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

Jon Janssen wrote:
> > 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

Dolphins and whales are mammals, not fish. Turtles are amphibians, not 
fish. Coral are cnidarians, not fish. Your sources have dubiously taken 
data about certain species, including the one I named above, and 
extrapolated it for other species. The way to save Atlantic cod and 
other fish species is to farm it like catfish, salmon, trout, tilapia, 
striped bass, and so many other species are.

> > > > > 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.  

Fishing of SOME species has been unsustainable. Many other species are 
fished sustainably. Take a look at Alaska's licensing and quota systems 
which support strong stocks of various species of salmon and Alaskan 
pollock.

> agree.. it doesn't require
> energy or materials to allow the fish to live until they're killed

Not sure what you mean. Refrigeration is costly. Fish are killed when 
brought aboard the boat.

> > > > > 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..
<snip of *IRRELEVANT* info>

Stick to the topic of commercial fishing.

<...>
> > > 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?

A lot of it's based on distorted extrapolations and static analysis of 
complex data. Do you remember back when the Exxon Valdez spilled her 
oily cargo into Prince William Sound? We were told it would be 
generations before fishing would resume due to the devastation. Yet it 
only took a couple years for wildlife to rebound. Fishing occurs now, 
within the same generation.

> > > 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

What percentage of people of your acquaintance currently follow such 
information to the letter? What percentage of people of your 
acquaintance even read ingredient lists or nutritional information 
labels on the food they buy? McDonald's, BK, Taco Bell, KFC, Wendy's, 
Carl's Jr, Jack in the Box, Popeye's, Church's, Domino's, Pizza Hut, 
Papa John's, and all the rest are still thriving even though they, too, 
now provide nutritional data to their consumers.

Nutritional labels and dietary advice serve a purpose to a very tiny 
minority of consumers who want information. The overwhelming majority do 
not care, and do not even look before throwing it in the shopping basket.

> > > > > 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

The thread is about commercial fishing, not deforestation, air 
pollution, aquifer depletion (I used to get my water from the Ogallala, 
so I know a lot more about it than you), etc. The least you could do is 
provide data germane to the thread rather than overloading us about 
irrelevant topics, at least as far as commercial fishing is concerned.

> 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, 

IRRELEVANT.

> 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

IRRELEVANT.

> > > > > 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

I do. Tell me facts.

> who has more money to spend .... the Dairy industry or Peta?    the ones
> with more money spend more money

Both.

> Who donates more money to officials... the energy industry  or the renewable
> energy companies?   

Just for the record, most of the companies in the "energy industry" are 
involved in renewable energy. Were it not for the established companies, 
solar and wind technologies would still be cost-prohibitive due to tiny 
research and development budgets, small-scale production, etc.

> 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

It's bullshit. Both sides pay a lot in relation to the number of their 
supporters, and both expect face time with elected officials in excess 
of what they donate.

> > > > > 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??

No, take on the whole system if you don't like it.

> 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 do energy and food lobbies prevent you from living in peaceful ways 
as your wish or deny you access to resources and health? When has any 
industry's lobby taken away anything from anyone?

You're a duplicitous ideologue. You only want to prevent the other side 
from exercising the same rights your side already has -- the right to 
free speech, the right to redress government, the right to representation.

> > > 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...

Ten-million is what percent of six-billion? Will that percentage be 
content to eat a forced vegetarian diet? How is that consistent with 
what you stated above about letting others live in peaceful ways?

> 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.

Another liberal shithead who thinks it's ONLY about farmers. How many 
people are employed in processing? How many in retailing? How many in 
marketing?

>  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

Irrelevant and stupid. If that person killed your dog, he'd be 
criminally and civilly liable. In my state, you could use lethal force 
to prevent anyone from taking or destroying what's yours.