No Fish in the Ocean by 2050

Read an article in the Palo Alto Weekly.  Sciencetics says by 2050 thee Will be no fish to catch in the World's Ocean.  Reasons were Overfishing, Diseases, and Global Warming.

Ken kickfish

The line between Scientist and Progagandist is becoming non-existent.  If the scientists really wanna convince the public I believe that every report they publish or present include information on their funding and other groups they associate themselves with.

The problem isn't with the original scientific article rather it's with the news story that journalists create when they pick up a one liner from an article.  Most scientists are careful to site their funding sources in their papers because funding sources like to get credit.   Newspapers however have no such obligation when they report on a story.  In this case, the paper is a broad review paper of "marine ecosystem function" and the bit about overfishing is purely a small example among many within the paper.   Someone working for the Associated Press ran with their interpretation of the scientific article and now every 2-bit scientific writer out there is using the AP article as the basis of their own article for the paper they work with.   By the time the public gets this info it has been interpreted multiple times and any reference to funding sources and author affiliations are lost.

As for the overall implication that fisheries and the oceans in general are in decline it's hard to refute the evidence.  If you don't agree, or just want to ignore the evidence, I guess that's your right but don't come complaining to me in 50 years when you no longer catch any decent sized fish.  By the way, overfishing is just one of the many concerns covered by the original journal article.   Invasive species, pollution, areas of oxygen depletion, coastal flooding, and harmful algal blooms are among the other indicators of ocean decline looked at.

If you want to read the actual article the journal is called "Science" and the article can be found in Vol. 314. no. 5800, pp. 787 - 790.  Any decent university library should have it and some of the better public libraries might have it as well.  It's also online, but at a cost of $10 for the article.

Thank you for keeping it real, BSteves!

By the time the public gets this info it has been interpreted multiple times and any reference to funding sources and author affiliations are lost.

Sounds like the "telephone" game we all used to play as kids.
Take it all w/ a grain of salt eh?

Z

Brian, I always enjoy your perspective.  My wife just began opening a new bank in SF called NewResourceBank.  They are focused on the environment and helping companies who are interested in finding new sources of fuel, organic foods, solar power... etc.......  They featured this article in one of there talks on the opening of the bank two nights ago.  They focused on Global warming but were careful to mention that wasn't the only cause of the decline of fish in the ocean. Although over fishing is an major issue, it is the environment which is causing the most damage to fish populations throught the oceans.  I guess there isn't enough fish in the sea anymore!

Jason

I had what I thought was a pretty good response but i lost it twice so I'm gonna take that as a sign that it was something I shouldn't post.  You have a point with the reporting but I maintain my postion.  Each time a "collapse" is concluded in any scientific report there is recognition (thats where the reporting comes into play) and potential for more work for that team.  I can extrapolate any numbers I "find," based on current rates but that doesn't make them true.  If there will truely be no fish in 2050 tell me why we shouldn't elimanate regulations all together, pollution or global warming are gonna get them eventually anyway.   It still is my opinion that anyone making a Doom's Day prediction is not a scientist but rather a propagandist seeking attention, trying to justify their being or looking for money.  

In 50 years I promise not to complain about the lack of targetable fish because in 2014 I will be worrying about how we depleted our drinking water and in 2020 I won't be able to move 5 inches in any direction without bumping into anybody, every square inch of land will be developed, L.A will be the new south pole and some super virus will be decimating the earth's population.......that is of course if we don't get wiped out by an asteroid before then.    

Interestingly enough, as a scientist, I've sat through several sessions at scientific meetings discussing whether scientists should ever be allowed to voice their opinions (i.e. environmental propaganda if you wish).  In an ideal world, scientist would run experiments and perform field studies the results of which would be made publicly available to inform policy makers.  The problem is, what to do when the evidence suggests that there is a problem and the policy makers don't want to hear about it at least not during their term of office.  Let the next guy deal with it.   Scientists have an obligation to remain objective in interpreting their results, that doesn't mean that they have to stay quite about them all together.

While it's true that extrapolating data doesn't make it come true, is it really best to just ignore a situation because you don't like the potential outcome?  Wouldn't it be better to listen to the advice and try to do something to improve the situation.  For example, imagine sitting on a railroad track.  You ears and eyes tell you that there is a train coming.  At one moment it the train appears a mile away, a few seconds later your vision and hearing tell you it's only 1/2 mile away. Suddenly your eyes and ears tell you it's 500 yds away.  In your mind you are extrapolating the data and interpreting that what that means.  In this case, it suggests that if you don't move soon you will get run over by a train.  Now the train  might suddenly break to a stop or it might even get derailed before it reaches you.  The prudent thing to do would be move off the train track ASAP.  But in this case, I suppose moving off the track isn't an inconvenience and doesn't cost anything so it's an easy decision to make.

Brian

There is a bright side though....
More and more anglers are practicing Catch and Release. And the advent of circle hooks (or barbless) makes C+R even more legitimate. Not to mention the dramatic increase in popularity of flyfishing which usually begets C+R.
My guess is that in 1960, most people kept as many fish as they caught. As oposed to 2006, where many people release most of the fish they catch (either for conservation or due to the regs).

For example, MByakker has probably only kept one or two of the hundreds of fish he's caught this year. And I have only kept about 15 of the hundreds of fish I've caught from a kayak this year. Apparently conservation isn't just for tree-huggers anymore...

PK

The problem really isn't recreational fishermen or even well manged commercial fisheries, rather there are quite a few irresponsible commercial fisheries out there that are for the most part unregulated.  In fisheries biology the general problem is referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".  In short, anytime you have a limited resource that doesn't belong to anyone (i.e. a common resource), there is no incentive not to take as much as you can, because if you don't, the next guy will.  This creates incentives to gather that resource as quickly as possible before it all runs out.  In the case of fisheries, we've seen the creating of larger and larger fishing vessels and fish processing "factory" ships that allow fishing vessels to stay out to sea longer without having to come to port.  If you look at landings statistics you might say, "hey we're catching more fish than ever, the populations must be doing fine." But that's misleading, in truth we've just gotten more efficient in catching what few fish remain, thanks to our bigger boats, sonar systems, satellite tracking, etc..

Brian any numbers of Mortality of released rockfish? I heard Stripers were about 8% little higher in freshwater.

Brian,
Thanks for eloquently keeping the discussion focused on reality instead of partisan wishful thinking steming from an inability to think beyond one's own selfish interests--which is what paralyzes modern democracy. Global warming was treated the same dismissive way a decade ago and those raising alarm were ridiculed. Decades before that, those predicting world over population were ridiculed--but now its serious concern by mid-century.
Coral reefs are dying at an unprecedented rate and teh big pelagic fish are decimated! How much more evidence do the may sayers need that something serious is already happening and that when the earth's population triples by 2050 it will accelerate. As stated it not just even commercial  fishing--its the impact of too many humans behaving badly on the environment (weather, water, pollution, habitat destruction, invasive species, over harvesting, offd chain disruption) and its increasing. So how can anyone with comon sense expect that as humans grow to triple the population in 2050, that the effects of population miraculously DECREASE? Incredible.

Why does ignorant self interest always trump science (no question mark because its a rhetorical question). As you stated, the train may not hit us, but its the way to bet and moving immediately is the most prundent--better the lead ahead of disaster and than have disaster drive us before it in a panic in the future.

In your mind you are extrapolating the data and interpreting that what that means. 

Therin lies the problem, at least in my eyes.  Obviously in the train scenario I'd opt for self preservation and step off the track, that interpretation benefits me.  If I just spent 12 months tediously gathering, recording and organizing information from hundreds of sources all over the world and my findings did not support my hypothesis to the extent that I wanted it to then would I let the train just run me over and present those findings with no slant?  I believe that there is too much potential to let human elements sway interpretation and self preservation, whether funding or accoaldes, sides with bigger findings. In biological studies what gains are there to be made by finding out that things are fine?  

Since I'm not gonna go to the library or purchase the report I can't comment directly  but I'm gonna assume the fish being discussed are commercially targeted species and I don't doubt that at the current fishing rates, warming, oxygen depletion etc... they will be gone eventually but that doesn't mean the rates are gonna be constant.  Who's to say that commercial fishing will continue if the stocks are so small they don't justify the cost of chasing them, thats likely to happen and the population will rebound, from what I understand its happening right now with the mexican tuna fleet thats been dormant for a while. My point is that its way to simple to just say, no more fish by 2050, thats like me predicting its gonna rain within the next 100 days.  

Surfing marmot, you're assuming ignorant self interest does not occur in science......is that reality.

Surfing marmot, you're assuming ignorant self interest does not occur in science......is that reality.

No, to your point, it is not a reality. Wherever you find humans beings you'll find some bais and some corruption--it is inevitable--even in sceince. But you are implyng that the prevalence and degree are the same on both sides and history and the facts don't bear that implication out--not even closely. The degree of corruption ,self-interest, and bias is much, much lower in the scientific community than it is in the corporate world. We only have to look at big pharmaceutical and tobacco companies for the proof and that unevenness is obvious to anyone who has studied both factions. So yes, while one must contend with imperfect behavior on the part of scientitsts--the collaboration and double-checking each others published results and data provides a much less corruptable source of data, analysis, and conclusions, than corporate propaganda. Go ahead trust the corproations and politicians as equally as teh sceintists if you like: it's you children's and theri granchildren's funeral and the Earth's too.

The degree of corruption ,self-interest, and bias is much, much lower in the scientific community than it is in the corporate world.

Okay, I don't know where all the corporate talk is coming from when it was not refferenced anywhere in my text, I simply made a prima facia judgement on the report based on the conclusion, "No fish by 2050."  I'm glad you believe that there is less bias in the scientific community, the following link is an another article written on the report with several others linked to it.  My favorite quotes........

"Ray Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington, called the predictions "just mind-boggling stupid."


"They are flagging a really serious problem, but I don't buy that extrapolation," said Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist at Oregon State University."




From the UN

"The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) called an aquatic apocalypse "unlikely," labeling the report "statistically dangerous." Serge Michel Garcia, FAO's director of fishery resources division, told the French press: "Such a massive collapse ... would require reckless behaviour of all industries and governments for four decades, and an incredible level of apathy of all world citizens to let this happen, without mentioning economic forces"

The kind of reactions its getting:

"Despite the level heads of people who actually know something about fisheries, we can expect assorted fearmongers to make the most of this bad "news," however ludicrous it is. Even the animal rights movement is getting into the act. This week the Farm Animal Reform Movement sent a phony "astro-turf" letter to hundreds of newspapers, claiming inevitable seafood shortages are as good a reason as any to embrace strict vegetarianism"



Here's the Moses of sea creatures.....Boris Worm. Now that I know what he's about it just solidifies my hunch that he's pandering for attention to his work.





http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3177