Are we destined to a future without seafood?

from JoeUser Forums

Competing science and articles today on a topic that remains somewhat near and dear to me.  As a person that grew up in the Chesapeake bay area, with relatives that lived the life of watermen (and women), I'm very familar with those that used to make their living harvesting seafood of various types and selling it to those that wanted to enjoy it on their dinner tables.

In my younger days, I even participated in that life by helping my father and grandfather dive for oyster's in the Patuxent river and then selling those oysters we had harvested to the "buy boats" that bought the catches for use by the big oyster packing plants.  There was also catching blue crabs and selling those to crab houses or customers that wanted them to steam their own crabs.

Sadly, over time the life of the traditional waterman (or woman) has changed fairly drastically.  The bountiful harvests of my youth, which were nothing compared to the harvests of my parents youth, served to spur on commercial harvesting with the tools of the commercial watermen -- oyster dredge boats, big mechanical harvesters and the like.  There was also oodles of crap pots (traps) and other similar devices that were much more efficient at catching the targeted sea creatures.

Oddly enough, before writing this article, and before seeing a couple of articles that show up in today's headlines at Drudge (arguing over potential bogus science in reports that we may use up available seafood within the next 40 years) there was an article in today's D.C. area print media (thanks to The Washington Times article: 'Ghost pots' pose hazard {to marine life}) that talked about the dangers of abandoned crap pots and other traps and the effect those traps continue to have on the ecology.  It is a fascinating piece, and worth reading. The print version all the more fascinating thanks to photographic images that researches have used to detect crab pots along the shorelines in various places -- many of which were abandoned.

While that article is out today, there was also a headline article in the competing paper, The Washington Post that trumpeted news from the Associated Press and others: Overfishing May Harm Seafood Population.

(In the interest of fairness, there is also this article from The Seattle Times: Will seafood nets be empty? Grim outlook draws skeptics with the great quote replicated here:

But other scientists question that forecast.
"It's just mind-boggling stupid," said Ray Hilborn, a University of Washington professor of aquatic and fishery sciences.
"I'm worried about some areas of the world — like Africa — but other areas of the world have figured out how to do effective fishery management."
For example, most of the harvests in the North Pacific off Alaska — where most Seattle fleets fish — are not in sharp decline.

These articles also coincide (not so nicely) with an article I saw in yesterday's local print media (may have been The Washington Examiner, The Express (a side product of the Washington Post), or The Washington Times, not sure which) that talked about the declining size/weight of the infamous Chesapeake bay striped bass, aka Rock fish.  While the harvests weren't horrible, they weren't great either.  Blamed primarily on a dry spring and a lack of fresh water entering the ecosystem.

While some former JU regulars (long since banished or disappeared of their own accord) who were somewhat militantly defensive of the environment may not believe if of me, I do worry about my environment, and think that we're headed into a time when drastic measures are going to be needed to help save marine life (and in turn ourselves) from ourselves.  Maryland went through a program a few years ago with Rock fishing all but banned so that the Rock fish population could be built back up naturally.  I supported that program then, and wish it had been continued and applied to Chesapeake bay Oysters and Blue Crabs as well.  I personally think we should rotate through those various harvests being off limits over a period of approximately 20 years.  Each year severely restrict the allowed catches of one of those big 3.  Rock fish, followed by Blue Crabs, followed by Oysters, followed again by Rock fish, etc.

It seems that perhaps we should also include some other fish species in the mix as well, such as Perch and Spot.  All with the same intention -- let the various marine creatures repopulate without harvesting them to death while they're still growing and recovering to adult sizes that can in turn reproduce and help repopulate the Chesapeake Bay.

Will my proposal ever come to pass?  Probably not, but it seems like what we may have to do if we don't get things under control and let the marine life help bring the Chesapeake Bay and other similar ecosystems back into balance.  If we fail, we won't just be failing these poor creatures, we'll be failing ourselves and future generations.  Something we can not really afford to do.

1,297 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

A few choice quotes from the Associated Press article linked above:

From The Washington Post article:

Clambakes, crabcakes, swordfish steaks and even humble fish sticks could be little more than a fond memory in a few decades. If current trends of overfishing and pollution continue, the populations of just about all seafood face collapse by 2048, a team of ecologists and economists warns in a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
"Whether we looked at tide pools or studies over the entire world's ocean, we saw the same picture emerging. In losing species we lose the productivity and stability of entire ecosystems," said the lead author Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

... continued:

"At this point 29 percent of fish and seafood species have collapsed _ that is, their catch has declined by 90 percent. It is a very clear trend, and it is accelerating," Worm said. "If the long-term trend continues, all fish and seafood species are projected to collapse within my lifetime _ by 2048."
"It looks grim and the projection of the trend into the future looks even grimmer," he said. "But it's not too late to turn this around. It can be done, but it must be done soon. We need a shift from single species management to ecosystem management. It just requires a big chunk of political will to do it."

Again, not good news. Even if the science is somewhat debatable, I think the harvests themselves are facts that can't be ignored. We are bringing in fewer and fewer creatures with each passing harvest. Those that we do bring in always seem to be smaller and less meaty than those that we used to get.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

While I haven't read up on it, nor studied it,  I do know that Mn. has laws and programs in place to help the fish population.

We are truly bound to ruin the planet and our blessings if we don't take care of it.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
T the amount of fresh fish and seafoods consumed in China alone on a daily basis is frightening. I am not surprised we are being "fished" out all around the world.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

I supported that program then, and wish it had been continued and applied to Chesapeake bay Oysters and Blue Crabs as well.

The Chesepeake Bay Foundation is one of my primary charitible foundations.  I am with you.  That one I can support!  A clean bay helps us all.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
This really bothers me as well. I really hope that some of those who have the power to change things take notice and start making changes to prevent this from happening. I am an environmentalist in my heart but I need to start taking more action. I guess a love of nature and concern is a start.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, we are.

Everyone will have to eat tofu.

The big story in Japan is that fishing limits for maguro (big tuna) was cut by about 50%. I don't know why this limit was imposed. The news shows went on a great deal about the cut and not the reason that the gov't agreed to this limit. I guess these are worldwide limits. Most countries had little change to their targets. But Japan had the largest share of tuna caught. Prices are going to sky-rocket and there is going to be a lot of illegal fishing going on.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay. I actually extended myself enough to look up the reason on-line. Japan had the big cut because it admitted to overfishing the blue-fin tuna. Interesting that little fact wasn't mentioned during the news broadcast and talk show I saw. Maybe I missed it and hubby (Japanese guy) didn't catch it. But I remember both of us being puzzled about the reason Japan would agree to such a decrease.

Here's a link Link

Still, Australia catches 40% of the world catch and had only a really small reduction. Maybe this is the reward for not over-fishing before. But still, if everyone is so freaked out about the tuna stock, why not take a bigger reduction. Stock tip, buy shares in Australian tuna because the demand for blue-fin is not going to go down and according to news shows, Chinese consumers are really getting into maguro.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know that Florida and other Gulf states currently have a ban on Grouper fishing because they have been nearly wiped out. This is the problem when we develop more and more efficient commercial fishing techniques. We have the ability to catch them faster than they can reproduce.

While Grouper is my favorite fish I happily do without it in order to allow the species a chance to repopulate. I think we (people) have wiped out far too many species as it is and we need to become more responsible.

I've heard some of the news reports regarding the seafood issue and while I know a single person doesn't really make an impact, I'll be foregoing eating any seafood until such a time as the problem is corrected.