I was watching a show the other day, where a fisherman was complaining about the lack of fish catch in recent years, and compared his plight to that of the farmer.

A farmer tills the earth, fertilizes it, sows the seeds, waters, and then nutures the growing plant prior to harvest. Quite a lot of work, all year around. Fields must be left to fallow and regenerate, the new must be plowed.

A fisherman goes out in a boat, and catches sea life. The ocean does all of the prep-work for them.

I wonder if fisher's had the same respect for the ocean, that farmer's do for the land, if we would be in such a predicament?

Hi Greg

What a great analogy! Fishing seems more like hunting and less like husbandry, except for fish farming or stocked sites. Do you think tilapia farmers take more care for the environment? Shrimp farming is definitely an environmental problem, with mangrove forests throughout southeast Asia decimated to make way for prawn farms.

Melissa

do fisherman receive the same obscene amount of subsidies?

Only if they're whalers :wink:

I was watching a show the other day, where a fisherman was complaining about the lack of fish catch in recent years, and compared his plight to that of the farmer.

A farmer tills the earth, fertilizes it, sows the seeds, waters, and then nutures the growing plant prior to harvest. Quite a lot of work, all year around. Fields must be left to fallow and regenerate, the new must be plowed.

A fisherman goes out in a boat, and catches sea life. The ocean does all of the prep-work for them.

I wonder if fisher's had the same respect for the ocean, that farmer's do for the land, if we would be in such a predicament?

And that's why we have a Quota Management System in place which involves setting a catch limit on different species. We have to accept the fact that virgin biomass can never be reached but through more research we can still maintain a sustainable yield each year. Of course the ocean does the prep work but it can only do a certain amount of prep work and leave the rest to time.

I have found recreational anglers blaming the fishing industry for excess trawling and the fishing industry blaming recreational anglers in New Zealand. Frankly I don't think recreational fishermen can be stopped as long as they know to let go a fish that's under the legal size limit. There's no chance of by-catch either. Can't stop the fishing industry because that would mean a part of export industry would fail. There's a whole lot of other factors involved and I guess you can't win in these situations.. oh well......:indiffer:

I guess I was thinking more philosophically, not analytically. It just seems that the fisherpeople take, but don't give. I wonder what would happen if they did?

I completely agree that they should give something back, but what would they give?

I'm sure the farmers would be happy not to plant and cultivate--not to "give"--if they discovered one day that they could still harvest all the corn otherwise. Especially in today's corporate universe, I don't think anyone has any illusions about why they do the work--they do it because it brings in the money.

Yea, i agree DHyslop, people just want to get as much money as they can before having to share with others, and most don't realize what they are actually doing. Though, I'm still trying to figure out what fisherman can give back to the sea that would make up for what they have taken. The only thing i can think of, is they need to be less greedy and allow the ocean to replenish itself, but with the mentality of the people nowadays that seems nearly impossible.

I have found...the fishing industry blaming recreational anglers in New Zealand.
:banghead:

In related news, lobbyists for the gold mining industry blame recent shortages on this man.

Geez..!

Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) is a phrase I learned recently that puts a name to this sort of problem. Unfortunately, there's not a handy answer that goes with the handy name.

simple is right. It always seems to be about the $$$. If one fish species is brought to economic extinction, the trawling very soon focuses on the next and often important keystone species.
We would be seeing lots more of lowering down of quotas (as was done for Orange roughy last year).
Although efforts are being put into modifying drift nets and long lines so as to reduce by-catch, I still feel we are going to lose many more species even before we get the chance to study them. These species could be missing links to so many unsolved questions that we ponder about.
Tragedy of the deep commons is more like it.

I completely agree that they should give something back, but what would they give?

I try not to mention too much about the sites I webmaster (for love of the topics and negative income) but here is a link that might begin to answer your question:

http://coralrestoration.org/coralrn/catalog/flexible_text.php?flexible_text_id=FLEXI BLE_NEWS_PAGE_1&osCsid=10332af6a824631d776c042f5514774b

Australian National Uni has published a study saying that reducing fish catches now will lead to larger, easier-to-catch profits later.

The article quotes ANU's Quentin Grafton saying, "
We're saying 'if you reduce the harvest now, you'll actually be better off' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7127761.stm)".

Yes, I wonder how much the increasing price of fuel will impact upon this?

I try not to mention too much about the sites I webmaster (for love of the topics and negative income) but here is a link that might begin to answer your question:

http://coralrestoration.org/coralrn/catalog/flexible_text.php?flexible_text_id=FLEXI BLE_NEWS_PAGE_1&osCsid=10332af6a824631d776c042f5514774b

Great example.

... I'm still trying to figure out what fisherman can give back to the sea that would make up for what they have taken...

Their soul would be a good start!:cthulhu:

And that's why we have a Quota Management System in place which involves setting a catch limit on different species.

Of course I'm not that fond of the QMS. It is the effort that is doing the damage to the seabed (and water column) community. Perhaps restrictions should be placed on effort, rather than catch, because with dwindling catch rates effort increases .... as does any effect on the environment.

Example: no more than 10 seabed trawls in area 'x' each calendar year, regardless of catch. (The reality is that it should be no more than 10 trawls in area 'x' each 1000 years .... )

There's a major distinction between economic and ecological sustainability; the QMS is more about economic sustainablilty.

Well, not long until our long-awaited marine park... not as in dolphins jumping through fiery hoops but like a national county park underwater... I am waiting for all the kicking and screaming next year from fishermen.

2008 here we come

http://www.snh.gov.uk/press/detail.asp?id=1354

Colin,
Nancy started a thread (so maybe I helped with a suggestion ;>) about positive organizations etc. Would you consider posting a little personal outline on what you expect to happen and include the link on that thread as well?

http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11782

CETA and the Scripps Institute have something like that, though nowhere near as environmentally friendly. Hope it goes through!

One might be tempted to think that farming fish commercially to take the load off the wild population would be an improvement in this area... sadly, the devil is in the details:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1325504120071213?sp=true

of course, it sounds like it's not a complete technological show-stopper for the idea, although the social and economic factors often come into play in this regard, and it's typical of the "these systems are often more complicated than we expect" black swan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory) problem with the plan.

One might be tempted to think that farming fish commercially to take the load off the wild population would be an improvement in this area... sadly, the devil is in the details:



Another problem that crops up with aquaculture is the "Aquaculture is a brilliant idea......Oh you meant here! No I'm sorry I thought you were going to do it in someone elses backyard" view of the world.

One might be tempted to think that farming fish commercially to take the load off the wild population would be an improvement in this area... sadly, the devil is in the details:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1325504120071213?sp=true

To bring this full circle since salmon has come up, lets discuss farmer's impacts on salmon here in the western United States. Not that farmers are the whole problem, but they have played one of the largest roles in oncorhynchus salmon run destruction in two major ways: 1) Dams for irrigation have made huge swaths of breeding habitat inaccessable. (The large Hydroelectric dams get all the bad rap these days, but in truth most of the damage was done before they showed up by small irrigations dams on the tributaries. Really only a small amount of spawning takes place in the large mainstem) 2) Run off from farming has introduces a huge over-abundance of nitrates and some phosphates, causing massive eutrophication to the Western US and Canadian streams. This is not a good thing for a oligotrophic obligate species. Additionally silt run off has the bad tendancy to cover and suffocate salmon eggs.

I know we are mostly marine-type people here, but farming today isn't idyllic either. Converting huge tracts of land into single-species habitats is controlled ecological disaster in itself. yes there are things we can do to improve farming and fishing to make them more eco-friendly, but ultimately there are more primate mouths to feed on this planet than it is adapted to handle in its current configuration, and there aren't getting to be less people either. I could talk about population control, but I am not going to offer myself up to reduce the population, nor do I think I would take kindly to someone forcibly limiting the number of offspring I produce....so I am not about to call for someone else to do it either. I see the problem... but I have no clue what to do about it. :cry:

Further (http://stuff.co.nz/4326091a13.html) problems with the QMS

It seems very common for quota systems and grandfathering and such to lead to really bad dynamics... In addition to deliberate abuses, manipulations, and loopholes, sometimes the incentive structure of a poorly designed system can penalize or sidetrack well-intentioned participants.

Some random examples:

California water politics is complicated, since it's a major farming state with a very limited water supply. This leads to many, many very stupid things. For example, if farmers don't use their full water quota for a given year, it can be reduced the next year. And they can get paid for trying and failing to grow crops. So there is an incentive to fail to grow water-intensive crops like rice in order to use up their water quota so they won't lose it, instead of doing something sensible, under some conditions.

Also, the farmers use most of the water, but huge amounts of water are still used by cities, and so there are often efforts (both reasonable and insane, both grassroots and coordinated by water companies and state governments) to have city-dwellers conserve water. In the 80s, there was a statewide drought, and all the green-aware hippies in San Fransisco were doing things like not flushing their toilets often, taking two minute showers, and not watering their lawns or washing cars, while in Los Angeles, people continued with ostentatious lawns in the desert and fountains and such. I found them both rather silly, since the well-intentioned asceticism of the San Fransisco folks was a drop in the bucket compared to the stupid rice farmers, yet the Angelenos were showing the arrogance of "hey, I pay my water bill, so I don't have to care if there's a drought."

Of course, not all Los Angeles dwellers are arrogant jerks; some actually noticed that water was a concern. In fact, the water department sent homeowners a request to voluntarily conserve water as much as they could. The L.A. folks who were not too self-centered, apathetic, or ignorant then tried to reduce their water footprints as much as they could, to their credit. The powers that be decided that this wasn't making it, though, and they needed to provide some economic teeth, and made the announcement that anyone who didn't cut their water bill by some amount (20%) would be forced to pay a large penalty. It apparently didn't occur to them that the arrogant jerks who ignored the voluntary request could easily reduce their lawn-watering or something and avoid the penalty, but the poor saps who had cut their water usage down to the bare minimum in response to the request a few months earlier had nothing left to cut. Take that, you tree-hugging hippies! ( *ironic* for the irony-impaired)

I see these sorts of broken incentives come up all the time in everything from carbon-trading schemes to computer games... quotas and regulations often seem like a good idea, but it's not too unusual for bad implementations to actually make things worse, and a lot of people don't seem to understand that the devil is in the details.

Well, not long until our long-awaited marine park... not as in dolphins jumping through fiery hoops but like a national county park underwater... I am waiting for all the kicking and screaming next year from fishermen.


any chance we can get a few flaming hoops at the park anyway?