Fishing is both gigantic and unprofitable (roughly $44B/year in the hole with subsidies, as of 2014)[1]. Illegal fishing is also a gigantic problem. In fact, illegal fishing is the 3rd largest crime in dollars after smuggling weapons and drugs (up to $36.4B/year)[2]. It also contributes to human trafficking.
In his (really great) book Four Fish, Paul Greenberg says that research shows it takes today's modern fleet roughly 36x the effort to catch the same amount of fish that the fleet of 1900 could catch with sail power. So even radar, sonar, and satellite hunting technology can't keep up with the disastrous decline in ocean stocks.
> Fishing is both gigantic and unprofitable (roughly $44B/year in the hole with subsidies, as of 2014)[1].
This is a misunderstanding of economics. To determine whether an industry would be profitable if subsidies were removed, you can't just subtract numbers on a balance sheet; you need to know the demand elasticity of their product.
Demand is strong, certainly, but productivity has topped out (ie: we're overfishing/we can't find new fish). Do subsidies lower the price for the consumer or simply keep output high given the decreasing stocks (therefore decreasing the price)?
Its not so much that we can't find new fish, it is that only a small portion of species is considered commercial profitable and those get fished to extinction. It is the least functional way to handle a ecosystem, and that is getting subsidized.
Its like when nation subsidies farmers that is growing singular crops that kills the soil, decreasing prices while keeping output artificial high while each year get worse and worse. Its not that farming is inherently unprofitable or that farmers can't find fresh soil, but rather a system failure. The eco industry, while often subsidized, has gotten quote profitable but the equivalent thing for fishing seems to still be rather small. I have seen some minor political efforts in trying to give subsidies money to fishermen that target overpopulated or invasive species, but nothing big.
It seems like you're viewing this as an optimization problem, which strikes me as just a way of kicking the proverbial can down the road - just like the subsidies are doing.
Which is at odds with current political and economic trends. Right or left, no matter what kinds of social or environmental causes people seem to care about, there is almost universal support for economic policies of unending growth. You almost never see Japan get touted as a model first world country - with both a shrinking population and economy - but maybe that's the way we all should be heading.
Retirement investments and real estate be damned, maybe immigration and jacked up trade isn't so important if we care about having a diverse and healthy biomass for future generations to enjoy.
Discussing the global population will sooner or later turn into a discussion about space colonization, which then usually becomes a debate about current population, cost of space programs vs welfare, and a lot of politics.
Some time down the road we will have to leave this rock. Today is not that day, so yes its an optimization problem in the (not very) short run and one that has rather big repercussions to the ecology.
This is a non sequitur. Fish farms are not receiving the subsidies GP decries. Still, they remain profitable enterprises. Thus they are much better uses of scarce resources than wild fisheries that lose money despite subsidies. Thus "the explosion".
They're responding to people who buy fish, which is most people, so it's less "Global Fishing's" and more "Humanity's Exploitation of the Ocean".
The maps look like a comment on our population growth, or a call to reduce that growth if we don't want nature to reduce it for us. Eating more plants instead of fish and other forms of efficiency could help too, but may forestall the inevitable if we keep growing.
Many fish farms are just converters from one kind of fish (that is caught in the wild but isn't popular in the supermarket) into another kind of fish (one of the popular carnivorous ones).
> Finally, comments are presented on the proposition that aquaculture will overtake wild capture fisheries in terms of food production, notably because current aquaculture requires huge quantities of wild-caught fish as feed. Indeed, this emphasis on aquaculture-as-substitute for fisheries raises issues of food security and malnutrition in developing countries, from which much of the fish used as feed originates.
They sure are pretty maps, and the boats do seem to get around, no denying of that. But I'm not sure how I'm supposed to gain any insight of any exploitation, never mind of its vastness, from the maps. One might even somewhat naively think that having the fishing spread out is actually good thing. And I'm actually pretty aware that our fishing is not anywhere near sustainable levels, so no need to begin arguing about that. What I'm commenting is the relative vacuousness of the article.
> Also, concerns are raised as to why FAO chose to ignore the well-documented data 'reconstruction' process, which fills the gaps that exist in data reported by countries to FAO. It is being ignored despite its importance for governance and resource conservation being well known. This process and its findings could be used by FAO to encourage countries to improve their data reporting, including retroactive corrections. This is important in view of successive analyses of the status of fisheries resources undertaken by FAO (published in current and past SOFIAs) and also in modified form by the Sea Around Us. This suggests a degradation of marine fisheries, and, if trends continue, a crisis by mid-century.
It would be interesting to be able to change the map depending on the country of origin of the vessels to see the distribution. The article says that Spain is one of the major presences here; but certainly I've seen Chinese fishing boats in the Atlantic
There is a bit of masking probably going on with a boat’s flag’s origin. Maritime law is a strange game and thy can get away with a lot of shady stuff if they pick some obscure countries as their “home”
I wish we could ban all fishing for at least five years and after that highly restrict it. One can dream right? (I say that as someone who likes eating fish a lot)
I'm astonished at how much fishing is going on around Europe. I expected that around China/Japan/SE Asia, but Europe? I've lived all over the US and in my experience hardly anyone eats seafood (we certainly never ate it growing up in California, Florida, Texas, Oregon and Puerto Rico and I've never met anyone who mentioned that they have recently eaten seafood). So I assumed Europe would be the same (since a lot of our culture comes from Europe). Maybe people are secretly eating more seafood in the USA than my experience would assume, or Europeans just eat way more seafood that I would have guessed.
>I've lived all over the US and in my experience hardly anyone eats seafood (we certainly never ate it growing up in California, Florida, Texas, Oregon and Puerto Rico and I've never met anyone who mentioned that they have recently eaten seafood)
We eat seafood (from seas, to oysters, to lobsters and co) all the time in Europe.
And I don't know about whether in the US where "hardly anyone eats seafood". Try New England states and you'll be surprised.
While consumption of seafood per capita is lower in the US than the EU, it's not that much so -- 21.7 kg/person/year in the US, vs 24.9 kg/person/year in EU average (though Mediterranean and nordic countries are well beyond the average). That said, a lot of the US consumption of fish might be in the form of catfish and fish nuggets as opposed to actual sea fare.
A lot of people don’t eat fresh water fish and cat fish. Shrimp is king followed by Tuna (likely canned) historically. Salmon is gaining popularity but catfish and fish nuggets are down.[1] I like this source because it is from Mississippi where they like catfish.
What you said was probably true in the 90s. I’d expect farmed Salmon and raw tuna to fall in the next decade as people are more aware of sustainable fishing practices.
> I'm astonished at how much fishing is going on around Europe.
Why would that surprise you? Europe has a long tradition of fishing. And europe's population is 800 million strong. They even had a brief "war" in the north atlantic over fish.
Japan and China are targeted in many fearmongering articles about fishing/whaling/etc because stories about them get traction/reaction. Maybe because of ethnic/racial tension. Who knows.
Try "Japan is killing whales" vs "Norway/Iceland is killing whales".
or
"China is overfishing" vs "Europe is overfishing".
The former gets the most reaction/clicks even though the latter outwhales and outfishes the former.
The biggest culprit is europe, then us, and then the japanese and then the chinese. It's primarily the europeans and us that are destroying fisheries. Not only that, europe's fishing reach is global due to their colonial heritage.
There is a very strong fishing tradition in europe. Nearly wiped out the whales in the 1800s. Wiped out the fish/tuna/etc in the mediterranean and the north atlantic. Then moved over to the US and wiped out our fisheries along our atlantic and alaska. And the regions destroying fisheries along africa are not the chinese, as you see on the news, but it's the europeans by a long shot.
As a French, I think I've as much "China/SE Asia is overfishing" as "Europe is overfishing". But usually it turns political very quick, since the region supported by the fishing industry don't have many other economical prospects.
As a Bostonian, I am absolutely mystified by this “never met anyone who mentioned that they have recently eaten seafood” thing. Sure fish is hard to find in middle America, but California and Florida? Fish on restaurant menus, at least, can’t just be a New England thing.
Raw seafood will be available at pretty much any midsized grocery store and most steak houses will have a couple dishes on the menu.
I've carefully said that the stores sell the stuff "raw" rather than "fresh" because I sure don't enjoy the smell in that section of the store (but then I'm probably allergic to shellfish).
> Maybe people are secretly eating more seafood in the USA than my experience would assume, or Europeans just eat way more seafood that I would have guessed.
One of the main reasons why I choose to spend almost all my summer vacations in Greece (I live in Romania, relatively closed by) is its excellent and pretty affordable sea-food. There’s also good sea-food available in most of Italy (I could even find sea-food dishes served by restaurants in Turin, which is a land-locked city).
The parent poster is severely biased based his personal experiences. Where I am located the northern coast or “panhandle” of Flordia is a popular vacation spot. Almost everyone eats seafood and most restaurants on the coast have it.
Personally, I can find seafood that is less than a few days hold and local to my state or neighboring states. Even really great Shellfish that is less than a day old if you time it right. We are 4-5 hours from the ocean but it can be more expensive.
I'm a Wisconsinite that dislikes seafood and I run into people eating fish daily! I'd even wager that you'd be hard-pressed to find a (non-niche) restaurant that didn't serve a Friday Fish Fry anywhere in the state.
I'm truly shocked that your experience has been otherwise (especially due to the coastal nature of each state you mentioned)
You may not be paying attention, even in just the fast food seafood there are tons of Captain Ds / Long John Silvers all over the US, not to mention the lower tier sit down restaurants like Red Lobster.
Sushi is very common in coastal California and Floridians love their shrimp. Were you especially inland in TX/CA/OR?
If we ignore Portugal (and Iceland which consumes a lot more per capita but is not in the EU), Spain is indeed the top consumer per capita in the European Union, but nowhere near 3x most European countries.
Only 50% more than France/Italy and about twice of UK/Belgium/Finland/Denmark/Netherlands.
Unless by "other European countries" you meant to refer to Germany, the ratio is way off.
Be prepared to read a lot more of this topic in the coming years. With 2 of the main food species (Tuna, Salmon) de facto endangered, we're going to be thinking about our seafood much differently from now on.
This is a real history. Last month three or four people were detained trying to taking a plane in Spanish with destination Malaysia with bags full of plastic water bottles. There was not drug in the bottles, they were just full of european baby eels. 24 Kg of elvers to be farmed for some months and sold in Asia as adult eels for a lot of money. Is a very lucrative smuggling. As elvers are tiny and lightweight a kg means a lot of fishes.
In the meanwhile the population of european eels were reduced in maybe a 90% in the last generation... and nobody cares. No one single politician of relevance is talking about that.
From the article it seems the map represents places fishing vessels _were_, not necessarily where fishing occurred. So a vessel en route to fishing "grounds" (what's the right term?) would be counted as fishing all along the way.
Yes. Or don't have them. If you believe this map nobody fishes on either coast of Thailand or Peninsular Malaysia at all. Not true!
Probably the map heavily skews to showing only points from large vessels in international waters and most vessels in well regulated / developed countries' waters.
The map is mostly based on AIS data; AIS transponders are only required on vessels larger than 100 tons, thus excluding smaller coastal fishing vessels.
EDIT According to wikipedia, I'm wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_syste... ). The international limit (IMO SOLAS) is apparently 300 gross tons, though local jurisdictions can have stricter requirements, e.g. it mentions that the EU requires all fishing vessels longer than 16m to be equipped.
Given the level of pollution in the ocean now you're probably better off avoiding fish anyway unless you want a daily dose of toxic heavy metals and industrial chemicals.
There are no essential nutrients in fish you can't easily get from other foods.
Is that really true? My understanding is that depends heavily on what type of fish it is (where are they in the food chain and how old they are), and isn’t the ocean super gigantic? It’s also not like heavy metals don’t exist in our land-based foods [1] (along with lots of other nasties like antibiotics and pesticides).
Further, if it was really so toxic, wouldn’t a population like Japan that has a very seafood heavy diet be suffering massive health issues?
wouldn’t a population like Japan that has a very seafood heavy diet be suffering massive health issues?
Oh you mean like massive suicide, youth exodus, xenophobia, plummeting economic output, aging population, negative population growth due to social issues? You don't need a personal mental diagnosis to know which way the wind blows for a society, and for Japan it's out to sea.
Plug: We're working to stop illegal fishing at Vulcan (with satellites!): http://www.skylight.global/. If you're interested, we actually have an open position on the team - http://www.vulcan.com/About/Careers/Job-Listings?p=job/oCIB6...
Hit me up if you'd like to discuss - email in profile.
[1] https://qz.com/1195914/the-way-the-world-catches-fish-defies... [2] https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/illegal-fishing