0
Richards

Seafood faces collapse by 2048

Recommended Posts

Quote

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation's National Center for Ecological Synthesis and Analysis.



Bunch of crybaby liberal envirofreaks. What do they know?;)
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What can I say? The story speaks for itself. We may have screwed ourselves.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/02/seafood.crisis.ap/index.html

This sucks.

Richards

Me thinks that is the LEAST of our worries right now[:/]
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Be careful not to under estimate the importance of this story.... if WE remove a major link in the food chain then the whole thing is likely to unravel.. scary

Ah. Fuck em. NUKE the SHRIMP I say. But. I deep fried mine tonite. Got to get a little of that MERCURY out don't ya know?;)
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

yes life adapats, that happens. mass extinctions also happen. Not saying things are that bad but lets all cut back on eating fish, every little bit helps.



This has very little to do with us eating fish. More to do with what we're doing to the water and the planet. That's right, you heard it right here on dz.com. Now go vote.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R u seriously suggesting that huge declines in fish stock have little to do with us eating fish? In th last century our ability to catch fish has increased dramatically and no suprise fish stocks have collapsed. Im not suggesting other factors such as water quality are irrelveant but one cannot ignore the huge impact of fisheries.

I shall have to point you to a few articles:

1
Cascading Effects of Overfishing Marine Systems
Trends in Ecology &Evolution
Abstract
Profound indirect ecosystem effects of overfishing have been shown for coastal systems such as coral reefs and kelp forests... Overall, the view emerges that, in a range of marine ecosystems, the effects of fisheries extend well beyond the collapse of fish exploited stocks

2
check this from National Geographic:
National Geographic News

May 15, 2003
Only 10 percent of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea, according to research published in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature.

"From giant blue marlin to mighty bluefin tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has scoured the global ocean. There is no blue frontier left," said lead author Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist based at Dalhousie University in Canada. "Since 1950, with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent—not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles."

3
this from Wikipedia
The FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2004 report estimates that in 2003, of the main fish stocks or groups of resources for which assessment information is available, "approximately one-quarter were overexploited, depleted or recovering from depletion (16%, 7% and 1% respectively) and needed rebuilding."[2]


Overfishing has depleted fish populations to the point that large scale commercial fishing, on average around the world, is not economially viable without government assistance. By the 1980s, economists estimated that for every $1 earned fishing, $1.77 had to be spent in catching and marketing the fish. Some species' stocks are so depleted that consumers are often unlikely to get the particular species they think they are purchasing, due to a phenomenon called "species substitutions," where less desirable species are labeled and marketed under the names of more expensive ones. For example, genetic analysis shows that approximately 70% of fish sold as the highly-prized "red snapper" (Lutjanus campechanus) are other species. [citation needed]

4
or this form the UN's web site;

over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems. FAO reports that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the sources, I'll read up on it. My comment is more in line with keeping from destroying the water. We can all switch to Tofu and still screw up the ocean.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I have this funny feeling tht life will learn to adapt.

It will. But the easiest way for the ecosystem to deal with this is the extinction of the primary predator disturbing the system. And that would be a bummer.



Yeah. Sharks are cool.

Oh, wait.... You meant the whales did you?
Remster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Me thinks that is the LEAST of our worries right now[:/]



I would imagine that this should actually be a priority. Not only is it a food issue but what about the effect on plant life in the ocean (which is responsible for a large quantity of the worlds oxygen) and other secondary effects?

For interest sake I am curious. What is the most iportant concern?

Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It will. But the easiest way for the ecosystem to deal with this is the extinction of the primary predator disturbing the system. And that would be a bummer.



Definitely. That would just ruin my whole day.

Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Me thinks that is the LEAST of our worries right now[:/]



I would imagine that this should actually be a priority. Not only is it a food issue but what about the effect on plant life in the ocean (which is responsible for a large quantity of the worlds oxygen) and other secondary effects?

For interest sake I am curious. What is the most iportant concern?

Richards

i'd have to say fucking WWIII the US has started. I'd be more worried about a piece of uncontaminated bread and a glass of fresh clean water before it's over w/. Actully I'll be dead and gone by then. Have fun;)
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Bunch of crybaby liberal envirofreaks. What do they know?;)



I can't say as I have never actually heard of these guys. You work in the feild of science and have a better perspective so I have to take your word on it.

Cheers,

Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites