Deep-Sea Fishing Not Sustainable - Study

[NeptunesTrident]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Farmed catfish are in a completely different category as they are raised in ponds away from the wild population. Farmed salmon on the other hand are raised in pens that are open nets to the surrounding fish populations. Farmed salmon also are fed on fish and fish byproducts mostly from fish that are caught in the southern oceans.

I still like em...

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by highseas

The oil was fine...,till they brought it to the surface!The oceans ARE almost void of life.Been out on the ocean lately?Propoganda abounds.

But the bulk of the oceans are quite naturally devoid of life. Oceanologists have even called large areas of our oceans natural "oceanic deserts."

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by NeptunesTrident

I like catfish. Farmed or fished. Fried catfish and hush puppies are, what Tony Tiger sayes.

Yes sir their Greaaaat!

[Katiusha]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

But the bulk of the oceans are quite naturally devoid of life. Oceanologists have even called large areas of our oceans natural "oceanic deserts."

Belief that oceans are devoid of life was a result of a dredge of selected areas with large scale nets from 1850s to 1950s, I believe. Later, in 1960s, when scientists started using corer boxes, they collected representatives of all main groups, from protozoans to vertebrates both from the ocean floor, including deep ocean trenches, as well as the water column.

The numbers are reduced with increased depths, but still present enough to maintain the most species rich environment on Earth as most deep sea biologists believe.

Major sources of food at depth are "marine snow", i.e. dead plankton and exrements falling to the bottom (results of photosynthesys activity), and, of course, the rich environments of hydrothermal vents (based on chemosynthetic bacteria, i.e. not photosynthesis-dependent).

Also, "oceanic deserts" are
tropical regions of the ocean (zones of anticyclonic circulations) where zooplankton biomass is low (25-100 mg/m3)


Dictionary of ichthyology. 2009.


It's fascinating to know what is underneath you - it's so different from what we see on the surface, it's almost magical!

There's an excellent book I just picked up: "Do whales get the bends?" 118 questions about the sea. It may change some of your perceptions about the oceans...

[sdowney717]

Originally Posted by NeptunesTrident

I have heard these same arguments for the last 50 years, or so. As it stands today, there should be no life in the oceans, at all. Oceans should have been void of life 20 years ago. Not to mention we should be in the middle of an ice age. But when the globe started warming again, they cried global warming. When the warming stopped, they changed it to "global climate change"! Criminy! The climate has been changing since the beginning. Before life, before people.
These people have no credibility anymore!

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
water vapor is the most potent green house gas at 95%.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by sdowney717

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
water vapor is the most potent green house gas at 95%.

What you are looking at is the power of disinformation and how strong the desire is in people to have problems go away. There is no legitimate climatologist who says that man has not had an impact and that CO2 isn't a significant part of the equation. Even the fools who launched the disinformation campaign are no longer making those claims but those who want to believe there's no reason to take responsibility for their actions grabbed on to them like a pitbull on a rope and won't let go.

You can debate what the result of inaction will be or what the most effective action will be but to continue to argue the problem doesn't exist is pointless. The temperature of the oceans has risen, man's activities have contributed to an unprecedented change in the pattern of increase of CO2 in the environment and this is a direct contributor.

[sdowney717]

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

a few comments from some climate scientists
UtterPower.com | Alternative Energy Solutions

co2 lags temperature changes

just the first 4 here

1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

[GordMay]

The IPCC actually reported:

“... During the last 6,000 years, global average sea level variations on time-scales of a few hundred years and longer are likely to have been less than 0.3 to 0.5 m.

Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global average sea level rise during the 20th century is in the range 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr, with a central value of 1.5 mm/yr (as with other ranges of uncertainty, it is not implied that the central value is the best estimate).

Based on the few very long tide gauge records, the average rate of sea level rise has been larger during the 20th century than the 19th century.

No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected ...”

Here ➥ http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/409.htm

Or Here ➥ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/013.htm

[taildragerdrive]

Interesting discussion I have spent my entire working career working in Forestry on public lands. I've worked during the time of big harvests and now the time of very minimal harvests. I can only use that experience to relate it to the oceans.

Any harvest of natural resources needs to be managed in today's world because of the huge human population, impacts will happen even if we choose not to manage. Unfortunately we have a public idea that management is a bad idea in many cases.

The vast majority of public world wide forms their opinions on what I call sound bite facts. (All commercial fishing is bad, all clear cuts are bad). Yet natural resources conditions are mindbogglingly complex and one scientific study in isolation is both true and false because by definition it is focused on a specific situation. Also one management method may work in one area and not in another, or in one situation it may be good and another bad.

In the US we have not reduced our use of wood even though we have reduced harvest in the US. On the planet or even in the US we have just exported the environmental damage to places where affluent 1st world countries can't see it. I suspect we have done that with fishing.

So in the US we have been working very hard at getting much more detail on our natural resource lands so we can make better decisions, but the public situation still will not let us do any management in most cases. These management goals in most cases are not designed to produce a lot of wood but if we do produce a bit of commercial size trees the work can be done at no cost to the Taxpayer. So our fuels reductions projects that are needed to reduce impacts of forest fires near buildings or small towns get blocked for many years and increase costs even though there are minimal impacts to do this work. If we don't do these thing we end up spending millions of $ to fight the fires if and when they start.

So I disagree with "Think Globally - Act Locally" this results in 1st world countries which have good environmental laws exporting the resource impacts to 2nd and 3rd world countries which have few or no environmental laws and selling the harvested resources to 1st world countries. My guess is that is exactly what is happening in the oceans as well.

I would say "Think Globally - Act Globally" I feel we need understand and maybe support development of universal laws that balance resource use world wide.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how this can ever be done in the current world of political and economic drivers.

Of course it is great to reduce our individual use of resources as I see many of you have been talking about. I for one almost never buy anything new (recycle, reuse) compost and recycle almost never send anything to the dump. I grow on my property or harvest almost all of my food in the woods or other wild lands. Unfortunately most or many people don't do this.

Enough for now.

Thanks

Taildraggerdriver

[zeehag]

i am one who does NOT believe the ocean is a desert--lol..i LOVE the amount of life able to be seen within the seas.... awesome.

[s/v Beth]

[QUOTE=taildragerdrive;781740]
"So I disagree with "Think Globally - Act Locally" this results in 1st world countries which have good environmental laws exporting the resource impacts to 2nd and 3rd world countries which have few or no environmental laws and selling the harvested resources to 1st world countries. My guess is that is exactly what is happening in the oceans as well.

I would say "Think Globally - Act Globally" I feel we need understand and maybe support development of universal laws that balance resource use world wide.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how this can ever be done in the current world of political and economic drivers. "

Taildragger- I don't know you, but your logic does not make sense. One cannot really "act globally" unless you are in control of companies worldwide. In that case I propose that you do act globally and reduce the impact of your life the other animals who call the earth home. I am only in charge of my own employment and home- so I choose to act locally by eating fresh local foods which are lower on the food chain and produce my own electricity.
Many forests are suffering from bark beetle here. The only way we can stop it is to thin the trees out ( I have heard) You would be the expert on that. The bark beetle was imported by man to the US (reportedly) and so is a problem we have caused. So should we act locally to stop it? I think that would be reasonable.
Yesterday I went fly fishing on one of the most productive rivers in Utah. Only its biomass is probably one third of what it used to be. Not because of fishing but because they had to put a four lane superhighway though an narrow river valley, destroying the habitat. A number of the aquatic insects are now extinct in that valley, where just 30 years ago the hatches were so thick they caused the roads to be slick and driving was dangerous. Now it is only dangerous for the residents of those mountains.
The bottom line is that we are destroying our habitat and in my lifetime I have seen irreparable harm come from "improvements". I can't act globally- I am not rich enough. But I can act today and take people sailing and turn them on to a spicy salad. I can ride a bike to work. I can talk to my son about the importance of habitat. And I can support conservation.
Maybe not much, but if all of us do the same it will be enough.

[zeehag]

mexico has placed a ban on fishing of sharks and rays. is a start, but i LOVE mako.....

[hummingway]

Restoration of habitat and protection of habitat are probably the most significant measures for protection of species we can take and yet they are the ones that seem not only difficult but contraversial since people are so reluctant to share and reluctant to understand that accepting the importance of other species to our survival supercedes the desire to make money from or build in certain locations. The human species is self absorbed and short sighted.

There are so many simple ways individuals can make a difference. If you live in a city nurture a wild area in your yard and don't cut your grass too short. Make a home for insects instead of railing against them. Reduce your electricity, heating fuel and water consumption. When your gov't representative starts talking about another dam or power plant start talking about conservation methods instead. Walk, ride a bike and take public transportation. Fight for larger and better protected riparian areas. Work to reclaim the streams and rivers in your city.

Riparian areas everywhere need to be free from commercial activity and protected. They are important for preserving the water table, the cleanliness of the water and are avenues of travel for animals. Stop draining and destroying swamps. There are few environments more important.

Until humans accept that to do this is essential there's not much hope for our species. Los Angeles can't keep draining water tables farther afield they are going to have to accept desalination is the affordable alternative. Turning the land into deserts certain isn't affordable.

The only way the oceans will survive is if we got over the "out of sight out of mind" mentality and accept it isn't an unending resource.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by taildragerdrive

Interesting discussion I have spent my entire working career working in Forestry on public lands. I've worked during the time of big harvests and now the time of very minimal harvests. I can only use that experience to relate it to the oceans.

Any harvest of natural resources needs to be managed in today's world because of the huge human population, impacts will happen even if we choose not to manage. Unfortunately we have a public idea that management is a bad idea in many cases.

The vast majority of public world wide forms their opinions on what I call sound bite facts. (All commercial fishing is bad, all clear cuts are bad). Yet natural resources conditions are mindbogglingly complex and one scientific study in isolation is both true and false because by definition it is focused on a specific situation. Also one management method may work in one area and not in another, or in one situation it may be good and another bad.

In the US we have not reduced our use of wood even though we have reduced harvest in the US. On the planet or even in the US we have just exported the environmental damage to places where affluent 1st world countries can't see it. I suspect we have done that with fishing.

So in the US we have been working very hard at getting much more detail on our natural resource lands so we can make better decisions, but the public situation still will not let us do any management in most cases. These management goals in most cases are not designed to produce a lot of wood but if we do produce a bit of commercial size trees the work can be done at no cost to the Taxpayer. So our fuels reductions projects that are needed to reduce impacts of forest fires near buildings or small towns get blocked for many years and increase costs even though there are minimal impacts to do this work. If we don't do these thing we end up spending millions of $ to fight the fires if and when they start.

So I disagree with "Think Globally - Act Locally" this results in 1st world countries which have good environmental laws exporting the resource impacts to 2nd and 3rd world countries which have few or no environmental laws and selling the harvested resources to 1st world countries. My guess is that is exactly what is happening in the oceans as well.

I would say "Think Globally - Act Globally" I feel we need understand and maybe support development of universal laws that balance resource use world wide.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how this can ever be done in the current world of political and economic drivers.

Of course it is great to reduce our individual use of resources as I see many of you have been talking about. I for one almost never buy anything new (recycle, reuse) compost and recycle almost never send anything to the dump. I grow on my property or harvest almost all of my food in the woods or other wild lands. Unfortunately most or many people don't do this.

Enough for now.

Thanks

Taildraggerdriver

I take down and recycle 100 +yr old log buildings and reuse beadedboard and the like to make "Antique heartpine flooring' when I started20 yrs. ago know one was doing it now everybodys doing it and thats a good thing..now if we could just stop fire dept. from burning down old houses for training we could recycle all of that wood from the hidden forest....

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

I take down and recycle 100 +yr old log buildings and reuse beadedboard and the like to make "Antique heartpine flooring' when I started20 yrs. ago know one was doing it now everybodys doing it and thats a good thing..now if we could just stop fire dept. from burning down old houses for training we could recycle all of that wood from the hidden forest....

The old houses in Vancouver and Victoria were framed with clear fir, beautiful stuff, often rough and full 2x4. You can't get a nail into that stuff it gets so hard. An awful lot of it went to the dump over the years.