according to the bbc, the world’s fish supplies may collapse in 50 years:
Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the rate of decline is accelerating.
Writing in the journal Science, the international team of researchers says fishery decline is closely tied to a broader loss of marine biodiversity.
But a greater use of protected areas could safeguard existing stocks.
“The way we use the oceans is that we hope and assume there will always be another species to exploit after we’ve completely gone through the last one,” said research leader Boris Worm, from Dalhousie University in Canada.
“What we’re highlighting is there is a finite number of stocks; we have gone through one-third, and we are going to get through the rest,” he told the BBC News website.
Steve Palumbi, from Stanford University in California, one of the other scientists on the project, added: “Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood.”
…
In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse, defined as a decline to less than 10% of their original yield.
Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are not bringing the world’s fleets bigger returns - in fact, the global catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003.
Historical records from coastal zones in North America, Europe and Australia also show declining yields, in step with declining species diversity; these are yields not just of fish, but of other kinds of seafood too.
…
“The benefits of marine-protected areas are quite clear in a few cases; there’s no doubt that protecting areas leads to a lot more fish and larger fish, and less vulnerability,” he said.
“But you also have to have good management of marine parks and good management of fisheries. Clearly, fishing should not wreck the ecosystem, bottom trawling being a good example of something which does wreck the ecosystem.”
But, he said, the concept of protecting fish stocks by protecting biodiversity does make sense.
“This is a good compelling case; we should protect biodiversity, and it does pay off even in simple monetary terms through fisheries yield.”
Protecting stocks demands the political will to act on scientific advice - something which Boris Worm finds lacking in Europe, where politicians have ignored recommendations to halt the iconic North Sea cod fishery year after year.
Without a ban, scientists fear the North Sea stocks could follow the Grand Banks cod of eastern Canada into apparently terminal decline.
“I’m just amazed, it’s very irrational,” he said.
“You have scientific consensus and nothing moves. It’s a sad example; and what happened in Canada should be such a warning, because now it’s collapsed it’s not coming back.”
I think the article forgets to mention that there are people like Danger out there killing off rare fish species in the name of “discovery”.
Yeah, like, let’s discover how dead we can make this species!
It’s a good thing she doesn’t live here anymore, cause I can feel the punch felt round the world. ;)
Posted by: jason at November 3, 2006 6:09 PMDamn dial-up! It has prevented me from offering a timely and witty response to Jason’s comment. Now I am left with the very inadequate: that’s not funny, Jason! And yes, this news could mean I’ve picked the wrong career path - unless, of course, it’s actually the perfect job because various governments, fearing the end, just may decide to throw vast quantities of cashola at us ichthyologists. Then I’ll have the last laugh. But until then, it looks like Sassyass will have the last piece of Sushi.
Posted by: danger at November 9, 2006 9:35 PMComments are now closed for this entry. Thank you for playing.