Chris i was wondering how you where getting on with the fishing kit evaluations. Are they nearly finished yet or are you still having problems?
thanks

I think I should probably submit the freshwater and improvised systems to Doug <img src="images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> Our salt water fishing is deeply impacted locally by the global depletion of fish. Estimates are that 10% of normal stocks remain worldwide with continued depletion <img src="images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> This translates into very restricted fishing off my local coast. Tie that in with several failed promises of a berth to go out and it's been a real fishy experience <img src="images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Chris,

To what do you attribute the global depletion, and when do you think it started?

Depletion of fish is a result of people taking them out of the water and chewing on them and it started some 2.5 million years ago. <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

(sorry, I tried, but I couldn't restrain myself)

BWAHAHAHA!!! I needed that this morning.

I might even have some fish for lunch.

thanks for the reply

Chris,

I am curious about your statement that "estimates are that 10% of normal stocks remain worldwide with continued depletion". I am sure that you are quoting what you believe to be an accurate source. Your integrity is not in question. May I ask the source of these figures? Was it some publication?

Did the source mention how and when the figures were derived and how they were validated? There would have to be at least two complete, worldwide inventories in order to get the starting and ending figures. And in order to be accurate, they would have to be conducted without any fish being counted twice. I can't even do that looking into an aquarium containing more than two fish.

I can't imagine how anyone would go about either inventory, especially the initial one, which would have to have been conducted so long ago as to have predated boats. It also would have predated written language, without which the beginning figures could never have gotten to the folks that did the second inventory.

If I may butt in check this article http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/fishkill2003.htm

Ed

eodman has posted a link to a news article which, I think, answers many of your questions, but I believe historically, we can conclude that the ocean fish stocks were relatively stable up until the modern era of "industrial fishing". So I don't see that it would be necessary to have done a comprehensive count of the ocean's fish - we know how much fish was being caught 40 years ago, we know how much fish is being caught today, we can draw reasonable conclusions.

And the notion that the only way to count a group of something is to assign a number to every single member of the species is just wrong. Scientists have been using sampling techniques for over a hundred years to estimate numbers of things that are too many to count, and fish populations are no exception. In any event, I don't need to know how many fish there are now, or how many there were then, to be able to estimate that there used to be ten times as many as there are now.

Sorry, I remain skeptical. Just because some scientist or quasi-scientist says something does not make it so, and just because something winds up in print does not make it so. Scientists haven't even discovered all species in the ocean yet, and the're going to presume to count them? If they don't know where they are, or don't know that they exist, how can they count them?

People invent, twist, or selectively quote figures all of the time in order to make their favorite point. Just watch the news or read the papers. Who knows what their reasons are? Some are ignorant. Some do it to manipulate people. Some just parrot someone else's figures without checking them out for themselves, never mind that they may be dead wrong.

As big as the earth is, I find it difficult to believe that we have lost 90% of the ocean's big fish. Don't they breed anymore?

Sorry, I don't buy it.