The following is a brief excerpt about the possible effects of overfishing. The numbers should be very enlightening as to what is happening in this area:
***************************************************************************
To explain why overfishing is a problem we first have to get an idea
on the scale of the problem. This is best done by looking at some
figures published by the UN
Food and Agriculture Organization.
1 The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture.
2
The report is generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging
of problems but does show the key issue and trends. Due to the
difficulty of aggregating and combining the data it can be stated that
the SOFIA report is a number of years behind of the real situation.
- 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
- 20% are moderately exploited
- 17% are overexploited
- 7% are depleted
- 1% is recovering from depletion
The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks are
either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully exploited, these
are in imminent danger of overexploitation (maximum sustainable
production level) and collapse. Thus a total of almost 80% of the
world's fisheries are fully- to over-exploited, depleted, or in a state
of collapse. Worldwide about 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish
stocks are already gone. In the real world all this comes down to two
serious problems.
- We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result the
overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and at risk of
collapse.
- We are in risk of losing a valuable food source many depend upon for social, economical or dietary reasons.
The single best example of the ecological and economical dangers of
overfishing is found in Newfoundland, Canada. In 1992 the once thriving
cod fishing industry came to a sudden and full stop when at the start of
the fishing season no cod appeared. Overfishing allowed by decades of
fisheries mismanagement was the main cause for this disaster that
resulted in almost 40.000 people losing their livelihood and an
ecosystem in complete state of decay. Now, fifteen years after the
collapse, many fishermen are still waiting for the cod to return and
communities still haven't recovered from the sudden removal of the
regions single most important economical driver. The only people
thriving in this region are the ones fishing for crab, a species once
considered a nuisance by the Newfoundland fishermen.
Fishing down the food web
It's not only the fish that is affected by fishing. As we are fishing down the food web
3
the increasing effort needed to catch something of commercial value
marine mammals, sharks, sea birds, and non commercially viable fish
species in the web of
marine biodiversity
are overexploited, killed as bycatch and discarded (up to 80% of the
catch for certain fisheries), and threatened by the industrialized
fisheries.
4
Scientists agree that at current exploitation rates many important fish
stocks will be removed from the system within 25 years.
Overfishing is certainly a real concern for Earth's natural balances. There is also the constant risk that farmed fish such as salmon will escape into the wild and contaminate the ocean's gene pool with modified genes. One of them includes the inability to reproduce.
ReplyDeleteRecently, Whole Foods pledged not to sell fish that were not in accordance with Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch and the Blue Ocean Institute. These organizations have standards for marine stewardship that take into account numerous factors. While Whole Foods is only one company making this type of business decision, perhaps other businesses will consider it a model. If other corporations can see that there is a demand for items that are labeled clearly with Monterey and Blue Ocean Institute, then others may follow suit.
I never knew how such small marine creatures could have such a widespread impact on peoples' lives. It really opens one's eyes to how interconnected we all really are.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this blog post and the Fisheries section in the Green Economy Report I decided to look up some articles online and happened to come across an interestring one in the NYT, "Keep the Fishing Ban in New England". As in Newfoundland, the New England region fishing industry during the early 20th century was once the crown jewel of U.S. fisheries, second only to Alaska. During that time new technology such as echo finders allows fishing fleets to catch yields in staggering numbers. As the years went by the population of cod, haddock and other species of fish began to reach critical lows.
In order to curb the destruction the New England Fishery Management Council decided to take a knife to the industry in the region by reducing fishing by half and closing off thousands of square feet of ocean space. Although the initial shock hurt the fishing industry in the short run, yields in recent years have going back up to somewhat acceptable levels.However with the change in the Earth's climate has caused some species of fish to decline again, such as cod; an important fish in the region.
Now the industry has a decision to make: forgo all the hard work of replenishment in the past for a short term gain or stick it out a little while longer for higher future yields?
What I found most interesting about this article how much it was inline with the Green Economy Report. The section of fishery management served me help in helping me to understand methods that the New England Fishery Management Council were using. The reading also helped to put the different implications declining fish population into perspective with the overall economy in the region.
overfishing is definitely a problem that we will continue to see more of once people truly see the effects. As of right now, there are still enough fish to continue at this pace, but sooner or later the rate of reproduction of all fish will drop so significantly that is will no longer be sustainable for fisherman to collect fish. People will be affected because they no longer have the leisure of getting the fish they want for dinner. Secondly, fisherman will no longer be able to support there families from the inability to gather fish. The only way to cure the problem is to implement a fishing quota or limit. Because each area consists of different amounts of fish and rates of reproduction, laws can be made to set limits and quotas for each fisherman depending on the area.
ReplyDeleteA second solution to overfishing is to ban the use of nets with the small holes that capture the smaller fish. The fish are naturally supposed to reproduce and make other fish to eat. Eliminating these fish disrupts the way the oceans ecosystem works.
I understand overfishing is a problem, but I also understand the need for fishermen to generate income. I read this article around the same time I read a new york times article about whaling: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/world/asia/japan-spends-heavily-to-keep-whaling-industry-afloat-report-says.html?ref=earth&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about the whaling industry in Japan is that it is no longer profitable and, although it would be in their best interest (both economically and for their image since whaling has a bad reputation) to stop, they do not want to. Most Japanese consumers aren't interested in whale meat but the whaling continues.
This is almost the complete opposite of what's happening in this article. Whereas hunting whales is seen as bad, hunting fish is the normal and overfishing is usually an accident driven by income; the Japanese do not overhunt whales because it just isn't profitable. The whaling industry, however, is held up through subsidies and I think that's one way to sort of CUSHION this problem. If it's a drive for money then we can subsidize these industries for not fishing as much.
I'm not sure how well this act would work, though. I strongly believe in the notion that humans are inherently greedy so as long as fishing is profitable, they will continue to do so. Even if there are subsidies, if they gain a little more profit on the side for overfishing then they will continue to do so. A really long-term kind of solution would be to change the management of such industries and really globalize it. Revolutionize a company to really believe it's up to them to save the fishes so that they only fish the minimum amount they need and no more. This company needs a leader who can advocate helping the environment and rewards the workers for their help in avoiding overfishing (in other words, less emphasis on the MONEY but more on the ENVIRONMENT). I think companies who are promoting a good cause receive good reception from the media and consequently thrive in the marketplace as has thrived other eco-friendly stores and options. If you get a good trend going then other industries are bound to follow. As said in the first video, the best way to make a huge difference is to change the way you think. Only then can you expect a change in this world.
Overfishing causes many problems including the problem of extinction. Bluefin tuna fish is an endangered species. According to Flona Harvey Bluefin Tuna has been endangered for several years. Japanese sushi lovers prize Bluefin tuna. Last week a fish weighting 222kg was sold in Japan for more that 155.4m yen which was three times higher then last year. The problem is that fishers are not only overfishing but also fishing young fish that haven’t developed enough to reproduce. In other words fishers are poisoning their pond. If fishers were more responsible then they wouldn’t be killing their income by overfishing and by damaging the ecosystem.
ReplyDeleteA solution to this problem is better management in the fishing industry. Creating better technologies that will help with not overfishing and fishing young fishes. Also taxes and medallions are another solution. Governments giving medallions on how much you have fish and increase taxes on the fish making both demand and supply decrease.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/09/overfishing-pacific-bluefin-tuna
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOverfishing is purely a non-sustainable use of the oceans due to the lack of management and consideration by fishing fleets. Considering ¾ of the earth is covered in water one would think that the resource would not be abused as if there is an unlimited supply but rather be researched sufficiently by forming the management and protection of such a great resource. Not only are we destroying a natural resource and a very diverse habitat but we are also destroying the livelihoods of many people around the world who depend on this resource, for food and for money. Fishing is also a sport that many of us enjoy and the way things are looking, the way things are looking we won’t be able to enjoy it much longer. We need to give the ocean enough time to sustain a specie naturally rather than driving the specie into extinction as we have done with many other species, above and now below land.
ReplyDeleteAccording to overfishing.com, the earth has enough fishing capacity to cover four Earth sized planets. Another major cause of destruction to this ecosystem is the methods used to fish, for example bycatch discards and bottom trawling are two very destructive methods that harm the ocean. Overfishing disturbs the balance of the ecosystem as the food chain is also disturbed for other species within the water even though they are not necessarily being fished for which in turn are also affecting another specie who maybe be an innocent bystander. So it’s a vicious cycle that needs to be controlled, either by education or strict laws. Another solution could be to decrease the fishing fleets and maybe shifting the loss of jobs by training those same individuals to help restore the depleted fish grounds. Fishing fleets need to reinvest into the resource they are exploiting and by maintaining control by reducing fishing expeditions and encouraging safer fishing methods, they could help restore the disturbed ecosystem and ensure their livelihoods.
Professor Karam, in his video brings up two very interesting points: the prisoners dilemma and the tragedy of the commons, which I believe apply to overfishing 100%. Since nobody has ownership of the waters, it’s hard to regulate the fishing expeditions. Professor Karam mentions how companies follow an economic principal of marginal cost equating to marginal revenue, but in the case of overfishing he pointed out that we are seeing marginal cost equating to average revenue which is why the resource is abused and eventually leading to extinction. The professor mentions eliminating open access to the waters by giving out fishing licenses so there is an interest invested in the resource and the fleets will not be tempted to deplete this resource. Another suggestion our professor provided was to tax fishing activities which will not only allow governments to earn some income but also allow them a chance to regulate this industry, which I think is a great idea.
I had posted a few moments ago before reading your post, but I saw you mentioned "two very destructive methods used to fish". Thinking about putting some regulation in place I believe these ways of fishing should be eliminated or have a particular part of the season that allows fishermen to use them. Just like hunting for deer. If we allowed people to hunt for deer all year long we would see the population of deer go near extinct. Insurance companies may not complain because the cost of damaging cars might go down.
DeletePosted by: Geordi Taylor
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to spark a political argument here, but what occurred in Newfoundland in regards to their fishing industry calls for more regulation in agriculture and the overall environment. It is my opinion that every nation should protect itself by nationalizing certain natural resources such agricultural and energy resources. This suggestion may seem somewhat extreme, but it seems necessary. Governments should take control of the ir country's resources, but maybe hire private firms to manage the sale and distribution of these resources for econmic gain. However, the government's role in this would be to monitor and regulate exactly how much is sold on the international market and consumed domesticaly. If there was an invisible hand monitoring and limiting the amount of cod being fished, the over-exploitation wouldnt have occurred and the ensuing economic depression of the area that followed wouldnt have occurred either. Also, greater accountability for the destruction of eco-systems by private corporations needs to occur. If you decide that you are going to tear doen an entire forested area in the name of profit, then the country needs to see some of the monetary benefirs; the same goes for if you decide to over-fish or over farm an area.
Posted by: Geordi Taylor
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to spark a political argument here, but what occurred in Newfoundland in regards to their fishing industry calls for more regulation in agriculture and the overall environment. It is my opinion that every nation should protect itself by nationalizing certain natural resources such agricultural and energy resources. This suggestion may seem somewhat extreme, but it seems necessary. Governments should take control of the ir country's resources, but maybe hire private firms to manage the sale and distribution of these resources for econmic gain. However, the government's role in this would be to monitor and regulate exactly how much is sold on the international market and consumed domesticaly. If there was an invisible hand monitoring and limiting the amount of cod being fished, the over-exploitation wouldnt have occurred and the ensuing economic depression of the area that followed wouldnt have occurred either. Also, greater accountability for the destruction of eco-systems by private corporations needs to occur. If you decide that you are going to tear doen an entire forested area in the name of profit, then the country needs to see some of the monetary benefirs; the same goes for if you decide to over-fish or over farm an area.
What you are saying about regulating the natural resources is a good idea, especially with the fishing if it is a problem. I could not think of a very good idea on how to regulate something of this nature. There are ways we could raise taxes on the fishing industry but we are then possibly looking at something similar to the genoa plant. People are not going to want to eat it and look for some other alternative. How could we manage the amount of fish taken in by these big fishing companies? Again, I do believe we should regulate it if its a problem, but not too sure how to proceed in doing so.
DeleteI think that if the government has the power to regulate the financial and banking systems, the power to control who may or may not purchase guns, as well as what is imported and exported into our country it should not have a problem on looking into the control of our natural resources. If something is talked about enough by the people then it will take notice and perhaps then people will take action. Lets look at the gay rights, the occupy wall street.. people were not afraid to step out on the street and openly talk about it, nor were they afraid of causing a huge riot. I think if people who truly care about the future of our ecosystem create movements such as the people who cared so much about their gay rights or whatever rights they stood behind then it is indeed possible to save fish and prevent overfishing.
Deletepost: Magdalena Strama
As Professor Karam mentioedn in his video, regulation is going to be the most important action we can take in the next few years. I also think that what Victoria mentioned makes a lot of sense. I think to subsidize the industry would work very well (even though it would be a hit for the government.) People are always in need money of will most likely seize any opportunity to make more of it. If more fish means more money, then the fact that over-fishing is a problem will deter very few people. However, if we offer a sum of money to help level the playing field between those who care about over-fishing who will stop at a certain point; and those who will do what it takes to get rich, no matter the consequences, then we might have a chance at beginning to reverse this issue.
ReplyDeleteThis is not only about endangering the ecosystems of various bodies of water but also the people who depend on them. As mentioned in the article, huge populations of the Earth’s people depend on fish for their monetary livelihood, their main source of protein, and also a main facet of cultural practice. Not to mention if we do deplete the oceans, people may turn even more so, to factory farming which will create an even bigger problem.
It seems that strict regulation is what needs to be put in place. There is a group of people that I was introduced to not too long ago that were very wealthy. They were fishermen who were one of the biggest suppliers of fish to the Cambells Soup Company. To me this must be a very lucrative business that many people have been cashing in on. One of the problems I see is we allowed it to go for too long. A lot of peoples livelihoods depend on fishing in this country along with a lot of other countries. How to we regulate and cut down without a lot of people losing their jobs. The other question would be how to get other countries to regulate the amount of fishing they do? Truly I think this is a pretty important topic that I do not know enough about to help regulate it.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I am interested in knowing is, how much of the fish we have in stores do we waste? I have an Aunt who works in the Seafood department and I often hear her talk about how much of the fish goes bad. If she experiences this in her store alone, there has to be multiple places including restaurants and other markets that must have a good amount of fish that are wasted.
After reading this week blog, first thing that came to my mind was big sign on the delivery truck I came across few days ago:” Eat fish, live longer”. When we eat seafood because is so good for us we impact the whole marine population. How much fish in our diet we need to be healthy? This is a question to a good nutritionist. For most of us is a habit. We want to have something that we like or something because everyone else have it. I have to agree with Victoria; in order to change the world we have to change the way we think first. Like every other resource or product, fishing is dictated by humans demand. Professor Karam was describing the principle of marginal cost and revenue that is not working when it comes to fishing. Today's consumers have little idea where, when, or how most of their fish was caught. In fact, genetic studies show they often don't even know what kind of fish they are really buying. Estimates vary but some 30 to 70 percent of the fish sold in the United States is mislabeled (Cheryl Dahle, spokesman for nonprofit “Future of Fish”). "If fish is mislabeled you don't have a real choice to eat the right kind of fish. Until the marketplace becomes transparent you can't value fish for where it came from or how it was caught—and those are two main pillars of sustainability."
ReplyDeleteI do believe that most fish populations could be restored with aggressive fisheries management, better enforcement of laws governing catches, and increased use of aquaculture.
I definitely think that over fishing is an issue. Just last week, i was watching a special on a morning news show, that had two marine scientists discussing the importance of tracking sharks. They actually catch sharks in huge pools, and drill on GPS trackers. Through this, they are able to track the sharks in their annual paths. They have found some interesting changes over the years that shows evidence that their migration patterns have been shifting from larger distances to smaller distance, they believe that this is because of lack of room fro sharks to travel, due to over pollution of the shores. I think that especially because of politics of INternational waters, nations do not really regulate what goes on there, which is most of the diversity is located, away from the shores, and yes it is an understatement because even the shores of the ocean have millions of species. About 30,000 species go extinct in the world every year, and granted not all of these are ocean life, but still majority of our species to exist in the ocean. Not regarding these issues is bund to cause an imbalance in our future, in fact it already has.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that over fishing is an issue. Just last week, i was watching a special on a morning news show, that had two marine scientists discussing the importance of tracking sharks. They actually catch sharks in huge pools, and drill on GPS trackers. Through this, they are able to track the sharks in their annual paths. They have found some interesting changes over the years that shows evidence that their migration patterns have been shifting from larger distances to smaller distance, they believe that this is because of lack of room fro sharks to travel, due to over pollution of the shores. I think that especially because of politics of INternational waters, nations do not really regulate what goes on there, which is most of the diversity is located, away from the shores, and yes it is an understatement because even the shores of the ocean have millions of species. About 30,000 species go extinct in the world every year, and granted not all of these are ocean life, but still majority of our species to exist in the ocean. Not regarding these issues is bund to cause an imbalance in our future, in fact it already has.
ReplyDeleteThe figures within this article were alarming. As many have already proposed, I think the only way to moderate control this overwhelming problem is to have effective regulations in place. Since the ocean is international, there should be an international organization who is responsible for regulating the amount and species of fish that both large and small boats take onto shore. This truly is a worldwide issue and we will all see the effects if we continue as the pace we are fishing right now. Depleted the oceanic environment has widespread repercussions and would destroy many countries natural resources and natural attractions. There also has to be stricter regulation on the marking, trading, and properly pricing fish on the market.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of overfishing the only real option would be regulation. As a topic raised by Professor Karam, the ‘tragedy of the commons’ would apply to this issue almost perfectly. Regulation of fishing expeditions is almost impossible simply because no one has ownership of the waters being fished. By giving out these proposed ‘fishing licenses’ there would less of a chance of depletion because an investment is being made in the fish as a resource. I think this is a good idea to be applied to the fishing industry and a positive step to make in order to stop over-fishing. Overfishing is not only about endangering the aquatic ecosystems around the world but it is also an economic problem. As the text says, a good portion of our population relies on fishing for their main source of income. Depletion of the ocean would be catastrophic to those who are economically invested in them. From both an economic and environmental stand-point, over fishing is a serious issue and needs to be regulated in some way.
ReplyDelete- Virginia MacDougall
Our appetite for fish is exceeding the oceans' ecological limits with devastating impacts and there is now estimated to be four times more global fishing capacity than there are fish left to catch. Giant ships are now using state-of-the-art sonar to pinpoint schools of fish quickly and accurately. These ships also have fish processing and packing plants, huge freezing systems, fishmeal processing plants, and powerful engines to drag enormous fishing gear through the ocean. According to the United Nations, over 70 percent of the world's fisheries are either 'fully exploited', 'over exploited' or significantly depleted'. Some species have already been fished to commercial extinction, and more are on the verge of extinction. Regulation of fishing vessels is universally inadequate. More often than not, the fishing industry is given access to fish stocks before the longer term impact of their fishing practices is understood. These impacts are felt throughout the marine ecosystems. Scientists are already warning that the oceans will suffer profound changes as a result of overfishing and destructive fishing practices.
ReplyDelete