Plenty more fish in the sea?

[andyandy]

.....apparently not....look's like our grandkids will need to use another post-breakup consolation....:D

Projecting current fishing levels into the future, the researchers predict that all stocks will have collapsed by 2048. "We asked, 'if this trend which has been very strong and very consistent over the last 50 years were to continue, where ... would we end up?'" said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, who led the study. "And the answer is you end up with no seafood."

The team looked at data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation and other sources. Between 1950 and 2003, 29% of fish and invertebrate fisheries within all 64 large marine ecosystems worldwide had collapsed. These regions account for 83% of the world's seafood harvest. Projecting these trends into the future, all stocks decline by at least 90% (the definition of a fishery collapse) by 2048. "Biodiversity is a finite resource. We can predict when we are going to run out of species," said Professor Worm.

In numbers

29% Percentage of currently fished species collapsed (below 10% of original population) by 2003

2048 When all commercial species will have collapsed if trends continue

13% Decline in global fishing yields since 1994http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1938417,00.html

[a_unique_person]

I blame the Japanese. Amongst others. The problem is capitalism. There is a lot of money to be made form illegal fishing. 4 corners in Australia has documented it. You can make so much money from just a couple of illegal fishing trips, it doesn't matter if your ship is sunk, the crew imprisoned. etc. There will always be enough crew and captains and cheap ships around to make illegal overfishing profitable.

[a_unique_person]

Japan has just been busted overfishing blue fin tuna for years. Now the stocks are entering the danger zone.

[NeilC]

You can't blame capitalism per se. Indeed if the seas were owned by corporations it's quite possible that overfishing would not be occuring.

It's really down to governments unable and unwilling to manage their countries' fleets.

[Dancing David]

Capitalism at work? There is a profit to be made, Africa and other underdeveloped nations can't patrol thier waters. Some big companies stand to benefit in the long run. But the idea of say the US backing Canada on the Georges Shoals seems unlikely.

[Bikewer]

There have been a couple of Science Friday segments over the last year on overfishing problems. The picture is pretty bleak, according to the experts they had on the show.

Not only depletion of fish stocks, but destruction of the environment due to coral damage and such. Many 3rd-world fishermen use poisons and dynamite, as they are cheaper than commercial tackle.

Overfishing by large corporate entities has a demand component as well; the populations of fish-consuming people keeps rising...

[Demigorgon]

O noes!

/runs out to buy a bunch of fish.

Like most other problems, it wont be solved until it's nearly too late.

[Rob Lister]

pffffffffffffffffft

The first sentence of the first snip in the first post puts all the f's between the p and t.

What a load of crap.

[a_unique_person]

thank you for that informed opinion.

[Rob Lister]

thank you for that informed opinion.

Anytime, AUP.

If the commodity is dwindling, so too is the trend -- necessarily. The SD curve demands it.

[a_unique_person]

So the fish will want to make more profits, and breed more?

[andyandy]

not surprisingly the fishing industry's none too chuffed....

The fishing industry today branded as "superficial" a study that claimed seafood could be off the menu within 40 years due to the damage caused by commercial fishing to marine ecosystems.
If seafood species continue to decline at the present rate through over-fishing and pollution there will be little left within four decades according to a study in the journal Science.

But Seafish, the UK seafood industry body, and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) said the study does not deal with reality or note continuing attempts to protect fish stocks.

The SFF chief executive, Bertie Armstrong, said the report was "superficial": "It takes a ridiculously long timescale and does not mention the efforts being made in Europe to recover stocks as quickly as we can."
Mr Armstrong said the study's authors made no mention of the 1992 Johannesburg convention, when world environment leaders agreed to try to restore fish stocks to sustainable levels by 2015.

"The main difficulty with this article is that it has taken a lot of basic assumptions and come out with the bold statement that there will be no fish by 2048," he said.

"It is a doomsday prediction that ignores the reality of what the world is actually trying to do to remove the ills that it describes." The government paid heed to today's research, which reports that under current trends, almost 30% of fished species populations had already reached tipping point. http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1938940,00.html

[a_unique_person]

While many of the professional fisherman have realised the problem, and want to stick to sustainable catches, there are just as many who don't care squat beyond the next catch, and are just as happy to make easy money and move on to the next job when that runs out. Pirates are rampant, and countries such as Japan have been busted overfishing.

[Hellbound]

So the fish will want to make more profits, and breed more?

Not trying to say we don't have a problem (Overfishing is an issue we need to do something about), but Rob does have a point.

The model makes it's predictions by projecting current trends. However, there are a several things that make this method unreliable (IMO, and I'd be happy to be shown data to prove my concerns unfounded).

As these fish become more scarce, costs for fishing them rise, which means prices rise, which means several things happen:

1. Consumption goes down, as some people are unwilling or unable to pay the increased price. A higher price with a smaller catch could, however, drive overall profit in either direction. There is, however, a point of diminishing return.
2. Alternative species are chosen for commercial development (the rise in popularity of tilapia to a recent example).
3. Dedicated hatcheries become more profitable proposals, leading to the possibility of fish farms or dedicated breeding areas to promote growth of fishable populations.
4. Working in the other direction, populations are likely to rise, meaning an increase in demand.

So while I agree with you that it is a problem we should look to doing something about (although I'm not sure what would be effective), I don't feel that this study has accounted well for all factors. I'd view it as more of a thought experiment to show the extent of damage, rather than a reasonable prediction for the future.

[richardm]

Anytime, AUP.

If the commodity is dwindling, so too is the trend -- necessarily. The SD curve demands it.

Tell that to the Passenger Pigeons.

[richardm]

2. Alternative species are chosen for commercial development (the rise in popularity of tilapia to a recent example).


We have to be careful with this as well, though, since sometimes the alternative species aren't in a very robust position either. For example Orange Roughy was championed as a potential replacement for the dwinding stocks of Cod. Unfortunately it turned out that Orange Roughy lives longer and breeds later than anyone expected, so that stocks take a very long time to recover if they are heavily fished. Even after realising this and placing quotas on the catch it's probably that Orange Roughy won't be sustainable at the current rate.


3. Dedicated hatcheries become more profitable proposals, leading to the possibility of fish farms or dedicated breeding areas to promote growth of fishable populations.
There are two current models for this; one which breeds large numbers of fry until they're reasonably large and have decent survival chances, and one which breeds fish to harvesting size. The former seems to be working pretty well for things like lobster. The latter is coming along, but we still have issues with the sheer difficulty of getting successful farm strategies up and running. Not to mention problems with feed and such like (heavy metals can be concentrated in the fish if you're not careful). I think we'll probably succeed, but it's not as easy as was hoped.

So while I agree with you that it is a problem we should look to doing something about (although I'm not sure what would be effective)In the short term I think we have to get a global consensus on quotas and get everyone to stick to the bloody things. Fishermen complain that they will go bust and unfortunately many will, but the alternative is simply to wait until the stocks they're fishing go the way of the herring, and then they'll all go bust anyway.

Edited to add: There are other things that could be done as well to help make things more sustainable- replacing diamond nets with square meshed nets that don't close up under tow and that let the small fry escape to grow on and breed, for example. And numerous other small things. But the trend seems to be towards more and more industrial scales that just hoover everything up, unfortunately.

[Modified]

Perhaps, eventually, the seas will be full of inedible fish.

[Hellbound]

We have to be careful with this as well, though, since sometimes the alternative species aren't in a very robust position either. For example Orange Roughy was championed as a potential replacement for the dwinding stocks of Cod. Unfortunately it turned out that Orange Roughy lives longer and breeds later than anyone expected, so that stocks take a very long time to recover if they are heavily fished. Even after realising this and placing quotas on the catch it's probably that Orange Roughy won't be sustainable at the current rate.

There are two current models for this; one which breeds large numbers of fry until they're reasonably large and have decent survival chances, and one which breeds fish to harvesting size. The former seems to be working pretty well for things like lobster. The latter is coming along, but we still have issues with the sheer difficulty of getting successful farm strategies up and running. Not to mention problems with feed and such like (heavy metals can be concentrated in the fish if you're not careful). I think we'll probably succeed, but it's not as easy as was hoped.

Yeah, I agree. But the thing is all of these factors will stretch that "no commercial fish by 2048" part out by an undetermined amount. It comments like these that make me doubt some of the studies. Although they do say if a few times, why even supply a date? And the quote: "We can predict when we are going to run out of species." Well, sure, in theory, but only if you've accounted for all these other factors that will change current trends by that time.

I'm immediately skeptical of any study that "follows the current trends", just because the current trends in almost anything rarely last more than 10 years. To borrow from Scott Adams, consider the case of a puppy. Following the current trend, the puppy will continue to grow until, in a fit of uncontrollable happiness, it wipes out a major metropolitan area.

But I think most of us agree overfishing is a problem and something needs to be done, I just feel uneasy at the positive statements made about when we'll run out of fish. Smacks of scare tactics and fear-mongering.

And on the hatcheries, that's part of my point as well. As the fish become harder to find, the price to catch them increases. The price to grow them in hatcheries is static (relatively). So the profit margin on hatchery-growing increases, making it more attractive. This will attract more investors, more people, and more businesses, meaning more reasearch will get done, etc. This is bound to have an effect on the time it will take to fish ourselves out.

In the short term I think we have to get a global consensus on quotas and get everyone to stick to the bloody things. Fishermen complain that they will go bust and unfortunately many will, but the alternative is simply to wait until the stocks they're fishing go the way of the herring, and then they'll all go bust anyway.

Edited to add: There are other things that could be done as well to help make things more sustainable- replacing diamond nets with square meshed nets that don't close up under tow and that let the small fry escape to grow on and breed, for example. And numerous other small things. But the trend seems to be towards more and more industrial scales that just hoover everything up, unfortunately.

Well, yeah, the solution is simple in theory...like the solution to lowering the crime rate is for peopel to stop committing crimes :D But with illegal fishing already a problem, will quotas and such make that much of a difference? What about smaller nations where fishing is the major source of revenue?

I do agree, though, that the techniques is a good place to start. Seems to me that some ideas, like nets that release smaller fish, would be of benefit to all concerned (small fish usually aren't good for product, AFAIK, so seems that would save everyone some trouble).

I dunno though, on that all I can do is speculate. Well, that's true for most of this topic, but I like to think at least it's reasonable speculation :D

[chriswl]

While many of the professional fisherman have realised the problem, and want to stick to sustainable catches, there are just as many who don't care squat beyond the next catch, and are just as happy to make easy money and move on to the next job when that runs out. Pirates are rampant, and countries such as Japan have been busted overfishing.
Classic "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario. The optimum strategy for any individual is to cheat. Ignore quotas and rely on other people to play by the rules and save the industry for you. But everybody does this (apart from a few honest "patsies" who get the worst of both worlds) and all the fish die out.

I was thinking along these exact same lines recently with regard to global warming and carbon quotas. It's just not going to work, is it? Everyones going to let someone else save the world.

[pipelineaudio]

Whoo, this is some scary stuff

First of all, any of you that have kids, you are a giant contributor to this problem...you may not like that statement but its true

Glad Bush put a chunk of the Hawai'ian islands off limits to fishing! Lets see if it gets enforced

Perhaps the old hawiian style fishponds were really the way to go? We've had prawn and tilapia farms for quite some time, in addition to the fishponds near the ocean with other species.

Prawn, opai and Taro can all grow in the same pond. That seems like a good use of resources and land. A graded system could include tilapia

[Ceritus]

Whoo, this is some scary stuff

First of all, any of you that have kids, you are a giant contributor to this problem...you may not like that statement but its true



Have one on the way and planning on having eight to ten more.

I could care less about the fish as long as my genes make it off this rock one day.

So my great grand children may have to live in biospheres, so be it but I highly doubt it.

Since there may no longer be any fish by 2048, which is also very unlikely. I better stock up on tons of frozen fish now! Perhaps we all should!!!!!

That would be hilarious.

Fear mongering leads to extinction of fish. "We warned them that they were gonna run out" said an eco hippy. "I love to eat fish so much I had to turn my garage into a giant freezer to hoard all the fish I could, all my neighbors have been doing the same thing" says an average US citizen.

All around the country people who failed to stock up on fish must now resort to giving oral sex to their female partners to get a taste of the now extinct fish.

98% rise is lesbianism that immediately followed the collapse of the fish kingdom.

[Piscivore]

I'm sorry. :(

[a_unique_person]

Not trying to say we don't have a problem (Overfishing is an issue we need to do something about), but Rob does have a point.

The model makes it's predictions by projecting current trends. However, there are a several things that make this method unreliable (IMO, and I'd be happy to be shown data to prove my concerns unfounded).

As these fish become more scarce, costs for fishing them rise, which means prices rise, which means several things happen:

1. Consumption goes down, as some people are unwilling or unable to pay the increased price. A higher price with a smaller catch could, however, drive overall profit in either direction. There is, however, a point of diminishing return.



and a point at which the species is no longer viable, which one comes first?


2. Alternative species are chosen for commercial development (the rise in popularity of tilapia to a recent example).



Moving on from one depleted species to the next is not managing the problem.


3. Dedicated hatcheries become more profitable proposals, leading to the possibility of fish farms or dedicated breeding areas to promote growth of fishable populations.



If the fishermen care. Japan is the biggest consumer of blue fin tuna, and has depleted stocks to dangerous levels. It doesn't make sense, but that didn't stop it happening.


4. Working in the other direction, populations are likely to rise, meaning an increase in demand.



If they are still viable. The documentary I watched was about Indonesian pirates. They would take an old boat, stick the latest technology for finding fish in it, and send it out. It didn't matter if the boat was caught, the captain and crew fined or imprisoned. It only took two trips to pay for the overhead, the rest was profit. A boat load of southern blue fin tuna or orange roughy, etc, is worth millions.


So while I agree with you that it is a problem we should look to doing something about (although I'm not sure what would be effective), I don't feel that this study has accounted well for all factors. I'd view it as more of a thought experiment to show the extent of damage, rather than a reasonable prediction for the future.

That's the problem, are we dealing with reasonable people? Most Australian fishermen are well regulated now, and have been following an agreement, for example, on souther blue fin tuna, to keep fishing rates at a level that was sustainable. All along, the Japanese were lying, and catching way in excess of what was agreed on. The stock levels have crashed.

Rhino horns are a good example of the problem. As Rhino's get more scarce, the price goes up. But that means that people are more determined than ever to catch the poor buggers. That is, supply/demand actually helps to make them extinct, not limit the hunting.

[phildonnia]

The problem is capitalism. There is a lot of money to be made form illegal fishing.

It sounds more like the problem is illegal fishing. :confused:

[drkitten]

One thing that I think has not been pointed out that may influence this debate.

This isn't just about the disappearance of fish but about the disappearance of fish species.

Those of you who are say that "oh, supply and demand will take care of it" are arguing in the teeth of the evidence. A species that is fished to below 10% of its peak population (the definition they're using of "collapse") has a tendency to stay collapsed, regardless of what the price currently is on the open market, which is one reason that there aren't a lot of sperm whales out there. I don't care how expensive cod become -- there simply aren't that many left, possibly enough that the species will not be able to reproduce itself. Even if there are enough to eventually repopulate, they're starting off from a low enough curren t population that regrowth might take centuries.

So the real problem is how long will it be, not until there aren't any fish left in the ocean, but until there aren't any species left that are common enough to fish.

From the citation in the OP:


Between 1950 and 2003, 29% of fish and invertebrate fisheries within all 64 large marine ecosystems worldwide had collapsed.

That's basically 1/3 of the species in a fifty-year period, suggesting that by 2100, we will have run out of species. Of course, the rate is accelerating, so you can't do a simple straight line approximation. But it's also not as simple as "oh, we'll just find something else to fish for for a while." Because what we're running out of isn't just one particular kind of fish, but kinds of things to fish for.

[a_unique_person]

Correct.

[Dancing David]

Anytime, AUP.

If the commodity is dwindling, so too is the trend -- necessarily. The SD curve demands it.


Apparently the cost benefit ratio is not being considered, do some research, cod are being havested before they can reproduce.

The demand is high, the supply could be harvested to the point that the stocks crash. And in the case of cod, they may not be able to reproduce after the crash.

I suppose the fact that stocks of many species have already crashed, and overfishing shifts to new species proves what? Gee what happened to all the wild cherry trees in the US? Did the SD curve keep them from being harvested, now trees that were considered only good for barrels, crates and boxes are made into furniture(oaks). Why, because the cherry is all gone. It now grows as a trash tree in peoples yards but is not avaialable for harvest.

Other than that you are just grinding on AUP.

[Dancing David]

Not trying to say we don't have a problem (Overfishing is an issue we need to do something about), but Rob does have a point.

The model makes it's predictions by projecting current trends. However, there are a several things that make this method unreliable (IMO, and I'd be happy to be shown data to prove my concerns unfounded).

As these fish become more scarce, costs for fishing them rise, which means prices rise, which means several things happen:

1. Consumption goes down, as some people are unwilling or unable to pay the increased price. A higher price with a smaller catch could, however, drive overall profit in either direction. There is, however, a point of diminishing return.
2. Alternative species are chosen for commercial development (the rise in popularity of tilapia to a recent example).
3. Dedicated hatcheries become more profitable proposals, leading to the possibility of fish farms or dedicated breeding areas to promote growth of fishable populations.
4. Working in the other direction, populations are likely to rise, meaning an increase in demand.

So while I agree with you that it is a problem we should look to doing something about (although I'm not sure what would be effective), I don't feel that this study has accounted well for all factors. I'd view it as more of a thought experiment to show the extent of damage, rather than a reasonable prediction for the future.


Hmm, lets see the demand for bufalo collapsed and now we have bufalo roaming all over the US, demand for whale oil crashed and now the oceans are full of whales.

the recovery will happen, but on a very long scale, hundreds of years, and in some cases maybe never. Do you think that the fact that commercial operations are just harvesting all the fish they catch might be a problem, if you harvest all the juveniles then it won't matter.

And fish farms aren't going to be the same as the ocean. farming is likely to be in the poluted costal areas.

(I do think aqua culture is way cool, but those ready to cut forsts in washington state and orgegon are not as cool as old growth timber.)

[Silly Green Monkey]

What of the Asian rhinocerous? Only a few hundred of them left, but they're still being killed daily. Gotta have that horn so men can have erections!

[CapelDodger]

If the commodity is dwindling, so too is the trend -- necessarily. The SD curve demands it.
Well that's a relief. I was worried there for a moment.

[The Atheist]

What of the Asian rhinocerous? Only a few hundred of them left, but they're still being killed daily. Gotta have that horn so men can have erections!Yeah, but luckily fish are harder to find than rhinos and I don't think they improve sex drive. Oysters, yes, fish, no.

I see orange roughy copped a mention above and that's a subject very close to us down here as we own a huge percentage of the fishery. The current fishery clearly isn't sustainable at the current rate and patagonian toothfish may already be near over-fished status.

A_U_P's naming Japan as the root of all evil is silly; while they've certainly decimated our neck of the woods, I think the poms and Euros have done their fair share as well. And the vast majority of fish exported by New Zealand is caught by Kiwi companies and exported to them, so I find it a little hard to blame their buying it when we catch it for them.

I suggest the OP is pretty close to the mark, although, a little like oil, there will be undiscovered reserves of fish around somewhere - the price is going to go up. I'm with the buffalo analogy here - also elephants in parts of Africa. The species will survive, but it may take a while.

We're [slowly] improving our aquaculture techniques and the point will come where the demand creates the investment and someone will make a lot of money out of it.

[jay gw]

If the commodity is dwindling, so too is the trend -- necessarily. The SD curve demands it.

Is that what happened with the American buffalo?

[fishbob]

Anytime, AUP.

If the commodity is dwindling, so too is the trend -- necessarily. The SD curve demands it.

In the case of a single species, that might be true, but not applicable in this case. When one species is depleted, another species is targeted, but fishing does not stop for the depleted species, just reduced.

[CapelDodger]

In the case of a single species, that might be true, but not applicable in this case. When one species is depleted, another species is targeted, but fishing does not stop for the depleted species, just reduced.
A lot of the take is about hoovering-up whatever's down there to make fish-meal for livestock and fish-farming. The oceans are being mined for protein, and that has the same long-term future as any type of mining. Depletion followed by exhaustion. How is this hard for some people to grasp? Beats me, and no doubt you as well. :)

[The Atheist]

A lot of the take is about hoovering-up whatever's down there to make fish-meal for livestock and fish-farming. The oceans are being mined for protein, and that has the same long-term future as any type of mining. Depletion followed by exhaustion. How is this hard for some people to grasp? Beats me, and no doubt you as well. :)Mines don't usually regenerate.

[Amapola]

Mines don't usually regenerate.

Fishstocks won't either if we keep polluting them and killing them.

Try this experiment: get a 50 gallon aquarium and set it up for marine fishes. (Those that live in salt water.) Stock your aquarium and then see what it takes to keep those expensive little beggars alive. Good luck keeping anything alive for a year, let alone getting it to breed. I genuinely wish anyone who tries this the very best of luck. Warning: this is a very expensive experiment.

[fishbob]

Mines don't usually regenerate.

Regeneration takes time.
This ain't Doctor Who.

[The Atheist]

I didn't suggest it happened overnight - orange roughy could take a century to regenerate. Even already, we've seen the regeneration of inshore fisheries of species which were thought to be equally as slow to regenerate as orange roughy - especially snapper. Regulation of catches and fisheries have made improvements in a decade which was supposed to take generations.

Certainly pollution will play its part and warming of oceans may do as well, but I sincerely doubt species will be driven to extinction through commercial fishing. I'm not arguing the premise that depletion of stocks is bad, I just think it's an economic question rather than a conservation one.

[cloudshipsrule]

Fitting movie quote time!!



Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

[CapelDodger]

I didn't suggest it happened overnight - orange roughy could take a century to regenerate. Even already, we've seen the regeneration of inshore fisheries of species which were thought to be equally as slow to regenerate as orange roughy - especially snapper. Regulation of catches and fisheries have made improvements in a decade which was supposed to take generations.
Not to take issue with you about niche inshore catchments (not my area of expertise) but that's not really the problem, the problem is the mining of the oceans for protein. No efforts are being made to regulate it apart from exhortation, and even that's muted. As each species (or "vein") is exhausted the factory fleets move on to another that their scouts have located. The rate at which this is going on far outstrips the rate of regeneration of the devastated species. The Supply-Demand curve protects them from extinction - below a certain biomass they're not worth sucking-up any more - but doesn't change the fact that protein is being mined from the oceans.

[CapelDodger]

Regulation of catches and fisheries have made improvements in a decade which was supposed to take generations.
"Supposed" by whom? I'm not demanding links or quotes or references, crass behaviour I calls that, I just wonder where you picked up the impression. Not to knock LQR, if available and relevant please spread it around :) .

[The Atheist]

Not to take issue with you about niche inshore catchments (not my area of expertise) but that's not really the problem, the problem is the mining of the oceans for protein. No efforts are being made to regulate it apart from exhortation, and even that's muted. As each species (or "vein") is exhausted the factory fleets move on to another that their scouts have located. The rate at which this is going on far outstrips the rate of regeneration of the devastated species. The Supply-Demand curve protects them from extinction - below a certain biomass they're not worth sucking-up any more - but doesn't change the fact that protein is being mined from the oceans.Agree entirely, but I think there are bigger fish to fry!

Oceanic fishing isn't feeding starving people, just the opposite in fact - prices even now for decent fish preclude that. I just don't rate it highly as a problem. Pick any one of these: World poverty, climate change, war/terrorism, drought, Amazon basin/rainforest destruction, whaling. Depletion of fish is just a little further down the list. Given that we can't even start to sort out the things above it, what chance any action on overfishing?

I'm not disagreeing with your premise that it's a problem, just that it's a problem which actually matters in the scheme of things. New Zealand is home to a number of the world's rarest birds, reptiles and amphibians. Getting funding for animals at the brink of extinction is hard enough, why add another fight? Especially one which looks to be unwinnable, given the purchasing power of the consumer on the other side of this equation.

[The Atheist]

"Supposed" by whom? I'm not demanding links or quotes or references, crass behaviour I calls that, I just wonder where you picked up the impression. Not to knock LQR, if available and relevant please spread it around :) .No, fair question.

I'd have to go back in time bfore the internet days, but what I'm referring to is the situation here about 20 years ago. The main inshore fishery for snapper was based around New Zealand's Firth of Thames and Hauraki Gulf. Overfishing led to a drop in recreational catches which was then followed by the collapse of the commercial inshore fishery. The thought of most people, and the advice of interested parties is that it would take 25 years or more to effect a regeneration of the species to commercial levels. It took well under ten years as while snapper didn't grow any faster, the reduced levels of fish drove predators away, so that as soon as the fishing pressure disappeared a far higher number of young survived and the fishery recovered in ten or twelve years. It's been improving even mroe quickly under government regulation since then.

This article from NZ Gov't archives gives a little bit of background. (http://www.executive.govt.nz/93-96/minister/kidd/dkn2609.htm)

[robinson]

.....apparently not....look's like our grandkids will need to use another post-breakup consolation....

Hi Andyandy.

Here in Florida a net ban was passed and enforced.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE123

The rebound of the species that net fishing impacted has been astounding. All other species benefited as well. Along with efforts to stop and reverse pollution of breeding grounds, the ban on tangle nets has allowed fish to breed and flourish both in the lagoons and the ocean.

[Soapy Sam]

Hunter gathering as a lifestyle is all but extinct.

Tell me which of the following animals are "threatened ":-
Cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, horse, chickens.

We need to adapt farming techniques to the oceans. This means selective breeding and stocking of marine invertebrates, fish and mammals. It also requires ownership legislation and enforcement.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Farming the oceans first requires domestication of the animals in it. Many plants and animals humans have used for food were not domesticated, for many of the reasons marine life will probably not be domesticable.

There are six tests of a potential domesticate:
Diet easily supplied by humans.
Growth rate and birth spacing short enough for breeding.
Disposition--zebras are nasty beasts, that's why they were never domesticated.
Animals must be willing to breed in captivity. Pandas are a good example of animals that are very reluctant.
Dominance hierarchies are essential. Animals are more easily domesticated if humans can insert themselves into the hierarchy as the dominant animal.
Animals must not panic when confined, or when they see a predator. Humans count as predators.

Domesticated animals passed all six of these tests. Some rejcted species failed only one, but that was enough to rule out domestication.

(Chris Scarre, The Human Past)

[The Atheist]

Farming the oceans first requires domestication of the animals in it. Many plants and animals humans have used for food were not domesticated, for many of the reasons marine life will probably not be domesticable.

There are six tests of a potential domesticate:
Diet easily supplied by humans.
Growth rate and birth spacing short enough for breeding.
Disposition--zebras are nasty beasts, that's why they were never domesticated.
Animals must be willing to breed in captivity. Pandas are a good example of animals that are very reluctant.
Dominance hierarchies are essential. Animals are more easily domesticated if humans can insert themselves into the hierarchy as the dominant animal.
Animals must not panic when confined, or when they see a predator. Humans count as predators.

Domesticated animals passed all six of these tests. Some rejcted species failed only one, but that was enough to rule out domestication.

(Chris Scarre, The Human Past)My word, there's some silly stuff in there. New Zealand and Australia have thriving aquaculture industries and the only two of those which apply in any way at all are the first two, which fish readily qualify for.

The rest of it might apply to mammals, but has no relevance whatsoever, unless you're going to farm dolphins.

[robinson]

Clams are big business in Florida. They is bred and raised in hi-tech nurseries, and growed on leased underwater plots.

[luchog]

Hmm, lets see the demand for bufalo collapsed and now we have bufalo roaming all over the US, demand for whale oil crashed and now the oceans are full of whales.

The tacit assumption in all these sorts of comments is that harvesting has ended. It hasn't. Whales haven't recovered because harvesting, particularly illegal harvesting, hasn't ended. If all harvesting was ended, then populations would recover, though slowly due to the whales' slow reproductive rate. The faster reproductive rate of fish species would result in a much faster bounce-back if harvesting was ended.

Bison (not buffalo) were not hunted to near-extinction by commercial harvestering; but by elimination hunting. They were killed wholesale without regard to commercial or personal usage for three main reasons: they intereferred with railroad operation, in order to displace First Nations populations by eliminating their keystone resource, and by ranchers seeking to eliminate competition for natural resources. They're still endangered today partly due to their near-elimination, and therefore likely being below the bounce-back threshhold; and partly due to the lack of adequte habitat.