Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Drives Fish Into New Waters, Remaking an Industry (wsj.com)
The catch is shifting northward as water temperatures rise, forcing crews to retool their boats and rework their businesses. From a report: Aboard the Stanley K and the Oracle, two 58-foot vessels, Buck Laukitis and his crews chase halibut across the Bering Sea worth $5 a pound at the docks. As sea temperatures rise, and Arctic ice retreats the fish appear to be avoiding warming waters, migrating northward where they cost more to reach, federal fisheries biologists say. Twice this past fall, the Oracle sailed 800 miles north from the seaport of Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands, before finding the halibut that a decade ago lived several hundred miles closer to home. Each voyage took twice as long and yielded half as many fish. "It keeps me up at night," he says. "I woke up at three in the morning. I couldn't sleep thinking about where the fish are going."
Across the continent from Mr. Laukitis in Rhode Island, black sea bass have moved in with the warming waters. The bulk once lived roughly 700 miles south off North Carolina. Now they are a staple catch in Point Judith, R.I., along with the summer flounder that also have begun appearing. [...] The impact of climate change has a price, and for fishing-boat owners in sea ports, that means following the catch. The northward movement of fish around the world is disrupting some fishing grounds and revitalizing others -- and fishing businesses are trying to adapt their operations.
The impact of temperature on oceans is varied. As the atmosphere warmed in recent decades, oceans absorbed heat unevenly, causing marine hot spots that can last months, scientists say. Spikes of warmer water affect fisheries differently depending on ocean currents, ocean depth and seafloor topography. Higher temperatures mean less dissolved oxygen in the water while increasing a fish's demand for oxygen by speeding up its metabolism. Warming water may also favor predators or drive off species on which commercial fish feed. All told, warming ocean temperatures are pushing hundreds of marine species outside of their traditional ranges, ocean scientists say.
Across the continent from Mr. Laukitis in Rhode Island, black sea bass have moved in with the warming waters. The bulk once lived roughly 700 miles south off North Carolina. Now they are a staple catch in Point Judith, R.I., along with the summer flounder that also have begun appearing. [...] The impact of climate change has a price, and for fishing-boat owners in sea ports, that means following the catch. The northward movement of fish around the world is disrupting some fishing grounds and revitalizing others -- and fishing businesses are trying to adapt their operations.
The impact of temperature on oceans is varied. As the atmosphere warmed in recent decades, oceans absorbed heat unevenly, causing marine hot spots that can last months, scientists say. Spikes of warmer water affect fisheries differently depending on ocean currents, ocean depth and seafloor topography. Higher temperatures mean less dissolved oxygen in the water while increasing a fish's demand for oxygen by speeding up its metabolism. Warming water may also favor predators or drive off species on which commercial fish feed. All told, warming ocean temperatures are pushing hundreds of marine species outside of their traditional ranges, ocean scientists say.
with the lobster industry. One of the frustrating (or amusing if I'm feeling mean) things is watching several "red" states (e.g. they vote GOP, the party currently calling Climate Change a hoax) clearly impacted. Florida had a huge problem with red tide this year. If it keeps getting worse it'll kill their tourist industry. Meanwhile the SEC filings, where mega corps aren't allowed to lie, are chock full of lines about the negative impacts of climate change.
I'm not necessarily blaming the rank and file though. Most of the Dems don't really have a solution besides "consume less", which would be great if a) the vast majority of pollution was from consumers and not the companies they buy from and b) folks weren't living paycheck to paycheck so on edge they're terrified of any change. A few lefties like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have suggested a "Green New Deal" to address this, but the Clinton Democrats (the right wing of the party) don't want to tax their wealthy donors to pay for it all.
So the result is this, we're all going to hell in a handbasket and just pretending it's not happening.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ah, spoken like a true preacher, say the one of a Church in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay whose island is disappearing. Said the holy man of the cloth, I paraphrase, the world is such a magnificent creation of G-d that man cannot affect it.
Kind of hard to argue with the fish. They cannot speak but they do vote.
I see you do not live on one of the islands of the Pacific Ocean that is going bye-bye from higher oceans. Gee, sometimes change costs some people money....like their entire nation.
If people consumed less, the companies would produce less...
It's not rocket surgery
If you are going to call others an idiot you should at least spellcheck before posting.
And no it was not a typo.
"The northward movement of fish around the world is disrupting some fishing grounds and revitalizing others -- and fishing businesses are trying to adapt their operations. "
Sometime change costs some people money (and risk), and sometimes the exact same change reduces peoples' costs (and risks). Imagine that. The human mind is capable of reasoning about and understanding patterns that will allow us to adjust to changes in our environment. Perhaps we're not all going to die (at least all at once).
...unless you live in the Pacific and fish are a staple part of your diet.
In which case you starve to death.
No sig today...
I was also thinking about overfishing, but not migration. I instead suspect these fish have always been that far north, but nobody knew because the fishing was easier further south. But now that the more southern fisheries have been overfished, the fishermen are going further north and finding new--to them--schools.
Florida's elections are staggeringly corrupt and pretty close. There's also a mounting of disenfranchisement. 1.5 million Floridians can't vote because of a criminal conviction. They've restored virtually noone's voting rights either. A law was passed to give 1 million of them their rights back and their corrupt legislature is blocking it. And that's just one example. There's a ton of evidence of votes not being counted, voting machines not working in left leaning districts, etc, etc.
The FL GOP is as crooked as a dog's leg. If the national media was doing it's damn job they'd all be in prison.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yeah well, the fish heading south are going to bump into a huge land mass before they get near the pole.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Here in Alaska, there is always concern over the fish stocks. The commercial boats want to catch as much as possible for as cheaply as possible. The sport fishers and charter boats want to catch a reasonable amount (relatively small) and have fun doing it. And the subsistence fishers just want to pack their freezers so they can survive.
From my sport fisher point-of-view, aside from the climate change bits, the problem is over-fishing by the commercial boats. Those trawlers just catch sooo many fish. 8y ago, our average halibut was 45-50 lbs, and keep 2 of any size. Now its
The salmon aren't any different. The return numbers and escapements continue to get lower. And I can't tell you the last time the US met its TREATY goals with Canada. If the commercial boats catch all the salmon in the ocean, they can't return to spawn to make more fish.
Many of these problems are man-made with straightforward solutions.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
aahh but then they'll have to drive 700 miles back to the restaurants where it was local before
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Pacific islands are overwhelmingly growing, very few are going away. Adding land typically doesn't qualify for "going bye-bye"... But scary phrases and lies rule the day, eh?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I have very little knowledge about the fishing industry (which is odd since much of my salary is provided by it) but I'm curious.
The article makes a big deal about how climate has effected the fishing industry. I'm a huge lover of old books and have read pretty much everything I could get my hands on from the past 5000 years of writing. I recall stories dating back to the ancient Egyptians regarding the how a major part of their version of modern politics was centered around the inundation of the Nile. And in recent times, we know that it's very important for dead fish to be left on the shores of the Nile to fertilize crops.
It seems to me that I can think of books and historical references from nearly every era of human history that would tell stories of fishermen chasing fish because the fishing grounds constantly changed.
That said, I live in Norway now which depends almost as much on fish as on oil money. A massive portion of the country's income is spent on fish breeding and while Norway is still a whaling country, they apparently are believed to be one of the top contributors to repopulating the whales of the world. I know very little about the details and I have no idea how accurate my understanding of this topic is. I believe most of what I know is hearsay.
That said, I wonder if anyone here on Slashdot is knowledgeable about the fishing industry and could answer some questions.
1) Are the migratory issues normal? In other words, did the fish always move similar to this? Is the problem because companies aren't "fishing companies" but instead "halibut companies"? Instead of changing to a different fish as might have happened 500 years ago, the companies are chasing specific types of fish now because they have the means to?
2) Is the fish population genuinely less or could it be that fish are adapting to a more hostile environment and swimming further from the surface as a matter of survival?
3) Is this an issue of genuine migration? The blurb makes a point that not only are the fish further north, but there are less of them? Could it be that these fish were probably always there but the southern populations have been so over-fished that there simply aren't enough left to make it profitable?
4) Could the population have migrated elsewhere and we simply haven't found them yet? I imagine we don't have submarines zooming all over the Atlantic looking for halibut.
5) Is it even possible to farm fish instead? In other words, here in Norway, much of our salmon comes from farms instead of free range. Is it possible for the industry to adapt for other fish?
Now that fishermen are netting fried cod and grilled halibut, the boats are being redesigned to keep the catch piping hot from net to dock.
Chances are good that Sardines will migrate north and restart the sardine cannery in CA. Sounds like it is minor, but at this time, the Sardines are around mexico and China basically raids the fisheries quite frequently
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
'larger' doesn't mean higher
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Given that massive changes in animal/fish migration are already very observable, it's highly likely the fish are moving due to temperature increases. The Inuit in North America had no word for Robin...because they'd never seen one before but now they are.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
If the oceans are rising - then yes, larger would mean the island would necessarily have gotten higher (otherwise it would shrink). Again - what islands are shrinking/disappearing?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Micronesia - Eight Pacific islands lost
Islands aren't the only problem. The a huge bulk of human society lives on the coasts. London, Miami, New York, etc. Miami is experiencing far more flooding just from tides than it did just 30 years ago.
London built the Thames Barrier to prevent storm surge flooding. over 50 percent of it's usage has been regular tidal flooding
Sometimes they even close the barrier now at low tide to provide a place for excess rain to go because the rain plus higher tides would be flooding.
Sea level is rising and now rising faster than it has in 100s or 1000s of years.. That simply isn't in dispute.
Larger islands don't discount rising seas until they are overtopped. An island that's 1 foot above sea level can get larger with 6 inches of rise without shrinking - that doesn't mean there isn't a significant problem going forward.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
WindBourne's post (to which the AC you were responding to was himself responding to) said, "there is fast tidal movement..." The AC you're responding to is quite right: tides are caused by the gravitational attraction of the moon and (to a lesser extent) the sun. They are also affected by other things, such as the size of the water basin (tides in the Atlantic can be sizeable, while tides in the Great Lakes are negligible), the position of the measuring station (tides act something like standing waves, so the tidal range tends to be greatest on the margins, and least in the middle), other geological factors (tides in the Bay of Fundy can reach 50 feet or more, due to the shape and length of the Bay), and yes, to some extent by weather. But to repeat, the ultimate cause of tides is the gravitational attraction of the moon and sun.
Perhaps you should repeat eight grade. Oh, and on a lighter note, you might read Larry Niven's "Neutron Star", and pay special attention to the ending.