Extinct Monk Seal Data Point To Carribean Reefs Six Times Richer In Fish Than Today - AFP

[hatrack]

Several hundred years ago, the coral reefs of the Caribbean had up to six times more fish than they have today, according to a study published Wednesday. The estimate is made by US scientists poring over the fate of the Caribbean monk seal, a fish-loving mammal driven to extinction in 1952.

Historical records from the 17th and 18th century show there were huge numbers of monk seals, distributed among 13 colonies across the Caribbean. They were so plentiful that some ships' maps of the West Indies even noted particularly dense locations of seals. Alas for Monachus tropicalis, colonisation of the West Indies unleashed unbridled hunting, the bounty being seal oil that was used to grease machinery in sugar plantations.

EDIT

In a study published on Wednesday in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, oceanographers Loren McClenachan and Andrew Cooper perform a heroic act of biostatistics in recreating the life and sad demise of the seal. They calculate that, before the massacre, between 233,000 and 338,000 monk seals lived in the Caribbean. Such a huge population could only survive, of course, provided there was a huge supply of food.

At a rough estimate, each adult seal would eat 245 kilos (539 pounds) of fish per year, and a juvenile seal 50 kilos, say McClenachan and Cooper. "The biomass of free fish required to sustained the estimated population of historical monk seals is four to six times greater than the average Caribbean reef, which exceeds that found on the most pristine Caribbean coral reef today and is in the same range of the most pristine reefs" in the remote Pacific, their paper says.

EDIT

http://www.terradaily.com/2007/080319000125.pmt2u75a.html

[happyslug]

1. Supports previous reports that over-fishing keeps the fish population down

The problem is HOW do you get poor people to stop fishing when it is one of their main source of Food?

The Caribbean has been called the largest "Tragedy of the Commons" in the world. The Tragedy of the commons from the old English commons, where everyone in the Village had the right to keep so many animals in the "common" ara of the Village. The problem was if the commons had the ability to support 100 animals, and each Villager had the right to put 10 animals in the Commons, what happens when you have 11 Villagers? i.e. 110 animals instead of 100. Such overgrazing cause the Commons to decline so it can support less and less animals. For this example lets say 20, but even at that level you had 11 Villagers have the right to put 10 animal in the Commons, i.e. 110 animals on land that support only 20. Thus the commons can support a little less then 20% of each animal's needs, the villager has to make up the difference. Any Villager who takes his or her Animals out, loses that little less than 20% of food provided by the Commons and the Villager MUST make up the Difference, while the Villagers who keeps their animals in the Commons see an increase of support for they animals do to the food NOT eaten by the Animals of the Villager who took his or her animals out of the Commons.

From an economic point of view, the best thing FOR EACH VILLAGER TO DO is to keep their 10 animals in the Commons so each animals gets the maximum out of the Commons and thus need less food from elsewhere.

Now if you look at the village as a whole, the best solution would be to withdraw ALL animals leave the Commons recover and then restrict the total number of Animals to what the Commons can support (Remember that was 100, not the 20 if every Villager put his or her whole 10 animals in). The question becomes how do you do this? First you can sell off the Commons to a Private person who then can control whose animal gets into the Commons (And mostly that was none of the Animals from the Village, this was the justification for the British Enclosure laws of the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s. The down side of this is someone MUST be able to "own" the commons. In old England the Commons was generally a field in the Village that anyone in the Village could use. Thus it could be taken over by the Government and sold to a person (Cutting out the Village from any gain the Village had by having the Commons in the First place, as I said very popular among th British elite in the 1600-1850 period). Private property only prevents a tragedy do the Commons is if the "Commons" can be own by one person, if the owner can NOT prevent people from using the Commons as they have been the solution of selling the commons to a single owner can not work.

They are two other ways, often used in concert. The First is Government Regulation. Someone in the Village is given the right to inspect the Commons and determine how many animals can go on it. He or she MUST have the right to cut back any one persons "right" to have a set number of animals in the Commons. You an see this is local parks, where certain rules apply to anyone that comes into the Park. You can take your Dog or other pet but no horses or large animals. Thus most people can "Use" the park. In the True Commons, someone in the Village (Generally the Village Council) would have the right to reduce how many animals each villager can put in the Commons. If each Villagers has the right to put ten animals in, but with 110 Villager that is 10 animals to many, the Village Council can restrict it to 10 animals or restrict WHO can put ten animals in to 100 Villagers (The other ten can put none in). Either way the commons is NOT overgrazed and stays an asset to the Village. The key here is the Government unit MUST have support of the entire town which includes criminalizing anyone who violates the rules set by the Council. If the COuncil can not enforce its rules, the council can NOT prevent the tragedy of the Commons.

The Third way, is Religious. Basically you make it a rule of Faith (or dogma) that anyone who puts into to many animals is committing a sin and is to be avoided by all other villagers. For this to work every one in the Village MUST be of the Same Religion. The religious leaders must be respected by All and thus their ruling as to how many villagers can put any animal into the Commons OR how many animals each villager can put into the Commons. In such situation religious dissent can NOT exist, for such dissent will lead to someone violating the religious ruling as to how many animals each villager can put into the Commons and the tragedy od the Commons will occur.

Notice the three "Solutions" to the tragedy of the Commons each have problems. For ownership by one person to work, the commons must be able to be controlled by that person. For Government to Work, that Government must control the Commons AND the user's of the commons. For religion to work, the religion must have total control over the Commons And the users of the commons.

Looking at the Caribbean, we quickly see that no one can own international Water ways. Even if someone could find a way to "Sell" the Caribbean how does such a owner prevent people on the Islands from abusing the fish population as they have been doing since at least the 1700s? The Islands are under various forms of Governments, most independent today, but that includes from each other as while as their previous colonial masters. Religions is the same, to divided to be effective in solving the solution.

What is needed is a two prong attack. First some sort of Super-government of all the Caribbean Countries that controls who can fish for what in the Sea. This Government should NOT only control the Sea around every Caribbean islands themselves but the Sea up to the shores of the US, Mexico, the Central American States, Columbia and Venezuela. This would give the Agency the ability to set limits and enforce limits. The purpose of the Limits is to give the Fish time to recover but also give the locals some access to the Fish so they can support the restrictions (i.e. to show we are NOT taking food away from them because we do NOT believe they should get it, but to permit more fish so that they children can have even larger number of fish to catch and eat).

This has to be supported by "Religion" in that we have to preach to the people of the Caribbean that the plan is good for them as while as for others. We must get the people who presently abuse the few fish that survive to NOT take the fish (and to report people who do and to view such people as evil people FOR not following the rules). The preaching MUST be uniform and dissent NOT permitted (Dissent as to working together to increase the fish population NOT dissent as how is the best way to achieve that goal). If people internalize that the plan adopted will improve their lives, if everyone works to the plan, this will take pressure off the surviving fish population in the Caribbean and the fish population will return to what it was in the 1500s and 1600s. People will have more fish to catch and to eat.

Such a one-two punch (government And religion) can change the present system of excessive fishing. Once the excessive fishing is removed the fish population will boom for the Caribbean is a very rich area for fish, but at present with NO one preaching HOW to improve the fish population AND Governments to small to control who can fish (and how many fish can be taken) the situation in the Caribbean will stay about the same.