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
>
> 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.

'my side' isn'tr really a side.  i want peace and happines for people and
animals both, so my side is everyone's side.    it's possible to live
without eating fish, but it's not possible for a fish to live when it's
being caught to be eaten

"peculiar diet"   you could also use the phrase "more healthy diet"    when
you eat meat, it's normal    when you don't eat meat, then that is normal
different than the majority isn't neccessarily harmful, "follow the masses
only if you feel it is best to, not simply because everyone else is"




>
> >>>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.

trees wouldn't be deforested at the rates they are naturally, ground water
would not be depleted, soil wouldn't be eroded at the same rate, air
wouldn't be building up CO2
... those credible sources make it clear that humans are not preserving, but
are degrading and depleting, neccessary resources for life



> <...>
> >>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.

so you are saying all the clean-up efforts didn't help the situation at all?

>
> > 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

this wasn't a specific point i made
 it is interesting, thank you.  Still a big oil spill has killed several
animals and has left the spill area less healthy than it once was... this is
not actually a good thing.    And it's not the course of the degradation of
our water, soil, air, and trees either.     spilling and cleaning up oil,
and deforestation are very different things

>
> >>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?

providing healthier food, which doesn't require killing as many animals, and
informing the healthiness of it...is not propaganda... it's information
advising people to exercise may not be followed either, but it's surely not
propaganda

soy milk sales have been *growing* at over 20% a year
http://www.newhope.com/nfm-online/nfm_backs/apr_02/soy.cfm

in 2001 there was more than $1.8 billion in soyfood sales
http://www.spins.com/natural/soytrends.pdf

people are obviously eating these foods,  20% grow is pretty high.. the
population isn't increasing at 20% a year, so a lot of people are starting
to drink soymilk at a fast rate

>
> >>>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.

i agree.. i think that ban wouldn't go anywhere.  it'd be like peta trying
to get McDonalds to stop running business, instead of getting it to make the
changes they made
..compromise and small steps are good to use
those measures would help some variables, but they would still cause many
fish being killed each year

>
> >>>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.

i don't sabotage the resources that allow me to profit... enron, and some
fishing businesses, and BMS, and loads of other companies are
...regardless, some fish populations are being reduced and in danger, so
obviously some fishing groups are doing this

>
> > 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.

"fish" is made up of many fish
similarly, it would be possible to kill million of "men" each year and still
have a sustinable population of "man"

>
> <snip>
> >>IRRELEVANT.
> >
> > business
>
> What do you do for a living?

i invest, trade stocks

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

"Two sides of the
story,
> >>>>and you're going against the one for jobs, a strong economy, and a
> >>>>sustainable future."

that side is the one that's depleteing and degrading the resources, strong
economy?  the stock market of all the large companies has dropped more than
30%, a third of it's value, in the last 3 years alone,  their earnings are
very low,  many companies have gone BK bankrupt,   all the workers of the BK
companies have to look for new jobs, and all the companies downsizing are
left looking for new work also    the capitalism side has badly hurt the
golden goose to try to get more eggs at once... and now the goose is in very
bad health and it will be a while before the economy will be strong again


>
> >>>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.

yes, and only 1 side wins.      when one side tried to get the legal
drinking limit for driving lowered, the resturant and bar groups were
protesting... sometimes one "side" is actually doing something that will be
helpful


>
> > 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.

they don't, but i follow the big 1 party, and Bush has a big record of doing
the opposite of his campaign promises, and also doing the opposite of what
he's asked to do... especially on the very high-stake issues... the small
issues are easy
   a case in point is that americans have overwhelmingly wanted GMO foods to
be labelled, by credible sources doing the polling... the FDA even did it's
own poll... but the FDA and the gov't refuse to label them, even though
their reasons are "unreasonable"
people commonly say voting is between the lesser of 2 evils, and there are
common jokes that campaign promises aren't kept- these are known things
the big politicians get into office by the image, and once in they can do
pretty much what they want.  Clinton is caught having lied under oath to a
federal grand jury, and nothing happens???     there are some well-intention
politicians out there Boxer and others, but many of them collect money from
the people from taxes and live quite luxuriously.   money and politics,
because politics is power that allows more money, and it takes money to get
into politics

>
> >>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???!!).

it is largely true, and you brought up the issue


> > 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.

i'm not pro and anti anyone, only pro-everyone and anti-big biz at the
expense of the majority

global warming, genetically engineered foods, CO2 reductions, aresenic
levels in water, mountain-top cutting, waste water acts, fuel efficiency
increase    there are loads where the big biz's are given the vote


>
> >>>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.

more importantly than being part of the majority or not (why simply blindly
conclude that following the majority is good, and being in the minority is
bad?)  is there anything the PCRM says that isn't backed up by credible
science?

self-serving... misleading...  what part did you find was inaccurate?


>
> > 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.

there are so many cases of this, it's simply if you've done any research
then you know about it

>
> >>>>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.

democracy is each person gets their own vote and it counts as one
we do not have this..
how would eliminating  'giving the advanateg to those with those most money'
hurt democracy?
why should the amount of money one has  have anythinhg to do with who gets
elected?


>
> >>>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?

what is confusing?

>
> >>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.

people have been barred... fact

the corporation who have ties to the media do not want, and will not let
information be spread that threatens their profits
Monsanto has done this also
there is no blame, it's simply what has happened

After a five-week trial and six hours of deliberation which ended August 18,
2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted
intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news
reporting on BGH."  In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat
to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for
the termination... and the jury awarded $425,000 in damages which makes her
eligible to apply for reimbursement for all court costs, expenses and legal
fees.
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/


>
> > ... 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.

the small groups and people have less ability to express their views and to
express information

>
> >>>>>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 care about them, so that label doesn't hold up exactly.     exactly,
everyone does good,  but helping some while killing others is something some
people feel uncomfortable with
cockfights kill some and help others
dogfights do too
so does stealing dogs for medical use
these are all common, and some people feel that people are not all everyone
who should be considered

> >>>
> >>>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 it was a honest and practical effort, i'd support it.  i'm not saying
force it on people, simply have the nutritional advice be scientific and
have plant foods be widespread and available
allow soymilk to be substituted in schools for cows milk, it meets all the
nutritional reuqirements and is not linked to diabetes like milk is, had no
issues with lactose intolerance, and has no cholesteral either

someone growing up eating plant foods will not miss animal foods.  i don't
miss animal foods
all we really want it convenience and taste and nutrition... few people have
'an animal being killed' as a requirement for them to enjoy a food

>
> > 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?

these are analogies     animals are killed for food, or people can eat
different foods

>
> >>>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.

got stats comparing the two?

>
> >>> 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.

i'm tolerant of actions that don't abuse or harm others against, or limit
their ability to live as they wish.    women being barred from education is
a cultural practice in some areas,  there are practices that are very
disgusting and demeaning to women that are culturally acceptable

a women being barred from education is the same thing... don't matter if it
happens here or somewhere else.... the location doesn't change the
consequences

help or harm isn't dependent on location


>
> > 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.

if you value human life.... plant diets have been credibly found to reduce
disease, and to preserve resources, cause less pollution, kill less animals,
pollute the water less, deplete the water less, pollute the air less, cause
less soil erosion.....

>
> > 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.

it's not culture that is important... it's what the 'natural consequences'
of an action are.     in some cities at night it's accepted that you may be
mugged, in others it isn't... clearly you don't want to be mugged any more
simply because it's accepted

>
> > 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.

if a dog is being killed he or she doesn't care much about if s/he's a legal
property of some individual     just like if you're being killed you
wouldn't care about your legal status..... the point is that things are
helpful or harmful because of natural consequences, and not because of what
laws say     consequences exist naturally, laws were "created" to attempt to
define them, and laws are also changed suggesting that they aren't the
ultimate authority

if you blindly trust laws, and you blindly follow someone else's opinions,
laws are created by other people