View Full Version : Goodbye little fishy

11-26-2006, 11:22 PM

It is becoming increasing difficult to concieve of a Human race in 200 years.
Politics and short term economic gain still rule.

11-27-2006, 12:24 AM
We really suck.:(

11-27-2006, 08:55 AM
200 years? I think you're very opptimistic

11-27-2006, 08:55 AM
It most likely will all be gone as far as commercial wild fishing goes.
If you dont go and get it, some one else will beat you to it.
So, its everyone for himself.

There will always be small areas of sea life that may be able to come back in a few hundred or thousand years.

I think there may be fish farming where they construct massive huge net barriers and try to rear fish for harvest. Water quality though I could not say, there does seem to be a problem with these ever larger floating dead zones where oxygen is gone. Perhaps giant oxygen bubbers could be constructed to aerate these future fish ponds in the oceans. Run these off solar or wind power out in the oceans. Just to feed these fish, sprinkle whatever they eat over the surface, like you do in your own aquarium. Perhaps even selective harvesting of fish by size could be done leaving the remaining stock to keep on producing. Fencing or netting off the areas could keep out the large predatory whales and sharks which people dont eat anyway so these top predators are not needed in the ecosytem.

So we face a bleak future of diminshing diversity in ocean life. And its a future that you could only change by going to war over. Obviously their is no consensus on fishing restrictions and likely never will be either. People historically use up the land or water until it turns to crap and then either die off in plagues or move on to new lands to conquer.

Off topic a little, I have read that
the Navy blasts out a sonar wave so powerful it causes whales ears to bleed? Then they go mad and run up on the beaches.

11-27-2006, 09:09 AM

11-27-2006, 09:11 AM
Problem solved. Glad everything's ok now.

11-27-2006, 09:15 AM
interesting to note , Canada , has not agreed to place a ban on bottom trawling

11-27-2006, 09:19 AM
After all the wild fish are used up, what will we feed our cats, dogs, and poor economically disadvantaged peoples of the world with?
Can people in Bangladesh, India, etc... create large fish ponds to help out. Could be a way of coping with global warming, the land is going away you know.
Turn the whole former country into fish ponds.

11-27-2006, 09:20 AM
interesting to note , Canada , has not agreed to place a ban on bottom trawlingYeah, that is interesting, isn't it.:mad:

Considering Canada's absolutely stellar performance in managing our various fisheries, I'm sure there's a good, sound scientific rationale for continuing to destroy the seabed.


11-27-2006, 09:25 AM
We have no intention of even making half an attempt at meeting our kyoto pledges, either. Canada can be a real idiot sometimes.

11-27-2006, 09:31 AM
The wild fish are also not growing like they used to.
They are starving.

Perhaps you had not heard of this yet. It makes perfect sense that if you detroy the bottom of the food chain, everything up the line starves.

11-27-2006, 09:34 AM
... if you detroy the bottom of the food chain, everything up the line starves.

But just to make sure we are destroying the food chain from both ends. We will then replace it with farmed soyfish and wonder bread.

11-27-2006, 09:40 AM
could we turn the ocean into a toxic foul smeling fecal soup where nothing lives?
How many of us would want to go pleasure boating in such waters, oh boy, better not fall in that!.
I grew up around lake Erie in Buffalo. I remember sailing on that lake in the 60's and early 70's. The water stank, and dead and dying fish would float along on the surface. Even Niagara falls had a foul odor, all the polluted water misting into the air.
I seem to remember some prohibition against swimming. From time to time, the Buffalo River would even catch fire.
It is much cleaner now from what I hear.

Rick Starr
11-27-2006, 09:54 AM
Starve a fisherman, save the planet.

11-27-2006, 10:12 AM
Starve a fisherman, save the planet.No. It's just that one way or the other, we'll pay the real cost of fish.

Either reduce the efficiency of current practices, and pay fishermen more per pound for what they are able to bring to market ... maintaining the resource. Or keep going full-throttle, and feed a couple more generations of fishermen on the current basis. Then it will be over.

I know my preference.

11-27-2006, 10:15 AM
big business interests are at play tomf , the big Canadian fish processors would be forced to modernize their fleet into something more practical

very short sighted to pee the pool like that

11-27-2006, 10:19 AM
Oh I know, Popeye. Big business interests will want to get the most profit out of the capital they've already invested. And nobody but nobody wants to unilaterally cut back on their own potential harvest, if someone else is simply going to move in and take over that bit of the resource instead. It's all about relative power.

It's also a great, contemporary example of the tragedy of the commons. If we didn't already know from experience how it would play out, it would just make me ill. As it is, I'm bloody furious.

11-27-2006, 10:25 AM
well, there's the ransom note , and they know what they're doing

common sense is hijacked once again , groan