RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Politics and ecosystems, Weighing cost/benefits< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,05:37   

This article, While I can't comment too much on it for various esoteric reasons which I'm sure wouldn't interest anyone in the slightest anyway, I will say that opinion pieces are becoming remarkably similar to news pieces as a general trend.

Global warming wens, darwin deniers, peak oil pifflers, extinction excusers, pollution promoters, not to mention the batshit crazy creationists and the like seem to have a mindset of limitless resources with whiners trying to conserve infinity blocking their way.

They see the grasshopper and the ant fable exactly backwards from the way I see it. I see it as taking stock of what we have and trying to figure out a way to keep the ecosystem functioning well enough to keep it around. I think they see it as converting the resources to cash and stockpiling.

It's true that I'm ever so slightly to the left on the political spectrum, but I have a pretty good grasp of the nuances and interplay between policy and ecology and the details of both. I am up all night again working on something related to just that interplay in fact. (when I'm not wasting time on forums).

I have a question in all of this rambling. When you see this statement, what is your first reaction?
Quote
Groundfish stock assessments have been done on only eight of 43 species encountered in state waters. Six of these species are healthy. Two, yelloweye and canary rockfish, have been classified as depleted, and there have been many changes in fisheries management because of this. Yelloweye and canary rockfish are rarely found in state waters. Federal waters are closed from April 1 to Sept. 30 in the areas in which these fish are found, in waters more than 40 fathoms deep.

Anyone familiar with conditions off the Oregon Coast during October through March would realize that there are very few days when sport fishermen could safely fish in the ocean. So how can we compare Oregon to Florida or other tropical water locations?

Commercial and sport harvest caps are revised every year to make certain that depleted species are rebuilt. The recovery of lingcod stocks is an example of how well the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, in conjunction with federal agencies, is managing our near-shore species.

Perhaps if Gates had seen what lay beneath the waves before 2004, he would realize how well our fisheries are being managed. I’ve been diving off the Oregon Coast for 30 years, and in the past 10 years I’ve seen a big change for the better. The black and blue rockfish are larger and more abundant, the lingcod population appears to have tripled, and greenlings are larger and more prevalent. As a diver and sport fisherman I have to ask, why do we need to place more restrictions and limits on where we can fish?


--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,09:05   

I figure I get one free whine.

Is this topic too incoherent to deserve a reply?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,09:23   

BWE, if you can whine, I can whine.
I'm posting the same whine on my thread.

Good luck, Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,09:27   

Quote (BWE @ April 04 2008,15:05)
I figure I get one free whine.

Is this topic too incoherent to deserve a reply?

No, it's perfectly coherent AFAICT.

But, as you know, anything that doesn't involve dick jokes, general banter, LOLCats, insulting Arden Chatfield (as if we could insult him more than nature has already done), or HA HA THIS IS YOU, takes some form of thought. We CAN do it, it just takes a little time.

;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,09:41   

That statement you quoted, is it all one piece by the same person in the same post?
It seems a bit disconnected and rambling.  It also suggests that the author doesn't really agree with the ag and fish people, because they personally have seen more of the supposedly endangered fish species, so why should anyone be bothered about their rarity now since they seem to have recovered?

Also, I'd say they need to do some stock assessments on those other fish PDQ.

Ecology is something I need to learn more about, but the evolution argument keeps dragging me back for entertainment reasons, and the climate change battle is ongoing, with morons still saying "It hasn't warmed since 1998", and "Its cooler now than it has been for years".

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,09:53   

It all comes down to this: if we don't watch out, we're going to f*ck ourselfs. We can do all we want, we're just destroying ourselfs. If we want to live properly as well the next 200 years or so, we'll have to change certain things. If we don't care, we can just do what we want because in a stamina-fight between us and Earth, Earth alwayse wins. And that's the only benefit we should keep in mind.
That's all there is to it, and it has nothing to do with the Bambi-Syndrome wich is rampant out there.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,09:54   

Quote (BWE @ April 04 2008,11:37)
[SNIP]

I have a question in all of this rambling. When you see this statement, what is your first reaction?

[SNIP]

My first reaction is that I don't know enough about ecology to make a decent contribution.

My second reaction is that the little I do know about fishing/ecology etc is that we as a species are vastly over fishing certain areas of the oceans. I know we don't have infinite resources and I think it's demonstrably not the case that we can will-he nill-he exploit the resources that we do have as if they were infinite.

The fundamental tension this draws up between the politics and economics (i.e. the things we want) and the responsibilites we have to properly managing our resources (i.e. the things we might have to accept we ain't getting) is found the world over. This brings two thoughts to mind immediately: a) we should suck it up, stop whining and take the political and economic hit because our resources are not going to miraculously spring back from the brink of depletion because we whine alot, b) we should engage the politics and economics of the situation as intelligently as we can becaue like it or not there bozos who are going to deny the facts because they don't like the conclusions or implications.

Somehow this means working WITH big businesses, WITH climate change denialists, WITH governments to acheive a "least worst" outcome. That is the best we can hope for. This will take a MASSIVE shift in policy. To use a local (UK) example, the problem we have over here is our government is putting a huge and punative tax burden on the electorate and not focussing on the bigger, business end of the problem. It's all well and good taxing polluting vehicles highly, or eliminating plastic bags (if these changes do actually make a difference) for example but if there is no immediate incentives for big business to change ( e.g. make less polluting cars, cut back the awesome amount of packaging in supermarket products) then the usual kneejerk reactionary idiots get to appear to have some justification for their paranoid claims that "climate change is a lefty conspiracy to raise taxes". They don't of course, but without the commensurate burden being placed on big business, the electorate has at least got a legitimate axe to grind (the burden is placed to heavily on them).

It's all well and good to say "ah yes, but market forces will sort it all out", but the problem is that market forces alone will simply not do this quickly enough if those market forces are applied to one segment of the economy unevenly. I've got no problem with big business, they acheive something that can only be acheived by big businesses, I've got no problem with capitalism or a relatively free market, and given the authoritarian proclivities of the governments we seem to have world wide I have no interest in seeing them get bigger and MORE controlling. However, placing the majority of the burden for effecting environmental change on the little guys (as it were) is a monstrous cock up. At least because it simply means that items that are environmentally costly can become seen as status symbols. Ferrari anyone? Want a tan so badly you'll get it from a bottle to appear like you can afford an overseas holiday, or perhaps a package tour to Alicante will suit?

I want a Ferrari, and dammit I love to fly abroad. But I want a Ferrari and a plane that run on hydrogen fuel cells (or whatever cleaner energy source we can find for the job). There's plenty of energy out there, we just need to harness it. The trick we need to do is not merely wear sackcloth and ashes and the hairshirt of environmental responsibility, which we do to some extent undoubtedly need to do, but to convince businesses and governments that it is in their interests FINANCIALLY to change from the top down as well as from the bottom up. One of these things alone is not enough, and to be blunt, someone with a massive wodge of cash in their pocket is unlikely to listen too closely to the plight of storm ravaged Indonesians (for example).

Sorry, but that is the fundamental hypocrisy of the "generous West". Heroes we ain't (and I DO mean we completely inclusively). Our comfortable lives are bought and paid for by the blood, toil, lives and misery of hundreds of millions of people across the world. Regardless of what the DaveTards of this world think, we didn't get to this position by some demonstrable superiority, we were "lucky". And some of us realise this. We can do something about this at exactly the same time as we attempt to slowly change which source we use for our energy addiction.

Perhaps I've diverted from your original ideas BWE, but I know too little about fisheries science to make a decent specific detailed contribution.

I could witter on for days about green chemistry and the attempts by the pharma industry to improve. But perhaps that's even more tangential.

HTH

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,12:53   

My reaction is that the author of the piece quoted is hyping a commercial fishery argument as a sport fisherman who opposes regional closure notions based largely on the Florida model.  They are using supposed personal experience to claim that stocks of popular sport and commercial catches (mostly genus Sebastes ) have suddenly recovered, or were never depleted.  When I first fished for Sebastes we used 5 to 15 hook ganions in as much as 1000 feet (~ 160 fathoms) of water.  This was “sport” fishing.   The populations had long been assessed by annual catches, but this ignored the great improvements in catches due to improved gear including electronics.  Populations were in steep decline as catches held steady, or increased.  

Systematic assessments made by biologists independent of commercial catch counts showed serious decline in groundfish populations.  For the first round of restrictions, there were limit reductions, and depth restrictions.  The commercial fishery organized the sport fishing groups to use political pressure to block restrictions.  The sport regulations were changed to reduce the number of hooks allowed, bag count limits, and depth restrictions.  In California the current rules allow only 2 hooks per line and no bottom fishing in over 60 fathoms (360 feet) of water.  To take the Yelloweye rockfish as an example, they range from 1,800 to 150 feet, so the 40 fathom restriction mentioned above would represent less than 10% of the Yelloweye habitat.  

The major reason that the comment author’s claim of see some great improvements is lame is that they have not made a systematic survey.  What sport fisherman, or diver is going to go where there are no fish to catch?  So all they are really saying is that they have found some places they can still kill fish.  Looked at in a different light, they are saying that the current regulations have stemmed the decline in ground fish (which I doubt based on at least as much personal experience here in Cali).

I also think that a 40 fathom restriction would suk.  

The photo below is of another species mentioned, a lingcod.  I took this as part of a research project (tag and release).  The blood on my pants is my own- lings have very sharp teeth and gillrakers. Because we couldn't use a gaff, I brought the larger fish over by hand.  We were in 750 feet of water.



Edited by Dr.GH on April 04 2008,11:12

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,13:17   

Quote (guthrie @ April 04 2008,09:41)
That statement you quoted, is it all one piece by the same person in the same post?
It seems a bit disconnected and rambling.  It also suggests that the author doesn't really agree with the ag and fish people, because they personally have seen more of the supposedly endangered fish species, so why should anyone be bothered about their rarity now since they seem to have recovered?

Also, I'd say they need to do some stock assessments on those other fish PDQ.

[snip]
The stock assessments are going on. My first reaction was similar to yours although perhaps slightly more emotional. What a back handed compliment to the ODFW. The link in the OP should work. I snipped out some parts for brevity's sake. Personal experience diving (the man must be an animal BTW, the water is co-old) |= methodically collected data. It pisses me off because he casts the Governors decision as somehow sneaky when it wasn't. It makes an ill-informed reader think it is news rather than opinion.

 
Quote (Assassinator @ April 04 2008,09:53)
It all comes down to this: if we don't watch out, we're going to f*ck ourselfs. We can do all we want, we're just destroying ourselfs. If we want to live properly as well the next 200 years or so, we'll have to change certain things. If we don't care, we can just do what we want because in a stamina-fight between us and Earth, Earth alwayse wins. And that's the only benefit we should keep in mind.
That's all there is to it, and it has nothing to do with the Bambi-Syndrome wich is rampant out there.
We are already f****ing ourselves but whatever. If we are going to do that it should be with eyes open rather than in a state of unnecessary ignorance.

 
Quote (Louis @ April 04 2008,09:54)
 
Quote (BWE @ April 04 2008,11:37)
[SNIP]

I have a question in all of this rambling. When you see this statement, what is your first reaction?

[SNIP]

My first reaction is that I don't know enough about ecology to make a decent contribution.

My second reaction is that the little I do know about fishing/ecology etc is that we as a species are vastly over fishing certain areas of the oceans. I know we don't have infinite resources and I think it's demonstrably not the case that we can will-he nill-he exploit the resources that we do have as if they were infinite.



Aral Sea in Russia.




 
Quote
The fundamental tension this draws up between the politics and economics (i.e. the things we want) and the responsibilites we have to properly managing our resources (i.e. the things we might have to accept we ain't getting) is found the world over. This brings two thoughts to mind immediately: a) we should suck it up, stop whining and take the political and economic hit because our resources are not going to miraculously spring back from the brink of depletion because we whine alot, b) we should engage the politics and economics of the situation as intelligently as we can becaue like it or not there bozos who are going to deny the facts because they don't like the conclusions or implications.
Easier said than done. Just getting facts into official documents is sometimes politically difficult. "The situation is delicate. They will think we're overdramatizing the problem to get grant money." Or some such tripe.


 
Quote
Somehow this means working WITH big businesses, WITH climate change denialists, WITH governments to acheive a "least worst" outcome. That is the best we can hope for. This will take a MASSIVE shift in policy. To use a local (UK) example, the problem we have over here is our government is putting a huge and punative tax burden on the electorate and not focussing on the bigger, business end of the problem. It's all well and good taxing polluting vehicles highly, or eliminating plastic bags (if these changes do actually make a difference) for example but if there is no immediate incentives for big business to change ( e.g. make less polluting cars, cut back the awesome amount of packaging in supermarket products) then the usual kneejerk reactionary idiots get to appear to have some justification for their paranoid claims that "climate change is a lefty conspiracy to raise taxes". They don't of course, but without the commensurate burden being placed on big business, the electorate has at least got a legitimate axe to grind (the burden is placed to heavily on them).
Just because I'm paranoid…

I've been developing a faux conspiracy theory for a story I'm writing that uses income inequality as its premise. The super wealthy have a sort of tri-lateral commission type agency where they conspire to bring about double inflation for a period of time until money is worth about 10% of current value. The super rich first buy up the assets since they are now the only ones with any cash and create the only jobs in the chaos, that of soldiers in their private armies, and let the public works dissolve. With no running water, electricity, gas etc, and environmental destruction exacerbated by desperation the humans not living in the enclaves die off, horribly of course…

Anyway, persons are reasonable, people aren't. I've met a lot of very civic minded business and political leaders but they often suffer from the infinite resource syndrome. They just can't accept that logical conclusions follow from evidence. One person actually said to me (referring to the Ogallala aquifer in the American Midwest) during a presentation I was giving on various managed resource systems, "We'll just genetically engineer salt resistant crops. What are you, a Malthusian liberal?"

No shit. I laughed and politely went into a bit of detail so everyone could manage to finish the event but the mindset was sadly typical. Many only see straw men.

 
Quote
It's all well and good to say "ah yes, but market forces will sort it all out", but the problem is that market forces alone will simply not do this quickly enough if those market forces are applied to one segment of the economy unevenly. I've got no problem with big business, they acheive something that can only be acheived by big businesses, I've got no problem with capitalism or a relatively free market, and given the authoritarian proclivities of the governments we seem to have world wide I have no interest in seeing them get bigger and MORE controlling. However, placing the majority of the burden for effecting environmental change on the little guys (as it were) is a monstrous cock up. At least because it simply means that items that are environmentally costly can become seen as status symbols. Ferrari anyone? Want a tan so badly you'll get it from a bottle to appear like you can afford an overseas holiday, or perhaps a package tour to Alicante will suit?
If you want to curb consumption, there almost always needs to be a mandate somewhere along the line. I also agree about business and Gov't too but what we have now is straw men rather than the real animal.

 
Quote
I want a Ferrari, and dammit I love to fly abroad. But I want a Ferrari and a plane that run on hydrogen fuel cells (or whatever cleaner energy source we can find for the job). There's plenty of energy out there, we just need to harness it. The trick we need to do is not merely wear sackcloth and ashes and the hairshirt of environmental responsibility, which we do to some extent undoubtedly need to do, but to convince businesses and governments that it is in their interests FINANCIALLY to change from the top down as well as from the bottom up. One of these things alone is not enough, and to be blunt, someone with a massive wodge of cash in their pocket is unlikely to listen too closely to the plight of storm ravaged Indonesians (for example).
Well, I've seen huge donations but I've never once seen a willing change of business practices.

 
Quote
Sorry, but that is the fundamental hypocrisy of the "generous West". Heroes we ain't (and I DO mean we completely inclusively). Our comfortable lives are bought and paid for by the blood, toil, lives and misery of hundreds of millions of people across the world. Regardless of what the DaveTards of this world think, we didn't get to this position by some demonstrable superiority, we were "lucky". And some of us realise this. We can do something about this at exactly the same time as we attempt to slowly change which source we use for our energy addiction.
Slowly change but start now. I've used that line on many occasions. In the near future (5-20 years?), I suspect either we will have to suffer huge cutbacks in our material standard of living or we will need to maintain a military to enforce the rules of our empire. That will mean a lot more 'either you're with us or you're with them' kinds of policies inside the fatherlands.

 
Quote
Perhaps I've diverted from your original ideas BWE, but I know too little about fisheries science to make a decent specific detailed contribution.
It really wasn't the specific issue that ticked me off. It's just that someone sent it to me and I know what it's about and etc. The problem was the global sell-job that's being done to prove game theory.

 
Quote
I could witter on for days about green chemistry and the attempts by the pharma industry to improve. But perhaps that's even more tangential.

HTH

Louis
A friend of mine retired from Monsanto a few years ago as a chemist/ chemical engineer. He said the same thing. But the general practices never change, just isolated programs.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,13:42   

A second thought is that Mark Gotchall has made a point regarding the notion that warm, southeast US coastal waters are not like the cold water northwest.  But, the point isn't for his team.  Cold water species reproduce and grow much slower than the warm water species.  Consequently, the need for closures is greater in the NW.

As to "are we fucked?"  There is an old joke: A fellow slipped of the top of the Empire State Building.  As he passed the 8th floor H shouted, "So far So good!"

We are so fucked.

Edited by Dr.GH on April 04 2008,11:49

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,13:43   

[quote=Dr.GH,April 04 2008,12:53][/quote]
Quote
My reaction is that the author of the piece quoted is hyping a commercial fishery argument as a sport fisherman who opposes regional closure notions based largely on the Florida model.  They are using supposed personal experience to claim that stocks of popular sport and commercial catches (mostly genus Sebastes ) have suddenly recovered, or were never depleted.  

Interesting you would think that. Hmmm.


Quote
When I first fished for Sebastes we used 5 to 15 hook ganions in as much as 1000 feet (~ 160 fathoms) of water.
Is this the 70's ~ 80's?

Quote
This was “sport” fishing.   The populations had long been assessed by annual catches, but this ignored the great improvements in catches due to improved gear including electronics.  Populations were in steep decline as catches held steady, or increased.  

There are some interesting models that simulate the grand banks cod fishery which experienced that problem. They also show a phenomenon of collapse that ripples across the entire ecosystem in a potentially massive collapse of other fisheries too.

Quote
Systematic assessments made by biologists independent of commercial catch counts showed serious decline in groundfish populations.  For the first round of restrictions, there were limit reductions, and depth restrictions.  The commercial fishery organized the sport fishing groups to use political pressure to block restrictions.
I get a sense that it's significantly less organized here.

 
Quote
The sport regulations were changed to reduce the number of hooks allowed, bag count limits, and depth restrictions.  In California the current rules allow only 2 hooks per line and no bottom fishing in over 60 fathoms (360 feet) of water.  To take the Yelloweye rockfish as an example, they range from 1,800 to 150 feet, so the 40 fathom restriction mentioned above would represent less than 10% of the Yelloweye habitat.
It's not new though. It does limit quite a bit but Sebastes are a tough bunch to breed.

Quote
[snip]

I also think that a 40 fathom restriction would suk.
It does.  

Quote
The photo below is of another species mentioned, a lingcod.  I took this as part of a research project (tag and release).  The blood on my pants is my own- lings have very sharp teeth and gillrakers. Because we couldn't use a gaff, I brought the larger fish over by hand.  We were in 750 feet of water.


[ouch, those teeth are bigger'n you'd think if you've never seen them.]

My brother picked up a 4 or 5 lb northern pike by the lip when we were kids. oops.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,14:05   

Quote (BWE @ April 04 2008,11:43)
My brother picked up a 4 or 5 lb northern pike by the lip when we were kids. oops.

That would bleed a lot!

I have a writing project outlined that I more or less abandoned becasue it was just to damned depressing.  Instead, I go fishing.



Edited by Dr.GH on April 04 2008,12:09

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,14:20   

Some time back on my blog, I posted a notice of research that indicated that systematic fishing of stocks doesn't only have an ecological impact approachable with standard stock management tools (if we paid attention to them, which we haven't), but also have an evolutionary impact: adult fish were both smaller at maturity and had lower fecundity than in the original population. It's easy to see in retrospect that hard selection on large fish made being a smaller fish a good thing, and one that doesn't respond to a release of the selection pressure as just any other ecological factor might. I caught a bunch of flak from people who just don't want to hear about it.

I haven't tried to keep up with the fisheries management reports; it's all way too depressing. We have made cod fishing close to commercially inviable in the Atlantic not because of artificial limits, but because we haven't put on the limits and the commercial fishers have just about raked the ocean clean of cod. In school, we looked at case after case where the biologists worked up the data and said, "For this stock to continue, this is the sustainable yield if we apply these restrictions and collect only this age structure from the stock," and the politicians would bend to the commercial interests and say, "Sure, we'll let you take double or triple the recommended amount; we don't want to cause you economic hardship!" Guess what? The economic hardship was only momentarily delayed and has arrived anyway, and it is going to persist far longer than if the stocks had been managed properly all along.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,14:35   

Quote
Guess what? The economic hardship was only momentarily delayed and has arrived anyway, and it is going to persist far longer than if the stocks had been managed properly all along.

The older I get, the more I realize that this, alas, is a summation of the human condition. 'Twas ever thus.

The difference is, in the 21st century, we're playing for all the marbles. I am not optimistic.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,16:06   

sorry, BWE, I have no impression.  I have a limited capacity of issues to be concerned about and this just isn't one of them.  In fact, for me this falls under the broader issue of how terrible it is that man ever evolved to destroy this planet and that category I have less than zero interest in taking seriously because it's mostly hubrisitic crap.  Yeah, I think I made that word up, lol.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,17:09   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ April 04 2008,14:35)
Quote
Guess what? The economic hardship was only momentarily delayed and has arrived anyway, and it is going to persist far longer than if the stocks had been managed properly all along.

The older I get, the more I realize that this, alas, is a summation of the human condition. 'Twas ever thus.

The difference is, in the 21st century, we're playing for all the marbles. I am not optimistic.

Well, optimism is a hell of a lot funner if you're going over the waterfall anyway.

BTW,  2004 FaO (UN) report.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,17:14   

Quote (skeptic @ April 04 2008,16:06)
sorry, BWE, I have no impression.  I have a limited capacity of issues to be concerned about and this just isn't one of them.  In fact, for me this falls under the broader issue of how terrible it is that man ever evolved to destroy this planet and that category I have less than zero interest in taking seriously because it's mostly hubrisitic crap.  Yeah, I think I made that word up, lol.

Sort of a f@ck em if they can't take a joke POV?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,17:16   

Oh no Louis, more of this "lucky" crap!  I was with you there for awhile but then I fell hard off the wagon.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,17:25   

Ah, complacency...

Quote

For four hundred years of intense international fishing, the Atlantic cod fishery was assumed to be inexhaustible. After the 1950s new trawler technology began vacuuming the sea. The term “collapse” is no exaggeration for what happened. By 1995, three years after cod fishing had been totally halted, the cod stock was one percent of what it had fallen to in 1990. Devastated in Canada alone: 100,000 jobs, 1,500 communities, $3.1 billion in production (replaced by $3.5 billion of government dole). To blame: Canadian and provincial governments, the fishermen, Spain, Portugal, France, Russia, and the U.S. and the short-term values they all operated by.


The $6.6 billion dollar swing in Canada's budget? That must be "hubristic crap".

The US had some part of that fishery. Anybody got a handle on how much red ink we're bleeding from that fishery alone?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,18:10   

Science denial is not limited to evolution.  The policalization of the religious faction under Nixon's Southern Strategy created the far-right of today.  

What I have never understood are the people who knew better.  The oil company executives knew about the end of cheap oil.  They knew about global warming.  The impact of salt buildup in irrigated soils was known in Sumeria 5,000 years ago even if they attributed it to gods.  But the warnings came from scientists.

Take a familiar example from Panda's Thumb, Timothy Sandefur.  He works for a gang of lawyers, the Pacific Legal Foundation, that boast about their "wins" promoting clear cutting, blocking endangered species protection and helping school re-segregation.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,18:27   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 04 2008,17:25)
Ah, complacency...

   
Quote

For four hundred years of intense international fishing, the Atlantic cod fishery was assumed to be inexhaustible. After the 1950s new trawler technology began vacuuming the sea. The term “collapse” is no exaggeration for what happened. By 1995, three years after cod fishing had been totally halted, the cod stock was one percent of what it had fallen to in 1990. Devastated in Canada alone: 100,000 jobs, 1,500 communities, $3.1 billion in production (replaced by $3.5 billion of government dole). To blame: Canadian and provincial governments, the fishermen, Spain, Portugal, France, Russia, and the U.S. and the short-term values they all operated by.


The $6.6 billion dollar swing in Canada's budget? That must be "hubristic crap".

The US had some part of that fishery. Anybody got a handle on how much red ink we're bleeding from that fishery alone?

 
Quote
Formerly dominant species of groundfish—flounder, cod, haddock, and hake—have been fished down to a small fraction of their previous abundance, and in some cases are considered commercially extinct. The Atlantic cod catch in this region peaked in the 1960s at about 1.43 million metric tons per year. Overfishing later caused the cod catch to decline to 644,000 metric tons per year in the 1980s, and ultimately to collapse to only 48,000 metric tons per year by 1994. The 1997 catch of cod, hake, and haddock in the northwest Atlantic Ocean was only 16.5 percent of the 1990 catch.


 
Quote
The National Marine Fisheries Service has estimated that more than 40 percent of the nation's commercial fish species are too heavily fished. In New England, the agency has estimated that overfishing of cod, haddock and flounder have already cost 14,000 jobs and cost the economy $350 million a year.


None of those numbers are right though. The costs of the scallop and crabbing fleet decline aren't factored in, (it turns out the fisheries are interconnected, now there's a surprise - not) but the cod prices and jobs look like they might be post collapse prices.

Anyway, I'm done at work and I'm going home. Nighty night.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,18:30   

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 04 2008,18:10)
Science denial is not limited to evolution.  The policalization of the religious faction under Nixon's Southern Strategy created the far-right of today.  

What I have never understood are the people who knew better.  The oil company executives knew about the end of cheap oil.  They knew about global warming.  The impact of salt buildup in irrigated soils was known in Sumeria 5,000 years ago even if they attributed it to gods.  But the warnings came from scientists.

Take a familiar example from Panda's Thumb, Timothy Sandefur.  He works for a gang of lawyers, the Pacific Legal Foundation, that boast about their "wins" promoting clear cutting, blocking endangered species protection and helping school re-segregation.

Thanks Gary. That's what I think I meant to say right from the start. The mindset that resources are convertable to currency and back again. It's like saying well, hell. We've converted the matter to energy, now we'll just convert it back.

ETA: And it sometimes pisses me off just a little.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,18:49   

Quote
I've been developing a faux conspiracy theory for a story I'm writing that uses income inequality as its premise. The super wealthy have a sort of tri-lateral commission type agency where they conspire to bring about double inflation for a period of time until money is worth about 10% of current value. The super rich first buy up the assets since they are now the only ones with any cash and create the only jobs in the chaos, that of soldiers in their private armies, and let the public works dissolve. With no running water, electricity, gas etc, and environmental destruction exacerbated by desperation the humans not living in the enclaves die off, horribly of course…


I think we're headed for the New Feudalism.  And Joe Sixpack thinks that's a good idea, because he envisions himself inside the moat.

Quote
Anyway, persons are reasonable, people aren't. I've met a lot of very civic minded business and political leaders but they often suffer from the infinite resource syndrome. They just can't accept that logical conclusions follow from evidence. One person actually said to me (referring to the Ogallala aquifer in the American Midwest) during a presentation I was giving on various managed resource systems, "We'll just genetically engineer salt resistant crops. What are you, a Malthusian liberal?"


I simply can't imagine any way to feed 9 billion people after  peak oil (coal, natural gas, fish, grain, clean water...)

Probably, like the polar bears, we shall start eating each other.

People on left and right seem to be assuming a deus ex machina.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,18:49   

Quote (BWE @ April 04 2008,16:30)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 04 2008,18:10)
Science denial is not limited to evolution.  The policalization of the religious faction under Nixon's Southern Strategy created the far-right of today.  

What I have never understood are the people who knew better.  The oil company executives knew about the end of cheap oil.  They knew about global warming.  The impact of salt buildup in irrigated soils was known in Sumeria 5,000 years ago even if they attributed it to gods.  But the warnings came from scientists.

Take a familiar example from Panda's Thumb, Timothy Sandefur.  He works for a gang of lawyers, the Pacific Legal Foundation, that boast about their "wins" promoting clear cutting, blocking endangered species protection and helping school re-segregation.

Thanks Gary. That's what I think I meant to say right from the start. The mindset that resources are convertable to currency and back again. It's like saying well, hell. We've converted the matter to energy, now we'll just convert it back.

ETA: And it sometimes pisses me off just a little.

It pisses me off a lot.  Where do these fuckers think they are going to live?  This is the only planet they have.  

Then there are these "survivalists."  Scheech, what dipsticks.  I asked one of those idiots what kind of chicken he was planning on raising (I favor Road Island Reds), and which breed of goat (I haven't decided).  He looked at me blankly and went back to talking about his guns.

When President Carter tried to tell people about the need to conserve oil, and about why foreign oil was screwing up our policies, and on and on, the right-wing brayed about how he was a fool.

Edited by Dr.GH on April 04 2008,16:55

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,19:44   

Quote (BWE @ April 04 2008,18:30)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 04 2008,18:10)
Thanks Gary. That's what I think I meant to say right from the start. The mindset that resources are convertable to currency and back again. It's like saying well, hell. We've converted the matter to energy, now we'll just convert it back.

ETA: And it sometimes pisses me off just a little.

Best is, we've been warned for that at the beginning of the end (and I think you know what I mean with that):
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught...
Only then you will realise, that money can't be eaten.

And after that, our all time favorite comes:
I told you so, didn't I?

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,00:48   

Quote (Assassinator @ April 04 2008,19:44)
Quote (BWE @ April 04 2008,18:30)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 04 2008,18:10)
Thanks Gary. That's what I think I meant to say right from the start. The mindset that resources are convertable to currency and back again. It's like saying well, hell. We've converted the matter to energy, now we'll just convert it back.

ETA: And it sometimes pisses me off just a little.

Best is, we've been warned for that at the beginning of the end (and I think you know what I mean with that):
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught...
Only then you will realise, that money can't be eaten.

And after that, our all time favorite comes:
I told you so, didn't I?

It never occurs to me to say I told you so. I'm always to busy with my own amazement at about the right time for the phrase.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,04:41   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 04 2008,17:25)
Ah, complacency...

 
Quote

For four hundred years of intense international fishing, the Atlantic cod fishery was assumed to be inexhaustible. After the 1950s new trawler technology began vacuuming the sea. The term “collapse” is no exaggeration for what happened. By 1995, three years after cod fishing had been totally halted, the cod stock was one percent of what it had fallen to in 1990. Devastated in Canada alone: 100,000 jobs, 1,500 communities, $3.1 billion in production (replaced by $3.5 billion of government dole). To blame: Canadian and provincial governments, the fishermen, Spain, Portugal, France, Russia, and the U.S. and the short-term values they all operated by.


The $6.6 billion dollar swing in Canada's budget? That must be "hubristic crap".

The US had some part of that fishery. Anybody got a handle on how much red ink we're bleeding from that fishery alone?

Wow.
I hadn't realised it was that bad.
Now I'm getting angry again.  Exactly the same thing is happening in the waters around the UK, and I'm thinking we'll have to do an Iceland.

I have a book from 1981 called "elements of marine ecology".  It sets out very clearly the signs of overfishing, and the reality of the north sea at that time.
And nobody is listening, even today.  The spanish come in and hoover up what they like, the Danes steal all the sand eels to feed their stupid overbred pigs, and the Scottish fisherman like idiots merely take a "they're stealing our fish" stand, whereas if they jumped onto the envirnoment bandwagon they would get allies across the EU and a much, much stronger case.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,10:34   

Out of curiosity, what happens to all these fish?

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,12:43   

Which ones?  The sandeels get ground up and used to feed pigs and fish and suchlike.  (Guess what farmed salmon eat?  Other fish...)
Many of them get eaten by humans.

Then there is this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2381559.stm

Quote
Fish is the fastest growing source of food in developing countries.

It is the primary source of animal protein for roughly a sixth of the world's population. But new research shows that demand greatly exceeds supply and the problem is growing.


Fisheries have been overexploited

Average global fish consumption has almost doubled in less than 50 years, and catches would have to double again in the next 25 years to keep up with requirements.

However many fish stocks are already depleted, overfished, fully exploited or damaged by climate change.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that unless fishing is cut by almost a third worldwide, many remaining stocks will not survive.


Now, leaving aside any issues you might have with evolution, the simple fact, no get out clauses, no magic, just the reality, is that fish wise, we have to stop eating them in such numbers, or we will have none left.
Simple as that.
You cannot argue with it.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,15:36   

Quote (guthrie @ April 05 2008,12:43)
Which ones?  The sandeels get ground up and used to feed pigs and fish and suchlike.  (Guess what farmed salmon eat?  Other fish...)
Many of them get eaten by humans.

Then there is this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2381559.stm

Quote
Fish is the fastest growing source of food in developing countries.

It is the primary source of animal protein for roughly a sixth of the world's population. But new research shows that demand greatly exceeds supply and the problem is growing.


Fisheries have been overexploited

Average global fish consumption has almost doubled in less than 50 years, and catches would have to double again in the next 25 years to keep up with requirements.

However many fish stocks are already depleted, overfished, fully exploited or damaged by climate change.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that unless fishing is cut by almost a third worldwide, many remaining stocks will not survive.


Now, leaving aside any issues you might have with evolution, the simple fact, no get out clauses, no magic, just the reality, is that fish wise, we have to stop eating them in such numbers, or we will have none left.
Simple as that.
You cannot argue with it.

Farmed salmon, interestingly enough, eat a mix of fish and other animal protein, and corn derivatives. The corn, being high in omega 6's actually means that farmed salmon are often not high in the 'fishy' omega 3's but rather more like beef omega 6's. weird.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,21:37   

I dabbled in fisheries stock assessment and management for a while but fortunately saw the light and started chasing things with no vertebrae.  Like Louis.  Anyway I thought I would add a few things.

Re the n00b and his personal experience contradicting the math behind the science of fishery management, the world is full of these kinds of douchebags.  I still run into them frequently (there ain't no trout in Cane River because the wildlife commission stocked a bunch of catfish, the liberals won't let us trawl inshore anymore so the bass and the trout get all the shrimp etc).  You know, the ones that say my daddy fished here and his daddy fished here and by god there will always be fish here so anyway light that'ar dynymite and pas me a beer.

But he is right stock assessment is a tricky business.  Data are always scarce and usually a season or two behind.  In warmer systems where target species have higher growth rates and fecundities, or places where there is large stochastic variation in recruitment then this can really screw up confidence intervals around any estimates of standing stock or next years harvestable biomass.

But, when we get to S.H.F. scenarios, I am right with Dr Gary.  I cannot wait to eat some of these fuckers.  Sorry assassinator, I can't get all worked up about End Times as a justification for a global village.  I look forward to collaborating with my bushmen brothers to ensure that only the strong and stringy survive.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2008,16:01   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 05 2008,21:37)
But he is right stock assessment is a tricky business.  Data are always scarce and usually a season or two behind.  In warmer systems where target species have higher growth rates and fecundities, or places where there is large stochastic variation in recruitment then this can really screw up confidence intervals around any estimates of standing stock or next years harvestable biomass.

Well, for many species, sebastes especially, initial data is nearly nonexistent but stock assessment gets better every year because every data point helps tune available models. By the time the models are reasonably useful in predicting groundfish sustainable yields, there might not be many of the poor sots left though. Ignoring that issue, there are dozens of indicators which can serve as proxies for unavailable data.

Modeling has come a long way. But my issue really stems from the way editorial writing forgets to use the words 'opinion' or 'might' or some kind of qualifier. To casual observers, this kind of writing looks like expert testimony and in fact that is the same problem in general evidenced in bush's war on science. People walk away from editorials believing that evolution has been disproved, ice cores don't produce reliable data, that fish stocks are plentiful or that global warming is not real etc.

The strength of evidence in argument has lost its importance in matters that actually impact life.
Quote
But, when we get to S.H.F. scenarios, I am right with Dr Gary.  I cannot wait to eat some of these fuckers.  Sorry assassinator, I can't get all worked up about End Times as a justification for a global village.  I look forward to collaborating with my bushmen brothers to ensure that only the strong and stringy survive.

Hard to get worked up unless your the guy responsible. Even then, once it's too late, it would still be pointless.
:)

I catch and eat 'em.

'Cause I'm a wild animal.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
  31 replies since April 04 2008,05:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]