The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Solving the problem of fish stocks.....  (Read 30480 times)

another_someone

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #25 on: 26/09/2007 16:47:03 »
If you set up a system that employs 5 people, you can carefully select the people involved to ensure whatever criteria you choose.  When you have a worldwide system that must employ thousands, probably millions of people (in one capacity or another), you have to deal with your average human being (including some that are even the wrong side of average).  Whatever system you set up has to manage this diversity of people, and not naively assume that you can hand pick every last one of them.

I agree, but if the farms worked as I am thinking they should, then the Numbers employed in the whole scheme would be small.

Are you really telling me that you expect to run the whole world's fishing industry, and fish farming industry, across 7 continents, with a total of 5 employees (or even anything in that order of magnitude)?

This is a responce to the claims made by environmentalists looking at sea life, if the environmentalists hadn't made the claims, then I would never have considered a way of repairing the damage and problems. Some enviromentalists claim there are problems and want all fishing stopped.
I am therefore just stating that reality, they said 'there is a problem', for them to do so, means they must have an idea of what the sea would be like without any major problems.
No buck passing at all, they brought it up as a problem, I'm asking if this 'fish farm' idea could help solve it?
Nothing more.

Should not the first question then be, prove there is a problem at all?  If you don't feel they have convinced you of what the problem is (at least in broad terms), then I would suggest that they have not even made a convincing argument that there is any problem at all.


Are you saying that you are not interested in the 'health of the sea', but are interested in satisfying the environmentalists?

Hardly, I as I just said, am looking for solutions to problems they have raised. That does however, mean that to a degree I am relying on them.

But you seem to be saying that you don't know what the problems are, and thus cannot really say whether you would consider them to be problems if you actually knew what they were.

The only ways I can think of doing that are:
  • Be more selective about what one catches.  This would mean either avoiding nets altogether, or somehow separating the species of fish before they being enmeshed in the nets.  Either way, I can only see this would be to have some intelligent process operating underwater (it did occur to me that we could use trained dolphins in the way shepherds use sheep dogs; alternatively use robotic equivalents).
  • The other alternative would be to build large and expensive fishing boats that contain large water tanks.  Rather than pulling the fish onto a dry deck, pull them into a shipboard pool, where the fish could be kept alive until the species can be segragated.

I was thinking along lines of an on board tank as well.
I can't believe it would be that expensive, you would fill it with sea water, four sides and a pump. The hard part would be separating the fish. 

Sea water is cheap, but building a ship large enough to contain it is another matter.  Not rocket science, but it does mean building very much larger ships than anything that is commonly in use.

As you say, the hard part then with be the segregation.

This is only for the idea about, charging less for tagged fish, so they throw back natural ones.
This was something I already suggested for other reasons.

For other reasons? Which were?

To make the tagged fish more attractive, and thus to stimulate the activity of the fish farms which are producing the tagged fish.

It rather depends on the type of fish.

Some fish give live birth (although these are probably more likely to be larger fish, that would be difficult to farm anyway).
You could release the pregnant fish in those circumstances.

But this would have all the problems of releasing live fish in any other circumstance.

Well no the problems would be reduced as you would only be releasing a small numbers of fish, rather than massive quantities that would be released under a 'fish farm'.

Not really – although the exact ratio depends on the number of fish each pregnant fish will give birth to.  Even if one looks at a large litter size, you would still only be talking about maybe 8:1, and I think (maybe someone knows better) that those fish that tend to give live births (especially the larger fish) will only give birth to a single offspring at once – so you only have a 1:1 ratio.

But we had discussed earlier that you would be farming fish, because that is how you would produce the eggs (otherwise where does your supply of eggs come from).  The issue was not about whether you farm the fish, but about what you would release into the wild.

Yes you are still farming, just smaller numbers, it would probably be done in tanks. Fish farms today hold huge numbers of live fish, an egg farm would hold far less.

Depends how many eggs you wish to release.  Don't forget that you will only be releasing a small percentage of the eggs you produce back into the wild, otherwise you will not have stock available for subsequent generation.

What we need to design are systems that are flexible enough, and robust enough, to deal with the unforeseen; but not be surprised that there will be unforeseen consequences.

Clearly, we do have some historic experience of what private ownership brings with regard to terrestrial life, as we have in the past first moved from a hunter gatherer lifestyle (roughly where fishing is today), towards agriculture (through various different models of ownership).

Well, if we are looking at ways of preserving natural habitates and ecosystems, the above example of private ownership does not suit the objectives.

That is a statement of prejudice rather than a statement backed by argument.

It rather depends on what you mean by private ownership (after all, in some ways, NGO's may be regarded as under private ownership, insofar as they are owned by their members, just as a Building Society is owned by its members).

Theoretically possible (unless the law forbade it – which is always a possibility); but why would they do it (there may be some reasons for doing it, but some of those reasons might even be legitimate, as it may ultimately be seen in some circumstances as the only way of protecting the species).

They would not be protecting the 'species' they would be protecting their investment.

But if you carefully engineer the two to be the same, then there is no conflict.

There is a instant problem, currently, individuals are leaving the sea to its own devices(to nature), if that changes they will all start playing with it; the outcome could be a good one, but that's unlikely.
We are already fishing, my suggestion is to release fish to make up for the damage done by fishermen, while not allocating ownership of all the fish. 

So releasing fish into the sea is not playing with the environment?

There is nothing we do, not one thing nor the other, that is not in some way playing with the environment.

Two thirds of the Earth is covered by sea, and at present most of the sea is common 'land', and so is freely available to all who choose to use it.  Dry land covers only one third of the Earth, and is generally very expensive to use.  The reasons for a commercial organisation to choose to use an expensive resource like dry land, when they could use a free resource, like the open sea, would have to be very compelling indeed (and if it is that compelling, then it might even be legitimate).

Not forgeting that currently all countries are involved in a sea land grab at the UN.

Not forgetting that – but there is nothing we are talking about that will alleviate that.  No doubt it will present a complicating factor to what we are talking about (and to much else as well), but the underlying fact remains that in the foreseeable future, marine territory will remain orders of magnitude cheaper than dry land.


Economics should be seen as the means and not the ends.  If you design the system correctly, you can use economics as a tool to achieve whatever ends you desire, but the process of economics allows the system to 'genetically' evolve to create the optimum solution to achieve the ends.

Sadly the ends are generally always making money, and as much money as possible.


I totally and utterly disagree with this.

Ofcourse, for a very very small percentage of people, looking at the numbers in their bank account is all they are interested in, but for 99.999999% of the population (including most millionaires and business people) making money is the means they fund what they want to do in life, and is not an end in itself.  For many people who are lucky enough to be in a business they enjoy, the success of there business brings the two together, for others, simply working to make money is a means of achieving something outside of their business.

Ofcourse, I do fully accept that this is dependent on creating the right economic environment to achieve the desired ends, and if you get that wrong, you will indeed have adverse effects.

If you give ownership of the sea to someone they will explot it for economic gain. I cannot see that solving the problem. Even if you put in place strong laws, they can be reversed in court.

As I said, it is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Ofcourse courts can come to perverse judgements, but that is true no matter what the motivating factor is.  Are you really saying that the scheme you are proposing (whatever it may be) would be above the law, and no court could possibly force it to do something you might not agree with?

It is political because it is controlled by political bodies.
In some ways, one cannot effect any social change without involving political entities, but the problem is that politicians are not capable of the management of such projects (no reason why they should be, since it is not expertise in management that got them to be successful politicians).

It should be run by those that want the same objective achieved. So greenpeace or another NGO for example.

Want the same objectives as what – we have still not ascertained what the objectives are (and I will assure you that greenpeace is no less a political body than any other – even if it is not party political – although some countries do have green parties as well, and have often found it rather difficult when they realise that moving from being a pressure group to a real political force means taking responsibility for compromise).

Well yeah, but how do nonexistent fish evolve? The main objective has to be to stop fish going extinct.

As I said right at the beginning, I don't think we will have a marine desert – there are many fish in the sea that are not suitable for human consumption.  In any case, there will come a time where commercial fish stocks become so scarce that they are no longer commercially viable to fish, and at that point they will no longer be fished.

I know, they don't stand still. As an idea you could estermate the total damage done by fishermen and then set that as the objective, to put the sea in a position where human activity goes unnoticed.

You first have to define what is meant by damage – different definitions can lead to different estimates.
« Last Edit: 26/09/2007 16:49:02 by another_someone »
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #26 on: 26/09/2007 20:04:18 »
If you set up a system that employs 5 people, you can carefully select the people involved to ensure whatever criteria you choose.  When you have a worldwide system that must employ thousands, probably millions of people (in one capacity or another), you have to deal with your average human being (including some that are even the wrong side of average).  Whatever system you set up has to manage this diversity of people, and not naively assume that you can hand pick every last one of them.

I agree, but if the farms worked as I am thinking they should, then the Numbers employed in the whole scheme would be small.

Are you really telling me that you expect to run the whole world's fishing industry, and fish farming industry, across 7 continents, with a total of 5 employees (or even anything in that order of magnitude)?

No, for what ever reason you keep thinking along the lines of an overall world market system; that in some ways has checks and balances for fishermen, the proposed fish farms, and anyone else involved, probably up to and including the shops that sell the fish.

All I am really proposing, is a farm that attempts to replace the fish lost through over fishing(and doing it in the simplest way possible), I am therefore only really considering the farms and nothing more.
You would try to keep the numbers as small as possible, its cheaper. You could have 5 people per farm and then say 20 farms over the world, that is only a hundred people, funded by charity, they could just produce and release as many fish as possible, but really given the funding shortages that would undoubtedly arise from working as a charity, they probably wouldn't release that many. No massive networks, little farms trying to make a difference. 

This is a responce to the claims made by environmentalists looking at sea life, if the environmentalists hadn't made the claims, then I would never have considered a way of repairing the damage and problems. Some environmentalists claim there are problems and want all fishing stopped.
I am therefore just stating that reality, they said 'there is a problem', for them to do so, means they must have an idea of what the sea would be like without any major problems.
No buck passing at all, they brought it up as a problem, I'm asking if this 'fish farm' idea could help solve it?
Nothing more.

Should not the first question then be, prove there is a problem at all? 

Quote
We have had declines up to 90% of some fish, and overfishing seems to be the main culprit.  Whether or not fish stocks can recover is a different matter, we may have altered the marine ecosystem so much that recovery might not be possible.

I consider that a problem. The recovery of fish stock is an objective, but what counts as satisfactory level for the stocks? I can not answer that, can you? Can anyone?

What we need to design are systems that are flexible enough, and robust enough, to deal with the unforeseen; but not be surprised that there will be unforeseen consequences.

Clearly, we do have some historic experience of what private ownership brings with regard to terrestrial life, as we have in the past first moved from a hunter gatherer lifestyle (roughly where fishing is today), towards agriculture (through various different models of ownership).

Well, if we are looking at ways of preserving natural habitates and ecosystems, the above example of private ownership does not suit the objectives.

That is a statement of prejudice rather than a statement backed by argument.

Clearly, the natural habitate outside my window is thriving. All the wolves and bears trying to eat me. Hardly based on prejudice, as you said before with agriculture people worked to protect their interests, so they could if the owned one fish, work to remove other fish that ate their fish(that would clearly improve the ecosystem).

So releasing fish into the sea is not playing with the environment?

There is a difference I am proposing replacing what fishermen have taken, if you only put back what has been removed then it is not so much playing, as it is attempting to compensate for other human action.

I totally and utterly disagree with this.

Ofcourse, for a very very small percentage of people, looking at the numbers in their bank account is all they are interested in, but for 99.999999% of the population (including most millionaires and business people) making money is the means they fund what they want to do in life, and is not an end in itself.  For many people who are lucky enough to be in a business they enjoy, the success of there business brings the two together, for others, simply working to make money is a means of achieving something outside of their business.

That is not about individuals, it is about corporations/companies, individuals may work for money to do things. Corporations generally work to make as much money as possible for there shareholders. There is a difference.

Are you really saying that the scheme you are proposing (whatever it may be) would be above the law, and no court could possibly force it to do something you might not agree with?

Where do you get these questions? Ofcourse not, I am merely pointing out that the law often follows the will of the person, with the most lawyers.

How would you right the laws to support the system you want in place?

You clearly want everything on earth and in space to be owned by someone, I don't.

In any case, there will come a time where commercial fish stocks become so scarce that they are no longer commercially viable to fish, and at that point they will no longer be fished.

Ok and that's what exactly? Are you proposing that we do nothing? We let all caught fish become economically extinct? 

I disagree that economically extinct fish would no longer be fished. If there were only 10 cod left in the world, the cods value would be huge, and no doubt someone would try to cash in on that, probably by farming them.

You first have to define what is meant by damage – different definitions can lead to different estimates.

Agreed, but I am not a marine biologist, neither are you as far as I am aware, the definitions would have to be set by those that have a full understanding of the situation. If I had all those answers I wouldn't be posting it here for discussion, I would be taking it to someone for funding.
« Last Edit: 26/09/2007 20:24:02 by sooyeah »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #27 on: 26/09/2007 22:41:55 »
I agree, but if the farms worked as I am thinking they should, then the Numbers employed in the whole scheme would be small.

Are you really telling me that you expect to run the whole world's fishing industry, and fish farming industry, across 7 continents, with a total of 5 employees (or even anything in that order of magnitude)?

No, for what ever reason you keep thinking along the lines of an overall world market system; that in some ways has checks and balances for fishermen, the proposed fish farms, and anyone else involved, probably up to and including the shops that sell the fish.

All I am really proposing, is a farm that attempts to replace the fish lost through over fishing(and doing it in the simplest way possible), I am therefore only really considering the farms and nothing more.
You would try to keep the numbers as small as possible, its cheaper. You could have 5 people per farm and then say 20 farms over the world, that is only a hundred people, funded by charity, they could just produce and release as many fish as possible, but really given the funding shortages that would undoubtedly arise from working as a charity, they probably wouldn't release that many. No massive networks, little farms trying to make a difference. 

20 little farms spread around the world is in your view sufficient to make a significant impact on the world's fish population (covering how many different species of fish?).

http://www.pisces.demon.co.uk/factshe6.html
Quote
There are 1,000 to 1,500 fish farms in or around the coast of the UK, producing about 70,000 tonnes of fish per year. The most common species farmed are Rainbow Trout and Atlantic Salmon, but 100 tonnes of carp, 100-1,000 tonnes of marine fin fish and 60+ tonnes of eels are also farmed (1). Salmon farm production has rocketed from 500 thousand tonnes in 1979 to 40,500 in 1991 (9).
Fish farming shares many of the problems of other intensive animal farming, not only causing suffering to fish, but resulting in pollution of the environment and destruction of wildlife.

So, 20 more fish farms in addition to the 1,000 to 1,500 (just in the UK) that already exist today (actually, looking at the rest of that page, I suspect the figures are already significantly out of date)?

I am beginning to suspect that you do not fully understand the full scale of the issues involved.

I have no doubt that the amount of salmon farming has already made a significant impact on relieving pressures on natural salmon, but at present there are only a small handfull of species of fish we are competent to farm, and there is no doubt that as the number of species we learn to farm increases, the number of farms we will need to do it with will continue to increase – but 20 is just not even in the ball park.

Should not the first question then be, prove there is a problem at all? 

Quote
We have had declines up to 90% of some fish, and overfishing seems to be the main culprit.  Whether or not fish stocks can recover is a different matter, we may have altered the marine ecosystem so much that recovery might not be possible.

I consider that a problem. The recovery of fish stock is an objective, but what counts as satisfactory level for the stocks? I can not answer that, can you? Can anyone?

A problem in what way?  Is it your assertion that the loss of any species, be it the woolly mammoth, or T.Rex, is a problem?

(please note that I will not consider the answer “because it was caused by humans” to be a valid answer – a problem is a problem however it is caused – as we said before, this is not a blame game, so who caused it does not define the problem.)

Clearly, the natural habitate outside my window is thriving. All the wolves and bears trying to eat me. Hardly based on prejudice, as you said before with agriculture people worked to protect their interests, so they could if the owned one fish, work to remove other fish that ate their fish(that would clearly improve the ecosystem).

I accept that agriculturalists did alter their environment.  Whether that alteration is an improvement or not is somewhat subjective, but from the human perspective (not just from the perspective of the farmers, but of humanity in general), I would have said that the only way we could have avoided making those changes is if we desired to live in conditions more primitive than most third world countries have today.  Personally, I rather like the environment near me (not perfect, but suits my needs far more than that which existed on these islands 30,000 years ago).

Is my own personal view of what is a good environment any more pertinent than anybody else's  view of what is a good environment – clearly not; but if we start to say that human interest has no place in our designs upon our environment, then we as a species may as well commit collective suicide.

So releasing fish into the sea is not playing with the environment?

There is a difference I am proposing replacing what fishermen have taken, if you only put back what has been removed then it is not so much playing, as it is attempting to compensate for other human action.

We are trying to get to a situation we assume would be the case if humans were not there.  We cannot know what would be if humans were not there – so whatever we do is mere speculation (one thing we can be sure of is that, with or without humans, nature does not stand still, so we cannot simply try and go back to where things were and properly claim that that would be where things would have been today if we had not interfered).  Ofcourse it is playing with the environment – it is merely a case of deciding by what rules we play our game.

Furthermore, there seems to be a contradiction in your suggesting we are putting back what the fishermen take out; yet to try and detach your system from what fishermen take out (i.e. you seem to think there is no need for an administrative coupling between catches and levels of release – that was your justification for suggesting you only needed 5 people to run each fish farm).

That is not about individuals, it is about corporations/companies, individuals may work for money to do things. Corporations generally work to make as much money as possible for there shareholders. There is a difference.

Even that is overly simplistic, because corporation are also composed of human beings; but nominally, I do agree that a company that is owned by shareholders has a primary duty to optimise its return for its shareholders (this derives from the days when companies could take money from investors, and then the directors would use the money for their own purposes without considering the interests of the people who invested in them).

But the key issue is that I actually never did argue about the type of company that was to run these operations; I merely suggested that they should have a financial reward for doing things right, and financial self interest that acts against them if they do it wrong (i.e. that there should be accountability due to mechanisms of financial discipline).

Are you really saying that the scheme you are proposing (whatever it may be) would be above the law, and no court could possibly force it to do something you might not agree with?

Where do you get these questions? Ofcourse not, I am merely pointing out that the law often follows the will of the person, with the most lawyers.

Ofcourse this is so – but the point I was making is that this still remains true whether one is dealing with financial institutions or your next door neighbour.  Removing the economic mechanisms from the systems does not fix the underlying problem.

You clearly want everything on earth and in space to be owned by someone, I don't.

No, not everything.  I want every problem owned by someone, and with ownership of the problem should come ownership of the associated resources needed to fix the problem.  If there is no problem, then you need no owner of the problem.

Until recently, we did not have problems with maritime resources, so I would have argued as vehemently against ownership of maritime resources as today I would argue for it.

I disagree that economically extinct fish would no longer be fished. If there were only 10 cod left in the world, the cods value would be huge, and no doubt someone would try to cash in on that, probably by farming them.

If they are being farmed, then they are not extinct.

You first have to define what is meant by damage – different definitions can lead to different estimates.

Agreed, but I am not a marine biologist, neither are you as far as I am aware, the definitions would have to be set by those that have a full understanding of the situation. If I had all those answers I wouldn't be posting it here for discussion, I would be taking it to someone for funding.

I would disagree.

Scientists can tell you how things work, they cannot tell you how they 'ought' to work (religious leaders will tell you how things ought to be – whether you accept their doctrine or not is another matter).  Scientists cannot define damage, but once damage is defined, they can make an assessment of how much of it there is.

If one looks at, for instance, metal fatigue in an aeroplane.  A scientist cannot say, just by looking at an aeroplane, that this metal fatigue amounts to a broken aeroplane.  On the other hand, if someone comes along and tells the scientist (probably more accurately an engineer in this case) that this machine is meant to fly, then the scientist/engineer can turn around and say that this metal fatigue will undermine that desired function.  First, before the scientist can do that, someone has to say what the thing is meant to do in the first place.
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #28 on: 26/09/2007 23:45:47 »
No, for what ever reason you keep thinking along the lines of an overall world market system; that in some ways has checks and balances for fishermen, the proposed fish farms, and anyone else involved, probably up to and including the shops that sell the fish.

All I am really proposing, is a farm that attempts to replace the fish lost through over fishing(and doing it in the simplest way possible), I am therefore only really considering the farms and nothing more.
You would try to keep the numbers as small as possible, its cheaper. You could have 5 people per farm and then say 20 farms over the world, that is only a hundred people, funded by charity, they could just produce and release as many fish as possible, but really given the funding shortages that would undoubtedly arise from working as a charity, they probably wouldn't release that many. No massive networks, little farms trying to make a difference. 

20 little farms spread around the world is in your view sufficient to make a significant impact on the world's fish population (covering how many different species of fish?).

http://www.pisces.demon.co.uk/factshe6.html
Quote
There are 1,000 to 1,500 fish farms in or around the coast of the UK, producing about 70,000 tonnes of fish per year. The most common species farmed are Rainbow Trout and Atlantic Salmon, but 100 tonnes of carp, 100-1,000 tonnes of marine fin fish and 60+ tonnes of eels are also farmed (1). Salmon farm production has rocketed from 500 thousand tonnes in 1979 to 40,500 in 1991 (9).
Fish farming shares many of the problems of other intensive animal farming, not only causing suffering to fish, but resulting in pollution of the environment and destruction of wildlife.

So, 20 more fish farms in addition to the 1,000 to 1,500 (just in the UK) that already exist today (actually, looking at the rest of that page, I suspect the figures are already significantly out of date)?

Well no, if the idea was to be put into action, we don't actually know how many farms we would need. Your breding fish for release, not for human consumption.
Therefore the fish wouldn't need to be fed as much as normal farmed fish, they could probably be kept for a shorter periods of time and released younger. If you just released the eggs again it should be a smaller operation.
Point being you would need to decided, what fish your going to farm, what numbers you want to release, and the mode of there production. Don't look at me though, I'm never going to do it, I was just wondering if it would work.

I am beginning to suspect that you do not fully understand the full scale of the issues involved.

Well that is an understatement, I just thought 'fish farms could help solve the problem of over fishing' and jumped right in.

20 is just not even in the ball park.

Well that depends on the objective, your ofcourse right, but it does depend on the objective!

A problem in what way?  Is it your assertion that the loss of any species, be it the woolly mammoth, or T.Rex, is a problem?

Not wanting different forms of life to go extinct, because you value and respect all life. 
Mammoths is hardly the same they are not here now. this is preservation.
Not forgetting that we need different forms of life to sustain our own survival.
I do believe that humanity has a moral responsibility to not destroy life. By what right can a human say that is ok to destroy an entire species?

if we start to say that human interest has no place in our designs upon our environment, then we as a species may as well commit collective suicide.

Well who is saying that? I am not, this is about protecting what we have and hopefully preserving it for the future, not only in the interest of the survival of fish, but also for human survival as well, we are all interconnected there.

Furthermore, there seems to be a contradiction in your suggesting we are putting back what the fishermen take out; yet to try and detach your system from what fishermen take out (i.e. you seem to think there is no need for an administrative coupling between catches and levels of release – that was your justification for suggesting you only needed 5 people to run each fish farm).

Not really it's just a different way of working it, under that different way, the farms would hopefully use currently available data to decide how many fish to release, fishing reports or scientific data; Rather than having an dedicated network to do it. The information would be less accurate but that is better than nothing.


You clearly want everything on earth and in space to be owned by someone, I don't.

No, not everything.  I want every problem owned by someone, and with ownership of the problem should come ownership of the associated resources needed to fix the problem.  If there is no problem, then you need no owner of the problem.

Anything can be a problem, it's relative.

Until recently, we did not have problems with maritime resources, so I would have argued as vehemently against ownership of maritime resources as today I would argue for it.

As today you do consider there to be a problem, just to throw this back at ya, what do you consider to be the problem?

I disagree that economically extinct fish would no longer be fished. If there were only 10 cod left in the world, the cods value would be huge, and no doubt someone would try to cash in on that, probably by farming them.

If they are being farmed, then they are not extinct.

There just would not be any in the sea.

You first have to define what is meant by damage – different definitions can lead to different estimates.

Agreed, but I am not a marine biologist, neither are you as far as I am aware, the definitions would have to be set by those that have a full understanding of the situation. If I had all those answers I wouldn't be posting it here for discussion, I would be taking it to someone for funding.

I would disagree.

Scientists can tell you how things work, they cannot tell you how they 'ought' to work (religious leaders will tell you how things ought to be – whether you accept their doctrine or not is another matter).  Scientists cannot define damage, but once damage is defined, they can make an assessment of how much of it there is.

Has damage to the sea been defined? Marine biologists must have models of healthy sea ecosystems.

Here they talk about 'healthy sea' but don't really define what they mean by it:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/oceans/healthy-seas-healthy-society/healthy-sea-healthy-society-sep01.pdf

Loss of sea life and the affects on the atmosphere here:
http://www.fisherycrisis.com/CO2/predators.htm

Objectives and definitions of/for a healthy sea here:

http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/BSAP/FINAL%20Ecological%20Objectives.pdf

http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/ecoqo/en_GB/objectives/
« Last Edit: 27/09/2007 01:27:00 by sooyeah »
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #29 on: 27/09/2007 02:03:40 »
Looking at your link:
http://www.pisces.demon.co.uk/factshe6.html
Quote
Commercial Fishing
The worldwide yearly catch of all sea fish is between 60 and 80 million tonnes (1). There are around 20,000 species of fish, of which 9,000 are regularly caught, but only 22 species are taken in large amounts. Five groups of fish make up half the yearly catch: herrings, cod, jacks, redfish and mackerel (2). In 1993 the total landing by UK vessels was 629,100 tonnes (3).
Commercial fishing of the oceans has decimated both fish stocks and the aquatic environment. Additionally great suffering is inflicted on the catch itself.

This is no easy problem to fix and the numbers are huge. Around 70 million tons a year. How many farms would you need to replace that? The 1,000 farms only produce 70,000 tons of fish a year, lets say that with improvements over the last 14 years they can now produce slightly more, say 100,000 tons.
You would need a minimum of 70,000 farms to produce 70 million tons of fish.

That is all based on current system of farming for human consumption, and not using an egg release system.

Not really a plus, but only 22 different types of fish are taken in large amounts, that helps.

As far a job creation gos, even if each farm only had five people it would be massive.
« Last Edit: 27/09/2007 02:11:36 by sooyeah »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #30 on: 27/09/2007 03:06:27 »
Well no, if the idea was to be put into action, we don't actually know how many farms we would need. Your breding fish for release, not for human consumption.
Therefore the fish wouldn't need to be fed as much as normal farmed fish, they could probably be kept for a shorter periods of time and released younger. If you just released the eggs again it should be a smaller operation.
Point being you would need to decided, what fish your going to farm, what numbers you want to release, and the mode of there production. Don't look at me though, I'm never going to do it, I was just wondering if it would work.

There would be differences, but not as significant as that.

The problem is that you still need to maintain a breeding stock, even if you do not grow the fish to maturity, so it is only the last generation of fish which you would be able to release early, the earlier generations you would need to keep to their full life in order to use them as breeding stock.


I am beginning to suspect that you do not fully understand the full scale of the issues involved.

Well that is an understatement, I just thought 'fish farms could help solve the problem of over fishing' and jumped right in.

No problem – better to jump in and find out than to be afraid to dip your toe in the water.

Not wanting different forms of life to go extinct, because you value and respect all life. 

But species and life are two different things.

You might argue that respecting life dictates we should not eat meat at all (some do argue that, although I would not); but extinction is more about not being born than about the respect for the living.

I am not saying that I am advocating indiscriminately driving species to extinction, only that any arguments for or against extinction cannot be based on concepts used to protect the sanctity of individual life.

Not forgetting that we need different forms of life to sustain our own survival.

Indeed, but different forms of life is not the same as every form of life.

In fact, we actually have far greater dependence on all sorts of bacterial life (I am not saying we do not require non-bacterial life, only that we do have a great requirement for many types of bacteria), and yet there seems much less moral or sentimental imperative to protect bacteria than there is to protect larger organisms.

if we start to say that human interest has no place in our designs upon our environment, then we as a species may as well commit collective suicide.

Well who is saying that? I am not, this is about protecting what we have and hopefully preserving it for the future, not only in the interest of the survival of fish, but also for human survival as well, we are all interconnected there.

Indeed, we are interconnected; but the interconnection is more complex than merely saying if species X goes extinct it will pot human existence in jeopardy.  Some species are clearly beneficial to human survival, some are a threat, and some can be both.

The fact is the humans did live through periods when many animals have gone extinct, while the human species has gone from strength to strength.  This is not to say that we will continue forever to get stronger; but it certainly contradicts any idea that the extinction of a species is itself necessarily threatening to human survival.

You clearly want everything on earth and in space to be owned by someone, I don't.

No, not everything.  I want every problem owned by someone, and with ownership of the problem should come ownership of the associated resources needed to fix the problem.  If there is no problem, then you need no owner of the problem.

Anything can be a problem, it's relative.

It is relative insofar as it depends upon the selected objectives; but for the generally accepted objectives of the time, there was no perceived problem with marine resources.

Until recently, we did not have problems with maritime resources, so I would have argued as vehemently against ownership of maritime resources as today I would argue for it.

As today you do consider there to be a problem, just to throw this back at ya, what do you consider to be the problem?

As I indicated earlier, my main concern was to retain fish as a valuable source of human nutrition (although I must say that I do not like fish (as a food) very much myself).

I disagree that economically extinct fish would no longer be fished. If there were only 10 cod left in the world, the cods value would be huge, and no doubt someone would try to cash in on that, probably by farming them.
If they are being farmed, then they are not extinct.
There just would not be any in the sea.

Firstly, if they are farmed, then the value of cod would remain low, so making the 10 left in the sea unprofitable.

Secondly, if they are being farmed, then they can be used to repopulate the sea.

Thirdly, simply viewed as an argument against allowing a species to go extinct – it would not be extinct.  Looking at the marine environment, you might say that it would be significantly depleted from the marine environment, but it would not have violated your earlier moral argument about not letting a species to go extinct.

Has damage to the sea been defined? Marine biologists must have models of healthy sea ecosystems.

Only if someone can define what a healthy sea is.

What is the meaning of the concept of 'health' when applied to the sea?

When applied to human beings, it is difficult enough, but one measure is to look at the life expectancy of the human being (it is a very narrow, and not always satisfactory definition, but it is a start).  But seas only 'die' in the sense that they may dry up, but otherwise, they may change (as a child may change into an adult) but they do not die.  You would not expect to keep a child a child forever (that too would be considered unhealthy – although it would not violate the earlier measure of human health as defined by life expectancy), so why would you not expect radical change in the seas?

Here they talk about 'healthy sea' but don't really define what they mean by it:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/oceans/healthy-seas-healthy-society/healthy-sea-healthy-society-sep01.pdf

As you say, it is not defined.

Loss of sea life and the affects on the atmosphere here:
http://www.fisherycrisis.com/CO2/predators.htm

I'm afraid I find their arguments somewhat week.  They seem to be implying that if we ceased fishing, then no matter what was happening elsewhere. CO2 levels would fall (all industrial output is irrelevant to this, all land based activity of any kind is irrelevant to this).

What is also peculiar is their assertion that the reduction of CO2 was a consequence of the second world war, while admitting that the trend started in 1935, between 2 to 6 years before the start of the war, depending on the entry of which country into the war you consider to be the start of the war.  If one wished to be totally perverse, and use those figures to imply a causal link, it would make more sense to suggest that the reduction of CO2 actually triggered the second world war (since the start of the change in CO2 preceded rather than succeeded the war).

I think there is no doubt that the oceans do absorb large amounts of CO2, but the interpretation they place on their data is rather dubious.  Furthermore, since we know that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not static, thus simply preserving the status quo in the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and the oceans seems neither a plausible nor desirable scenario.

The report itself seems to imply that a total cessation of fishing would achieve a desirable increase in the amount of CO2 that the oceans would absorb, but as I indicated above, the data they have used does not seem to support their conclusion.  Another suggestion has been put forward recently (reported in the news today) that suggests making significant changes to the ocean environment in order to increase the rate at which CO2 is absorbed by the oceans – this is certainly not conservation, in the sense that it does not seek to conserve the environment of yesterday, but rather manage the environment of tomorrow to better meet our needs (I do not comment as to whether the plan would work, only that it is at least a forward looking plan rather than a look back at yesterday).

Objectives and definitions of/for a healthy sea here:

http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/BSAP/FINAL%20Ecological%20Objectives.pdf

http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/ecoqo/en_GB/objectives/


But they remain in many ways arbitrary objectives (although it may reasonably be argued that any objectives of this nature must be arbitrary, and so they may be regarded as being as valid as any other objectives).

One thing I do notice is the constant reference to 'natural' when referring to things such a nutrient levels, landscapes, etc.  The problem is that of itself this is a meaningless work, since all things that are are natural, and if by natural, they mean the level that would exist is no human being had ever roamed this planet, we don't know what that would be.  The only workable meaning of the word 'natural' is to say the levels that existed before human beings roamed this planet, but ofcourse, it would be unnatural for things not to have changed of their own accord since then.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #31 on: 27/09/2007 03:14:06 »
This is no easy problem to fix and the numbers are huge. Around 70 million tons a year. How many farms would you need to replace that? The 1,000 farms only produce 70,000 tons of fish a year, lets say that with improvements over the last 14 years they can now produce slightly more, say 100,000 tons.
You would need a minimum of 70,000 farms to produce 70 million tons of fish.

That is all based on current system of farming for human consumption, and not using an egg release system.

Not really a plus, but only 22 different types of fish are taken in large amounts, that helps.

As far a job creation gos, even if each farm only had five people it would be massive.

I would agree with most of that.

Increasing the size of the farms would both reduce the relative labour costs, but would in general improve the efficiency of the farming process, as it does with all farming; but then, as with other types of farming, the larger fames carry their own environmental costs in terms of land usage, and even in disease management of the stock.
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #32 on: 27/09/2007 14:41:04 »
There would be differences, but not as significant as that.

The problem is that you still need to maintain a breeding stock, even if you do not grow the fish to maturity, so it is only the last generation of fish which you would be able to release early, the earlier generations you would need to keep to their full life in order to use them as breeding stock.

Clearly, but not until you know how many fish you want to bred and how you want to work the system, would you be able to say how many breding fish you would need or weather they would be from the new stock or kept back from the old.

I am beginning to suspect that you do not fully understand the full scale of the issues involved.

Well that is an understatement, I just thought 'fish farms could help solve the problem of over fishing' and jumped right in.

No problem – better to jump in and find out than to be afraid to dip your toe in the water.

Totally agree.

Not forgetting that we need different forms of life to sustain our own survival.

Indeed, but different forms of life is not the same as every form of life.

Fine, but as all life is interconnected, with the loss of each species a total crash in all species becomes more likely, therefore the protection of any species is necessary.   

if we start to say that human interest has no place in our designs upon our environment, then we as a species may as well commit collective suicide.

Well who is saying that? I am not, this is about protecting what we have and hopefully preserving it for the future, not only in the interest of the survival of fish, but also for human survival as well, we are all interconnected there.

Indeed, we are interconnected; but the interconnection is more complex than merely saying if species X goes extinct it will pot human existence in jeopardy.  Some species are clearly beneficial to human survival, some are a threat, and some can be both.

The fact is the humans did live through periods when many animals have gone extinct, while the human species has gone from strength to strength.  This is not to say that we will continue forever to get stronger; but it certainly contradicts any idea that the extinction of a species is itself necessarily threatening to human survival.

I disagree for the above reason.
 
As I indicated earlier, my main concern was to retain fish as a valuable source of human nutrition (although I must say that I do not like fish (as a food) very much myself).

So the only problem you actually see, is that at some point in the future there might not be any fish in the supermarket, not that you like fish anyway?

I disagree that economically extinct fish would no longer be fished. If there were only 10 cod left in the world, the cods value would be huge, and no doubt someone would try to cash in on that, probably by farming them.
If they are being farmed, then they are not extinct.
There just would not be any in the sea.

Firstly, if they are farmed, then the value of cod would remain low, so making the 10 left in the sea unprofitable.

Secondly, if they are being farmed, then they can be used to repopulate the sea.

Thirdly, simply viewed as an argument against allowing a species to go extinct – it would not be extinct.  Looking at the marine environment, you might say that it would be significantly depleted from the marine environment, but it would not have violated your earlier moral argument about not letting a species to go extinct.

That wasn't the point I was making, I was suggesting that someone for profit, could remove an entire species from the sea, and then sell a limited number each year for a huge revenue. And that allowing the ownership of an entire species could lead to that. That being an example of how ownership could be counter productive in terms of increasing and helping to sustain fish stocks.

The report itself seems to imply that a total cessation of fishing would achieve a desirable increase in the amount of CO2 that the oceans would absorb, but as I indicated above, the data they have used does not seem to support their conclusion.  Another suggestion has been put forward recently (reported in the news today)

I saw this story, they actually said they were looking for people to come forward with solutions/idea to tackle climate change and hoped that the story would
Quote
get people thinking
. Which is kinda what I'm doing.

that suggests making significant changes to the ocean environment in order to increase the rate at which CO2 is absorbed by the oceans – this is certainly not conservation, in the sense that it does not seek to conserve the environment of yesterday, but rather manage the environment of tomorrow to better meet our needs (I do not comment as to whether the plan would work, only that it is at least a forward looking plan rather than a look back at yesterday).

Well a fish farm does both. What are you saying? That really what we should be doing is looking for ways to help fish and other spices adapt and therefore better be able to survive to the current climate?
That is basically the same as saying humans should be allowed to carry on as they are and we will just work out ways of repairing the damage, isn't it?
That is kinda what I am suggesting, to a degree, except that I would hope the fishing industry worked to improve its catching practice and developed better less destructive forms of catching at the same time.

One thing I do notice is the constant reference to 'natural' when referring to things such a nutrient levels, landscapes, etc.  The problem is that of itself this is a meaningless work, since all things that are are natural, and if by natural, they mean the level that would exist is no human being had ever roamed this planet, we don't know what that would be.  The only workable meaning of the word 'natural' is to say the levels that existed before human beings roamed this planet, but ofcourse, it would be unnatural for things not to have changed of their own accord since then.

In those terms there is no 'natural' as everything has in someway been effected by humans.

I would agree with most of that.

Increasing the size of the farms would both reduce the relative labour costs, but would in general improve the efficiency of the farming process, as it does with all farming; but then, as with other types of farming, the larger fames carry their own environmental costs in terms of land usage, and even in disease management of the stock.

Well, whatever system you used, the farms should work to improve the situation, you could hold the waste, turn it into a fertiliser, that could help funding if the fertiliser was sold.
« Last Edit: 27/09/2007 14:56:00 by sooyeah »
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #33 on: 07/12/2007 16:10:19 »
Had a thought the other day sort of related, OK some want to ban fishing altogether for a few years to protect and allow to recover certain fish stocks. Now one of the reasons it has not been put in place is because fishermen livelyhoods would be put at risk.

Well as a suggestion why not pay these fishermen a salary over the ban period?
So instead of fishing they could police the waters(check no-one is fishing) in-conjunction with the coast guard, but also they could spend their day removing old nets and doing conservation work in the very areas they know, work and understand.

I can't think of a group better qualified considering they work at see, they may need conservation training and other training but that could be a solution.

There could be a funding issue, but if it was run as an EU scheme, and prepared for, the funding would hopefully be less of an issue.

You could target certain fish stocks one year then change the next year to another fish.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2007 16:17:45 by JOLLY »
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #34 on: 08/12/2007 15:44:42 »
Had a thought the other day sort of related, OK some want to ban fishing altogether for a few years to protect and allow to recover certain fish stocks. Now one of the reasons it has not been put in place is because fishermen livelyhoods would be put at risk.

Well as a suggestion why not pay these fishermen a salary over the ban period?
So instead of fishing they could police the waters(check no-one is fishing) in-conjunction with the coast guard, but also they could spend their day removing old nets and doing conservation work in the very areas they know, work and understand.

I can't think of a group better qualified considering they work at see, they may need conservation training and other training but that could be a solution.

There could be a funding issue, but if it was run as an EU scheme, and prepared for, the funding would hopefully be less of an issue.

You could target certain fish stocks one year then change the next year to another fish.

Adding to that idea you could, pay cod fishermen for two years, and pay haddock fishermen the next two years.
So you would go by the fish and those that fish it giving all the chance to catch up to there previous levels and recover, that would be a far less disruptive way of doing it.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #35 on: 08/12/2007 17:20:09 »
Paying people not to work is what unemployment benefit is, and it has its own problems.

In farming, there is a process where farmers are paid not to farm a part of their land - what is known as set aside, but it does not mean they are paid to sit idle.  Even with set aside, they still have the rest of the farm to work on, and maybe the set aside itself might need some management.

As for fishing cod one year, and haddock the next - the problem is that fishermen do not always know what it is they are going to drag up in their nets.  That is one of the problems with the present fishing policy - there are lots of rules about what a fisherman may or may not bring into port (you cannot know what he will catch, because as I said, he does not know himself until he pulls in the nets - he can make a guess, but it is not always right) - so if the fisherman finds something in the nets that he is not allowed to bring into port, then he has to throw it back out into the sea - but most of those fish are already dead - so he ends up throwing a lot of dead fish back out into the sea, because he is not allowed to bring them into port.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #36 on: 08/12/2007 17:24:16 »
Paying people not to work is what unemployment benefit is, and it has its own problems.

surely they are paying people who can not find work, not paying people not to work! If i am wrong, im straight down the job centre monday morning.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #37 on: 08/12/2007 18:03:13 »
Paying people not to work is what unemployment benefit is, and it has its own problems.

surely they are paying people who can not find work, not paying people not to work! If i am wrong, im straight down the job centre monday morning.

Indeed, but that is in effect what the suggestion is - that one takes the fishermen's jobs away from them (at least for a short period) so they cannot find their usual employment.

The point I was trying to make is that paying people not to work, whether it is fishermen who have had their jobs taken away, or other people who cannot find work, is not only ruinous to the nation, it is also demoralising for the people involved.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #38 on: 09/12/2007 09:16:04 »
My take on this has always been that fishermen landing fish that are gravid strip the fish of their roe and strip the males of their milt on the boat when they are caught.
Mix the soup in a bucket, let it stand for as long as it takes to achieve fertilization and heave it back over the side.

 This will multiply fish stocks in a very short space of time without adding any additional costs. Video evidence of compliance is required by the government using data encryption to prevent non-compliance and the fishermen (who have now become powerful conservationists) safeguarding their own future fish stocks are rewarded for returning a percentage of fertilized eggs by allowing them to land the whole catch instead of dumping the dead fish back in the sea and therefore avoiding the massivie fines they now face each day. And believe me, some of my friends run boats out of Brixham and they face huge fines.

Alternatively we could carry on as normal:
More tasty ways to eradicate fish stocks can be found here )))----------> http://www.frostsfish.com/roes.htm

Andrew K Fletcher
« Last Edit: 09/12/2007 09:31:09 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #39 on: 09/12/2007 12:32:54 »
Paying people not to work is what unemployment benefit is, and it has its own problems.

surely they are paying people who can not find work, not paying people not to work! If i am wrong, im straight down the job centre monday morning.

Indeed, but that is in effect what the suggestion is - that one takes the fishermen's jobs away from them (at least for a short period) so they cannot find their usual employment.

The point I was trying to make is that paying people not to work, whether it is fishermen who have had their jobs taken away, or other people who cannot find work, is not only ruinous to the nation, it is also demoralising for the people involved.


Yes it would be ruinous to the economy, we have done it before with many industries...then when we stopped the public outcry, oh how loud they shouted.

on the other hand, being unemployed and the gov. paying you to not fish are just not the same thing. If we set aside the unemployed that simply do not want to work (a vast number in my opinion), the rest are being paid a small sum of money while they (under contract)seek work, this is simply not the same as fishermen being paid not to fish.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #40 on: 09/12/2007 13:44:05 »
Yes it would be ruinous to the economy, we have done it before with many industries...then when we stopped the public outcry, oh how loud they shouted.

on the other hand, being unemployed and the gov. paying you to not fish are just not the same thing. If we set aside the unemployed that simply do not want to work (a vast number in my opinion), the rest are being paid a small sum of money while they (under contract)seek work, this is simply not the same as fishermen being paid not to fish.

The point is that this is fine if you are trying to shut down an industry.

The suggestion was a temporary suspension of the industry, and then an attempt to restart it.  If you have persuaded all the fishermen to find jobs in other industries (and sell their boats, etc.), then you will not be able to quickly restart the industry, so it will not be a suspension of the industry, but a complete shutdown of the industry.
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #41 on: 10/12/2007 10:33:30 »
Paying people not to work is what unemployment benefit is, and it has its own problems.

I'm not suggesting paying people not to work, I'm suggesting giving them a different job while they cannot fish, a job that would hopefully improve the area in which they work when they return.
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #42 on: 10/12/2007 10:36:22 »

In farming, there is a process where farmers are paid not to farm a part of their land - what is known as set aside, but it does not mean they are paid to sit idle.  Even with set aside, they still have the rest of the farm to work on, and maybe the set aside itself might need some management.

As for fishing cod one year, and haddock the next - the problem is that fishermen do not always know what it is they are going to drag up in their nets.  That is one of the problems with the present fishing policy - there are lots of rules about what a fisherman may or may not bring into port (you cannot know what he will catch, because as I said, he does not know himself until he pulls in the nets - he can make a guess, but it is not always right) - so if the fisherman finds something in the nets that he is not allowed to bring into port, then he has to throw it back out into the sea - but most of those fish are already dead - so he ends up throwing a lot of dead fish back out into the sea, because he is not allowed to bring them into port.

I see your point but at the same time the fish thrown back will be eaten by other fish etc, so it wouldn't be a complete waste. For some fish they use different techniques to catch. the system would probably have to cover each technique.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #43 on: 10/12/2007 13:55:51 »
...the fish thrown back will be eaten by other fish etc, so it wouldn't be a complete waste.
The only problem with this is that by changing the availability of different types of food, you run the risk of changing the local ecosystem - this, in turn, can scupper any plans you have for restocking fish.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #44 on: 10/12/2007 14:33:08 »
...the fish thrown back will be eaten by other fish etc, so it wouldn't be a complete waste.
The only problem with this is that by changing the availability of different types of food, you run the risk of changing the local ecosystem - this, in turn, can scupper any plans you have for restocking fish.

This is the problem.

Since the dead fish would tend to float, I would guess they would be more available to sea birds, and mammals such as seals or dolphins, rather than fish.  The problem is that if you increase the number of predators (whether they be sea birds, sea mammals, or carnivorous fish) by giving them more free food, when you stop giving them that food (by no longer throwing dead fish back in the water), then where are those predators going to feed?  They will start feeding on the very stocks you are trying to protect.

The analogy is like leaving garbage out for the rats - the rat numbers increase, and when the garbage runs out, the now increased rat population start raiding your larder.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #45 on: 10/12/2007 15:11:05 »
Very nicely put.
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #46 on: 12/12/2007 13:43:01 »
...the fish thrown back will be eaten by other fish etc, so it wouldn't be a complete waste.
The only problem with this is that by changing the availability of different types of food, you run the risk of changing the local ecosystem - this, in turn, can scupper any plans you have for restocking fish.

This is the problem.

Since the dead fish would tend to float, I would guess they would be more available to sea birds, and mammals such as seals or dolphins, rather than fish.  The problem is that if you increase the number of predators (whether they be sea birds, sea mammals, or carnivorous fish) by giving them more free food, when you stop giving them that food (by no longer throwing dead fish back in the water), then where are those predators going to feed?  They will start feeding on the very stocks you are trying to protect.

The analogy is like leaving garbage out for the rats - the rat numbers increase, and when the garbage runs out, the now increased rat population start raiding your larder.

That is what is going on now, with small numbers of fish. My only point was that other wild life will benefit from it, that not just preditors, scraps will sink and be eaten by all sort of things.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #47 on: 12/12/2007 15:11:53 »
The analogy is like leaving garbage out for the rats - the rat numbers increase, and when the garbage runs out, the now increased rat population start raiding your larder.

That is what is going on now, with small numbers of fish. My only point was that other wild life will benefit from it, that not just preditors, scraps will sink and be eaten by all sort of things.

It does not matter whether they sink or not.

The point is that you are throwing away dead animals - that is flesh - it is meat.

If you leave lots of meat lying in the middle of a fields, it will help the rats, it will help the foxes, it will help the crows (these animals all eat meat), but it will not help the cows or the sheep, because these animals do not eat meat (except when fed if in processed form, which is what lead to the BSE crises).
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #48 on: 14/12/2007 20:44:36 »
The problem with throwing lots of dead fish back is that this upsets the oxygen level in the water as the fish either decompose or are eaten and the nutrients are excreted into the water, either way the end result is over fertilization of the water resulting in toxic algal blooms, which are known as the red tides in other parts of the world. It has not happened yet but rest assured it will and when it does the neurotoxins will cause the deaths of more fish and this will add further to the oxygen depletion and over enriched ocean water further exacerbating and compounding the problem.

Sewage and farm run off add further to over enriching the oceans. The end result is always massive losses in fish stocks, so the stupid policy in place at present is very much endangering future fish stocks and does absolutely nothing to helping the situation.

I am surprised that no one commented on returning fertilized eggs back into the ocean from the fishing boats that depend upon future fish stocks.

Andrew K Fletcher
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #49 on: 15/06/2008 16:02:35 »
The analogy is like leaving garbage out for the rats - the rat numbers increase, and when the garbage runs out, the now increased rat population start raiding your larder.

That is what is going on now, with small numbers of fish. My only point was that other wild life will benefit from it, that not just preditors, scraps will sink and be eaten by all sort of things.

It does not matter whether they sink or not.

The point is that you are throwing away dead animals - that is flesh - it is meat.

If you leave lots of meat lying in the middle of a fields, it will help the rats, it will help the foxes, it will help the crows (these animals all eat meat), but it will not help the cows or the sheep, because these animals do not eat meat (except when fed if in processed form, which is what lead to the BSE crises).

So is your concern 'Mad fish disease'? :)

The problem with throwing lots of dead fish back is that this upsets the oxygen level in the water as the fish either decompose or are eaten and the nutrients are excreted into the water, either way the end result is over fertilization of the water resulting in toxic algal blooms, which are known as the red tides in other parts of the world. It has not happened yet but rest assured it will and when it does the neurotoxins will cause the deaths of more fish and this will add further to the oxygen depletion and over enriched ocean water further exacerbating and compounding the problem.

Not pretty! A better catch system should solve that. Really if it was down to me I would only allow farmed fish to be sold and ban talking anything from the sea, but then there is an entire industry and many people who survive off of fishing(well there are at the moment, should they continue as they are; They could very well destroy the industry altogether).

Sewage and farm run off add further to over enriching the oceans. The end result is always massive losses in fish stocks, so the stupid policy in place at present is very much endangering future fish stocks and does absolutely nothing to helping the situation.

That's a nightmare.

I am surprised that no one commented on returning fertilized eggs back into the ocean from the fishing boats that depend upon future fish stocks.

Andrew K Fletcher

Would it work? Would they not just float and be eaten? Here's an idea what if we looked at each fish type and drew up a 'best practice action plan' for fisher men with relation to the eggs.

It could be the case that just throwing them over board would do nothing. So, what if we found the best practice and asked the fishermen (it would be in their interests to do so) to put back the egg in a particular way which would ensure a greater number survive?

It could also be an idea to have a team which collected all the eggs from fishermen at the end of each day, then went out to sea at the end of each week and put all the eggs in the most suitable place.

What do you think?

Oh 1+1 = 2
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Solving the problem of fish stocks.....
« Reply #49 on: 15/06/2008 16:02:35 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length