Bad News on the West Coast: Pacific Sardines Are Collapsing - Polidicks

[quote]The population of Pacific sardines, a crucial forage fish for marine life along the U.S. West Coast, has dwindled to the point that it can no longer sustain a commercial fishery, according to a preliminary assessment by scientists advising West Coast fishery managers. The ongoing collapse is bad news for ocean wildlife, as well as fishermen and others who rely on a healthy ocean. This is a major cause for concern, but it shouldn’t come as a complete surprise. In 2012, two government scientists predicted we would end up in exactly this position, finding a parallel with the last major collapse in the middle of the 20th century. Three years ago, the scientists wrote that “all indicators show that the northern sardine stock off the west coast of North America is declining steeply again and that imminent collapse is likely.” That prediction turned out to be right.[/quote] [url]http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/news/2015/03/06/bad-news-on-the-west-coast-pacific-sardines-are-collapsing[/url] [quote]Sardines are small individually, but they are a big deal for the ocean food web. They form large schools known as bait balls that provide an oil-rich source of protein for many species of seabirds, marine mammals, and bigger fish, including salmon and tuna. The estimated size of the West Coast sardine population has fluctuated from several million tons— based on sediment records gathered on the seabed off Southern California—to less than 5,000 tons in the 1960s following the last major collapse. [/quote] This isn't good for anyone.

Wow, another overfished population? Didn't see that one coming!

Bad to worse. Things just keep getting more and more fucked up as the months and years go by. No sense in it at all.

Shit i didn't know Futurama was right about sardines. Guys better buy them now, they'll be worth a fortune in the future!

[QUOTE=Demolitions2;47292317]Shit i didn't know Futurama was right about sardines. Guys better buy them now, they'll be worth a fortune in the future![/QUOTE] We probably couldn't fish them out to extinction even if we tried on purpose. It's just that the entire rest of the ecosystem will go though recession and the fishing industry based in economical system which is much less stable than the ecological one is going to collapse. The ecosystem will recover in a few years, but we ourselves will face a spike in both food prices and unemployment. Fun stuff.

[QUOTE=Demolitions2;47292317]Shit i didn't know Futurama was right about sardines. Guys better buy them now, they'll be worth a fortune in the future![/QUOTE] Those were anchovies

The joys of a higher birth rate than death rate.

But I need my extremely cheap tasty meat that we produce by catching fish and feeding them to our animals! [editline]10th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47293335]We probably couldn't fish them out to extinction even if we tried on purpose. It's just that the entire rest of the ecosystem will go though recession and the fishing industry based in economical system which is much less stable than the ecological one is going to collapse. The ecosystem will recover in a few years, but we ourselves will face a spike in both food prices and unemployment. Fun stuff.[/QUOTE] What makes you think that? Have you any any any basic clue about how dynamic systems work? We've been exterminating so many species and still are.

[QUOTE=James xX;47293358]Those were anchovies[/QUOTE] And it was the Decapodians that fished them out of existence.

[QUOTE=Killuah;47293473]But I need my extremely cheap tasty meat that we produce by catching fish and feeding them to our animals! [editline]10th March 2015[/editline] What makes you think that? Have you any any any basic clue about how dynamic systems work? We've been exterminating so many species and still are.[/QUOTE] Animals that succumb to us entirely are generally either big and with inflexible breeding cycle, or limited to a very specific habitat that we destroy, basically removing their capability to thrive as they can't adapt fast enough, or both of these. Questioning if I have anything to support my idea is kinda stupid because the even the article above mentions the exact same thing happened fifty years ago, and the fish recovered, very well, so we have decent idea about the vitality of their species and response of the system.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47293619]Animals that succumb to us entirely are generally either big and with inflexible breeding cycle, or limited to a very specific habitat that we destroy, basically removing their capability to thrive as they can't adapt fast enough, or both of these. Questioning if I have anything to support my idea is kinda stupid because the even the article above mentions the exact same thing happened fifty years ago, and the fish recovered, very well, so we have decent idea about the vitality of their species and response of the system.[/QUOTE] Could you please stop spreading missinformation based on your feeling or whatever you're getting it from? [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Passengerpigeon.jpg[/img] [editline]10th March 2015[/editline] You're literally saying "guys they'll recover no biggie, they always did", that such a stupid mindset I can't even comprehend how you could think that.

[QUOTE=Killuah;47293704]I can't even comprehend how you could think that.[/QUOTE] ...Because it's happened before with the same species? [quote]This is a major cause for concern, but it shouldn’t come as a complete surprise. In 2012, two government scientists predicted we would end up in exactly this position, finding a parallel with the last major collapse in the middle of the 20th century. Three years ago, the scientists wrote that “all indicators show that the northern sardine stock off the west coast of North America is declining steeply again and that imminent collapse is likely.”[/quote] [quote]The estimated size of the West Coast sardine population has fluctuated from several million tons— based on sediment records gathered on the seabed off Southern California—to less than 5,000 tons in the 1960s following the last major collapse. [/quote] You even posted a passenger pigion, a species destroyed primarily by habitat loss like AwesomeCaek said. Try as we might, we're not going to be able to exterminate sardines, we'll just ruin our fishing industry and disrupt the ecosystem we rely on, which even if temporary (over a span of decades) will have disastrous effects. For total extinction, I'd be a lot more worried about ocean temperature change.

The pidgeon was in reply to "animals go extinct because too big, too specialized", the extinction of it was due to habitat loss combined with MASSIVE hunting efforts, I posted it because it's speculated that once going under a certain number, they stopped breeding as an example against that argument about "well it might go low but it'll recover" I still don't get how you could think "it recovered last time, it will now", ecosystems are in far far worse status than 50 years ago. Ruling out the danger of extinction like that is just stupid. Nothing is even indicating that we didn't reach the tipping point of the dynamic system this time.

[QUOTE=James xX;47293358]Those were anchovies[/QUOTE] Are you serious?? I just invested my life savings in Sardines

[QUOTE=Killuah;47294035]The pidgeon was in reply to "animals go extinct because too big, too specialized", the extinction of it was due to habitat loss combined with MASSIVE hunting efforts, I posted it because it's speculated that once going under a certain number, they stopped breeding as an example against that argument about "well it might go low but it'll recover" I still don't get how you could think "it recovered last time, it will now", ecosystems are in far far worse status than 50 years ago. Ruling out the danger of extinction like that is just stupid. Nothing is even indicating that we didn't reach the tipping point of the dynamic system this time.[/QUOTE] The problem of the pigeons was that they have been extremely zero effort to "hunt" regardless of their low count. The primary way of "hunting" was as low effort as just knocking the flightless juveniles out of their nests with a stick, so there never was a reason to stop killing them as the entry investment was next to non existent. Furthermore, once you are there, practically "harvesting" pigeons, the chance any of them are going to survive it is very low due to how localised and helpless the individuals were. Meanwhile the sardines are fished by fishermen who just literally cannot afford to head out with yield too low and at some point they are just going to stop trying (because they will be mostly out of business). Furthermore, even if you cast a net right onto the school, you are going to catch them with only limited efficiency and that efficiency will drop with each time you cast your net in the same area even within a single fishing trip (in contrast to the birds where once you are set to get X birds, you just WILL get them, as long as they are there). You like to wave knowledge of dynamic systems around while completely failing to notice a crucial feedback loop in this system, and attempt to liken in to a system which misses it entirely and has entirely different parameters. If each ecosystem was strictly alike and as prone to disappear as soon as it's pushed below certain arbitrary predictable level, we wouldn't be having trouble exterminating all the ecosystems we don't want, for instance the rodent populations in relatively developed cities. Finally I never said I think is impossible that we will wipe them out, I am saying it's just quite unlikely, and while it's true the situation has changed since 50 years ago, it will always serve as a better model than fucking pigeons.