Report: Seafood faces collapse by 2048
 

Better eat all the Lobster you can right now then. :glugglug

hippy propaganda

eat those clams :mad:

Seafood gives me gas. Fuck'em.

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

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.

exactly :2 cents:

worm worried about declining fish populations? =]

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?

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.....

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

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

seriously dude, you need to get out more

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

Related article...

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 :1orglaugh

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.

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.

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

I am going to eat more seefood :) May be...

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.

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.

:upsidedow

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...

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.

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)

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.

I know I sure will :)

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.

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

Carry 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 :pimp

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:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image..._loss203gr.gif

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

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

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

I'll be dead anyways :/