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:
> >>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.

if you are interested in specific fish...
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/peril_overfishing.html

>
> >>>>>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.

true, some are, and ... some aren't.  fishing is not automatically
sustainable

>
> > 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.

i mean compared to land animals which resources and energy is used to breed,
feed, house, and kill- for their entire lives.  fish require less energy

>
> >>>>>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 asked if you wanted to see data that we're not pretty good stewards of our
resources, and you said yes

ground water, soil, forests, and air are very important resources for
survival... and the data shows that humans overall have not been good
stewards of them ...  they are relevant


>
> <...>
> >>>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.

not all things follow that example... and to point out, the effort to
improve the situation after the spill was likely very important to make
things better.

if you believe any specific piece of info is incorrect, i'd be interested to
see any 'more credible' data that suggests it.

>
> >>>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.

true

still, i think the majority of people get their ideas of facts from
mainstream authorities, and not sources that aren't mainstream and are
marginal

>
> >>>>>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.

you had asked for data that showed the humans have not been good stewards of
resources.. those are resources, so it seems relevant

anyway, here is a link for this
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/peril_overfishing.html

>
> > 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.

not really, business is business... fishing is done for profits    anyway,
the facts are that several species of fish are being overfished... maybe the
fishermen don't want to, or maybe they do, who knows?   but it is happening

>
> > 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.

business

>
> >>>>>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.

the dairy industry and peta both have more money to spend that the other??
huh?

this is similar to asking if monsanto or anti-gmo groups contribute more
money to politicians.   the group with more money 'invests' more money, and
thus they are the 'highest bidder' for the politicians' votes


>
> > 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.

true, and only the energy industry are blocking efforts to require
reductions in CO2... my point is, that out of 2 groups, who want different
things... 1 group will have more money... and donate more money to those who
make decisions   often the difference in money is very large

>
> > 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.

no, that is a fact that was found in court... and it's not a judgement, it's
a revealing simply of who make decisions there, and what there conflicts of
interest are

many politicians are bought by the highest bidder.... when there is a bid,
there is only 1 winner, the highest bidder


>
> >>>>>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'm all for it, let's get some candidates in office that don'[t take any
contribution from any group standing to profit

>
> > 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?

it doesn't have to be me... or my family... or people in my state... or in
my country... or in my species

10 billion animals are killed yearly in the US, each one feels pain and
suffers, as evidenced by Temple Grandin who is respected by the animal
industry and hired by them to help reduce it

>
> 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.
>

??  everyone should be able to speak, as long as it's honest
everyone should be considered as 1, whereas corporations can recieve full
consideration
it's the corporations who control the media, it's happened that people
opposing the corps. have been barred from using the mainstream media
the corps are the ones who have favors owed to them because of their large
contributions
... it's the small people who have less ability...


> >>>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?

it doesn't have to be forced   omnivores don't have to be forced either
the point is that food will be required, and the jobs will shift... not be
eliminated

if someone could kill a few of my neighbors every year, or look for a
different job instead.....  both are negatives, but one's a bit bigger than
the other
how about kill a few dogs a year.....
or other animals...

>
> > 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?

obviously... and the same for plant foods

>
> >  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.

dogs can be eaten elsewhere     does the lack of law there mean the dogs
don't suffer, or it's okay?
it's illegal to kill cows in places.... does the lack of a similar law here
really represent any change in the actual killing of a cow
in some places a hand can be chopped off a thief... but it's illegal in the
US    is there any difference between a hand being chopped off,     I think
the law can be arbitrary and is not the ultimate guide of what to do
to simply do what is legal and avoid what is illegal is to blindly follow an
authority