Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WWF says we risk losing species critical to human food security unless action is taken to halt overfishing and other threats to marine life
Tuna and mackerel populations have suffered a “catastrophic” decline of nearly three quarters in the last 40% years, according to new research.
WWF and the Zoological Society of London found that numbers of the scombridae family of fish, which also includes bonito, fell by 74% between 1970 and 2012, outstripping a decline of 49% for 1,234 ocean species over the same period.
The conservation charity warned that we face losing species critical to human food security, unless drastic action is taken to halt overfishing and other threats to marine life.
Louise Heaps, chief advisor on marine policy at WWF UK, said: “This is catastrophic. We are destroying vital food sources, and the ecology of our oceans.”
Here's the major issue..
dude I just posted a link that would give you that answer. I bet.................you didn't read it. Start a thread and then omit replies. funny stuff again with you mat.Here's the major issue..
How do we stop the slaughter? Maybe we should put a quota on how many fish that can be fished.
Hard to imagine that there is a regulation in only one ocean. here.
Federal Register | Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2015 U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits
credit the Federal Register:
"Summary
NMFS proposes a 2015 limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific territory (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands). NMFS would allow each territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt each year to U.S. longline fishing vessels in a specified fishing agreement that meets established criteria. As an accountability measure, NMFS would monitor, attribute, and restrict (if necessary) catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna, including catches made under a specified fishing agreement. The proposed catch limits and accountability measures support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands."
Hard to imagine that there is a regulation in only one ocean. here.
Federal Register | Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2015 U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits
credit the Federal Register:
"Summary
NMFS proposes a 2015 limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific territory (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands). NMFS would allow each territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt each year to U.S. longline fishing vessels in a specified fishing agreement that meets established criteria. As an accountability measure, NMFS would monitor, attribute, and restrict (if necessary) catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna, including catches made under a specified fishing agreement. The proposed catch limits and accountability measures support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands."
We have US jurisdiction over that tiny part of the Pacific. That's NOT where the problem is...
Problem with tuna and mackerel is probably that they are wide-ranging species. Not like flounder seabass, grouper, haddock.. With those more LOCALIZED populations, you can do any number of things. Like habitat enhancement and my favorite -- private leasing. The tendency to overfish localized species is solved with partitioned "leasing" of fishing areas. The owners of the lease will do the habitat enhancements for free and guarantee themselves a sustainable catch.. And the revenue on the leases can be used to fund surveys and studies of other species that could benefit from a little free market organization..
But with these "top dog" species -- you cannot easily control what jurisdiction they might wander into or the conditions that might inhibit breeding and population repair..
is there a regulation in the Pacific or not?People like jc need to study the history of the cod off of Newfoundland.
the scientists are now fishermen? Wow, they really are talented. I'd be pissed if I were a fisherman who puts his life on the line to supply food for people. The bad people I supposed.Guys everyone knows humans have no impact on the planet. This is just scientists looking for money. Tuna are fine their population has always changed. More some years, less others. The Tuna cultists hate America.
/sarcasm
Problem with tuna and mackerel is probably that they are wide-ranging species. Not like flounder seabass, grouper, haddock.. With those more LOCALIZED populations, you can do any number of things. Like habitat enhancement and my favorite -- private leasing. The tendency to overfish localized species is solved with partitioned "leasing" of fishing areas. The owners of the lease will do the habitat enhancements for free and guarantee themselves a sustainable catch.. And the revenue on the leases can be used to fund surveys and studies of other species that could benefit from a little free market organization..
But with these "top dog" species -- you cannot easily control what jurisdiction they might wander into or the conditions that might inhibit breeding and population repair..
So, are you saying that these pelagic species have simply wandered off or that they are dying off but we can't do anything about it?
