no joke
 

As a scientist, I can assure you that anything published in Science is solid. There's no doubt that we (as a world) are are overfishing the oceans.
I think that Florida is a good success story to look at though. They tightened the commercial regs, implemented slot limits to allow breeding on some species, and cracked down on enforcement. The Fla fisheries have really turned around as a result. Not like they were 25 years ago, but definitely much better than 10 years ago. Their recovery was fueled mostly because the locals began to realize the losing the sport-fishing tourism outweighed the interests of commercial fisherman.
I'm glad people are interested in this. I know this is likely to attract some flack, but actually I'd like to see tighter restrictions for commercial and sport fishers here for our own good.

Jimbo, I'd be happy to see greater restrictions on commercial fisherman, slot limits, reduced bag limits (who needs 10 calico bass) and seasonal closures on specific species. What I can't tolerate is wholesale closures of vast areas of productive structure to recreational fisherman. Closures is what we are facing in the near future it appears. Enjoy La jolla while we can.

Dave

Re: no joke
 

I don't claim to be Einstein but it's hard to take "solid" findings to only have them either disproven or argued by another scientist. Your thoughts?

Science is one of the most respected journals, but its editors and reviewers are not infallible. Plenty of articles in Science have gone on to not hold up or to have been based on false assumptions. Counting the fish in the sea is a notoriously hard problem, building models of those numbers even harder. I haven't read the actual paper but my guess is that the authors acknowledge the limitations of the models and data and are putting forth what could be described as a "best guess". The popular press likes to play up the sexxy headline "Ocean running out of fish", but the truth of the authors statements is undoubtedly more complex.

I concur, madscientist, well stated.

reply to q
 

By refering to Science as solid journal, I mean it's peer review process is about as stringent as it get. As Brad pointed out, no journal or journal article is absolute, and it has certain assumptions and limitations. In addition, there are natural feedback loops built into the eco-system: as fish become overfished, it's less profitable, and commerical fisherman do something else until the fishing improves. I also agree that the media tends to look for the interesting angle and oversimplifies things. Nonetheless, all those things being said, I still think that what the article laid out is feasible and we shouldn't too quick to discount it (for example, global warming). As an angler I have a strong interest in keeping fisheries healthy.