Bad Fish News

I don't know if I'm pessimist or what, but articles about this research published in the journal Science have been floating around for the past couple of days.  Here's the lead in on one article in the San Jose Merc:

All of the world's fishing stocks will collapse before mid-century, devastating food supplies, if overfishing and other human impacts continue at their current pace, according to a global study to be published today by scientists in five countries.

Already, 29 percent of species that are fished -- including bluefin tuna, Atlantic cod, Alaskan king crab and Pacific salmon -- and an array of California fisheries have collapsed and the pace is accelerating, the report says.

The lead scientist, whose last name is, ironically, Worm, claims that at the present trend most all commercial fisheries will collapse within our lifetimes (2048).  There seems to be some debate on this, but it's food for thought.  Here's the link to the article:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15918954.htm

Yeah, this news worries me too. Of course there are doubters, but just like the nay-sayers on global warming 10 years ago turned out to be--they are representing the commercial fishers who don't want to change and they are dissembling to protect their self-interest. Denial of man as the cause of serious global wraming has been completely discredited but we lost a lot of time to change due to the opposition in our leadership due to their influence. I'll bet these folks will be right as well and I also think we'll do little about it for some time because commerical interests trump the environment every time in our current regime. The good news is that we have time to change our habits and fix this. The bad news is that those doing the most damage don't want to stop and have the power and influence in our government to ensure they don't have to.

Even a couple of the authors admit it is an inflamatory worst case scenario article.

They meant for it to be so. 

I think it is a poor reflection on science, as it is an extremely political report.

MolBasser

Yep, a canary in a coal mine with a megaphone. Of course, the same was said about the warnings about global warming's human cause a couple of decades ago and we now know how that turned out. The science is sketchy--now--but that doens't mean once the gaps are filled in, the prognosis will be more in line with their extreme than current accepted conclusions. Of course it doesn't mean it will either. Big pelagics have been decimated--that much we know.  The one certainty is that we need more attention in this area and accelerated studies to separate fact from fiction and likely outcomes to emotional conjecture. Many people who predicted the Salmon's demise decades ago were scoffed at as well for having thin evidence--but they turned out to prescient. One can predict the Salmon would die out when the rivers were dammed, the forests clear-cut dumping sediment, without waiting for the results. Yet those who predicted were belittled due to the lack of results. Sometimes waiting for enough empriical result to convince those who self-interest lies in inaction is too late--if the effects take a long time to show and the changes are difficult to reverse.

At the current rate, the planet is going to reach triple population in 2050 or so, most of that beign in the third world were fish is a major portion of sustenance. So current consumption levels will increase dramatically. At least we should be thinking about this. Sometimes, when one understands the model, one can make prediction that are very accurate--especially when the consequences of waiting for data are potentially catastrophic. Demanding empricial data in those cases is like the proving a building's eathquake resistence by waiting for the 8.0 quake.

Another point I'd like to make. While it might be a poor reflection on science, it pales in comparision to the injustice of an adminstration that muzzles good science for political and commercial gain. Perhaps we'll see a trend towards these more populist outbursts as a consequence of our government's ruling party's suppression of research and science their campaign donors and industry cronies don't like. Suppression of speech causes more extreme outbursts when speech is finally able to come out. And populist psuedo-science is being used by the suppressors--so maybe some scientists, sadly and to science's discredit, are fighting fire with fire.

In sum, I think your blame, whiel correct, is misplaced. I blame a government that suppresses truth via deceit for drowing out voices of reason and forcing dialog to hyperbole more than I blame those, who desperate to get out some speech to force the debate democracy needs, use similar tactics to rise above the propaganda din.

In sum, I think your blame, whiel correct, is misplaced. I blame a government that suppresses truth via deceit for drowing out voices of reason and forcing dialog to hyperbole more than I blame those, who desperate to get out some speech to force the debate democracy needs, use similar tactics to rise above the propaganda din.

Sure, sure.  But the way to proper debate, in my opinion, is facts on both sides.  Two wrongs don't make a right etc. etc...

MolBasser

But the way to proper debate, in my opinion, is facts on both sides.  Two wrongs don't make a right etc. etc...

I agree in both in principle and theory. And in the long term, you are right in taking the high road. But...tiem is running out nad facts are being supressed. Adn a lot of us are getting really pissed off and impatient--a weakness for sure. But hwo to fight this more effectively. I don't know but I know the principles behind our current administrations tactics. I'll let someone famous speak for me in describing them...

"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."

In case you don't recognize the author...Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1925, (James Murphy translation, page 134)

You must visit the same woo woo websites that I do, as I have seen that quote many times.

I constantly struggle between the chicken little syndrome and the ignorant/apathetic public issue.

How do you engage a public more interested in the next version of playstation?

MolBasser

I believe human nature is a constant and, as some proof of this, there are Greeks, Romans, and many others in the past who have noted the problem and asked the same questions. Good old teddy Roosevelt summed it up nicely I think. They didn't find answers, let's hope we do better. The world population is orders of magnitutde bigger now and the mistakes are affecting the entire globe and man's survival--not just an empire.


"The Roman Republic fell, not because of the ambition of Caesar or Augustus, but because it had already long ceased to be in any real sense a republic at all. When the sturdy Roman plebeian, who lived by his own labor, who voted without reward according to his own convictions, and who with his fellows formed in war the terrible Roman legion, had been changed into an idle creature who craved nothing in life save the gratification of a thirst vapid excitement, who was fed by the state, and who directly or indirectly sold his vote to the highest bidder, then the end of the republic was at hand, and nothing could save it. The laws were the same as they had been, but the people behind the laws had changed, and so the laws counted nothing."

     --Theodore Roosevelt

"The Roman Republic fell, not because of the ambition of Caesar or Augustus, but because it had already long ceased to be in any real sense a republic at all. When the sturdy Roman plebeian, who lived by his own labor, who voted without reward according to his own convictions, and who with his fellows formed in war the terrible Roman legion, had been changed into an idle creature who craved nothing in life save the gratification of a thirst vapid excitement, who was fed by the state, and who directly or indirectly sold his vote to the highest bidder, then the end of the republic was at hand, and nothing could save it. The laws were the same as they had been, but the people behind the laws had changed, and so the laws counted nothing."

     --Theodore Roosevelt

Word.

That is a great quote.

MolBasser

It seems like science is a process of developing models or theories on the nature of observed reality, which then can be utilized by society until better fitting models are developed.  Ultimately we can never completely prove anything, so it is probably difficult for many scientists working in natural resource sciences when they believe they have detected a trend or signal.  Like any other person, they care about the resource.  It would be hard to keep your mouth shut when you believe the $hit is going to hit the fan.

Kayakfishers are indeed an interesting lot:  Quotes from Teddy Roosevelt and Mein Kampf?  Input from a molecular biologist?  I dunno, I came into K-Fishing more from the paddling side than the fishing side, so I don't know that much about fishing or fishing websites, but somehow these types of discussions don't fit into my stereotype of "normal" sportfishermen.  Probably a personal limitation on my part.

Kayakfishers are indeed an interesting lot:  Quotes from Teddy Roosevelt and Mein Kampf?  Input from a molecular biologist?  I dunno, I came into K-Fishing more from the paddling side than the fishing side, so I don't know that much about fishing or fishing websites, but somehow these types of discussions don't fit into my stereotype of "normal" sportfishermen.  Probably a personal limitation on my part.

I share some of the surprise as well. But then there are many different people from all paths in life on this board who share a pleasure in fishing from a kayak. Personally, I am an electronic engineer by training with an MBA some work towards a JD in Patent Law.  Given our diverse backgrounds and the vagaries of political leanings in this large and diverse state,  the movitation for using a kayak differs a bit among us. I know I am an outspoken and opinionated character but I fundamentally believe public discourse leads to discussion and understanding of alternate viewpoints and builds progress because of compromise. I think debate is the crucible of democracy--without it there is fascism. But there I go again ...

When I find myself thinking too hard on the question and not feeling like I've nailed it down with any clarity or closure, I just resort to a simple matter of fact dismissal of the paradox and I imagine what Karl Rove, ternt Lott, Rick Sanotrum, or Dick Cheney might use to expaln it: "it not a kayak fishing baord...its a CALIFORNIA kayak fishing board".

in my experience, the problem with "science" is that it is not possible to separate from political/economic interests.  A report by the commercial fisheries is suspect but then again why is not a Natural Resources Defense Council report seen as potential propaganda from the other side?

I am a member of a Pajaro River Task force that has what they call a "stream team" which is made up of fluvial geomorphologists, resource agency reps like NOAA fisheries, DFGA, Army corp of engineers, county reps, and two citizen reps, a sierra club guy and yours truly.  I represent the "local yokel" contingent.

I have been dismayed to see the way science has worked in this case.  Rather than trying to find an environmentally sensitive solution to flood control, they started with a premise, and seek to find the science that backs their predetermined premise.

So on the fisheries I cant help but wonder, what started this?  Was it, "we need to stop commercial fishing.  How do we do it?"  Or was it "how are our fisheries doing?"  Without that level of trust, all answers are suspect by someone.

Eugene

So on the fisheries I cant help but wonder, what started this?  Was it, "we need to stop commercial fishing.  How do we do it?"  Or was it "how are our fisheries doing?"  Without that level of trust, all answers are suspect by someone.

While you are right to be skeptical, I think one can very easily tell from the source of a report and who endorses or discredits it, what the agendas are. For instance I don't have to read a single Whitehouse release on Iraq or global warming any more because I know the agenda behind them and that they be false--remember the "Mission Accomplished" lie? I also ignore PETA releases for a similar reason: they villify human killing of animals while ignoring that Nature herself is far more brutal in killign those same animals--so I know their distortions and hyperbole. I beleive the estimates that the Iraq violence, started by the US, has killed over 6000,000 Iraqis because it ws a multi-party study using soudn statistics, yet Bush, who doesn't want the American public to relaize he's killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein, dismissed the nubmer and methods as discredited. Discredited by whom? Karl Rove and Dick Cheney LOL?

But more to the point I find the tactics of distortion and fiction used by the corporate interests different than the tactics of distortion used by the environmentalists. For one, corproate interests suppress science and create bold lies and leave a big and bright money trail. ENvronmentalists largely tel lteh truth but add sometime overly emotional and hyperbolic tones to it. I thin the latter is far less nefarious than the former and far easier to filter out.

ENvronmentalists largely tel lteh truth but add sometime overly emotional and hyperbolic tones to it. I thin the latter is far less nefarious than the former and far easier to filter out.

This is a very dangerous opinion, in my opinion.

Enviormentalist are just as happy to lie if it benefits their agenda as business is.  Maybe more so, as they know that their lovey dovey kumbaya line will be effective with an ignorant and apathetic public.

They have the added benefit of being able to say "Don't you like the planet" as an emphasis on their point, valid or not.

What about organizations like Earth First!

Yeah, they don't lie at all....

MolBasser

What about organizations like Earth First!

they are no more environmentalists than GW Bush is a Pro-Lifer. If you lump Earth First in wiht legitmate environmental scientists then I'll lump GW Bush with his weekly meetings with the evangelicals in with abortion clinic bombers. That is a common ad hominem dirty trick of the right and it is pernicious in both its logical fallacy and dissembling nature.

If you take my statement out of context it seems dangerous--and on its face it is. But if you read my whole text, you'll see I know they engage in hyperbole and exagerated appeal to emotion. I have yet to catch them lying outright which, sadly, I've caught corporate interests doing reguarly. I still watch them as  I said, but you must remember, only the biggest envrionmental groups have money and power as their penultimate goal, while all corporations and politicians do. Which do you watch more closely to protect yourself: the wolf or the Grizzly Bear? It is a facile and lazy expediency to state both sides are equal in deceit and tactics and more dangerous in my opinion--it gives more legitimacy to the corproate deceivers than they deserve. I don't know if one does it to appease the selfish right by exaggerating the faults of the left  to appear unbiased or out of laziness, either way it is far more dangerous because it plays into their desire for delay by obfuscation--it dminishes the value of the science whcih is usually on the side of the anit-corproate interests and makes it a battle of propaganda. A battle the moned interests always win in an apathetic and ignorant democracy.