Re: Call To Ban All Fishing In 1/3 Of World's Seas

"usual suspect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jon Janssen wrote:
> >>>This is a good wake-up call maybe,
> >>
> >>No, it's not an alarm; it's just alarmIST.
> >
> > more importantly, it's reality
>
> Nonsense. *Some* species, like Atlantic cod, have been over-fished. The
> solution isn't to ban fishing altogether.

"worldwide collapse of fish,
dolphin, whale and turtle populations, and the destruction of
ancient coral reefs.   ......'"
...is reality

>
> >>>about how much food humans consume,
> >>
> >>There are over six-billion of us now. We must eat something.
> >
> > yes, and different foods have different consequences... for nutrition,
> > suffering involved, cost, sustainability, pollution produced, ....
>
> Fishing is sustainable, cost-efficient, and isn't especially polluting.
> Fish provide excellent nutrition.

fishing apparently isn't being done sustaibably.  agree.. it doesn't require
energy or materials to allow the fish to live until they're killed

>
> >>>the degree humans can degrade ecology,
> >>
> >>We're pretty good stewards of our resources, despite some excesses in
> >>fairly recent history. We're not like other species that wipe out entire
> >>ecosystems since they're unable to plan for future generations.
> >
> > if there was credible data that this wasn't the case, would you be
> > interested?
>
> Of course. Unfortunately, the spin put on it by alarmists usually makes
> mountains out of molehills.

here are a few from sources that aren't alarmists..

US Department of Energy
Introductory Quote (US Department of Energy):
""A population - of any species - uses resources and produces wastes.
The surrounding environment's ability to provide those resources and absorb
those wastes limits the size to which the population can grow and remain
healthy. Our technological abilities have permitted us to carry resource use
and waste production to an unprecedented level. We have assumed that those
same technological abilities, combined with the planet's size and bounty,
will allow us to continue that expansion. As is becoming increasingly
apparent, however, that assumption is not only unproven, it is potentially
dangerous. Our technology might act as a buffer, but it cannot isolate us
from the significant changes we are causing in our surrounding
environment.""
www.sustainable.doe.gov/freshstart/articles/changing.htm


and other neccessary resources.....

---GROUND WATER---
..we need ground water to drink, to water crops, to water crops fed to
animals, and for showering/bathing.  Already some people are having to dig
their wells deeper as groundwater is being used up, and already land once
used for crops has stopped being used because of the depletion of the
groundwater needed for irrigation..

"Ground water is among the Nation's most important natural resources. It
provides drinking water to urban and rural communities, supports irrigation
and industry, sustains the flow of streams and rivers, and maintains
riparian and wetland ecosystems. In many areas of the Nation, the future
sustainability of ground-water resources is at risk from overuse and
contamination. Because ground-water systems typically respond slowly to
human actions, a long-term perspective is needed to manage this valuable
resource"

"Ground-water resources along the Atlantic coastal zone of the United States
are vulnerable to saltwater intrusion and to contamination by nutrients.
Saltwater intrusion, the movement of saline water into fresh-water aquifers,
is most commonly caused by ground-water pumping near the coast. Nutrient
contamination results from many human activities and has caused widespread
increases of nitrate in shallow ground water nation-wide. High salinity or
nutrient concentrations can make ground water unfit for public consumption."
www.water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00085/

..The large Ogallala aquifer in the western US is nearly depleted..
"Increasing dependence on ground-water resources has exceeded the safe yield
of many aquifers and caused water quality problems elsewhere. Several areas
are losing irrigated cropland acreage due to dwindling ground water supplies
and/or quality degradation. Some aquifers have been permanently damaged
because full recharge of depleted aquifer storage will not be possible where
compaction and subsidence have occurred. Mining of ground water reserves to
sustain agricultural production is temporary. Declining water levels will
increase pumping costs and aquifer depletion will decrease well yields to
the point where aquifers will be abandoned for irrigation usage. Long-term
solutions must be investigated and evaluated today to maintain U.S. food and
fiber production for tomorrow."

"Areas impacted by overdraft of ground-water resources include-the High
Plains of Texas, the Ogallala aquifer is near depletion."
www.tinyurl.com/2bwq (US Deparment of Agriculture)
( ..diagram of the size, and degree of depletion of this aquifer..
www.water.usgs.gov/wid/images/GW.figure.id.4.gif )

"The state of Texas has lost 1.435 million acres of irrigated cultivated
cropland over the period, 1982-1997 (2)."

" Most of the loss is due to dwindling ground-water supplies from the
Ogallala aquifer.
 Aquifer level declines have ranged from 50-100 feet since 1980 with
saturated thickness reductions of 50%. Depth to water is highly variable but
commonly exceeds 100 feet. Well yields are down from 1000 gpm to 250 gpm and
less in some areas. At current rates of pumpage, current irrigated acreage
is predicted to drop 50% by 2030"

"In south central Arizona, ground water depletion is a primary concern.
Since development, water table declines of 200 feet have been observed. Land
subsidence caused by aquifer depletion has reached 18 feet in some areas
near Phoenix, indicating considerable and potentially irreversible impacts
on aquifer storage and conductivity, (5)."
"In the southern section of the Central Valley of California- (Kern, Kings
and Tulare Counties) overdraft of 800,000 acft per year has resulted in
declines of over 200 feet in some areas. Subsidence has been measured at 29
feet in Mendota, California indicating aquifer damage, (4).  Irrigated,
cultivated crop acreage for the state of California has declined 700,000
acres from 1982 to 1997, (2)."

..ground water depletion even affects areas next to large rivers..
"Many states that have traditionally been perceived as having abundant water
resources are beginning to experience ground water shortages. In Arkansas,
the Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer has declined 100 feet in 90 years in
the Grand Prairie region and well yields have declined accordingly. Declines
in saturated thickness there have limited water availability for
agriculture. In Rhode Island, agricultural irrigation combined with
municipal, commercial and other uses have impacted stream flows."
www.tinyurl.com/2bwq (US Deparment of Agriculture)


---SOIL EROSION---
..we need soil to grow the vast majority of our food, everything but seafood
and seaweeds. soil is also needed for the growth of plants used for building
materials and clothing (and animals can only be used for clothing if they
have plants to eat).  Soil erosion threatens any buildings resting upon it.
Mudslides and erosion can degrade and decrease farmland, silt and clog
waterways..

"A total of 108 million acres are eroding excessively resulting in 1.3
billion tons of erosion." (US 1997)
"Excessive erosion is defined as erosion greater than the tolerable rate
(T).
Excess erosion is also an indicator of forgone opportunities for improving
soil, water, and air quality, sequestering carbon dioxide, and helping in
goals to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5083.html (US Dep[artment of
Agriculture)

"There were 296.4 million acres of non- highly erodible cropland in the U.S.
in 1982."
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5994.html
"There are 273 million acres of non-highly erodible cropland in the U.S."
(1997)
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m4969.html

"There were 124.6 million acres of highly erodible cropland in the U.S. in
1982."
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5997.html
"There are 104 million acres of highly erodible cropland in the U.S." (1997)
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m4970.html


---DEFORESTATION---

..trees capture CO2 from the atmosphere and lessen climate change, they help
decrease/prevent erosion of soil.  they provide building materials and
material for fires, and produce oxygen.  more info on this is at the link..

Food and Agricultural Oganization:
Forests cover about 3 870 million ha, or 30 percent of the earth's land
area."
"FRA 2000 revealed that the estimated net annual change in forest area
worldwide in the 1990s was -9.4 million ha, representing the difference
between the estimated annual rate of deforestation of 14.6 million ha and
the estimated annual rate of forest area increase of 5.2 million ha." (9.4
hectares is 23 million acres)
www.tinyurl.com/8bjg


---AIR POLLUTION---

"Three of the major health effects associated with air pollution are: asthma
attacks and other airway sensitivity disorders; lung cancer; and heart
attacks."
www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t020903.html Director of US National Institutes of
Health

"Air pollution kills about 70,000 Americans each year"
www.niehs.nih.gov/centers/2000news/ctrnws4.htm associate professor of
environmental health at Harvard School of Public Health (recognized by US
National Institutes of Health)



---POPULATION---

Overpopulation is already a serious problem, especially in less
industrialized countries. With 4.3 billion people, these countries account
for 78 percent of the world's population yet have only 15 percent of the
world's wealth and income, and use only 12 percent of its natural resources
and 27 percent of its energy each year. One implication is that 40 million
desperately poor people die each year (110,000 per day) from malnutrition or
related diseases or from contaminated drinking water.

The planet's resources are being consumed at an astounding rate. Our one
species already appropriates for its use 40 percent of all the plant matter
produced on land. Currently, global resource use by humans is growing at
about 5.5 percent each year; at that rate, human demand on the earth's
resources doubles every 13 years.

Many of our most important resources, such as fossil fuels and metals, are
nonrenewable and will eventually run out. Known world oil supplies, for
example, will last for about 40 years at the current rate of consumption;
potential sources might extend the supply for another 20 to 40 years.

Fossil fuels burned in 1994 released 5,925 million tons of carbon into the
atmosphere; that compares to only 2,543 million tons in 1960.
www.sustainable.doe.gov/freshstart/articles/changing.htm



>
> >>>and possibly questioning humans eliminating species...
> >>
> >>Most extinction has occurred without ANY human involvement. Indeed, most
> >>extinction on our planet occurred before Homo sapiens sapiens happened
> >>along.
> >
> > if humans wipe out a species of fish, that species is wiped out...
> > regardless of why previous species went extinct
>
> Can you name a species of commercial fish which faces extinction?
> Wouldn't that species, if it existed, be protected by endangered species
> laws?

you have a point.. and unless the fish was very 'tasty' or exotic, i can't
picture trophy hunters going after them


however, humans are surely causing declines

http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2000/0407/epf519.htm
"Overfishing by humans, not consumption by whales, is the reason for
dwindling fish stocks around the world, according to the U.S. Department of
Commerce. "
"In truth, humans are primarily responsible for fisheries declines," the
publication says. "It is humans who continue to threaten the world's stocks
through overfishing and reluctance to allow stocks to naturally replenish."



>
> >>>and maybe even the question of using them as tools
> >>
> >>What question is that?
> >
> > maybe some poeple don't want to, and maybe they don't want to be used as
> > tools.
>
> wtf are you talking about?

maybe some people don't want to treat animals as tools that they can kill
and eat

>
> > Not too long ago were darker skinned people and women treated
> > similarly as tools...
>
> Not too long ago? In my country it's been about 150 years. Not ALL
> "darker skinned people" were slaves. Maybe you didn't know about that.
> Slavery still exists in some Moslem nations. Maybe you didn't know that,
> either.

good examples

>
> > i know the dog who lives with me sure doesn't want to
> > be killed any more than i do, but dogs are killed for food in parts of
the
> > world
>
> So?

for some it raises the question of if they want to kill and eat animals, or
buy animal foods that require animals to be killed

>
> >>>From what i've read, there's much less harm done in the process of
> >
> > killing
> >
> >>>fish, compared to the suffering of chickens, pigs, calves (veal -
> >>>inseparable from the dairy industry- cows only lactate because of
> >
> > pregnancy,
> >
> >>>like humans), and hens for eggs.
> >>
> >>Veal is not inhumane in and of itself, especially when grown outside of
> >>the conditions misrepresented as the norm by ARAs. That's true of all
> >>animal husbandry. Your ARA friends are showing you the worst examples,
> >>all of which are punishable in western nations. FWIW, US veal is grown
> >>with a healthful diet, plenty of room to move around, and the ability to
> >>see other livestock (i.e., they're not isolated in tiny crates).
> >
> > if this wasn't actually how things were would you want to know?
>
> Sure. Do you have information that US veal is fed an unhealthy diet,
> raised in cramped crates, no fresh air, and no interaction with other
> animals?

Although I am sure each person will have seen exceptions, the descriptions
in the following paragraphs are of standard husbandry practices at this
time. The vast majority of calves raised for 'gourmet' veal are kept in
individual stalls in subdued or almost no light except at feeding time, many
while chained at the neck (12). They get no exercise, normal grooming is
impossible and they cannot even turn around or make normal postural
adjustments in the stalls as they get larger. They have nowhere to lie
except on the slatted flooring of their crates which often is coated with
their own excrement. Even if the crates were cleaned many times a day, this
would only reduce, not eliminate, the calves' contact with feces and urine.
The feces and urine keep the skin constantly wet and provide an environment
which is conducive to infection and inflammation. Ammonia from the urine is
a powerful skin irritant. Combined with the lack of bedding, which results
in pressure sores from skin rubbing the wooden crate, this sets up a
potentially serious skin problem which can cause the calf considerable
discomfort and pain.

No opportunity for meaningful social contact with their conspecifics is
provided calves raised for veal in this manner. Although the calves normally
would begin eating roughage soon after birth, they are fed only a diet which
makes them anemic (99, 130) and which contains various drugs which can end
up in human food. When taken to slaughter, their legs and musculature are so
poorly developed that they walk with difficulty and sometimes sustain
fractures.

As a result of all these factors, the calves experience continual stress and
other problems (49, 50, 59, 60, 91, 99, 103). It is well known that
continuous stress can severely compromise the body's immune system making
the individual more prone to disease (26, 67).

There is no need to raise calves under conditions which involve privation
and deprivation. The meat from animals who are raised in social groups is
just as nourishing for those choosing this type of diet. No studies have
shown that there is a discernible difference in the taste or texture
compared with that from calves raised in extreme confinement, not that these
factors could justify inappropriate housing conditions. Although there will
be regional differences, in general, the cost of production in social groups
is similar to that in extreme confinement (86, 92).


12. Anonymous: Modern veal production: An industry perspective. Booklet by
Veal Committee of the Beef Industry Council, National Live Stock and Meat
Board, 57 pp., 1989b.

99. Reece, W.O. and Hotchkiss, D.K.: Blood studies and performance among
calves reared by different methods. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 1601-1611,
1987.

130. Welchman, D. de B., Whelehan, O.P. and Webster, A.J.F.: Haematology of
veal calves reared in different husbandry systems and the assessment of iron
deficiency. Veterinary Record 123: 505-510, 1988.

see here for the entire paper and the rest of the references
http://www.avar.org/farm_animals.html

the veal groups even mention them being kept in individual crates
http://www.veal.org/professional/resourcecenter/vealprocont.html

>
> >>>It might be the case that if there is a ban on fish, many people will
> >>>replace the fish flesh with the flesh of other animals....
> >>
> >>Yes, this is what will happen. Rather than consuming fish, which has
> >>beneficial fats that help raise LDL and lower LDL, they'll turn to
> >>livestock like lamb, beef, pork, and poultry.
> >
> > i agree
>
> Good.
>
> >>>if the
> >>>authorities would be promoting consuming more plant foods, i'd support
> >
> > it
> >
> >>>strongly.
> >>
> >>Do you take marching orders from authority figures? Why should we care
> >>what the "authorities" promote?
> >
> > i take marching understanding from truth, and cause-and-effect.
>
> Doesn't sound like it to me.

which of the above specific sources or pices of info above do you think are
questionable?

>
> > the
> > majority of people do take orders from authorities.. and this is why
it's
> > important
>
> Have you any evidence of this?

ask people where they would find info on nutrition... scientific journals or
the USDA food pyramid

>
> >>>Scarey stuff, seen a lot on the state of the oceans and other water we
> >>>depend upon, and it's shocking that there isn't a gigantic effort to
> >
> > make
> >
> >>>things better.
> >>
> >>Bullshit. The fishing industry wants sustainability and profits. What
> >>good is a profit today if there's no chance of one tomorrow? That's why
> >>the fishing industry is working for sustainable practices.
> >
> > again, if this wasn't the case, would you be interested in knowing it?
>
> Again, do you have information to the contrary?

that above link is a hint... do some looking yourself.. the reality of
declining fish populations is common

Maybe some fisherman who
> secretly got caught on tape talking about how gung ho he is about raping
> the Grand Banks so he can pay off his boat and how there won't be any
> fish left when he's through? Think about it, man. Why would a fisherman
> put a quarter-million into a boat and equipment, pay a crew's wages and
> benefits, spend weeks at sea -- which can be a very dangerous place -- 
> away from his family, risk malfunctions that could wipe out his catch
> (when the refrigeration goes, so does the entire load of fish), and so
> on if his future in the industry is limited? It makes no sense.

what did enron do, what about BMS, what about countries allowing all their
trees to be cut.... many businesses operate out of current survival, and are
short-sighted.   BMS sold loads of product at great discount in order to
make their sales look incredible...only to find that in the next year there
was very little demand because all the buyers already had bought great
supplies at the cheaper cost          if you're familiar with the stock
market, this is exactly what companies did on the revenue sheets.. they kept
inflating their figures and revenues... counting stock options as
assetts!... only to have their stock price crash down when the reality was
commonly known.... plus the owners of many companies are very wealthy and
won't mind to crash and burn a biz while making more money... they don't
need a sustainable business once they have several million dollars

>
> >>>Though as long as elected officials owe favors to the
> >>>industry groups who have donated large amounts of money...
> >>
> >>Bullshit. Why do you fail to take on AR groups and other anti-business
> >>PACs who spread around just as campaign funding? Two sides of the story,
> >>and you're going against the one for jobs, a strong economy, and a
> >>sustainable future.
> >
> > would you be interested in that they are?
>
> Why don't you offer information rather than asking if I want to hear it?


cause some people don't want to know

who has more money to spend .... the Dairy industry or Peta?    the ones
with more money spend more money
Who donates more money to officials... the energy industry  or the renewable
energy companies?   this is simple sense, thought the numbers are out there

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM01Winter/GM01Win4.html
http://www.pcrm.org/news/lawsuit_summary.html


>
> >>>gov't efforts
> >>>aren't likely to do anything that will reduce profits of the very
> >
> > industries
> >
> >>>who are giving them money.
> >>
> >>You're naive and ignorant. Money given to campaigns isn't for personal
> >>use, at least in these United States. You fail to assess *any* blame on
> >>anti-business PACs, AR groups, and other assorted influence peddlers on
> >>the other side of the issue, whose ideas often mean fewer jobs, less
> >>competition, and other economically insane positions.
> >
> > there's no blame, it's just cause-and-effect.... some lobbying groups
have
> > much more money than other ones... and thus more power
>
> Why don't you take on well-funded AR and eco-whacko lobbies, then?

i should just 'take on' whatever group has the least power??
i go with the consequences a group has on individuals' ability live in
peaceful ways as they wish, and to have access to resources and health... as
long as they don't take away the same abilities for other individuals


>
> > how does a plant based diet support fewer jobs?
>
> The AR and eco-extremists want to kill off certain industries. They're
> unconcerned about fishermen, cattlemen, and others who provide a valued
> service to the people who don't want to eat a strictly plant-based diet.
>

i'd imagine that if there were 10 million fewer animals killed for food,
that there'd need to be a similar amount of plants grown...

btw, factory fareming doesn't employ a lot of people per animal...  birds
are more than 9 billion of the ~10billion animals killed in the US for food
each year... and the birds don't require many people to raise them and kill
them.
 personally if someone were to want to kill and eat the dog who lives with
me, because they didn't want to eat plants... i'd think my dogs life was
more important than their preference of what they eat