http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/100095/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html

I don’t accept these statements blindly. This is not news for anyone who has been paying attention over the last thirty years. The decline of fish stocks has been widely reported from multiple sources, and is fully consistent with increased mechanisation of fisheries. We are fishing in deeper waters now to get the same return; there has to be a cost for this.

Ever read John Steinbeck’s ‘Cannery Row’? The Montery Bay sardine industry described in that novel collapsed in the 1950s when the sardines were overfished and the fleets had to move offshore into deeper waters.

New Zealand is fishing Antarctic toothfish now – not a good thing. They’re sold in New York.

http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/fishing-in-antarctic-waters/

What we don’t know is whether the fish will bounce back if we stop fishing. Quite possibly they will. But we have to stop first.

‘No no no’ is a perfectly valid emotional response to such an ecological holocaust. But as a factual counter-argument, it’s lacking content.

No, no, no… How do you know? The ocean still hasn’t been explored enough to know. Why do you blindly accept these statements from others?