Fish, seafood on track to disappear by 2048

[brainsmile]

Fish, seafood on track to disappear by 2048

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061102/ts_alt_afp/usfishfishing_061102223843

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The world's fish and seafood could disappear by 2048 as overfishing and pollution destroy ocean ecosystems at an accelerating pace, US and Canadian researchers reported.

If current global trends continue, the loss of fish and seafood will threaten humans' food supplies and the environment, according to the most exhaustive study to date on the subject, published in the November 3 issue of the US journal Science.

"Our analyzes suggest that business as usual would foreshadow serious threats to global food security, coastal water quality, and ecosystem stability, affecting current and future generations," the international team of ecologists and economists wrote in "Impact of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services."

The four-year analysis was the first to study all existing data on ocean species and ecosystems and synthesize them to understand the importance of biodiversity at the global scale.

"Whether we looked at tide pools or studies over the entire world's ocean, we saw the same picture emerging," lead author Boris Worm of Dalhousie University, in Canada, said in a statement.

Worm said the disappearance of species from ocean ecosystems had been accelerating.

"Now we begin to see some of the consequences. For example, if the long-term trend continues, all fish and seafood species are projected to collapse within my lifetime -- by 2048," Worm said.

"In losing species we lose the productivity and stability of entire ecosystems. I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we expected."

At this point, 29 of currently fished species were considered "collapsed" in 2003, that is, their catches have declined by 90 percent or more, he said.

"It is a very clear trend, and it is accelerating," he said.

[Napoleon54]

Well I'm doing my part, ate a pound of scallops last night.

That is a scary thought though. Poor oceans. :(

[brainsmile]

It's not the oceans that will suffer

[Napoleon54]

Rephrased: poor ocean ecosystems, poor fishies, poor seafood lovers. :(

Poor anyone who owns a Red Lobster franchise.

[zippyjuan]

Just economics, the US fishing industry contributes $44.5 billion to the US economy. Commercial fishing $31.5 billion and recreational $12 billion. It is an important food source as well. We will sign you up for a position at the Soylent Green factory when the fish are gone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

[Thesifer]

I guess we're going to see more "Imitation Crab" type foods.. :)

[MrGreg]

Eat more tilapia. It's good and farm grown.

[zippyjuan]

I guess we're going to see more "Imitation Crab" type foods.. :)
Imitation crab is made from other types of fish cooked with crab shells. That will disappear too.

[jstreet]

Eat more tilapia. It's good and farm grown.I just was reading about a Brooklyn tilapia farm: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/nyregion/22fish.html

[Thesifer]

Imitation crab is made from other types of fish cooked with crab shells. That will disappear too.


Interesting. So why does it taste like rubber?

[ryan_self]

Rephrased: poor ocean ecosystems, poor fishies, poor seafood lovers. :(

Poor anyone who owns a Red Lobster franchise.

Fortunately for them, they serve very little actual fish :)

[DarkFury]

I blame Dr. Zoidberg for this... :2far:

[Prngr44]

Bah... if all their other "gloom & doom" predictions come true we'll probably all be dead by then anyway.

:P

[zippyjuan]

Interesting. So why does it taste like rubber?
A combination of the processing and the additives.
http://ask.yahoo.com/20030110.html
Dear Yahoo!:
What is imitation crab made of?
Diana
El Paso, Texas

Dear Diana:
The flaky, red-edged faux crab in your seafood salad or California roll is most likely made of Alaska Pollock. Also called Walleye Pollock, Snow Cod, or Whiting, this fish is abundant in the Bering Sea near Alaska and can also be found along the central California coast and in the Sea of Japan. Pollock has a very mild flavor, making it ideal for the processing and artificial flavoring of imitation crab. While Pollock is the most common fish used to make fake crab, New Zealand Hoki is also used, and some Asian manufacturers use Southeast Asian fish like Golden Treadfin Bream and White Croaker.
The processing of imitation crabmeat begins with the skinning and boning of the fish. Then the meat is minced and rinsed, and the water is leached out. This creates a thick paste called surimi. The word means "minced fish" in Japanese, and the essential techniques for making it were developed in Japan over 800 years ago. Surimi is commonly used in Japan to make a type of fish ball or cake called kamaboko. In 1975, a method for processing imitation crabmeat from surimi was invented in Japan, and in 1983, American companies started production.

Many ingredients are added to the surimi to give it a stable form, appealing texture, and crab-like flavor. Sugar, sorbitol, wheat or tapioca starch, egg whites, and vegetable or soybean oil can all help improve the form of the surimi. Natural and artificial crab flavorings are added, and some of these flavorings are made from real crab or from boiled shells. Carmine, caramel, paprika, and annatto extract are often used to make the crab's red, orange, or pink coloring. Imitation crab is cooked, which helps set the surimi and give it the final texture and appearance. Nutritionally speaking, surimi is not that different from real crab, although it is lower in cholesterol.

[Houdini]

Never was a fan of the artificial crab stuff.

Didn't know that SG was Ed G. Robinson's last film. He was a damn good actor.

As far as the topic goes, I don't buy it. This has been rehashed so many times over the years. I doubt if we'll only be seeing swordfish hanging on walls or mulletts in museums. It's one of the reasons there are seasons set aside for fishing different types of fish. The regs control the amount of harvest and sometimes even control overpopulation of fish, which can contribute to the detriment of other food-fish. I've always looked at it as akin to deer hunting in areas where more deer = starving deer.

It's not time to stock up on tuna cans yet. ;)

[molecularfire]

Does anyone else find it funny that the lead researcher is Dr. Worm?

[zippyjuan]

Never was a fan of the artificial crab stuff.

Didn't know that SG was Ed G. Robinson's last film. He was a damn good actor.

As far as the topic goes, I don't buy it. This has been rehashed so many times over the years. I doubt if we'll only be seeing swordfish hanging on walls or mulletts in museums. It's one of the reasons there are seasons set aside for fishing different types of fish. The regs control the amount of harvest and sometimes even control overpopulation of fish, which can contribute to the detriment of other food-fish. I've always looked at it as akin to deer hunting in areas where more deer = starving deer.

It's not time to stock up on tuna cans yet. ;)
Just do a google search- you will find tons of stories about tons of places reporting vastly lower amounts of fish compared to what they used to have. The regs were put in place to try to keep some of them from being completely wiped out- destroying the local fishing industry. Modern fishing techniques can use highly destructive ways to catch fish- massive nets that stretch for miles and scoop every kind of fish not small enough to slip away. Boats that scoop up entire sea floor bottoms trying to get clams or scallops- tearing up the coral and plants that are necessary for other species to survive.

Yes there are areas where there are too many deer and the place has trouble sustaining them- that is true where I grew up in Colorado. A herd by Boulder Colorado is protected and over poplulated- locals complain that they are eating plants (usually flowers) in their yards, but elsewhere in the state, where people are allowed to hunt, they are disappearing. My dad is an avid hunter and always brings something home. For the last ten years or so, he has come home empty handed- saying none or only a few were found in the area. He has tried other areas where there used to be lots of animals and here too only few are being found.

National parks and ocean reserves are becoming some of the few places that wildlife can be found.

[Prngr44]

Does anyone else find it funny that the lead researcher is Dr. Worm?

Kind of like Bo Vine's "Eat More Chicken" campaign?

[Houdini]

Just do a google search- you will find tons of stories about tons of places reporting vastly lower amounts of fish compared to what they used to have. The regs were put in place to try to keep some of them from being completely wiped out- destroying the local fishing industry. Modern fishing techniques can use highly destructive ways to catch fish- massive nets that stretch for miles and scoop every kind of fish not small enough to slip away. Boats that scoop up entire sea floor bottoms trying to get clams or scallops- tearing up the coral and plants that are necessary for other species to survive.

Yes there are areas where there are too many deer and the place has trouble sustaining them- that is true where I grew up in Colorado. A herd by Boulder Colorado is protected and over poplulated- locals complain that they are eating plants (usually flowers) in their yards, but elsewhere in the state, where people are allowed to hunt, they are disappearing. My dad is an avid hunter and always brings something home. For the last ten years or so, he has come home empty handed- saying none or only a few were found in the area. He has tried other areas where there used to be lots of animals and here too only few are being found.

National parks and ocean reserves are becoming some of the few places that wildlife can be found.

The ocean is awfully big. We're still finding "extinct" creatures in it. Fish reproduce rather quickly. I'm just not going to get riled up because some websites broadcast gloom and doom. Fishing hasn't gotten worse over the years for average Joes, not has spearing. I agree that big gill nets are pretty damn bad, but to think that we can wipe an entire aquatic, non-mammal class from the world seems kind of arrogant. Not saying you, of course, but that the idea that people are destroying everything we touch seems to be awfully persuasive. Hell, even Al Gore said last month that cigarette smoking is a "significant" cause of global warming. Simply sensationalism. I'd venture anything that Mt. St. Helens' blow up in the early 80's harmed the environment more than every cigarette ever smoked.

Not to get too far off tanget, but I was reading an interesting article the other day that blamed global warming on its most obvious source - the sun. The sun's intensity is continually variable, and we're getting a better handle of understanding how/when it makes us hotter or colder. Ice ages didn't come about because "greenhouse gases" were low. :shrug:

[ShawnLee]

I don't know, I'm with Houdini here. Not saying there isn't a problem, but total extinction?

And if total extinction were the case? What's poor little old me gonna do about it? Get in all the lobster I can before 2048 comes around. Though, thinking about it, that probably won't help the situation.

Yes. Thank you scientists, predict that we'll run out of seafood, and we just really may. Haha.

[zippyjuan]

It is interesting to dismiss something because you hear claims about it everywhere. That seems to counter logic. Some claims, like the one you credit to Al Gore seem exaggerated, but that does not mean that things are not happening. On that one, I suppose that smoking a cigarette puts polution into the atmosphere (which it does) but is the scale of that something to be concerned about? Methane from animal and human excrement add more than probably cigarettes do.

Fish stocks have been in decline for some time. Wild salmon stocks in the northwest have fallen to the point where many rivers have banned fishing for salmon. Other species that used to dominate the consumed fish are becoming scarce enough that other fishes that used to be considered bait fish or just secondary catch and ground up for pet food are now being sold as primary consumption fishes.

Some fish species can multiply rapidly and not take long to recover from a crash (defined as a 90% loss of population in the first article) but others have slower reproduction and recover more slowly. Larger fishes tend to reproduce more slowly. Whales were almost wiped out and even protections of fifty years have still not vastly increased their numbers since they reproduce so slowly.

A fairly comprehensive study of Atlantic fisheries shows continued reductions on fish populations and this is seen in other areas around the globe.

Until now research examined isolated fisheries on individual fishing grounds, and even then, the reduction in fish was evident. Research documenting the total amounts of fish being extracted on an ocean-wide basis had never been conducted. While the disastrous collapses in areas like New England and Newfoundland have appeared to be local in scale, this new ocean-wide synthesis reveals that the collapse applies to the entire North Atlantic Ocean

A new portrait of the state of fisheries shows that over the last 50 years, the catch of the preferred food fish species such as cod, tuna, haddock, flounder and hake, has decreased by more than half, despite a tripling in fishing effort. These results show that there has been such large-scale extraction of fish from the North Atlantic, that its impact has undermined the ocean's ability to sustain further catches.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020218094949.htm#

I do not think that there will be a total extinction of all fish but that the populations of food fishes could certainly drop to levels that will make trying to capture them economically unviable and that will reduce an important food source for the planet.

[zippyjuan]

I was wondering if someone could find me an actual news story with the Al Gore quote about cigarettes and global warming. A search only turned up sites talking about the alleged quote, but no credible link anywhere. Another web myth?

[brainsmile]

it's just sad

[Houdini]

I was wondering if someone could find me an actual news story with the Al Gore quote about cigarettes and global warming. A search only turned up sites talking about the alleged quote, but no credible link anywhere. Another web myth?

Perhaps. I remember reading about it on several sites initially, besides drudge, but mainstream sources seem to have dropped it. Sometimes the page has been remomved, or whatever.

Regardless, while I'm not saying for certain that he did say it, he is an avowed anti-global warming crusader. He's kind of extremist, even to the point of making a movie, of which many "facts" have been debunked.

I hate to change this into another global warming thread, as some adamently believe it is happening, others feel just as strongly that we're cooling, some say man is not the cause, others say that man is - at most - a very, very small contributor to a natural cyclic event, and some just don't care, regardless of which scientists say what.

[Houdini]

It is interesting to dismiss something because you hear claims about it everywhere. That seems to counter logic.

The masses are not always correct, especially re: scientific data and/or understanding.



I do not think that there will be a total extinction of all fish but that the populations of food fishes could certainly drop to levels that will make trying to capture them economically unviable and that will reduce an important food source for the planet.

Perhaps, though the beginning of the article asserts "The world's fish and seafood could disappear by 2048 as overfishing and pollution destroy ocean ecosystems at an accelerating pace, US and Canadian researchers reported."

[Markel]

Not to worry - Capt. Kirk and the Enterprise can always just time warp and bring back some fresh breeding stock. ;)

[brainsmile]

I hate to change this into another global warming thread, as some adamently believe it is happening, others feel just as strongly that we're cooling


I believe that global dimming has something to do with the cooling counter effect.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

[zippyjuan]

So do some of you believe that we should not try to do anything and continue as we do? Science will save us without us having to give up anything or be inconvenienced? Simply because there are some incorrect examples put foreward does not mean that a theory is incorrect. On any issue, people will make exagerations to try to make their point. That does not mean they are wrong. The Al Gore and cigarettes story was a fabrication and exageration. If it was real, I should be able to find a link- even a dead one. It seems to have only been on Drudge.

I will agree that the headline of the article was an exageration. It does seem to imply that all fish will be gone. They do not all have to be gone to cease to be a viable economic option to try to fish for them. If it costs too much to find one fish, they will stop looking for them.

[brainsmile]

I think that it's saying we're losing a primary food source

[Houdini]

I believe that global dimming has something to do with the cooling counter effect.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

Introducing. So pollution may actually save us from global warming?

The articles I've read recently, for which, I apologize, I'm not armed with links tonight, offer very compelling evidence of the sun's variable energy emmissions exceed any man-made pollution. And outlawing sulfer from Yellowstone, cow flatulence, burning stuff, breathing, and volcanoes would be the best way to stop CO2 emmissions. Of course, that's extremist and ridiculous. But before we jump on any extreme lifestyle changes, most of which are offset by vastly more consumption (such as studies showing you'd have to drive a Prius an incredible distance, like to the moon and back, to save the "greenhouse" gases spewed by you're average single private jet airplane trip. And with thousands of planes crossing our skies every day and night, as well as natural processes, such as measured variable world temps (such as cooling in the 1500s to late 1600s, I belive, the so-called mini ice age, long before man could have had a significant impact, now related to less solar radiation emitted in a now somewhat predictable solar pattern) are much more significant than anything I can do to the environment. Harder to breathe in some areas? Of course. More health problems? Absolutely. But gloom/doom horror stories of ice caps melting and enveloping cities in massive floods don't really garner my attention.

Then again, I may be proved wrong. Until then, I'll keep examining all evidence that I see, both from the pro and anti warming folks who obviously are biased. Sure, lots of scientists agree, and if you ask your average, say, chemistry Ph.D. if global warming is happening and he says yes, without being informed any more than recent front pages of news magazines, I don't put much stock in that.