today you have to drill down 2500 feet or deeper to find water. It took a very long time to build up the topsoil (10,000 to 12,000 years) and fill the aquifers (eons) and humanity has used all that up in just 200 years.
I really hate to think what we are leaving our grandchildren.
... but none of you will admit you're wrong and stop eating it.
It's not just that but stupid legislation that causes by-catch to be thrown overboard instead of being used. Say a boat goes out and has a quota for fish A and in the process they catch a bunch of other fish too. Of course that's going to happen since the nets don't discriminate. Now in the EU if they land with that other fish it counts against them even if they can't do anything with it so they have to get rid of it. All that fish has been killed for nothing. Something should be worked out so that the fish can be used and the fisher isn't penalized too harshly (assuming that they by-catch isn't too much which might indicate that they went out looking for it instead of what they were supposed to be).
You may only catch a fish on rod and reel one to a customer no license required 10 fish a day max per person.
You may sell them within 5 hrs of catch.
This is not going to play well in the 'blame everything on globul warming' circles.
And this whole time I thought we had a shark problem.
"Overphishing"? I should go outside. I just typo'd outside as output...
Not just nets. Hooks too. And not just commercial. Take Red Snapper for example. NOAA/Gulf Council like to claim recreational anglers catch as many as commercial. Outside of RS season if I go after grouper I may catch 2 RS for every 1 grouper landed because they share habitats. If not using a descending device to return those RS to their previous pressure level, nearly 100% of them die for absolutely no reason other than the government said I couldn't keep them. The protected species are more in the way at that point. Why in the hell would I actively (and with great effort) contribute to protecting and conserving something that is currently annoying the hell out of me with no sign of the government lessening the regulations on it in sight?