This Century Is The Last Century Of Wild Seafood ? This century is the last century of wild seafood ??

[talktime 0]

Here is a latest news regarding 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.

 

"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."

 

Do you think this might be true? what could be done to aviod this?

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Seafood species face extinction

PETER CALAMAI

 

 

The rate of marine biodiversity loss is accelerating and, at current rates, there will be little sustainable fish or seafood available by mid-century, scientists say.

 

Researchers warn in the journal Science that 90 per cent of present-day marine fish, crustaceans, shellfish and other currently eaten species of seafood could vanish in 50 years.

 

But the study's lead author, Canadian fisheries researcher Boris Worm, thinks countries will correct the present overfishing, economic mismanagement and environmental degradation before that happens.

 

"I personally don't think the current trend of depleting fish species will continue. I think we're smart enough to realize where we're heading, and avoid it," Worm said in an interview.

 

To avoid this catastrophe, the scientists say countries must manage entire marine ecosystems and not just individual fish species as today. They also urge the creation of extensive "no-fish" zones, the aquatic version of national parks.

 

To reach their conclusions, researchers from across the globe, including Canada and the U.S., did a "meta-analysis" of existing studies to quantify how the loss of marine diversity locally, regionally and globally has affected the marine ecosystem and services provided to humans.

 

The scientists' report concludes that 29 per cent of the fish and seafood species now being caught have already collapsed to less than one-tenth of their historical maximum catch.

 

"This isn't based on models or assumptions. This is a very clear trend and it's speeding up," said Worm.

 

Many scientific studies have demonstrated the importance of biodiversity at the local level. But this study shows for the first time that every species matters at the global level as well.

 

Even the disappearance of one species reduces the biodiversity of an ecosystem. In turn, reduced biodiversity means the oceans produce less food, have lower resistance to disease and pollution and can't rebound as well from stresses like climate change, according to the report's comprehensive review of scientific studies.

 

The scientists analyzed 32 small-scale biodiversity experiments, larger studies of 48 locales where fishing was banned and global fish catch records from 1950 to 2003.

 

They also took a special look at ecosystem changes over the past 1,000 years in 12 coastal areas, including the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, using archives, sediment cores and archeological findings.

 

"If we don't change how we manage ocean species, then this is going to be the last century for the recognizable seafood we eat now. We'll be eating sea squid soup and jellyfish pie instead," said co-author Steve Palumbi, a marine biologist at California's Stanford University.

 

Palumbi rejected criticisms by other experts that "no-fish" zones — marine protected areas — amount to an admission of defeat in fisheries management.

 

"Even if you don't have severe overfishing, you need marine protected areas so you know how the ecosystem operates without fishing," Palumbi said. The protected areas also let a few fish grow old and big, which can be important in the long-term health of species, he said.

 

The study found that restoring biodiversity in protected areas spilled over to the surrounding waters, where fishermen caught four times as many fish with the same effort as before. As well, the protected ecosystems were 21 per cent less susceptible to swings from environmental or human pressures.

 

"These results suggest that at this point it is still possible to recover lost biodiversity, at least on local to regional scales," the Science paper states.

 

The crucial question is whether governments in Canada and elsewhere will heed this wake-up call, said fisheries conservation advocate Bob Rangeley.

 

A former scientist with the federal fisheries department, Rangeley now directs marine programs in Atlantic Canada for the World Wildlife Fund.

 

"The good news story here is that there's important potential wealth to be gained from our oceans that we're currently squandering," Rangeley said.

 

The new study comes only a week after three scientists shared the $240,000 Volvo Environment Prize for their research on global fisheries and ocean ecosystems. Two of the scientists are Canadians: Daniel Pauly and Carl Walters from the University of British Columbia; the third, Ray Hilborn, worked in Canada for a decade.

 

Source: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

I wouldn't be surprised if this was true, we are polluting the seas, overfishing and etc. so I wouldn't be surprised at all.

 

Heck, even the Grand Banks off the coast of Newfoundland is nearly depleted. In the 1600s, one bucket scoop can already have tonnes of fish. Now? You need to wait for hours for a single fish.

 

xboxrulz

Edited November 3, 2006 by xboxrulz (see edit history)

[Frankie1405241533 0]

It's a shame.

[demolaynyc 0]

I think this news should get more exposure from tv news channels instead of the internet because this is pretty big stuff. And also the Global Warming issue should also get some exposure I already found out about a new movie coming out soon about it. I love seafood and I hope it doesn't die out in 50 years. I think 50 years is long enough for the fishermen to be informed by this or a law passed I don't know but something should be done. This could ruin the whole ecosystem.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

well, it's not just on the Internet, the quote/article I got was from the Toronto Star, which IS a newspaper company.xboxrulz

[austiniskoge 0]

Wow. That's incredible and mind blowing.It's more testament to the awful things we are currently doing to our planet.

[Markymark2 0]

I think this is appaling!!! please all of you stop eating Fish!!I stopped in the 80's when cod stocks were collapsing in the UK and Europe and ofc all the propganda about Dolphins in Tuna nets..The worst thing is about all of this...its been predicted for 20 years already and no one has done anything about it..In Europe for instance the UK and Scotland are banned from fishing for cod in the North Sea..but hey the Spanish and Greeks fish there everyday breaking all the EU rules..but nothing happens to them!! so they think they shouldnt stop..then the Scottish fishermen see them gettting away with it..so they go out too...Whats interesting is the fact that if we want to eat fish (personally i wont ever eat it again..really gone off the taste in the last 20 yrs) we will have to setup up big commercial fish farms to do it..and the only people with the money to do this will be MultiNational companies...so maybe soon ALL fish will be Walmart fish!! I just love a good conspiracy!!! ALso fish in these farms have to be fed all kinds of chemicals and hormones to keep them healthy...just like they used to use in our food in the 70s and 80s....so eating fish will NOT be healthy and nutrious..just quick and easy for the multinationals to breed and sell to you...Already in Scotland theres been really nasty diseases in Salmon farms which has lead to millions of fish being culled cos it was uneatable and poisioness to humans...Good luck and thanks for all the fish (that I didnt eat)

[Quatrux 4]

I heard about this too, but I am not really worried about it, because fish is cool for one thing, it is quite easy to clone them, they are all the same, do you sea a difference of the same fish? We (people) catch a lot of fish every year and when we will get more advanced in the cloning area (this century definitely) It will be possible to clone billions of fish in our oceans and in that way we will have a lot of fish to eat. But to tell the truth I don't like fish, I don't eat sea food. So cloning also has positive things, but I wouldn't like it to be used for people.. We also can clone bulls, cows, pigs, sheep in the farms. :DBut that doesn't sound to good too, but the world is changing and you can't do anything about it, people won't finish fishing, they usually don't thing about the future, they think about present and money.

[yeh 0]

Do you think this might be true? what could be done to aviod this?

Yup... I do think it is true. This is becoz fishes in the ocean doesn't actually belong to someone and so it is pretty hard to regulate the industry. Self-regulation amongst fishermen is the only way to go but alas... people are naturally short-sighted and so I don't forsee anyting being done. Nature just have to run its course. As fish stocks depletes, the number of fishermen would decline and there might even be instances where the whole fishing industry just collapses... that would give the fish time to replenish itself. The bigger worry is more of pollution as polluted waters might actually kill off everything and what we are left would be a dead sea, so to speak.

As for farming the fishes that we eat, I think that would be the way to go in the future. Come on, most of the stuff that we eat aren't wild anymore. Our vegetables, pork, beef, chicken, mutton, ostriches etc. are mostly farmed. And as human population continues to explode, if we want to eat fish, then we would have to farm them. And it is not that far-fetched since we already farmed salmon and sturgeon that produces caviar. Hehe... I'm waiting for them to farm sharks so that I can indulge myself without guilt in shark's fin. Currently, I try to avoid shark's fin whenever possible.

[Hercco 0]

Shocking...

[webintern 0]

NOOOOOOOO!! I absolutely adore seafood, particularly when they are fresh (and cooked; not the processed kinds). This is one big reason I gravitate toward coastal cities (okay, there are the beaches, too). Although not currently, I have practically lived by the sea all my life.

[talktime 0]

Seafood is my favorite food. It is disappointing to see the depletion of seafood. In my area fresh seafood rates went up 5 times in last 15 years. More and more people are eating seafood and there is lesser stock in the ocean. Hopefully we find some way to preserve this great wealth.

[beatgammit 0]

This doesn't alarm me too much. As time goes on, the government will increasingly put new restrictions on pollution as it has been since the industrial revolution. The EPA won't let something like this happen. Plus, I don't believe all of the Global Warming hype. We are part of a larger trend, and there is no way to pinpoint this on us.

[talktime 0]

This doesn't alarm me too much. As time goes on, the government will increasingly put new restrictions on pollution as it has been since the industrial revolution. The EPA won't let something like this happen. Plus, I don't believe all of the Global Warming hype. We are part of a larger trend, and there is no way to pinpoint this on us.

I agree with you when you say government will put larger restrictions on pollution. But to control it is very difficult and alomost impossible. Once the sea life starts depleting there is no way you can increase it. It is something easy to damage and hard to recover. Look at the other extint specis and we know how humanity failed to preserv the natural resorces. Many birds, animals like tiger cheetah and snakes as well as plants are being extint because of human intervantion. there is protection to these in many countries but this is really not helping. I want to be hopeful about seafood but I cant be realistically.