Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years

[TheRealAndy]

Ocean fish could disappear in 40 years


From correspondents in New York
From: AFP
May 18, 2010 7:12AM
THE world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 unless fishing fleets are slashed and stocks allowed to recover, UN experts warned.

"If the various estimates we have received... come true, then we are in the situation where 40 years down the line we, effectively, are out of fish," Pavan Sukhdev, head of the UN Environment Program's green economy initiative, said.
A Green Economy report due later this year by UNEP and outside experts argues this disaster can be avoided if subsidies to fishing fleets are slashed and fish are given protected zones - ultimately resulting in a thriving industry.




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/ocean-fish-could-disappear-in-40-years/story-e6freon6-1225868001033

[PinHead]

words 4 and 5 are of concern..."various estimates"..here we go again..doom and gloom based on someones estimates.

[Peter4]

So could what's left of my hair.....

[TheRealAndy]

Once again they have neglected to even mention pollution and habitat destruction as being a key factor in the destruction of the fisheries.

[murf]

that press release by UN experts (Ex as in has beens and Drips Under Pressure) is so far off course and wrong nobody would believe that :shocked:

its more radical statements like that that we need to show how wrong and full of shit they are

IF it comes true I will turn Vegan and that's never gunna happen :cheesy:

cheers Murf

[deepfried]

I rekon depending on what fish they are talking about it may true to some extent. Tuna sp, swordfish, patagonian toothfish, gemfish maybe ? i dont think they are talking about bream and whiting some how. "Disappear" could also be extreme but at some point it would commercially unviable to fish for them which doesnt sound as scary as the terms they use.

Something i do find odd is that as rec fisho's we often say there are too many pros and when a study says the same thing it gets pulled to bits ?? Thought it may be in rec interests to kinda back this if only just a little ??

[charleville]

I must admit that I often wonder about snapper stocks in Australia.

Big snapper are usually about 40 years old or so and nowadays with the ease that most people have to buy offshore-capable boats with all the latest technologies that can accurately put any navigation-challenged boofhead right on top of prime snapper spots, one might imagine that the big snapper might diminish in numbers - at least in the lifetime of my kids. :sad:


On a not too unrelated topic, I was just thinking this morning as I was reading the weekly supermarket specials' junk mail, that fish is too cheap to buy these days. Who, in their right mind would spend tens of thousands of dollars buying a boat and fishing tackle to catch a feed of fish when it can be bought so cheaply.

I am all for dropping the increased taxes on cigarettes (eve though I don't smoke) and putting them on fish instead to help conserve the planet's fish stocks. (for me to catch :grin: )




.

[finga]

words 4 and 5 are of concern..."various estimates"..here we go again..doom and gloom based on someones estimates.
words 6,7 and 8 are not too good either.
Where did they get the estimates from??
I hope it wasn't from Aunty Valerie??
She's in the loony bin. :undecided:

[murf]

words 6,7 and 8 are not too good either.
Where did they get the estimates from??
I hope it wasn't from Aunty Valerie??
She's in the loony bin. :undecided:

I am hearing ya :grin:

charleville the Yak boys catch more snapper around here than the boaties with no electronic gear and only within a km of launch :wink:

cheers Murf

[murf]

I rekon depending on what fish they are talking about it may true to some extent. Tuna sp, swordfish, patagonian toothfish, gemfish maybe ? i dont think they are talking about bream and whiting some how. "Disappear" could also be extreme but at some point it would commercially unviable to fish for them which doesnt sound as scary as the terms they use.

Something i do find odd is that as rec fisho's we often say there are too many pros and when a study says the same thing it gets pulled to bits ?? Thought it may be in rec interests to kinda back this if only just a little ??

they state fishless oceans that equals no fish hey?

cheers Murf

[deepfried]

they state fishless oceans that equals no fish hey?

cheers Murf

I do make some assumptions

1) In the article they mention bluefin tuna as an example so i think they are talking about the major fisheries of the worlds oceans which already has examples of stock collapses
2) The article mentions subsidised fishing fleets ie not your local pro boats, the smaller pros are struggling to make a quid let alone get a subsidy. The tuna vessel the Franz may be a good example of what they are talking about.
3) Oceans generally means the open ocean not inshore fisheries
4) i aint ever eating sargent bakers so i think there will be some fish left in the big old ocean

If you think they mean all fish in the entire ocean well so be it i just interpret it a little differently and less sensationally.

[Lovey80]

I think that's the point. The reason rec anglers in Australia should be angry about these reports is that things like Greenzones in inshore and close offshore waters of Australia get implemented on the basis of these broad and under-researched UN report papers. I will try to find his email address at the UN and pose some questions of my own direct to the source.

Cheers

Chris

[deepfried]

http://www.grida.no/news/press/2227.aspx I think this and similar to this is what they are talking about.

And for those that say there is no report mentioning pollution this came up with a quick search.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20307&Cr=pollution&Cr1=%20


I think that's the point. The reason rec anglers in Australia should be angry about these reports is that things like Greenzones in inshore and close offshore waters of Australia get implemented on the basis of these broad and under-researched UN report papers. I will try to find his email address at the UN and pose some questions of my own direct to the source.


I do say i think it is about the major fisheries but you are very right that rec anglers should get angry with a report like this and also the way it printed in the press. Many people will think the world is falling apart and believe that it does mean all fish in all oceans and be more easily manipulated into agreeing to further green zones etc.

[Mike Delisser]

The reports are about ocean fish and I think they are fairly accurate in regard to many commercial species. No ocean fish left in 40 years time is a bit dramatic though but the way it's going many species will simply become so scarce it would be uneconomical for the commercial fleets to target them any more, esp in some of the poorly managed fisheries. I recon large scale aquaculture of some form will be the answer, just not in my backyard please.
The challenge for us is to make sure we as rec anglers, the species we fish for, and the areas that we fish, arn't roped up in all this. I've been fishing for over 40 years and I'm yet see a species of fish pushed to the brink by rec anglers using rod & reel.
Cheers
Mike

[billfisher]

The no fish by 2050 claim is from the 'Worm report'. The author is an ecologist and regular Pew funding recipient. Prof Ray Hilborn, peer review scientist with the University of Washington described it as "the most absurd prediction ever to appear in a journal regarding fisheries. This will be completely accepted bythe ecological community - they have no scepticism".

[billfisher]

The no fish by 2050 claim is from the 'Worm report'. The author is an ecologist and regular Pew funding recipient. Prof Ray Hilborn, peer review scientist with the University of Washington described it as "the most absurd prediction ever to appear in a journal regarding fisheries. This will be completely accepted by the ecological community - they have no scepticism".

Worm used catches a guide to abundance. Hilborn pointed out if you applied this methodology to recovered/ rebuilt stocks it would show that they have collapsed too. Like most Pew funding recipients the kicker at the end of the Worm report was that no-take marine reserves are needed. Hilborn pointed out that countries that have done best in preserving their fish stocks (USA, NZ, Australia & Iceland) did not use marine parks as the main management method.

[SeaHunt]

I must admit that I often wonder about snapper stocks in Australia.

.

I don't, little ones are as thick as flies on a fresh turd out in Moreton bay.
They are about all I can catch, actually they are the only species I would guarantee I can catch, something has to be breeding them all.

Anything can happen by 2050..
Fish have survived many ice ages, the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other mass extinctions where up to 95% of species have disappeared virtually over night.
I guarantee you there will still be fish in ocean long after the last human has set foot on this planet.
Of course none of us will live to see it so I don't waste my fishing time thinking about it.:cool: