Its the loss of the 'commons'.

Shows what a sham the term 'sustainable growth' is!

With salmon fish farms-wildl salmon is competition-don't you think the farmed salmon businesses would love to see a collapse of the wild salmon stocks?

Without wild stocks perhaps we can pollute the oceans more as it will affect fewer wild fish!

And without wild salmon, no more public outcry about finfish aquaculture farm practices, finfish aquaculture farm locations and so on.

Why should we care as 'sheep' do not eat fish!

freebear said:

Why should we care as 'sheep' do not eat fish!

Sadly true imo as well freebear...

Would it not be more profitable for the neocon race to rid the land and the seas of "wild things". Why else is there a war on our wildlife?? ...Pathetic

Consider the recently announced cull of predators in B.C. in a b.s.“effort” to "save" the mountain caribou... Right…this imo, is a bunch of industrial\government propaganda, and holds a bit of a red herring affect too. The predator\prey balance has worked perfectly since the beginning of time. However this refined balance gets tipped by industries barrage on the homes of these animals. It has nothing to do with the predators, but is all about industry\government and their agendas. $$$. They refuse to take responsibility for the plight of the mountain caribou, even though their hands are covered in blood. Why? Maybe it is as simple as their concern for their public image… As well the red herring effect is established by putting the sights on the predators to institute a stop-gap for industry to pillage the land before anyone knows the truth of their heartless contribution… Just a thought…

The predators are struggling to survive today. All their numbers have decreased drastically over the past 20 years and losses have accelerated in the past 5. If they follow through on this scientifically and ethically unsupported cull on predators, these animals will be that much closer to extinction. But as was mentioned earlier freebear, caribou gone, predators gone, it is then all about INDUSTRY.
The same argument only different species when speaking about the salmon farms. Denmark, Scotland, and Norway have already proven it is death to the wild stock with open net fish farming. 90% of their wild stocks are gone. Could we not have learned from this... Or have we?? Indeed, no fish, no fish wars, and industries of all sorts, once again, are able to cruise in without a battle. Why not, there is nothing to protect right…??

Peace freebear,

-Bear

Well, all I can say is, so much for good sushi....

No actually I can say about more than that, calling on my reams of experience reading science fiction, which is of course the only useful kind of thing to read (I'm being facetious). One story, can't remember which, portrayed the earth's future oceans as vast foodfarms, necessary to support the burgeoning billions of the landmasses, through which shipping lanes had to be cut into the green lush of the marine jungle that had been cultivated. One big fish farm, in other words. Kinda scary, but a lot of science fiction is, especially when it's being in earnest (as this was).

In terms of economic impact, this can't be good for sea-dependent societies, particularly Japan; isn't seafood something like 60% of their diet?

Skookum 1 said:

Hey Skookum...!
But consider this, sonar testing and it's impact on whales, off shore oil and gas development and the impact it could have, (if it goes ahead) on ocean life, tankers coming and going and their impact on biospheres in oceans, and of course the salmon farms and their impact on the wild stocks along other living creatures in the ocean. Animals are big obstacles for industry and cost millions of dollars. Without animals (sic thought I know...), it would be so much easier\cheaper for industry to carry on there "work".

Just another thought, but, wouldn't seafood still be 60 percent of "their" diet still, even if it was FARMED seafood bro??

Peace Skookum 1,

-Bear

I gather you're referring to impending impacts on our own coast, which were a given in the context I was speaking, which was pan-oceanic. The reason I mentioned Japan's fishery in particular is because of the potential impact on the yen, re Japan's economic relationship with the rest of the world (it would necessarily become much more dependent), and so on Japanese political stability. China, too, depends on the sea as a food source in a big way, and everywhere there's a global fishing industry and accompanying societies and communities connected to wild stocks. To there being seafood at all - because it's also shellfish, crustaceans and other comestibles such as seaweed. It's not just the fishery that's dying, it's the ocean itself, including the phytoplankton. That's the scariest part - they're the organ of the planetary "lung", and make the bulk of the atmosphere's oxygen....

...there being no seafood at all, I meant; must have time-slipped a phrase that should have been in there to the effect that "so consider the impact on the world economy of there being no seafood at all", and concomiserate (sp?) with that the impact on world population issues.

Seabed control is already a matter for potential warfare (the South China Sea, for instance), and even Canada's recent and rather juvenile tiff with Denmark over Hans Island; but the stakes may be even higher than oil; food is going to be the number one most valuable resource when the planet's population starts topping 10 billion....which should be by 2050, or sooner.

Skookum 1,

Who was it that said "a mind stretched is never the same"... Thanks for the mind stretch my friend. Yes I was referring more about our west coast, as you were more on the world scale. Indeed you gave me "food" for thought S1...Thanks.

Peace,

-Bear

I don't think our population will get to 10 billion. Nature will soon starting redistributing the biomass to more species. The plague, ecological adjustment, whatever form it takes, is coming and soon.

After the human population crash there will be plenty to eat for all who surive but it will not be as good as it was before we bred ourselves out of paradise.

I read recently that the Harper government refused to sign on to a U.N. resolution to stop seabed bottom trawling that picks up everything and destroys sealife habitatl. Also right around the same time Harper refused to sign a resolution to stop exporting deadly fibreglass for building even though two MP's suffer consequences of exposure (one of them being Chuck Strahl from BC)

Well, if the Science study is correct, and Tierny in the classiest fish wrapper in North America (NYTIMES) says it ain't so, that means the fish will be two years shy of getting to enjoy the fabulous "CLEAN" environment that Stephen has promised us for 2050. Hang on little fishies, just a couple more years, and you too can enjoy the HarpoCon created Paradise on Earth.

As for skookum and his sadness regarding sushi, would you eat anything out of these polluted oceans without cooking the heck out of it?

Remember when your mom told you to eat your fish, because it was brain food? Well Neo-Cons have no use for feeding an organ they either don't have or don't use!

Interestingly the three least corrupt countries according to a report released today are Finland, Iceland and New Zealand - two of 'em are islands and I'll bet they all eat a lot of fish. Iraq "won" the bottom spot, no surprise there!

We just seem unwilling to take the necessary steps to correct problems whether it be fishing, forestry, or global warming, etc. Rather than do the right thing and shutdown the fishing industry for 5 -6 years to allow the fish stocks to regenerate, we perfer to continue to fish the species to extinction. Didn't we learn anything from the cod fishery in Newfoundland?

We need new leadership with a vision for the future.

Good point rkewen

Tierney is such an agent. Can't stand the man...I suggest the fact that there still may be some plankton around in 2050 is about all the fish he knows anything about.

If we had relied on wild animals for our meat instead of domesticating cattle do you think there would be a single deer, antelope, mountain sheep, bear, rabbit etc, left alive in North America today?

They'd all have gone the way of the passenger pigeon.

Moosebeer,

Yes, why is it humans can not back off on their assault of our Earth, even for just a short time. You know, just long enough for Her to heal? If we took care of Her like She was our own mother, we would find a way to help her, heal her, and never use Her to the point of injury...

...yes indeed, we keep the seal hunt going, because seals eat fish you know. Again, just as I mentioned in my previous post, kill the predators to "stop" the decline of a prey populations because, for gawd sake, you don't stop industry...(tongue firmly placed in cheek)...

Just some thoughts friend.

Peace bro,

-Bear

And yet, Bear, Terry Glavin, that great environmentalist, can write about how positive he feels that a few dedicated people tried to save the Passenger Pigeon and the Great Awk. It gives him hope apparently.

It makes me sick!

I wonder how positive he feels about the disappearance of the Beothuks?

Or who he'll canonize for our failure to save the greatest pelagic fishery in the history of the world?

Hey G, maybe I should get in touch with Glavin, Tierny and others of that ilk. They could tell me who to talk to and maybe I too could somehow make money writing fiction, disguised as "the truth." For the right price I could deny environmental hazards or promote the human side of the Campbell Crime Family Neo-Con agenda. I would feel kinda bad, but then I would fire up my Boxter and drive my sorrows away!

I'm thinking of plot lines and hooks already! I've been studying some of the resident trolls here for ideas, I'll work on adding some style - more money, more style!

Exactly G,

The Great Auk, the Passenger Pigeon, the NFL Wolf and the Beothuks people, were either killed or push out by the same people. What is to say that more carnage is not possible? Have we learned? What about the seals of our oceans which are being killed at a rate that could be considered a genetically unsustainable rate, and with no apparent change in our actions in sight? Or the whales and their present day slaughter being done under the guise of "science". All this, and Terry was supportive of the Makah traditional whale hunt. I find this sad, as these giants are under pressure to survive today at all. The loss of even one whale is a sad loss to us, our children, and especially to the whale itself.

Many of the Makah people were NOT supportive of this whale hunt. Perhaps they knew it to be unnecessary and even unhealthy, in there diets today. Or perhaps they knew it to be wrong to define their tradition off the blood of these rare animals. I do not know, but conceivably, their way, showed more love and understanding for these animals and their struggles. Terry on the other hand, thought otherwise, and sadly, it was to the demise of this young whale, as well, to the unfortunate promotion of whale hunting in general… I wonder why, if Terry considers the importance of people standing up for the rare species of the earth, such as the Great Auk, he turn his back on this adolescent whale, and the whales to come…??

And I wonder what he will say about that G...if we choose to listen to him at all. Myself, I doubt if I will. He would have to impress me first, and he has not impressed me so far...

Peace G,

-Bear

Umslopogaas:

Well, frankly I don't think it will either, I was just doing the Malthusian projection, as if its upward curve continued uninterrupted by natural forces (war being also a natural force, as with any human activity). And the end of the Maya calendar in 2012 is getting uncomfortably close, although I'm not in the habit of looking for signs of believing in the various prophecies.

Point is all the pieces are in play and sooner or later some of them have to fall. The Stern Report only puts environmental refugees at 200 million with a so-many meter rise in the sea level by 2020 (or was it 2050?); that's only a blip in terms of the whole "ecoclasm" (how's that for a neologism?) which isn't going to be just about the oceans rising. Their change in temperature, macrobiology or biotic composition or whatever you're going to call it. There's also its chemical and electro-static, gravitational and many other aspects affected both by warming and by an increase in volume and change in shores/depths: the complex of currents and associated winds and more, plus the effect of its weight upon the crust, that weight redistributed from the continents to the thin sima floor of the oceans...

And that's just the oceans; never mind everything else we're doing or, as with disease, we're largely unable to prevent, although we're sure getting good at scaring the pants off ourselves with forecasting.

Funny thing is I don't have doom and gloom about all this anymore; it's fascinating to watch it unfold. I wouldn't bet on science and government being able to prevent major population catastrophes, some as yet completely unforeseen in nature, during the next few decades....including in North America.

Let me scare you a step further, since I just missed my bus while writing that ;-)

Consider the implications if all planetary ice masses were to melt, as hinted at in Gore's film (which I finally went to see the other afternoon for $2 at the Dolphin), it has major ramifications for the planet. First, the planetary albedo is projected to be diminished because land and sea absorb heat rather than reflect it - although it's possible there could be more cloud cover because there being more moisture in the atmosphere, and also more storms, in the new hydrothermal system in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, if there is significantly more cloud cover, it could have a sudden cooling effect in a fairly short time, turning the upward swing in temperature to a reversal and a sudden ice age.

But other than the albedo issue, what's really, really scary is the effect of all the mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice equalized into the oceans as water. Gravitational, even rotataional effects, are expected, and what with catastrophe theory and all it's uncertain if enough mass is envolve to perturb the planet's rotation enough to cause a shift of axis. The oceans and atmosphere also have a magneto-electric relationship with the crust and mantle, and this will likely also be affected, especially if the planetary axis is (given the mysteries of the planet's magnetic core).

Fun and games. Not sure how fast such shifts happen, but the "wobbles" in the planet's axis are another well-established and little-understood phenomenon. Not that there's hard science to do with this, just speculative material based on possibilities that I've seen here and there in the science news.

How'd you feel about suddenly having the sky rotate in a different way, with the centre of the Pacific vs the MidEast/Mediterranean as north and south poles...in the midst of all the other crap we've got going on....

That last paragraph is misleading; of course in the apocryphal literature planetary shifts are associated with great earthquakes, it also makes sense from a scientific point of view because of the torque and re-oriented coriolitic forces in the oceans as well as the pressure and torque on the way the continental plates interlock and interact. Somewhere on the net there's a chart mapping the various positions the poles have been known to be in, and also the movement of the magnetic pole; not sure how much hard evidence there is for connecting pole shifts to cataclysmic events but it seems to make sense enough, at least as theory.

James Churchward, one of the original pre-von Daniken apocryphal historians, the popularizer of Mu/Muror, had an extensive theory concerning the existence of huge pockets of gas underneath all the mountain ranges of the world, and underneath the continents and continental shelves. He wasn't thinking of petroleum and other bio gases, but of natural gases, although for him the example was volcanoes; but the model is interestingly ahead of its time, even though he had the wrong premise.

Who else was there? Oh yeah - Velikovsky. Velikovsky's stuff is nuts, but it is entertaining.

me:

What I meant by that is mineral gases, those boiling up from within the earth; this may include organic gases, as they have lately been discovering (and of course "organic" in a way now is not limited to carbon-based life forms anyway, unless there's a special new term for sulfur-based life). In terms of density, y'see, Churchward was largely right; the crystalline nature of the crust is inherently gas-ridden, unlike the pressurized metal-gas stew of the mantle and (?) the yet more metallic core; but it's something beyond what you or I could experience as "solid" or "metal" when you get down below thirty miles or so, and into some bizarre physical realms as you get towards the core (all largely theoretical, as more is known about outer space).

Skookum1: have a look at this, if you're still waiting for your bus:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/science/earth/07co2.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

I come from a family of BC commercial fishermen. I paid for university tuition cleaning fish at the BC Packer's cannery in Steveston back in the 80s. I remember listening to my Dad and his cousins (all commercial fishermen) angrily discussing the coming of fish farms (how they would hurt the environment and kill the wild stock). It was probably a good thing I couldn't understand the Greek swear words lol. I also remember watching as, over time, there were increasing numbers of salmon in the cannery sporting fish fleas and cancer. When I got my "big" promotion to fish inspector at the cannery, I was told that it didn't matter if the fish was riddled with fleas and cancer, the heat of the canning machines would get rid of them. (To this day, I refuse to eat pink salmon!) I did a paper in university about the relationship between the increase of fish farms and diseases in wild salmon stock. It was difficult to find sources for my paper (other than my relatives) back then.

I know I am biased about this, but logic dictates that the government failed the wild salmon and the environment of BC in many ways (many of which have been cited already far better than I could). The folks in Ottawa and Victoria chose to ignore studies in other countries which condemned fish farms. They didn't look to the future when they cowered in the face of Americans and their demands of the fish stock and they didn't limit Canadian fishing when they should have long ago. The media helped hide the problem too, or at least were convinced to do so by someone ... I remember watching a story on the 6:00 BCTV News by an undercover reporter around 1989 about an illegal fish processing plant which was selling fish to the Japanese (I think it was) market. Mysteriously, the story disappeared by the time the 11:00 news was broadcast. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? If there was one, stands to reason there were more.

The government has failed the environment and the BC salmon stock by not seeing the big picture. Why should we be surprised? We see the same thing with the plight of the homeless, drug addicts, health, education, etc. It's all about the big bucks in the here and now and let future politicians worry about what happens in the years to come.

If the fish dry up then move on to another form of making money to feed your family. How simple can it get. Changes are forever. Learn to be flexible with or without the fish as I am sure planet earth has something for all of us.

They already have moved on to other professions, thank you :-) I'm afraid you missed my point.

Pure missed more than that. It's not jobs we're talking about here, it's food supply. What other source of protein does he have n mind? Insects (already popular in Africa and Asia, and sometimes in Latin America...just think of the grubs as shrimp, the spiders as crab, and the millipedes as, well, millipedes. I always wanted to try the roasted fire ants in Thailand, an Isaan and Laotian specialty, but never got around to it; the poison is supposed to make them extra tangy/spicy. Grasshoppesr came in at least six flavours...

mmmmm....millipedes!!!

Anyone interested in the history of salmon should read David R. Montgomery's book "King of Fish, the thousand-year run of Salmon".

It is a highly entertaining and well documented record of the fate of salmon in Europe, Eastern North America and on the Pacific Coast. The section on Europe tells a 1,000 year tale of the steady decline of their salmon stocks while commission after commission tried to reverse the trend. Royal proclamations, acts of parliament and hundreds of enquiries failed miserably. The salmon are all but gone.

Contrast that with a comment I heard from a German gentleman about World War II. He said that when the British blew up the Mohne Dam, salmon were able to migrate up the Rhine River and they were seen spawning.

WWII also benefitted the salmon stocks because the fishing captains were conscripted into the merchant navy.

I think everyone who has ever worked in the salmon industry knows that overfishing, habitat destruction by development, pollution and water extraction from rivers have all played havoc with BC salmon.

The stocks will continue to decline because the ethics of the non-native immigrants to Canada, of which I am one, are based on greed, not respect for nature. We have a lesson to learn from the First Nations in that regard. Wildlife is a sacred resource, not a commodity to be traded. Love it or lose it. We are losing it.

Skookum 1

I'm also hoping I can live long enough to
witness the end of the Mayan Fifth Age.
Supposed be Dec. 12, 2012. Nothing Sci/Fi about this. This old calendar is
thought to be incredibly accurate considering the times it was in use.
Steven King's novel "The Stand" has an interesting premiss, as does the novel
"Soylent Green."
The human animal, labeled as "sentient" is anything but. A mischevious God instructed it to "Go forth and multiply."

Rite 2 Bear said: "...yes indeed, we keep the seal hunt going, because seals eat fish you know. Again, just as I mentioned in my previous post, kill the predators to "stop" the decline of a prey populations because, for gawd sake, you don't stop industry...(tongue firmly placed in cheek)..."

Re: Seals

I know I have always said that if the seals were the problem they would have ate all the fish by now! How come the seals allowed so many salmon to fill rivers that people could walk on the backs of the salmon?

Obviuosly the biggest and certainly the most gluttonous predator is us!

Studies show Mars was just like early Earth, until the humans showed up!

Here's a really novel solution: why don't we just stop eating fishes?

It's clear that fishing is a huge problem, as well as fish farms. Who here actually *needs* to eat fish? No one.

So why not put your money where your mouth is, and take personal steps to solve the problem? If there were no demand for dead fish bodies, the industries would shrivel up, and perhaps some degree of balance might return to the oceans..

It's funny - if we simply made our cakes vegan, we could have them, and eat them too.

And eat what else instead? You might think it's just as simple as going to a different section of the supermarket, but the FACT of the matter is that there's not enough meat production/distribution (or vegetable protein) to take up the slack for a vanished oceanic food supply; especially not in countries short of grazing land, like Japan is.

If people don't eat fish, maybe those cakes you're talking about would work. Veggie cakes? If you can deal with GMO and pesticide-grown veggie cakes, there'll be enough.....

The greatest threat to our salmon stocks and to many freshwter stocks is clearcut logging. If we are serious about protecting our fishwe have to be serious about protecting the forest canopy. If any trees are to be harvested it must be in the most efficient way possible, single-stem selective, so that the amount taken matches the rotation. For example, to get a 250 year rotation, take 2.5% of the trees from each patch, every 10 years. Given the strains on our forests and watersheds and microclimates, it would be wise to look at each watershed and see if it is in keeping with the precautionary principle to cut any trees right now. For most watersheds on Vancouver Island the answer would be, stop cutting anything for now. Lets not do to our watersheds and their protective forest canopy what we did to the Eastern Cod stocks!

Hey freebear...!

Interesting question freebear. I guess it is not the way of the ecology on the west coast.

From what I understand, the Magdalene Islands and the other areas on the east coast where the seals are, is actually a nursery for the seals. This is perhaps why there are as many seals as there are in these areas. The harp seals that have their pups on these ice flows (or what there is left of the ice), are alone responsible for populating large areas all along the east coast. There is NO population explosion of seals there, this is a fallacy; it is the way it was meant to be, and it is perfect in that…. There are a smaller number of seal on the west coast, so the fish impact conceivably, is not felt there as much as in the east. But, as you and I know, the predator\prey balance is perfect and completely self-regulating. The disruption comes when the market demands for fish are up. This is when the predators die, and in this case...seals.

Oh yes, many half-truths about the seal hunt is told by those who support it. It is done in an attempt to make this industry appear economical ie penises for the Asian market, hides for trinkets and so on...but, from the information I have, the seal hunt on the east coast is a government subsidized industry, so it holds no real value in itself except to artificially pump up the populations of cod to meet market demands. …Sad for the seals, and is ethically & scientifically unsupported as well…

The west coast is clearly dealing with a different set of problems, but it is all still industry motivated. Industry on the west coast, is the fish farms and logging. Fish farms are responsible for the death the wild salmon by lice and disease, logging industry is responsible for the death of wild salmon by silt and sediment deposits left after logging right down to the salmon bearing streams (it is where all the BIG trees are), and so on… but any one of these two things on the west coast could wipe out our wild salmom stocks...

Peace brother freebear,

-Bear