GENIUS FORUMS

I've always thought that if there was enough political will at the global level, the problem of overfishing could be solved, but according to scientists, despite the west putting tight quotas on fisherman, the ocean's biodiversity continues to be depleted at an ever increasing rate. So I started questioning whether anything can be done to preserve the biodiversity of the planet, and it seems to me that if there was enough cooperation between the richer countries, a large scale fish hatchery/restocking project within the oceans could help to at least stabilize the decreasing amount of species within the oceans. However, given the current economic crisis around the world, it is a bad time to get public support to fund another social program, especially when governments around the world are already going over budget... Any thoughts? bad timing for another environmental problem?

It's been reported that Aquaculture has grown to contribute almost half of the fish consumed by the human population worldwide. I'd say that's pretty promising. Three years ago, China grew 34.4 million metric tons of fish on farms, compared to the 17 million metric tons that the nation caught on the open ocean. The former will likely increase and increase, while the later ought to decrease.

I think it's reasonable to get a good idea of how many pounds of fish you can take from the wild annually, without harming the stability of future stock. If you can figure out that number (which we probably already have) and stick to it (which I'm quite certain we don't) then it's just a matter of continually improving our aquaculture to the point where fishing for wild stock is mostly a thing of the past.

As for restocking wild stocks, I doubt that's necessary. Just give the harmed stocks room to regenerate, and they should bounce back like Britney Spears did with that incredible Circus album.

Cory Duchesne wrote:It's been reported that Aquaculture has grown to contribute almost half of the fish consumed by the human population worldwide. I'd say that's pretty promising. Three years ago, China grew 34.4 million metric tons of fish on farms, compared to the 17 million metric tons that the nation caught on the open ocean. The former will likely increase and increase, while the later ought to decrease.

I think it's reasonable to get a good idea of how many pounds of fish you can take from the wild annually, without harming the stability of future stock. If you can figure out that number (which we probably already have) and stick to it (which I'm quite certain we don't) then it's just a matter of continually improving our aquaculture to the point where fishing for wild stock is mostly a thing of the past.

As for restocking wild stocks, I doubt that's necessary. Just give the harmed stocks room to regenerate, and they should bounce back.

The solution is always easier to define than the problem

I don't find the problem very hard to define. Wild stocks are being depleted by humanity faster than they can replenish.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Wild stocks are being depleted by humanity faster than they can replenish.

I haven't an easy answer to that one other than stop eating the wild stocks.

Thanks for the response, guess I should have spoken a bit more at length.

As the so-called "second & third world" catches up economically, those extra billion mouths' want a more nutritionally-sound source of protein. The wild stocks always go first as they are the cheapest, most plentiful animals around.

I share your concern, Cory, but life is hard. Somebody else will suffer up and down the totem pole (human food chain).

Me?, I like the albacore white tuna and pink salmon. When in North Dakota, it's the perch, walleye..

Tomas wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Wild stocks are being depleted by humanity faster than they can replenish.

I haven't an easy answer to that one other than stop eating the wild stocks.

I don't think we'll have much choice. Some wild stocks like Cod haven fallen so low that it's become pointless to go after them. More and more people are starting to see aquaculture as more lucrative, and more admirably, sustainable. Plus, it's just so predictable. I suppose there might always be a bit of old fashioned chasing after wild stock, but I don't see it as being very big businesses in the future.

As the so-called "second & third world" catches up economically, those extra billion mouths' want a more nutritionally-sound source of protein. The wild stocks always go first as they are the cheapest, most plentiful animals around.

I'm not sure if farmed fish are less nutritious (if so, probably not very significantly), and as wild stock decreases, aquaculture could turn out to be much more profitable. Maybe not, we'll see.

I share your concern, Cory, but life is hard. Somebody else will suffer up and down the totem pole (human food chain).

Oh for sure. I really don't care too much one way or the other, to be honest. I just find aquaculture more interesting and rational than old fashion methods, that's all.

.


-Cory Duchesne-
More and more people are starting to see aquaculture as more lucrative, and more admirably, sustainable.

-tomas-
Oh, yes, very much so. But cod being carnivorous, where to find enough 'little fishies' to satify their appetites?
Here's a good site The Fish Site.com http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/bird15/cod
>>>see 2nd article entitled: Risks and Solutions to Feeding Fish with Fish


-Cory-
I'm not sure if farmed fish are less nutritious (if so, probably not very significantly),
and as wild stock decreases, aquaculture could turn out to be much more profitable.

-tomas-
The nutrition prob'ly the same, and the shelf life of farmed fish is an advantage, hence more $$.


-Cory-
I just find aquaculture more interesting and rational than old fashion methods, that's all.

-tomas-
In agreement. Just where the middle ground is to make it all sustainable..

I eat only the "fin-and-scale" fish .. no shrimp, crab, lobster etc

Cory,

I don't think we'll have much choice. Some wild stocks like Cod haven fallen so low that it's become pointless to go after them. More and more people are starting to see aquaculture as more lucrative, and more admirably, sustainable. Plus, it's just so predictable. I suppose there might always be a bit of old fashioned chasing after wild stock, but I don't see it as being very big businesses in the future.

That is where the politics can become quite backward. For instance: In Nova Scotia, I know the government subsidizes some struggling fisherman with tax dollars when they should be allowing them find other work, while promoting aquaculture. It may stop being big busines, but as the developed world gets of of wild fishing, many third world countries still fish the oceans empty. I think Canada needs stronger laws to keep foreign fishing boats out of the oceans surrounding developed countries.

As for restocking wild stocks, I doubt that's necessary. Just give the harmed stocks room to regenerate, and they should bounce back like Britney Spears did with that incredible Circus album.

haha. yes, but some species are endangered, and I think biological conservation projects have their place. And as I have stated, one of the major issues is that many of the developed world does a pretty good job at keeping to quotas, but international fishing boats fish without quotas, and they fish in waters far away from their countries of origin. It is difficult to police the oceans when all the parties involved do not want to play by the rules because they are poor, needy and uneducated.

It's been reported that Aquaculture has grown to contribute almost half of the fish consumed by the human population worldwide. I'd say that's pretty promising. Three years ago, China grew 34.4 million metric tons of fish on farms, compared to the 17 million metric tons that the nation caught on the open ocean. The former will likely increase and increase, while the later ought to decrease.

I did not know that, very impressive for China.