I am at a conference at the moment, happy to respond when I leave the conference. What I would love to do is to have a session with you once you have an opportunity. I have been talking to organizations such as Faunalytics to have a deeper look into fishing and animal rights and it would be great to have someone like yourself onboard to work on this matter. Is it something you’d like to participate in?
Quick reply on one of the 70% data: sorry, I’ve made a confusion, as 70% (to be exact, it is 67%) is overfished in Brazil, not worldwide, which is in fact 34%. However, important to mention that the 60% of fish populations that are ‘fully exploited to its maximum yield’ globally actually means that it these exploited pop. have a much lower quantity of individuals than it originally used to have before exploitation (MSYs vary their limit of % of lower than original pop. per species and locations, however, they consistently are at a significant % lower than original pop. sizes). They’re still able to recover YoY, however a significant decrease in their populations is in fact changing the ecosystem balance, naturally.
Even if there are contradictory studies of some fish species growing x decreasing in studies if species are seen in isolation, I’d also encourage you to have a system’s thinking approach to this scenario, as studying animals in nature, you need to take the ecosystem context into view: a sudden change of populations of 1 species could generate growth in others, diminishment in others, but in a system’s view, this significant disruption changes the scope of the balance and interdependence of species of that particular ecosystem. In ecological terms, this is likely to result in a lower ecossystemic resilience to natural threats (in particular, climate change). I am aware, however, of the huge challenge of researching this ecological view empirically, therefore there is not so many studies taking all of these complex chains of causes and consequences to bear (it would be great to have more funding for such studies!) - but what already is a common agreement is that to protect areas from fishing is proved to increase the biodiversity of an ecosystem, and consequentially improve its resilience (and its ecossystemic role).
About the other requests for more info: I need time for this, but it may be even more productive to work as a group to distill all these data?
What we cannot deny is that this is a yet relatively overlooked and neglected area of debate, and this is surely one of the areas of more direct impact of human influence on lives, suffering and ecosystem interference and collapse.
We should not ignore it for the sake of ambiguous data or moral questionings, but see this as hugely important area of opportunity to investigate further. Let’s continue the conversation through pvt message?
Hello @MichaelStJules,
I am at a conference at the moment, happy to respond when I leave the conference. What I would love to do is to have a session with you once you have an opportunity. I have been talking to organizations such as Faunalytics to have a deeper look into fishing and animal rights and it would be great to have someone like yourself onboard to work on this matter. Is it something you’d like to participate in?
Quick reply on one of the 70% data: sorry, I’ve made a confusion, as 70% (to be exact, it is 67%) is overfished in Brazil, not worldwide, which is in fact 34%. However, important to mention that the 60% of fish populations that are ‘fully exploited to its maximum yield’ globally actually means that it these exploited pop. have a much lower quantity of individuals than it originally used to have before exploitation (MSYs vary their limit of % of lower than original pop. per species and locations, however, they consistently are at a significant % lower than original pop. sizes). They’re still able to recover YoY, however a significant decrease in their populations is in fact changing the ecosystem balance, naturally.
Even if there are contradictory studies of some fish species growing x decreasing in studies if species are seen in isolation, I’d also encourage you to have a system’s thinking approach to this scenario, as studying animals in nature, you need to take the ecosystem context into view: a sudden change of populations of 1 species could generate growth in others, diminishment in others, but in a system’s view, this significant disruption changes the scope of the balance and interdependence of species of that particular ecosystem. In ecological terms, this is likely to result in a lower ecossystemic resilience to natural threats (in particular, climate change). I am aware, however, of the huge challenge of researching this ecological view empirically, therefore there is not so many studies taking all of these complex chains of causes and consequences to bear (it would be great to have more funding for such studies!) - but what already is a common agreement is that to protect areas from fishing is proved to increase the biodiversity of an ecosystem, and consequentially improve its resilience (and its ecossystemic role).
About the other requests for more info: I need time for this, but it may be even more productive to work as a group to distill all these data?
What we cannot deny is that this is a yet relatively overlooked and neglected area of debate, and this is surely one of the areas of more direct impact of human influence on lives, suffering and ecosystem interference and collapse.
We should not ignore it for the sake of ambiguous data or moral questionings, but see this as hugely important area of opportunity to investigate further. Let’s continue the conversation through pvt message?