Climate change and fish stocks

[Julian Fox]

just wondering for how long the scientists have to keep saying things before politicians and CFs take notice- then again as ICES know to their cost its 5 years and counting on the cod issue.

 

see here

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6191828.stm

 

the slow change in climate is altering marine life - but it isn't siginificant when considering the impact that CF has.

 

more food for thought

[Guest challenge]

just wondering for how long the scientists have to keep saying things before politicians and CFs take notice- then again as ICES know to their cost its 5 years and counting on the cod issue.

 

see here

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6191828.stm

 

the slow change in climate is altering marine life - but it isn't siginificant when considering the impact that CF has.

 

more food for thought

But fishing activities have been greatly reduced over the last ten years.

With decommissioning, quota restrictions, days at sea etc, etc, etc.

What has been done to prevent global warming?

Has the government paid as much attention to scientific advice over global warming as they have done towards fishing activities?

It’s a question Julian, not a statement. Would love to no your views.

Regards.

[wurzel]

just wondering for how long the scientists have to keep saying things before politicians and CFs take notice- then again as ICES know to their cost its 5 years and counting on the cod issue.

 

see here

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6191828.stm

 

the slow change in climate is altering marine life - but it isn't siginificant when considering the impact that CF has.

 

more food for thought

 

Quote

but it isn't siginificant when considering the impact that CF has.

 

 

They always say that, it covers thier arse if they are wrong about climate change.

I predict it won't be long before they only blame climate change, there is not enough fishermen left to blame.

[Ian Burrett]

just wondering for how long the scientists have to keep saying things before politicians and CFs take notice- then again as ICES know to their cost its 5 years and counting on the cod issue.

 

see here

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6191828.stm

 

the slow change in climate is altering marine life - but it isn't siginificant when considering the impact that CF has.

 

more food for thought

 

 

They haven't a clue

 

This report sanctioned by scottish fisheries suggests the exact opposite and blames overfishing.

http://www.marlab.ac.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads/Do...20Fisheries.pdf

 

 

It states

 

It found that the North Sea spawning cod stock, if cod

had been fished during 1988-2001 so that it produced the maximum sustainable

yield, could have been approximately 260,000 tonnes, which would have sustainably

supported a fishery during that period of 180,000 tonnes each year.

 

This result is very clear and worth repeating. Even given the warming in the North

Sea that happened between 1988-2001, and all the observed changes in the food-

chain, if we had fished cod at a lower level the ecosystem could possibly have

sustained a spawning stock of 260,000 tonnes. In actual fact over this period the

spawning stock size decreased from 150,000 tonnes to less than 50,000 tonnes.

 

 

Recent tagging studies by FRS, using tags which record the temperature cod have

been living in between release and recapture, clearly show that North Sea cod a) do

not move very far during their life time, often tolerate warm temperature in the

southern North Sea without moving away from the area, c) have ample cooler

grounds to move to in the northern North Sea if they needed to, but they do not

move.

 

The reason that we do not have this size of stock is

due to the high fishing pressure we have subjected the stock to. Cod is

not moving north; rather we are fishing out the southerly components of

the stock. There still remain large areas of potential habitat for North Sea

cod at suitable temperatures. We can not blame climate for the decline

of North Sea cod.

 

 

Why a fishing report commissioned by Scottish fisheries would blame over fishing if it isn't true beats me.

 

I guess Commercials will believe the first report and RSA this one.

Edited November 29, 2006 by Ian Burrett

[Trubshaw]

They haven't a clue

 

This report sanctioned by scottish fisheries suggests the exact opposite and blames overfishing.

http://www.marlab.ac.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads/Do...20Fisheries.pdf

It states

 

It found that the North Sea spawning cod stock, if cod

had been fished during 1988-2001 so that it produced the maximum sustainable

yield, could have been approximately 260,000 tonnes, which would have sustainably

supported a fishery during that period of 180,000 tonnes each year.

 

This result is very clear and worth repeating. Even given the warming in the North

Sea that happened between 1988-2001, and all the observed changes in the food-

chain, if we had fished cod at a lower level the ecosystem could possibly have

sustained a spawning stock of 260,000 tonnes. In actual fact over this period the

spawning stock size decreased from 150,000 tonnes to less than 50,000 tonnes.

Recent tagging studies by FRS, using tags which record the temperature cod have

been living in between release and recapture, clearly show that North Sea cod a) do

not move very far during their life time, often tolerate warm temperature in the

southern North Sea without moving away from the area, c) have ample cooler

grounds to move to in the northern North Sea if they needed to, but they do not

move.

 

The reason that we do not have this size of stock is

due to the high fishing pressure we have subjected the stock to. Cod is

not moving north; rather we are fishing out the southerly components of

the stock. There still remain large areas of potential habitat for North Sea

cod at suitable temperatures. We can not blame climate for the decline

of North Sea cod.

Why a fishing report commissioned by Scottish fisheries would blame over fishing if it isn't true beats me.

 

I guess Commercials will believe the first report and RSA this one.

 

Would appear therefore to be a good idea to campaign for some more NTZs.

[Julian Fox]

I don't blame the scientists - I blame the politicians - who work for us - so perhaps we should blame ourselves

 

anyway

 

if you don't like the science, the answer is to get better science, not ignore it

[steve pitts]

The whole subject of climate change seems to have divided opinion and beliefs - just like the fish stocks 'in crisis' issue.

 

1.) There are those who believe it simply isn't true. That the scientists have got it all wrong and that there is nothing to worry about. Usually these people appear to have a vested interest in carrying on what they have always done, because to alter course would cost them in the short-term.

 

2.) Then there are those who accept that it's happening - but shrug their shoulders and say 'there's nothing we can do about it'. These people often have no incentive (as they see it) to change the habits of a lifetime and the 'do nothing' option at least means that for the foreseeable future, they are not affected.

 

3.) There are also those, often with a more detached and long-term view, that accept the evidence and feel that they want to do something about it before it's too late. Call them conservationists if you like, or realists if you prefer.

 

I agre with Julian - The buck stops with the (world's) politicians, as they are the ones who decide whether to drag their heels and wait and see what develops, or tackle the problems as best we can. Given that there seems to be little concensus on the best way to tackle climate change or depleted fish stocks - which may be interlinked - and a certain amount of abstention, denial or refusal to co-operate by some countries (usually the worst offenders, as in group 1), I wonder if agreement will ever be reached, before it's too late.

 

Of course it doesn't help when those in groups 1 and 2 pressure these politicians and Governments to ignore the concerns of group 3 - even when they may be a minority.

 

Stop the world - I want to get off!

 

Cheers

Steve

[wurzel]

Recent tagging studies by FRS, using tags which record the temperature cod have

been living in between release and recapture, clearly show that North Sea cod a) do

not move very far during their life time, (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) often tolerate warm temperature in the

southern North Sea without moving away from the area, c) have ample cooler

grounds to move to in the northern North Sea if they needed to, but they do not

move.

 

 

But due to next to zero recruitment because of warmer sea temperatures the stock has slowly decreased.

They will live in it but they won't breed successfully in it.

 

I don't care what any body else says, when there is colder periods more cod show up, there are reports of an influx of colder water into the north sea last spring, so where did all the cod on the wrecks that were being caught off Whitby come from, did they magicaly apear? or did they come with the cooler water?

 

This is what I experience and see with my own eyes, no amount of science jurgen will convince me otherwise.

If we get record warm temperatures during Jan Feb and March and still get a good recruitment of cod in the southern north sea I'll change my mind, it has never happend yet in the nearly 30years I've been fishing and it never will.

[Steve Coppolo]

I have lost count of the times I've read that commercial fishing can't be to blame because "there are not the number of boats that there used to be and when there were more boats, they always used to catch enough fish, blah, blah, blah". I have to ask, why is it that there aren't as many commercial boats fishing as there used to be? Could it be that there aren't enough fish left to provide them all with a living, and a lot have had to pack up? Is that why there are more part timers fishing now?

 

I've also heard it said about the winter bass pair trawl fishery, "They've been doing it for 20 years and they're still cathcing bass, so it must be sustainable" Do people really believe that because something has gone on for 20 years, it can go on for another 20? Are people really that niave?

 

There comes a point, if fishing has been unsustainable, when there just aren't enough fish left to support those fishing for them. That may be 20, 30, 50, 100 or even 200 years from the time they started catching, depending on the nature of species targeted, ie, how fast they grow, and the development of the methods used to catch them.

 

To think it can just carry on the same for ever is downright stupid.

[Steve Coppolo]

If we get record warm temperatures during Jan Feb and March and still get a good recruitment of cod in the southern north sea I'll change my mind, it has never happend yet in the nearly 30years I've been fishing and it never will.

 

Hello Peter

 

We had very good catches of codling inshore in the spring of 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In fact in 2003 I remember catching bass and then anchoring up and catching a few codling on the way back in, that was in May. I don't know what the temperatures were in those years, but I can't remember them being cold springs.