Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on November 04, 2006, 11:31:33 AM
-
linky (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061102-seafood-threat.html)
Please do not cut-n-paste.
Wow, 30 years is a very short timeframe. :eek:
-
Unfortunately, dragging billions of fish out of the ocean with huge nets each year will cause extinction. But the problem is pretty complicated. Say the U.S. decides to reduce fishing by 90%. Well it turns out, alot of our food fishes migrate across the entire ocean, so we would have to stop other countries from fishing too.
Aquaculture needs to be ramped up. Marine sanctuaries need to be established. Mangrove swamps, which are a nursery for fish, need to be replanted. But the main thing, fishing just needs to be slowed or halted.
Besides purified fish oil, I rarely eat fish from the ocean, and never from lakes. Fish are so contaminated with mercury, pcbs, and dioxins that there is no health benefit from eating them. If you like fish, go ahead and eat them. But just be wary, if you start to feel fatigued for no reason, then its possible you are suffering from mercury poisoning.
-
Not to worry
in a few hundred years Scotty will come back and save us all
-
Bull**** (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003340489_seafood03m.html)
-
no more fish? YYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEE!
-
:cry poor fishies :cry
What will i have to eat then?
-
every problem facing the world, global warming, declining energy resources, world hunger, pollution, wars over land, etc, have one root cause, over population, there are just too many people and it's going to get worse.
-
All the more reason to start shooting the illegals at the border
-
Not all oceans in the world will crash into death of seafood at once, - so the theory is kind of naive.
However, we're on the road downhill, and as has been experienced with overfishing etc, it will take decades to restore.
Then we have an increased pollution factor as well as a warming factor which may change habitats and confuse the ecosystems in the seas (i.e. the North Sea is 3 degrees Celcius warmer now than normally)
My country almost went to a war status with Britain, - it was all about fish. The fish around Iceland was being sucked up at an alarming rate. So, - eventually the fishing grounds became ours, but the damage was enough for us to adapt a very strict quota system that has stayed for some 20 years. The fish is slowly restoring while the European community has basically nuked the North sea, - the Cod (which we fought our Cod wars over, but at home) in the North sea is almost completely gone.
Recently, the world community is upset about recent Icelandic whaling. Yes we did start whaling again.
Everybody is shocked, and the season is over with some 5 or so whales done.
Every ocean fish and mammal is a part of he system. The whales go far for their food, and some species of them are in danger while other are overpopulating at the moment. Typically, for the equilibrum, the whales that were caught were in relatively poor condition - thin. Not enough to eat.
That means too many whales for what they have.
Sort of shows that the downhill is a good guess, but the time given is very questionable. When fish stocks crash, the fishing becomes uneconomical, so it depends, as so many other environmental things, on the MONEY.
-
Well said john..
Id like to add greed and lazy attitudes to that. Doesnt take much effort by us in the rich part of the world either to help the situation.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Bull**** (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003340489_seafood03m.html)
Just use common sense. There are more and more humans (6+ Billion), but there are not more fish. More humans need more food. Wheres the easiest place to get that additional food? The ocean.
Hmmm, what group of people would like you to believe that the oceans are doing ok- Marine biologists? Wildlife conservationists? Or commercial fishermen? I'll let you choose.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Not all oceans in the world will crash into death of seafood at once, - so the theory is kind of naive.
However, we're on the road downhill, and as has been experienced with overfishing etc, it will take decades to restore.
Then we have an increased pollution factor as well as a warming factor which may change habitats and confuse the ecosystems in the seas (i.e. the North Sea is 3 degrees Celcius warmer now than normally)
My country almost went to a war status with Britain, - it was all about fish. The fish around Iceland was being sucked up at an alarming rate. So, - eventually the fishing grounds became ours, but the damage was enough for us to adapt a very strict quota system that has stayed for some 20 years. The fish is slowly restoring while the European community has basically nuked the North sea, - the Cod (which we fought our Cod wars over, but at home) in the North sea is almost completely gone.
Recently, the world community is upset about recent Icelandic whaling. Yes we did start whaling again.
Everybody is shocked, and the season is over with some 5 or so whales done.
Every ocean fish and mammal is a part of he system. The whales go far for their food, and some species of them are in danger while other are overpopulating at the moment. Typically, for the equilibrum, the whales that were caught were in relatively poor condition - thin. Not enough to eat.
That means too many whales for what they have.
Sort of shows that the downhill is a good guess, but the time given is very questionable. When fish stocks crash, the fishing becomes uneconomical, so it depends, as so many other environmental things, on the MONEY.
Im all for the whaling that we do up here in the north sea now. Its controlled and the population of whales is back up to a level were its ok to take out a few again.
Iceland, Norway and Russia have a special responsobility to control the fishing out there. The 3 of us can basicly control how much the EU can pull out of the sea as most of the areas are controlled by either of the 3 countries.
-
I guess that means 50 years from now if I want to fix a box of tuna helper, I will have to go to the black market to purchase a can of tuna
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Just use common sense. There are more and more humans (6+ Billion), but there are not more fish. More humans need more food. Wheres the easiest place to get that additional food? The ocean.
No. there is another solution
(http://www.soylent-green.com/cat/sg-prop.jpg)
-
You just convinced me to go to "Marissa's" and get a big bowl of zuppa da pesch....(might as well contribute to killing them, all at once!)
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Just use common sense. There are more and more humans (6+ Billion), but there are not more fish. More humans need more food. Wheres the easiest place to get that additional food? The ocean.
Hmmm, what group of people would like you to believe that the oceans are doing ok- Marine biologists? Wildlife conservationists? Or commercial fishermen? I'll let you choose.
Just for your info, the Ocean gives a very small percentage of the food for the whole of mankind.
However, it is vital to some areas, and some areas have faired better than others in keeping their fishing grounds alive.
Bad examples are vast areas around south America.
Bad examples from the past are even Iceland and Norway with the Herring, - 1930's and 1960's. From the Herring crash in the 1960's the balance was off, and the Herring amount today is but a joke compared to those "golden" days.
Bad example today is the North Sea, where too many fishing nations are biting the same bone, which has become a negotiable political thing rather than anything environmentally making sense.
There is a reason that Norway and Iceland do not join the EU, - a big chunk there is the fishing policy.
You may think this is small stuff, for Icelanders and Norvegians together only count some 5 millions.
But the Ocean area is vast, and the combines coastlines are longer than the coastline of Africa.
It's a big thing to look after, and there are always "border" fishing ships and "Pirate" fishing ships, and then there are some scruffles between the fishing nations. But if the things are done with some mnd and heart, keeping the fishing grounds in equilibrum are quite possible.
So, Nilsen and me are keeping things okay in our aters AFAWK . Where we live...but some also only look to temporary profit....
-
p.s. My Keyboard is giving up :D
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
I guess that means 50 years from now if I want to fix a box of tuna helper, I will have to go to the black market to purchase a can of tuna
no-sausage-on-pizza-but-plan-on-buying-tuna-from-the-cosa-nostra-wad:huh :confused: :eek: :O :noid :aok :cool: :D :rofl
-
(http://www.merch-bot.com/imagesDJANGO/products/350savetheplanetSTICKER)
(http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004012257_Display-25.gif)
-
For the consumer's side, - when there is no more Tuna, there will be NO MORE TUNA for quite a while.
There is too little cod, so when down to 1% of what it used to be, FISH and chips will be more expensive. Much much Much MUCH
Ces't la vie.....
-
on the pacific fish & chips is halibut
is better than cod, but that doesn't matter too much, cause the chips outrank them both
-
hALIBUT BETTER THAN COD?
Well, it's a much rarer fish and a deep ocean one too (at least in the Northern Hemospere). It's more of a demand for the work as well.
It's decline would be similar to other base species as well.
Anyway, maybe it will really go that way that fish will be a rare and expensive delicatessen, - maybe a cup of fries with a glass of seawater instead, - just for the whiff?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, maybe it will really go that way that fish will be a rare and expensive delicatessen, - maybe a cup of fries with a glass of seawater instead, - just for the whiff?
Ive swallowed my share of seawater in my life. Plankton is really not that great, but them big fishies likes it so maybe we can develope a taste for it aswell :D
As you said the Norwegian coastline alone is longer than the african continent, and the area of sea we are supposed to look after is massive compared to the land we hold. Thankfully the politicians are seeing the great wealth out there now both in terms of fish, oil/gass and toursim so the navy and coastguard are getting more funding. Its at the expence of other branches in the military, but we need to look after our own backyard/puddle before trying to please those that favor international operations on land.
Iceland should (imo) boost its coastguard to be able to better protect the waters too.
-
Ive swallowed my share of seawater in my life.
Every capsize I take a little bit of the home turf with me.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Ive swallowed my share of seawater in my life. Plankton is really not that great, but them big fishies likes it so maybe we can develope a taste for it aswell :D
As you said the Norwegian coastline alone is longer than the african continent, and the area of sea we are supposed to look after is massive compared to the land we hold. Thankfully the politicians are seeing the great wealth out there now both in terms of fish, oil/gass and toursim so the navy and coastguard are getting more funding. Its at the expence of other branches in the military, but we need to look after our own backyard/puddle before trying to please those that favor international operations on land.
Iceland should (imo) boost its coastguard to be able to better protect the waters too.
We are upgrading ships now and buying a new one as well as renting and then buyin choppers instead of the ones the USA had here (those served well and the co-operation with the USN was a very good one)
As well as that going on, we have recently made the infamous net cutters (cod war era stuff) ready for operation against pirate fishers.
I hope Iceland and Norway (as well as the Föroyar) crew together on that project ;)
-
Sounds good Angus.
I think there should be inspectors with authority from all 3 countries onboard the "coastguard" vessels of the 3 nations so they can work together and not worry so much about crossing each others borders.
That way they can follow suspects over eachothers respective borders without all the red tape. Now fishing vessels can make a dash for the next border and international waters if followed. I know we will be taking russian inspectors with us on our coastguard vessels soon so they can be there and "help" gather evidence against their own nations fishing boats. That evidence willl prolly go down better with the russians courts than if we turn over the same evidence.
It has to be said tho that the russians are beginning to take over-fishing more serious now.
-
Originally posted by rpm
linky (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061102-seafood-threat.html) Wow, 30 years is a very short timeframe. :eek:
funny thing is, is that liberals will always come out on the side of the netters,
must be because they hate sport fisherman so much...
-
Start investing now in fresh water fisheries :)
-
That's an extremely controversial study, lots of scientists are disputing their conclusions.
-
Remember the early 2000's when the seafood was the solution to the world hunger problem? 6 years later overfishing has decimated the seas and still people are in hunger. Weird innit?
-
The entire biomass of the ocean is roughly equal to the biomass produced on land. However, alot more of the oceans biomass is edible than that produced on land.
-
Originally posted by RedRadr
funny thing is, is that liberals will always come out on the side of the netters,
must be because they hate sport fisherman so much...
Hmm, I thought National Geographic was a pretty mainstream scientific source. I didn't realise that the study had to be done by registered republicans to be considered valid science.:rolleyes:
-
It probably needs to be paid for by the biggest fishing companies to be valid. :D
-
I was actually surprised to see this thread, given recent success locally (Texas Gulf coast, over the last couple of decades) with the recovery of important sportfishing species. We had almost no red drum left 30 years ago, and now they abound. Snook, a species many thought at one time were on the road to extinction, are now reappearing all along the Texas coast. Heck, we're even seeing an upsurge in alligators.
Significantly, since I mention predatory species who are at the top of the marine food chain, this indicates similar health below them in the food chain - shellfish and species like pinfish, mullet, etc., plus what those food-for-fish critters eat. The top of the food chain doesn't thrive unless what's below it thrives as well.
Then I googled the story, and found another source ( LINK (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200611031780.htm) ) that showed a slightly different POV in the way it reported the story. Here's a quote:
Disaster can still be averted, scientists say
"The good news is that it is not too late to turn things around," Worm said. The scientists studied 48 areas worldwide that have been protected to improve marine biodiversity. "We see that diversity of species recovered dramatically, and with it the ecosystem's productivity and stability."
Researchers studied a variety of information in four meta-analyses, progressing from local to regional and global scales.
First, they analyzed 32 marine experiments that manipulated species diversity on small, local scales, and monitored the effects. Second, researchers tracked the 1,000-year-long history of change in species diversity and associated services across 12 coastal regions around the world. These included Chesapeake, Delaware, Massachusetts, Galveston, San Francisco Bay and Pamlico Sound (all U.S.), The Bay of Fundy and Gulf of St. Lawrence (Canada), The Adriatic, Baltic and North Seas (Europe), as well as Moreton Bay (Australia). Sources included archives, fishery records, sediment cores and archeological data.
National Geographic didn't emphasize this aspect of the story as clearly. The gist is that what the scientist (Worm) is trying to say is that there's a dangerous trend but also varied evidence worldwide that shows its clearly feasible to reverse it.
The sky isn't falling after all :)
culero
-
I did'nt see where it said it was'nt reversable. I thought the point was if we did'nt take action to stop the trend soon, it would be.
-
Good thing everyone read the link I provided. So I'll provide it again.
[SIZE=8]"It's just mind-boggling stupid," (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003340489_seafood03m.html)[/SIZE]
-
Laser, I bet you can find a Phillip Morris report that says smoking isn't harmful.
-
dont sweat it fellas, some day you will all be dead and this subject really wont matter.
-
Laser, let the biologists do the thinking, you just go ride your sailboat.
-
It was a Biologist who called this new report "Mind Boggling Stupid." But then again, I never really expected you to read that article.
-
^ everything will be just fine... eh
-
I heard that after kinky loses he is going to join the greenpeace fleet.
lazs
-
Didn't say that. But the problem isn't nearly as bad as the 4 year old panickers who flap their limp wrists all over the place.
-
Sometimes I wish I could be a "republican". It would be the easy life. :)
-
Originally posted by rpm
I did'nt see where it said it was'nt reversable. I thought the point was if we did'nt take action to stop the trend soon, it would be.
You got the point National Geographic wanted you to get. Its apparently not exactly the point that the scientist who generated the report wanted you to get.
They slanted it in the direction they wanted by not reporting more explicitly that he not only says the trend can be stopped, but also that it is already being successfully dealt with in many areas.
Communication is more what people understand than what people say. Its always possible to remain within the boundaries of truth but at the same time convey inaccurate impressions. Its all about spin.
culero
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Sometimes I wish I could be a "republican". It would be the easy life. :)
No, it really isn't.
You know how frustrating it is to argue with liberals? They don't use logic nor history! It's like arguing with a rock.
-
But as a "republican" you can just fight to keep everything at status quo. No need to sacrifice pleasure or worry about the future.. you can just dissmiss stuff like global warming, polution, consumption and keep on trucking. :)
Its the easy life.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Sometimes I wish I could be a "republican". It would be the easy life. :)
Wait...You are trying to tell me that actually working for a living is "the easy life", opposed to being on welfare and a democrat =).......:t
-
Im not on welfare, and im what you may call a democrat. Only one of my friends is on welfare.. kinda. He had a car accident and his back is messed up.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
But as a "republican" you can just fight to keep everything at status quo. No need to sacrifice pleasure or worry about the future.. you can just dissmiss stuff like global warming, polution, consumption and keep on trucking. :)
Its the easy life.
Nilsen, it's not easy. It involves analysis. It also involves not panicking like a two year old girl.
(http://www.gospellightbc.com/Screaming%20girl.jpg)
-
Bottom line in this business is that mankind is overfishing and has managed to wipe out to a high extent some rich fishing grounds.
Keep it going this way :
"dont sweat it fellas, some day you will all be dead and this subject really wont matter."
And seafood will only be for the richies...
I don't think we could "wipe out" the fish from the oceans like that but it's going to be one fine day, if we carry on like this, where the hard earned catch is just too little and expensive.
By then, many of us won't be dead.
And to be responsible, our grandchildren will be young.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184 Nilsen, it's not easy. It involves analysis. It also involves not panicking like a two year old girl.
Then whats with all the whining? ;)