How the world’s oceans could be running out of fish

(For God's sake can we skip the predictable Betteridge's Law Wikipedia reference?)<p>This seems to happen a lot and not just in the ocean. Population dynamics are complex. Things often seem inexhaustible until they're not and that changes has a nasty habit of happening almost overnight. Look at the Passenger Pigeon, the Alaskan King Crab, bison, various whale species (some may never recover from the whaling industry), cod, etc.<p>I think this is exacerbated by it being hard to tell what exactly is in the ocean. With land animals it <i>tends</i> to be somewhat more obvious.<p>Some governmental oddities haven't helped here. Britain really screwed up in how it joined the EU (then the EEC) in the 1970s with the CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) [1], which is (now) a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons.<p>Norway didn't join. And they're swimming in oil wealth. Not that I think oil fields would've become a common resource (the North Sea oil fields aren't AFAIK).<p>And then there's the insatiable appetite of the Japanese for bluefin tuna that will probably drive the fish to extinction in a matter of decades at most.<p>IMHO all of these resource problems stem from the fact that there are simply too many of us and we're unable to live within our means.<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.global-vision.net/facts/fact9_3.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.global-vision.net/facts/fact9_3.asp</a>

Article title as I see the article by following the URL kindly submitted here: "How the world’s oceans could be running out of fish." So I see from the URL that there must be an alternate title for this article, which the submitter used (as is quite fair to do). This is an example of an article title that asks a yes/no question for which the answer is yes.<p>"Entire species of marine life will never be seen in the Anthropocene (the Age of Man), let alone tasted, if we do not curb our insatiable voracity for fish. Last year, global fish consumption hit a record high of 17 kg (37 pounds) per person per year, even though global fish stocks have continued to decline. On average, people eat four times as much fish now than they did in 1950."<p>This news report is consistent with many other studies I have seen of this issue since the 1980s. The Grand Banks cod fishery<p><a href="http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/grandbanks.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/grandbanks.htm</a><p>which seemed inexhaustible as recently as my own young adulthood, has collapsed. Many species of ocean-going fish have largely disappeared from the human diet in many countries, not because people no longer like those varieties of fish, but because those varieties of fish are no longer readily available.

This is an interesting thing. Fish are over fished, stocks decline, the price goes up, fishing companies go out of business. The response has been sustainably farmed fish, that market is up hugely of course (its worth investing in if you are a futurist) There are also indications that changes in the ocean temperature and acidity are moving fish populations around such that a 'fishery collapse' might also be 'they went somewhere else'.<p>The last few years the salmon season was halted in California. Between low water for spawning and lots of fishing the catches were going down and few fish were returning to spawn. Now they have recovered somewhat and California is getting a better idea of what the population can support. Meanwhile it gets very expensive to eat fish.<p>Its for this reason I doubt that fish stocks will go completely extinct. Unlike land stocks where it 'cost' zero to wait for game to go by, fish require that you be in a boat to go get them. That costs money. If the return becomes so uncertain that you don't know if you will make or lose money on the outing, rational actors will stop playing.<p>Most of the mass extinction / exhaustion theories I've read are based on predicting a systemic collapse rather than the last fish of a particular type is removed manually. What is not clear is whether or not these systemic collapses actually occur. Localized food chains have some great examples (like coral reefs dying due to trawling and then losing the entire ecosystem sort of like the rain forest becoming farmland) but the deep sea stocks are much more difficult to kill off in that way.

Rare breed here, non-mil, non-gov, non-local computer programmer in the Florida Keys. Fish stocks are declining so noticeably year after year after year. You will not be able to mark-off coordinates as a fish refuge without local multi-generational fishermen families (with more political clout than you can imagine here in not-quite-Florida) complaining and getting their way. It's quite a lost cause. And I won't purchase farm-raised fish, because I'm well aware of the PCB content of your Tilapia. I wish I knew what to tell you, except that your children won't know anything about Tuna, Ahi, or Hogfish.

There's a documentary on this issue here <a href="https://vimeo.com/23540198" rel="nofollow">https://vimeo.com/23540198</a> with one blogger saying:<p>"More than 80% of the fish has disappeared from your oceans. Your children, when they are your age, will not be able to see wild fish. The oceans will be completely empty in 30 years. Unless..... YOU stop eating fish now AND please vote for political parties that will stop subsidizing the fishing industry." <a href="http://www.thebestofrawfood.com/Raw-Food-blog.html#Stop-Eating-Fish---Please" rel="nofollow">http://www.thebestofrawfood.com/Raw-Food-blog.html#Stop-Eati...</a><p>Myself, I personally would just ban fish farms globally. They are polluting, don't provide healthy fish for consumption and require smaller wild caught fish to maintain.<p>I might add: I'd also place a ban on all Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations as unhealthy, cruel, environmentally unfriendly (requiring cleared land growing GMOs for feeds) and perhaps unnecessary. Although, some are better than others such as those that feed sprouted grasses rather than grains.<p>Animals should live in their natural habitats. First and foremost we should adapt to them and serve them, not them to us. Domestication can only go so far, and ironically as we overly domesticate animals, so we ourselves become domesticated and consumed without even knowing it.

Yet another motivation to promote and consider downshifting, degrowth and veganism.

Baffling how there actually exists a section of the BBC website that UK citizens don't have access to.<p>Don't bother if you are from the UK...

I've often thought that the US should set up "national parks" in some coastal waters, where no fishing of any sort would be allowed, and no motorized boats.<p>These would then serve as "reservoirs" of marine life.

As a counter point, management of US fisheries seems to be finding a good balance:<p><i>U.S. seafood catch at 17-year high</i><p>"Last year's increase, up 23% by weight over 2010 levels, is evidence that fish populations are rebuilding. Still, a number of fisheries remain in trouble."<p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-seafood-20120920,0,2618910.story" rel="nofollow">http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-seafood-20120920,0,261...</a>

Well, this is the perfect time to introduce sea farming - famers seasteading and growing fish (and other seafood) on the open ocean (on their own lots of water). I always found the idea pretty interesting...

Almost all the fish I buy is farm-raised. I trust it more than wild-caught for some reason; I don't want to be eating anything caught off the coast of Fukushima for example.