Image courtesy of panda.org |
Comprising
over 70 percent of the earth’s surface and home to 97 percent of life found on
earth, the ocean is as vast today as it was at the turn of the 20th
century. It’s where life originated and it continues to sustain organisms both
in its waters and on land. Indeed the attitude that the ocean would always
provide is still held by many to this day. But the world has changed a great
deal since Huxley’s time, and as technology has advanced, humans have become
experts at exploiting the earth’s natural resources. The aftermath of such
extractions can clearly be seen on land in the form of polluted rivers and
streams, clear-cut forests, and greenhouse gas emissions, but we tend to assume
that the ocean is so immense and powerful that it’s indestructible; our
negligence would only be diluted in its deep blue waters.
From our
terrestrial vantage, the ocean still looks in good shape. It’s still the same
color as it always was, and trash has only visibly accumulated in a few places like
the Great Pacific garbage patch and along the coastlines. But if you could peer
beneath its surface, a different picture would emerge. Marine life is facing a whole
host of stressors including pollution, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean
acidification. But to date, the biggest pressure on marine ecosystems has come
from overfishing
Image courtesy of Seaplex |
Trash accumulations in the Pacific Ocean |
Increasingly
sophisticated methods of locating fish in their aquatic habitats are being
employed across the globe. Fish schools are being detected using sonar, aircraft
is tracking their migrations, and GPS monitored buoys designed to attract
particular species, known as “fish aggregating devices,” have left virtually no
fish out of reach. Yet despite the technological sophistication, the extraction
methods are remarkably haphazard and wasteful. Take for instance bottom
trawling, a particularly destructive technique for collecting popular bottom
dwelling seafood like shrimp and cod by using weighted nets to scrape the ocean
floor. The nets scoop up everything in their path, from endangered fish to
centuries-old corals. It is common practice for trawlers to sweep the same
areas on a regular basis, allowing nothing to grow in their wake.
Image courtesy of nbnpress.com |
Aerial Image of Trawling Paths |
Image courtesy of Glogster.com |
Seafloor, Before and After Trawling |
These
methods of extraction are highly unselective and result in massive amounts of
bycatch, a term that sounds so inconsequential it’s easy to ignore. What
bycatch consists of is more difficult to overlook: sea turtles, sea birds,
dolphins, whales, sharks, corals, non-target fish, and others. More often than
not, these creatures are left to suffocate on fishing vessels before being
thrown back overboard, dead. It’s estimated that as much as 90% of what is
caught in trawling nets is tossed back into the sea (1). Adding to the waste,
almost a third of what is brought to land isn’t even consumed by humans. This
portion is used to feed farm-raised fish and terrestrial dwelling livestock or
gets used in the production of pet food and fertilizer (2).
Image courtesy of Richard Herrmann, SeaPics.com/PEW |
Bycatch: California sea lions hang trapped in a gill net off the coast
of Baja California, Mexico in the Pacific Ocean
|
Even the bycatch
figures from so-called sustainably-caught fish are troubling. The “Sustainably-Caught”
label issued by the Marine Stewardship Council, an international nonprofit
organization, was developed to give consumers a choice in where their seafood
comes from. However, the organization has come under recent criticism from
environmentalists and marine biologists for relaxing their standards in order
to keep pace with the growing demand for more responsible sourced seafood. Steve
Campana who heads the Canadian government’s Shark Research Laboratory has been
following the practices of Swordfish fisheries in Nova Scotia, where the label
had been issued. He said that the long-line boats accidentally catch tens of
thousands of sharks every year and on average, almost two sharks are killed for
every swordfish snagged (3).
Image courtesy of WomenWorkingForOceans.org |
Long line shark bycatch |
The extent of
the overfishing problem wasn’t entirely clear until as recently as 2001, when a
study was published in Nature examining the global fish harvest figures. What official
data showed was that annual global harvest had been increasing annually.
However, it also showed something peculiar. While global harvests were
increasing, local catch rates were decreasing as fisheries were collapsing
worldwide. But how could this be? What researchers discovered was that China
was over-reporting their catch data for political purposes. So instead of
catching more and more every year, the world had really been catching less and
less, and the decline had probably begun in 1988 (4).
After this
striking revelation, the urgent need for actual scientific data on the state of
fisheries became clear. But scientists needed a way of quantifying fish
populations, and this is no small feat. As fisheries scientist John Shepherd
puts it, “Counting fish is just as easy as counting trees, except they’re
invisible and they move.” (5). Boris Worm, a Marine Research Ecologist and
Associate Professor at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia led a team of
scientists that took on the task. They looked at data collected from Japanese
fishing boats that use long baited hook lines and found that in the 80’s about
one out of every 10 hooks caught a fish compared to only one out of a hundred
in 2002. The study published in Nature in 2003 found that 90 percent of large
predatory fish such as marlin, large cod, large sharks, tuna and swordfish had
disappeared. Graphs prepared from the data showed long declining slopes representing
the percentage of fisheries that had collapsed. If you were to extrapolate the
graphs, you would see that they bottom out at around the year 2048. This means
that if current harvest rates continue, we can expect that all of the species
we currently consume will have collapsed within the very near future (6).
Image Courtesy of sciencemag.org |
Collapse of global fisheries since 1950 |
Today, 70 percent of
the world's marine fish stocks are fully fished, overfished, depleted or
recovering, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (7). As some of
our more enjoyed delicacies like the Bluefin tuna are becoming harder to
access, fishermen are now turning to less desirable, smaller species. While we
don’t know exactly what the implications of removing all of these fish are in
terms of the health of the ocean’s ecosystems, what we do know is that
ecosystems are highly complex and interdependent.
In the National Geographic Wild broadcast, A Life Among Whales, it was illustrated just how interconnected ocean ecosystems can be by recalling the chain of events that occurred after fisherman decided whale’s were threatening the fish supply and their numbers thus needed to be reduced. As local whale populations drastically declined, their predators, the killer whales, began targeting other prey like seals. Seals then began declining and killer whales moved on to sea otters. With the decimation of the sea otter population, urchins and other otter prey exploded and began destroying kelp forests in which fish lay their eggs. With fish larvae now exposed, they were easily eaten by numerous marine species and in the end, a sharp decline in fish stocks occurred ruining the livelihood of many fishermen. This is a well-defined example of how reducing the numbers of certain species can have unexpected and unintended consequences. Biodiversity data indicate that there is little redundancy in the ocean’s ecosystems making it particularly vulnerable to damage. The trend is that as one fish species declines, the overall biodiversity of its ecosystem declines with it (8). Eliminate all or most large fish species and you threaten to unravel entire marine ecosystems.
In the National Geographic Wild broadcast, A Life Among Whales, it was illustrated just how interconnected ocean ecosystems can be by recalling the chain of events that occurred after fisherman decided whale’s were threatening the fish supply and their numbers thus needed to be reduced. As local whale populations drastically declined, their predators, the killer whales, began targeting other prey like seals. Seals then began declining and killer whales moved on to sea otters. With the decimation of the sea otter population, urchins and other otter prey exploded and began destroying kelp forests in which fish lay their eggs. With fish larvae now exposed, they were easily eaten by numerous marine species and in the end, a sharp decline in fish stocks occurred ruining the livelihood of many fishermen. This is a well-defined example of how reducing the numbers of certain species can have unexpected and unintended consequences. Biodiversity data indicate that there is little redundancy in the ocean’s ecosystems making it particularly vulnerable to damage. The trend is that as one fish species declines, the overall biodiversity of its ecosystem declines with it (8). Eliminate all or most large fish species and you threaten to unravel entire marine ecosystems.
It’s been
shown time and time again that diverse ecosystems are productive ecosystems.
Considering that a billion people rely on fish as their primary animal protein
source, continuing with business as usual by fishing the ocean to death will
inevitably have catastrophic political, social, and economic consequences. And
this comes at a time when global warming and other man made problems are
threatening future food securities as well.
So what can be done to avert the impending
collapse of the ocean’s ecosystems? Clearly, fishing must be reduced and some
of the ocean must be protected to provide marine life with a safe place to
recover their populations. Scientists have recommended we protect at minimum 10
percent and ideally 30 percent of the ocean. Today, only one percent was
protected, a far cry from the recommendations and startling reminder of the
inaction of governments taken on behalf of industry (9). There is a need to
revisit the rules of what should be considered sustainable and implement them
through enforceable legislation. We should continue pressuring governments into
taking real action on these issues, but in the meantime, we mustn’t act as
complacent consumers waiting for them to do so. Instead, we must take
responsibility for our own role in the problem by learning new ways to eat and
either reducing or cutting out seafood consumption altogether. We must educate
others and ourselves on the issue and lead by example. If we ever hope to have
our fisheries return in the future, we need to move past old assumptions that
the ocean, the life-blood of our planet, is limitless and will always provide. Until
their numbers are able to recover, fish can no longer be considered a renewable
resource.
Image courtesy of TheTerraMarProject.org |
Works Cited:
1) http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/world/oceans-overfishing-climate-change
2) http://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=2196&subcatid=340
3) http://www.npr.org/2013/02/11/171376509/is-sustainable-labeled-seafood-really-sustainable
4) journal.nafo.int/J23/caddy.pdf
5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-erway/the-pescatores-dilemma_b_246373.html
6) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5800/787.abstract
7) http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/y5852e/Y5852E02.htm#ch1.1
8) http://www.globalissues.org/article/171/loss-of-biodiversity-and-extinctions#DecliningOceanBiodiversity
9)http://www.ted.com/talks/sylvia_earle_s_ted_prize_wish_to_protect_our_oceans.html
if you have “fallen out of love” with your partner and want to connect with her or him back email Robinsonbuckler11@ gmailcom...............
ReplyDelete