There was some hope recently that the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, the organization charged with managing the Atlantic tuna fishery, would listen to its own scientists and ban commercial Atlantic bluefin tuna fishing so that the species might survive. Nope:
Environmentalists on Sunday warned bluefin tuna was on its way to extinction after a international meeting of fishery ministry officials trimmed catch quotas but upheld continued hauls of the fish, prized in sushi dishes.
“After meeting for 10 days, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) refused to end fishing for Atlantic bluefin tuna,” the Pew Environment Group, a U.S. organization that sat on in the meeting in Recife, Brazil, said in a statement.
“Instead, ICCAT set the catch limit for bluefin, considered the most valuable fish in the sea, at 13,500 tons,” it said.
...Yearly quotas set up by ICCAT are systematically exceeded by industrial fleets. That and illegal fishing have caused the population to decline by more than 85 percent in the eastern Atlantic and by more than 90 percent in the western Atlantic.
ICCAT “has failed once again to act beyond the interests of a few tuna fishing and farming industries,” Greenpeace said in a statement. “Again it has approved recommendations which fail to ensure the recovery of Atlantic bluefin tuna.”
The ICCAT has a long history of putting commercial interests ahead of the fishery. It was about this time last year that I discussed the “Tragedy of the Commons” debate regarding the bluefin tuna. So when news broke the other week that ICCAT’s scientists had called for a total ban—while others were hopeful—I was skeptical that the ICCAT as a group would follow through.
At the time, their own scientists observed that the bluefin tuna technically qualified as an endangered species, at least by international standards. And now that fact may be the only thing standing between the tuna and extinction—as Barry Estabrook pointed out, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) will consider a proposal at their next meeting in March 2010 officially to list the Atlantic bluefin tuna as an endangered species and ban international trade in the fish. Of course, even that ban needn’t be permanent. Other threatened fisheries have recovered and scientists expect bluefin tuna could come back within a decade, if properly managed. At this point, however, international groups have shown no ability to “properly manage” the fishery. Keep all that in mind next time you go out for sushi.
Ask Umbra’s video advice on making your own club soda
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 11:17 pm
17 Nov 2009
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/group-warns-of-failure-on-managing-tuna-sharks/
A very recent study by Oryx: The International Journal of Conservation had this to say:
"..The report examined the impact of consumer guides to ocean-friendly seafood, and noted that one of the first such programs, wallet cards produced by the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California, had resulted in no overall change in the market and no decrease in fishing pressures on the at-risk species it targeted..."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQ7DjyozW-Q3pUZ5ZEXEv6KjKcLA
...and I think I know one reason why:
http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/11/another-exercise-in-futility.html
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:59 am
18 Nov 2009
Permalink
Kirsten @ Nexyoo Posted 8:19 am
18 Nov 2009
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 1:10 pm
18 Nov 2009
In his mind, the proper solution to the problem of declining populations of fish lies in international outlawing of both long-line and dragging methods of harvesting ocean stocks. But fat chance of that happening as long as people are willing to pay extravagant prices for seafood.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 7:54 am
20 Nov 2009
I saw garbage beginning to accumulate in the Sargasso Sea back then, where today it's a swirling mire of plastic. It was once a major breeding ground for many species.
I saw the ocean dying back then. It's one reason I am a clean water advocate today.
I know how fragile the ocean is.
Japanese tuna fisherman would come into our waters to harvest tuna, even though they were not supposed to do it.
People have no idea what goes on out to sea to catch fish. There is so much waste.
There are floating fish factories which pull huge nets and catch everything behind them.
A friend from India once told me, "If Hindus ate fish, there would be no fish in the ocean. We would have fished the ocean out long ago."
Maybe people should be like the Hindus and just stop eating fish and give the ocean time to recover.
I know that fishing is an industry and there are people who depend on it for their livelihoods, but if there are no fish, they are going to lose their jobs eventually anyway.
It's a huge problem.
Permalink
Cliff Goudey Posted 1:22 pm
18 Nov 2009
I believe the demise of the bluefin is unlikely, but weak management will surely slow its recovery worldwide. Farming them is probably the best hope for meeting the market demand without putting wild stocks at risk.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 1:58 pm
18 Nov 2009
Bluefin need to be listed as endangered with a CITES designation. Then we could sue all the countries that would try to continue the 'harvest.'
Erik, Orion Grassroots Network
Permalink
Cliff Goudey Posted 3:11 pm
18 Nov 2009
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:20 pm
18 Nov 2009
Erik, Orion Grassroots Network
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 8:46 am
20 Nov 2009
The problem with fish farming is that a food chain is involved here. If one species disappears, it affect the chain.
And in fish farming, antibiotics, and other chemicals are used.
And that is another problem.
Permalink
Cliff Goudey Posted 3:36 pm
18 Nov 2009
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:52 pm
18 Nov 2009
Regarding tuna food, stable how long? is the question for forage fish. The track record for 'fisheries management' is not good. But I see that your background is in Fisheries Engineering Research (!?), so I don't blame you if you think it works.
I know that bunker don't go to tuna right now, but out in the real world, tuna eat menhaden, and in a world where the only tuna left are in ranches, we'll feed them whatever we can catch.
I don't think bluefin will thrive on soy. And if the oceans are harboring schools of baitfish that grow tuna better than beans, you can bet factory ships are going to hoover them up. That tragedy of the commons again. Hungry whales, happy sushi chefs.
Erik, Orion Grassroots Network
Permalink
Cliff Goudey Posted 4:42 pm
18 Nov 2009
Poor fisheries management should not be used as an argument against aquaculture. It should be an argument for better fisheries management. Right now the forage fisheries are less problematic than the predator species in part because forage populations are more influenced by environmental and climate factors than by fishing pressure.
Aquaculture is no substitute for proper fisheries management. But at least in a small way it can contribute to the conservation of the species being grown by increasing the supply and emphasizing the role of freshness and consistency.
Because of the high cost of fish meal, there is a lot of research going into alternative feed components - from soy to beer-making byproducts. Even more exciting is the move of aquaculture away from sheltered waters and into the open ocean. Some interesting insight can be found at: http://thenewaquaculture.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:13 pm
18 Nov 2009
Floating wind/wave/ocean current power platforms could shelter these sort of farming operation. They could double as energy producers and farm space. Lined up along coastlines out far enough to be invisible from shore they could shelter coastal fisheries.
Key food sources for the farm food chain, from algae up to baitfish could be hatched and go through accelerated growth in solar powered incubators. The farm could stick to natural organisms in a natural balance, but enhance the density of the living system in that area with extra air exchange and trace organic fertilizer from biodigestion systems.
Algae is a huge energy source too.
Permalink
Cliff Goudey Posted 3:46 am
19 Nov 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 8:56 am
20 Nov 2009
The need for continuation of the food chain is imperative for the overall health of the ocean
Fish farming is not the answer, just like huge corporate farming with feed lots is affecting the beef industry. We got mad cow from feeding cows what they shouldn't have been eating to begin with.
You are going to have more antibiotics in farmed fish, and that is one thing we don't need to put in our food.
And when you have penned fish, the pollution from a confined space will be like the manure ponds in land mammal farming.
I see the major problem to overcome is finding other types of jobs for fisherman, lol, and of course, other types of food sources for countries which depend a great deal on fish as a source of food.
But, fisherman are a special breed. Fisherman are like farmers....they never do well sitting at a desk under a florescent light.
The problem is going to get worse as the world population grows.
We do not have infinite resources.
But, people in India have survived for centuries without eating meat nor fish.
It's a matter of culture also.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 8:58 am
20 Nov 2009
Permalink
Sam Penrose Posted 4:42 pm
18 Nov 2009
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:31 pm
18 Nov 2009
Permalink
Terrigail Posted 1:45 am
19 Nov 2009
While I feel most strongly about the future of our nation...I would like to know of any specific actions that I might be able to do, within my limited physical abilities, that might help to further changes in our planet and the future.
While I care for "MY" country first,we all must be aware that we have an obligation to "Mother Earth" and can reach across the globe to others that also share our passion. We must all join together in an effort to protect our limited resources. Each of us has different "gifts" and "abilities" we are given that are "unique". Every person on earth has the ability to do "SOMETHING" that will help our world come together and that will encourage others to do the same. Please help me to find my "place"!
I sincerely hope there are many others in the world that also feel as I do but do not know "exactly" what "they can do" to to forward our cause as a planet. Maybe they are just waiting to hear from a reliable and informed source as to where they can apply their efforts that will make the most difference. As "just one person", I believe many feel as I do...that my voice does not count in the bigger picture. But if we all pull together...how can we be ignored?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:21 am
19 Nov 2009
Rabble rouse for a solution like this:
The ocean based energy/fish farming is the answer, 1000 ft diameter floating wave generators could house fish farms along the coastlines that physically block factory fishing. These generators would be ring shaped, a 50 foot wide floating edge of the 1000 ft ring would collect the wave energy breaking over the edge and send it around the ring in a channel that emptied through a turbine that collects the wave energy.
That would leave the central area protected and perfect for large pond nets that hold the fish farm, algae and smaller fish and microorganisms would circulate through the nets with algae filtered and collected for biodigestion energy and fertilizer production.
Wind and ocean current generator could extend upward and downward from the platform "energy ship". Each ship would have a crew that commuted from shore as with oil rigs, and electricty and fresh water (from desalination) could be transported to shore with underwater power cable/pipes.
The generator blades extending from the platform would prevent factory ships from fishing in coastal waters with their miles long, ocean life killing nets. These generators could be the equivalent of 50 megawatts of grid power each, with 20 of them equal to a coal or nuclear power plant.
Our shipyards could manufacture them like Liberty ships were made for WW II. With all our hi-tech manufacturing improvements. This is job building, coal killing, fish farming, ocean life saving, GHG canceling technology, just what the US needs to get our manufacturing base back. And pay down the huge debts we owe to our manufacturing competitors like china.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 9:06 am
20 Nov 2009
That's something we could all do.
You don't NEED to eat meat or fish.
I eat them both because I enjoy them and was raised that way.
But, I do eat them in moderation.
If we raised our children to eat the way Hindus eat, they wouldn't know the difference.
And they would be healthy also.
You don't need to eat fish or meat to be healthy. As long as you get enough protein and get the right vitamins and nutrients.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:23 am
20 Nov 2009
Then the ocasional sushi treat or salmon would be aok.
I think there is a way to have clean healthy ocean aquaculture as well as pond fish farming on land. The commercial profit motive is there already, and like Erik and others have noted it is creating more eco-problems and actually making it harder on wild species in most cases.
Meanwhile giant factory ships net wild fish to be ground up into chicken feed. When chickens could eat worms for protien, worms grown on organic waste biomass. Human industry is making a dying mess of the biosphere.
Too bad because it would seem all the technology exists to have prosperity and symbiotic eco-friendly industry and ag.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:34 am
19 Nov 2009
Farming shrimp leads to mind boggling devastation of mangrove forests worldwide. Mangroves are havens of biodiversity, and protect coastal communities from typhoons and tsunamis. Shrimp farms are also notorious for their human rights/labor violations. Their often forced laborers apply disgusting amounts of hormones and pesticides in the reeking lagoons with no protective gear. And we eat that whole gross package when we thoughtlessly eat shrimp.
Farmed salmon is causing the decline of wild salmon stocks. I would argue that canned salmon is a much better route. It's from wild fish, more often than not from fisheries which at least are not in precipitous decline.
Erik
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:57 pm
19 Nov 2009
She recommended only certain types of fish farming though so your critique does hold up, shrimp wasn't one her farmed recommenmdations. I agree on most aquaculture, it's as bad or worse than other chemical ag.
On a local level here I'm mainly thinking of trout, walleye, panfish, and crayfish (a substitute for shrimp) as freshwater pond raised fish, fed organically with worms grown on leaves and pine needles and organic garden waste. By filtering the water for merrcury constantly fish that are safe for children and pregnant women can be produced. And this would replace demand for waning stocks of wild fish.
The ocean farming scheme is similar, but the boost for the natural food chain would be organic fertilizer made from algae. The filtration of the algae and digestion to make the fertilizer would also make energy from biogas. It's a real long shot I'll admit. But given all three coastlines of the US with an installation that generates energy for the grid and houses a fish farm, placed every few miles, 100s of billions of dollars worth of fish and renewable energy and fresh water (from desalination) and really good jobs would be the result.
No slave labor needed, like the labor on factory ships that scour the seas. Try and get a factory fishing net past these floating farm/power stations, that would at least keep them out of a 10 or 20 mile zone from the coast.
I know purity of greeness is really trendy, but some compromises with crass commercialism might be helpful to mother earth. For instance, feeding the masses with cheaper, farmed fish, even bluefins, might just save wild populations about to become extinct. And there is absolutely no other way to save them. Treaties simply do not work.
Permalink
Clifford Wells Posted 2:25 pm
19 Nov 2009
I don't know my worldwide figures, but about 90 percent of commercial fishermen in the US have boats no longer than 40 feet, and they are mainly in the rod & reel category, with some lobster trapping, diving, harpooning, and other less damaging forms of fishing. That means that 10 percent of the fishing vessels, those "factory ships," are catching 90 percent of the biomass of the ocean. That simply bad policy and bad fisheries management.
Many fishermen, both commercial and recreational, feel the same way. Imagine you fishing away for your one or two of a species, and here comes a huge factory ship that scoops up 100 metric tons of fish? It ought to be a crime.
Offshore marine aquaculture is so absurd it doesn't merit serious consideration. But those "grow-out holding pens" for bluefin tuna should all be abolished.
Permalink
Cliff Goudey Posted 6:43 am
20 Nov 2009
I like your vision, but it is many years away. Ocean vave power is where wind power was 15 years ago. There is a ways to go before it becomes cost-effective. There are technologies available today to grow fish economically and sustainably in the open ocean. We need to begin now.
That said, I see no reason why the growth of open-ocean aquaculture has to come at the expense of commercial fishing. But again, effective management is essential.
Mr. Wells,
You can´t feed the world catching one fish at a time. Mandated inefficiency is not the answer, otherwise fish will be too expensive to buy.
Erik,
You´re doing exactly what I cautioned against. You are painting all aquaculture with the same brush that applies to two unsustainable examples. Please, broaden your sources of information on this.
Permalink
Clifford Wells Posted 7:52 am
20 Nov 2009
Nearly all red snapper are caught with "bandid" fishing reels with a hand crank and a line with 5 hooks on it. I could do on at length about how the Atlantic cod were all caught by handline until the advent of fish factory ships that decimated the Grand Banks. How about Pacific salmon? Ever see a salmon trolling boat like in San Francisco? Those are several lines pulled behind the boat and each fish is hauled in by hand, one at a time. For over 100 years, that's the way it was done.
True, for species such as shrimp, squid, sardines, pogies (menhaden), and other small fry, nets have always been used and probably will be forever. Let's not forget pot and trap fishing such as for black fish, crab and lobster. I have to quarrel with that logic.
But the evils of longline fishing are well known, and I am surprised you would back such a horrendously wasteful method of fishing. Their by-catch is extraordinary, often containing marlin, sailfish, shark, sea turtle, and birds - all for a relatively few swordfish or tuna. Much of the decline in oceanic shark and turtle species can be directly associated with longline fishing. At least most nets have turtle excluder devices, such as for the shrimp industry. Longlines have nearly 100% mortality for the by-catch, which is dumped overboard as waste.
It should be noted that a majority of the environmentalists and the fishermen was to get rid of the longliners, which can put out 10 to 40 miles of line at a time. Sorry, I don't buy that "level of effort" argument that the longliners and the NMFS are pushing. If a fish species is plentiful, you catch it by hand, less that 5 hooks at a time.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 8:19 am
20 Nov 2009
I understand the excitement in your industry over finally inducing bluefin tuna to breed in captivity, and peoples' hope that it will save the species (even Richard Ellis), but that remains to be seen. The experience so far with raising predators like salmon in open waters has set the bar pretty low for sustainability in other aquaculture efforts.
And understand I'm not coming at this from an animal rights perspective - I grew up working the fishing fleets of Long Island, have caught bluefin larger than myself, and still fish to this day, but not commercially b/c it was clear in the 80s what was coming in terms of the loss of fish populations. Pillage of some of my favorite fishing grounds turned me green.
But for your possible enjoyment, here's proof that I still catch tuna to this day, though a bonito is a bit different from a bluefin:
http://erikhoffner.com/erik.html
Erik
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 9:09 am
20 Nov 2009
Just like raising cattle and pigs in corporate feedlots is not the answer.
People do not NEED to eat so much meat and fish to begin with.
Permalink
Clifford Wells Posted 9:07 am
20 Nov 2009
And personally, I love mariculture, growing shellfish such as clams, oysters, and mussels. It's not a pelagic operation but an inshore activity, though, and you need clean water with some freshwater inflows.
My opinion of "caged fish" or grow-out pens in the ocean is very negative. Many are pushing for offshore aquaculture, which I think is a total fantasy and boondoggle. Many would rather see "wild-caught" fisheries be marketed, and if a species is over-fished, well lets put a temporary ban on their harvest until the population becomes sustainable. Fish aquaculture gives the illusion that the fish are plentiful, when in fact they could be severely endangered and the aquaculture operation only serves to concentrate sea lice, disease, wastes from feeding with additive medicines, and so forth.
The tuna grow-out pens of Mexico are a classic example, where "shorts" are fattened into maki-grade bluefin by hosing them with sardines in a large cage, all for the Japan trade. I don't know of a single American fisherman, commercial or recreational, who likes this practice. As was pointed out several times in Grist articles, perhaps you'd do better eating the sardines instead of the pelagics like bluefin tuna.
On that topic, tuna, if you want to eat tuna but are concerned about bluefin being near extinct, yellowfin and blackfin tuna are excellent substitutes that are not endangered (at least for now). Plus these "rougher" species of tuna are much smaller and younger than their bluefin cousins, which generally can mean less issues with mercury, histamine, and ciguatera toxicity.
As long as a bluefin doesn't go down into the "circle of death" and die, I promote catch-and-release for all incidentally caught bluefin tuna. If its dead, well ethically you should eat it.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 9:13 am
20 Nov 2009
I don't like catch and release either for sport fishing or any fishing.
How would you like to be caught with a huge hook in your mouth, and if possible, have it pulled or cut out and then thrown back in the sea?
People think "out of sight, out of mind" and NO ONE really knows how well those fish fare after they are released.
Permalink
Clifford Wells Posted 10:05 am
20 Nov 2009
By the way, we use de-hooking devices to ensure the fish is released unharmed. In fact, the only tournaments I will fish in are "no meat" contests, where only pictures are needed. Your remarks about hurting fish makes me believe you are not a deepwater fisher-person. I'm not trying to be offensive, just observant.
The future of many recreational fisheries is going catch-and-release and the Obama administration seems clearly behind it. Of course, the commercial fishing industry is a slaughterhouse and always was. The "Hindu" argument seems a tad irrelevant because there is a huge demand for seafood protein, even if that it not your particular fancy or disposition.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 10:12 am
20 Nov 2009
My father took me deepwater fishing off the Atlantic Coast from when I was a child.
I used to catch tuna for lunch back in the days when they were plentiful.
To me, sport fishing is cruel.
There is no reason for it except for human ego.
Sorry, I don't agree.
Here is an something about catch and release from Wikipedia:
Deep sea fishing and catch and release
While a number of scientific studies have now found survival rates of shallow water fish caught-and-released on fly and lure have extremely high survival rates (95–97%) and modestly high survival rates on bait (70–90%, depending on species, bait, hook size, etc.) emerging research suggests catch and release does not work very well with fish caught when deep sea fishing. New research indicates that bait mortality is more closely related to technique than to the fact that one is fishing bait, and that bait mortality is much lower than once thought. [10]
Most deep sea fish species suffer from the sudden pressure change when wound to the surface from great depths; these species cannot adjust their body's physiology quickly enough to follow the pressure change. The result is called "barotrauma". Fish with barotrauma will have their enormously swollen swim-bladder protruding from their mouth, bulging eyeballs, and often sustain other, more subtle but still very serious injuries. Upon release, fish with barotrauma will be unable to swim or dive due to the swollen swim-bladder. The common practice has been to deflate the swim bladder by pricking it with a thin sharp object before attempting to release the fish.
Emerging research [4] indicates both barotrauma and the practice of deflating the swimbladder are both highly damaging to fish, and that survival rates of caught-and-released deep-sea fish is extremely low. However, barotrauma requires that fish be caught at least 30 - 50 feet below the surface. Many surface caught fish, such as billfish, and all fish caught from shore, do not meet this criterion and thus do not suffer barotrauma.
And I don't think the "Hindu" argument is irrelevant.
Why can't we learn from much older cultures, who just may have a bit more insight as us? Why do Americans and people in the west think they know more than ancient civilizations?
Regards.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 10:27 am
20 Nov 2009
I watch fishing shows to improve my knowledge, but find their endless rounds of self-righteous catch and release a real turnoff. Putting holes in fish, ruining their all important slime membranes, tiring them out to near exhaustion, all for sport is crude. And kills more fish than any fishermen are willing to admit, whether they use fancy release techniques and gear or not.
Erik
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:31 am
20 Nov 2009
It turns out that guys like to go fishing. To me, it looks a lot like a gambling habit. Even buy-out programs fail to stop fishermen. They often use the money to buy another fishing boat and start fishing for another species.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 10:47 am
20 Nov 2009
I used to fish just for food at one time in my life. I would handline (Cuban style) off the shores of Key West. I can't tell you how many baby hammerhead sharks I caught for dinner. That was three decades ago. I bet there are no longer the amount of fish you can catch that close to shore there anymore.
Girls like fishing also if they are catching them for supper.
But, fishing for sport may be a male dominated activity.
And also, a bit like a gambling habit.
Good observation.
Permalink
CyberBrook Posted 10:53 am
20 Nov 2009
the lust for fish is killing the ocean (and more);
both are killing Earthlings in this sixth great extinction.
FishingHurts.com
Eco-Eating at http://www.brook.com/veg
Permalink
Clifford Wells Posted 10:58 am
20 Nov 2009
Alida, you are right about barotrauma, which applies mainly to reef fish such as grouper, tilefish, red snapper and other fish caught over 12 fathoms deep. We even have bladder ventilation tools for that, but you are correct most still won't make it down ... especially if you have any dolphin or shark around. For that, our solution was to keep all reef fish irregardless of size, and you can only catch "x" many per day. This would eliminate 100 percent of the throw-back mortality.
The fact is, the current NMFS regulations REQUIRE you to throw back any under-sized fish, and with deepwater reef species this is a horrible mistake that actually increased fish mortality rates. I didn't make up the rules here, and I think that requirement stinks. If you can only catch 2 or 5 fish a day, that's what you get and you can't cull 100 fish to get 2 or 5 keepers, leaving a trail of dead fish in your wake.
But that is what is called reef fishing or "ground fishing." All the pelagics we catch are on top of the water, excepting swordfish and bigeye tuna, which yes are usually caught deep - and eaten, too.
Finally, my point about eating seafood protein was meant collectively, worldwide, not individually such as how you feel. There is an immense demand for all kinds of protein, from corn and vegetables and rice to beef and tuna. If you want me to rant about it, many 3rd world countries can't even feed their people, yet they sell their fishing rights to European and Oriental companies to sell their fish (such as bluefin tuna) in expensive markets such as Japan. That's the travesty here.
Fortunately, the U.N. does have some programs to teach locals in how to catch fish, and even can provide boats and motors - several years ago a version of the South American "panga boat" was adopted for hook and line subsistence fishing. We're talking starvation here, not some rich kids with a sushi habit. A nice feature was that these panga boats also make excellent medical rescue boats, and are used in many islands of Micronesia now.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 11:03 am
20 Nov 2009
India had a problem feeding it's people at one time.
They never resorted to eating fish or meat...at least the Hindu's didn't.
And they are doing a great deal better now.
The problem in countries which can't feed their people is the infrastructure of their governments and their problems with war. And drought contributes, but that is a climate change challenge.
War causes those food shortages and lack of government.
Permalink
Clifford Wells Posted 12:01 pm
20 Nov 2009
By the way, child malnutrition in India, mainly from food shortages, is said to be worse than many sub-Saharan countries. It is one of India's best kept dirty little secrets. Compounding the problem, many of the river carp the locals enjoy so much live in waters that are heavily contaminated by mercury and other industrial toxics, so child dementia is even worse than the norm. By comparison, just about any other nation that consumes greater levels of fish have lower rates of dementia and Alzheimer's. In that study, beef was strongly linked with dementia and fish eating was inversely proportional to fish consumption. I thought that was interesting.
Stop eating beef, darn it!
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 5:03 pm
20 Nov 2009
For all I know, deodorant use and Alzheimer's disease could be a positive correlation.
Let's not go to diseases...I can quote all sorts of things about that.
My sister is a teaching M.D., with two specialties, and she's Phi Beta Kappa.
The fact is that the oceans are dying.
And fish species are imperiled, and it's going to get worse unless more is done.
There is already so much waste. In Costa Rica, the slaughter of shark for their fins is enormous. Policing it all is literally impossible, just like fisherman go out of their national waters all the time. And if you are out to sea, there is no policeman to give you a ticket for over-fishing.
It's too bad, and it's so sad.
And it IS horrible when a fish, which is undersized by law, must be thrown back in instead of consumed when there are hungry people. But, then that shows what a "gamble" fishing is. You don't know what you are going to catch all the time.
The ocean is going to be like my beloved Ohio River and many rivers....the fish are not even SAFE to eat.
And that is tragic.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:04 pm
20 Nov 2009
This news story says it all about the situation you mention:
Mangroves disappearing fast in Bhitarkanika:
http://www.kalingatimes.com/odisha_news/news2009/20090705_Mangroves_disappearing_fast_in_Bhitarkanika.htm
Erik
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 5:12 pm
20 Nov 2009
Buy pink shrimp. And even then, you can hope it's only been frozen or on ice since being caught.
I wouldn't eat black colored or gray colored shrimp, personally. No matter what they call it or say where it's from.
The same goes for buying or ordering "white" fish.
There is no such fish as a "white" fish. It can be many varieties, and the seller doesn't even know what kind it is.
And scallops can sometimes be shark meat cut to look like scallops.
They taste very similar.
Personally, I like EEL!
Regards!
Permalink
Clifford Wells Posted 10:39 am
21 Nov 2009
These marshes, including the tropical and sub-tropical mangrove belts, cleanse the water, provide a nursery for many juvenile marine organisms, and by the way can store an incredible amount of carbon. The story about the tiger shark in Bimini is a case study in how developments and marinas in mangrove thickets caused the tiger shark to quickly drop in numbers, not because of people catching them, but their pups could not grow up in their favored mangrove swamps. Some go as far as saying that the marsh can be responsible for many things that happen in the deeper ocean, such as the health of the coral reefs and the baitfish species such as shrimp. The absorbing effect of mashes and mangroves on hurricane energy and surge water has also been well documented.
Fortunately, mangrove grows very easily from its rather odd-shaped seeds that can float many miles. There are several universities and NGOs that can provide hundreds of thousands of mangrove seedlings that are very easy to transplant and are nearly indestructible. Unfortunately, not many people are interested in such coastal remediation, and often there just isn't any room to plant large tracts of them because the riparian areas have been destroyed, polluted, or developed.
Alas, as far as tuna are concerned, coastal marshes aren't a big factor except with respect to diminished baitfish on the Continental Shelf, perhaps.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 11:06 am
21 Nov 2009
The Sargasso Sea is a breeding ground also...and now filled with a huge mess of floating plastic...and much of it lines and such from fishing vessels. Do people actually believe that all vessels recycle their garbage also? People have been using the ocean as a garbage dump for decades.
The wetlands in our country are also being filled in. And many species are endangered.
The Hines dragonfly is now extinct in Indiana. Hardly anyone knows or cares about dragonflies, but they show the health of watersheds.
From the springs of the mountains to the rivers to the ocean, it's all connected. The Gulf Stream is a highway of activity, along with all the ocean currents.
When you disrupt one species on the chain, it is going to affect the whole chain.
Tuna, along with many species need protection.
But, how it is going to be done, remains to be seen.
Maybe we need more Sea Shepherd Conservation vessels out at sea keeping us updated on just what is going on out-to-sea. Captain Paul Watson rocks. He is taking up where Greenpeace left off. Perhaps we need more "sea activists" such as him and his crew.
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/sea-shepherd-news.html
Permalink