Stripping the Seas

How humans have ‘harvested’ the oceans to emptiness.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


One thing that humans are very proficient at is killing. Since man started hunting in boats, we have been killing everything we could catch from the world’s oceans. We’ve killed for food, ornament, fertilizer, and fuel. We kill by accident (the term commercial fisheries use is “bycatch”), out of carelessness, and frequently for the sheer hell of it.

For most of our history, given the vastness of the oceans and the seemingly unlimited life therein, we couldn’t impact most species of fish, whales, turtles, seals, and seabirds. Now, though, as Richard Ellis bluntly argues in this important and aptly named book, we have the resources and the technological wherewithal to so reduce so many species of ocean life that the ecological consequences are incalculable.

By continuing to “harvest” sea life as if it were boundless, we have nearly finished off the fisheries of cod, sardines, and anchovies, and are fast working our way through the remaining tuna, swordfish, large sharks, Chilean sea bass, and Atlantic salmon. How is this possible? It’s as simple as demand outpacing supply. “A million vessels now fish the world’s oceans,” Ellis writes, “twice as many as there were 25 years ago.”

This is not an easy book. Ellis is fond of facts and numbers, and with them he’s fashioned a nigh-overwhelming elegy for the victims of our gill nets and drift nets, factory fishing ships, explosive harpoons, longlines, trawlers, and fish-spotting aircraft — not to mention our collective shortsightedness.

Among the obstacles to halting this enormous, long-running tragedy: Powerful economic interests skew the policies of such regulatory bodies as the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, while much of the overfishing takes place in international waters where no one country or organization can manage what’s left of the “resources.”

Is there any hope? Maybe not much, but consider that the depleted species themselves are resilient and, given half a chance, can and do rebound, albeit slowly. Ellis notes that marine reserves — “no-fish” zones — have proved effective and should be established on a larger scale. Still, time is short, and the oceans’ precious biodiversity is already damaged. As Pogo put it and Ellis would agree, the enemy is us.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate