well, i agree with you somewhat, but think about this... if they came back with a full load every trip, whether it is shrimp, crabs, whatever they catch, what would happen to the pricing on the catch? it would go down... supply and demand rules here to. to make more money catching less is their prime goal...

I hope you are kidding.

why would i be kidding? any kind of "impending disaster" raises the price on things...if you can do less work and make more more money, would that interest you? the fishing industry is no different than any other industry. why would this be any different from the global warming issue? scientist are paid to say things,and we take it as the truth. the truth is, nobody really knows how many fish are left out there, and 75% of the earth is underwater.... that is a big area to study

Here is the story of one fish and one place. Perhaps it will give you a different outlook.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/04/global-fisheries-crisis/montaigne-text/5

i'm not saying your wrong, overfishing is a big problem... but, at the same time, can 1700 boats cover the 139.4 million square miles of oceans that cover the earth? Bluefin tuna is not just a Mediterranean species, they are found in just about every ocean...

I see. You are not saying I'm wrong while saying I am wrong. That tuna story was several pages long. It gave the life cycle of the tuna as it came in to spawn and how many fishing ships were vying to purse each spawning pool which are easily spotted by aircraft. Did you say you know how many bluefin spawning areas there are in the world?

Let me restate the problem. Over 90% of the fish in the sea are caught and there are two and a half times as many boats out there as required to catch them all. School fish migrate and spawn which make them predictable and easy to find and catch. No one is doing anything about it because the Asians are mostly just concerned about bringing in every fish possible.

I could quote a hundred sources. They are easy to find. I'm going to scuba the Turks in six weeks and will probably meet with some marine people while I am there. I usually do. 30% of the world's coral reefs have died since I started diving. Most of the big fish I used to look at like grouper are mostly gone.

let me put it this way... i feel that the chemicals and other trash pollutants that man is continually dumping into the water supplies, compounded by overfishing is a threat. overfishing is a problem, i totally agree with you, but not the main problem. for every country that doesn't have laws based on overfishing, there are countries that do have laws and are enforced to combat this. can you name a species that has become extinct as a direct result of man overfishing? the oceans are to vast for this to happen. you say the coral reefs are dying off, what was it you said, 30%? well, how many reefs have been made by man? the chemicals and toxins are a way bigger threat to wildlife than overfishing ever will be. And, if they continue with the dumping,spills and who knows what else, how long will it be before the fish that are left alive are inedible? i'll support you and anyone else in overfishing, but i think there are bigger issues than just overfishing...

IMO.. I do not see how these figures jive at all.

since 1950 90% of the oceans fish are gone. getting worse I would suppose.


So tell me how that jives with us living on 10% of the fish thats left for 40 years.. does not add up.

There are a lot more than 1700 boats. How about the several factory ships out there? The fleet is a lot larger than that and Asian fishing boats are notorious for using a net that indiscriminately catches EVERYTHING! Their passage is marked by sections of sea floor in shallower reaches by a sea floor stripped bare.

I find it interesting how on March 11th thier was a Tsuami/ earthquake in Japan which sent a small Tsusami to Cali a few days after Mar 11th 2011.

and these fish pop up 3 days before the Japan Event.

I know we can not predict at all Earthquakes like this so who's to say something did not happen that we were unaware of say a week before Mar. 11th?

That killed these fish and the currents took them to Cali?

I have no idea but who knows. coquincidence?

i hardly think they scraped 140 million square miles of ocean bottom...

Blue pike (Stizostedion vitreum glacum)
Formerly found in lakes Erie and Ontario
Declared extinct in 1983

Deepwater cisco (Coregonus johannae)
Formerly found in lakes Huron and Michigan
Extinct in 1960s

Harelip sucker (Lagochila lacera)
Formerly seen in clear streams of the upper Mississippi Valley, and the Lake Erie and Ohio drainage basins
Not seen since 1900

Longjaw cisco (Coregonus alpenae)
Formerly found in lakes Erie, Huron and Michigan
Declared extinct in 1983

Shortnose cisco (Coregonus reighardi)
Formerly found in lakes Huron, Michigan and Ontario
No individuals collected since 1985


From Animal Planet

Top 10 Most Endangered Fish Species
By Clint Pumphrey



"There are plenty of other fish in the sea," goes the old cliché. But are there? According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List of endangered species, 1,414 species of fish, or 5 percent of the world's known species, are at risk for extinction. While habitat loss and pollution are significant factors in the decline of these species, the greatest threat by far is overfishing.

End Quote:

Oh, you only wanted one.

like i said, show me one that has become extinct due to overfishing... you came up with a good list, but the great lakes are some of the most polluted in the US... so you know for a fact these are extinct because of overfishing? the great lakes is notorious for invasive species....

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Marine_invasive_species

I would wonder if only 29% of the earth is land and a percentage of it is not good for growing stuff or livestock.. Are we in a Beef shortage? pig? Rabbitt, deer well we have 2 many of them now we have extra deer hunting seasons. when a say oceanliner looses GPS and strays off course a few hundred miles. How hard is it to find?

then we say only 10% of fish is left? how could anyone know such a thing.. here is a rebuttle to a study..










Size of the Ocean Garbage Patch is "Grossly Exaggerated"

By Good News Network Thursday, January 06, 2011




Share
Claims in the media about a great garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean being "twice the size of Texas" exaggerated the actual size by two hundred thousand percent, according to an analysis by an Oregon State University scientist. If you look at the actual area of the plastic itself, the amount is actually less than 1 percent of the size of Texas.

Further claims that the oceans are filled with more plastic than plankton, and that the patch has been growing tenfold each decade since the 1950s are equally misleading, pointed out Angelicque “Angel” White, an assistant professor of oceanography at Oregon State.

“There is no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world’s oceans is troubling, but this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists,” White said. “It is simply inaccurate to state that plastic outweighs plankton, or that we have observed an exponential increase in plastic.”

White has pored over published literature and participated in one of the few expeditions solely aimed at understanding the abundance of plastic debris and the associated impact of plastic on microbial communities.

She says, while it isn’t trivial, the total amount of plastic is a small fraction of what was reported and it certainly isn't growing. She described the study's conclusion as "unexpected".

Another way to look at it, White said, is to compare the amount of plastic found to the amount of water in which it was found. If the surface area of the ocean were equivalent to a football field, the amount of plastic recovered would not even extend to the 1-inch line.



Recent research by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that the amount of plastic, at least in the Atlantic Ocean, hasn’t increased since the mid-1980s – despite greater production and consumption of materials made from plastic, she pointed out.

The hyperbole about plastic patches saturating the media rankles White, who says such exaggeration can drive a wedge between the public and the scientific community. One recent claim that the garbage patch is as deep as the Golden Gate Bridge is tall is completely unfounded, she said.

White says there is growing interest in removing plastic from the ocean, but such efforts will be costly, inefficient, and may have unforeseen consequences. It would be difficult, for example, to “corral” and remove plastic particles from ocean waters without inadvertently removing phytoplankton, zooplankton, and small surface-dwelling aquatic creatures, which are the heartbeat of the ocean.

The relationship between microbes and plastic is what drew White and her C-MORE colleagues to their analysis in the first place. During a recent expedition, they discovered that photosynthetic microbes were thriving on many plastic particles, in essence confirming that plastic is prime real estate for certain microbes.

White also noted that while plastic may be beneficial to some organisms, it can also be toxic when containing PCB.

“On one hand, these plastics may help remove toxins from the water,” she said. “On the other hand, these same toxin-laden particles may be ingested by fish and seabirds. Plastic clearly does not belong in the ocean.”

Among other findings, which White believes should be part of the public dialogue on ocean trash:

* Calculations show that the amount of energy it would take to remove plastics from the ocean is roughly 250 times the mass of the plastic itself;

* There are areas of the ocean largely unpolluted by plastic. A recent trawl White conducted in a remote section of water between Easter Island and Chile pulled in no plastic at all.

“If there is a takeaway message, it’s that we should consider it good news that the ‘garbage patch’ doesn’t seem to be as bad as advertised,” White said, “but since it would be prohibitively costly to remove the plastic, we need to focus our efforts on preventing more trash from fouling our oceans in the first place.”

The expedition was part of research funded by the National Science Foundation through C-MORE, the Center for Microbial Oceanography: Research and Education.




The planet is approximately 71% water and contains (5) five oceans, including the Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, Pacific and Southern. Their borders are indicated on the world image (right) in varied shades of blue.

For many years only (4) four oceans were officially recognized, and then in the spring of 2000, the International Hydrographic Organization established the Southern Ocean, and determined its limits. Those limits include all water below 60 degrees south, and some of it, like the Arctic Ocean, is frozen.

(oceans by size)

#1 Pacific (155,557,000 sq km) larger map

#2 Atlantic (76,762,000 sq km) larger map

#3 Indian (68,556,000 sq km) larger map

#4 Southern (20,327,000 sq km) larger map

#5 Arctic (14,056,000 sq km) larger map

(greatest depths in the oceans)

Mariana Trench, Pacific 35,827 ft

Puerto Rico Trench, Atlantic 30,246 ft

Java Trench, Indian 24,460 ft

Arctic Basin, Arctic 18,456 ft

Southern Ocean, (greatest depth in dispute)



Deepest Oceans and Seas, details HERE

i'm not saying overfishing is not an issue, i'm saying it is not the only issue. to say that it is the only problem is very unscientific, and all issues need to be examined..

"There are plenty of other fish in the sea," goes the old cliché. But are there? According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List of endangered species, 1,414 species of fish, or 5 percent of the world's known species, are at risk for extinction. While habitat loss and pollution are significant factors in the decline of these species, the greatest threat by far is overfishing."

Who said overfishing was the only problem?

And who is being unscientific?

just sayin, seemed like that was the topic, so i thought i would clarify...

We are killing our planet and will pay a hefty price for it one day...those of us who are connected to nature feel it each day and it's quite painful.

Those who feel the planet is just a rock also feel it, they just don't know what it is.

very true... it's not just fish, but animals and plants all over the world

here is a new one...

Mysterious naked penguin chicks turning up on either side of the Atlantic are worrying biologists, who are stumped over what’s causing the birds to lose their feathers. Since 2006, an increasing number of Magellanic penguin chicks completely without feathers have been observed in colonies Punta Tombo, Argentina, and Cape Town, South Africa. Scientists are not only puzzled as to what's causing the condition, but they're also worried it could spread to other penguin species. It's very bizarre, and certainly it's a worry, said Dee Boersma, a biology professor at the University of Washington and head of the Wildlife Conservation Society's penguin project. Magellanic penguins are temperate birds, so they can survive without feathers, she said. But what happens if it transfers to another species of penguin further south? That would be really bad news. Boersma, along with her colleagues in Argentina and at the Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds, recently published the results of a multi-year study of the phenomenon in the journal Waterbirds.

The condition was first observed in 2006 in African penguins at a Cape Town rehabilitation centre. But it wasn't until Boersma and some graduate students studying colonies in 2007 in Punta Tombo, where nearly a million Magellanic penguins arrive every year to breed, that the phenomenon came under close scientific scrutiny. Between 2007 and 2010, featherless chicks turned up at four different study sites along Argentina's coastline. Oddly, the featherless chicks aren't born bald. When the chicks hatch, they have their feathers, Boersma told the Star. It's when that coat of down wears off that they become featherless. She says the suspected cause is a virus, but nothing has been proven. We don't really know. Viruses are hard to find, Boersma said, adding that samples have been taken from the penguins for testing. What is known is that being featherless doesn't always result in a death sentence. The researchers found that featherless chicks were smaller in size and weight than the normal penguins, and usually grew more slowly. But they didn't always die.

They're paying such a high cost for maintenance, said Boersma. You've got to shiver a lot to stay warm. While the condition is relatively rare; Boersma and her team found 12 featherless chicks this year, she says time is of the essence to find the cause of the disorder before it starts to spread. We've got to be better stewards of the world we live in if we want to share it with penguins.