In 1883, the eminent British biologist, T.H. Huxley, said: "I believe that the cod fishery, the herring fishery, the pilchard fisher, the mackerel fishery and probably all great sea fisheries are inexhaustible: that is to say that nothing we do seriously affects the numbers of fish. And any attempt to regulate these fisheries seems consequently from the nature of the case to be useless."
This was a common view of the time. Victorian England was expanding to the furthest reaches of the planet. The Empire was in the height of its glory. The world seemed to be an inexhaustible playground.
Indeed, for much of human history, humanity has expanded to fill "empty" spaces. From Africa to the Middle East to Europe and Asia, followed by Australia, North and South America, and even the remote islands of the Pacific, humanity has spread across the globe.
Whenever populations became too dense, people move.
For the past 100 years, this has not been the case. The world is now "fully occupied". I don't mean that the density of the world's population has reached saturation but that there are very few places on the planet that are not claimed by one country or another. This even applies to the oceans.
Various treaties have established national and international rights to water ways around the world. Our civilization has progressed to the point where even the Antarctic has been divvied up amongst the great nation states.
Expansion has been driven by population. In the past 100 years, the number of people on the planet has blossomed from 1.65 billion in 1900 to 7.15 billion in 2013. Simply put, there are more people to house, feed, and clothe and therefore more land needed.
It is the feeding, though, that has led to a disaster in the great fisheries of the world. Huxley was wrong. Within 40 years of uttering this statement, there was plenty of evidence that the major fisheries were in trouble.
The collapse accelerated throughout the 20th century. Of the 19 great fisheries in the world, 17 are either in a state of collapse - read: "wiped out" - or are in dire straits. Consider the Pacific salmon runs. It is only through heavy intervention by scientists working for the Department of Fisheries that the run still exists.
But even with intervention and conservation efforts, the salmon runs do not match up with the historical records. In the early 1990s, catches of 27 million fish every year were common. No one worried about conservation.
It is much this way wherever humans have spread on the planet. The indigenous flora and fauna have succumbed to the pressure of human settlements.
Don't get me wrong. I am not arguing that humans are bad or that people do not have the right to live. However, if we would like to retain some of the natural world around us, then we need to consider conservation matters carefully.
In a city such as Prince George, which is surrounded by forests and regularly visited by moose and bears, it might seem a bit alarmist to talk about conserving wildlife. However, not everywhere is blessed with our rich abundance.
One particular alarm bell was raised recently in a letter to Science about our Grizzly Bear hunt. Conservation biologists question whether the increase in hunting tags for grizzlies is sustainable.
Officials with the government estimate that there are 15,000 grizzlies in the province, making up approximately one quarter of the world's population. Some of the sub-populations in regions around the province are declining and the species is listed as one of "special concern" by some environmental bodies.
However, the grizzly is not recognized as an endangered species under Canada's Species at Risk Act and citing the recovery of some populations as evidence that the grizzly is well-managed, the number of hunting tags has been increased from 1700 to 1800.
It is true that not every tag results in a successful hunt. Indeed, it is estimated that the actual kill rate is about 300 bears per year. However, hunting isn't the only way that grizzlies die. Natural death from old age and other interactions with human populations mean that the mortality rate is around 6% per year.
At least, that is the maximum allowable mortality rate. No one is absolutely sure what the number is. And no one is really sure if that represents a sustainable rate.
Huxley believed that the great fisheries were inexhaustible. Nothing that we could do would wipe them out. He was wrong.
We have certainly learned a great deal since Huxley's day. However, a lot more needs to be known if we are going to live in a sustainable ecosystem.
One hunter that I talked to said that the government's estimates are way too high and there are only 8000 grizzlies in the province. Are they a species on its way to collapse?
