Michaelangelica Posted November 3, 2006 Report Share Posted November 3, 2006 * Almost no more seafood after 2048 if trends continue, study predicts: Seafood will be all but a memory if fishing and pollution go on at current rates, a study warns. http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061102_seafood.htm Sucks for us.By JohnsonI did give administrative blogging permission to President Crouse but he's obviously ... "If the long-term trend continues, all fish and seafood species are ... pointed out that worldwide fishing provides $80 billion in revenue and 200 ...The Team Four. - http://theteamfour.blogspot.com Another Heartbreaking Story About Our OceansBy Surfsister"If the long-term trend continues, all fish and seafood species are projected to ... It just requires a big chunk of political will to do it. ... pointed out that worldwide fishing provides $80 billion in revenue and 200 million people ...The Surf and the Fury - http://surfandthefury.blogspot.com Ocean Fish Populations At Risk of Collapse Or Extinction Within 40 ...By The Riverman"We can do this, we know how to do this, and it can be done, but it must be ... George Leonard, says safeguarding the seafood supply will require finding new ... "If we are going to continue to eat seafood, we're going to have to work ...Anglerama - http://anglerama.blogspot.com Almost no more seafood after 2048 at current rates, study warnsSeafood will be all but a memory if fishing and pollution go on at current rates, a study predicts.World Science - http://feeds.rapidfeeds.com/?fid4ct=51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moo Posted November 3, 2006 Report Share Posted November 3, 2006 That's really sad (and a wee bit scary). :hihi: I'd guess it's unlikely that viable preventative measures can (or will be) taken in time either, given the current worldwide "cooperativeness" (or lack thereof) on ecological matters. I wonder if commercial "sea" type fish/shellfish/etc. farms will become common as a result, or do proper salt levels and other requirements pose too great a problem? :shrug: moo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted November 3, 2006 Report Share Posted November 3, 2006 Its called "progress"more exploitve humans are a birthright to mankind, environment be damned. Imagine the oceans not full of whales and swordfish, but mercury and old tires. Where the water turns from blue to green with algae and pollution. Once upon a time going the beach to run along the sandy shore and watch the fishing boats was a sensual pleasure. Now the boats are decaying as the men look for work because the fish are all gone. The smell of the ocean changed and garbage is littered everywhere. Planet Earth has some staggering pollution and ecosystem Crisis. Will science be enough to save it?Probably and most likely not because of attitudes, food demands, and bottom line economics. I'm starting to think that if we humans can't stop ourselves from cutting down the forrests, smogging up the air, plundering dead our oceans, and destructively trashing everything else up along the way, that there really isn't the greatest future instore for the next generations. I read this and then saw your thread and links micheal. :shrug: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15532333/ Michaelangelica 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted November 3, 2006 Report Share Posted November 3, 2006 It's kind of wierd to think that seafood is going to be badly affected, when the very concept of seafood is giving rise to this. I mean, we could eventually resort to rearing fish the same way as we do chicken. Or perhaps a natural park for the endangered fish.:D The natural aspect is what the worries are worth being for. What the hell is going to happen to the water bodies? Hopelessly difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 I saw this on the news, truely shocking. But then there was a little add-on at the end saying something like "Australias fish population has actually increased due to conservation schemes..etc we are miles ahead of the world in this area" So our fish will last for a while longer ;) just so long as you guys dont start fishing our oceans! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedars Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 Overfishing has been an issue for a very long time. Tuna fishing excess/dolphin killing is the first memory I have of the battle to protect the seas, and the cod industry in the Atlantic basically collapsing due to overfishing. Lobster overfishing on the east coast of the USA. Salmon runs getting smaller and smaller in Alaska. There was an El Nino a few years back when there were news reports about the BEST FISHING in YEARS!! People on the west coast catching fish by the boatload. Species of fish never caught that far north. Trophy sized fish... Instead of putting a bit of control on this massive slaughter of fish, the government remained silent (a let them have their fun approach). I was disapointed at the greed. The world holds the blame equally at this point in time. No excuses for 'developing countries' ignoring other countries attempts at resolving this issue. And one cannot ignore inland waters either in this. I am currently refusing to support our state DNR via fishing licenses, after their killing of nesting cormorants, due to the resort owners crying over lost profits, "no one wants to fish here anymore, cuz the birds are taking all the fish". Baloney. There is bad fishing all over this state due to overfishing, not colonies of cormorants. And I have to remember there are some good stories/efforts. A couple years ago I cheered on the Australians, checking on the pursuit each day, as they chased a Nigerian flagged vessel thru the Antarctic seas in very dangerous conditions to tag a boat which was hunting Patagonian toothfish/Chilean Sea Bass in protected waters of Australia. I remember when several Japanese and/or Korean drift fishermen boats were taken by the US (I cant remember if it was Coast Guard or Navy) for violating waters in the search for salmon. We actually shot across their bow to get them to stop and be boarded. I remember the whales trapped in the ice in Alaska. Each day the world could tune in and see the efforts being made. I can still see the image of those huge ice breaker ships Gorbachov ordered in to help the effort. Their great gray silhouettes against the white of the snow covered ice. Yes even this whaleing country can be brought to realize the need to help conserve the resources. Several links with relevant information:http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OceansInDistress.phpTrawling moratoriumhttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0607/S00054.htmFlags of convenience http://wwf.org.au/articles/feature48/ An answer?http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/2003/january15/palumbisr-115.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402455.htmlhttp://www.spectrumtour.com/national-parks-india/marine-national-park.htm And a sink the pirates boats, ask questions later approach.... Michaelangelica 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 Almost no more seafood after 2048 at current rates, study warnsSeafood will be all but a memory if fishing and pollution go on at current rates, a study predicts.World Science - http://feeds.rapidfeeds.com/?fid4ct=51I wonder if they used a flat population curve or the exponential rate of growth of the human population consuming seafood :evil: It could be worse than we think:cry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 So our fish will last for a while longer :evil: just so long as you guys dont start fishing our oceans!Too late, you just let the proverbial cat out of the bag. Now where on earth did I put that fishing pole?......................Infy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted November 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 I saw this on the news, truely shocking. But then there was a little add-on at the end saying something like "Australias fish population has actually increased due to conservation schemes..etc we are miles ahead of the world in this area" So our fish will last for a while longer :evil: just so long as you guys dont start fishing our oceans!Yes surprisingly Australia is leading the world with Marine Parks, (The Great Barrier Reef helps the stats. here); controlled commercial fish takes, buying back fishing licences; limits on bag sizes; species, and even time of harvest; limits on sporting fish; a hard nose policy on poaching (Orange Roughy in the South; Indonesian Shark-Fin poachers in the North.); research ( especially at James Cook Uni) and Fish & Shellfood-Farming in Tasmania. (including amazing Sea Horses for the Chinese medicinal market)We take less seafood, per 1000Sq metres of sea, than any other country. Still Japan is clean sweeping the Pacific with huge Factory Ships and 'buttering up' corrupt Pacific principalities with "aid"So things overall are grimWHERE IS ALL THE FISH?Updated: 3:19 p.m. ET Nov. 2, 2006http://journals.aol.com/jcjacquesprn/JACQUEFAIRY/entries/2006/11/03/where-is-all-the-fish/598WASHINGTON - Clambakes, crabcakes, swordfish steaks and even humble fish sticks could be little more than a fond memory in a few decades. If current trends of overfishing and pollution continue, by 2050 the populations of just about all seafood face collapse, defined as 90 percent depletion, a team of ecologists and economists warns in a study published in Friday’s issue of the journal Science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 I smell a media propagated scare in all these news. :evil:; just like global warming and ozone holes! I have lot more confidence in the Natures' ability to take care of such threats and contigencies. After all, all these reports rest on extrapolations which assume that there is no possibility of change in the intervining period. Queso 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 I have lot more confidence in the Natures' ability to take care of such threats and contigencies.Sadly, Nature doesn't give a hoot if any one particular species survives or not. There'd be no reason for Nature to step in and do anything about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 I smell a media propagated scare in all these news. :hihi:; just like global warming and ozone holes! I have lot more confidence in the Natures' ability to take care of such threats and contigencies. After all, all these reports rest on extrapolations which assume that there is no possibility of change in the intervining period. Poor choice of words. Any prediction does make some assumptions. As listed in the article I have read, this outlook predicts that the current trends of pollution and overfishing continues. However the forcast makes no claims about the possibility of change.Of course if there is a change in the trends there will be a change in the outcome. However, just judging from your first statement, I doubt that change will happen if people that can make those changes feel as you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 Sadly, Nature doesn't give a hoot if any one particular species survives or not. There'd be no reason for Nature to step in and do anything about it. Fortunately, nature is never out of it, so the question of it stepping in never arises. By the way, all such phenomena are in fact a result of human greed and desires. I believe that the situation has arisen mainly because there has been an increase in the demand for fish for food. Which is partly due to the propagation of the information through the media that consumption of fish is very good for health, and partly due to the increasing population of human beings who have been traditionally consumers of fish for food. Part of it is also because of the modern life styles, that cares two hoots for the wastage of food, because the affluent can afford to do so. On the larger scale, the moot question is, why there is an increased demand for fish, while there has been very little effort spent to find alternate forms of food that have the benefits of eating fish. The only answer I can imagine, is that fish is really cheap in the market, because it is freely available. If it were to become costlier, as oil, its consumption and hence its extinction in nature would not be prophesized to occur so soon. :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 Part of it is also because of the modern life styles, that cares two hoots for the wastage of food, because the affluent can afford to do so. When was there a time when the affluent, which could always afford more than enough food, decided to not because they cared about wastage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted November 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 Poor choice of words. Any prediction does make some assumptions. As listed in the article I have read, this outlook predicts that the current trends of pollution and overfishing continues. However the forcast makes no claims about the possibility of change.Of course if there is a change in the trends there will be a change in the outcome..And as Austrralia has shown change can happen.Scuba divers tell me The Marine National Park near me teams with fish. When you get out of the park numbers drop dramatically. Seafood is already expensive here $20 a K for anything good and the best is exported to Japan who seem prepared to, (and can) pay any price. This is a cartoon on the topichttp://beyondthepunchline.blogspot.com/2006/11/todays-cartoon-experts-predict-seafood.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted February 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 Sadly, Nature doesn't give a hoot if any one particular species survives or not. There'd be no reason for Nature to step in and do anything about it.Humans are nature.We should give a hootWe should step in and do something about it. 10 commandments could save world fisheriesmongabay.comFebruary 18, 2007 10 commandments could save world fisheries Government subsidies drive deep-sea fish depletionmongabay.comFebruary 18, 2007 Government subsidies drive deep-sea fish depletion Recently Australia stopped the harvesting of the 'deep sea roughy' fish after discovering they were very long lived fish, thought to live up to 150 years, and did not sexually mature until they are 25-30 years oldScience fact sheet: Orange Roughy - delicacy from the deepLast year an Oz navy ship chased a Pirate poacher ship all the way to Cape Town in heavy seas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 I mean, we could eventually resort to rearing fish the same way as we do chicken. Seriously, why don't we do this? Take a big section of the ocean - "fence" it off and raise fish in it? Works for everything else we eat on a massive industrialized scale. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.