"Only 10 percent of big ocean fish remain" -- What's the solution?

Great Debates
1

This is a serious topic. A new global study, published in the international journal Nature this week, concludes that 90 percent of all large fishes have disappeared from the world’s oceans in the past half century, the devastating result of industrial fishing.

Some representatives of the fishing industry said the picture was not as bleak as the Nature authors indicated, but I found them unconvincing. Their points seemed to be quibbles.

This is frightening stuff. I’ve been reading articles for years about how modern, efficient fishing methods were depleting the seas. Without massive effort, one would expect things to get worse, as world population increases and as efficient fishing techniques become even more widespread. Any sort of solution requires the full cooperation of companies making a living from these fish and from many separate countries. It’s not easy to imagine a mechanism for getting all these parties to agree on a sensible formula for limiting overfishing. It’s also going to be fantastically difficult to enforce an agreement, since the fishing could take place in so many different parts of the oceans.

Is this problem as serious as I think it is? What should be done about it? How hopeful should we be?

2

Yes, it is serious.

As o what should be done about it, it’s hard to say. Canada and Spain damn near started an honest-to-God shooting war a few years back over the fishing rights for some tasteless fish called a “turbot.” At least in this country fishermen, like farmers, are an entrenched lobby group who wield considerable political influence to the effect of “Let us fish as much as we can, and give us free money, too, while you’re at it.”

What needs to take place, of course, is the international will to enforce a major fishing moratorium that encompasses national waters AND the high seas, enforced by military assets if need be. If you establish national waters, foreign boats will just sit one mile outside them and catch the fish as they swim past the border. Fish are not well schooled (ha ha) on martime law and borders.

Whether that will could ever exist, I don’t know. Fish are a resource whose protection defies property law or the current international structure. And I see little evidence most governments are willing to cooperate. It may take some hardline tactics by a few major fishing nations to push the others into line. Canada and Spain seemed to work things out very quickly when Canada started escalating the conflict. aybe that needs to happen on a global scale, I don’t know.

3

Actually, the problem is probably worse then you can imagine.

As for what should be done about it. well, that’s the wrong question to ask.

The correct question is, what will be done about it?

Sadly, the answer would seem to be absolutley nothing, especially with Shrub and his ilk in charge of things.

As for being hopeful, well I hope you like to eat a lot of grains.

4

Largely speaking, Payton, this is not an American issue, and can’t be pinned on Dubya.

5

When I was a little kid, my grandfather had a small boat, and he used to take my brother my parents and I out fishing in the bay near Smith Point.

We’d catch flounder, fluke, bluefish, and then my Mom and I would put the remainder of the squidbait on hooks and throw it over the side in the shallows and pull in a bunch of crabs while my grandfather and father went clamming.

In a morning, we’d have gotten all we can eat. We’d go home and clean the fish, crabs and clams and sit in the backyard having a feast.

That was when I was 12.

By the time I turned 15, commercial fisherman would drag the bay every morning, clammers were poaching the seed beds planted by the state.

There were no crabs, no fish, no clams.

If you were out there all day you might get one or two small fish that came in with the next tide, so we fished just outside the inlet to the bay which was more dangerous but you could still catch a fish.

By the time I was sixteen the inlets and the areas surrounding them were dragged clean every morning as well.

There was no sense in bothering to fish anymore.

I also understand that New York harbor and the waterways used to be so filled with huge lobsters that there are pictures of them being scooped up and used for fertilizer.

Payton’s Servant:

Why must everything be a partisan attack against Repbulicans?
Bill Clinton didn’t do anything. The first Bush didn’t do anything about it. Reagan didn’t do anything about it. Carter didn’t do anything about.

Nobody’s done anything about.

Ted Kennedy certainly hasn’t done anything about the cesspool that is Boston Harbor.

Does it make you feel better tot think that it is only your political enemies that are responsible for this.

Everybody is responsible for it. Everybody.

6

Payton: That’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen anyone on this board blame Bush for. Yah, he probably has a plan in place to get the figure down to 5% before the next election, then shoot for 0 by 2008.

As for the OP, it’s hard to image that aquaculture could help for all species, unless they are talking about artificial spawning facilitiies that then feed the fish back into the ocean. Even then, there must be some fish which won’t respond to that that technique.

As much as I hate to suggest this, isn’t this the kind of thing that the UN is for? Once fish range into international waters, is there really anything any one country can do?

7

Maybe if you send Hans Blix in we’ll learn that there are no big fish in the ocean, and in fact, we haven’t found any evidence to suggest there ever were any.

8

Dave:

You’ll note that I started by saying “as much as I hate to suggest this”. But I actually don’t see any alternative.

I’m sure some on this board will suggest that Bush wants to bomb the oceans unless the fish agree to breed faster.

9

  1. hahaha Yeah. Throw enough spaghetti on the wall and eventually some of it will stick! :wink:

  2. We better get started on more facilities in a hurry. Some of the species will probably not survive. :frowning:

  3. Hate to say it, but what about the WTO? This is business related…

10

The WTO deals with tariffs and international trade agreements; it’s not some catch-all for anything business related. Fish aren’t under their umbrella.

The only way this can be solved is by international treaty backed by the real, honest will of countries to preserve fish. Deep sea fishing treaties exist by the dozen, covering all sorts of fish, but in practice the signatories spend their energy figuring out way to get around the treaties and screw everyone else.

Some articles on international fishing problems:

Challenges facing COFI

COFI itself

11

Its pretty scary. I hadn’t realized it was this bad, though I stopped eatting sword fish and tuna in restaruants a few years ago for just this reason.

I would have to agree with John Mace…this probably IS something for the UN. The only problem is…is the UN ABLE to do anything about this? Do they have the teeth to do anything…and if so, do they have the guts to DO it, even in the face of countries like the US? I tend to doubt both the teeth and guts thing.

Its unfortunate that this is a world wide problem…and that the people who make a living at this, and have the most at stake (i.e. the fishermen from the various countries), are too stupid to see that moderation is in their best interests. :frowning:

-XT

12

ISTM that the solution must involve setting, allocating and enforcing quotas on every sort of fish in every ocean fishing ground.

Figuring out what the limits need to be would be a big job. In principle, I suppose scientists could model the entire oceans and fish population and make reasonable estimates of what annual fish catch could be supported o na sustainable basis. If they established monitoring procedures, the limits could be adjusted and fine-tuned over time. This would be a big, expensive undertaking, but it may be feasible.

Allocating the quotas looks difficult to impossible. First of all, no country or business owns the fishing rights, nor does the UN. Nobody has the legal right to allocate who is entitled to take how many fish out of which fishing ground. I suppose this might be accomplished by a treaty agreed to by the entire world. But, looking at the mess made by the Law of the Sea treaty, I doubt that the world could ever agree on an allocation of limited fishing rights.

Enforcement also looks difficult to impossible. The UN has no standing navy. Which world power will take on the duty of patrolling the world’s oceans? There would be need to be significant penalties for violating the permitted amount. But, who has the power to impose such penalties?

One approach might be for the US alone or a small number of the most powerful nations on earth to make all the decisions. E.g., US, UK, Japan, and a handful of others. They could decide how to allocate all sorts of fishing rights among all the countries and businesses of the world. They could use their military might to enforce their decision. As a practical matter, a handful of countries could handily defeat the rest of the world, so their military would be sufficient, if they were really willing to use it.

This approach has a lot of problems. The selected allocation would be unfair to poor nations. Getting agreement from even a few powers is pretty difficult, as we saw in the case of Iraq. Using the military might of the US and developed nations against any and all international poachers is unthinkable. OTOH, this approach would be better for the fish than doing nothing. Once we allow the fish to be wiped out, it will be too late for any solution.

Coming back to reality, I’m pessimistic that this problem will be solved.

13

Actually, this is one area where Bush can’t be blamed. This is an international problem. There are some countries–a lot of them–that depend on fish for almost all of their protein. These are also countries that tend to have enormous populations.

There is plenty of evidence showing we are eating lower and lower on the food chain. The days of huge tuna steaks are drawing quickly to a close. Move over tuna cassarole. Here comes something leaner–sardine sandwiches for everyone! What’s next? Zooplankton souflee? Barbequed bacteria?

14

There is already a very similar international regulatory body to be found in the International Whaling Commission. The IWC sets whale-taking quotas for all member nations according to the its needs, including cultural needs and treaty obligations to aboriginal hunters. Having some limited experience with it, I think I can honestly say that the IWC offers as much of an example of what not to do as it offers solutions.

You may recently have read about Japan’s escapades within the IWC. In the past several years, they’ve been accused of running sham scientific studies as an excuse to take minke whales for food, bribing member nations to lift the ban on commercial whaling, and, perhaps most darkly humorous and relevant to this conversation, arguing that whales need to be killed because they eat too many fish. The IWC has created an unusual series of alliances among whaling nations, but the big one is Japan and Norway against everyone else.

I think you would see the same thing on a much larger scale if fishing were regulated internationally by a similar sort of commission.

And while we’re all responsible for the state of things as they exist, this subject cannot be discussed without noting that American policy toward international fishing was heavily influenced by none other than Senator Slade Gorton. Among other things, his threat to filibuster the Magnuson Fisheries Amendments Act of 1995 essentially de-fanged American efforts to conserve fish in international waters. Gorton often went against everyone in the Senate to preserve Washington State fishing interests, but he was often humored by his party leadership–and we all know who that is–and that’s a big reason why things are the way they are today.

15

Invade Iraq.

16

After reading Sofa King´s first two sentences above while working myself into a rage, I saw that he knows what the IWC is. Good to know. I know them and don´t like them either, and it´s a shame that people don´t know what´s going on in the whaling industry.

I just wanted to say that a lot of people has known about this problem (with industrial fishing that is) for years and years. The biggest countries have not cared so far, but the smaller ones have been putting on a valiant fight. I´m from Iceland where we have been cutting fish quotas for years know, almost crippling the fishing industry. Now, however, the situation here is much better thanks to years of research and drastic measures. We can probably even increase the fishing quota here again soon. The Faroese nation is even better at this than we are, and I´m fairly certain that the bigger nations will soon follow suit. I don´t think that the Japanese can be helped, though, since they don´t want it…

What I´m basically trying to tell you is: Don´t worry too much, the problem is being adressed. The three most important things to remember are:

  1. Greenpeace (and, by default, MTV) are lying to you. Please don´t believe anything they say. Always look for another source before believing them, please.

  2. The Japanese are beyond helping. I´m sorry, I have nothing against the Japanese nation but they are simply asking for whatever they get by continually disregarding pleas from other nations. They´ll miss their fishing industry.

  3. Things are going to look worse before they start looking better. Prepare for 10 years of expensive fish and general hysteria from the MTV generation.

PS - The answer is really as simple as you are probably all thinking: Smaller boats.

17

While I certainly agree this is in no way GWB’s FAULT, it would take some strong, immediate, forthright pro-environment action- which I think we can all agree Bush is not likely to do.

I actually agree with december (who would have thought it?) We need a couple or 3 big nations with big sticks to cram something through the UN- likely by threats & carrots- then the USN and a few others will have to enforce it. Japan & Norway will simply have to cut back- we can expect NO support from Japan. Maybe if each member nation is allowed to do what they want within their 20mile limit, we can restrict fishing in International waters.

Again, if we had a hard-line pro-environment Pres, we could also extend out “fishing boundaries” further out- say 100 miles? Then 200? I don’t know, but few would try & stop us. Of course, this would piss Canada & Mexico off, but Canada might go along, and we can bribe Mexico.

18

December, thanks for starting this thread. I was thinking about it, but people would probably once again just call me a “one trick pony” and start talking about how good fish taste, instead of actually talking about the issue at hand.

In this little editorial, the writer says that declining fish populations is a moral problem. Unfortunatley, non-pet fish and other animals always lose, when it comes down to humans having to make a moral decision.

What should we do? That’s easy: Stop catching so many fish. How can we do that? Almost impossible. Fish farming is one answer, but even your most efficient fish farm isn’t going to be able to produce a fraction of the fish that you could scoop out of the ocean, in the same time. Plus, most fish farms grow exclusively genetically modified fish, which also pose a grave danger (when they escape) to native fish populations.

Another solution? Stop eating so much meat. As it says in this (admittedly slanted, it’s from Greenpeace) article, a good percentage of fish is ground up and used as cheap protien to feed livestock.

Really, though, the sooner that they clean out the ocean, the better. It’s going to happen eventually, just as we’re going to run out of oil, someday. When all the fish are gone, at least then there won’t be an ethical problems attached to dumping all of our garbage in the ocean.

You have to wonder how much food we waste, on a daily basis. The millions of tons of fish, the hundreds and hundreds of millions of cows, pork, and chickens that are produced every year. Where does it all go?

Best,

TGD

19

Nearly: How nearly? 90? 80? 20? 5?
The last 50 years: I must have missed the big fish census that was taken back in 1953 that accurately counted all the creatures living virtually hidden in an area that covers 2/3 of the Earth’s surface.
Big Fish: Tuna are big fish and cited in the article but prices have only kept pace with inflation, supplies are obviously still abundant. Replace the words Old Growth Forest w/Big Fish and it’s almost like deja vu all over again.
Nature: Has printed alot of junk science in the past. They’re in bed w/the more radical elements in Greenpeace - Google it.
Squeeky Wheel Gets the Grease: What better way to get increased funding to the Marine Biology Dept’s throughout the Nation’s University System?

20

Well, I don’t think anyone out there could say that either Bush or the Republican party is exactly ‘environmentally friendly’…I think we can mostly all agree on that. However, how much of this is an American problem? I’m not sure we SHOULD force our views, even with a “hard-line pro-environment President”, if there is such a beast. I’ve been hearing over and over again on this board how America shouldn’t get involved or force other countries to ITS way of thinking…and I think thats a good position. I think that it needs to be a world consensus (which, unfortunatly I don’t see happening).

the_great_dalmuti: WHere does it all go? Well, from what I understand, up to 50% of it spoils and goes to waste. Thats almost a crime. Irradiation…maybe that would help some, at least from a spoilage perspective. But can’t do that, 'cause the ‘greens’ are opposed to any use of the demon nuclear stuff. Even with it though, I doubt you’d help the fish. I think that, until the last fish is caught, people just won’t care…

UselessGit: I think I’ll continue to worry…and continue to NOT buy swordfish and tuna. It probably won’t help any, but at least I can fool myself into thinking I’m at least trying.
-XT