http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...re/6108414.stm
'Only 50 years left' for sea fish
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the
middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major
scientific study.

Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the
rate of decline is accelerating.

Writing in the journal Science, the international team of researchers
says fisheries decline is closely tied to a broader loss of marine
biodiversity.

But a greater use of protected areas could safeguard existing stocks.

"The way we use the oceans is that we hope and assume there will always
be another species to exploit after we've completely gone through the
last one," said research leader Boris Worm from Dalhousie University in
Canada.

"What we're highlighting is there is a finite number of stocks; we have
gone through one-third, and we are going to get through the rest," he
told the BBC News website.

Steve Palumbi from Stanford University in California, one of the other
scientists on the project, added: "Unless we fundamentally change the
way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems,
then this century is the last century of wild seafood."

Spanning the seas

This is a vast piece of research, incorporating scientists from many
institutions in Europe and the Americas, and drawing on four distinctly
different kinds of data.

Catch records from the open sea give a picture of declining fish
stocks.

In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse, defined
as a decline to less than 10% of their original yield.

Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are
not bringing the world's fleets bigger returns - in fact, the global
catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003.

Historical records from coastal zones in North America, Europe and
Australia also show declining yields, in step with declining species
diversity; these are yields not just of fish, but of other kinds of
seafood too.

Experiments performed in small, relatively contained ecosystems show
that reductions in diversity tend to bring reductions in the size and
robustness of local fish stocks. This implies that loss of biodiversity
is driving the declines in fish stocks seen in the large-scale studies.


The final part of the jigsaw is data from areas where fishing has been
banned or heavily restricted.

These show that protection brings back biodiversity within the zone,
and restores populations of fish just outside.

"The image I use to explain why biodiversity is so important is that
marine life is a bit like a house of cards," said Dr Worm.

"All parts of it are integral to the structure; if you remove parts,
particularly at the bottom, it's detrimental to everything on top and
threatens the whole structure.

"And we're learning that in the oceans, species are very strongly
linked to each other - probably more so than on land."

Protected interest

What the study does not do is attribute damage to individual activities
such as overfishing, pollution or habitat loss; instead it paints a
picture of the cumulative harm done across the board.

Even so, a key implication of the research is that more of the oceans
should be protected.

But the extent of protection is not the only issue, according to Carl
Gustaf Lundin, head of the global marine programme at IUCN, the World
Conservation Union.

"The benefits of marine protected areas are quite clear in a few cases;
there's no doubt that protecting areas leads to a lot more fish and
larger fish, and less vulnerability," he said.

"But you also have to have good management of marine parks and good
management of fisheries. Clearly, fishing should not wreck the
ecosystem, bottom trawling being a good example of something which does
wreck the ecosystem."

But, he said, the concept of protecting fish stocks by protecting
biodiversity does make sense.

"This is a good compelling case; we should protect biodiversity, and it
does pay off even in simple monetary terms through fisheries yield."

Protecting stocks demands the political will to act on scientific
advice - something which Boris Worm finds lacking in Europe, where
politicians have ignored recommendations to halt the iconic North Sea
cod fishery year after year.

Without a ban, scientists fear the North Sea stocks could follow the
Grand Banks cod of eastern Canada into apparently terminal decline.

"I'm just amazed, it's very irrational," he said.

"You have scientific consensus and nothing moves. It's a sad example;
and what happened in Canada should be such a warning, because now it's
collapsed it's not coming back."

1. Experiments show that reducing the diversity of an ecosystem lowers
the abundance of fish
2. Historical records show extensive loss of biodiversity along coasts
since 1800, with the collapse of about 40% of species. About one-third
of once viable coastal fisheries are now useless
3. Catch records from the open ocean show widespread decline of
fisheries since 1950 with the rate of decline increasing. In 2003, 29%
of fisheries were collapsed. Biodiverse regions' stocks fare better
4. Marine reserves and no-catch zones bring an average 23% improvement
in biodiversity and an increase in fish stocks around the protected
area

----------------------

wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...re/6108414.stm
'Only 50 years left' for sea fish
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the
middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major
scientific study.

Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the
rate of decline is accelerating.

Bilions of human beings are going to starve to death as oil production collapses
before 2010.


Writing in the journal Science, the international team of researchers
says fisheries decline is closely tied to a broader loss of marine
biodiversity.

But a greater use of protected areas could safeguard existing stocks.

"The way we use the oceans is that we hope and assume there will always
be another species to exploit after we've completely gone through the
last one," said research leader Boris Worm from Dalhousie University in
Canada.

"What we're highlighting is there is a finite number of stocks; we have
gone through one-third, and we are going to get through the rest," he
told the BBC News website.

Steve Palumbi from Stanford University in California, one of the other
scientists on the project, added: "Unless we fundamentally change the
way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems,
then this century is the last century of wild seafood."

Spanning the seas

This is a vast piece of research, incorporating scientists from many
institutions in Europe and the Americas, and drawing on four distinctly
different kinds of data.

Catch records from the open sea give a picture of declining fish
stocks.

In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse, defined
as a decline to less than 10% of their original yield.

Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are
not bringing the world's fleets bigger returns - in fact, the global
catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003.

Historical records from coastal zones in North America, Europe and
Australia also show declining yields, in step with declining species
diversity; these are yields not just of fish, but of other kinds of
seafood too.

Experiments performed in small, relatively contained ecosystems show
that reductions in diversity tend to bring reductions in the size and
robustness of local fish stocks. This implies that loss of biodiversity
is driving the declines in fish stocks seen in the large-scale studies.


The final part of the jigsaw is data from areas where fishing has been
banned or heavily restricted.

These show that protection brings back biodiversity within the zone,
and restores populations of fish just outside.

"The image I use to explain why biodiversity is so important is that
marine life is a bit like a house of cards," said Dr Worm.

"All parts of it are integral to the structure; if you remove parts,
particularly at the bottom, it's detrimental to everything on top and
threatens the whole structure.

"And we're learning that in the oceans, species are very strongly
linked to each other - probably more so than on land."

Protected interest

What the study does not do is attribute damage to individual activities
such as overfishing, pollution or habitat loss; instead it paints a
picture of the cumulative harm done across the board.

Even so, a key implication of the research is that more of the oceans
should be protected.

But the extent of protection is not the only issue, according to Carl
Gustaf Lundin, head of the global marine programme at IUCN, the World
Conservation Union.

"The benefits of marine protected areas are quite clear in a few cases;
there's no doubt that protecting areas leads to a lot more fish and
larger fish, and less vulnerability," he said.

"But you also have to have good management of marine parks and good
management of fisheries. Clearly, fishing should not wreck the
ecosystem, bottom trawling being a good example of something which does
wreck the ecosystem."

But, he said, the concept of protecting fish stocks by protecting
biodiversity does make sense.

"This is a good compelling case; we should protect biodiversity, and it
does pay off even in simple monetary terms through fisheries yield."

Protecting stocks demands the political will to act on scientific
advice - something which Boris Worm finds lacking in Europe, where
politicians have ignored recommendations to halt the iconic North Sea
cod fishery year after year.

Without a ban, scientists fear the North Sea stocks could follow the
Grand Banks cod of eastern Canada into apparently terminal decline.

"I'm just amazed, it's very irrational," he said.

"You have scientific consensus and nothing moves. It's a sad example;
and what happened in Canada should be such a warning, because now it's
collapsed it's not coming back."

1. Experiments show that reducing the diversity of an ecosystem lowers
the abundance of fish
2. Historical records show extensive loss of biodiversity along coasts
since 1800, with the collapse of about 40% of species. About one-third
of once viable coastal fisheries are now useless
3. Catch records from the open ocean show widespread decline of
fisheries since 1950 with the rate of decline increasing. In 2003, 29%
of fisheries were collapsed. Biodiverse regions' stocks fare better
4. Marine reserves and no-catch zones bring an average 23% improvement
in biodiversity and an increase in fish stocks around the protected
area

----------------------

--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.

GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia wrote:

wrote:

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the
middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a
major scientific study.

Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the
rate of decline is accelerating.

Bilions of human beings are going to starve to death as oil production
collapses before 2010.

Just like what happened to coal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William..._Coal_Question

Mark Thorson wrote:

GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia wrote:

wrote:

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the
middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a
major scientific study.

Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the
rate of decline is accelerating.

Bilions of human beings are going to starve to death as oil production
collapses before 2010.

Just like what happened to coal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William..._Coal_Question

It always depends on how fast coal can be mined, just as it is 'how fast can oil
be pumped' in the face of dwindling reserves.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.

This is solemn news.

Soylent Green is coming to farmer's market near you.

Talk about yer trailer trash snacks!


Aloha!

Barb

wrote

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the
middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a
major
scientific study.

BS: we will simply fish different fishes, or "new" fishes, as you
prefer.
Can't wait to have my first 10kG-jellyfish bourguognonne
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia wrote

Bilions of human beings are going to starve to death as oil
production collapses before 2010.

You think I should take some training on my bycicle?
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia wrote

It always depends on how fast coal can be mined, just as it is 'how
fast can oil be pumped' in the face of dwindling reserves.

And those friggin' bio-fuels, like ethanol coming from corn? I
discovered just today that good ol' Italy produces tons & tons of
biomass ethanol, but we're selling it out. Maybe because our cars
prefer to drink good' ol fossil-fuels? scratching left testicle I
reckon.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

Vilco wrote

BS: we will simply fish different fishes, or "new" fishes, as you
prefer.
Can't wait to have my first 10kG-jellyfish bourguognonne

Who's got a tested recipe for Springfield Tri-eyed fish?
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

Vilco wrote:

GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia wrote

Bilions of human beings are going to starve to death as oil
production collapses before 2010.

You think I should take some training on my bycicle?
If you live in India or China or Indonesia, don't bother. Save your money so you
can afford to buy rice.

--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.

GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia wrote

You think I should take some training on my bycicle?

If you live in India or China or Indonesia, don't bother. Save your
money so you can afford to buy rice.

I'm in Italy. Maybe I train to ride a Vespa.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

GODDAMN

I am a believer. The fish scales have the same marking in them. I
don't know how
to explain it. Almost like a different molecule makeup. They
speculated that
is what is affecting the eggs, this different molecule makeup that is
killing the
fish!!

dboots
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...re/6108414.stm
'Only 50 years left' for sea fish
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the
middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major
scientific study.

Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the
rate of decline is accelerating.

Writing in the journal Science, the international team of researchers
says fisheries decline is closely tied to a broader loss of marine
biodiversity.

But a greater use of protected areas could safeguard existing stocks.

"The way we use the oceans is that we hope and assume there will always
be another species to exploit after we've completely gone through the
last one," said research leader Boris Worm from Dalhousie University in
Canada.

"What we're highlighting is there is a finite number of stocks; we have
gone through one-third, and we are going to get through the rest," he
told the BBC News website.

Steve Palumbi from Stanford University in California, one of the other
scientists on the project, added: "Unless we fundamentally change the
way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems,
then this century is the last century of wild seafood."

Spanning the seas

This is a vast piece of research, incorporating scientists from many
institutions in Europe and the Americas, and drawing on four distinctly
different kinds of data.

Catch records from the open sea give a picture of declining fish
stocks.

In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse, defined
as a decline to less than 10% of their original yield.

Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are
not bringing the world's fleets bigger returns - in fact, the global
catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003.

Historical records from coastal zones in North America, Europe and
Australia also show declining yields, in step with declining species
diversity; these are yields not just of fish, but of other kinds of
seafood too.

Experiments performed in small, relatively contained ecosystems show
that reductions in diversity tend to bring reductions in the size and
robustness of local fish stocks. This implies that loss of biodiversity
is driving the declines in fish stocks seen in the large-scale studies.


The final part of the jigsaw is data from areas where fishing has been
banned or heavily restricted.

These show that protection brings back biodiversity within the zone,
and restores populations of fish just outside.

"The image I use to explain why biodiversity is so important is that
marine life is a bit like a house of cards," said Dr Worm.

"All parts of it are integral to the structure; if you remove parts,
particularly at the bottom, it's detrimental to everything on top and
threatens the whole structure.

"And we're learning that in the oceans, species are very strongly
linked to each other - probably more so than on land."

Protected interest

What the study does not do is attribute damage to individual activities
such as overfishing, pollution or habitat loss; instead it paints a
picture of the cumulative harm done across the board.

Even so, a key implication of the research is that more of the oceans
should be protected.

But the extent of protection is not the only issue, according to Carl
Gustaf Lundin, head of the global marine programme at IUCN, the World
Conservation Union.

"The benefits of marine protected areas are quite clear in a few cases;
there's no doubt that protecting areas leads to a lot more fish and
larger fish, and less vulnerability," he said.

"But you also have to have good management of marine parks and good
management of fisheries. Clearly, fishing should not wreck the
ecosystem, bottom trawling being a good example of something which does
wreck the ecosystem."

But, he said, the concept of protecting fish stocks by protecting
biodiversity does make sense.

"This is a good compelling case; we should protect biodiversity, and it
does pay off even in simple monetary terms through fisheries yield."

Protecting stocks demands the political will to act on scientific
advice - something which Boris Worm finds lacking in Europe, where
politicians have ignored recommendations to halt the iconic North Sea
cod fishery year after year.

Without a ban, scientists fear the North Sea stocks could follow the
Grand Banks cod of eastern Canada into apparently terminal decline.

"I'm just amazed, it's very irrational," he said.

"You have scientific consensus and nothing moves. It's a sad example;
and what happened in Canada should be such a warning, because now it's
collapsed it's not coming back."

1. Experiments show that reducing the diversity of an ecosystem lowers
the abundance of fish
2. Historical records show extensive loss of biodiversity along coasts
since 1800, with the collapse of about 40% of species. About one-third
of once viable coastal fisheries are now useless
3. Catch records from the open ocean show widespread decline of
fisheries since 1950 with the rate of decline increasing. In 2003, 29%
of fisheries were collapsed. Biodiverse regions' stocks fare better
4. Marine reserves and no-catch zones bring an average 23% improvement
in biodiversity and an increase in fish stocks around the protected
area

----------------------

I am not an expert on the oceans but it would seem to me that we need
to study and understand the mechanisms better to solve this problem.
Simply stopping over fishing of the species that is dissapearing may
not solve the problem.

With fish that lay thousands of eggs it only requires a breeding colony
to survive in their zones to keep the fish stocks supplied.
Maybe we should farm the fish for their eggs and re-stock this way.

What is more likely to be happening is that the fish are being killed
at an early age because of either polution or that we have disrupted
the food chain (by killing too many large predator fish that eat the
smaller fish that kill the young fish).

Maybe ocean warming has disrupted the balance of sexes in the fish (I
think this happens with reptiles)

"I'm just amazed, it's very irrational," he said.

"You have scientific consensus and nothing moves. It's a sad example;
and what happened in Canada should be such a warning, because now it's
collapsed it's not coming back."

It's a free-for-all. We are basically eating the planet, destroying
the atmosphere with CO2 build-up, and raping the oceans. The world is
noticeably warmer. You can feel the added warmth and it seems as if
the earth is at a climate tipping point. It's the ghost of Malthus.
People are multiplying and they have to eat the planet in order to keep
on multiplying, burning up forest to make farmland (which is exhausted
after a few years) and pushing other species to extinction. Or maybe
they're just greedy and want to make a buck. A lot of species of fish
that you eat, like tuna and orange roughy, are down over 90% in
population. 90%! Its an outrage, yet they're still fishing these
species like business as usual. Just raping the oceans and burning up
petroleum to make fertilizer and converting the fertilizer to corn.
Corn comes from gasoline, people. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the key
fertilizer nutrient for mass producing corn, is made by burning
petroleum to make the energy to fix nitrogen into ammonium nitrate.

In sci.environment, Vilco

wrote
on Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:52:45 +0100
:
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia wrote

Bilions of human beings are going to starve to death as oil
production collapses before 2010.

You think I should take some training on my bycicle?

I'll admit it's an interesting question as to which is more efficient.

[1] Jump in an SUV, drive 20 miles to the supermarket (a rather US
concept, admittedly), load up with 100 pounds of groceries, drive back.
Total: 4 gallons of gas, about 528 MJ, though the exact amount
depends on vehicle. A Ford Excursion is rated at 12 mpg so perhaps
we can cut down to about 3 1/3 gallons or 440 MJ.

[2] Carb-load, affix a little trailer to one's bicycle, then pedal
20 miles, load up that trailer with 100 pounds of groceries, pedal back.

The first one clearly wins given fossil fuels, but those
are dwindling. If one replaces the gasoline with hydrogen,
one might replace that 4 gallons of gasoline with 4.4 kg
of hydrogen (60 liters liquid, 102 liters at 700 bar);
note that 4 gallons of gasoline will weigh about 12 kg.
If one replaces the gasoline with biodiesel, one might make
a comparison between the amount of acreage and the amount
of time needed to grow enough crop to generate 4 gallons
of gasoline or diesel fuel, versus the amount of acreage
and time needed to grow enough grains, vegetables, or other
such to allow for the pedaling of that little trailer.

There are of course other issues such as flat or hilly,
hot or chilly, dry or snowy, calm or windy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

for engine fuels, but also specifies shgars, carbs, and proteins
(17 MJ/kg).

http://fittv.discovery.com/convergen...armichael.html

suggests 30-60 grams of carbs per hour on a bicycle.
If one assumes 20 mph that translates into 120 grams of
carb fuel or 2 MJ round trip, but that does not take into
account the groceries (or, for that matter, stop lights,
traffic, etc.). It is also far from clear how much one
should eat afterward -- the heart and cardiovascular system
is going to continue pumping/distributing blood at an
elevated rate for some time after one is finished working
out, presumably to allow for quicker muscle recovery and
dissipation of heat.

--
#191,
/dev/signatu Resource temporarily unavailable

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com