See the economics thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=621888#post621888)

yeah, that kind of confused me. :m:

Which part? the hot and sexy part or the bladder part? :D

Eventually, if things carry on as they are, only farmed fish will be economical to harvest.

I mean, will fishermen still go out, work their asses off and risk their lives at sea if there's not enough catch to turn a profit - or no catch at all?

But fish, at least the major shoaling species, are so widespread and reproduce so rapidly that I can't believe they could be completely exterminated. (Not like whales or sharks may yet be...) As Hotsexyangelprincess said, some wil always escape - and the populations bounce back, if we give them a few years' reprieve.

I think your opinion is not shared by fishery researchers (unless they are paid from dubious sources).

The passenger pigeon was the most common bird in america at one point. Exctinct.

a link on fishery resources

http://sfbpc.fws.gov/intro.htm

what bladder? :m:

Ya. The process of extinction is a insidious and gradual. Though it might not be possible for mankind to catch the very last tuna or salmon in the oceans, our onslaught of fishing vessels and destructive fishing could set in motion the deadly chain of events that'll eventually lead to the ultimate collapse of many aquatic species altogether. :mad: And many fishies too.

The web of life within natural ecosystems is fragile - woven intricately after eons of evolution and adaptation. It's reliant on continual existence of keystone species for survival. Whittling down their numbers only serve to leave them even more vulnerable to capricious acts of Mother Nature.

:) But fish farming is really the essential step towards sustainability, even though there're lots-o-shit and negativity involved in fish-farm projects. I've seen an article before in NatGeo.

Ahh, but that depends wheether your farming carnivorous or plant eating fishes.

Well, is there a difference?

Pls do enlighten me.

CArnivorous fishes, eg salmon, grow best on a diet of other fish. Fish that could be used to feed people. Its like the vegetarian versus cow debate, since when you eat a cow you are eating a more concentrated source of energy that is higher up the food chain, but it takes a great deal of feeding to get one cow, enough grain in fact to feed several people.

"The environmental impact of one salmon farm extends far beyond the patch of seabed beneath it. For every pound that a salmon in a cage gains, it consumes commercial feed processed from two to five pounds of small open-ocean fish like anchovy, herring and mackerel. To satisfy the demands of a one acre salmon farm, processors vacuum almost everything from 40,000 to 50,000 acres of ocean. Stocks of small oily fish are now fully exploited worldwide, leaving the aquaculture industry scrambling to formulate substitutes for fish meal and oil. "

from:
http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/sacn/wavemaker.htm

Or in other words, farmed salmon is not teh way forwards.

I think your opinion is not shared by fishery researchers (unless they are paid from dubious sources).

Good link, though lacking in graphs or contact details. The author of the article seemed to be fairly optimistic about the situation, at least in North America. Do you think there was a backhander involved there?

But, as he said, there can be no resting on one's laurels after conservation success stories. :m: