Reading The unnatural history of the sea by Callum Roberts really blew my mind. It is almost impossible to imagine how rich the seas were – in fish and other life – before we started large scale fishing, centuries ago. This is a stunning example of the problem of shifting baselines: We tend think that the normal state of the world is what we grew up with, when we really should use the world as it looked to our great-great-great-grandfathers (at least) as the baseline.
There's a heritage minutes video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds8G9sFOK5w ~1 min long) about John Cabot who's ship got slowed down because there were so many cod in the water. It ends with him going back to england and saying that there's enough fish to feed people until the end of time.
As someone who grew up fishing in the Keys, there are quite a few problems with the analysis and the article.
1. Goliath Grouper (formerly known as Jewfish) have been protected in Florida for quite awhile — meaning none could have been brought in for the more recent photos at all (these are the huge fish in the first few photos). Anyone who fishes in South Florida knows how abundant these fish are now. If a single person wanted to (and the law allowed it) they could easily bring in a half-ton of fish in a day. In some places it would be possible to do this from shore, without a boat.
2. Catch and release for species shown in the older photos: Permit, Amberjack (known to be particularly worm-filled) Ladyfish, shark species is greatly on the rise as modern fishermen in Florida have no interest in eating those fish (Ladyfish particularly are considered trash fish and/or bait, although they are quite fun to catch). Charter captains will STRONGLY encourage their release.
3. Using average is a poor metric when people were bringing in multiple 300lb.+ Goliath Grouper and now the emphasis is on keeping smaller food fish: Yellowtail Snapper, Grunts, etc.
4. Fishing in the Keys is HIGHLY seasonal. There’s no indication in the article if the photos are from the same time of year. I would guess the older Permit-filled photo is from the winter and the newer photo with Yellowtail Snapper and a few other smaller fish is from spring or early summer.
5. The specifically mentioned shrinkage in shark size is again related to both laws and changing priorities in fishermen and charter captains. Very few people will consider keeping a shark these days unless the fish is dead when it gets to the boat or it’s a small Blacktip or Mako that might be good eating.
My parents share the same tales. They were fishermen off the west coast and even just 20-30 years ago there was an abundance of fish and made fishing a thriving industry.
Unfortunately, overfishing combined with pollution and climate change has severely depleted stocks. It's just another example of ruthless industrialization and commercialization resulted in pushing the environment past the brink. An industry unregulated will eventually eat itself out of existence with terrible side effects.
Worry of mine is by fishing we've been extracting trace nutrients of the ocean food chain that aren't readily replaced. Which is why the plankton is disappearing too.
Makes me think of that documentary on netflix. Cod industry were jumping up and down screaming that limits would kill the industry and put people out of work. Saying the scientists were lying there were way more cod than they were accounting for.
The traditional British fish supper could be replaced by the likes of squid as the waters around the UK's shores grow warmer, say government scientists.
Takeaway fish suppers in England go back a long way. As the legend goes, fish-n-chips (sans-chips, since potatoes, still hadn't arrived) was established by Jewish migrants (around 1500) exiled from Spain. The UK was getting more nautical att, so I assume the trend dovetailed with increased commercial fishing.
This new, cosmopolitan fish n chips thing would hundreds of years before it was more popular than the more traditional jellied eel n peas. I think that was the most popular takeaway supper until eel numbers started to hurt from industrial pollution.
Industrial-scale cod fishing started producing as freshwater and shore fish stocks declined. I imagine the batter's job was to mask the "weird" texture and flavour.
These days, picky eaters in the UK will only eat cod (or stuff dubiously labeled cod). No freshwater fish that isn't a trout is considered edible in the UK, even though Americans and Europeans eat pike, eel, perch, etc.
Anyway, preferences and availability always play on each other over time. Kalamari n' chips works for me. Make mine sweet potato please.
> I imagine the batter's job was to mask the "weird" texture and flavour.
I thought the batter was originally there as a crust in which the fish would steam in its own moisture, and some people claim it was originally discarded after cooking, until people started to eat it as well.
Bones are a big issue in eating perch. Not such a problem with cod. Fish and chips is usually eaten quickly and often on the go. I wouldn’t want to mess around picking bones out.
Personally I'm a fan of almost all types of edible fish, you'd think being on an island that people would be open to different types not just Salmon and Cod. And tuna if it's in a lunch baguette.
Nothing much will change (unfortunately) until the fish population crashes, the fishing industry is decimated, and thus there is no-one left to complain when sustainable fishing laws are passed. I really wish it were otherwise.
I’ve dived areas that have been dredged. There is is literally no life for miles. Whereas before it was teeming with life... that’s what attracted the dredgers.
Imagine it as a method of hunting on land and it becomes particularly gruesome. Fishermen in balloons dragging nets across fields, then raining down the carcasses of anything that cannot be sold.
Yes, but beware... remember that scientists have been warning about this for years! That makes them the most likely suspect. They benefit by writing papers that say "I told you so". It's most efficient to blame the messenger.
This might sound far fetched, but when the Galapagos Sea Cucumbers were massively overfished and collapsed more than a decade ago, the local fishermen did blame the scientists (at Darwin Station) and it ultimately led to armed threats (against the scientists initially, but eventually on Lonesome George since he was a bigger celebrity).
I'm not sure about the fishing industry but there's an odd phenomenon among loggers. Loggers hate tree-planters. It's as if it's a war on trees, and hippies are supporting the enemy. The notion that today's saplings are next-generation loggers' income never seems to take
Not sure that’s true in northern Minnesota (USA). All the original pine forests were cut down by roughly 100 years ago, so all lumber now is second (or more!) generation. I don’t think this is a mystery to anyone there. But I’m curious - it sounds like you’re referring to people with whom you’ve had first-hand contact. Where is that?
I've seen the exact same attitude with loggers in Tasmania, where a lot of ancient old-growth forest is logged for woodchips I presume.
I think there's probably quite a bit of propaganda and echo-chamber reinforcement these small towns get to destroy the environment with such a cavalier attitude.
I live in "the lumber capital of the known universe" and I've heard the opposite. I've heard that some local company plants 12 trees for every one they cut down.
I can't readily find a source for that, but did find this:
Growing up a family friend owned a tree planting company and I got to know many of them before they headed north to start the season. My memory (in the early 80's) is definitely a large group of young, university-aged, smelly, bearded men (and a few non-bearded young women) camping in tents and showering in the open.
I can imagine the distaste for professional loggers was more for the foolish behaviour of transient young people compared to the "professional" loggers than the actual act of tree planting. But that's just a guess.
Though the movie "Matrix" is obviously fiction, these lines from Smith always hit home to me:
> Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area.
The first matrix was a good movie but this quote is not a good one.
All the mammals (and other animals) multiply as much as they can, only not having enough to eat, or another species eating them can stop that. In most cases populations fluctuate around some equilibrium, but that's caused by dying off in other cases, not by some instinctive virtue.
Humans multiply because they can increase the amount of available resource with technology, not by moving to new area.
It's interesting that Agent Smith (mis)conceptualizes nature as a sort of machine like the Matrix. Nature maintains a stable equilibrium (like the Matrix is designed to) and animals plug themselves into this machine and help maintain stability using feedback loops.
