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

I've already said I know that some species are overfished. I offered a 
couple solutions to the problem, neither of which would displace workers 
or deny favored foods to consumers. I'm waiting for the people on your 
side of the issue to come forward with proposals that don't require 
others to adopt novel, peculiar diets and don't put entire industries 
out of business.

> > > 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

I never said it was. I suggested you look at Alaska's systems for fish 
which were once on the brink. Their solutions have resulted in win-win 
situations for fishermen, consumers, and fishing stock.

<snip>
> > <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

To a certain degree, true. A lot of degradation of resources, though, is 
natural and completely unrelated to human activity. Nature is in flux. 
It will remain in flux regardless of our activities.

<...>
> > 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.

Nonsense. I remember the activists saying that washing birds and otters 
would only save their lives in the short run but that long-term problems 
would persist because there was no way to remove the tarry oil from the 
coast.

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

See the following link, which gives a rather cautious answer to 
long-term consequences. Regardless of their caution, they do not dispute 
that the Sound has recovered much faster than predicted.
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/bat2/recovery.html

> > 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

It's thoroughly irrelevant if they're going to continue with old dietary 
patterns. Why should we throw money at propaganda, I mean information, 
aimed at getting people to do things they won't?

> > > 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

I've already ceded those species. Why should we ban all fishing of all 
fish in the North Sea, around the Falklands, and the Gulf of California? 
That's an extremist measure since many other species in those areas have 
healthy populations. The proposal from the article Chelsea posted also 
fails to consider other measures -- like quotas and size limits -- that 
could help satisfy consumer demand and help the affected species rebound 
quickly.

> > > what did enron do,
> >
> > IRRELEVANT.
>
> not really, business is business... fishing is done for profits

*You* work for profits. Enron is thoroughly irrelevant to the issue 
since they were involved in energy, not fishing. Stick to the damn topic.

> 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

There are options available to sustain the fish and the fishermen.

<snip>
> > IRRELEVANT.
>
> business

What do you do for a living?

<...>
> > > > 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.

I'm waiting....

> > > 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?

No, both sides play the same freaking game.

> 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

That's not quite how it works. Politicians are ultimately responsible to 
constituents, not to supporters and lobbies. I don't question that 
contributions grant access and even curry some favor, but politicians do 
not operate solely at the behest of contributors.

> > 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... 

Not entirely true on a few accounts, but it's off topic (can you stay ON 
topic???!!).

> 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

And irrelevant in the whole scheme of things. Some of the toughest 
environmental laws we have, like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, 
were pushed by conservative Republican presidents.

> > > 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

It's irrelevant and has nothing to do with commercial fishing. PCRM are 
an extremist group. Their self-serving and misleading summaries of their 
lawsuits don't reveal anything except their own bias.

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

Irrelevant, not true, and off topic.

> > > > 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

That's not how our system works. Thank God the Courts managed to get one 
case right. They threw out the last BS attempt at campaign finance 
reform because it violates every democratic principle.

> > > 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

Huh?

> > 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

You've advocated less free speech for corporations and industry in the 
last few posts you've made. Last time I checked, the right of assembly 
was guaranteed in the Constitution. So was the right to free speech. So 
was the right to redress government. PACs and industry groups have as 
much right to lobby as you or your favored nitwit organizations have. 
That's the beauty of our republic.

> it's the corporations who control the media, 

So?

> 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

Bullshit. You're not barred from the media. They'll cover you if you 
have anything of interest to say or add. Marginal groups are 
uninteresting to the rest of us. Most Americans don't give a rat's ass 
about the Green Party, CP-USA, or any other backassward leftist group's 
stances. You can start your own network, your own newspaper, your own 
website. Don't blame corporations for your marginal and uninteresting 
views, and don't blame the public for shunning your silly message.

> ... it's the small people who have less ability...

You're clueless, dude. You can start your own network. Why aren't there 
many liberals in talk radio? It's because nobody cares about liberalism; 
there's no market for liberals. You're marginal and politically irrelevant.

> > > > > 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

You talked about supporting the ban IF government would urge people not 
to turn to natural substitutes for seafood, i.e., other meat. If they're 
not gonna eat meat, they're gonna eat plants. Isn't that what you hoped 
for in your first post in the thread, a plant-based diet?

> 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

Huh?

> how about kill a few dogs a year.....
> or other animals...

Huh?

> > > 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

More people are hired in meat and meat processing.

> > > 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 a cultural, aesthetic issue. I'm fairly tolerant of other cultures.

> 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

Bogus issue, as above. It's a cultural, religious, aesthetic issue. My 
only grievance with your example is that it's illegal to kill cows where 
people are starving. I value human life over animal life.

> 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,     

So? Bogus issue.

> 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

Shit. How many bong hits did you take last night, dopey? You're all over 
the place. The point remains that someone just can't come up and eat 
your dog. Our laws aren't so arbitrary when it comes to private property 
rights, and your dog is considered private property in most states. Next 
time, stay on topic or start a new thread.