Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsbechtel | Hacker News Reader

Yet many argue that we are overfishing and depleting our ocean's fish? What evidence can those individuals use to prove this is true if our knowledge of the oceans are as limited as you say they are?

View on HN

By looking at how much fish is caught? It's pretty easy to measure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#/media/File:Surexp...

Surveying the presence or absence of fish is an activity for which a strong economic incentive exists. It's somewhat different than things like sediment depth, etc. which the gp comment mentioned. That stuff will have been mapped to the extent necessary for military operations and determining the viability of offshore drilling.

That could be because fish are moving into other areas or learn to avoid the nets. Fishing yields can't be the only source of data.

How do you think they do the surveys in the first place? ;) They use nets.

Modern factory fishing fleets use sonar and track movements of fish populations over vast areas. It's highly unlikely fish have learned to evade sonar, or nets.

Knowledge of the ocean, the bottom, and what is in it, is very different from knowledge of commercial fish populations. Records of catch go way back and the methods for inferring population are good enough. There is also an archaeological record of what coastal people ate thousands of years ago and these provide evidence of changes in fish populations over hundreds of years.

c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shifting_baseline

When fisheries collapse, the effects are glaringly obvious, and local economies tend to collapse with them. There are numerous modern examples if you care to google it.

Not sure why your comment is getting downvoted so much. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. There may be a good answer for how we can know our fishing impact with so little data, but it's obviously not something you can easily intuit.

> There may be a good answer for how we can know our fishing impact with so little data

We know it experientially, based on how external factors in previous overfishing have played out. When nearly every aspect of technology should enable more/better fishing, but instead quality and quantity go down per unit of work, the problem is overfishing creating a lack of supply.

You can simply ask fisherman about what is going on with their catch. People tend to side with scientific data, that can be outdated or wrong, rather than asking simple man about their own experiences.

We need to learn to ask "regular people", to make big scientific projects like this to work.

Right because i’m sure the fisherman doesn’t have any bias when he or she answers the survey questions. Including the wholly unscientific opinions of “regular people” is not a solution that will lead to better scientific understanding.

edit s/real/regular

Using data from regular people as a PART of such a research would help tremendously in my opinion. People do not need to know why this data is gathered when answering it.

I would be surprised if our current measurements of fishing and fish populations did not involve data from fisherman.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com