BS: Should fish be sought?

Subject: Should fish be sought/caught?
From: wdyat12
Date: 19 May 01 - 05:12 PM

With dwindling stocks and all the mention of contaminents in fish nowadays, should fish be sought/caught? I have fished for lobster, herring, flounder, cod, whiting, and tuna to mention a few, but now fishermen are in a delema. Fish stocks are low, the feds limit days on the water, the price of fuel is up, and the market says certain fish are not healthy. I am a fisherman. I have given the trade up to those that still survive. I still like to fish, but I wonder that my sport involvement might impact the fishery. Should fish still be sought and caught in the Atlantic in my lifetime?

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 19 May 01 - 05:35 PM

I assume that you do not fish with nets, but are a sport angler using some form of line.
If you are, I doubt that you would have a great deal of impact on overall fish stocks. As numbers decline, the remaining individual fish would become more difficult to catch on a line.
The main problems of overfishing are due to indiscriminate fishing using nets which remove ALL sizes of fish, and do not allow the smaller ones to reach maturity and breed.
Geoff the Duck.

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: gnu
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:02 PM

Speaking of size, I was in the grocer's today and saw lobsters that were so small, I don't know how you could get a feed without killing ten, at least. What the heck are they thinking ?

BTW, I tell the manager of every grocer, whenever I get the chance, that I am disgusted that they keep live lobsters in a tank on display in the store. Now, I am a hunter and fisher. That's right. I kill partridge with a gun. I kill trout and salmon with a hook and line - perhaps the most cruelest of harvesting techniques (although I haven't been able to bring myself to do this for several years - I usually just drink some ales, sing, play Hran and do the cooking on fishing trips with the lads). But gosh ! To take these lobsters from the sea and put them on display in a glass tank where drooling humans pass by them for days on end ? That's sick !

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:06 PM

Perhaps you should try shooting the salmon as they leap past ;>]
Quack!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:27 PM

when I was a kid, (in the 40s & 50s),we heard that we would one day "feed mankind from the inexhaustable seas"...now the Grand Banks are depleted, the salmon are threatened, there are limits on crabs & rockfish in Cheasapeake Bay, the whales are in danger...etc...etc...

The math is plain...you CANNOT take so much fish, lobsters, etc that they cannot be replaced. (You can't pollute so much, either.) In one generation of fishing, we have gone from seemingly plenty to not nearly enough. The immediate effect is rising prices, so that good seafood, once almost free for the taking, is a rare treat, unless you are well-to-do. The next effect is shortages and bans and panic, (both ecological & financial).

The ONLY real long term solution is fewer people, If there were only 1 billion people in the world, we could all have plenty to eat....fish, or grain or red meat...at 6 billion, we are hurting...at 12-15 billion it ain't gonna be ANY fun!

Some folks keep expecting technology, fish farms & vitamins to 'solve' it, but if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath. "X" number of hungry mouths need "Y" lbs. of food...and the Earth has "Z" amount of resources.

No one wants to look directly at the solution, because it is counter to the way we have lived for countless generations...children & growth. This is both a cultural & economic problem....but it won't go away by denying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:29 PM

Here in New England we're told not to eat the freshwater fish because of high mercury content, and to go easy on sea fish because of depleted stocks, although many fishermen tell us they still come home with boats full. I agree, Bill D, there seems to be but one solution, and it's the hardest to convince enough people. Until then, the Final Trawl is a reality for many.

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:37 PM

instead of me typing opinions..do a search on the phrase "steady state economy" it will give you sites such as this

takes some reading, 'cause it is not a simple problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Troll
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:46 PM

See "Soylent Green".

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 07:01 PM

yeah, I SAW Soylent Green.....which is why I'd rather choose birth control implants which required a permit to get taken out. (Heck, 'troll cutlets' are just NOT my idea of a solution)

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: RichM
Date: 19 May 01 - 09:05 PM

Bill D said it right: The root of all our major problems -as a species- is overpopulation.

Yet leaders, both political and spiritual, ignore this; instead they address their own agendas or at best, some small aspect of the overall problem. Political leaders of all stripes, and the Pope, various Patriarchs, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu spiritual leaders: where are you when the Earth needs you?

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:40 PM

Rich...I am afraid that BEING a spiritual leader is a disadvantage in these discussions...they are more or less committed to a view that various forms of prayer and belief will solve things..and the Pope really wouldn't like most of MY proposed remedies. 'Twould be lovely if 'loaves & fishes' could appear when we needed them, hmmm? But I'm afraid that miracles are in about as short a supply as fishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: RichM
Date: 20 May 01 - 09:31 AM

Yes, I suppose asking religious leaders to act as spiritual quardians of the Earth is a bit too much :)

Still, we shouldn't pray to Our Father in Heaven while ignoring our Mother Earth!

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 May 01 - 09:43 AM

Not all spiritual leaders are bankrupt when it comes to the Earth. Many Native American leaders are concerned and trying although I do admit, I don't think they focus on population problems as much as they could. Then there is my hero, His Holiness the Dalai Lama:

"Since I deeply believe that human beings are basically gentle by nature, I feel that we should not only maintain gentle, peaceful relations with our fellow human beings but also that it is very important to extend the same kind of attitude toward the natural environment. Morally speaking, we should be concerned for our whole environment.

"Then there is another viewpoint, not just a question of ethics but a question of our own survival. The environment is very important not only for this generation but also for future generations. If we exploit the environment in extreme ways, even though we may get some money or other benefit from it now, in the long run we ourselves will suffer and future generations will suffer. When the environment changes, climatic conditions also change. When they change dramatically, the economy and many other things change as well. Even our physical health will be greatly affected. So this is not merely a moral question but also a question of our own survival.

"Therefore, in order to succeed in the protection and conservation of the natural environment, I think it is important first of all to bring about an internal balance within human beings themselves. The abuse of the environment, which has resulted in such harm to the human community, arose out of ignorance of the importance of the environment. I think it is essential to help people understand this. We need to teach people that the environment has a direct bearing on our own benefit.

" If our generation exploits everything available - the trees, the water, and the minerals - without any care for the coming generations or the future, then we are at fault, aren't we? But if we have a genuine sense of universal responsibility as our central motivation, then our relations with the environment will be well balanced, and so will our relations with our neighbors, both domestic and international."

" One of the most positive developments in the world recently has been the growing awareness of the importance of Nature. There is nothing sacred or holy about this. Taking care of our planet is like taking care of our houses. Since we human beings come from Nature, there is no point in our going against Nature, which is why I say the environment is not a matter of religion or ethics or morality. These are luxuries, since we can survive without them. But we will not survive if we continue to go against Nature.

"We have to accept this. If we unbalance Nature, humankind will suffer. Furthermore, as people alive today, we must consider future generations: a clean environment is a human right like any other. It is therefore part of our responsibility towards others to ensure that the world we pass on is as healthy, if not healthier, than when we found it. This is not quite such a difficult proposition as it might sound. For although there is a limit to what we as individuals can do, there is no limit to what a universal response might achieve. It is up to us as individuals to do what we can, however little that may be. Just because switching off the light on leaving the room seems inconsequential, it does not mean that we should not do it.

"This is where, as a Buddhist monk, I feel that belief in the concept of karma is very useful in the conduct of daily life. Once you believe in the connection between motivation and its effect, you will become more alert to the effects which your own actions have upon yourself and others.

"Thus, despite the continuing tragedy of Tibet, I find much good in the world. I am especially encouraged that the belief in consumerism as an end in itself seems to be giving way to an appreciation that we humans must conserve the earth's resources. This is very necessary. Human beings are in a sense children of the earth. And, whereas up until now our common Mother tolerated her children's behavior, she is presently showing us that she has reached the limit of her tolerance."

"In the past, the major need of people in this world was cultivable land. Man did not have to think about other animate and inanimate things. However, now, the adverse effects on forests through over population and the development of various chemical elements in the atmosphere has led to irregular rainfall and global warming. This global warming has brought about changes in climate, including making perennial snow mountains melt, thereby, adversely affecting not only human beings but also other living species.

"This dangerous situation is being taken very seriously by the world. In the past the perennial snow mountains of Tibet had very thick snow. Older people say that these mountains were covered with thick snow when they were young and that the snows are getting thinner which may be an indication of the end of the world. It is a fact that climatic change is a slow process taking thousands of years to realize its effect. Living beings and plant life on this planet also undergo change accordingly. Man's physical structure too changes from generation to generation along with the change in climatic conditions.

"Because of the growth in population, a large number of trees are cut for fuel, and to reclaim land for agricultural cultivation. In the case of Tibet, too, Chinese have now destroyed its ancient trees in a similar way as if a man's hair has been shaved off. This is not just the destruction of the trees but it also means harming what belongs to the Tibetans. Similarly, the continuing decline in forest in many parts of the world, including America is adversely affecting the already changing global climate, thus upsetting the lives of not only mankind but also of all living beings.

"Similarly, the harmful effect on the atmosphere brought about through some chemical emissions in industrialized countries is a very dangerous thing. Although this is a new thing for us Tibetans the world is paying a lot of attention to this problem. It is the responsibility of us, who speak of (the welfare) of all sentient beings, to contribute towards this.

"Since I too have a responsibility in this matter i.e., to work for the protection of the environment and to see that the present and future generations of mankind can make use of refreshing shade and the fruits of trees, I have bought these seeds of fruit-bearing trees from part of my Nobel Peace Prize money to be distributed, now, to people representing different regions (all the continents of the world were represented here) during this Kalachakra gathering. These seeds have been kept near the Kalachakra Mandala for purification and blessings. Since these include seeds of apricot, walnut, papaya, guava, etc., suitable for planting under varying geographical conditions, experts in respective places should be consulted on their planting and care and, thus, you all should see that my sincere aspiration is fulfilled."

NOTE: These collected statements of the Dalai Lama can be found in their entirety in His Holiness The Dalai Lama On The Environment published by the Department of Information and International Relations, Central Tibetan Administration of His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama, Dharamsala, India. These collected statements of the Dalai Lama can also be found in their entirety on the PeaceJam web site.

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 May 01 - 08:47 PM

Blaming it all on overpopulation seems to me to be looking at the wrong end of the problem, the consquence rather than the cause.

When people get secure, and know that their children are going to outlive them, and that there is going to be help around when they get old, the size of their families goes down, When they are insecure and think that their children are likely to die before they grow, and probably have to emigrate if they don't die, and there's going to be no help around, the size of families stays big.

That applies no matter what the religious leaders or the politicians say. The main cause of "overpopulation" is poverty and exploitation. And the main cause of overfishing and destruction of the environment is the greed and irresponsibility of rich countries, who use far far more resources per head of population - and even when the size of population in rich countries actually goes into a decline, the amount of resources we use and waste still goes up.

Overfishing is a direct result of "improved" techniques combined with a market economy driven by greed.

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 20 May 01 - 08:52 PM

Back to my original comment, and taking note of the ones in between. It is a question of scale.
If you go into your local park and pick a daisy - next year there will be more daisies. If you go in with a bulldozer and remove all the turf which contains the daisies - next year you will have mud>
Geoff

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Banjer
Date: 20 May 01 - 09:04 PM

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach that man how to fish and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day!

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 20 May 01 - 09:07 PM

How do you catch a Mudcat????? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 May 01 - 09:44 PM

At my house:
You catch 'em.
You clean 'em.
I'll cook 'em, but
YOU EAT 'EM!!!
(I like most shellfish, but not fish/fish. Catfish--ugh.
Bass--OK, not great
Crappie--slightly better, but still fish
Sun perch--one step up from crappie
Best fish I ever ate was Red Snapper in Galveston....and it was still fish!

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Grab
Date: 21 May 01 - 06:57 PM

The answer's simple. If you want industrial quantities of a foodstock, you've got to farm it rather than letting it grow wild and hoping there's enough there. Fish farms need to sort out the disease problems though - fish just aren't bred for that yet. The other solution is simply to stop eating fish. Supply and demand - if less ppl eat fish, not so much will get caught!

I'm afraid I don't have too much sympathy for fishermen - it's a shame, but things change. If my job vanishes underneath me tomorrow, I'll have to look for another one, and fishermen are no exception. What's really required is more than what Gerald Durrell called "paper protection" - in other words, protection for species diversity which is more than just laws passed and actually has some teeth to it. In Europe, the Spanish are notorious for overfishing, and unfortunately there isn't the political will to back up the Royal Navy in excluding Spanish boats from protected areas of UK waters.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 May 01 - 09:13 PM

"When people get secure, and know that their children are going to outlive them,...............he size of their families goes down,"

perhaps..but not far enough down. Various cultures have a 'tradition' of large families coupled with reverance for ancestors that endures, secure and well-fed or not. There are many reasons for population increase, and many reasons for over fishing, but saying "The main cause of "overpopulation" is poverty and exploitation. And the main cause of overfishing and destruction of the environment is the greed and irresponsibility of rich countries,...." simply avoids the issue, even IF it were true.

Granted, more care could be taken, resources guarded, the poorer nations could be given a fairer share, etc...but I know, (and YOU know, if you are honest), that given the opportunity, the poorer nations would be greedy and exploitative also. It is human nature we are fighting, not the USA or Brazil or Japan or Russia, though each of those nations has current practices that need reining in. People, given a chance, will take more than they should, and it is never easy to see how to curb this.

My point is, if EVERYONE on earth and ALL national entities were to share fairly and be as environmentally reasonable as they can figure out how, this will only delay the problem!. You cannot increase the population, even at a reduced rate, forever. The Earth will NOT support 857 Billion people, no matter how responsible and careful they are.

The thing is, **Nature** does not care...if we don't figure it out, corrections will be made thru the laws of biology and physics, and it won't be pretty!

There are plenty of social and political changes wich could and should be made regarding 'richer' and 'poorer' nations, etc., but please do not deceive yourself that "all will be well" then....If it pleases you to simply have everyone suffer equally, so be it. I'd rather look for solution that makes fewer humans equally happy and prosperous....and I can't think of a easy, fair way to achieve that....My comment about requiring a permit to remove a contraceptive implant was only slightly facetious....if there were a 'fair' way to do that, I'd vote for it tomorrow....

....I have a son who is 18...I dread thinking what HE will face at 60.

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 01 - 08:40 PM

Just check the statistics, Bill D. Family size really does go down when people get secure. That's just as true for cultures where there has been a tradition of big families, made up of people belonging to religions that discourage birth control. For example Ireland and Italy.

The trouble is that, even when family size goes down in rich countries, pollution and over-use of resources by the people of those countries tends to continue to stay high and even to rise - that's especially true for the United States of course, but in a lesser degree true of many other prosperous places.

Subject: RE: BS: Should fish be sought?
From: GUEST,djh
Date: 23 May 01 - 10:51 AM

Bill, Nature does not Care?! This is a human problem. Mother Earth has been excessively kind thus far. I disagree with even the Dalai Lama to an extent , it IS a spiritual issue. Reverance, care, and responsibility for the life giving Earth needs to become paramount. We have for sometime behaved in a manner disrespectful toward the planet.The planet is quite possibly the Divine that all manner of men have sensed since the Dawn of time Or it is the greatest gift the Divine has given us.
I do not intend to preach, and I will leave it to greater minds than my own to offer solutions, But, our world is shaped more by our minds than our actions. Our actions are dictated by our thoughts and beliefs.
The Western world has been primarily responsible for the pollution of the world since adhering to Francis Bacons Scientific Doctrine.Bacon's beliefs clearly pit us against nature as adversaries and hitched it's wagon to technology, which had been a seperate entity prior . I am not opposed to the practice of science, especially enviromental science, it is the ideology of the belief system I am opposed to. It is a belief system that most adhere to with blind faith, refusing to even acknowledge that it is in fact a belief system. Quantum Physics refutes much of Bacon and Newtons believed and yet everyone is still indoctrinated into a very Newtonian belief system from a young age in our schools.
Change your mind and you will change the world.