Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2048 - the collapse of fish and seafood species


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 segal3

segal3

    Powerful Sea Gull

  • Admin
  • 1739 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 02 November 2006 - 07:18 PM

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/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.
Matt Segal - carbonos scuba

#2 Rocha

Rocha

    Salty Dog

  • Senior Moderator
  • 3072 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA

Posted 02 November 2006 - 09:49 PM

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.

Luiz Rocha - www.luizrocha.com
Nikon D800, Aquatica AD800, Ikelite strobes.


#3 wagsy

wagsy

    Blue Whale

  • Senior Moderator
  • 3845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cairns, Queensland.
  • Interests:Sewing and Knitting......no diving of course :-)

Posted 02 November 2006 - 09:55 PM

Yep, greedy, corrupt governments along with greedy OLD MEN in big corporations will just keep on going till it Physically stops them.
Amphibico Phenom & EVO PRO & Navigator 900
Share Your Underwater Videos www.hdvunderwater.com | www.flykam.com.au | www.reeftorainforest.com.au

#4 Starbuck

Starbuck

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lancaster, Pa

Posted 03 November 2006 - 03:22 AM

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

http://www.usatoday....ng-threat_x.htm

M.
Michael V. Palasz
www.fishlens.com
D2X and D80 / Nexus / Ikelite / Inon / Heinrichs iTTL controller

#5 parablennius

parablennius

    Damselfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Location:Oporto - Portugal

Posted 03 November 2006 - 06:47 AM

Thanks Mr Bush for not signing the Quioto protocol

#6 segal3

segal3

    Powerful Sea Gull

  • Admin
  • 1739 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 03 November 2006 - 07:14 AM

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 :D :lol:.
Matt Segal - carbonos scuba

#7 parablennius

parablennius

    Damselfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Location:Oporto - Portugal

Posted 03 November 2006 - 07:25 AM

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.

#8 segal3

segal3

    Powerful Sea Gull

  • Admin
  • 1739 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 03 November 2006 - 07:35 AM

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.
Matt Segal - carbonos scuba

#9 Drew

Drew

    The Controller

  • Video Expert
  • 10596 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:GPS is not reliable in South East Asian seas

Posted 03 November 2006 - 09:33 AM

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.

Drew
Moderator
"Journalism is what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations."

"I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there.


#10 Photobeat

Photobeat

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts
  • Location:Largo Florida - Not Key Largo (I wish)
  • Interests:Top Side photography also, Compete in Triathlons, former professional drummer

Posted 03 November 2006 - 04:37 PM

Guess there will be a big market for our images in 42 years (sarcastic) :D - 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.

Edited by Photobeat, 03 November 2006 - 04:39 PM.

Aquatica Housing - D100 - 10.5dx - 17-55DX - Nikonos 105 strobes - TLC arms

#11 WillyVolk

WillyVolk

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Location:Lake Worth, FL

Posted 06 November 2006 - 07:56 AM

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....seafood03m.html

#12 shawnh

shawnh

    Shawk Man

  • Senior Moderator
  • 1398 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boulder, CO
  • Interests:UW Video, UW Photography Diving, Telemark Skiing, Cycling, Travel

Posted 08 November 2006 - 12:09 PM

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.
Canon 5D MII - Aquatica Housing - Sola 4000 Lights - Wahoo HD Monitor & Sony EX1 - Gates EX1 Housing - Fathoms UWA Lens
www.bluespheremedia.com