This depressing study from Science has gotten a lot of press, which is a good thing. The data really speaks for itself:
So what do we do? The scientists note that increased regulation has actually been effective, which is surprising since many environmentalists assume that fisherman don't actually obey regulations. (Boats on the open seas are hard to monitor, and international disputes can often neuter governmental regulations.)
The researchers analyzed nearly 50 areas where restrictions had been imposed to stop overfishing and found that, on average, the range of species in the water increased by 23 percent within five years. That provides reason for optimism, because it means sound management can halt the decline of fish stocks worldwide.
But regulation alone won't be enough. After all, fish are an essential part of our food supply, especially in developing countries. We can't expect impoverished fisherman to care more about swordfish stocks than about feeding their families. The only long term solution, I'm afraid, is farmed fishing, which needs to become more common. I know it's a deeply imperfect practice - for one thing, most farmed fish just taste like mealy protein - but it strikes me as the only way we can feed ourselves while allowing wild fish stocks to regenerate. In general, environmentalists don't like fish farms, but they'll just have to compromise. In fact, we all will have to compromise: the taste of wild fish is something we'll just have to learn to taste a little less.
Comments (7)
HHMM
Something like a third of posters on a scottish newspapers website were of the opinion that it was more lefty-greenie-human hating-marxist propaganda designed to make us accept more gvt regulation. Which I found very sad, and none of them could come up with a sensible reason why the study was wrong.
Posted by: guthrie | November 3, 2006 2:50 PM