Mar 2, 2009 3:59pm

Big Catch

Some years ago I went to Newfoundland, where the local economy, built on fishing, had all but collapsed, and a shaken fisherman told a psychologist what he thought was the reason. "My God," the therapist quoted him as saying.  "We’ve caught them all." Catching all the fish in the sea may not be literally possible, but the environmental group Oceana is out with a report today that adds a new wrinkle to the debate over how we deal with the oceans. It says larger ocean animals — whales, dolphins, bluefin tuna — are put at risk because fishing fleets are catching the much smaller sea life on which they feed.  People aren’t catching whales — but they are catching sardines, anchovies, squid and krill, so that larger animals have less to eat. Oceana, an advocacy group whose leadership includes several scientists, as well as the actors Ted Danson and Sam Waterston, said, "the impacts of fishing activity over the past decades has been so great that the nearly all prey fisheries now cannot withstand increased fishing pressure." Oceana’s report is HERE (it’s a fairly large pdf file).  It’s timed to coincide with a biennial "State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture" report from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, which is HERE.  The FAO points out that "aquaculture" — fish farms and the like — is becoming the source for half the fish consumed by people worldwide.  Oceana says many of the small prey species are being caught to supply those fish farms. Oceana says so-called hotspots, where key species have their young, should be closed off more often. The National Fisheries Institute, which represents the U.S. fishing industry, can be found HERE.  I asked them for their comment, and got this in reply from Gavin Gibbons of their staff:

"Oceana’s latest seafood sustainability report is unfortunately quintessential Oceana; a dash of outdated facts mixed with wild exaggerations. Oceana touches on some serious and important sustainability stories in its report —- like the plight of the bluefin tuna — but its overstated tales of scrawny species and emaciated whales work to marginalize its efforts.

"And even when it does touch on a fish stock with real sustainability challenges it never puts it in perceptive. Oceana fails to mention that despite the commercial appeal of the blue fin’s story, it makes up only about 2% of the more than 4 million metric tons of tuna caught each year, with 50% of that number coming from skipjack —- a  well maintained abundant fishery." (Photo: a sand tiger shark, surrounded by a school of small prey fish.  Picture credit: Gordon Stroupe via Oceana)

User Comments

One fisherman can destroy the lives of more people than Hitler did.

Posted by: John Kantor | March 2, 2009, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm

The problem here is that the fishermen are getting PAID to fish. Without that financial incentive, overfishing would go down. If people would also stop reproducing and having babies, there would be less people to consume the fish. What we have here is a dangerous culture that pushes farming, fishing, and livestock as the only ways to live. And you’d better have money to buy food.

Posted by: FauxFoxx | March 2, 2009, 7:37 pm 7:37 pm

we also need to critcise all those cat owners, folks who take Omega-3 supplements, and have gardens. Much of the smaller fishes (anchovies, herrings, and sardines) and used for these purposes. These people are responsible for killing whales and other marine life due to their appetite for their cats, brain health, and gardening!

Posted by: Al | March 2, 2009, 10:35 pm 10:35 pm

Why is there a picture of a sand tiger shark associated with this article that mentions only “whales, dolphins, and bluefin tuna” by name? Just seemed weird, that’s all.

Posted by: Lassa | March 3, 2009, 12:24 am 12:24 am

Lassa: Because sharks are awesome, and need no introduction? ;)
I don’t understand why fish farms can’t just raise their own small prey species. I mean, don’t some of the fish farms occur in “pens” out in the fishes’ habitats, like in the ocean? If that’s the case, you’d think that they could do the same for the fish food.

Posted by: K-Chan | March 3, 2009, 7:51 am 7:51 am

Note from Ned Potter–
Lassa, K-Chan, my apologies. Oceana supplied the picture of the sand tiger shark because it’s surrounded by a school of prey fish. I’ve updated the caption.

Posted by: Ned Potter | March 3, 2009, 9:59 am 9:59 am

The bottom line to all this is still the same old mantra. There are too darned many of us and with the advances in medical science, there will be more of us, living longer and consuming ever more and producing ever more waste and pollution. The end result will be the same as we see around us. We’ll eventually outstrip our resources and we’ll eventually be that natural end product of overpopulation: An evolutionary dead end. An unsuccessful evolutionary experiment. We will have outsmarted ourselves.

Posted by: andyr | March 3, 2009, 10:27 am 10:27 am

The commercial fishing industry will say that there’s no problem. Don’t regulate us because it’s a giant ocean out there and there are plenty of fish to go round. The truth is that it is possible to exaust the supply of fish by over fishing, pollution, global warming, habitat distruction and more.
Another truth is that if the oceans die,
we will die. The oceans provide not only food for a hungry world but also most of the Oxygen we breath. We must stop this waste and distruction of these resources even if it hurts present jobs in some areas, or we will all suffer.

Posted by: Blackie | March 3, 2009, 1:17 pm 1:17 pm

don’t blame fishermen, though they do cause some of the problems. Blame the folks who demand exotic fish for their dinners. Blame the countries that promote/encourage over-fishing. Blame the large corporations who use the fish for their products (even in cheap products like canned fish, fertilizer, etc). Don’t blame fishermen who, more often than not, live in as impoverished communities as many inner-city Obama supporters. And in even worse conditions in the “3rd world” where over-fishing is necessary for their children/selves to, literally, live.

Posted by: Ed | March 3, 2009, 7:30 pm 7:30 pm

Fisherman for generations operated on the principle that the sea was an endless bounty and theirs was the job to capture it. The reality has struck now, and this pantry is growing bare. We need immediate, worldwide action taken with as much enforcement as possible. We need to look into fish farms and also into their environmental impacts, and seriously consider stocking the seas. Fishing companies should be required to re-stock based on what they take. Minnesota stocks most of its lakes and because of this, you can still go to Minnesota and fish. But who is restocking the oceans? With all we’re removing, it’s a no brainer that we need to put back. Even though you can’t force everyone to do it, all who are able should be giving back to this closed system.

Posted by: Joe | March 4, 2009, 7:58 pm 7:58 pm

On March 8th, National Geographic said on their Blue Whale program, “The Japanese Killed 300 whales last year for research”. One of those whales was a very rare mixed breed. They found its meat in a meat market in Japan. Can anyone tell me how whales killed for “research” end up in a meat market? Why does any country need to kill 300 whales for research?
The Japanese have actually killed 50 endangered Humpbacks and 935 threatened Minke Whales in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary and 500 whales in the North Pacific plus 22,000 dolphins in Japanese waters. All commercial whaling is illegal so Japan simply refers to their commercial whaling activities as “research”. Why are we allowing this?

Posted by: Nancy | March 12, 2009, 9:52 pm 9:52 pm

hey yeah i think that would be a great idea and have been toying with the idea of restocking the oceans since early 2009, it would be cool and propably only take 75 years.

Posted by: Jacob Harvey | January 11, 2011, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.