20
   

DECLINES IN FISH STOCKS WORLDWIDE_the ecology of exinction

 
 
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 10:50 am
@Thomas,
Once again, you've not read the thread, and therefore are jumping in with both feet without understanding the context. As it happens, i consider large scale soy bean farming to be an environmental disaster wherever it takes place, but that is neither here nor there as regards the discussion in this thread. My point about beef was that beef comes from a managed and sustainable industry, the consequences of which we have thousands of years of experience to draw upon when coming to conclusions. Large scale pelagic fishing is of very recent date, no more than 600 years at the most, and even then, far, far less than that for the majority of nations engaged in such trade. Factory ships, "mother ships" to fleets of trawlers, regardless of what nation practices the method are an innovation since the end of the Second World War, well after the end of that war. And, as i've pointed out repeatedly, large scale commercial pelagic fishing on the part of the Japanese only dates from that era. Prior to that, their fishing was either subsistence fishing by specific communities or commercial fishing in and near the waters of the Japanese archipelago. Additionally, large scale commercial pelagic fishing goes after wild species for which all too often no attempt at management is made at ll--which makes this point à propos to a discussion of declining fish stocks

All of this has been offered by me in the context of a discussion with RG about whether or not the Japanese are forced by the limitations of their agricultural production to rely on pelagic fish. Which is why i suggested the importation of beef as an example of a means of meeting their needs without resort to vacuuming up megatons of wild species, most which are thrown back dead into the oceans.
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 10:52 am
Laugh to your heart's content. I'm sure you are pleased with yourself for jumping into a discussion which you haven't understood to take rhetorical cheap shots. I suspect that's a favorite MO with you.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 11:18 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
The area of "the donut hole" , which is that area of the Bering sea that lies in between the territorial waters of Russia , US, and CAnada, is suffering extreme overfishing from lack of any management, despite clear rules established by multiple treaties.

Who would be a good candidate for enforcing the treaties? Theoretically, the problem you describe is well-understood. There are numerous theoretical solutions, ranging from taxes on fishing, tradable fishing rights, and fishing quotas. (The economics of the problem are analogous to CO2 emissions, as are the economics of possible solutions.) The problem is that property rights, quotas would have to be enforced. Taxes would have to be collected. Is there a plausible candidate who can do it?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 11:30 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Their choice to eat fish and whale meat is a cultural choice, and of pretty recent date. The Japanese did not become blue water sailors until after the end of the Meiji era, in the mid-19th century. Even then, it was not until the 20th century that they began to become large scale pelagic fishers--and they only started hunting the whale after the Second World War.


The Japanese didn't become wide ocean fishermen ['blue water' is such a misleading term] because there was no need to do so. The waters close to home supplied all they needed. There is much blue water close to every continent/country.

You're the one who is being dishonest, Setanta.



0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 11:34 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I'm sure you are pleased with yourself for jumping into a discussion which you haven't understood to take rhetorical cheap shots. I I suspect that's a favorite MO with you.


You're really a piece of work, Set. You don't like it that Thomas has shown your arguments to be facetious so you engage in the very thing you love to deny you engage in. Next will come your "Thomas started it" meme.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 11:45 am
@JTT,
Thanks for chiming in for me, JTT. That said, it would be a shame if yet another interesting thread got derailed with yet another personal pissing contest. I'm not going to continue that part of my exchange with Setanta. And it would be nice if you didn't continue it on my behalf, either.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 11:52 am
@Thomas,
Neither am I, Thomas.

I see no reason for you not to continue with you line of argument because your pistol has remained steadfastly tucked behind your zipper. I think that's apparent to everyone. How you handle it is, of course, your choice.

Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 11:53 am
@JTT,
Thanks.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 11:54 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
My point about beef was that beef comes from a managed and sustainable industry,


I don't think you've really checked into this very much at all. The beef industry is one of the most wasteful, one of the most polluting, one of the least bang for the buck food industries in the world.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 01:02 pm
@Thomas,
Everyone who discussed the Japanese did not say that Japans reliance on fish is the recent ite,\m. I bleive you misunderstand that
1even whaling went on before the late 1890s and mostly since the 1940s. It went on in "coastal netting" and aboriginal fishing with long rowboats and harppons and nets. The same was for the fishing industry. Fishing relied on techniques that harvested the main types of subsistance fish (Pogym butterfish, mackerel, salmon, and shellfish). The blue water fleet was a recent development which allowed tge Japanese to develop other tastes for "delicacies " rather than susbsistence.

The entire concept of this thread is a measure of how badly world fishing has gotten. The catch increases occured since the 1970's and the crashes of fish stock have occured since the 1990's.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 01:16 pm
@Thomas,
There would be no "personal pissing contest," Thomas, if you didn't willfully misrepresent my position. See FM's latest post. What both he and i have been talking about is modern, commercial pelagic fishing--not coastal and inland sea traditional fishing.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 01:51 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Also, in MAine, the markets for Sea urchin roe and "Nori", yellowfin tuna, "fatty bluefin" and "sea potatoes" are diven entirely by Japanese tastes and their market demand. Urchins, normally couldnt be fed to cats are now being sold for several dollars an ounce if full of roe.


Farmer, you make all sorts of wild, unsubstantiated assertions. What does it matter if these markets developed because of Japanese demand? You leave it hanging as if there's something wrong with it. Markets develop precisely because of consumer demand.

Just because you personally don't have a taste for something you deem it bad.



Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 03:25 pm
I'm now going through links i saved, and searching for more material, which i will present in a single post. The object will be, largely, to point out that although have always been a coastal and inland sea fisheries in Japan, large-scale commercial fisheries (and whaling) date to the era of the Second World War (unless the evidence i find points in a different direction). Personally, i have no problem with any nation fishing their own waters as they please. In the case of Japan, however, they have so badly polluted their own waters, especially the inland sea, that their government warns them not to eat fish taken there. I don't see that as a good excuse for them to plunder the oceans elsewhere. I will also, if i can come up with enough data, look at specific species, such as the bluefin, to try to get some perspective on how fishing has grown (if it has) over the years. There is a good deal of evidence which i've seen to the effect that the Japanese commercial take is in decline, and most of the sources i've read claim this is because of decreased demand in Japan. I've not decided if i'll cite and link those articles--they outnumber articles on the history of fishing in Japan by about 15 or 20 to 1.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 04:34 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
I don't think you've really checked into this very much at all. The beef industry is one of the most wasteful, one of the most polluting, one of the least bang for the buck food industries in the world.
Sounds like a vegan who is against farming from some vantage point that allows him to state that the market driven wild seafood is ok (even though nations are depleting the stocks drastically with no means to replace them). To JTT Only managed "farm raised" protein is evil and somehow polluting the planet. HMMMMM agenda driven? perhaps, perhaps not.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 06:09 am
@farmerman,
I don't read this joker's posts, so i only know of the drivel he posts when someone quotes it (and if that happens too often, then i'll avoid reading the posts of anyone quoting him). Inasmuch as i was not discussing the relative efficiency of any particular industry, this is a straw man, it is irrelevant to what i have been saying. It also ignores a distinction which i have been making, which is that domestic live stock are a manageable resources, one which the human race has been successfully managing for thousands of years--while pelagic fishing draws upon a wild source which it is doubtful may be managed, and for which it often appears that no sincere effort at management is being made.

Additionally, some recent methods of catching the fish are appallingly wasteful, which suggests to me that the member in question hasn't really checked into this very much at all. When you suck up every living thing in sight in the ocean, separate your commercially valuable species, and dump the rest, dead, back into the ocean, it is hard to think that this were any more efficient than livestock production and slaughter.

Finally, as Lil Kay has pointed out, nutritionists suggest that we don't need as much as half a pound of an animal protein source a day--so whether it were derived from a wasteful and inefficient domestic livestock source, or a wasteful and inefficient wild pelagic fish source becomes irrelevant.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 06:17 am
@farmerman,
One difference which should be fairly obvious....

The question of over fishing involves only a question of planetary husbandry, and not of morals. Killing whales is a moral problem. Whales are mammals which are provably as intelligent as we are, and there no way in hell we should be killing ANY of them, period, unless some group of them has committed some warlike act against us which, to my knowledge at least, has never happened.


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 06:28 am
@Setanta,
As I was saying before, I was never allowed on a long liner or a commercial Banks-fisher . However Ive seen the nets being selected for the catch and all the other fish and mammals that are caught are just overboarded. It is a shame to discount all that wasted ocean life.

When I the results of some folks parsed arguments from cherry picked isolated quotes and missing the substance of anyones thoughts I wonder about disingenuousness .
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 06:39 am
I have not been very fortunate in the sources i have been able to find, and that can undoubtedly be attributed to my not being terribly clever about searching for material. Here is a sampling of the things i have been finding, though:

From the Japan Times, an article on a study of the history of bluefin tuna fishing in coastal and inland sea waters:

Quote:
Based on his studies, he believes the bluefin catch soared from 1,000 tons to 5,000 tons in the 1910s to almost 20,000 tons in the 1930s.

He attributed the sharp rise to the emergence of fishing vessels equipped with engines that allowed fishermen to expand their range.

Muto said that considering the extensive fishing off Kushiro in eastern Hokkaido and coastal areas in the 1930s, he assumed the bluefin haul could have gone up to 25,000 tons during the peak period.


http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20080418f4.html

(Please note that all of Dr. Muto's references are to coastal and inland sea fisheries in the Japanese archipelago, as opposed to commercial pelagic fishing elsewhere in the Pacific, or in the Atlantic, Indian or Southern oceans, or the Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean.)

I do believe, though, that this shows the dramatic increase in the exploitation of wild fish sources--from 1000 tons a year a century ago, to 25,000 tons in the period after the cod war between China and Japan in the 1930s. Several sources i have encountered state that China's importation of seafood now exceeds that of Japan. I'm not simply "picking on" Japan, i'm just using them as exemplary of the increased use of wild fish sources, with the concomitant decline of wild fish stocks--many nearing collapse.

**************************************************

This passage from an FAO-dot-org page shows evidence of the Japanese increasing their pelagic fishing activities outside home waters after the Second World War--i have included below a passage on their expansion of the whaling activities, too. I suggest that not simply Japan, but many nations began to dramatically increase their exploitation of wild fish sources in the period since the end of that war.

Quote:
Tuna fishing activity in post WW II in Micronesia was remarkably different. Much of the fishery infrastructure and tuna vessels were destroyed by war activity and the Japanese and Okinawan fishermen had been repatriated. Under a United Nations trustee arrangement, the United States assumed control of the area, but had much less interest than Japan did previously in economic development, including fisheries. As part of the terms of surrender, geographic restrictions known as MacArthur Lines, were placed on the movements of Japanese vessels, which effectively prevented their tuna fishing in Micronesia. These lines were extended four times and finally the last MacArthur Line was lifted in April 1952, at which time the Japanese government began encouraging the construction of large longline and pole-and-line tuna vessels (Peatie, 1988; Matsuda, 1987). Nine Japanese longline/mothership expeditions took place in Micronesia in 1950 and 1951 under temporary permission of the USA military (Felando, 1987). Although Japanese fishing activity in what were then high seas areas gradually returned to the Micronesian region, USA government restrictions on economic activity ashore were held in place until the mid-1970s and precluded any return to the fish processing bases developed before the War.

In the early 1950s the activities of the Japan-based pole-and-line vessels were limited to fishing close to Japan by their need to carry live bait, but later improvements in technology allowed those vessels to increase their range from their Japanese bases. By the early 1960s Japanese pole and line vessels were fishing in the areas near the northern Marianas and Palau during their near-Japan off-season (Rothschild and Uchida, 1968; Skipjack Programme, 1984) and during the next ten years were fishing well south of the equator. Longline vessels also expanded their range; in 1952 their fishing area included most of Micronesia and by 1962 most parts of the Pacific between 40o north and south latitude [note: i have no idea what the author means by this cryptic reference to what one can only assume was, for the author, a reference to latitude.] had been explored by Japanese longline fishermen (Matsuda, 1987). Significant American tuna initiatives were also under way. (This paragraph was completed with a description of American expansion into Pacific tuna grounds).

The Japanese were also active in establishing facilities in the Pacific Islands area. Between the early 1950s and the early 1960s, tuna longline bases were established in Pago Pago (American Samoa), Santo Island (Vanuatu), Noumea (New Caledonia), Papeete (French Polynesia) and Levuka (Fiji). In most cases these facilities supplied raw product, mainly albacore, to canneries in Hawaii and the USA mainland (Doulman, 1987). At the same time, the Japan-based pole-and-line vessels continued to expand their range, with fishing operations eventually reaching even the southern parts of the Pacific Islands area, with 300 pole-and-line vessels participating seasonally in the fishery.


http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ai001e/ai001e05.htm

***************************************************

This passage from a Wikipedia article is offered to show the growth of the Japanese whaling industry after the war.

Quote:
General Douglas MacArthur encouraged the surrendered Japan to continue whaling in order to provide a cheap source of meat to starving people (and millions of dollars in oil for the USA and Europe).[29] The Japanese whaling industry quickly recovered as MacArthur authorized two tankers, converted into factory ships (Hashidate Maru and Nisshin Maru), with catcher boats to once again, take blue whales, fins, humpbacks and sperm whales in the Antarctic and elsewhere.[30]

The first post-war expedition was overseen by a US naval officer, Lieutenant David McCracken, and observed by Australian Kenneth Coonan. Coonan expressed disapproval of McCracken in his reports of violated regulations and waste dumped over the side when the fleet began killing whales faster than they could be processed. McCracken even briefly joined in whaling with the Japanese crew of a catch boat and detailed the trip in his 1948 book, Four Months on a Jap Whaler.[31]

The post-war recovery established whale meat as a nation-wide food source for the first time. In 1947 whale meat made up over 50 percent of the meat consumed in Japan. The market significantly increased through commercial sale and public distribution. In 1954, the School Lunch Act also included whale meat in compulsory education (elementary and middle school) to improve the nutrition of Japanese children. However, as economic growth and average income improved, the demand for whale decreased. Other meats became more popular into the 1970s and whale meat was removed from school menus.[32]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#World_War_II

(I have left the numbers of the notes in the quote of the article, so that anyone visiting the Wikipedia page can quickly find the references which have been cited. The contents of this article are disputed. I have perused the Discussion page (often referred to at Wikipedia as "the Talk page," and do not find any disputes about the portion of the text i have quoted.)

************************************************

This brief passage from the New Zealand fisheries ministry is simply offered as more evidence of the expansion of the Japanese pelagic fishing industry after the Second World War:

Quote:
Japanese fishing boats first start to appear off New Zealand's waters in the late 1950s. Their presence, and the UK setting up a 12 mile limit in 1964, become the catalyst for an extended NZ fishing zone as large quantities of fish are caught by Japan's fishing fleet. The Territorial Sea and Fishing Zone Act 1965 extends New Zealand’s jurisdiction from 3 to 12 miles and empowers MAF to regulate foreign vessels entering the 12 mile zone.


From the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries.

**********************************************************

In another thread, i commented that the consumption of one half pound of seafood per day per capita in Japan is obscene. Since the time, i have seen sources which were too brief to quote here, which put that figure at half that amount, or even as low as 3 ounces per capita per day. However, in a nation of 127,000,000, three ounces per capita per day of processed fish is still an enormous quantity. Coupled with the fact that the Japanese also eat the production of domestic livestock, and import beef, it is an amazing amount of animal protein being consumed by them annually. I suspect the same could be said of the United States.

What i have offered above is to show the increase in the exploitation of pelagic fish sources by the Japanese in relatively recent times, within a century or less. It might be possible to show the same increase in the exploitation of these sources by other nations. If one does not wish to call it cultural, it still cannot be ignored that nations have chosen to exploit this resource, and i don't see any compelling evidence provided here that this is the only source nations may turn to.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 06:40 am
@farmerman,
There seem to be an awful lot of political agendas in play, too, and in the whaling threads that is starkly evident.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 09:06 am
@Setanta,
Agreed, but I wanna keep these separate ifn I can. Then I cannot be accused of being duped by a cute fuzzy fish or lobster. Im more amazed at how we wish to oversimplify these things. Black or white, no greys.

I think we all recognize that ocean fish is a major staple in world diets. The real point is that noone , save a few , give a tinkers damn about the real issues of sustainability. Its all about the catch today and about how ceratin populations need their fish to survive. We have an entire industry of aquaculture that the Japanese were busy piloting during the early 20th century. They can easily use their management skills to export the technology to countries where they can partner with the locals to grow and produce world feeding fish stocks like halibut, pollock, and shellfish .

In the US , of our 80% of fish imports (most of which is shrimp and presssed "fake lobster and crab" Over half are from aquaculture sources WE import farm raised salmon, halibi=ut, flounder, shrimp shrimp,crab and some oysters and clams. Soon the artificially sustained , farm raised fish will be optimized for all the world to take, thus obviating all the ocean bottom vacuuming and crashing fish stocks.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 04:11:55