2007 was The Year of Climate Change. Scales were tipped, talks were commenced, and global warming became the new culprit of...everything. (Wait, didn't this happen in the 1980s?) I suppose the excuse of 9/11 was wearing thin. Plus, it was very hard to blame 9/11 for declining fish stocks. In this article from the Oakland Tribune, there are some obvious problems with Senegal's fisheries:
"In my childhood, say 10 years ago, fisherman didn't have to go too far to get fish. But now (we) have to go as far as Guinea-Bissau or to some neighboring countries to get fish," said Ba [a fisherman], 25.
Since he can remember, Ba and the other fishermen used to return with their catch about noon or 1 p.m. They now have to work longer hours to catch the same amount of fish they caught just 10 years ago.
The first half of the article blames the poor fishing on climate change (without discussing how climate change affects fish):
"While there's not much evidence that we've seen massive amounts of this so far, we are seeing warming of the ocean," Kamman said. "It's very well documented and over the coming two to three centuries, we expect to see a significant increase in sea level rise from greenhouse gases that we've already emitted, to say nothing of future emissions."
The second-half of the article (the half a lot of people don't read), discusses the "human factor" that has played into overfishing, "especially foreign factory ships that catch massive amounts of fish."
Another factor that reduces fish stocks is the lack of a size limit on fish that are caught. In years past, only adult fish were kept. But there is increasing evidence that fisherman, being forced to travel further and work longer hours, are keeping juvenile fish that were once released.
So factory fishing boats from Europe are stealing Senegal's fish (there are no limits placed on distant water fishing), including the baby fish. They have been doing this for years. But we're now supposed to believe that rising sea levels turned the tide for fishing? Shifting blame for overfishing from humans to gobal warming, just another shifting baseline...
Environment
Comments
Shifting blame for overfishing from humans to gobal warming, just another shifting baseline...
I think humans have a tendency to blame whatever baseline happens to be the most convenient. Global warming just happened to be handy. It will be interesting to see the state of the seas in 50 years! Dave Briggs :~)
Posted by: Dave Briggs | January 3, 2008 1:41 PM
You're sounding a bit like a global warming denialist. Are you denying that global warming exists or could have an effect on the fish population?
Posted by: Steve Higgins | January 3, 2008 5:31 PM
They're blaming global warming for the declining fish stocks on the south coast of British Columbia. For the first time ever last year they had to cancel to Fraser River salmon fishery. The estimated ten million sockeye that were expected ended up being only one million. It was probably one of the worst runs ever. Global warming is the popluar choice to blame on the declining stocks but if you don't like global warming there are also the native fisheries (A popular target for the commercial fishing industry)sports fishermen, fish farms and the fry-killing fish lice that they bring or the ministry of fisheries that panders to the commercial fishing industry, allowing catches to be too big or fishing to go on too long during the runs. The fact that the salmon stocks have been getting steadily smaller for the last twenty years doesn't seem to bother anyone, that is until there is an actual diaster. Global warming may have something to do with the dimishing stocks but I think it's just accelerating other problems that have been there for much longer.
Posted by: Susan | January 3, 2008 7:51 PM
We have modified our environment so radically that we must now modify ourselves to exist in this new environment. ~ Norbert Wiener Enviornment Quotes
Posted by: True character | January 3, 2008 8:00 PM
Norbert's quote really fits nicely into the concept of shifting baselines. After all, maybe forgetting is what's actually 'natural' for humans to cope with what they have done. As for global warming, I am certainly not denying its existence (any more than one can deny that 9/11 happened) nor that it can affect on fish stocks (I've seen some very interesting research about warming waters and fish larval development). I am questioning whether it (like 9/11) can be blamed for everything. I'll let you know after I try telling my funders I don't have a manuscript finished due to global warming...
Posted by: Jennifer L. Jacquet | January 3, 2008 8:31 PM
And with a bit of SB sarcasm...
Global warming leads to rising sea levels. Higher sea level gives fish more space to live. Now they can sprawl and increase their numbers. No problem--global warming is good for fish. [And they'll probably be more comfortable after being in that cold water for so long.]
Yes...load of BS, but I'm sure some pseudo-science thinktank will go for it. Maybe Randy and the Groundlings could just do a "Senate"-like film instead. http://www.shiftingbaselines.org/videos/index.html
Posted by: Jon Rusho | January 4, 2008 6:05 AM
I think Susan is onto it....cold and warm climate regime shifts often result in shifting fish populations. When overfishing is ocurring in a predictable regime, it's seen as only a minor nuisance to most. However when overfishing is coupled with climate regime shifts, then stocks collapse. This has happened all over the world with small pelagic species. Climate change is not to blame for stock collapses - it's the fact that we are overfishing in a dynamic environment whose variability is too tough to predict. Hence the precautionary approach, which sounds so good and is spoken often, but rarely implemented.
Posted by: Megan | January 4, 2008 12:56 PM