4 ms·

I'd assume this is slightly sensationalist? As in not all species of fish and areas are fished simply because of depth, remoteness and species unsuitable for ea

by robryan 16y ago

I'd assume this is slightly sensationalist? As in not all species of fish and areas are fished simply because of depth, remoteness and species unsuitable for eating.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- pyre 16y ago
  > "we're destroying the planet" I've always taken that definition of 'planet' to mean, "the way it is now," or, "the parts that we like about it." No one truly believes that humans will cause the planet to cease to exist (at least in the non-SciFi near-future). > The Earth, life, will go on with or without us. That doesn't necessarily excuse the destruction that we leave in our path...
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- robryan 16y ago
  I think if we did cause our own extinction we would take most species with us beforehand.
  - strait 16y ago
    The last animals left will be the cockroaches, Eric Burdon, and of course, Keith Richards.
pchristensen 16y ago
Long lines and bottom trawling make the ocean small and accessible while causing massive amounts of "bycatch" - species unsuitable for eating.
commieneko 16y ago
If the "low fruit" species are fished out, then the more remote, less desirable species are likely to be targeted. There is also the danger of damaging the eco system, or at least destabilizing it in unpredictable ways.
- junklight 16y ago
  This already well underway. The book & film "End of the Line" is well worth a read. Also the massive disruption of the eco-system by removing large numbers of species has un-predictable knock on effects - for example massive numbers of jelly fish in some areas and of course the algae/plankton population explosions which in turn effect the ecosystem to the detriment of other species. There is also a lot of deception in the naming of fish. Fish species are renamed in order to make them sound like fish we are used to. The fish species you get in British Fish and Chip shops are rarely the species our parents and grandparents ate
Tamerlin 16y ago
No, quite the opposite. It's actually tamed for public consumption. As bad and as short sighted as it is, over fishing is actually not the worst thing that we've done to the fish populations of the world. For example, it ignores the fact that in the Pacific Northwest, in an orgy of short-sighted stupidity, we've managed to kill off nearly all of the greatest salmon runs in the lower 48. (Look around for the Elwha dam sometime.) Nowadays, to find salmon runs the likes of which the Pacific Northwest was once known for you, there's only one place left: Kamchatka. And I have my doubts about how long they'll last. The only problem that the Kamchatka rivers don't have that the Elwha and Columbia Rivers had (some of the world's greatest salmon runs before human stupidity finished them off) is dams.
anigbrowl 16y ago
The article is very shallow, but th problem is very real. the economist has had some very good coverage on this if you want to cruise their website for it. The main scourge, the UNEP report says, are government subsidies encouraging ever bigger fishing fleets chasing ever fewer fish, with little attempt made to allow the fish populations to recover. The annual 27 billion dollars in government subsidies to fishing, mostly in rich countries, is "perverse," Mr Sukhdev said, since the entire value of fish caught is only 85 billion dollars. This is the key issue. Being European, I remember since the 1970s that western European nations, particularly Spain, started ranging further afield because they had fished out most of the waters around their own coasts. The result was 'fishing wars' where trawlers would damage the nets or otherwise interfere with boats from competing nations, which resulted in a few diplomatic incidents. Now Euro fishermen catch way out in the mid-Atlantic, and indeed there have been clashes between Euro and Spanish fishing vessels. Property rights are offered by some Economists as a solution, and I can see the logic of this; on the other hand I am unsure about the probity of just handing people property title for no value, and I'm uncertain about how these can be properly enforced in international waters anyway, absent solid maritime treaties. So in the meantime we have this idiotic subsidy system, which doesn't benefit anyone except the manufacturers of fishing vessels and equipment.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > there have been clashes between Euro and Spanish fishing vessels. Spanish fishing vessels are not Euro fishing vessels then ?
  - yardie 16y ago
    The way there economy is going (or not going) they won't be for long
kjhgfghjk 16y ago
You assume the deep fish wont be caught when all the convenient stocks have run out? Anything that isn't edible will simply be fed to salmon in fish farms - or flavored until it is edible. Plus any fish that live that deep are going to be slow metabolism, long living, long reproductive cycle species - so we will be able to wipe them out very quickly.

by robryan 16y ago

I'd assume this is slightly sensationalist? As in not all species of fish and areas are fished simply because of depth, remoteness and species unsuitable for eating.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

pyre 16y ago
> "we're destroying the planet" I've always taken that definition of 'planet' to mean, "the way it is now," or, "the parts that we like about it." No one truly believes that humans will cause the planet to cease to exist (at least in the non-SciFi near-future). > The Earth, life, will go on with or without us. That doesn't necessarily excuse the destruction that we leave in our path...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
robryan 16y ago
I think if we did cause our own extinction we would take most species with us beforehand.
- strait 16y ago
  The last animals left will be the cockroaches, Eric Burdon, and of course, Keith Richards.

pchristensen 16y ago

Long lines and bottom trawling make the ocean small and accessible while causing massive amounts of "bycatch" - species unsuitable for eating.

commieneko 16y ago

If the "low fruit" species are fished out, then the more remote, less desirable species are likely to be targeted. There is also the danger of damaging the eco system, or at least destabilizing it in unpredictable ways.

junklight 16y ago
This already well underway. The book & film "End of the Line" is well worth a read. Also the massive disruption of the eco-system by removing large numbers of species has un-predictable knock on effects - for example massive numbers of jelly fish in some areas and of course the algae/plankton population explosions which in turn effect the ecosystem to the detriment of other species. There is also a lot of deception in the naming of fish. Fish species are renamed in order to make them sound like fish we are used to. The fish species you get in British Fish and Chip shops are rarely the species our parents and grandparents ate

Tamerlin 16y ago

No, quite the opposite. It's actually tamed for public consumption. As bad and as short sighted as it is, over fishing is actually not the worst thing that we've done to the fish populations of the world. For example, it ignores the fact that in the Pacific Northwest, in an orgy of short-sighted stupidity, we've managed to kill off nearly all of the greatest salmon runs in the lower 48. (Look around for the Elwha dam sometime.) Nowadays, to find salmon runs the likes of which the Pacific Northwest was once known for you, there's only one place left: Kamchatka. And I have my doubts about how long they'll last. The only problem that the Kamchatka rivers don't have that the Elwha and Columbia Rivers had (some of the world's greatest salmon runs before human stupidity finished them off) is dams.

anigbrowl 16y ago

The article is very shallow, but th problem is very real. the economist has had some very good coverage on this if you want to cruise their website for it. The main scourge, the UNEP report says, are government subsidies encouraging ever bigger fishing fleets chasing ever fewer fish, with little attempt made to allow the fish populations to recover. The annual 27 billion dollars in government subsidies to fishing, mostly in rich countries, is "perverse," Mr Sukhdev said, since the entire value of fish caught is only 85 billion dollars. This is the key issue. Being European, I remember since the 1970s that western European nations, particularly Spain, started ranging further afield because they had fished out most of the waters around their own coasts. The result was 'fishing wars' where trawlers would damage the nets or otherwise interfere with boats from competing nations, which resulted in a few diplomatic incidents. Now Euro fishermen catch way out in the mid-Atlantic, and indeed there have been clashes between Euro and Spanish fishing vessels. Property rights are offered by some Economists as a solution, and I can see the logic of this; on the other hand I am unsure about the probity of just handing people property title for no value, and I'm uncertain about how these can be properly enforced in international waters anyway, absent solid maritime treaties. So in the meantime we have this idiotic subsidy system, which doesn't benefit anyone except the manufacturers of fishing vessels and equipment.

jacquesm 16y ago
> there have been clashes between Euro and Spanish fishing vessels. Spanish fishing vessels are not Euro fishing vessels then ?
- yardie 16y ago
  The way there economy is going (or not going) they won't be for long

kjhgfghjk 16y ago

You assume the deep fish wont be caught when all the convenient stocks have run out? Anything that isn't edible will simply be fed to salmon in fish farms - or flavored until it is edible. Plus any fish that live that deep are going to be slow metabolism, long living, long reproductive cycle species - so we will be able to wipe them out very quickly.