All wild seafood will disappear in 50 years

[Wise Young]

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1951279.ece


All wild seafood will disappear in 50 years, says ecologists' study
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 03 November 2006

All wild seafood will have disappeared from the world's menus within 50 years if current trends in overfishing continue according to one of the most comprehensive studies of marine life.

The apocalyptic warning is issued by a team of ecologists and economists from a dozen research centres who have studied detailed records on fish catches going back to 1950.

Their comprehensive study, published today by the journal Science, found the number of commercial fisheries that have collapsed was accelerating and that the total eradication of all fish stocks in the world is due to be completed by 2048.

"Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the oceans species together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood," said Steve Palumbi of Stanford University, one of the study's authors.

<more>

In much the same way as wild game has almost completely disappeared from much of the world, wild fish will disappear from the oceans of the earth, except in small niches that have not been overfished by humans. More and more of fish will come from fish farms. For example, most of the salmon that we eat today come from a billion-dollar open-net fish-farming industry that is not only polluting the environment (Source (http://www.sundayherald.com/33928)) with chemicals but using precious water and other resources to dispose of the waste products produced by the salmon and creating dangerous antibiotic resistance because of the heavy use of antibiotics to increase the growth rate of the fish (Source (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/Salmon/Pollution.asp)).

The answer to the overfishing is not fish-farming as some people believe. In addition to polluting the marine environment which then kills other fish, it is turning out that salmon famers are decimating fish populations to feed the salmons. According to (this article (http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/salmonfarms.cfm)), it takes 2.4 pounds of wild fish (sardines, anchovies, mackerel, herring, and other fish) to produce one pound of salmon. In short, it is a very inefficient source of protein. It is far better to eat the other fish directly than to eat salmon. The salmon farms are also breeding grounds for fish lice and other diseases that affect wild salmon populations, including mercury poisoning of surrounding fish and marine populations (Source (http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/fish/oil-rigs-and-fish-farms/oil-rigs-to-reef-fact-sheet)).

Studies such as the above should make us all think twice about eating fish, particularly salmon. We may be the last generation on earth to have wild fish in the ocean. That is a frightening thought.

[rfbdorf]

I read about this in the paper yesterday, too. A number of fishing techniques are now illegal or restricted because they do so much collateral damage. At some point in the very near future the oceans must be carefully managed in order to maintain them as a usable resource. That presents a huge enforcement, as well as environmental, problem.
- Richard

[Leif]

I saw this here. This has to be taken serious; there are several fishing grounds where all fish are gone due to over fishing. Grand Banks is a prime example where all the cod is gone. Here in the North Sea some types of fish normally which used to be a big resource also tends to disappear like the tobis, a tiny little fish related to the salmon family. Normally fished by trawlers.

[Lindox]

It also doesn't just stop the consumption of fish.
The creatures of the sea are there for a reason..not just for consumption.

As science has learned the forests of the Northwest depend highly on the wild salmon.
Without the digested remains from bears and other fish eaters that only take as much as they need..the forests will become unhealthy.

And that's just ONE species of fish...one activity.
We live in a delicate web. And greed has no place in that web. Of course nature can replenish itself..but not when greed rules.

It is reported that a gallon of seawater has thousands of lifeforms in it..WE don't know what many of them are even..much less if they are safe for humans.

Yet the marine life seems to get along just fine living and injesting them thus controlling any danger they may hold to our very lives.

We try to control populations..change geographic locations..totally throw nature on it's back and laugh all the while we are doing it.

I think nature's arsenal is much more massive and invincible then anything we have to combat it with.

And when nature rolls back over watch out.

[Foolish Old]

There is a school of thought that Earth is just a collection of depletable resources to be mined and fully consumed before the select board the shuttle to the next location. The overly sentimental (dare I say loons?) will get run over by the dozer while they hug the last tree.

And they think we're nuts?

It also doesn't just stop the consumption of fish.
The creatures of the sea are there for a reason..not just for consumption.

As science has learned the forests of the Northwest depend highly on the wild salmon.
Without the digested remains from bears and other fish eaters that only take as much as they need..the forests will become unhealthy.

And that's just ONE species of fish...one activity.
We live in a delicate web. And greed has no place in that web. Of course nature can replenish itself..but not when glutoney is rules.

It is reported that a gallon of seawater has thousands of lifeforms in it..WE don't know what many of them are even..much less if they are safe for humans.

Yet the marine life seems to get along just fine living and injesting them thus controlling any danger they may hold to our very lives.

We try to control populations..change geographic locations..totally throw nature on it's back and laugh all the while we are doing it.

I think nature's arsenal is much more massive and invincible then anything we have to combat it with.

And when nature rolls back over watch out.

[Leif]

The creatures of the sea are there for a reason..not just for consumption.
Right; fish eat fish, we then can say we kill other fish so that they will not kill smaller fish?

[garvey]

Dr. Young - you medical wiz kids have to find a way to incorporate photo-synthetic capabilities into the human genome. We can go out and stand in the sun come lunch time.

[Lindox]

Right; fish eat fish, we then can say we kill other fish so that they will not kill smaller fish?

This is true also..we are in the food chain..BUT we are the top of it. Thus WE hold responsibilities because we have the BRAINS to be on the top of the food chain..oh and the weapons. You know without our ability to make tools and weapons we would be WAY down on that food chain.

The way I see it. All the creatures in the world besides us have natural weapons ONLY. That keeps everything on an even keel. Sure the bigger fish do eat the little fish..BUT they don't overeat them cause the little fish have defenses against their predator so more survive to make more little fishes.

When you are using technology and human ways to fish..the defenses of the little and big fish are useless. Thus the over harvesting naturally occurs..and when a GREEDY, MONEY GRUBBING species is holding the cards..WELL.

How much bacteria that could become fatal to humans do the whales consume? Do you know? Nobody does because we don't even recognize two thirds of the contents in a gallon of sea water.

What is being found in autopsies of beached marine mammals is frightening. And how it is getting into them is an enigma to us. How long before what is devouring them evolves to devour us?
Wouldn't it be wiser to honestly try to resolve their sickness and death before it becomes a human problem?

We are terrible spiders..we don't understand the intrinsic workings of a strong healthy web.

[Wise Young]

Dr. Young - you medical wiz kids have to find a way to incorporate photo-synthetic capabilities into the human genome. We can go out and stand in the sun come lunch time.

Garvey, what a great idea! Wise.

[Juke_spin]

It also doesn't just stop the consumption of fish.
The creatures of the sea are there for a reason..not just for consumption.

As science has learned the forests of the Northwest depend highly on the wild salmon.
Without the digested remains from bears and other fish eaters that only take as much as they need..the forests will become unhealthy.

And that's just ONE species of fish...one activity.
We live in a delicate web. And greed has no place in that web. Of course nature can replenish itself..but not when greed rules.

It is reported that a gallon of seawater has thousands of lifeforms in it..WE don't know what many of them are even..much less if they are safe for humans.

Yet the marine life seems to get along just fine living and injesting them thus controlling any danger they may hold to our very lives.

We try to control populations..change geographic locations..totally throw nature on it's back and laugh all the while we are doing it.

I think nature's arsenal is much more massive and invincible then anything we have to combat it with.

And when nature rolls back over watch out.
Unfortunately, this sort of terminology and imagery poses nature as a force we must contend with through combat, a mindset so prevalent and dangerous that is has generated ecological unbalance on a global scale for decades already.

Nature is benign or, at its more/most extreame, indifferent to its impact on individual speicies.

[Lindox]

Unfortunately, this sort of terminology and imagery poses nature as a force we must contend with through combat, a mindset so prevalent and dangerous that is has generated ecological unbalance on a global scale for decades already.

Nature is benign or, at its more/most extreame, indifferent to its impact on individual speicies.

Nature being benign may be appropriate when everything is in balance and order IMHO.
Indifferent I don't know about that.
Using terms like invincible is incorrect on my part your right about that.

And NO we should not be fighting against nature but trying to live with it.
Nature may be indifferent to any species individually ..but when things go off balance all species will feel
the efforts to put it all back in order I think.

We do though have to counter react to some of natures offerings. Like vaccines. Antibiotics. ETC.
Wouldn't call it warring per se. But close to it.
And nature seems to NEVER run out of new ideas.