Something for us all to think about

[Don C L]

For more info here is one organization working on it:
Federal Ocean Policy-Pew Trusts

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Article makes a great headline, "Marine Life Sliced by Half" but since we don't currently know the biomass of the oceans how do we know it's half? It seems to be pure sensationalism, not science, want to donate?

Chances are in 1970 we had no clue what the oceans biomass was. Last year researchers upped the fish biomass estimate by a factor of 10 Fish biomass in the ocean is 10 times higher than estimated | EurekAlert! Science News (first hit on Google).

I agree there are great problems but sensationalistic fluff articles don't help the cause. Also, I don't think I like the idea of lowering my personal consumption to equal that of the third world countries. How does one get their head around that? We need a better idea methinks.

Did you read the article you linked to or was it the sensationalistic fluff title that appealed to your apparent agenda?

Had you read it, you would have found that the researchers resampled and recalculated the biomass for a specific range of fishes, specifically the meso-pelagic fishes. Further study would have revealed that 90 percent of these fish are small, from 2-10 cm, so it hardly seems likely that any humans at all are using them as a food source. I suppose the mesopelagic biomass could be used as a proxy data for the health of prey populations that might be more suitable for human consumption, but the article doesn't say anything about that...

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Did you read the article you linked to or was it the sensationalistic fluff title that appealed to your apparent agenda?

Had you read it, you would have found that the researchers resampled and recalculated the biomass for a specific range of fishes, specifically the meso-pelagic fishes. Further study would have revealed that 90 percent of these fish are small, from 2-10 cm, so it hardly seems likely that any humans at all are using them as a food source. I suppose the mesopelagic biomass could be used as a proxy data for the health of prey populations that might be more suitable for human consumption, but the article doesn't say anything about that...

Jim - the article in the first sentence points out that the meso-pelagic fishes "dominate the biomass of the fishes in the ocean."

The headline of the article in the OP says specifically...Marine Life.

I might be making this up but consider the major fraction of the biomass of the oceans is actually in the krill/plankton. Lots of little things adding up to big things.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

There are no politically correct solutions to problems of overpopulation.

Ann...thanks!

I agree, it is quite a simple and obvious truth.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by TJ D

Hi everybody,

I am captain of a large bottom trawler that operates in the Bering sea. Let's get that right out front. I have been doing it for 25 years, and have a keen interest in the sustainability of the stocks. I would not be doing this if I saw unsustainable management happening. The species I target can not be worked effectively with any type of gear other than trawls.

Here's the deal with commercial fishing and its impact on ocean life, stated in a simple manner. Of course it's more nuanced and complex than one can write on a post, but here's the gist.

First, humanity absolutely has the capability to adversely affect fish stocks worldwide. It has happened in many places, and is happening today.

That said, however, responsibly harvested wild fish populations represent the most ecologically friendly method of bringing quality protein to the world's tables. I will use my own boat as an example. We delivered about 22 million pounds of headed/gutted frozen fish to market last year, meaning about 30 million meals utilized my fish. This was done without fertilizers, chemicals, runoff into watersheds, topsoil depletion, etc, etc.

It is simply one of the least impactful ways to deliver food to the world.

Yes, we catch a lot of fish. Yes, the videos showing large catches get the greenies all up in arms, but my fishery has been going on for decades. Fish stocks are healthy (in my part of the world, anyway). The habitat in my fishery is all soft mud/sand substrates. We have elevated our nets to minimize impact on even this non-prone to damage seabed.

We are heavily managed, and certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.

There is a strict moratorium on more permits/vessels. We have 2 federal fisheries observers on board at all times when operating.

So, the bottom line is this. Fishing can and should continue, but the rest of the world needs to be brought into line with modern management methods as soon as possible.

So, what to do? First, lose the notion that all fishing has a negative impact on the marine environment.

Second, take the time to learn the issue. There are ways to accomplish sustainable harvests. Unfortunately most of the major environmental NGO's are awfully fast and loose with the truth. Greenpeace in particular has been demonstrated conclusively to be in error on many fishing issues for over 20 years.

Fishing (outside EEZ's) needs to be brought under an international authority. As it stands, fisheries are either unmanaged or poorly managed outside the EEZ's of nations. This needs to change.

Second, underdeveloped fishing nations, as well as the traditional distant-water nations need to be brought into line with the leaders in fisheries management.

How to accomplish it with the overcapitalization of fleets around the world? Well, it's going to ultimately require government intervention and taxpayer buybacks, I'm afraid. Not popular, but no hard choice is.

End rant, back to sailing...


TJ

YOU Sir, are a part of the problem. BUT, I appreciate your contribution. And your very last statement is very true.

My experience is just like TJD has posted here, no matter how big the organisation exploiting the resource, they will ALWAYS claim they are not causing harm, they will always claim there is plenty left. And they will always ignore the obviousness of their bias towards continuing what they are doing. And those 30 million meals you really think those 'meals' went to feed the poor?

[Saleen411]

1. Overpopulation is not a problem, nor is it likely to be in the future. The world, on average, is very sparsely populated.

The entire world population would fit in a 1 cubic mile box....amazing considering the impact humans have had on the planet. Heard this before, but found it hard to believe. Found the following on the net....

Everyone on Earth would fit in a cubic mile
Really. You could put the entire population of the Earth in a space one mile wide, one mile deep, and one mile high (one cubic mile). We'd all fit in one small corner of the Grand Canyon, which would take about 2500 cubic miles of dirt (or people) to fill.

How do we know? One cubic mile is 147,197,952,000 cubic feet. If, on average, one human being takes up a space 2 feet by 2 feet by 6 feet it means we occupy 24 cubic feet per person. Sure, kids will have extra room and some of us will be a bit squished (or a lot if you're a flabby American); but on average that's about right.

So divide 147,197,952,000 by 24 and you get 6,133,248,000, which means that in the year 2000 when the world population reached 6 billion we'd all have fit in a cubic mile, with room left over for another 133 million folks. The population now has reached over 6.7 billion so today there'd be a little overflow.


But now consider this. If we all stood side-by-side, shoulder to shoulder (and use the same 2 foot width per person), all 6.7 billion of us could make a line around the Earth over 102 times!

Our brains are pretty well equipped to deal with liner measures (rows of corn, lines of wildebeest), but we're easily befuddled by cubic measures. We intuitively know that a line at Starbucks with 6.7 billion people in it would be a long one. But it's hard to imagine that we could pile all those people on Chicago's O'Hare Airport and the pile would only be 500 feet deep.

[Pelagic]

I sardonically sigh and ask......
Is this the sardine theory of evolution?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Here's a modest proposal: Westerners start consuming at the same per-capita level as the average Asian. That probably won't solve the problem of over-fishing, but it would go a long, long way.

You go first. Sell the two bikes and the boat and buy a small scooter of the type that is ubiquitous in Asia carrying entire families.

Give the remainder of the sale cash to a good charity. Perhaps a Philippine one, where 2012 annual average income was 1584 USD, or about 130 bucks a month, far less than the widely discussed cruising on a 500 USD monthly budget on SN.

I'm sure your contribution would result in zero bonca boats being parked, and have zero impact on fishing or fish levels.

You do realize that if Westerners began consuming at average Asian family levels, the world economy would tank and widespread famine, disease, and conflict would be the immediate result? Or perhaps you don't.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Over population is a problem. No one wants to confront it. Much of what we are privileged to know and experience will be gone in 50 years. What's worse is that much of the uneducated and backwards parts of the world are the fastest growing. Much of the modern civilized world has decreased in birthrate. IIRC the current population is about 7 billion, by 2050 2 billion will be added. The gas crisis was nothing, the food and water crisis is on the horizon. I learned all this from a recent documentary I watched.. evaluating the change in the planet, including pictures from space, land area per capita, land area to feed each person etc.
What will the growing population do when confronted with starving children? Join radical Islam in frustration? or another alternative?

Same argument that Paul Erlich made in the '70s (The Population Bomb). He was wrong on every count. But he made a name for himself by sucking in the gullible.

There are Erlich's in every generation, stoking fear in the masses because most are afraid of an uncertain future.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

YOU Sir, are a part of the problem. BUT, I appreciate your contribution... And those 30 million meals you really think those 'meals' went to feed the poor?

Well, he did qualify his comments by relating his considerable experience and expertise on the subject...and having seen no bonnie feedies from you or any of the others who have commented...I think I'll weight his comment a bit more than yours while considering the issue.

I find his comment the most insightful that has been made on this thread...even offering a lucid, practical solution...something other than killing off a large fraction of the human population.

He never claimed to feed the poor. Feeding the poor is not his job. Feeding his family is. He does that by making food available to millions of others.

What great effort do you make in your daily life to feed anybody?

[TJ D]

Fryewe, thank you for the good words. I'm unfortunately quite used to folks who tell me what I'm doing is bad, horrible even, never mind the facts. I've spent my entire career very much engaged on the realities out at sea, but that's not relevant because I'm a harvester and therefore part of the problem. Nonsense, I say.

It's usually portrayed as a 'corporations raping the ocean, lying about the facts, no care for anything but today's profits'.

The family that I fish for has been operating in the fishing industry continuously since 1907. Does this sound like an organization which cares nothing for sustainability?

Anyway, there is no convincing someone who has already made up their mind. Of course, if the only solution is to drastically reduce the planet's population or to dramatically lower the wealthier countries' standards of living, I'm not on board. Certainly fishing done properly is WAY down the list of the ocean's ills.

It's probably worth noting that I live on my sailboat full time, and cruise extensively in my spare time. I can count on one hand the number of nights I spend in a year sleeping on land. Certainly I have a deep reverence for the marine environment. So, it gets old to be told otherwise, but as I said before there's no changing some minds. But I do try from time to time.

Good sailing.

TJ

[zboss]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

When countries prosper economically the people produce less babies.

That is a correlation not a causation.

The only solution is to remain on your yacht and spend your remaining blissful years in the Bahamas and similar environs and leave the population problem to the population after you are dead. MOther earth with either take care of the population problem, the population will self correct, or the future population will find a shortcut.

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Whales aren't eating tuna and swordfish, or sharks, or cod. Granted they are eating baitfish (sardines, anchovies, etc.) and pelagic crustaceans that feed on plankton. I don't think whales are a threat to plankton. I haven't seen anything that would suggest whales are anything more than 10% of their original populations. (I hope I am wrong.) Is that "sustainable?" When you say fish, it is probably helpful to distinguish which ones we're talking about. I would like to see the scientific study that shows fish populations, of all types, were naturally much lower before whaling began. The dramatic declines are not from humans selectively taking more fish. They are from humans unselectively taking massive quantities of sea life and at the same time destroying or polluting crucial habitat that all fish and sea life need to reproduce. It sounds like you are saying the fish in the sea will either go to us or the whales, so we might as well be the ones to take them. I think this is a misunderstanding of how the ecosystem works and vastly overstates the consumption by whales.

Thank you. This response just saved me a lot of time to the prior poster as I am still picking the keys out of my forehead after it hit the desk.

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by TJ D

....So, the bottom line is this. Fishing can and should continue, but the rest of the world needs to be brought into line with modern management methods as soon as possible.

So, what to do? First, lose the notion that all fishing has a negative impact on the marine environment.

Second, take the time to learn the issue. There are ways to accomplish sustainable harvests. Unfortunately most of the major environmental NGO's are awfully fast and loose with the truth. Greenpeace in particular has been demonstrated conclusively to be in error on many fishing issues for over 20 years.

Fishing (outside EEZ's) needs to be brought under an international authority. As it stands, fisheries are either unmanaged or poorly managed outside the EEZ's of nations. This needs to change.

Second, underdeveloped fishing nations, as well as the traditional distant-water nations need to be brought into line with the leaders in fisheries management.

How to accomplish it with the overcapitalization of fleets around the world? Well, it's going to ultimately require government intervention and taxpayer buybacks, I'm afraid. Not popular, but no hard choice is.

I'd vote for you if you were to run for president

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

My experience is just like TJD has posted here, no matter how big the organisation exploiting the resource, they will ALWAYS claim they are not causing harm, they will always claim there is plenty left. And they will always ignore the obviousness of their bias towards continuing what they are doing. And those 30 million meals you really think those 'meals' went to feed the poor?

You mean kind of like the folks that wrote the article referenced in the original post claiming a 50% reduction in the oceans fish biomass? The biomass that was just adjusted upward in 2014 by a factor of 10. Try somewhat to limit YOUR intellectual bias.