An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right

Rape of the Seas

rape_of_seas_2.jpg
This is the harsh editorial heading in today’s edition of The Independent following a news report based on the findings of leading American scientists.

“The madness of the over-fishing of our oceans shows no signs of abating. A research paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco yesterday shows that, as fish stocks in coastal waters become more and more depleted, trawlers are moving further out to sea…

“What makes this rape of the seas even more outrageous is that our governments are subsidising the process to the tune of $150m (£80m) a year.

“Twelve states provide fuel subsidies for their fishermen to make the long voyages into unregulated international waters, including Japan, Spain, South Korea, Russia, Australia, Ukraine, France and Iceland. According to researchers at the University of British Columbia, without subsidies such expeditions would be uneconomical.

“The desire of governments to support their fishing communities is understandable. But it makes no sense to sponsor over-fishing. There is only one sane course of action: the subsidies should end, bottom trawling should be outlawed and a system of strict international regulation for high seas fisheries must be established.

“The warnings of what will happen otherwise are unequivocal. According to a major scientific study last year there will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current fishing trends continue. We are at risk of wiping out one of mankind’s oldest sources of food and doing untold damage to one of our planet’s fundamental ecosystems.”

Another report in the same newspaper says: “Robert Steneck, a fisheries expert at the University of Maine, said: ‘The unregulated catches of these roving bandits are utterly unsustainable. With globalised markets, the economic drivers of over-fishing are physically removed and so fishermen have no stake in the natural systems they affect.

” ‘While it may be a good short-term business practice to fish out stocks and move on, we now see global declines of targeted species,’ Dr Steneck told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco.

” ‘The solution is not going into the deep sea but better managing the shallow waters where fish live fast and die young, and ecosystems have a greater potential for resilience,’ he said.

“Fish that live for more than 100 years and cold-water coral reefs that have taken millennia to form are being destroyed by the ‘roving bandits’ of the high seas that could not survive without government aid.

“Selina Heppell of Oregon State University said deep-sea species such as the orange roughy and Chilean sea bass are very slow to grow and can take many years to reach sexual maturity. ‘When you buy orange roughy, you are probably purchasing a fillet that is at least 50 years old. Most people don’t think of the implications of that – perhaps we need a guideline that says we shouldn’t eat fish as old as our grandmother,’ she said.”

Two years ago Greenpeace discussed the United Nations’ attempt at finding a solution. “Late last year (2004), the United Nations General Assembly in its Fisheries Resolution expressed concern at the loss of sharks, albatross, fin-fish species and marine turtles as a result of incidental mortality, vulnerability of shark populations to over-exploitation, fishing overcapacity, illegal and unreported fishing, excessive bycatch, and the effects of destructive fishing activities on vulnerable marine ecosystems.

“It then tasked Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) with the responsibility of addressing these issues. Yet these issues have developed despite the existence of RFMOs, and the record of RFMOs in addressing these issues is far from reassuring, and there are structural and functional barriers to RFMOs addressing the issues in the future unless major reforms are implemented.”

Another report (year 2004) states: “The life of the oceans is being destroyed. Huge ecosystems, once thought to be resilient and inexhaustible, are collapsing. Populations of top predators, a key indication of ecosystem health are disappearing at a frightening rate, 90% of all large fish – both open ocean species such as tuna, swordfish and marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder – have been fished out since 1950.

“The depletion of these species can also cause massive shift in the entire ocean ecosystems where commercially valuable fish are replaced by simpler organisms feeding further down the food web. This century may even see bumper crops of jellyfish replacing cod. Such changes clearly jeopardise not only the structure and functioning of these ecosystems, but also the very future of those dependent on the oceans for their livelihoods.”

When you stand on the edge of the sea it seems endless. inexhaustible with never ending supply of fish. Unlike forests that are being plundered but recorded with the help of satellites, it may be difficult to get the ‘clinching evidence’ of the ‘rape of the seas’. And then there is the ever-increasing pollution of the seas further choking marine life – important source of food for mankind.



7 Responses to “Rape of the Seas”

  1. Dave Schuler says:

    How did you happen to select the picture of a blond fisherman for this post rather than, say, a Japanese or Korean fisherman?

  2. Jim B says:

    I don’t know many fishermen that wear button down golf shirts, I’m guessing that is a marine biologist or something. Or someone that works at a fish packing plant maybe?

    Scary stuff though, we eat fish at least once a week, mostly cod or Salmon. Sometimes Tilapia, and now that I know Orange Roughie is that old I probably won’t eat it.

  3. Rape of the Seas…

  4. Sam says:

    Whose got the authority to do anything about this? Is the fishing industry just that unregulated they can go about annihilating the fisheries of the world?

  5. Sam,

    They are regulated in most places but as the article pointed out, if the countries that are subsidizing their fishing fleets would just stop that practice and ban certain forms of fishing that catch many non-foodstock fish in their nets and also damage the environment it would be a major step forward. I also think we are going to be forced to develop aquaculture both for the direct harvesting of food and to try and repopulate depleted species. This is a very serious problem that far too few people know about.

  6. Dave Schuler says:

    It’s been nearly 10,000 years since the neolithic revolution and hunting/gathering in the form of commercial fishing still forms a major portion of the food production of our species. Unfortunately, at the present state of the art aquaculture has a long way to go and isn’t really an acceptable substitute for fishing.

    There are two different problems. First, aquaculture exacts a rather heavy environmental toll. Check out what’s going on in Ecuador and Brazil in that regard. Second, in terms of fish farming most commercially farmed species are carnivores and it takes more protein in the form of wild fish to feed the fisheries than the fisheries produce. The more aquaculture, the faster wild stocks are depleted. Both of these may change but that’s the way it is now.

    Major fishing nations, as noted above, include Japan, Spain, and South Korea. For reasons not entirely clear to me other countries with enormous fleets, notably Belize, China, and Chile weren’t mentioned. According to the UN’s relevant agency more than three-quarters of the total tonnage of fish caught are destined for Asia and Asian countries don’t have a lot of ready substitutes for wild fish as a protein source for their people.

    Commercial fishing is a practically perfect instance of the “Tragedy of the Commons” and solutions which take that into account are probably the most likely to succeed.

  7. bellisaurius says:

    Swaraaj,

    I like the article, but the headline seems to be a bit tough (although it may be true, and I’m not focusing on the wrod rape, but more the shock value). It really distracts from your piece. A little sarcasm, or something a little melodramatic’s OK, but the headline on a site calling itself moderate is a bit disorienting. I would hope you guys don’t go the Limbaugh route.

© 2003-2011 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Mode Equity