Yes, it’s much more likely that because tuna prices haven’t hone up, Nature, who is obviously in bed with Greenpeace (those bastards), is using faulty models in order to propagate a nasty rumor in order to increase funding for marine biologists everywhere.
Or, maybe, the problem really exists? How about entertaining that thought for a minute or two before passing it off as left-wing propaganda?
Hey there, UselessGit. I think that meltdown last year in the IWC was a pretty darned good example of the political shuffleboarding that we would likely see in any international regulatory body for fishing. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about it to give a detailed synopsis. If I try to summarize it, will you check my statements and keep me in line?
In a nutshell, Iceland got pissed at the IWC’s anti-whaling stance about fifteen years ago and walked out of the Commission. Last year Iceland re-applied for voting membership in the IWC. There are voting and non-voting members of the IWC, and Iceland no doubt should be a voting member since Iceland is smack in the middle of North Atlantic whaling territory. Iceland is loosely aligned with the “pro-whaling” faction which wants to raise the ban on commercial whaling–or at least the United States fears that Iceland is loosely aligned with that faction.
The United States used some sort of technicality to deny voting membership to Iceland at the annual meeting last year. It had something to do with delaying the vote because of an incomplete application or something like that. Even more insulting, the U.S. somehow helped to get Mongolia, which must hunt its whales from the back of a Toyota pickup truck, on the commission at the very same time. The move brought the entire purpose of the Commission into question–is it a regulatory body designed to husband a resource, or a conservation society?
I’m only telling this story because that’s the sort of political bullshit that goes we’ll likely see if we attempt to regulate the international fishing industry. And yet, whale populations have risen; some large species are now off the endangered list, I am led to understand. I offer it as a system that “works,” but which is imperfect. Any attempt to salvage world fisheries would have to go in with wide open eyes in order to avoid such hijinks as the one above.
Yeah. The time for saying “well, we don’t know if it’s really a problem yet, maybe the fish have just changed their spawning grounds, perhaps it’s just the downswing of a periodic cycle, let’s wait a while longer before rushing to judgement” is pretty definitely over. Even most commercial fishermen now acknowledge that Something Is Going On Here.
– Kimstu in RI, where the fisherfolk have been hurtin’
Thassright, JohnBuckWLD –
Statistical sampling has no merit, and species of fish are equally distributed everywhere in the oceans, with no regard for such factors as temperature, pressure, salinity, etc. Because if evolutionary theory has taught us anything, it’s that species don’t specialize in an environmental niche. :rolleyes:
Fer chrissakes, we’ve been fishing for these critters on a heavy basis for centuries. We know their habitat, migration patterns, etc. IOW, we know where they are supposed to be - and we know where they no longer are.
Sua
(And by the way, I’m personally opposed to whaling except for low-volume subsistence and cultural uses–I’m one of those freaks who thinks the jury is still out on just how intelligent those creatures are.
Unfortunately, the IWC is not a conservation society. The IWC exists by mutual international consent as an industry-regulating body. I think it’s utter folly to use the IWC as a way to ban whaling, just as any organization which regulates international fishing has no chance at all of preventing people from harvesting fish. We can only use such organizations to keep populations at a minimum level of sustainability. Unfortunately, I think that may be the best for which we can hope.)
I’m just wondering, JohnBckWLD, what would cause you to make this claim? Have I read possibly anything you’ve published?
Or are you just talking out of your behind here?
True, quite a bit of fish is used for fishmeal- and fishmeal is used for animal feed, and also for fertilizer. The fish that is used for fishmeal is not the “big fish” that the large reduction is occuring in. It is in either small “bait fish” (IN CA we have the anchovy reduction fisheries), or “waste fish”, that would just be thrown over the side (dead) otherwise. They don’t turn halibut, tuna or swordfish into fishmeal- well, except the scraps from these, which I think is a good thing. Of course, even with such “baitfish” as anchovy, there isn’t an infinte supply, but here modest conservation seems to be all that is nessesary.
Next question- we eat them. What we don’t eat, we feed to our pets, or turn into fertilizer or feed. Almost nothing on a cattle is wasted. The old joke “we use everything but the Moo” isn’t too far off. Of course, there is plenty of waste from Ag, too. Just think of corn. We don’t eat the stalk, leaves, roots, husk, silk or cob. Some of this can be fed to animals- giving us “free food” in a way. Otherwise, what is to be done with it?
Actually, I am even against whaling for cultural uses. Nice idea, and very PC, but it gives Norway & Japan a reason to squawk that the USA is being hypocritical. Thus, it isn’t the “one grey whale a month hunted by the Innuit” that dies because of this- it is also all the whles the Norwegians & Japanese kill. Too high of a price to pay for Political correctness, IMHO.
I’m with ** JohnBckWLD** on this one. We’ve seen so many of these sensational doomsaying statements from the conservation lobby over the years, and they invariably turn out to be wrong.
Remember in 1962 when Rachel Carson predicted that most of the bird life over most of the USA would become extinct due to organochlorine use?
That didn’t happen and couldn’t have happened even under worst case scenarios.
Remember in 1981 Paul Ehrlich and WWF saying that that 50% of all the Erath’s species would be extinct by 2000? Remember Ehrlich taking that even further and saying that virtually all the world’s wild species would be extinct by 2015?
That didn’t happen and couldn’t have happened even under worst case scenarios.
Remember in 1979 Greenpeace saying that acid rain would have destroyed 75% of northern Europe’s forests by 1990?
That didn’t happen and couldn’t have happened even under business as usual scenarios.
Remember in 1996 WWF saying that the Great Barrier Reef was being destroyed by global warming and would be all but destroyed within 10 years?
That isn’t happening and couldn’t happen even under worst case scenario.
This is only a small sample of similar claims made by environmentalists. The list of failed outrageous claims is huge.
What I don’t understand is why anyone still gives credence to these claims?
If dowsers have a success rate of 20% with claims that can be verified, then we rightly reject dowsing claims until they can be validated. When John Edward has a success rate of 10%, we rightly reject Edward’s claims until they can be independently validated. When environmentalists have a success rate of <1% with claims that can be validated, it seems to be forgotten within 5 years. Even the intelligent people on this board are willing to swallow the next scare claim.
Why is this? If religious leaders or psychics constantly make claims and they almost invariably fail, we tend to reject their claims out of hand. But when every major green scare like this is proven to be spectacularly inflated we still jump on board when the next one comes along. Tis despite that fact that the environmental movement has as much to gain from lying, in terms of money and power, as any psychic or priest.
I’m not saying that all environmental predictions are flawed. If someone predicts that the Tingaling desert will spread by a moderate amount within 50 years, or that X% of species in a restricted are will become extinct within 100 years, those probably come true (sometimes).
But every time that there is a global/continental prediction of a calamitous reduction of all species of a certain trophic level or family-or-higher taxon it proves to be wrong.
This has happened time and again. The failure isn’t even attributable to someone taking action. Invariably the initial data upon which the claims were constructed were flawed or deliberately misrepresented.
Yet people continue to believe.
Is it a deep-rooted psychological condition? Do humans need prophets of doom to make them take stock of there actions? Do these environmental scares fulfil the role of the wrath-of-God predictions of earlier religious generations?
If anyone can find one example of a major environmental doom prediction coming true, or that looked likely to come true if it hadn’t been averted, then I’d love to hear of it.
I can’t think of any. I have to conclude therefore that this one is equally untrue.
Birth control.
As the worlds population gets smaller and smaller each year, the demand for fish, and fishing in general, will be reduced. Not only do we get more fish, but we get more and more forests, more wildlife habitat and more wildlife, less and less traffic, etc.
You’re right about the birth control Susanann, but it is in itself a side effect. Improved farming practices and technology (including improved fishing) produces an improved economy and an improved society inevitably results. Higher education and higher infant life expectancies both drastically reduce birth rates.
The other important factor is that commodity prices map fairly strongly on availability. As commodities become scarce they become less obtainable and alternatives are found. Once people come to accept the alternative through necessity the original product all but dies. This can be seen in the use of whale oils for example. I assume that wild –harvested fish will go the same way.
Aside form just plain dodgy data use, overlooking these factors is the primary reason these extremist environmentalist predictions fail. They never take into account the economic and social changes that are occurring in the real world. Even the conditions inherent in the ‘models’ from which the predictions are extrapolated are ignored.
An example of a predicted environmental disaster? Canadian Cod stocks on the Grand Banks. Here’s a recent report. The fish are so depleted that a centuries-old industry is in ruins, and the numbers of fish show no sign of increasing.
How many times have you eaten fish from the Great Lakes in the last 20 years? Not much, I’d bet – at least if you’re smart. When I was 11 years old I did a school project on Great Lakes pollution, and that was over 35 years ago when people could still remember the commercial fisheries on the Great Lakes.
Your example of Rachel Carson is nonsense. Partly because of her documentation and prediction, organochlorines have been restricted. It may be news to you, but DDT was banned in many countries. The results speak for themselves. A disaster averted.
You have selected a few spectacular failures in prediction about environment, and made a leap of specious logic that all such predictions are therefore false. You are using the same grandstanding hyperbole as Greenpeace without a single citation to back up your political preconceptions.
Can we see the actual prediction now?
No one is saying that environmental predictions don’t occur. What I asked for is “one example of a major environmental doom prediction coming true”. Did someone predict the Grand banks problem? How long before it became a problem? What was the prediction? Can you provide a quote or at least a source?
** FranticMad** you seem to be a little confused. No one is saying that bad things haven’t happened. What I am saying is that when these major doom predictions are made they invariably fail to come true and it is invariably impossible for them to have come true. Simply listing bad things that have happened is meaningless and irrelevant. Anyone can do that. That doesn’t mean that they were predicted, or that they are “a global/continental prediction of a calamitous reduction of all species of a certain trophic level or family-or-higher taxon” which is the definition for major environmental doom prediction that I set above.
No one denies that. Carson certainly helped to get a lifesaving substance restricted.
You haven’t been keeping up with recent science have you? Can I suggest you peruse http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm and then see if you still want to try to defend that position? There is no evidence that DDT was ever a threat to birdlife, certainly no evidence that it would have resulted in the extinction of any bird species. The banning was totally unnecessary.
But as I said, read the link and then we’ll discuss it further.
No, your results tell us nothing.
Your link is totally irrelevant since it never even mentions birds, which was what Carson’s predictions concerned.
That aside you present absolutely no evidence that any disaster was ever possible. So residue levels have fallen. And? What would have been disastrous about continuing elevated residue levels?
So, it’s alright if a commodity becomes extinct because we’ll be forced to find an alternative. I hope you like Tofu, and I’m sure the citizens of Chernobyl will be happy to sell you their homes for a good price. You seem to feel pretty secure that you and your family will not be affected.
Agreed.
Except when the predictions come true. Concerning the cod (and many other species), what was “extremist” 40 years ago is common sense today. Concerning overfishing, what exactly is your argument to say that “economic and social changes” will allow two things: the stocks to recover before major disruptions of food supply and economy occur; and that “economic and social” changes will not make the situation worse. Consider that less-regulated nations allowed their fishing fleets to adopt newer technology that efficiently depleted existing fish stocks on the Grand Banks within the last 10 years.
I believe that’s what the folks around here call a “strawman”. Where I come from it’s called “putting words into my mouth”. I never said that. I never said anything like that. I’d appreciate it if you would not do this again. If you had phrased this as a question it might be possible for me to respond to it, but to make it a statement and attribute it to me means that I can nothing more with it in a debate than simply prove it false it my pointing out that this s not and never was my position.
Point refuted and rested.
Can we please see a reference to one of these C1960 extremist predictions so that we can all understand what it is that you refer to and what the conditions were in 1960 that allowed these accurate predictions.
Until you do this there really is nothing for us to discuss or debate. You are simply making unsubstantiated assertions.
I can only re-iterate ** FranticMad**, I believe that’s what the folks around here call a “strawman”. Where I come from it’s called “putting words into my mouth. I never said that. I never said anything like that. I’d appreciate it if you would not do this again.
The problem is that I am not making any predictions of the future here. I am simply pointing out that every environmentalist prediction of catastrophe made for the last 5 years at least has proven to be wrong and based on what was at best dubious evidence.
Based on that track record what conclusion should we logically draw concerning this latest environmentalist prediction of catastrophe? Should we accept it as gospel, or treat it sceptically until it is given over to serious rebuttal and critique in a range of journals?
You must be joking. That site is a libertarian propaganda forum. It is involved with the Cato Institute, Edward H. Crane, and others, who think privatization is the highest good. In fact, the phrase “junk science” is usually used by people with no knowledge of science and with a particularly narrow economic philosophy. I see that you are of that school.
And that FranticMad is what the folks around here call an ad hominem. It’s what I call ‘playing the man’. The page lists and references a number of pertinent facts. The refences are as usually to peer reviewed journals, symposia etc. The sites affiliations are irrelevant.
Do you have any issue with the facts presented, or is your rejection purely based on the site’s affiliations?
And now you use yet another ad hominem, but this time it’s a blatant insult aimed directly at me. I’m not sure what my philosophy or knowledge of science has to do with the topic at hand [b[FranticMad**. If you wish to dispute the science or basis of the argument presented then you might support your position by doing so. But attacking my philosophies and accusing me of ignorance acheives nothing.
Is that all that your position is capable of?
And, what is your point here? Most of the old growth forest has disappeared. Noone claimed forests as a whole would disappear as a result but rather that old growth forests are special in a variety of ways and thus it’s important to save the tiny bit that remains.
Oh, great. So, now you take the journal which, along with Science, are the probably the two most respected multidisciplinary science journals in the world and you accuse it of junk science?!?! Presumably because of what you read at places like junkscience.com which, as has been noted, is run by Steven Milloy who has much better conservative credentials than scientific credentials!
No, they are completely relevant. A lot of science is published every year and if you want to write an advocacy piece then it is easy to take a few papers and quote from them selectively and make it seem like your point of view enjoys way-more scientific support than it actually does. This same technique is being used by some of these same people (like Milloy) in the global warming debate, which is why it is important to have impartial scientific reviews of the state of the peer-reviewed science, such as those done by IPCC and NAS.
Here is a very respectable source discussing the case of DDT: a chapter in a 1986 publication from the National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Life Sciences. I haven’t read it in detail, but it seems to give a different view than that given to us by the “Junkman”. In fact, they seem to read the whole DDT thing as a cautionary tale about how we need to be more careful to carefully study effects of persistant chemicals such as DDT in the future. Here is one quote from it:
I think it will be hard to literally fish the fish to extiction. At some point it will be unprofitable to fish anymore, and the fish population will rebound at which point it will become profitable again and fished to a minimum, and it will go back and forth till a middle point is found.
Think about it, at some point there will be so few fish that no one will say “yeah I will give you a 10,000 dollar boat so you can catch 80 cents worth of fish today sounds like a GREAT idea!”
Not that thats a good way to do things, but it still is unlikely we will fish them to extinction because the industry is only profitable as long as you can scoop them out by the boatful, once its gotten below that point mass fishing will cease.