Where are the greens and environmental groups when governments and
businesses are really raping the planet. I don't see the EU pressuring
anyone to cut their fishing fleets or doing any manful cuts in their own.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science...ish/index.html

Long liners, shark finner and drift netters rape the seas with increasingly
better technology and all anyone worries about is protecting their
agriculture markets from better methods of competition and the anti
globalist use this as a lever to disrupt world trade.

Mean while the seas are being raped to the point it going to be pointless to
bother with them at the rate we are going.


--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science...ish/index.html

Study: Only 10 percent of big ocean fish remain
By Marsha Walton
CNN
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Posted: 10:29 PM EDT (0229 GMT)


(CNN) -- A new global study concludes that 90 percent of all large fishes
have disappeared from the world's oceans in the past half century, the
devastating result of industrial fishing.
The study, which took 10 years to complete and was published in the
international journal Nature this week, paints a grim picture of the Earth's
current populations of such species as sharks, swordfish, tuna and marlin.
The authors used data going back 47 years from nine oceanic and four
continental shelf systems, ranging from the tropics to the Antarctic.
Whether off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada, or in the Gulf of Thailand,
the findings were dire, according to the authors.
"I think the point is there is nowhere left in the ocean not overfished,"
said Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax,
Nova Scotia and lead author of the study.
Some in the fishing industry took issue with the tone of the report.
"I'm sure there are areas of the world with that level of depletion, but
other areas are in good shape," said Lorne Clayton, with the Canadian Highly
Migratory Species Foundation, a foundation that supports the sustainable
development of the tuna industry.
He said some abuses of the past have ended: Long drift nets are illegal,
untended longlines are illegal, and many countries adhere to elaborate
systems of licensing, quotas and third party observers working on boats.
Yet Clayton agreed that there remains much room for improvement.
"It's important to keep these issues in front of the public. That puts
pressure on the fisheries and agencies to keep cleaning up their act," he
said.
According to the report, the big declines in the numbers of large fishes
began when industrial fishing started in the early 1950s.
"Whether it is yellowfin tuna in the tropics, bluefin in cold waters, or
albacore tuna in between, the pattern is always the same. There is a rapid
decline of fish numbers," Myers said.
Co-author Boris Worm said the losses are having major impacts on the ocean
ecosystems.
The predatory fish are like "the lions and tigers of the sea," said Worm, a
marine ecologist with the Institute for Marine Science in Kiel, Germany.
"The changes that will occur due to the decline of these species are hard to
predict and difficult to understand. However, they will occur on a global
scale, and I think this is the real reason for concern."
Going the way of the dinosaurs?
In many cases, the fish numbers plummeted fastest during the first years
after fleets moved into new areas, often before anyone knew the drops were
taking place.
A few decades ago, longline fishing would catch about 10 big fish per 100
hooks. Now the norm is one fish per 100, with fish about half the weight of
earlier years, Myers said.
Longlining, among the most widespread of fishing methods, uses miles of
baited hooks to catch a wide range of species.
Myers warned that the world's great fish could go the way of the dinosaurs
if immediate action is not taken.
Humans have always been very good at killing big animals.
-- Ransom Myers


"Humans have always been very good at killing big animals," Myers said. "Ten
thousand years ago, with just some pointed sticks, humans managed to wipe
out the woolly mammoth, saber tooth tigers, mastodons and giant vampire
bats. The same could happen in the oceans."
Some representatives of the fishing industry say the picture is not as bleak
as the Nature authors indicate.
"For tuna, the analysis is restricted to data from longline fisheries that
catch only relatively old individuals, which comprise a small part of the
stock," said Robin Allen, of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
According to the commission, a greater reduction would be expected in that
age-group compared to the tuna stock as a whole.
Worm said he hopes this "big picture" study of the world's fish populations
will serve as a wake up call to governments, global fishing conglomerates
and environmental groups.
"People haven't before seen how bad this is," said Worm. "It doesn't make
any sense, economically or ecologically, to ignore this."
Solutions in the water
While the numbers are alarming, Worm said there are solutions.
In the past when certain fishing areas have been declared off limits and
fishing restrictions have been enforced, certain fish and shellfish
populations rebounded "amazingly quickly," he said.
Haddock, yellowtail and scallops have recovered in different regions.
"The ocean is full of surprises," Worm said. But with numbers down so
dramatically in every part of the world, the situation cannot be ignored for
long, he said.
Myers said many of the world's fishing commissions and governments have
tried to wish away the problem for years. Reversing the decline, he
suggested, would require cutting back fishing by as much as 60 percent.
Clayton said that technological advances were already responsible for
improvements. Hi-tech equipment on fleets from many developed countries
reduce the by-catch, the fish and other animals caught as by-products of the
target fish.
But a huge technological gap still exists between the fishing fleets of rich
and poor nations, Clayton said.
He said it makes economic sense for the fishing industry to adhere to
conservation measures, and to look at the expansion of aquaculture (fish
farming) as part of the answer to dwindling fish numbers.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 15:44:12 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Where are the greens and environmental groups when governments and
businesses are really raping the planet.

Eh, Gordon, enviromental groups and greens have done that for years.

However, since you appear so virginly in shock: where were you?

Gordon Couger writes

Where are the greens and environmental groups when governments and
businesses are really raping the planet.

To be honest the problem has been well aired by marine scientists for
decades. I don't think eco-green groups consider it much of a
moneyspinner.

I don't see the EU pressuring
anyone to cut their fishing fleets or doing any manful cuts in their own.

They have been trying for years, and introduced many cuts and
restrictions over the last decade or so. All bitterly fought by
fishermen who, with already marginal catches, are not well placed to
survive restrictions.

There is much cheating, particularly by spanish trawlers.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Oz wrote:

Gordon Couger writes

Where are the greens and environmental groups when governments and
businesses are really raping the planet.

To be honest the problem has been well aired by marine scientists for
decades. I don't think eco-green groups consider it much of a
moneyspinner.

I don't know where you live, but here in Sweden it has been a big
issue for many years among our major environmental groups and there
has at least been some effect on what kind of fish people buy.

I don't see the EU pressuring
anyone to cut their fishing fleets or doing any manful cuts in their own.

They have been trying for years, and introduced many cuts and
restrictions over the last decade or so. All bitterly fought by
fishermen who, with already marginal catches, are not well placed to
survive restrictions.

On the other hand EU also has been busy "buying" fishing rights outside
Africa to get new fish stocks to plunder when the local waters are
depleted.

There is much cheating, particularly by spanish trawlers.

By almost everyone, I'm afraid.

Thomas Palm writes
Oz wrote:

To be honest the problem has been well aired by marine scientists for
decades. I don't think eco-green groups consider it much of a
moneyspinner.

I don't know where you live,

UK

but here in Sweden it has been a big
issue for many years among our major environmental groups and there
has at least been some effect on what kind of fish people buy.

Compared to pretty well all other envrio activities (banning foxhunting,
GM, radioactivity, fuel, CO2 etc etc) it's barely had a mention.

There is little consumer activity (maybe dolphin-friendly tuna: a bit).

Which is a pity because it's one area where consumer power could have a
dramatic effect.

Personally I see little alternative but to **totally** ban net fishing
in EU waters for a decade or so. I can't see this happening.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

On Fri, 16 May 2003 09:44:35 +0200, Thomas Palm
wrote:

Oz wrote:

Gordon Couger writes

Where are the greens and environmental groups when governments and
businesses are really raping the planet.

To be honest the problem has been well aired by marine scientists for
decades. I don't think eco-green groups consider it much of a
moneyspinner.

I don't know where you live, but here in Sweden it has been a big
issue for many years among our major environmental groups and there
has at least been some effect on what kind of fish people buy.

Similar thing here, all major environmental groups have been at it for
many years -- however with modes of industry fishing naturally being
in the focus here in Denmark. Opposed by huge economic interests,
victories have been small indeed.

On the consumer side e.g. environmental group NOAH has campaigned with
the grubbing of industry fish out of the North Sea, to make fish feed,
to be sailed to Asia, to feed tiger prawns, to be sailed back, to be
sold and put on the tables of the consumer.

I don't see the EU pressuring
anyone to cut their fishing fleets or doing any manful cuts in their own.

They have been trying for years, and introduced many cuts and
restrictions over the last decade or so. All bitterly fought by
fishermen who, with already marginal catches, are not well placed to
survive restrictions.

On the other hand EU also has been busy "buying" fishing rights outside
Africa to get new fish stocks to plunder when the local waters are
depleted.

There is much cheating, particularly by spanish trawlers.

By almost everyone, I'm afraid.

E.g. The Danish government spends nearly a quarter of a billion DKK
2002/2003 in a presumed effort to decrease fishing pressure taking a
6700 tonnage, or 188 fishing boats out of service, -- while
investments are made in new fishing boats, of a total 5500 tonnage, or
in new equipment, with the net effect that the turnover of the total
fishing fleet in order to stay economically viable needs to remain the
same or increase.

"The [Danish] Parliament bloody must hold the Minister [of Fisheries]
responsible. It is completely unacceptable that she lets herself be
ruled by the economic powers and interests lobbying in fishery and its
service industries."

[my translation, TB]
(8.May, Chairman of 'Levende Hav' (~Living Sea)
http://www.levendehav.dk/

In sci.environment Oz wrote:
Thomas Palm writes
Oz wrote:

To be honest the problem has been well aired by marine scientists for
decades. I don't think eco-green groups consider it much of a
moneyspinner.

I don't know where you live,

UK

Me too.

but here in Sweden it has been a big
issue for many years among our major environmental groups and there
has at least been some effect on what kind of fish people buy.

Compared to pretty well all other envrio activities (banning foxhunting,
GM, radioactivity, fuel, CO2 etc etc) it's barely had a mention.

banning foxhunting isn't really an enviro issue: more animal welfare.
Err, but perhaps we shouldn't get into that here.
But though I agree its been relatively low-key, I've seen it mentioned
in the Grauniad and in FOE newsletters.

In fact, just yesterdays grauniad has the lead story on part 2 about this
(OK its a follow-on from the Nature report that started this thread).

There is little consumer activity (maybe dolphin-friendly tuna: a bit).

True, I think. Its one of the reasons I don't eat fish.

Which is a pity because it's one area where consumer power could have a
dramatic effect.

I guess fish aren't fluffy enough for most people.

Personally I see little alternative but to **totally** ban net fishing
in EU waters for a decade or so.

Sounds good to me.

-W.

--
William M Connolley | | http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!

Oz wrote:

Thomas Palm writes
Oz wrote:

To be honest the problem has been well aired by marine scientists for
decades. I don't think eco-green groups consider it much of a
moneyspinner.

I don't know where you live,

UK

but here in Sweden it has been a big
issue for many years among our major environmental groups and there
has at least been some effect on what kind of fish people buy.

Compared to pretty well all other envrio activities (banning foxhunting,
GM, radioactivity, fuel, CO2 etc etc) it's barely had a mention.

In Sweden the vanishing cod has been a large subject.

There is little consumer activity (maybe dolphin-friendly tuna: a bit).

That has been much less of an issue in Sweden.

Which is a pity because it's one area where consumer power could have a
dramatic effect.

The public can select between species and boycott some overfished
ones, but by themselves they can't limit the fishing to a sustainable
level.

Personally I see little alternative but to **totally** ban net fishing
in EU waters for a decade or so. I can't see this happening.

Buy an old submarine from North Korea and go out sinking fishing
ships like a modern captain Nemo? (Has anyone read the book about
overhunting of whales by Verne? I don't know if it has been translated
but it seems as if he was ahead of his times in that area too)

Torsten Brinch wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 16 May 2003 09:44:35 +0200, Thomas Palm
wrote:

Oz wrote:

Gordon Couger writes

Where are the greens and environmental groups when governments and
businesses are really raping the planet.

To be honest the problem has been well aired by marine scientists for
decades. I don't think eco-green groups consider it much of a
moneyspinner.

I don't know where you live, but here in Sweden it has been a big
issue for many years among our major environmental groups and there
has at least been some effect on what kind of fish people buy.

Similar thing here, all major environmental groups have been at it for
many years -- however with modes of industry fishing naturally being
in the focus here in Denmark. Opposed by huge economic interests,
victories have been small indeed.

On the consumer side e.g. environmental group NOAH has campaigned with
the grubbing of industry fish out of the North Sea, to make fish feed,
to be sailed to Asia, to feed tiger prawns, to be sailed back, to be
sold and put on the tables of the consumer.

I don't see the EU pressuring
anyone to cut their fishing fleets or doing any manful cuts in their own.

They have been trying for years, and introduced many cuts and
restrictions over the last decade or so. All bitterly fought by
fishermen who, with already marginal catches, are not well placed to
survive restrictions.

On the other hand EU also has been busy "buying" fishing rights outside
Africa to get new fish stocks to plunder when the local waters are
depleted.

There is much cheating, particularly by spanish trawlers.

By almost everyone, I'm afraid.

E.g. The Danish government spends nearly a quarter of a billion DKK
2002/2003 in a presumed effort to decrease fishing pressure taking a
6700 tonnage, or 188 fishing boats out of service, -- while
investments are made in new fishing boats, of a total 5500 tonnage, or
in new equipment, with the net effect that the turnover of the total
fishing fleet in order to stay economically viable needs to remain the
same or increase.

"The [Danish] Parliament bloody must hold the Minister [of Fisheries]
responsible. It is completely unacceptable that she lets herself be
ruled by the economic powers and interests lobbying in fishery and its
service industries."

[my translation, TB]
(8.May, Chairman of 'Levende Hav' (~Living Sea)
http://www.levendehav.dk/


As has been pointed out by a number of people, not limited to myself,
on this and other newsgroups, fisheries are simply the Tragedy of the
Commons writ large. Check out some of the other recent threads to see
the full arguments. But at root, that is the primary cause, not the
proximate, it is the economic structure of the industry that is at
fault. Until that is changed there will be no lasting solution.
I would also note that two countries have lasting solutions : Iceland
and Norway. And they´ve done it by making the fishermen own the fish
directly. Just as Hardin said in his original essay, one can have
either private or social solutions to the overuse of a Commons
resource. Yet at present, fisheries are still run as commons. Absurd.

Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall wrote:
As has been pointed out by a number of people, not limited to myself,
on this and other newsgroups, fisheries are simply the Tragedy of the
Commons writ large. Check out some of the other recent threads to see
the full arguments. But at root, that is the primary cause, not the
proximate, it is the economic structure of the industry that is at
fault. Until that is changed there will be no lasting solution.
I would also note that two countries have lasting solutions : Iceland
and Norway. And they´ve done it by making the fishermen own the fish
directly. Just as Hardin said in his original essay, one can have
either private or social solutions to the overuse of a Commons
resource. Yet at present, fisheries are still run as commons. Absurd.

The Soviet Union also managed to manage salmon stocks in the NW
(The practice was older, the Soviets just didn't disrupt it). There
they simply banned capture of salmon at sea. By the time the salmon
reach the rivers you could put up nets capturing most salmon and
letting enough of them pass for reproduction. Since salmon come back
to the same river it's ideal for local management. This was really
neither a capitalist or a propertly communist solution but one that
predated both.

And most fisheries are not run as commons today, but are (inefficiently)
managed by governments. If you happen to have a link to how Norway and
Iceland manage their fisheries I'd appreciate it. My impression isn't
quite as rose as yours.

On 17 May 2003 04:37:23 -0700, (Tim Worstall) wrote:

As has been pointed out by a number of people, not limited to myself,
on this and other newsgroups, fisheries are simply the Tragedy of the
Commons writ large. Check out some of the other recent threads to see
the full arguments. But at root, that is the primary cause, not the
proximate, it is the economic structure of the industry that is at
fault. Until that is changed there will be no lasting solution.
I would also note that two countries have lasting solutions : Iceland
and Norway. And they´ve done it by making the fishermen own the fish
directly. Just as Hardin said in his original essay, one can have
either private or social solutions to the overuse of a Commons
resource. Yet at present, fisheries are still run as commons. Absurd.

I can't see why I should not take the above as an attempt, and perhaps
indefensibly so(but hard to say, no arguments are made), to simplify
a problem of considerable complexity to fit a particular agenda.

Hi,

Thomas Palm wrote:
Tim Worstall wrote:

As has been pointed out by a number of people, not limited to myself,
on this and other newsgroups, fisheries are simply the Tragedy of the
Commons writ large. Check out some of the other recent threads to see
the full arguments. But at root, that is the primary cause, not the
proximate, it is the economic structure of the industry that is at
fault. Until that is changed there will be no lasting solution.
I would also note that two countries have lasting solutions : Iceland
and Norway. And they´ve done it by making the fishermen own the fish
directly. Just as Hardin said in his original essay, one can have
either private or social solutions to the overuse of a Commons
resource. Yet at present, fisheries are still run as commons. Absurd.


The Soviet Union also managed to manage salmon stocks in the NW
(The practice was older, the Soviets just didn't disrupt it). There
they simply banned capture of salmon at sea. By the time the salmon
reach the rivers you could put up nets capturing most salmon and
letting enough of them pass for reproduction. Since salmon come back
to the same river it's ideal for local management. This was really
neither a capitalist or a propertly communist solution but one that
predated both.

And most fisheries are not run as commons today, but are (inefficiently)
managed by governments. If you happen to have a link to how Norway and
Iceland manage their fisheries I'd appreciate it. My impression isn't
quite as rose as yours.


A quick overview can be read at
http://odin.dep.no/fid/engelsk/00804...000-b-n-a.html
(for Norway).

The main point is that Norway uses a particular version of the quota
system. Concessions and licenses are granted/given for vessels, and the
quotas are assigned per vessel- or gear- group. The fisheries access is
effectively closed, as about 90% of the economically interesting
fisheries are regulated.

The quota are not transferrable per se, so it is not a ITQ system
proper. The quotas are assigned to and follow the vessel. So, to
*purchase* a second quota, one fisherman has to buy the vessel which has
the quota assigned.

The main problem is that of over-capacity and over-capitalization of the
fishing industry. The aim of the quota system is to reduce both (there
is also a decommissioning program).

Now, there is a long-term right of exclusive access to the fisheries
resource (concessions are granted for an undetermined period of time,
while licenses on a yearly basis, but usually renewed "by default"), and
thus of economic exploitation, but this does not translate into
ownership of the resource.

thanks
ciuao
Vito

--
--------------------------------------
Searching for the hermit in vain

I asked a boy beneath the pines.
He said, "The master's gone alone
Herb-picking somewhere in the mounts,
Cloud-hidden, whereabouts unknown."

Chia Tao (777-841)
---------------------------------------

Tim Worstall writes
As has been pointed out by a number of people, not limited to myself,
on this and other newsgroups, fisheries are simply the Tragedy of the
Commons writ large. Check out some of the other recent threads to see
the full arguments. But at root, that is the primary cause, not the
proximate, it is the economic structure of the industry that is at
fault. Until that is changed there will be no lasting solution.
I would also note that two countries have lasting solutions : Iceland
and Norway. And they´ve done it by making the fishermen own the fish
directly. Just as Hardin said in his original essay, one can have
either private or social solutions to the overuse of a Commons
resource. Yet at present, fisheries are still run as commons. Absurd.

/aol

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

(Tim Worstall) wrote in message . com...


As has been pointed out by a number of people, not limited to myself,
on this and other newsgroups, fisheries are simply the Tragedy of the
Commons writ large. Check out some of the other recent threads to see
the full arguments. But at root, that is the primary cause, not the
proximate, it is the economic structure of the industry that is at
fault. Until that is changed there will be no lasting solution.
I would also note that two countries have lasting solutions : Iceland
and Norway. And they´ve done it by making the fishermen own the fish
directly. Just as Hardin said in his original essay, one can have
either private or social solutions to the overuse of a Commons
resource. Yet at present, fisheries are still run as commons. Absurd.

Tim Worstall

Ah the sweet smell of Privatization success in Norway:

http://www.just-food.com/news_detail.asp?art=54087

NORWAY: Fisheries minister says quality of Norwegian fish is too low
14 May 2003
Source: just-food.com




The quality of both Norwegian fresh and frozen fish is too low,
according to the country's fisheries minister, Svein Ludvigsen.

Ludvigsen said that Norway was losing its reputation as a producer and
exporter of high-quality fish in traditionally strong markets such as
Brazil and France.

The conference at which Ludvigsen made his remarks decided it was
necessary to take measures to improve the quality of Norwegian fish as
soon as possible.

Ludvigsen called for more state funding to support fish production and
to introduce harsh fines for fish producers who do not maintain
quality standards, reported the Norwegian News Digest.
----------

What is that = Ludvigsen wants state funding??????????????

Also looks like Norway and Oceland have problems over "protected"
areas:

http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fulls...ing_Issue.html


And the Practice or Privatization may result in disaster also:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993677

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service



New mangrove forests threaten coral reefs


09:00 05 May 03

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition

An audacious scheme to plant the world's desert coastlines with
mangrove trees is being condemned by marine biologists as a potential
disaster for coral reefs.

The scheme is the brainchild of a retired US cell biologist, Gordon
Sato. He wants to plant mangroves along hundreds of kilometres of
coastline in Mexico, Arabia and elsewhere. His first 250,000 trees are
already growing close to coral reefs on the shores of the Red Sea in
Eritrea.

"The object is to create whole new forests of mangrove trees in vast
areas of the world," says Sato. He believes that mangroves will fight
poverty by providing fodder for goats, and help combat global warming
by absorbing carbon from the air.

Sato estimates he could plant 50 million trees round the Red Sea
alone, and 200 million on the shores of the Gulf of California in
Mexico. If canals were used to take seawater inland, much of the
Sahara, the Arabian Peninsula and the Atacama Desert of Chile could be
planted, too. "Such forests would banish the problem of global
warming," he says.

The mangroves will be planted on beaches between the high and low
water mark. To help them grow, Sato is adding up to a tonne of
fertiliser per hectare of beach, placed in the sand in small bags that
slowly release the nutrients.


Nutrient pollution


But reef scientists say this flush of nutrients into the sea could
harm nearby reefs and destroy the fisheries on which coastal
communities now depend. "Coral reefs are extremely sensitive to
nutrient pollution," says Mark Spalding, co-author of the UN-backed
World Atlas of Coral Reefs. Sato "is working without external
scientific advice and with no environmental impact assessment", he
claims.


But Sato insists that, according to his own measurements, nitrogen and
phosphorus levels round the mangroves are indistinguishable from those
in the open sea.

The scheme has sparked a passionate debate. Some other marine
ecologists contacted by New Scientist were vehemently opposed to the
project, though they were not prepared to be quoted.

Sato, who retired as a cell biologist 11 years ago, has so far largely
funded the project himself. In autumn 2002 his work in Eritrea earned
him the prestigious Rolex award for enterprise, worth $100,000. He now
hopes corporate sponsors will come in, to allow the programme to
expand rapidly.

Mangroves along tropical shores nurture fisheries and help protect
coasts from storms, and environmentalists are keen to conserve
existing mangrove swamps. But, says Spalding, "in general, the success
stories have been in areas where mangroves had previously flourished".
Planting mangroves close to reefs could damage them, and "may threaten
rather than support coastal livelihoods".