I am not a scientist or a quasi-scientist. I occasionally fish but not enough to consider my personal empirical information valid. OTOH, logic can be our friend. If in year "n" 5 boats collect 50 fish a day and in year "n+x" 50 boats are required to collect 50 fish a day then something has changed. Possibilities are; 1) there are fewer fish by a multiple of 10; 2) fishermen are 10 times dumber than x years ago; 3) fish are 10 times smarter than x years ago. Of these three possibilities the first is the most likely. There may be other explainations and it is possible that the fish are much smarter (given some of the individuals I am forced to work with it is possible that the fishermen are 10 times dumber).

One possible explaination is that all the well meaning bans of this and that type of fishing (deep water nets etc.) has made the fishing industry so much less efficient.

One possible explaination is that the fish have all turned gay due to over-population of liberal minorities and are just not breeding as fast as they used to.

One possible explaination is that ....

But it seems likely that as the human population rose and it's appetite for seafood remained steady and high our consumption rate eventually surpassed the fish breeding / growth rate with the natural consequences being depletion of stocks.

One thing we both can agree on is that there are a number of possible explanations. Something that should be considered before we all go off the deep end is that something in the fishes environment may have changed, and the entire school has simply moved. The school could have been driven from one area to another, or simply attracted from one area to another. The questions are what has happened, and why.

It is possible that over time, the school has learned that certain sounds signal danger, such as the sounds of the engines of the fishing boats or other equipment. That is not as far-fetched as it may seem. Whitetail deer learn over time that the presence or absence of certain sounds and scents are normal. They instinctively preceive any change in the norm as a danger signal and react accordingly. Depending on the danger, they may permanently leave the area.

It is possible that due to volcanic action, landslides, weather, etc, that the underwater currents have changed enough, even temporarily, to motivate the fish to go elsewhere.

It is possible that normal currents are carrying bacteria or chemicals from dumped garbage and the area usually frequented by the school is now disagreeable or hostile, causing them to hunt for more favorable areas.

It is also possible that there have been changes in water temperatures, the speed or temperature of underwater currents, the acidity or salinity of the water, its ability to hold oxygen, etc. Any of these factors could effect the behavior of the school. They could effect not only the school, but also the plants or animals used as food by the school. If the food thinned out sufficiently, or if the number of predatory fish increased sufficiently, the school could well move to another area.

Assuming that the problem exists at all, I doubt very seriously that this is the first time that this has happened, and I think that it will correct itself over time. I find this a whole lot more plausible than the idea that in the short life of industrial fishing that we have wiped out 90% of the large fish in the oceans.

Here is something to consider. Take a look at gas prices. Someone in the Middle East can just belch, or hint at an oil shortage, and the next day we pay 10 cents more per gallon. The prices of groceries respond pretty fast to shortages, too. Has anyone noticed the massive increase in the price of fish that would indicate that we are eating the last 10% of the large fish in the entire world? Neither have I. <img src="images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

>>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?

Nobody said anything about counting them. If I see a satellite photograph of the Amazon rainforest, and 10 percent of it is on fire, I don’t need to count every last tree to know that 10 percent of the forest is on fire. We don’t need to count them, or even estimate the numbers (although that can be done and probably has been) to know that there are dramatically fewer of them now than there were 30 or 40 years ago.

>>People invent, twist, or selectively quote figures all of the time in order to make their favorite point.

“After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote one to another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, 'Lies--damned lies--and statistics,' still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of."
Leonard Henry (later Baron) Courtney (First recorded instance of the expression "lies, damned lies, and statistics")

>>Just watch the news or read the papers. Who knows what their reasons are? Some are ignorant.

You said it, not me <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

>>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?

Not if they’re extinct.

>> Something that should be considered before we all go off the deep end is that something in the fishes environment may have changed, and the entire school has simply moved.

We’re not talking about a school, we’re talking about the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and the Flemish Cap.

>>The school could have been driven from one area to another, or simply attracted from one area to another.

If you found the state of California deserted, would you seriously consider the possibility that everyone has just decided to move to the Mojave Desert? I’m sure the Mojave Desert is a lovely place, but it simply couldn’t begin to support the entire population of California. 100 square miles of fish don’t simply decide to leave their feeding grounds; what would they live on?

>>The questions are what has happened, and why.

I’d venture a guess that it has something to do with a two-legged creature that can’t take a hint. <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

>>It is possible that over time, the school has learned that certain sounds signal danger, such as the sounds of the
>>engines of the fishing boats or other equipment. That is not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Sorry, but yes it is. As I said, we’re not talking about a single school of fish, we’re talking about hundreds or thousands of square miles of fish. Fish gotta eat something, so they normally congregate where the food supplies are plentiful – that’s why the Grand Banks were such lucrative fishing grounds. If they left, where would they go?

>>It is possible that due to volcanic action, landslides, weather, etc, that the underwater currents have changed enough, even temporarily, to motivate the fish to go elsewhere.

Well, there’s this thing called the Gulf Stream. And there’s this other thing called the Labrador Current. And as far as I know, they’re big and obvious and fairly well understood, and they’re still there. Where they’ve always been.

>>It is possible that normal currents are carrying bacteria or chemicals from dumped garbage and the area usually
>>frequented by the school is now disagreeable or hostile, causing them to hunt for more favorable areas.

Like the Mojave Desert, maybe? <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

>>It is also possible that there have been changes in water temperatures, the speed or temperature of underwater
>>currents, the acidity or salinity of the water, its ability to hold oxygen, etc.

Okay, this argument boils down to “It might be global warming and not overfishing”. But I’m of the firm belief that we should do something about both.

>>Assuming that the problem exists at all,

Ask the people of Newfoundland if the problem exists at all.

>>I doubt very seriously that this is the first time that this has happened,

No, I believe something like it happened about 65 million years ago.

>>and I think that it will correct itself over time.

Well, if you mean that mankind will be wiped out and replaced by another dominant species, then I agree it will probably correct itself over time. I’m not sure that’s what you meant though.

>>Here is something to consider. Take a look at gas prices. Someone in the Middle East can just belch, or hint at an >>oil shortage, and the next day we pay 10 cents more per gallon.

I wasn’t aware there was an international fish cartel.

>>The prices of groceries respond pretty fast to shortages, too. Has anyone noticed the massive increase in the price of fish that would indicate that we are eating the last 10% of the large fish in the entire world? Neither have I.

Have you looked at the unemployment rate in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland lately? I have, and it ain’t pretty.

Fishing and oil have very different pricing models. So do fishing and farming, for that matter. If a farmer’s crop fails because of drought, he can’t just move to a different section of the prairie and farm some more to make up the shortfall, nor can he simply stay out and farm longer hours. A fishing boat can, up to a point. They’re paid by what they bring in. If they’ve been out for six weeks and they haven’t brought in their quota, then they can stay out another six weeks, or move to another fishing ground. They work harder, they work longer hours, they take more risks, but they get paid the same – so, up to a point, it wouldn’t surprise me if the price of fish stays the same.

Have you read Sebastian Junger’s book, The Perfect Storm? He makes an interesting statement about the exponential curve. I won’t discuss the mathematics of it, but the gist of it is that, when a ship is getting into trouble at sea, the line between “I think we might be in trouble” and “Holy [censored] we’re going down” can be razor-fine. I think there are too many people who are sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the warning signs.

Actually, I wasn't referring to an individual school of fish, but was using the singular to try to illustrate a point. It was a lot easier than trying to refer to multiple schools every time.

I disagree with you about the global warming, but I think that you made a valid point when you pointed out that the fish congregate where the food is and then asked the question where would they go. This was one of my points as well when I pointed out that they could be attracted from one place to another. I don't deny that various places may be overfished, but I maintain that it is a stretch to say that we have lost 90% of the world's large fish.

I think it that It is obvious that we aren't going to convince each other, so what say we agree to disagree agreeably?

I still think that they all probably turned gay!

>>Actually, I wasn't referring to an individual school of fish, but was using the singular to try to illustrate a point. It
>>was a lot easier than trying to refer to multiple schools every time.

And I pointed out that this was misleading. There’s no comparison between finding a ghost town in Arizona, and finding the entire state all but deserted. The former is analogous to the example you were using; the latter is analogous to what the scientists have found.

>>… I think that you made a valid point when you pointed out that the fish congregate where the food is and then
>>asked the question where would they go.

And the obvious answer is that there’s nowhere else for them to go. They could no more survive “somewhere else” than they could survive in Antarctica or the Mojave Desert.

>>This was one of my points as well when I pointed out that they could be
>>attracted from one place to another.

In which case the fishing fleets would simply follow them. The fact that the fishing fleets haven’t been able to do so indicates strongly that the fish haven’t “gone someplace”, they’ve just gone.

>>I don't deny that various places may be overfished, but I maintain that it is a stretch to say that we have lost 90%
>>of the world's large fish.

But you don’t seem to offer anything other than a personal opinion, whereas the scientists who have been studying this for years have hard facts.

>>I think it that It is obvious that we aren't going to convince each other, so what say we agree to disagree
>>agreeably?

I’ve never been a big fan of this argument, that we should be allowed to believe anything we want, regardless of whether or not it is supported by the facts.

Suppose you posted on this forum that you thought Potassium Cyanide was harmless and nutritious, and that you intended to feed large quantities of it to your children so they would grow up big and strong. Should we be expected to simply “agree to disagree”? <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

We’re talking about the potential destruction of the world’s fisheries, and your response boils down to “Don’t worry, be happy, it’ll all sort itself out in time.” Which is probably true, but we may not be around when it does. <img src="images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

To presume that fish, with brains the size of thumbtacks or smaller could exhibit the kind of sophisticated response to their environment that deer do is a great reach. Further to think that this sort of sophisticated response would be sufficiently sophisticated to fool the vast number of highly advanced humans and their technology who are making a living hunting them when even deer haven't been able to do so is completely absurd.

Whether it is 90% depletion or 20% depletion is, perhaps, open to debate. That there is some significant depletion of world-wide fishing stocks is beyond question. The search for the cause of this depletion is worthy of attention. Commercial and political response to this depletion is likely to be effective if done correctly. Whether the lower availablity of fish in our oceans (it's not just here or there, everyone is reporting it from everywhere on the globe. If the Japanese were finding a tripling of fish in their water then it wouldn't be so alarming that there is a drastic reduction of fish in Canadien waters.) is due to global warming, polution, over-fishing or whatever, if fishing is curtailed then one of the pressures on the fish populations will be aleviated.

It is provable that humans have hunted to extinction various species on land. Why then is it so hard to believe that we can do it in the oceans?

I recently find an article about that subject at the following address :
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/030515/202/373hx.html , but that's in french.
It relates to an article from the british NATURE magazine, mid may, 2003.

I have tried to browse their web site (www.nature.com) but did not found it.

I have found these other related news :

http://www.nature.com/nsu/011129/011129-12.html

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020225/020225-2.html

Hope it helps...

Alain

Frenchy,

Thank you for the input. I have read the article several times, and have tried to be fair, but I just don't buy into it. If others wish to, that's fine, but I do not.

I have a number of reasons for not accepting this. For one thing, it is mistake to believe everything you read or hear, regardless of how many times it is repeated. To do so is to be naive and gullible as well as unwise. For another thing, many things are not what they appear to be. Just because someone is considered to be a scientist by himself or others does not make him one, and it does not necessarily make his assertions correct. Even if he IS a scientist, even a good one, that by itself does not make him correct. Also, just because certain information is authoritatively used as "facts" and "statistics", it does not necessarily mean that the information is accurate. The accuracy of those "facts" and "statistics" goes out the window if they are fabricated, or are based on incorrect, incomplete, or misinterpreted data.

Apparently, I am not the only one that doesn't accept the theories promoted in this article. You will notice that some fishery managers also find them very hard to accept. The article makes a lame attempt at damage control by saying that these people are in denial.

Some questions anyone reading this article should ask are, who are these people mentioned in the article? What are their qualifications, and what is their agenda? What do we know about their accuracy, integrity and professionalism? How did they obtain their data, and how did they arrive at their conclusions? Did they do independent research, or just quote someone else? Were their conclusions independently verified? Has anyone duplicated their efforts and arrived at the same conclusions? What information can be gathered from those who disagree with these theories? Or, should we blindly and stupidly assume that everyone who disagrees with these theories is wrong?

This article has the familiar ring of other reactionary artlcles I have read in the past. It also has the familiar ring of a story that many of us learned as small children, about a chicken that got hit in the head with an acorn (a nut from an oak tree) and ran around shouting, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

In my opinion, this article has too many holes in it to be taken seriously. I would itemize them, but you can identify a number of them for yourself if you will study the article closely.

Too many people are content with letting others do their thinking for them, and as such, will fail to be intellectual or moral survivors. The mantra of too many is "Wherever they lead me, I will follow, and whatever they feed me, I will swallow". I don't intend to be one of them.

These are certainly the important questions to ask when evaluating any information. I think that in the case of the information presented in the articles it is pretty evident that many of these questions can be summarily answered by saying that they are respected academics who have spent years studying and are attempting to come to an objective answer to a puzzle that they have studied.

If you have evidence that contradicts that statement please present it. If there is some underlying motivation that you can document that casts doubt on their integrity or skills please enlighten us so that we may be as wise as you in our evaluation of their prognostications.

[RANT ON]
If your claim that they are misleading us is based on the authority of your own study, skills and knowledge then please answer all of the above questions for us so that we may evaluate your prognostications adequately and wisely. I have heard from more than one source, funded by differing and competing sources, come to similar conclusions, we are indeed depleting our natural resources. Everything from fish to oil to breathable air. There seems to be great debate as to how fast and how bad it is but you are the only one I have heard to claim that "It just ain't so!". Please tell me how you know and what your level of study and skills are so that I may judge for myself whether you know what you are talking about and whether you have an underlying motivation that casts aspersions on the integrity of your findings.

[RANT OFF]