From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


killing fish or overfishing is a situation where one or more fish stocks are reduced below predefined levels of acceptance by fishing activities. More precise definitions are provided in biology and bioeconomics. Biological overfishing occurs when fishing mortality has reached a level where the stock biomass has negative marginal growth (slowing down biomass growth). Economic or bioeconomic overfishing in addition to the biological dynamics takes into consideration the cost of fishing and defines overfishing as a situation of negative marginal growth of resource rent. A more dynamic definition may also include a relevant discount rate and present value of flow of resource rent over all future catches.

Overfishing therefore may be sustainable, but in a non preferable way. Ultimately overfishing may however lead to depletion in cases of subsidised fisheries, low biological growth rates, critical biomass levels, etc.

Examples exist of the outcomes from overfishing in areas like the North Sea, and the Grand Banks on the east coast of North America. The result has been not only disastrous to fish stocks but also to the fishing communities relying on the harvest. Like forestry and hunting, fishery crisis is susceptible to economic interaction between ownership or stewardship and sustainability, or the tragedy of the commons.

The ability for nature to restore the fisheries is also dependent on whether the ecosystems are still in a state to allow fish numbers to build again. Dramatic changes in species composition may establish other equilibrium energy flows which involve other species compositions than before.

The "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" treaty deals with aspects of overfishing in articles 61, 62, and 65.

Article 61 requires all coastal states to ensure that the maintenance of living resources in their exclusive economic zones is not endangered by over-exploitation. The same article addresses the maintenance or restoration of populations of species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened. Article 62 provides that coastal states: "shall promote the objective of optimum utilization of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone without prejudice to Article 61" Article 65 provides generally for the rights of, inter alia, coastal states to prohibit, limit, or regulate the exploitation of marine mammals. [edit] See also catch and release


Privatization is the solution to the overfishing problem. I'll Stop the World 20:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not necessarily true. Firstly it depends in what kind of overfishing we are considering. If it is about biological overfishing, it may be true, but not necessarily. It is well known that the overfishing problem to a large extent is related to the market failure of a common property situation. The market failure may be resolved by privatisation and the overfishing gradually removed. But a private owner may find an optimal exploitation below the limits of biological overfishing if the private owner’s discount rate is far above the growth rate of the fish resource and the unit profit is high even at low stock levels. This may be the case in whaling, but also applies to some fish stocks with low individual growth rates. --- Arnejohs 12:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have the question about the example given on "privatization". It's not really "privatization" what had been done in British Columbia, rather than rearranging the fishing quotas in more sensible and flexible way. --Mikoyan21 11:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
the success of a privatization of a fishing stock program depends largely on the replenishment rate of the underlying species. It is in the owner's business interest to ensure a rapidly regenerating fishing stock is maintained at it's optimal population levels. On the other hand a slowly reproducing fish that takes multiple years or decades to reach market size, there is an incentive to quickly harvest as much as possible. (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
yes i think that situation is called mining. It can be more profitable to fish a stock near depletion and then stop the fisheries when the profitability has fallen too much. Sustainable yields on a permanent (yearly) basis are not economically interesting harvesting slow growing and recovering species. Privatization will lead to cultivation or mining I think except for the interesting highly productive fishery grounds. In fact privatization has taken place already for big pelagic fisheries that are carried out by just a small fleet operating as a consortium and directing the fleet to the most profitable places (dutch pelagic fleet, interfish). This form of fisheries is less deleterious then mining because it is aimed at directing the fisheries where biological production is excessive and reducing the effort where production fails due too climate factors.Viridiflavus (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming/Climate Change[edit]

I recall once reading in a forum a suggestion that all the overfishing in the world may be signifigant enough to slightly contribute to global warming/climate change becuase of all the carbon (temporarily) removed from the carbon cycle. Is this much of a factor? Enough to warrant a mention?

To what extent overfishing (which has several definitions) may contribute to global warming by its interaction with the carbon cycle is a non-trivial question. The fishing activity involves fuel consumption. Based on a pure carbon cycle view this may even compensate the removal of carbon from the biomass. This reasoning does however not lead anywhere. In a dynamic perspective though, the carbon pressure in the atmosphere influence the process of binding carbon physically in the sea. The biomass content of carbon may increase in the sea by global warming, firstly by increased primary production if sufficient quantities of nutrients are available. The biological growth may also increase, even without changing the over all environmental capacity of total biomass. If the biological growth rate increases, catch production may increase and previous levels of overfishing are lifted. It is important to remember that it is not only the standing stock which is influenced by fishing activities; also the compensation rate of the biological system is affected. --Arnejohs 08:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Another factor is that global warming will increase the temperature of the waters, reducing the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide that can be dissolved within it. Richard001 07:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not all that easy. Increased carbon pressure in the atmosphere will increase the total carbon bound in the water masses. Carbon is also present as biomass, which may increase as the temperature rises. Oxygen is not necessarily an active constraint in this processes. ---Arnejohs 07:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"maximum observed abundance"[edit]

Isn't this basically identical to "initial yield"? I'm not sure I can picture the scenario where stocks increase after fishing begins. Esn 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

initial paragraph[edit]

Overfishing is a situation

A situation and not an activity?

where one or more fish stocks are reduced below predefined levels of acceptance

Who does the predefining and accepting?

by fishing activities. More precise definitions are provided in biology and bioeconomics.

Bioeconomics is a short article. It does not give a more precise definition of 'overfishing'.

Biological overfishing occurs when fishing mortality

A red link is hardly helpful in a definition.

has reached a level where the stock biomass has negative marginal growth (slowing down biomass growth), as indicated by the red area in the figure.

Do you mean biomass is decreasing, or that it is still growing, but more slowly?

Economic or bioeconomic overfishing in addition to the biological dynamics takes into consideration the cost of fishing and defines overfishing as a situation of negative marginal growth of resource rent. A more dynamic definition may also include a relevant discount rate and present value of flow of resource rent over all future catches.

Now I am lost completely.

Contrast the Concise Oxford Dictionary:

overfish v.t. Fish (stream etc.) too much and thus deplete it.

Simple enough.

Some of us are trying to write an encyclopedia, which should enlighten rather than obfuscate. We should not be shy of technicality, but when we do start using technical definitions, we should say how they relate to common understandings of words.

Somehow I feel that perhaps some material has been pasted in from a technical or legal paper about overfishing. There could be a copyvio going on.

I might try to rewrite this paragraph soon. I hope I don't lose some important detail.

--Publunch 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph doesn't get any better. depletion links to a disambig page. I think resource depletion is meant, though I also had to read sustainability depletion. Is it only subsidised fishing that leads to depletion? --Publunch 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

good grief. it is certainly not just subsidized fishing that leads to overfishing! Anlace 22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Subsidized fishing leads to depletion. And I think 'depletion' is meant in a technical sense, such that price mechanisms make it impossible for non-subsidized fishing to lead to depletion. I am not an economist however. (This article needs an economist who can speak plain English.)--Publunch 23:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It is certainly possible to have depletion or overfishing without subsidies. Look at Monterey Bay and dozens of other places. Are you confusing extinction with depletion? Depletion does not mean every last fish is gone!! Anlace 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to go over the paragraph before Publunch says they are completely lost. That one in particular is confusing and I don't think it uses the term 'rent' properly. A-tron (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Caption on Image:Global shark catch graph 1950 to 2004.png[edit]

The image Image:Global shark catch graph 1950 to 2004.png is currently included in the fish production and demand section. I changed the caption from "Graph showing shark overfishing from 1950 to 2006" to "Graph showing shark catch from 1950 to 2006" since "overfishing" is an original interpretation of the data (see WP:NOR). The picture description is only increases in catch, which may be due to increased fishing effort, expansion of fisheries into new areas, changes in total available biomass or any number of other factors. Moving from total catch to a biomass estimate is not a reasonable jump, much less a result which others have arrived at to be cited. I was inclined to delete the whole image, but a minimal change to describe the caption seemed more immediate. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the burden of proof is on Anlace here to provide a source about shark overfishing, not on you (or me). Moreover, the wording "overfishing" is inaccurate; the graph does not show the overfishing (the catch beyond sustainable capacity) but the overall catch. Esn 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
i accept your reasoning. sorry i missed this discussion on talk page. this article really needs a lot more refa and data and i shall try to focus my attention on such additions. cheers. Anlace 16:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's your source for shark overfishing. :( Esn 07:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me... but when I click on the little number on a source in the article, it doesn't go to the source at the bottom of the page as it should. Any idea why? Esn 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal Responsibility?[edit]

I've read hundreds of articles on overfishing over the last 10 years, and not a single one that I can recall has suggested that the dear reader simply make a small sacrifice and stop eating seafood until the populations recover. I have not even seen an article make the wishy-washy suggestion that people "eat less" seafood. Every article features the disasters about to happen, with opinions from experts, but seems to blame the fishermen, many of whom probably do not follow scientific studies on the matter and are trying to supply the market's demand. And that's what this is - a case of supply and demand - but it seems that no one has the courage to blame the consumer.

Are there any good articles we can source that feature such suggestions from experts? Any widespread organizations urging a boycott of seafood? I would like to see some kind of section in this article mentioning such a movement. Noxic 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In an ideal world your point Noxic would make a lot of sense, but we live in a world where overpopulation has eliminated most sensible decisions left to the humans on the planet. All the world's food resources are in serious question as to their ability to sustain human life without famine and human misery. Sorry to break the bad news to you. Anlace 03:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Anlace, there's no need to be condescending. You're not the only person on the internet to harbor concerns about overpopulation and feel angry about it. The facts of huge human populations and over-consumption are precisely why I feel a section on seafood abstinence would be of interest to those who care about this subject. Yes, there are many people who reacted to the recent news of fish stocks crashing within 50 years with short-sighted selfishness ("I'm going to eat all the shrimp I can, while I still can") - just check the blogosphere. But other people are writing about their determination to give up seafood for the next 50 years. Of course, blogs aren't reliable sources for wikipedia, but I hope to find sites by environmental groups and concerned citizens urging this kind of abstinence. I have found many sites by environmental groups that list which fish are "okay" to eat instead of the threatened species - this smacks of sweeping the dirt to the other side of the room, but I will include such information in the section I am preparing.
Basically, I think the fact that so many people will not care at all, and will continue to eat whatever they can get at, is all the more reason for caring people to help ease the strain by not consuming seafood. Noxic 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Noxic, I think your point is a valid one, and I would welcome the addition of such material. It may be easier to find in popular journalism (op-ed) than in referred journals, however. BrainyBabe 13:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouragement. I didn't know that op-ed pieces could be sources on WP. I am eager to start this section, and will welcome enthusiastically anything you can contribute to it once it is up. Noxic 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that op-ed articles are the best source, but rather that through popular journalism you may come across resources (eg mention of campaigning groups or individuals) that have not yet appeared in more academically mainstream publications. For example, I imagine that some vegan or vegetarian groups might have a campaign on this issue. And, of course, it depends on who is writing the op-ed piece: a respected authority, or someone best known for ranting about things with maximum volume and minimum thought. I'll keep this on my watchlist. Good luck. BrainyBabe 10:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally feel it's blatantly obvious to the reader that they can ease the pressure by not eating fish, though sadly I think most readers wouldn't be able to see that so easily. Richard001 07:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
There are many organizations encouraging people to limit their seafood choices to sustainable species and fishing practices and this makes much more sense than simply not eating fish. If you were serious you would also need to stop eating most beef (30% of the protien in beef comes from seafood), much organic food (fertilized using seafood), etc. and in general you would be switching to foods that are worse for the environment. All of us should stop eating endangered species and species fished using unacceptable methods (farmed salmon, anything caught with a bottom dragger, etc.) and question restaurants and supermarkets about the fish they sell. I will not buy anything from a store that sells endangered fish and I have stopped going to most sushi restaurants. One of many useful sources [1]. steven (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
There are some good points here, particularly steven pointing out how interconnected this can be. I've replaced the section on the Marine Stewardship Council with a section called "Consumer awareness". --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Maximum sustainable yield[edit]

One important concept in sustainable fisheries is the 'maximum sustainable yield' - some information on this topic such as exactly what level of population is the economically sustainable optimum would be nice. I understand it's much lower than the normal population, though how much lower I'm not sure. Richard001 07:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Effect of regulation[edit]

I have recently read a few articles by Phil Bolger and Susanne Altenburger, (2004 National Fisherman, 2006 Gouchester Daily Times and 2007 Messing About in Boats) where they hypothesize that the role of government regulation has implications on the bioeconomics of a fishery. In short, issuance of fishing permits based on length of ship gives an economic bias towards wide deep ships. Wide deep ships require more horsepower, greater capital cost and more complex equipment to function. Resulting in higher initial and ongoing capital costs (running costs for financing, fuel and repairs) creating an powerful economic force demanding higher yield to turn a profit. If the regulations was per ton of ship instead of length, then the economics would favor cheaper long, shallow and narrow ships with corresponding lower financing costs, lower horsepower, equipment complexity. Lower initial cost and running cost means leaner boats demanding less fishery yield to remain profitable. Highly capitalized (and underutilized) fleets demand unsustainable high yields for profitablity, while lower capitalized fleets have a higher probability to be profitable at sustainable yield levels. This is a novel idea to me at least, I am curious if any other fishery researcher have explored the idea of the regulatory effect on fleet capitalization? SaltyBoatr 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if this is in the scope of a wikipedia talk page (seriously, is it?) :). Anyway, I think, but haven't seen those articles you mention, the authors are talking about very specific fisheries. Most fisheries are not simply regulated on the length of a ship. Common regulatory matters are (hardware ones..) mesh size / gear type, engine output or engine power, tonnage and just about any other hardware based variable capable of influencing fishing capacity you can think off. It's absolutely impossible -scope of fisheries- and wrong -erroneously simplifies a complex problem- to make a wide -covering many completely different fisheries- assumption on economic or environmental sustainability of 'large' vs 'small' ships. Just think of this: a 10 euro ship owned by one person has just as many incentives to fish as a 100 euro ship owned by ten persons (ok, now I'M simplifying a bit). DanniellaWB 00:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you help me learn the specifics by pointing to where I can read the specific regulations for specific fisheries? SaltyBoatr

Marine Stewardship Council[edit]

Short question: the Marine Stewardship Council in this article copies a lot of the information already found in Marine Stewardship Council. e.g. an introduction to the organisation etc. Do we want that here? Isn't it better to have a broad section on conservation / eco labels instead and mention the MSC in that? DanniellaWB 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced this with a section called "Consumer awareness". --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fishing capacity merge here?[edit]

I believe this orphaned article should get merged here. Right place? -- Kendrick7talk 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Support-- same thing. Mangostar (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Merge completed. --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference to BBC page[edit]

Hmm, couple of problems with first sentence of second paragraph here. First, the sentence cites a paper in Science, yet the reference numbered is to a bbc web page with no mention of the Science article. Secondly, the paragraph states that all fisheries will collapse in 50 years; the bbc web page does not state this anywhere, the nearest thing is '...not commercially viable within half a century...'. Economically viable and collapsed are not necessarily the same thing, by the definition in the same paragraph (collapsed = 10% or less of observed maximum abundance). As a hypothetical example to illustrate the difference, imagine a population of a species of fish living inside a water filled sphere at the centre of the Earth. Todays technology would not allow us to fish that population, therefore its not economically viable to fish it, yet the population is 'virgin' to use a fisheries term. Anyway, you get my point... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticbattlepants (talkcontribs) 23:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Science article is now properly cited, with a downloadable version. The cited article states that if current trends continue "it projects the global collapse of all taxa currently fished by the mid–21st century", so I replaced "if current trends continue all fish stocks will collapse within fifty years" with "if current trends continue all fish stocks currently fished will collapse within fifty years". I also added: 'However, they also conclude that "available data suggest that at this point, these trends are still reversible"'. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

75% of fishing grounds[edit]

  1. ^ 75% of fishing grounds exhausted, depleted or in danger of being so


The main graph should show the total amounts of the fish population in 1900-2010, not a portion (sharks) of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Ocean acidification a related topic?[edit]

Is Ocean acidification a related topic? (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ocean acidification is related only in that it could potentially affect fish populations and exacerbate overfishing. I don't think this is an issue that belongs in this article. A-tron (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Peruvian Anchovies[edit]

Is the Peruvian Anchovies case in fact one of overfishing. From what I read, it was mostly due to the El Nino than from any over-fishing. DanEdmonds (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


This term is non-neutral as it implies that some level of fishing is acceptable. Not everyone considers fishing acceptable at any level. The term should be qualified in some way. --N-k (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That view point is held by a very small minority. Hardyplants (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
N-k, do you have any WP:RS references that espouse that viewpoint? If some WP:N notability can be established, it could warrant a small subsection somewhere. --Nigelj (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Size regulations[edit]

I have read (I don't remember the actual scientist's name) that regulating harvested fish minimum size also destabilizes the population because it introduces an unnatural selection. It has already been observed - especially in lakes, where populations are relatively small and isolated - that fish evolved so that few reached the harvest size. Such regulations does not only diminish number of fish, but degrade their genome (at least from commercial point of view). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

MinuteEarth have done a video on this. Apparently the size of haddock is 40% what it was a few decades ago. If someone can find some good sources then it would be very relevant to the article. O0factuallycorrect0o (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


Wow! This article is a bit of a mess, particularly the mitigation section.

I have made some changes, but the section is notably lacking information on some pretty common measures such as size restrictions and closed seasons.

There is a subsection on fishermen being obstructive. I think this could be its own section and be expanded to cover other forms of opposition on an international scale, conventions, Cod wars etc. This seems fairly contentious and needs to be referenced well.

I'll try to get back sometime to improve.

Cheers Mozzie (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it contains a number of problems, include broken syntax and interference with quoted text. When you are making changes to long established text, I suggest you break your edits down more so it easier for other editors to see what you are trying to do. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Fish farming contributes to overfishing (this isn't mentioned in article)[edit]

Fish farming contributes to overfishing as the fish meal fed to farm fish is made from other, smaller feeder fish ground up. Between 1.5kg and 8kg of small fish go into 1kg of farmed salmon. This should probably be mentioned in the farming section of the article but it isn't and I can't add it as the article is locked. This could be added to the end of the current paragraph: "The effectiveness of fish farming to reduce overfishing is questionable as large quantities of feeder fish are caught to feed the farmed fish. Thus the overfishing problem is not solved but simply moved from one species to another." O0factuallycorrect0o (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The protect template, which shouldn't have been there, has been removed so you can change the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of subsidies should be a controversy[edit]

While I agree that subsidies for industrial fishing is a major problem and contributes to overfishing, this is a heavily debated topic. This section does not provide a balanced view of the issue. At the very least, the title should be changed to Fisheries Subsidies, not Removal of Subsidies Tmwitkin (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

Reference #5, "Peruvian Anchovy Case: Anchovy Depletion and Trade". Trade and Environment Database. 1999. Retrieved 2012-01-05, is no longer available. What do we do in these cases? Just leave the foonote? Make a note next to the footnote that the link is dead? Chuckr30 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, reference #19, "Growth overfishing". Retrieved 2012-05-01 does not come up. It says the site can't be reached. Again, do we leave it or can anyone else verify these two links as being available? Nlpotts (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of addendum[edit]

@Epipelagic: I removed the "Addendum" section because it doesn't really contain any new factual information. Basically, it boils down to an opinion that it's bad that people have over-fished the oceans, and expression of hope that we'll stop so that fish populations will recover. I'd say that's appropriate to a pro-environment advocacy piece, but not really an encyclopedia article. As it happens, I agree with the opinions expressed here, though it also doesn't really take into account any economic considerations either for or against change. -- Beland (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your view would have more validity if the quote was from someone other than Pauly. Pauly's views cannot be dismissed as mere opinion. He is the foremost fisheries scientist of our time, not some environmental activist trying to manipulate moral indignation. Nor does he try and seduce in a religious style with phantasms of hope. Instead, he offers three objective observations, the first that we are warring with marine life and gradually exterminating it. He has spent his professional life observing and documenting that war. His second factual observation is that nothing can be gained by this destruction. That is where the economics comes in. It is so obvious that ultimately we gain nothing and so silly to think otherwise that Pauly makes the side comment that it is "a bit frustrating". His third objective observation is that ocean ecosystems are robust and will recover if they are given a chance. You can personally do what you want with that observation, even read it as an "expression of hope". I don't read it that way, though it does leave room for optimism. I think we will carry on until the world ecosystems are destroyed – but that's another matter, and neither of us has a crystal ball.
In the quote, Pauly captures the core issues with overfishing in an eloquent and memorable way. I know there is a view that to be encyclopaedic, the style should be as bland and soporific as possible. But that's just a view, and not one I share. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt the well-informed nature of the Pauly quote. However, describing the human relationship with fish as a "war" is not an objective characterization that can be supported by observations (he's not claiming that military or military weapons forces are actually involved); it's a metaphor employed to persuade the reader and give a negative connotation to overfishing. To say that this is happening "for nothing" is clearly taking a point of view, since many people who depend economically on fishing find very strong reasons to keep doing what they are doing. Maybe they are undermining their own long-term interests or ignoring social and environmental costs, but Wikipedia shouldn't take sides there. The claim about reversibility is not supported by the rest of the article; for example, the intro makes the (unreferenced) claim that: "For example, once trout have been overfished, carp might take over in a way that makes it impossible for the trout to re-establish a breeding population." -- Beland (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course Pauly was not saying ocean ecosystems would re-establish themselves exactly as they were in every detail... that would be absurd and he is not stupid. Nor is Pauly "taking sides". He is stating how it is when he talks about the destruction of ocean ecosystems as achieving nothing. Nobody ultimately wins. It seems that, on the pretence of being neutral, you want discussion of overfishing of the destructive type removed from the article because some people might gain financially as the systems are destroyed. You say further that Pauly is trying "to persuade the reader and give a negative connotation to overfishing". I really don't know where to go with that. Have you a conflict of interest here? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't have a conflict of interest; I don't work in the fishing industry, and I don't eat fish. As I said, I agree with the opinions I'm removing. There's plenty of discussion of the negative consequences of overfishing in the article which are covered on a factual basis rather than by metaphor, which I find more appropriate for even an eloquently and memorably written encyclopedia. -- Beland (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The opening sentence in the lead says: "Overfishing is a form of overexploitation where fish stocks are reduced to below acceptable levels". This will also need rewriting if you want to avoid giving a "negative connotation" to overfishing. However, first you will need consensus. In the meantime I've restored the status quo. Please don't edit war without consensus. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I interpreted "You can personally do what you want with that observation" a little too literally when I removed it a second time. 8) Let's get some opinions from other editors! -- Beland (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Addendum section[edit]

The consensus is to remove the "Addendum" section and merge the contents of the section into the rest of the article. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the section Overfishing#Addendum be removed? -- Beland (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal of quote – per comments in the section immediately above --Epipelagic (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I see no problem including the quote, but I wonder if it can be better worked into the article, rather than being stuck on the end and labelled 'addendum'? --Nigelj (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove section - a separate section merely for a quote, however well respected the source, is quite inappropriate. That said, the quote itself is fine, and could easily be worked into the body of the article, perhaps in the "barriers to effective management" section, or in a new section perhaps dedicated to the ethical concerns or long term outlook for world fisheries. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove/rename section - Maybe Forecast/Prediction should be more appropriate to describe the content of the section. Else try to integrate it into the "barriers to effective management" section Wykx 15:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove section - An "Addendum" section is not appropriate and out of place. If the content is to stay, it should be worked into the article, but not have its own section. Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments everyone; sounds like the consensus is to merge the contents of this section into the rest of the article. - Beland (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, let's go ahead and close this RfC. Meatsgains (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

25. See Also Addition[edit]

I believe the See Also section of the article would benefit from a wikilink to bycatch. In order to fully understand the concept of overfishing, The topic of bycatch goes hand and hand with the topic of overfishing and thus, would benefit users. Davidbowie'sghost516 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Overfishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)