This Telegraph article from 2006 included a projection (not a prediction) of depleted oceanic life by 2048 at current fishing rates. How has the situation changed, if any, since then?
I can only answer for New England-here fish stocks are in a state of collapse. Many fishing boats are for sale, and the government has announced new cuts in allotments. Despite efforts at conservation, the stocks are in decline.
And I’m happy to say that my investment in Amalgamated Trout is paying big dividends.
In other words if we seriously restrict fishing the populations will jump from nearly nothing to a fraction of what they once were.
In other good news the melting Arctic ice cap is opening up new territory for fish to breed and eventually get overfished into oblivion.
We learned long ago to replace the crops we used last year with new ones this year. And to fertilize and rotate them to maintain soil quality. Why can’t we figure out how to plant trees and restock fisheries? You never hear about deer and turkey populations dwindling due to hunting.
It’s not like oil and coal. These industries could become sustainable, with just a little forethought. What’s the holdup?
What’s the holdup?
Politics.
Actually, hunting stocks were very low in the mid 20th century. Proper management works wonders.
International politics. That’s a whole nother kettle of fish.
Fish stocks are not good and getting worse. However, even more alarming than fish stocks are shellfish. Here in Washington, once-thriving oyster farms have had to shut down or relocate to Hawaii because of ocean acidification. Oyster larvae are having trouble growing shells, causing them to die before they can reproduce. Acidification is also expected to impact the tiny crustaceans that form the basis of many marine food chains, so we could soon see even more drastic declines to marine fisheries.
We have more trees now then we had 100 years ago. One of the biggest problems with western forests is that there are too many trees and politicians and some environmental groups have diminished our ability to manage them.
Sitchensis, when ‘management’ is too often is a thinly veiled bid to clear cut genuinely rare old growth forests, people have become sceptical when new proposals come around. Just because there are a lot of new growth wooded areas springing up doesn’t mean the OTHER forests, the ones which didn’t spring up recently, are superfluous.
Of course, maybe when you said that there are ‘too many trees’ it was an attempt to make it clear you were being sarcastic.
So why did the New England fishermen fish the sea empty? I think it is because the federal Government gave substantial grants (in the 1980s) to modernize their fleets-deeper nets, sonar, etc,m ade it impossible for the fish to escape. So in this case, the "benevolent’ government actually assisted in the demise of the fishery.
Tragedy of the commons.
That’s it exactly.
I bought five shares of Guppy but they went in the toilet.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Is that an environmental problem, a resource-management problem, an esthetic problem, or what?
I was wondering the same thing. Is it something about forests being too crowded produce a renewable resource, or does he just hate trees?
A problem stemming from suppression of wildfires. We’ve probably all heard that prevention of wildfires has left a lot of forest with an overabundance of underbrush that would normally have been periodically cleared out by lightning-started fires. It also has left many western forests with a higher density of trees:
We are losing our historic ponderosa pine forests to an invasion of Doug fir and grand fir due to a history of fire suppression. A true ponderosa pine forest should be sparsely populated, the crowns should not be touching. Go to pages 18 and 19 of this pdffor pictures of how our forests have changed over time.
Ah, thank you. I had read about this elsewhere, but I wasn’t able to discern the issue from the original comment.