How we wrecked the ocean

MakiSupaStar · #1 05-10-2011, 10:54 AM

This is marine biologist Jeremy Jackson. He does a great job of explaining the state of our oceans from the perspective of coral bleaching, climate change, and overfishing.

Jeremy Jackson: How we wrecked the ocean | Video on TED.com

While this is compelling and scary enough, he doesn't even go into other factors that are taking their toll on our oceans like man-made and natural disasters (BP Oil Spill, Fukishima, Volcanic eruptions, the increasing number of coal power plants going on line, etc).

()smoke() · #2 05-10-2011, 10:56 AM

haven't watched yet, but wanted to say i really enjoy most of the TED talks i've seen, great forum for expressing ideas

MakiSupaStar · #3 05-10-2011, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ()smoke()

haven't watched yet, but wanted to say i really enjoy most of the TED talks i've seen, great forum for expressing ideas

Yeah me too. There's so much good stuff.

**pacojas** · #4 05-10-2011, 10:58 AM

i'm afraid to watch it. (i had sea food recently)

MakiSupaStar · #5 05-10-2011, 11:15 AM

It's not the fish you just ate as much as the fish you won't be able to eat.

chuck norriss · #6 05-10-2011, 11:29 AM

**pacojas** · #7 05-10-2011, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

It's not the fish you just ate as much as the fish you won't be able to eat.

sort of,.. profound and scarey!

jonathan_matos5 · #8 05-10-2011, 11:37 AM

i farted in the ocean once(ok more than once). but as for that other stuff. it wasn't me.

MJ5150 · #9 05-10-2011, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pacojas

i'm afraid to watch it. (i had sea food recently)

Me too, and I don't even eat seafood. These kinds of stories break my heart.

-Mike

**Thor** · #10 05-10-2011, 01:02 PM

An article of interest I saw yesterday.

Source, Seafood.com Original article from NY Times.

Quote:

Submit Comment •
Print Story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Gloomiest predictions on global fish stocks increasingly discredited

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [New York Times] By FELICITY BARRINGER - May 10, 2011-

We recently published a story on a major paper by Univ. of Washington professor Trevor Branch, Ray Hilborn, and others, (link[See text below])documenting how claims such as 70% of the world's fish stocks are collapsed or overfished are in fact exaggerated. Last week, the New York Times picked up on this in a favorable way, and laid out just how much traction the arguments by Branch, Hilborn, et al have gotten. - JS)[John Sackton -Publisher of Seafood.com, seafood industry news letter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY Times

Two University of Washington scientists have just published a study in the journal Conservation Biology in collaboration with colleagues from Rutgers University and Dalhousie University arguing that the gloomiest predictions about the world's fisheries are significantly exaggerated.

The new study takes issue with a recent estimate that 70 percent of all stocks have been harvested to the point where their numbers have peaked and are now declining, and that 30 percent of all stocks have collapsed to less than one-tenth of their former numbers. Instead, it finds that at most 33 percent of all stocks are over-exploited and up to 13 percent of all stocks have collapsed.

It's not that fisheries are in great shape, said Trevor Branch, the lead author of the new study; it's just that they are not as badly off as has been widely believed. In 2006, a study in the journal Science predicted a general collapse in global fisheries by 2048 if nothing were done to stem the decline.

The work led by Dr. Branch is another salvo in a scientific dispute - feud might be a better word - that pits Dr. Branch and his co-author Ray Hilborn at the University of Washington's School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences and their allies against scientists at the University of British Columbia and their partisans.

The latest paper argues that the methodology resulting in the most dire estimates, derived from records of the amount of fish caught, is not as accurate as data from the more broadly based United Nations assessment, based on the estimated biomass of available stocks of individual species.

When the catch-based approach was applied to data on 234 global fish stocks from 1950 to 2006, it showed that 68 percent of all fisheries were either over-exploited (46 percent) or collapsed (22 percent) by the end of that period, while none were increasing.

By contrast, when an assessment is based on an estimate of biomass, it showed that 28 percent of fisheries were either over-exploited (15 percent) or collapsed (13 percent). The second method also indicated 24 percent of the stocks were increasing.

<Biomass graph image won't upload >

But Dirk Zeller, a scientist at the University of British Columbia who is on the other side of the debate, doesn't buy all of Dr. Branch's arguments. Yes, he said, using fish stock data is preferable to using catch data. But if reliable fish stock data is only available in developed countries like the United States or Australia ï¿½ where fisheries management is reasonably well developed ï¿½ what good is it in determining what is happening in the rest of the world?

Dr. Zeller said that Dr. Branch and his University of Washington colleague Ray Hilborn had taken a stand in some previous papers that 'if you look at fish stocks that have formal stock assessment processes, you find that many of them ï¿½ not all ï¿½ are relatively healthy. That's valid.'

'Where their argument falls down is that they extrapolate that pattern to global fisheries, and then say global fisheries aren't doing that bad,' he said. 'They totally ignore the fact that all of Asia, all of South America, all of Africa are not included.'

Dr. Zeller added that 234 stocks are a tiny subset of thousands of species currently being fished, not a sample from which one can derive broad conclusions.

His University of British Columbia colleague Daniel Pauly, who has objected to Dr. Branch's work on other other occasions, is blunter. 'The school of fisheries around Branch and Hilborn are now contesting everything that seems to be established,' he said in an interview. 'The point is not whether you use catches or estimates of biomass inferred from other data. The point is that you make proper inferences.'

(Here is Dr. Branch's rebuttal of an earlier critique by Dr. Pauly.)

Yet scientists on both sides do cede a little ground.

'I have no argument with the point that with stocks that are well managed you can have sustainable fisheries,' Dr. Zeller said. He pointed out that he and Dr. Pauly have adjusted their online database to reflect a critique by Dr. Branch that their analysis had given short shrift to rebounding fish stocks. But he does maintain that data from catches are more applicable on a global scale than other data sets.

Dr. Branch, for his part, says that catch data has value for some uses as long as it is handled with care.

Even without the aid of mathematical modeling, it is possible to predict that fish population debates themselves will remain sustainable for some time to come.

I find vastly differing viewpoints in the scientific community, the marine sectors, fishing vessel operators, processors, distributors, retailers, sport fishing lobbies and environmental groups as to the state of the oceans currently and the implications for the future. As far as maintaining the oft quoted level of sustainable seafood harvests of 80 million tons on an ever increasingly hungry planet, increased aquacultural effort seems to be the paradigm of choice. This presents siginificant environmental challenges of its own, however.

Let's see how this thread develops. but IMH opinion, the sky is not falling just yet; significant efforts have been
made in the seafood industry towards transparency and sustainability in wild caught fisheries as well as responsible practices in aquacultural operations.

Edit. I am going to add the links and just clean up the clarity a bit on the quote.

Also, here is the study excerpted above with the full reference listed at the end. Again, Seafood.com published the excerpt quoted:

Quote:

Far fewer global fish stocks are collapsed or overfished than thought, says UW study

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [seafoodnews.com] April 29, 2011

A major new study by Dr. Trevor Branch and colleagues at the University of Washington shows that estimates of collapsed and overfished stocks may be exaggerated. Branch, writing in the Journal of Conservation Biology, argues that actual scientific data on biomass shows that a much smaller proportion of fish stocks are collapsed or overfished, than studies that rely on catch statistics.

The oft repeated claim that 30% of global fisheries are collapsed, and 70% are either overexploited or collapsed, is generally based on extrapolating catch data. Branch shows that when the actual biomass of these stocks is measured, the picture looks different. He finds that using biomass measurements, about 12% of global fisheries are collapsed (meaning that the stock is less than 10% of its unexploited state), and 26% are either overexploited or collapsed, meaning another 14% have biomass levels less than 50% of that necessary to produce a long term maximum sustainable yield.

Why is the conventional wisdom about fish stocks wrong? Because measurements of catches only do not take into account political, market, and taxonomic changes that make the data less reliable.

According to the Univ. of Washington statement on the study, fish and marine species are among the most threatened wildlife on earth, due partly to over exploitation by fishing fleets. Yet there are differences in assessing trends in worldwide fishing stocks which, researchers writing in Conservation Biology argue, stem from inappropriate use of time trends in catches.

"Estimates of fishery status based on catches suggest that around 30% of fisheries are collapsed and 70% are overexploited or collapsed," said lead author Dr Trevor Branch from the University of Washington in Seattle. "Our assessment shows that the data are seriously biased, and that instead we should be looking at biomass data."

Biomass data from scientific stock assessments indicated a much smaller proportion in these categories (12% collapsed, 26% overexploited or collapsed), and that status trends are stable. Dr Branch's analysis suggests that in most regions fisheries management has led to stabilization, and even recovery, of fished populations.

"Species which are targeted by fishing fleets are divided into stocks, a division of species into units based on political boundaries, genetic divergence, and biological characteristics," said Branch. "The depletion of these stocks has important implications for ecosystem biodiversity; however methods of measuring depletion vary greatly."

Dr Branch's team considered stocks being "collapsed" or "overexploited" on the basis of catch and biomass data. Collapse is defined as biomass of less than 10% of unfished levels while over exploitation is defined by the governments of the United States and Australia as biomass below 50% of biomass that would produce maximum sustained catches. These reference points are widely used in fisheries management, either as management targets or as limits not to be exceeded.

"Our study found the status of stocks worldwide based on catch trends to be almost identical to what would be expected if catches were randomly generated with no trend at all," said Branch, "and that most classifications of collapse on the basis of catch data are not true collapses but are due to taxonomic reclassification, regulatory changes in fisheries, and market changes."

Dr Branch's team argue that where available, biomass data can be used to ground truth catch trends, revealing that catch data greatly overestimates the percentage of stocks collapsed and overexploited.

Although the team's biomass data was primarily from industrial fisheries in developed countries, the status of these stocks estimated from catch data is similar to the status of stocks in the rest of the world estimated from catch data.

"Instead of focusing on what we take out of the oceans (catches), we should be examining the actual state of the ecosystem (biomass data)," concludes Branch. "Catch data produce seriously biased estimates of what is going on in ocean ecosystems, and we need more effort expended on scientific surveys and stock assessments, especially in areas that are currently poorly assessed."

Full Citation: Branch TA, Jensen OP, Ricard D, Ye Y, Hilborn R, "Contrasting global trends in marine fishery status obtained from catches and from stock assessments", Conservation Biology, April 2011, DOI

Relic · #11 05-10-2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

Let's see how this thread develops. but IMH opinion, the sky is not falling just yet; significant efforts have been
made in the seafood industry towards transparency and sustainability in wild caught fisheries as well as responsible practices in aquacultural operations.

I hope you're right Thor... thusfar I've only heard doom and gloom from some very smart people about this and TBH, it's got me just a little worried.

Pilgrim · #12 05-10-2011, 01:16 PM

"When the catch-based approach was applied to data on 234 global fish stocks from 1950 to 2006, it showed that 68 percent of all fisheries were either over-exploited (46 percent) or collapsed (22 percent) by the end of that period, while none were increasing."

"By contrast, when an assessment is based on an estimate of biomass, it showed that 28 percent of fisheries were either over-exploited (15 percent) or collapsed (13 percent). The second method also indicated 24 percent of the stocks were increasing."

One has to remember that the article came from an organization with a vested interest in maintaining the current level of fishery production.

I find an estimate based on biomass somewhat suspect. The term "biomass" is extremely broad, and I'm not sure that it takes into account the behavior or reproductive patterns of the "biomass" involved. For that matter, corn you turn into ethanol is "biomass".

To determine whether you believe either side of this debate requires that you investigate and make a judgment on the methods of estimation that have been mentioned - and that's a tall order.

It is quite sufficient, and probably a gross understatement, to say that current practices in fisheries are at least straining, and possibly exceeding, the capacity of the oceans to replenish the supply of seafood. That in itself is worthy of great concern.

MatticusMania · #13 05-10-2011, 01:48 PM

What about penguins?

fenderhutz · #14 05-10-2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

What about penguins?

Don't taste as good as a filet over a ball of rice.

MatticusMania · #15 05-10-2011, 02:03 PM

So when they say 'chicken of the sea' they are not talking about penguins?

**Staccato** · #16 05-10-2011, 02:12 PM

Thanks for posting this-going to educate the wife with this one, too!

MJ5150 · #17 05-10-2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

What about penguins?

They lost to Tampa Bay in the last round. Season over.

-Mike

MakiSupaStar · #18 05-10-2011, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacatto

Thanks for posting this-going to educate the wife with this one, too!

You should watch the movie 'The End of the Line' too.

sneha1965 · #19 05-10-2011, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

So when they say 'chicken of the sea' they are not talking about penguins?

**Thor** · #20 05-10-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relic

I hope you're right Thor... thusfar I've only heard doom and gloom from some very smart people about this and TBH, it's got me just a little worried.

My take on this is that it is a very complex issue. You are right, there are a lot of smart people examining these issues,
not all of them subscribe to doom and gloom theories.

Like many other fields of scientific inquiry, opinions among the worlds leading scientists vary as the makeup of the universe, the world of particles and the makeup of the planet's ecosystems.

There is one side of this issue that is immense that I can't go into detail here and that is, of course, the politics involved.
Suffice it to say, it is one of the most significant factors in the debate over sustainability and resource allocation and all the apples don't fall too far from this tree.

From the perspective of one guy who has been involved in the commercial side of the seafood business since 1969
(got a pay stub to prove that), I can say that I think we are in a heck of a lot better shape now than any time in the last 50 years. 200 mile limits, ICES, FAO fishing area traceability, public awareness, increased aquaculture and quota restrictions have all had major positive effects on the industry. There is no hardly anyone in this industry that doesn't recognize the benefit of sustainable fishing.

And many of us are quick to ostracize companies that do contravene regulations and participate in IUU fishing and
turn them in to appropriate authorities.

Without sustainabilty, we don't have a livelihood. And you don't have food. No one wins there.

I feel a lot better about our current situation, even with certain parties on the extreme sides of issues, there is
a healthy dialogue that is being engaged in. Just MHO on that.