2048 - the collapse of fish and seafood species

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm

A new report by American and Canadian researchers published in the journal Science predicts the loss of all fish and seafood species by 2048. The data collected strengthens the link between protection being granted to ocean areas and the restoration of fish species.

Experiments performed in small, relatively contained ecosystems show that reductions in diversity tend to bring reductions in the size and robustness of local fish stocks. This implies that loss of biodiversity is driving the declines in fish stocks seen in the large-scale studies.

 

The final part of the jigsaw is data from areas where fishing has been banned or heavily restricted.

 

These show that protection brings back biodiversity within the zone, and restores populations of fish just outside.

It is never too late to try to change the current policies on (over)fishing.

My fear is that this will be treated exactly like global warming. They will simply find a handfull of scientists that disagree with the above and say that everything is (and will be) fine. And then it will be too late.

Yep, greedy, corrupt governments along with greedy OLD MEN in big corporations will just keep on going till it Physically stops them.

Here is same article on front page of USA Today..

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/disco...ng-threat_x.htm

M.

Thanks Mr Bush for not signing the Quioto protocol

Thanks Mr Bush for not signing the Quioto protocol

While largely unrelated to this current thread, a point should be made that the Clinton administration also never submitted the Kyoto protocol to the Senate for ratification.

Regardless, I don't see a clause in the protocol that would limit fish catch .

While largely unrelated to this current thread

Do you think so?

Pollution largely contributes to the reductions in diversity not only in the seas, everything is related.

The point being that singular blame should not be placed on an administration that is only following (in this case) the example of the previous one.

An interesting note here is that the host of the Kyoto Protocal, Japan, has already exceeded its bluefin tuna catch for the year, and was found to have "illegally caught up to $6 billion worth of fish." Additional loss of top-predator species like whales and sharks caused by smaller nations is also a major contributor to the instability of marine ecosystems.

The full report has been made available on Science's website.

Do you think so?

 

Pollution largely contributes to the reductions in diversity not only in the seas, everything is related.

Guys, it's not nations but human beings. We have to get off our nationalistic and culturalistic butts. The chinese are doing what the europeans did, as are the south americans. EVERYONE is culpable in this one. However with our current geo political structure, and the amazing lack of foresight in the general world population, I'd say probably we'd get the push and blame for decades.

That said, a statistical model like a global fish stock is not exactly science. I've seen models that project 2030 in the Indo-Pacific and 2080+ worldwide. In the end no matter where it's "suppose" to end... we do have the power to do something now... as a species that can manipulate the surroundings.

Guess there will be a big market for our images in 42 years (sarcastic) - The data seemed to be collectedusing common places/locations, maybe the fish are smart enough and are going somewhere else? It is a much bigger ocean than anyone could accurately collect population data on. Not saying we should not protect I am all for that but I would think there is some scare tactics/publicity going on here, which may not be a bad thing, better to error on the side of the fish for sure.

Of course, some researchers have openly disagreed with the 2048 forecast. For example, Ray Hilborn, a University of Washington professor of aquatic and fishery sciences, says the forecast is "just mind-boggling stupid."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...seafood03m.html

In reallity, fisheries have collapsed faster than predicted. The orange ruffy collapsed in what 3-5 years (vs the 10 predicted). The real bummer is that these predictions are made based on todays known interelationships between species, environment and climate. As we learn more, we tend to find deeper relationships with more loss involved. With accellerating warming and all out assault on fish popluations, they don't stand much of a chance. Do we really think maritime nations will honor quotas and off-limit fish populations when fisheries collapse further. No way.

I predicted the opening up of whaling 3-5 years ago. My reasoning was simple. When large fish populations plummeted and the end became imminent, nations would look to develop other fisheries with the whale being a prime target. As tuna, sharks and rays dissappear below viable popluations, look for more nations to target whales (both openly and in secret).

In the end, we will all be eating jellyfish and planton soup.