Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Water

Where Have All the Fish Gone?

By Moises Velasquez-Manoff , Christian Science Monitor. Posted June 11, 2008.


By some accounts, if current fishing trends continue, all the world's fisheries will have collapsed by mid-century.
Advertisement

Early European explorers to the Americas encountered an astounding abundance of marine life. White beluga whales, now limited to the arctic, swam as far south as Boston Bay. Cod off Newfoundland were so plentiful that fishermen could catch them with nothing more than a weighted basket lowered into the water. As late as the mid-19th century, river herring ran so thick in the eastern United States that wading across certain waterways meant treading on fish. And everywhere sharks were so numerous that, after hauling in their catches, fishers often found them stripped to the bone.

"It completely bowled me over when I started reading some of these early accounts," says Callum Roberts, a professor of marine conservation at the University of York, England, and author of "The Unnatural History of the Sea," which tells much of this tale. "The picture painted is one of an abundance of life which is very hard for us to grasp today."

Hundreds of years of fishing -- and especially the last half century of industrialized fishing -- have drastically altered the oceans. Measured by weight, only 1/10th of the large predators that once swam the seas -- the big fish and sharks that shape the entire ecosystem -- is estimated to remain. And many of these changes have occurred relatively recently. Any middle-aged fisherman will wax nostalgic about the catches of just 20 years ago. Any marine scientist will glumly check off reefs they once studied that are now bleached and overgrown with algae as a result of overfishing and pollution, and the marine life that's simply disappeared.

"Today's oceans have got far less in the way of biomass than they used to," says Professor Roberts. "We're altering ecosystems in a way that reduces the level of productivity they can support."

After millenniums of a free-for-all, many foresee the era of open access to the ocean formally coming to a close.

World catches have steadily declined since peaking in the late 1980s. Everyone, from scientists to fishermen, is alarmed. And in the US, all quarters are pushing to develop solutions before the problem becomes unfixable. Fishermen and fishery managers are rethinking management to encourage stewardship. Scientists now say that fish stocks can't be viewed in isolation; they must be managed in the context of the greater ecosystem. Many, even some fishermen begrudgingly, realize the importance of having some areas completely off-limits to fishing in order to keep ecosystems healthy. And increasingly, a new argument is heard in the debate over fisheries: Marine ecosystems should be preserved not just for their economic value, but also because, like the wilderness preserved in the national forest system, they are part of humankind's natural heritage.

The debate comes at a time when, driven by both health trends and increasing prosperity in countries like China, demand for fish is rising. In industrialized countries, fish consumption doubled, to 27 million metric tons, between 1961 and 2003, according to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Per capita, that's an increase of one-third, to 29.7 kg (65.5 lbs.) per person yearly. (Much of the increased demand is being met by a growing aquaculture industry.) In developing countries, fish continue to provide an important source of protein. The average African gets 17 percent of his protein from fish; for Asians, it's 26 percent. The typical North American gets only 7 percent of his protein from fish.

Fishery managers have a name for what can be removed without causing stocks to fall: the maximum sustainable yield. In theory, a well-managed fishery should provide free food -- save for the cost of catching it -- year after year.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fish, oceans, fisheries

Moises Velasquez-Manoff is a staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well it seems...
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jun 11, 2008 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we simply can't have our fish and eat them too.

GO VEGAN!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well it seems... Posted by: bcgirl125
» Alternatively Posted by: progdem
» fish can be farmed . . . Posted by: dustdevil
gone by mid-century?
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jun 12, 2008 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doubt it'll take that long.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all part of the larger problem
Posted by: bryangalt on Jun 18, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The overfishing issue, global warming, mass production of slaughter animals like cows and chickens, brown air, grey waters, and so much more are part of the biggest problem that really matters: our denial that humans are animals that coexist in the natural world just like every other animal.

Thanks in some small, but not insignificant part, to the Bible's statement that Man will have dominion over the animals (I'm paraphrasing here, so Bible scholars can keep reading without bringing out their shotguns), we have had the view that we are above the natural world and we treat everything in our sights with contempt and disprespect.

A great example of that contempt is the case of the Marine in Iraq that tossed the puppy off a cliff and chuckles about it on film. What kind of person could do something so completely heartless, callous and dispicable? Unfortunately, there are millions of people on our planet that didn't even blink at the incident. If he had tossed an infant off that cliff, holy hell would have broken out around the world since it is unacceptable that we don't keep our species alive and in dominance of everything (well, most of the time anyway).

Frankly, the thought that crossed my mind was I would not have had any sympathy for the soldier if he managed to fall off that cliff right behind the puppy.

But, that's all part of the same problem isn't it? As a species, we have mismangaged our only planet to the point of an ecological collaspe on the order of an asteroid strike or nuclear disaster. While "Rome burns" we all pretend that nothing is wrong while we stick our heads into mindless pursuits that work at making our brains numb and our empathy non-existent.

Well, as I have said before, Nature is not something that we should screw around with. She doesn't have any concern for our survival. The Earth will go on without us, but we cannot go on with the Earth. It seems to me that the writing is on the wall, the street, the billboard, the TV screens and yet, we just go on like we can't be knocked on our collective asses by the disruptions that are barrelling right for us.

And when they come, we will probably blame the people of another country for it, continuing down the same stupid, ignorant and arrogant path that is leading us to our extinction.

Of course, God (whatever Entity that is to you folks out there) could step up, wave his magic finger and fix his beloved Earth and save us, but I wouldn't hold out any hope for that. Now that we have scientific proof of thet billions, even trillions of planets that must be out there, I think he may just want to let this experiement self-terminate and write a paper on it at a later date...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]