|
i think you can definately argue that many countries have over fished stocks, ignore regulations etc. the US did this as well and totally collapsed many of its fisheries. but that does not mean that the fish went extinct... just means that enough pressure was put on the stocks that the volume caught was either not economically feasible or that feds/states took over and started regulating them with small quotas and short seasons.
i also was a consultant for a russian fishing company and got a good glimpse of that first hand in the few years i spent fishing there. it wasn't that they were doing illegal shit so much as it was the fact that they had zero idea of the size of the fish stocks to begin with and no means to monitor and measure them... and no inclination to do so if they could.
the articles ignore the simple fact that fisheries rebound, go in cycles etc... and they are in part, using data extracted over a large period of time ("a 1000 years" was used) to paint an irrelevant picture of the state of fish stocks (aparently lumping 100s of major species together) after only 30-40 years of serious pressure/regulation. the worlds largest fishery - like pollock in alaska is heavily regulated and on trawlers in alaska, there are federal observers on board, constant analysis of catch, bycatch and quotas etc.
if you look at major fish stocks 100 years ago when there was no one targeting them... adn compare them to today, you will see a contrast in the total volume of fish probably... but you will also see much better data, fisheries management, quotas, seasons and so on.
i was simply questioning what the article is trying to suggest ... that all fish, everywhere are just going to dissapear by 2048. thats absurd. X 1000s of metric tons of cod being caught in the bering sea or pacific in alaska have zero connection to x 1000s of metric tons fo cod being caught off the coast of iceland (a country well known for its careful regulation of its fisheries)
|