Freeze on Fishing
Rapidly depleting fish reserves have experts predicting that unless a worldwide fishing ban is put into effect, species vital to our ecosystem will become endangered. Callum Roberts, professor of marine conservation at the University of York, suggests that 20-40% of ocean waters must be protected for at tleast 20 years to restore fish productivity.
Currently, only 0.7% of the world's oceans are protected, compared to 12% of the world's land, over 171 times the difference. Unfortunately, the proposal is so large that activists are worried fishing industries will refuse to comply.
For those who want to change habits on an individual level, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program, and the Greenpeace Retail Seafood Sustainability Scorecard give a list of threatened fish to avoid eating.
Tweet- 5-8-09
- Stephen Hershey's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
I think this is a good example
of where harm reduction is a better strategy than to attempt 'harm elimination.' A worldwide fishing ban of that scale will never fly. How about making a baby step or two first, if they expect something to actually happen. Otherwise we can expect insurmountable resistance to any initiatives to protect fish species. An all-or-nothing stand is a good way to make sure nobody takes you seriously, IMHO.
www.raptitude.com -- The gentle art of sanity amidst civilization
It's only the truth
Yes, but these experts are just telling the truth. People need to hear these things, because with all the lies swirling around within the big lie of consumer culture, we need all truth we can get.
baby steps can work to get things done, but at an exponentially slower rate. Time isn't on our side. When people start hearing things like this, it is nothing less than a wake up call. You can't dilute the truth, then it is made false. These experts are not going to make their findings less scary or inconvientient.
The thing is, even if the fishing industry doesn't comply (which will most likely happen), people can use this knowledge to change their own minds and habits. If people see what we need to do, and that the companies aren't doing it, some may eat less or no fish in order to make the change for themselves.
The only reason that we fish so much is because we all eat it, and there are too many of us. People need to atually know what is going on, and not pass the blame to the fishing industry. We need to take accountability for what we are doing, and stop eating so much fish for ourselves.
We don't need some law to stop overfishing, we need to stop consuming it with an assumption of unending supply. The difference between an international law being passed about it and people making a change by and for themselves is that the latter is self empowering.
I don't think that they are taking an "all or nothing" stand on the issue. I think that they are stating the facts in hopes of getting whatever positive vhange they can.
Babysteps have been made too. In the article it talked about MPAs and how they have helped fish populations in some places.
We don't need some law to
Not to be pedantic but how
Tell your mother you love her.
This is a water planet.
Look first to the source of water for our troubles and our strength. If we're fucking with that particular ecosystem in a big way, then we better watch out. This is galactic knowledge, you don't need special skills to see this.
Let's say America stops fishing the oceans, we still have the rest of the world to contend with, and all those other countries are just as dis-empowered as ours, and just as led along by governments as we are, and their governments are just as stupid as ours. Can we really expect them to listen?
Feedback loops are non-existent in this world until someone close to a rich person dies. Then things happen.
I think it's probably not a bad idea to hold the superstition that if we send our love to Mother Earth and her Ocean, our loving intention and benevolence, then perhaps we'll be psychically led to safety when the next, "fuck you, humans!" comes around...
Just a thought.
I'll remember that
Next time I'm pissing in the woods I'll be sure to the thank the Gaian mother for that privilege. I am so sure chuckle-headed ecomysticism is gonna save my ass from whatever catastrophe's headed our way. Maybe if we propitiate her with some volcano virgin sacrifices she'll go easy on us.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's too late for baby steps to save some of the most heavily impacted fish species. They might bounce back after a couple or three human generations if we did something dramatic right now, but that doesn't seem likely to happen. I guess the least we can do is vote with our buying power, such as it is.
I adore fresh wild salmon, and it's extremely healthy for you. It breaks my heart to consider going without, but if that's what it takes to save the species I'll do it. How ironic to think that my grandfather, a retired sea captain, used to eat salmon every day because it was cheap. He thought he was making sacrifices to economize. Being a skinflint helped him live to a ripe old age. But that was a long time ago.
The collapse of fish stocks is the strongest suggestion I know of that there are in fact more people on the planet than the planet can happily support. It's not as if folks can be accused of eating too much fish. Don't nutritionists tell we're supposed to? Isn't fish one cornerstone of a healthy diet? Or so I've heard it said. Yet most people don't chowf the stuff down like they do Big Macs (which are bad for you). The fish is there, so we it eat. If it's disappearing too fast, that suggests we've allowed our numbers to grow too great.
I don't like to believe this. I hate Thomas Malthus. I'd much rather believe with Bucky Fuller that the planet can sustain even more people at an ever-improving universal standard of living. I would love to see some compelling evidence supporting the latter contention. But so far I'm not seeing it. This disturbs and disappoints me. If you know of any evidence to support (generous loving) Bucky against (ruthless imperialist) Malthus, please let me know. I can use some buckying up.