O'Sullivan, thanks so much for the information.

Doniston - Partofme (post #2), is a good friend of mine and was speaking with tongue in cheek. Difficult to tell but my response was likewise. No worries. Thanks for your contribution.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

The scary thing is that the knuckle-draggers won't recognize the humor and will believe you.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

So here's why I disagree with the Myers and Worm 2003 that started this whole mess:

1. They basically cherry pick their data sets when representing a global picture. They mainly present only data from areas that support their conclusions. If I remember right, they talk a lot about the catch data near Thailand. The data they use speak clearly to the devastation in that area. However, this is not true of other areas in the world. The area they use is probably the most overfished part of the world. It doesn't represent accurately the other areas.

It would be like representing the overall cleanliness of my apartment by examining my junk drawer. It's bad in there, but the rest of my apartment doesn't look like that (most of the time...).

The worst part is that there are a lot of data sets in the N Atlatic that contradict their claims of the severity there. But, they make no mention of it. I know for a fact that this pisses off several shark scientists that do work out there. And rightly so.

2. They do not control for gear at all in their data. This is a major problem, because catch data only represents where the gear is fishing, and gear is only where the fishermen put it. If you do not take that into account (it's a lot of extra work, but it is do-able), you can really skew what is really going on.

A good example of this is in the longline fishery off the East Coast. Myers and Worm claim that there is a huge crash in a couple of shark species there that are bycatch for the fishery. What they fail to tell you is that they are globbing together catch data that is not similar. In the past, most long-liners out there fished at shallower depths, almost always above the thermocline (where the change in water temperature is steep, its the boundary between the well-mixed surface water and deeper water). Now, they fish a lot deeper. Some of the shark species that they claim to have crashed is due to a much simpler reason. They aren't at the depths where long-liners are fishing much. Some of those species live above the thermocline, they aren't where the hooks are these days. Hence, lower bycatch.

3. As I said earlier, gear is only where fishermen put it. This enters a bit of a bias into using commercial catch data into determining abundances of species. Obviously, fishermen want to make money, so they go where the fish are (this can lead to an overstimation). If the market changes where other fish species are more valuable per unit effort, they will go after those (leading to an underestimation of abundance if you are looking at the species they switched away from).

Myers and Worm don't control for that. They don't even talk about it in their paper. That is why looking at catch data along with survey data is important. And there are several species where that survey data is existing and they completely ignored it (why, I don't know, but it seems a little suspicious since it counters their claims).

4. Some species do not crash due to fishing. A lot of research recently (Chavez et al 2003 is AWESOME for this) shows that some species are highly sensitive to changes in sea water changes (global warming skeptics, you listening??). For instance, there is a cycle in the Pacific ocean called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (called the PDO, go here for more info: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/). It can change average sea surface temperatures to as much as 0.8 C. Doesn't sound like much, but it has dramatic effects on fisheries (a lot of research on this at present to pin down why). Chavez shows very good evidence that the PDO is probably responsible for the alternating anchovy and sardine regimes off the West Coast. Previously, people attributed this to overfishing (Cannery Row), but now it doesn't look like that it is the reason. Overfishing played a role, but probably only to help one regime or another on its way quicker than it would have anyway.

Again, Myers and Worm don't address that issue (but, in their defense, this is pretty new).



All this is not to say that overfishing isn't a problem. There are several research papers that show that it is a big problem for many areas and many species (a good one: Pauly et al 2003). But, Myers and Worm overstates their case.

One might argue that in the end that is OK because it pushes the proper protection through in the end. I disagree, it seems like a case of the "end justifies the means" to me, and that is damaging for fishery protection in the long run. If you cry wolf too often, no one will take you seriously, even if you are crying wolf for beneficial reasons. And it gives the opportunity for those who have no love for the environment to excuse away all research, even good stuff like Pauly et al 2003. That sucks.

Hyperbole only gets you what is going on in politics these days. Everyone calling each other names while the problems continue to grow. I don't want that to happen. We have enough problems as it is without shouting at each other. And we really need each other to solve them, too.

I'm actually glad you made me look this stuff up again. I found some great resources that address this paper that I didn't know about. If you want to look up more stuff, here's a great place to start: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/lar...predators.html

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
--Sun Tzu

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Kijana,
I screwed around and wasted my time this evening. I'm off to bed but promise to read up when I come back. Maybe tomorrow, (Sunday).

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Kijana,

Those are very interesting counterpoints raised against such claims, and I appreciate the detailed effort you put into the post. It's a pleasure to have a really good academic discussion on such subjects, so good job.

I am usually quite suspicious of apocalyptic claims on environmental issues because they usually assume worst case scenarios under dubious and/or highly speculative analysis that assumes the worst. Moreover, they are often geared to fit 'desired' conclusions to motivate an agenda or desired course of action of the offeror. Lastly, nature has a way of constantly overcoming obstacles thrown at it. Nature is an extremely resilient force that constantly adapts to keep itself on track, and it is highly unpredictable anyway. People only need to look at the resilient return of the deer population in my state and elsewhere to see that they went from once apocalyptic claims to now 'deer pinball' for drivers.

That said, I am quite concerned about the current studies about mass collapse, giving them more consideration than I ordinarily would. Let's say I have a reasonable doubt about giving the reasonable doubt.

The counterpoints don't consider alot of things themselves fully enough IMO.

For example, mankind's technology improves with each passing decade like a small snowball down a mild slope and increases in size and slope. It's as if the technology 'squares' itself using a mathematical analogy.

The current problem started in around the 1760s, and since then about 7% of species have been made extinct with many more collapsed. And that was with whalers, schooners, etc.

A major problem is the 'squaring' and 'cubing' of the ability to fish. With the ever-increasing knowledge and technology in the world of global trade and transportation, satellites, oceanography, meteorology, underwater technologies, factory ship abilities, the ability is ever-increasing to be able to clean out large fishing areas very quickly. The ever-increasing global population, modernisation, wealth and globalisation has also exploded the demand for supply for different species. Whilst moves have been made to slow down or prevent this problem, there has been too much 'leakage' towards the ultimate problem being sought to remedy, especially given the domestic and international difficulties in getting agreement and compliance to properly regulate the entire industry.

Another problem is that the counterpoints sometimes assume too much of the facts in question. For example, they point out that the studies only monitor were the fisherman are. But, that is because fisherman go where the fish mostly are, a matter of common sense. For example, many species that I go after for sport on the mid-Atlantic Coast follow the eddies and borderlines of the Gulf Stream because they like the changes of temperature between the green water (coastal) and blue water (Gulf Stream water). Very few of the fish live in the actual Gulf Stream or the green water near the coast. In short, both areas are largely inhospitable to them. They hang out on the temperature break areas on the border of the two areas. Alot of these fish also like banks and upwelling areas on the ocean floor because that helps create the basis for the food chain. There are alot of reasons for these things and make a good study that can't be put out here on a simple post. But, fisherman with their increased abilities go to these places where the 'big catches' are on their charts, and raid like Vikings given the more they catch, the more they get paid. Not only is the stock removed, but the food chain environment for their being there is also damaged (dragging the bottom too much causes alot of bad side effects for example).

So, overall, the big problem, as I see it, is that mankind has simply become too good with knowledge and technological ability to fish out the oceans and that ability will only increase. Added to that problem is getting global agreement and cooperation to properly regulate the problem, and that is really hard given the number of fisherman and the lucrative and ever increasing global demand for the catches.

Overfishing is also simplified too much into the cash hungry fisherman putting the net or lines in the water, so to speak. Other factors leading to the decline in species play a role in loss and how much catch is really 'overfishing.' For example, a Chesapeake Bay waterman from Smith Island or Tangier Island might be 'overfishing' due to a loss of crab population caused by mankind's multitude of toxins flowing into the bay's watershed and then into the bay, which in turn harm the ability of the crabs to breed. To solve the problem there, then, a host of human behaviours have to be remedied, and the more behaviours and people involved in them there is, the harder the problem is to solve.

This problem is correctable of course. The studies point to future projections if certain things are not done.

__________________

Now you have me confused. I was responding to the fsct that It is beleived that the Fish industry is in trouble. and my contribution was from actual experience and actions. If you don't thunk there is a problem check out the recent prices of fish and seafood. Example; There is no legitimate reason for jumbo shrimp to go for $12 per pound or ocean perch for $6.

Kijan,

I second O'Sullivan; Thanks for the contribution, much appreciated.

I also had similar thoughts in response. For instance, you speak of the gear not being in the same place and it occurred to me to ask "why?". Why would fishermen move the gear?, (obviously speaking of trends and not a single fishing trip).

You gave some great information about climate change and I note that Worm et al, also attribute their estimated collapse on climate change and pollution.

I confess that I haven't yet followed your link. I'll do so before I respond further.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

I think you misunderstood one of my counterpoints, O'Sullivan. My emphasis is that catch data alone, especially not taking into account what gear the fishermen are using or how they are using it, is biased. If bias is not accounted for, you are not getting the right picture. Using catch data is NOT randomnly sampling. It can tell you a lot of things, but by its very nature, it is biased because you are not sampling randomnly, you are only looking where the fishermen choose to go (or what gear he uses, or how he uses it etc., etc.). Survey data is better than catch data because you have control over how you sample. It's not good for making money, but it more statistically sound. And looking at them together is even better because you can then see how good the catch data is, and if its good, you can incorporate into your analysis (which is helpful, because your sampling size goes up tremendously if everything is cool).

The infuriating part of the Myers and Worm 2003 paper is that there is survey data in the areas where they are looking at catch data alone. If one looks at BOTH of them, it gives a much better picture than just looking at one (and a different answer for some species..). But, they didn't do that.

By the way, you really should read that Pauly et al. 2003 paper. I think it backs up many of the points you brought up. Basically, it shows that world catch amount has leveled off despite increasing fishing effort in the last 15 years or so. Also, it shows that fishing operations are fishing at a lower trophic level on average than they did in the past ("fishing down the food web"). I think it states its case much, much better than Myers and Worm. Why? Because it doesn't overstate the impact of overfishing. It's definitely a problem, but it's not going to extinguishfish from the oceans.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
--Sun Tzu

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

hehehe, I've always wondered why people buy the pills when they can just eat the fish.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Really cool lecture by Ray Hilborn (a big dog in the fishery world) on this that I was sent a link to today. He specifically addresses the Myers and Worm paper in it, too. I don't entirely agree with his assessments of MPAs (marine protected areas), because I think it really, really depends what species you are trying to manage, but overall I think he makes a lot of good points. Some really good questions at the end, too.

Enjoy:

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/...t.asp?rid=3519

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
--Sun Tzu

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

And a rebuttal hopefully coming out soon to the article which inspired this thread:

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
--Sun Tzu

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Red tide is a micro-organism that is unique to saltwater. It rides the tides.
I was born and raised in Tampa Florida and can tell you it is a terrible mess. It kills everything in the sea and turns the water blood red. Every 11 years or so you’ll see convoys of dump trucks carrying the dead fish from the beaches.
The whole shore line of the gulf is nothing but bulldozers and front end loaders stacking dead fish and putting them in dump trucks. Yours is the first reference I ever heard of man being responsible. Spanish explorers visiting Florida way before it was the United States have logged the phenomena in there ships logs: http://www.explorenaples.com/red_tide.phtml
The tides being it’s form of locomotion makes it’s appearance directly related to celestial phenomenon. Not man.
Hearsay attributes it to lingering remnants of ancient bible prophecy.



The scary thing is that nothing can kill it that wouldn’t kill everything else. There would be nothing able to stop it from taking over every ocean on earth if tides didn’t keep in in check by washing it up in shore.

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

The red tides are encouraged to grow by the phosphates in the run-off water from agriculture. Red tides are a natural phenomenon but we have exacerbated their severity by feeding them huge amounts of fertilzer.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

As long as it doen't happen until '48 I'm ok. I'll be long dead.

Where's my tax cut?