The Good Old Days

[fragmeister]

Again, I stress I am not convinced on either side of the argument but I am certainly interested in

a balance of opinion and information.

The source of the information quoted was the Fishing News International website which represents the international fishing industry. This is hardly a

source of unbiased information.

Interestingly, if the information was accurately reported by Fishing News International you would have to credit the WWF for publishing data which in no way helps their cause but in reality and not surprisingly, the full information was conveniently omitted by Fishing News International... because it doesn't suit their cause.

The report commissioned by the WWF actually says this.

"The period from 1970 to the late 1980s showed the steepest decline in populations worldwide. Although the decreases leveled off in the 1990s and lasted into the new century, the decline of oceangoing vertebrates has again picked up pace".

"Picked up Pace" is again a little misleading if you don't read the detail in the report. It is a generalisation with some obvious and uncontrolled harvesting impacting the averages badly while other well managed species (not all) had modest increases.

The WWF report is far too generalized to get a real picture and remember all of this is based on counting the number of fish you catch and extrapolating that to accurately represent the unseen total population. Sure they use some science in the process and they account for as many factors as possible but I still find it questionable science or at least only as good as the anecdotal information for the actual fisherman who have been working the grounds for a lifetime.

I suggest that if anyone is interested in this subject they go straight to the source documents rather than second hand sources.

Better still there are plenty of scholarly articles on the web from very creditable sources. They are a little hard going sometimes

I have to say but worth the effort is you are looking for better information which has not been sifted through for little snippets to suit one side of the argument,

this is the place to go.

Currently, I am leaning towards habitat degradation and the reduction in marine nutrients

as a big factor in the whole equation which is being overlooked and one that we could get both sides of the

fence working on.

[pjbink]

Well you can see it most clearly on the graph which FNI published (I don't think they are omitting anything). They clearly say that they are using the reports figures but are interpeting them differently. Yes FNI has a vested interest, but this also means they have an interest in looking into the claims of the WWF. Remember too it was the WWF which successfully campaigned to increase green zones to 33% on the GBR and this was done by methods which included exaggerating the fishing pressure on the GBR.:

Figures released by the WWF show that marine populations have remained almost unchanged for almost 30 years. Despite years of bad news stories about the impending ‘death’ of the world’s oceans, the figures produced by the Zoological Society of London on behalf of the WWF, clearly show that over the last 30 years there has been little overall change in the populations of 5829 populations of 1234 species across the world. The decline in marine populations trumpeted by the WWF actually occurred during the period from 1970–1988, since then the WWF’s own graph shows that they have remained stable.

FNI

[pjbink]

Here's a statement from Senator Colbeck: Report ignores fisheries success stories

17 September, 2015

The WWF's Living Blue Planet report is the latest anti-fishing industry propaganda that more resembles a marketing pamphlet than a serious fisheries report, it's part of a string of misleading campaigns aimed at scaring people into making donations rather than educating the public.

Senator Colbeck, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, said the WWF's latest report is extremely misleading and more about their business model than genuine concern for the sustainability of our marine environment.

"This comes after a false campaign earlier this year which incorrectly claimed that 90 per cent of global fish stocks are overfished. That claim is a complete misuse of the data and actually includes fisheries that are operating at a sustainable level," he said.

"In fact, research by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations shows that 60 per cent of the world's fish stocks are fully exploited (sustainably fished) and about 10 per cent are underexploited.

"The hypocrisy doesn't end there - in 2012 the WWF called for all trawling to be banned in Australia, in complete contradiction to the fact they have backed trawl fisheries such as the Northern Prawn Fishery and the Spencer Gulf Fishery which have MSC certification, as well as the recently certified winter blue grenadier fishery which utilises freezer trawlers.

"The community look to WWF for guidance and it is frustrating to see them abuse that power by providing glossy marketing material in the guise of research.

Senator Colbeck said the report is misleading and fails to share the numerous success stories of our fisheries.

"The recent ABARES Fishery status reports show no solely Commonwealth managed fisheries are subject to overfishing. This is a significant milestone which we should be proud of - it shows our fisheries are exceptionally well managed," he said.

"The sustainable management of our fisheries has produced some excellent results over recent years, including the re-building of eastern orange roughy stocks to a healthy level which enabled commercial fishing for the first time in ten years.

Australia's fisheries are managed based on the best available science and are sustainably managed - because of this we are internationally regarded among the best fisheries managers in the world

[fragmeister]

"WWF's Living Blue Planet report is the latest anti-fishing industry propaganda that more resembles a marketing pamphlet than a serious fisheries report"

I have to agree with that one. That's exactly what it looks like.

This does more harm than good in my view. Unfortunately, unless you dig deeper all you get is misinformation from both sides.

[big Neil]

There's only 1 solution to the damage done in the "GOOD OLD DAYS"...everybody must acknowledge that a problem of supply exists and that the resource needs to be managed. It needs to be managed by those most capable of making decisions based on ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. The rest of us need to be good citizens and do the right thing. That's how Society works. The biggest problem facing sustainability is the ever growing World population. Sure, this is relevant in regard to fish stocks, but it's also very relevant in food and water supply, too. So what can WE do about it. Continue to be responsible and enjoy the resource while we can.

[fragmeister]

Can't agree more Neil,

My strategy is just to try and point out the flaws in the opposing arguments.

I figure while the arguments are polarized you have little chance of getting people working together.

Cheers

Jim

[Guest no one]

Any figures from any data can be manipulated to support any side of anyone's argument! And I can guarantee you any numbers which don't support your claim won't be reported or publicised!

[Guest no one]

So I wouldn't rely too much on your data - either side of the argument, I know that results in a he said/she said argument but that's exactly how politics is done these days as all data is manipulated and then contradicted by the opposition!

[pjbink]

Any figures from any data can be manipulated to support any side of anyone's argument! And I can guarantee you any numbers which don't support your claim won't be reported or publicised!

Actually both sides in my posts are using the same data - they are just drawing different conclusions.

[Guest no one]

Actually both sides in my posts are using the same data - they are just drawing different conclusions.

Isn't that basically what I'm saying? That data can be manipulated to provide different conclusions?

[pjbink]

Isn't that basically what I'm saying? That data can be manipulated to provide different conclusions?

'Manipulating the data' implies changing the actual numbers. 'Interpreting the data' is more the point of difference here.

[Guest no one]

'Manipulating the data' implies changing the actual numbers. 'Interpreting the data' is more the point of difference here.

Nah - Manipulating the data means presenting it in a way that suits you. Changing it isnt using data at all - thats just making up your own numbers.

[pjbink]

Nah - Manipulating the data means presenting it in a way that suits you. Changing it isnt using data at all - thats just making up your own numbers.

Scientists often manipulate data, eg to make sense of 'noisy' data. There is nothing wrong with this so long as they explain what they have done, it follows statistical and mathematical principles which are valid and they make the meta data available. It's true that 'data manipulation' is often a pejorative term implying that the data has been changed to meet a desired outcome, but it still implies that the data has been changed or massaged in some way..

[fragmeister]

This is what I mean by the selective use of data. Just omit the bit that doesn't suit your argument.

Both sides do this and if you rely on websites with vested interests such as WWF or Fishing Industry representatives they are without a shadow of

a doubt going to present information only as it suits their interests.

Getting your information from these sites is akin to looking for accurate and unbiased information from the tabloid newspapers.

Highly sensationalized and rife with bias and misinformation.

Again, I stress I have a foot in each camp so I am not advocating for anything but better sources of information.

[fragmeister]

Well you can see it most clearly on the graph which FNI published (I don't think they are omitting anything). They clearly say that they are using the reports figures but are interpeting them differently. Yes FNI has a vested interest, but this also means they have an interest in looking into the claims of the WWF. Remember too it was the WWF which successfully campaigned to increase green zones to 33% on the GBR and this was done by methods which included exaggerating the fishing pressure on the GBR.:

Figures released by the WWF show that marine populations have remained almost unchanged for almost 30 years. Despite years of bad news stories about the impending ‘death’ of the world’s oceans, the figures produced by the Zoological Society of London on behalf of the WWF, clearly show that over the last 30 years there has been little overall change in the populations of 5829 populations of 1234 species across the world. The decline in marine populations trumpeted by the WWF actually occurred during the period from 1970–1988, since then the WWF’s own graph shows that they have remained stable.

FNI

Just, in relation to this chart ... what it shows is a downward trend for the last two years to a level lower than it has ever been before.

This is the bit that FNI omitted in their written account. The recent decline clearly indicated in the WWF report where the study indicated declines have "again picked up pace" .

This is quite a clear and obvious omission.

There is a huge difference between "fish stocks have remained stable for 30 years" and "fish stocks have remained stable for 30 years but the decline has again picked up pace".

Even the chart shows this but for some reason its not obvious to all.

This is an omission and it is biased reporting.

Now the reason for the recent decline is another issue.

Edited September 30, 2015 by fragmeister

[pjbink]

I put up the chart because it does not show a huge difference (ie the two year drop in relation to the trend). You would have to say that the stable trend is intact based on what it shows (and there are a couple of up ticks as well as down). Also the downward tick is small in relation to the confidence limit shown on the graph.

[fragmeister]

I see this differently.

The drop in the last two years certainly is less significant than that the drop in the first 10 years or so but that is less relevant.

Of course its going to be better that when the fisheries were less regulated. You shouldn't measure current performance against the poor standards of that time.

The current drop is more significant when measured against the relatively stable last 15 years or so which is the concern expressed by the researchers.

The upward ticks still don't change the fact that recorded levels are lower than ever.

The confidence limits are the relevant to all the data so that really doesn't change anything except that they now suggest a greater possible range of results in both directions than before.

I think we are probably debating this because you have read plenty of information suggesting that sustainable fishing is doing well and for the most part I agree.

I am just questioning the interpretation of the information because its clearly flawed both in interpretation not necessarily because its wrong in the core science.

I have to say that these studies are across a wide range of marine life. At least part of the reductions can be attributed to harvesting of marine species which have been off the environmental radar and have only recently been so heavily harvested. This is why certain fisheries can accurately claim increased fish stocks seemingly at odds with the report in general. The chart does not mean that our familiar brands of fish involved in sustainable fishing are in decline... It means in total there is a decline.

Edited September 30, 2015 by fragmeister

[pjbink]

One of the up ticks is above the stable trend line. So if the graphs stopped there by the WWF's standards you would have to say that the World's marine life was in a up trend at that stage, In reality in overall terms the trend is stable for the last 30 years and that is where the huge omission lies (also coupled with the misuse of 'overfished' status). WWF also use the Boris Worm's 'all fish stocks to be depleted by 2048 claim' which as at odds with the stable trend in their graph.

Edited September 30, 2015 by billfisher

[fragmeister]

One of the up ticks is above the stable trend line. So if the graphs stopped there by the WWF's standards you would have to say that the World's marine life was in a up trend at that stage, In reality in overall terms the trend is stable for the last 30 years and that is where the huge omission lies (also coupled with the misuse of 'overfished' status). WWF also use the Boris Worm's 'all fish stocks to be depleted by 2048 claim' which as at odd with the stable trend in their graph.

Yes but overall the trend line is still negative.

To balance it out the next positive peak will have to be something special...

All I'm saying is each side has a spin on the "science" that suits their agenda.

The reality is the fish stocks are estimations based on scratchy science.

The increase you refer to and the decrease I refer to are estimations from actual catches with a whole bunch of

variables thrown in including quotas, fishing days, target species, number of legal fishing boats, registered catches and the age distribution of

fish in the catch just to name a few. Its probably a pretty good estimate in general but it is so subject to variables that it simply does not qualify as good science.

That is why it is so open to conjecture.

Incidentally, I don't believe the claims behind the total depletion of fish stocks claims so you are preaching to the converted.

[pjbink]

Yes but overall the trend line is still negative.

To balance it out the next positive peak will have to be something special...

All I'm saying is each side has a spin on the "science" that suits their agenda.

The reality is the fish stocks are estimations based on scratchy science.

Well the claim was that the marine population was almost stable for the last 30 years. It is an accurate statement going by the graph. The real decline was in the previous decade.

[fragmeister]

Yes but with a few qualifying facts. There has a recent downward trend but even more significant is the well documented information that indicates that the increased catches which fuelled 30 years of stable catch came from formerly untapped fisheries. With coastal fisheries becoming depleted the industry improved net and vessel technologies and tapped into deeper waters formerly unworkable. It's very easy to find the data showing that the catch was made up of different species

Again, it's not as it seems.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NaClH2OK9]

Hasn't this gone round enough?

Scientists being funded to show stocks are sustainable will provide evidence to demonstrate

Scientists being funded to show stocks are in decline will provide evidence to demonstrate.

Government will engage, disengage, promote and dismiss on any given bloody day what they think will keep them in power.

There is no independent or unbiased study. Cos those paying for the study have an agenda.

To then use these bias results as a foundation to argue a point is either Nieve OR complicit with those providing the results.

The bullshit I've read about reco fishers needing limiting on fish catches whilst dredgers take the whole stock just a few hundred meters from Sydney!!!!!!!

Let's move on please. Because care as much as you do. It makes no difference to those paying for the research or the guvnors who TAX the commercials.

[pjbink]

Yes but with a few qualifying facts. There has a recent downward trend but even more significant is the well documented information that indicates that the increased catches which fuelled 30 years of stable catch came from formerly untapped fisheries. With coastal fisheries becoming depleted the industry improved net and vessel technologies and tapped into deeper waters formerly unworkable. It's very easy to find the data showing that the catch was made up of different species

Again, it's not as it seems.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The graph is an index of marine populations not catches. Are you saying the population index is merely based on catches? If so there would be a lot of another problems too eg closed or recovering fisheries would look like they are depleted too.

[pjbink]

Hasn't this gone round enough?

Scientists being funded to show stocks are sustainable will provide evidence to demonstrate

Scientists being funded to show stocks are in decline will provide evidence to demonstrate.

Government will engage, disengage, promote and dismiss on any given bloody day what they think will keep them in power.

There is no independent or unbiased study. Cos those paying for the study have an agenda.

To then use these bias results as a foundation to argue a point is either Nieve OR complicit with those providing the results.

The bullshit I've read about reco fishers needing limiting on fish catches whilst dredgers take the whole stock just a few hundred meters from Sydney!!!!!!!

Let's move on please. Because care as much as you do. It makes no difference to those paying for the research or the guvnors who TAX the commercials.

Your missing the point; we are talking about the same study/ evidence.

[fragmeister]

The graph is an index of marine populations not catches. Are you saying the population index is merely based on catches? If so there would be a lot of another problems too eg closed or recovering fisheries would look like they are depleted too.

Of course they do this primarily from catches for ocean species.

This is not like a census where they actually count the real number of fish.

They extrapolate the number of fish by using the catches they make and they factor in the elements I mentioned earlier in this post to come up with a total fish population. Whether this data comes from the whole commercial catch or by select scientific sampling the same broad method is used.

Yes, your are spot on, this does generate all the problems you mentioned. Again, I am only identifying the weakness in the science I am not taking sides.

Incidentally, they use other methods such as strip counts which are much more effective on inshore/reef populations but that doesn't work for the ocean fish.

Cheers

Jim

Edited September 30, 2015 by fragmeister