TIMES are tough for tuna. The guidance of scientists that advise groups that manage tuna stocks is falling on deaf ears.
The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas meets this week in Brazil to set catch limits. ICCAT's scientific advisers have told it that stocks of the giant bluefin tuna are plummeting towards collapse. Catches in 2008 were at three times the ICCAT limit, which is itself more than what its scientific advisers consider sustainable (see "Tigers of the sea")
. "It's like the year before the collapse of the northern cod," says Dan Pauly at the University of British Columbia, Canada. In 1992 the Newfoundland cod fishery collapsed. It never recovered.
Giant bluefin tuna stocks are plummeting, like the year before the collapse of the northern cod
As stocks fall in the Atlantic, the tuna fishing fleets are targeting the Indian Ocean. So far, stocks of several tuna species there appear in good shape, with the exception of the yellowfin. According to the scientists advising the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), stocks of yellowfin are being overfished. The panel of scientists will meet later this month to discuss the available data, but it may prove futile: the IOTC's member nations rejected the panel's recommended catch limits in April. And in September, India launched a new ocean-observing satellite. It will be used to spot plankton blooms, which attract small fish and, in turn, tuna - so the fishing boats will know where to go.
- New Scientist
- Not just a website!
- Subscribe to New Scientist and get:
- New Scientist magazine delivered to your door
- Unlimited online access to articles from over 500 back issues
- Subscribe Now and Save
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
I find this situation infuriating. How short sighted can people be and so ignorant to ignore the cold hard facts. Why are they not listening to the scientists?
I say again... infuriating!
It is easy to understand. Scientist are members of the working class and they are not numerous. There is no incitative to listen to them.
The mentra is the same as elsewhere:"Fishermen are REAL experts, scientists know noting". By teh way, the only place where cod stock were relatively well proctected is Iceland. In that case, it was difficult for fishermen to claim their cousins were incompetent.
The tragedy of the commons. All the fishermen know that if they themselves refrain from overfishing, others will catch the fish anyway. So they have no real personal motivation to lower their fishing rates, even if they know they are heading for disaster. Strict international regulation and control is the only solution, but on the open ocean and with so many countries involved, that's difficult.
The tragedy of the commons explains the behavior of individual fishers, while short-sighted greed and lust for power explain why the food industry and politicians support them.
But they are only allowed to get away with it because the rest of us are idiots.
It should be remembered that the people who catch these fish are not poor schmo's with beards and peg legs. They are wealthy businessmen. Millionaires the lot of them. That is why it is so funny to me when they do a "And that's cutting me own throat" act. And don't forget. The tuna is not caught for sport. It's people that eat the catches - And the fact is that there's just too many people on this planet. So forget about dolphin friendly tuna please. There's nothing friendly about a can of tuna. Except the price which is ridiculously low when you consider that you are buying the processed flesh of a decimated species - A beautiful one at that. For shame.
"while short-sighted greed and lust for power explain why the food industry and politicians support them."
In a sense, you could the apply the tragedy of the commons at the level of national politics as well. No politician is going to apply strict fishing quota at home unless the other countries do the same, because it will cost him votes while the effect of his policy will be zero since the fishing industry will just shift to neighbouring countries. International regulation is required. Those fishing comittees mentioned in the article are supposed to do just that, but they fail at their jobs because they are too tightly linked to the fishing industry. World government for managing global natural resources is needed.
"But they are only allowed to get away with it because the rest of us are idiots"
Hey, speak for yourself!
Tragedy of the commons.
Whether you catch 100 tuna or 1000 tuna is almost irrelevant to tuna stocks because your catch is such a tiny fraction of all tuna catches; but it's going to have a huge impact on your livelyhood. The incentive is for each individual fishing vessel to catch as many fish as possible; but when everyone does that it has a huge impact on total catches.
Contrast this with a farm. Because the animals are fenced in and you're reasonably sure nobody is going to steal them, every animal has your name tag on it and if you sell it, you lost that a. If you're a rational, profit optimizing individual you're going to figure out which animals and how many you should sell and how many you should keep to generate the highest returns you can in a fashion that is sustainable year after year.
There is only one potential solution that I see; fish-farming, but you've got to reduce the use of fish meal from wild-caught fish, preferably to zero.
It will not work for governments to get together and declare ownership of a wild fish resource and then sell permits for certain numbers of catches. Politicians are rent-seekers and professional liars; their term in office is limited so they have the incentive to run down fish stocks as fast as possible in a way that allows them to extract the maximum rent from their stewardship of a given fishing resource.
The only way to prevent this disaster is political action. To dismiss politicians as "rent-seekers and professional liars" who cannot play a role is at best naïve and at worst just a covert form of denialism.
Cynical perhaps, but not naïve. Pretty close to the truth in most cases.
You're the one who's in denial.
You're talking about the same cretins who keep subsidizing the construction of fishing vessels and subsidizing fuel for fishing vessels to make up for declining fisheries and thereby exacerbating overfishing.
You're talking about the same people that still today insist on destroying food and depleting soils to produce biofuels.
The same people who inflated the tech bubble and the housing bubble. The same people who keep bailing out, subsidizing and turning a blind eye to fraud from the cancer on the productive economy that is Wallstreet.
The same people who provided strong tax incentives to buy a SUV.
The same people who provide a massive subsidy for cars in the form of the national highways; in essence killing all the rail-roads that cannot support themselves on hauling coal.
The same people who levy a tax on electrified rail, but not diesel rail, making it uneconomical to build electrified rail in the US.
The same people who killed millions by largely successfully preventing the use of DDT against malaria mosquitos in third world countries. This after malaria had been eliminated in southern Europe and the US with DDT.
The same people who are busy trying to pass a gargantuan cap and trade bill that they haven't read, that was written by lobbyists and that is ostensibly intended to reward polluters and forestall effective action on climate change.
The same people who started two unjustified, unconstitutional, undeclared wars in the middle east. Who keep spouting ever-changing rationalizations that don't bear any scrutiny. The world trade center and pentagon attack cost millions for Al Qaeda to execute. It did billions in damages and cost thousands of lives. The government response to 9/11 cost trillions and has so far claimed ~1 million lives. The government gave Al Qaeda a lever 1000 times longer than they otherwise would have had, with which they could move the world.
These are the same people who insist waterboarding is not torture. The same people who rely on information derived from Uzbekistan's gulags were people are being sent to be boiled alive, raped by broken bottles, having their children tortured in front of them, spanish inquisition stuff; to extract information.
These are the same people who continue the war on drugs. Even when it is abundantly clear that it contributes to murder rates. Even though it is abundantly clear that drug trafficking is the primary mechanism of funding for the very same criminal elements that are involved in human trafficking, extortion and racketeering. Even though it criminalizes drug users.
These people need to be tried for treason and face firing squad. You don't have two braincells to rub toghether if you think these people can stem overfishing
"It will not work for governments to get together and declare ownership of a wild fish resource and then sell permits for certain numbers of catches"
Why not? At least in theory it should be possible. Maybe the ownership of global natural resources such as fisheries should be transferred to the UN.
"Politicians are rent-seekers and professional liars; their term in office is limited so they have the incentive to run down fish stocks as fast as possible in a way that allows them to extract the maximum rent from their stewardship of a given fishing resource."
Hmmm... maybe the solution is to abandon democracy and put a monarch in power. Knowing he can look forward to a lifetime of governing, followed by his children, he has an incentive for long-term decision making.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Where there is money to be made by disregarding scientific advice, rest assured it will be exploited until it is too late.
I think this might be a little taste of the sad things to come for global warming negotiations :
scientists propose guidelines, politicians compromise them severely and then few/none really respects the water down agreement anyway.
I hope I'm wrong...........
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
hi professor, this following article appears to show how lack of enforcement of various environmental laws
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
