Report: Seafood faces collapse by 2048 - GoFuckYourself.com

luv$ · 11-03-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Clambakes, crabcakes, swordfish steaks and even humble fish sticks could be little more than a fond memory in a few decades.

If current trends of overfishing and pollution continue, the populations of just about all seafood face collapse by 2048, a team of ecologists and economists warns in a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

"Whether we looked at tide pools or studies over the entire world's ocean, we saw the same picture emerging. In losing species we lose the productivity and stability of entire ecosystems," said the lead author Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. (Watch how the seafood on your plate may become a thing of the past -- 3:10)

"I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we suspected," Worm said.

While the study focused on the oceans, concerns have been expressed by ecologists about threats to fish in the Great Lakes and other lakes, rivers and freshwaters, too.

Worm and an international team spent four years analyzing 32 controlled experiments, other studies from 48 marine protected areas and global catch data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's database of all fish and invertebrates worldwide from 1950 to 2003.

The scientists also looked at a 1,000-year time series for 12 coastal regions, drawing on data from archives, fishery records, sediment cores and archaeological data.

"At this point 29 percent of fish and seafood species have collapsed -- that is, their catch has declined by 90 percent. It is a very clear trend, and it is accelerating," Worm said. "If the long-term trend continues, all fish and seafood species are projected to collapse within my lifetime -- by 2048."

"It looks grim and the projection of the trend into the future looks even grimmer," he said. "But it's not too late to turn this around. It can be done, but it must be done soon. We need a shift from single species management to ecosystem management. It just requires a big chunk of political will to do it."

The researchers called for new marine reserves, better management to prevent overfishing and tighter controls on pollution.

In the 48 areas worldwide that have been protected to improve marine biodiversity, they found, "diversity of species recovered dramatically, and with it the ecosystem's productivity and stability."

While seafood forms a crucial concern in their study, the researchers were analyzing overall biodiversity of the oceans. The more species in the oceans, the better each can handle exploitation.

"Even bugs and weeds make clear, measurable contributions to ecosystems," said co-author J. Emmett Duffy of the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences.

The National Fisheries Institute, a trade association for the seafood industry, does not share the researchers alarm.

"Fish stocks naturally fluctuate in population," the institute said in a statement. "By developing new technologies that capture target species more efficiently and result in less impact on other species or the environment, we are helping to ensure our industry does not adversely affect surrounding ecosystems or damage native species.

Seafood has become a growing part of Americans' diet in recent years. Consumption totaled 16.6 pounds per person in 2004, the most recent data available, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That compares with 15.2 pounds in 2000.

Joshua Reichert, head of the private Pew Charitable Trusts' environment program, pointed out that worldwide fishing provides $80 billion in revenue and 200 million people depend on it for their livelihoods. For more than 1 billion people, many of whom are poor, fish is their main source of protein, he said.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation's National Center for Ecological Synthesis and Analysis.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html

NickPapageorgio · 11-03-2006, 02:07 PM

Better eat all the Lobster you can right now then.

BJ · 11-03-2006, 02:09 PM

hippy propaganda

ForteCash · 11-03-2006, 02:09 PM

eat those clams

Fetish Gimp · 11-03-2006, 02:14 PM

Seafood gives me gas. Fuck'em.

pr0 · 11-03-2006, 02:14 PM

you can farm raise crabs...i have friends who do just that with peelers etc. for bait & consumption purposes

same thing with just about any type of fish....outside of game fish like tuna/swordfish etc.

i'm not trippin over it

crockett · 11-03-2006, 02:18 PM

I don't know why they aren't pushing fish farms more. My uncle has a big fish packing plant up in north Florida. One of the things he's been doing for probably 10 years now is setting up a big fish farm.

Right now they grow mostly just sturgeon because they sell for such a high price.. But they could grow a wide variety of fish if enough money and energy was focused on it.

OG LennyT · 11-03-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PureMeds

hippy propaganda

exactly

BitAudioVideo · 11-03-2006, 03:32 PM

worm worried about declining fish populations? =]

Alain DeLarge · 11-03-2006, 03:36 PM

There will not be enough space or clean water to supply current fish and miscelaneous seafood demands. Whatever would be grown would be sold at a premium. Why don't we focus on trying to fix our environment instead of stuffing our heads in the sand?

Hollywood Horwitz · 11-03-2006, 04:22 PM

this is the biggest bulshit story since spinach killing peeps. I want to start a story on escargo causes your skin to turn into jelly and see if the media can hype that bs.....

2HousePlague · 11-03-2006, 04:23 PM

2hp

scardog · 11-03-2006, 04:34 PM

No more Sharks? Kick ass!! Surfs up bitches!

scardog · 11-03-2006, 05:09 PM

But other scientists question that forecast.

"It's just mind-boggling stupid," said Ray Hilborn, a University of Washington professor of aquatic and fishery sciences.

OG LennyT · 11-03-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alain DeLarge

There will not be enough space or clean water to supply current fish and miscelaneous seafood demands. Whatever would be grown would be sold at a premium. Why don't we focus on trying to fix our environment instead of stuffing our heads in the sand?

seriously dude, you need to get out more

E$_manager · 11-03-2006, 05:21 PM

I couldn't imagine that it could happen that quick. I thought not on my age at least.

Webby · 11-03-2006, 05:49 PM

Related article...

Quote:

'Only 50 years left' for sea fish

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major scientific study.

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.

This century is the last century of wild seafood
Steve Palumbi "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."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm

Of course, on GFY, the researchers will be wrong - GFY knows better having completed exhaustive research into the ocean and the world's ecosystems

Webby · 11-03-2006, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alain DeLarge

There will not be enough space or clean water to supply current fish and miscelaneous seafood demands. Whatever would be grown would be sold at a premium. Why don't we focus on trying to fix our environment instead of stuffing our heads in the sand?

You've got that about right as it can be at this stage. The next "oil" will be water and that's being contaminated bigtime and will cost more than just water bills to remedy.

Pleasurepays · 11-03-2006, 06:05 PM

that article is a joke. i am from the fishing industry in alaska and that article made no sense. most large fisheries are heavily monitored and regulated with sustainable quotas -- so its very irresponsible and misleading to use overly general language like "Seafood faces collapse"

many fisheries have been overfished before they were regulated... particularly on the east coast. thats not something that happened last week... its something that happened decades ago.

even something like this shows how mind numbingly stupid their report is:

"This century is the last century of wild seafood
Steve Palumbi "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."

there is nothing "finite" about seafood. in case anyone missed it in biology class... fish tend to have 1000s of babies ever year.

squishypimp · 11-03-2006, 06:06 PM

thanks for reminding me to goto red lobster for the "all you can eat shrimp for 9.99"

E$_manager · 11-03-2006, 06:47 PM

I am going to eat more seefood

May be...

Webby · 11-03-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

that article is a joke. i am from the fishing industry in alaska and that article made no sense. most large fisheries are heavily monitored and regulated with sustainable quotas -- so its very irresponsible and misleading to use overly general language like "Seafood faces collapse"

many fisheries have been overfished before they were regulated... particularly on the east coast. thats not something that happened last week... its something that happened decades ago.

even something like this shows how mind numbingly stupid their report is:

"This century is the last century of wild seafood
Steve Palumbi "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."

there is nothing "finite" about seafood. in case anyone missed it in biology class... fish tend to have 1000s of babies ever year.

I can't say PP - Just not qualified to comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the article. There is obviously some concern over the sustainabilty of fishing stocks (and a hell of a lot more) and coming from a number of research units.

It would take too long to go into it here, (it's a whole different ballgame and needs qualified/experienced opinion), but generally from both marine and critter biologists there is more than just some concern over the future of certain species (pretty much all of em). As you are aware, a change in one species can affect the other blah and ultimately force biodiversity changes.

Over the past couple of years I've been working with folks who know far more than I'll ever know about stuff like this - it has been a total education (tho still know little). Some are into critter management, others into marine life - and two others with more experience, background and resources than all of em put together. When ya have time to talk to these senior guys, they don't exactly paint a pretty picture for future years/generations.

The only aspect of marine life/management I know of is in ocean fish farming (specifically tuna). This is fine to a level, but is also problem ridden, since the viable tubular "nets" of a size to hold tons of tuna end up contaminating the surrounding area (they have to feed the things and the volumes of waste ends up screwing up other sea life - we are talking tons of shit

). Stuff farming units like that in the middle of a well-balanced marine ecosystem and the lot gets screwed.

Sure.. there is regulation of eg fishing industries, but in reality that is vague and where there is a desire for more stock/food, - they will find a way round those regulations. Other nations don't give a shit and break fishing laws and regulations while the regulators look on.

Libertine · 11-03-2006, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PureMeds

hippy propaganda

Damn right. That journal, Science, is nothing but a liberal, left-wing, socialist rag. Nothing in there is ever worth reading. For real facts, you have to watch Fox News.

Libertine · 11-03-2006, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

that article is a joke. i am from the fishing industry in alaska and that article made no sense. most large fisheries are heavily monitored and regulated with sustainable quotas -- so its very irresponsible and misleading to use overly general language like "Seafood faces collapse"

Just a thought... maybe they included the third world, which has far less regulations, few of which are ever enforced, in their study? And maybe, just maybe, what the actual article in Science says about the effects of the collapse of certain species on life in the sea as a whole, is something that also, in the long term, influences those areas which are regulated as well?

Just guessing here...

$5 submissions · 11-03-2006, 07:01 PM

There goes all those Sizzler All you Can Eat Shrimp specials.

Seriously though, many Third World countries have little to no regulation re fisheries. Dynamite fishing, cyanide fishing, you name it--it's rampant. I'd be surprised if the fishery stocks globally are not depleted sooner than 2048.

Pleasurepays · 11-03-2006, 07:02 PM

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)

Pleasurepays · 11-03-2006, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

Just a thought... maybe they included the third world, which has far less regulations, few of which are ever enforced, in their study? And maybe, just maybe, what the actual article in Science says about the effects of the collapse of certain species on life in the sea as a whole, is something that also, in the long term, influences those areas which are regulated as well?

Just guessing here...

major fisheries that account for the vast majority of seafood that is consumed world wide - salmon, cod, pollock, flatfish (halibut, flounder, sole etc) and crab - with very few exceptions like shrimp in asia and whitefish in south america for example, are almost non-existent in the 3rd world. thats why i am saying that its impossible to suggest that one day fish will just dissapear due to overfishing... its the developed world that regulates these fisheries and do so more and more each year.

thats why i don't see how "seafood" can be looked at as a single object of concern... since pacific salmon fisheries, the health of the stocks, historical averages etc has no connection to greenland halibut. to make the arguments they are making, you would have to look at everything, completely out of context.

MissMina · 11-03-2006, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickPapageorgio

Better eat all the Lobster you can right now then.

I know I sure will

Libertine · 11-03-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

major fisheries that account for the vast majority of seafood that is consumed world wide - salmon, cod, pollock, flatfish (halibut, flounder, sole etc) and crab - with very few exceptions like shrimp in asia and whitefish in south america for example, are almost non-existent in the 3rd world. thats why i am saying that its impossible to suggest that one day fish will just dissapear due to overfishing... its the developed world that regulates these fisheries and do so more and more each year.

thats why i don't see how "seafood" can be looked at as a single object of concern... since pacific salmon fisheries, the health of the stocks, historical averages etc has no connection to greenland halibut. to make the arguments they are making, you would have to look at everything, completely out of context.

Their article actually also talks about things like pollution, not just overfishing. The CNN article is a pretty gross misrepresentation of what the actual article says. The focus on "seafood", I think, is merely a way to make the study more relevant to readers.

RawAlex · 11-03-2006, 07:35 PM

Report: RawAlex collapses by 2047, doesn't notice lack of seafood.

Carry on.

Webby · 11-03-2006, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

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.

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.

Sure... prob the regs are improving globally and there is more of an awareness of the possible problem.

You're right, the pressure on marine life is a lot more than it was 100 years ago - and, sure, there is now better data and management of stocks. I really don't know what the effect is, but there are now far more efficient methods of capturing these stocks - and on a much bigger scale.

Just an aside... I've still seen shark carcasses (and a few half dead sharks) floating around after having their fins cut off for export to Japan for shark fin soup. Sure it's illegal, but that never stopped a fisherman trying to earn and extra buck

When I am now there is a strong awareness of both marine and land biodiversity and a fair number of research orgs working here and trying to maintain species. This country is miniscule with only 0.01% of the world's land mass, but contains 5% biodiversity of the planet. Just over 25% of the country is already under preservation with national parks and "corridors" to let the wildlife travel. But, it's under pressure and hard to maintain that level of critters. There is damage already done (can be seen best on satellite pics where forests have been denuded), but at least there is an effort now to reforest, tho the cost is crazy. The flip downside is developers are like bees to a honeypot - they want to build unending condo complexes in the middle of this - more pressure. There are also idiots (usually tourists) who want to think they are jungle hunters and killing critters - stuff like bigger cats and tapirs and hell, found three monkeys they shot. The cats are not an endangered species yet, but in this instance the tapirs were very rare, but were shot with AK47's - duh? (They are harmless and shy - just chew up the ground a bit. The larger cats - jaguar etc, are also not a problem - they stay away from humans.)

Back to marine life....

Here's the extrapolation of the predictions in Science mag:

and here's the elements the assembled their data from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/n...14.stm#graphic

Webby · 11-03-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

The focus on "seafood", I think, is merely a way to make the study more relevant to readers.

You can always be assured that research is presented by the media in a form that will also sensationalise the highlights - else nobody will read it

And with much more detail than the media would want to convey.

Spunky · 11-03-2006, 07:45 PM

I'll be dead anyways :/

11-03-2006, 02:07 PM	#2
NickPapageorgio Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NC Posts: 8,323	Better eat all the Lobster you can right now then. __________________

11-03-2006, 02:09 PM	#4
ForteCash Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Posts: 3,278	eat those clams __________________ NO PILLS - NO EXPENSIVE STRETCHERS - JUST REAL EXERCISES THAT WORK! "Upsell Your Members The Top Penis Enlargement Site!" Link Exchanges & Traffic Trades www.penilefitness.com/links/ ICQ: 63935693 $50 per trial with www.ForteCash.com

11-03-2006, 02:14 PM	#5
Fetish Gimp Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,699	Seafood gives me gas. Fuck'em. __________________ Strapon Seduction - femdom blog \| Twitter

11-03-2006, 02:14 PM	#6
pr0 rockin tha trailerpark Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: ~Coastal~ Posts: 23,088	you can farm raise crabs...i have friends who do just that with peelers etc. for bait & consumption purposes same thing with just about any type of fish....outside of game fish like tuna/swordfish etc. i'm not trippin over it __________________ __________ Loadedca$h - get sum! - Revengebucks - mmm rebills! - webair (gotz sErVrz)

11-03-2006, 02:18 PM	#7
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,818	I don't know why they aren't pushing fish farms more. My uncle has a big fish packing plant up in north Florida. One of the things he's been doing for probably 10 years now is setting up a big fish farm. Right now they grow mostly just sturgeon because they sell for such a high price.. But they could grow a wide variety of fish if enough money and energy was focused on it. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

11-03-2006, 02:09 PM	#3
BJ Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: asia Posts: 5,590	hippy propaganda

11-03-2006, 03:32 PM	#9
BitAudioVideo Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: USA, Georgia Posts: 1,246	worm worried about declining fish populations? =] __________________ Hi-Quality Encoding - Bulk Orders - On Time! http://bitaudiovideo.com icq 50476697 - aim n3r0xXx

11-03-2006, 03:36 PM	#10
Alain DeLarge Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 168	There will not be enough space or clean water to supply current fish and miscelaneous seafood demands. Whatever would be grown would be sold at a premium. Why don't we focus on trying to fix our environment instead of stuffing our heads in the sand? __________________ Submit movie galleries? Fill out my form and start posting! http://www.alspornflix.com/aptgp/webm_apply.php

11-03-2006, 04:22 PM	#11
Hollywood Horwitz Porn To ROCK! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hollywood Posts: 4,357	this is the biggest bulshit story since spinach killing peeps. I want to start a story on escargo causes your skin to turn into jelly and see if the media can hype that bs..... __________________ Ross Horwitz Skype: RossAngeles666 Online Ad Sales / Email / Display Ads / Mobile Cell.323.949.4313 [email protected]

11-03-2006, 04:23 PM	#12
2HousePlague CURATOR Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: the attic Posts: 14,572	2hp __________________ tada!

11-03-2006, 04:34 PM	#13
scardog Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 886	No more Sharks? Kick ass!! Surfs up bitches!

11-03-2006, 05:09 PM	#14
scardog Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 886	But other scientists question that forecast. "It's just mind-boggling stupid," said Ray Hilborn, a University of Washington professor of aquatic and fishery sciences.

11-03-2006, 05:21 PM	#16
E$_manager Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: pink adult dreams Posts: 13,557	I couldn't imagine that it could happen that quick. I thought not on my age at least. __________________ Enjoy more sales with EnjoyBucks! Homemade: Asian : Ebony : GFs : Voyeur : Nudist : Public : 3D

11-03-2006, 06:05 PM	#19
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	that article is a joke. i am from the fishing industry in alaska and that article made no sense. most large fisheries are heavily monitored and regulated with sustainable quotas -- so its very irresponsible and misleading to use overly general language like "Seafood faces collapse" many fisheries have been overfished before they were regulated... particularly on the east coast. thats not something that happened last week... its something that happened decades ago. even something like this shows how mind numbingly stupid their report is: "This century is the last century of wild seafood Steve Palumbi "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." there is nothing "finite" about seafood. in case anyone missed it in biology class... fish tend to have 1000s of babies ever year.

11-03-2006, 06:06 PM	#20
squishypimp PostMaster General Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 10,781	thanks for reminding me to goto red lobster for the "all you can eat shrimp for 9.99" __________________ Signature For Sale

11-03-2006, 06:47 PM	#21
E$_manager Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: pink adult dreams Posts: 13,557	I am going to eat more seefood May be... __________________ Enjoy more sales with EnjoyBucks! Homemade: Asian : Ebony : GFs : Voyeur : Nudist : Public : 3D

11-03-2006, 07:01 PM	#25
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	There goes all those Sizzler All you Can Eat Shrimp specials. Seriously though, many Third World countries have little to no regulation re fisheries. Dynamite fishing, cyanide fishing, you name it--it's rampant. I'd be surprised if the fishery stocks globally are not depleted sooner than 2048. __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants Last edited by $5 submissions; 11-03-2006 at 07:03 PM..

11-03-2006, 07:02 PM	#26
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	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)

11-03-2006, 07:35 PM	#30
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Report: RawAlex collapses by 2047, doesn't notice lack of seafood. Carry on.

11-03-2006, 07:45 PM	#33
Spunky I need a beer Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: ♠ Toiletville ♠ Posts: 133,970	I'll be dead anyways :/ __________________ *YOUR INFORMATION HERE*