Greenpeace are at it again!

chrono_war01 said:
...they would say, "Let's have a vote." then, "Let's do a recount." When that's done, it's time for "Let's do a questionarrie and ask the general public.". And finally, l"et's see what the industry thinks." And if anyone disagrees or thinks of something new, then we can do it all over again!

Douglas Adams wrote something like that about Vogons, but I think it can apply to humans like Owen Symmans:

"Humans are one of the most unpleasant races in the Galaxy-not actually evil, but bad tempered, bureaucratic, officious, and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from a mesonychoteuthis without orders signed in triplicate, sent in sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters."
 
In the end, I think that all of the horrible things that are happening to the natural world come down to one problem, and it makes me salute all of the cults that get people to believe in mass suicide.

THERE ARE TOO MANY FRICKING PEOPLE!!!

More than not eating certain things, more than not driving certain vehicles, I think that the most responsible decision is not to have so many children. This has to be one of the most unpopular and most difficult decisions to stick with on the planet. It goes against nearly everything that means to be a normal human, not a normal person ( if such a thing exists), because like every other living thing, we are born to create more.

This is not me slagging people who have children, I like kids. It's just a statement of what I see as fact. Please don't take it personally, althought I am sure that someone will, because it is likely the MOST sensitive issue I can think of.

And no, I don't have any children, so I don't know what it is like to have them. But I do have a long term veiw of the world, and I do not fit into it, nor do my sperm.

And I'm tired and probably would not post this if I weren't, and it's off topic, but I felt that it should be said. Doesn't make it right.......Please excuse me.
 
I agree entirely, and I'm not entirely sure that it is off topic. I was a believer in ZPG, so we had the 2 children. Now I am a believer in negative pg, but if I had believed in that in the late 60s then there would be no Erich and the convention would be someone else's problem.
The urge to procreate is very stong in all animals, and for most of history it has served us well. Unfortunately, you would think that the ablility to make the strides in medicine that have enabled us to nearly wipe out most childhood diseases, transplant hearts, livers, kidneys and so many other things would mean that we are a race of intelligent beings, but if that were the case rationality would reign and we wouldn't be overpopulating the earth. It would be really nice if we could distinquish between our need for food and shelter, and our desire to consume. A lot of our environmental problems wouldn't even exist. Bottom trawling is but one very ugly manifestation of it.
Clear cutting, spewing of chemicals into waterways, creating miasmas of smog are all a part of our consumer culture, and we're killing our world. Even if we were still doing all of the above but there were far fewer people doing it we probably wouldn't be on the verge of catastrophic climate change. Of course the alternative is to stop doing all of those things, but we won't. It's always someone else's responsibility.......thus we put on blinders and refuse to see what is happening, and our part in it.
And Thus endeth the reading of the sermon for today.
Sorry about that...I tend to get a bit carried away on certain subjects.
 
This should not be a political argument (it is an environmental one). However, New Zealand's National party has just outlined what it will do!! My word - I'd certainly not vote for them (not that I ever have)!

National fisheries policy will lead to job losses

National fisheries policy will lead to job losses
Monday, 20 June 2005, 4:46 pm
Press Release: Forest And Bird
20 June 2005 - Wellington

The National Party's fisheries policy is likely to lead to greater destruction of the marine environment, more fisheries collapses and therefore further fishing industry job losses, according to Forest and Bird.

"The policy aims at removing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management which is in the 1996 Fisheries Act passed by National," said Forest and Bird's senior researcher Barry Weeber. "This policy will encourage greater over-fishing, more seabird and marine mammal bykill and the continued destruction of marine ecosystems by fishing methods such as bottom trawling."

"We're mystified by National's criticism of fisheries management as being too focused on ecosystems and preservation. It's nonsense because this has been the key area where the Ministry of Fisheries' has failed to fully implement the 1996 Fisheries Act," he said.

"If the Ministry had taken an ecosystems approach we wouldn't have seen the big loss of industry jobs from the closure of two of the orange roughy fisheries and the collapse of the hoki fishery."

"The long-term future of both industrial and recreational fishing is dependent on the maintenance of a healthy marine environment. It is very disappointing to see that the National Party is preparing to undermine that future."

"These policies are a radical departure from National's last term in office, and only offer New Zealanders depleted oceans and a collapsed fishing industry."

Key National Party policies released over the last week include plans to:

* Retreat from ecosystem based management of the oceans

* Promote aquaculture management areas and curtail the Minister of Conservation's role;

* Encourage fishing in Antarctic waters

"If Nick Smith had been brave enough to outline these policies at Forest and Bird's recent Annual Conference, there would have been an uproar."

"At our conference Nick Smith spoke about improving the management of the oceans and made the point that the last time National was in power it passed environmental laws like the Fisheries Act (1996). Yet the policies outlined just days later would gut those laws," he said.

"He told us that oceans policy needed reforming. He didn't tell us that National wanted to abandon environmental management of the oceans. The new Fisheries Policy represents a major retreat from the principles of ecosystem based management that National put in the Fisheries Act in 1996," he said.
 
It doesn't go far enough, but it's better than nothing.
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:26 a.m. ET June 16, 2005

FOSTER CITY, Calif. - Federal fishing regulators voted to impose a permanent ban on trawl fishing in nearly 300,000 square miles of Pacific waters off the West Coast, a move hailed by environmentalists as a landmark in marine conservation.

advertisement
The Pacific Fishery Management Council, which regulates West Coast fishing, chose a plan Wednesday that will ban bottom trawling in depths beyond about 4,200 feet and dozens of shallower areas believed to be critical habitat for groundfish such as rockfish, ling Cod and Dover sole.

The plan is aimed at protecting coral beds, kelp forests, rocky reefs and other sensitive fish habitat from trawling — a fishing practice in which weighted nets are dragged on the ocean floor to scoop up bottom-dwelling species.

“It’s a huge victory for conservation,” said Jim Ayers, Pacific region director for Oceana, which developed a plan similar to the one chosen. “It maintains economic opportunity for today’s commercial fishermen, but more importantly, it ensures economic opportunity for future generations.”

U.S. waters 3-200 miles off shore
The new regulations apply in federal waters that extend from three miles to 200 miles off the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington. California and Washington have banned trawling in state waters that extend three miles from the shore. Other types of fishing are allowed in the no-trawl zones.

Trawl fishermen were skeptical that the new regulations would boost declining stocks of West Coast groundfish, but did not think the trawling ban would hurt their livelihoods because most of the restricted areas are too deep for trawlers.

“I think the council’s selection minimizes the negative impact on the fishing industry,” said Pete Leipzig, who heads the Fishermen’s Marketing Association, which represents groundfish and shrimp trawlers.

Environmentalists say trawling destroys delicate sea-floor habitats. But fishermen say there’s no evidence that trawl fishing has affected the productivity of groundfish stocks that make up the foundation of West Coast commercial fishing.

The 14-member council chose the plan from more than a dozen proposals offered by environmentalists, fishermen other interest groups. The council will recommend action to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is expected to implement the new regulations early next year.

Earlier move in Alaska
The council’s decision follows a similar move by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council which voted in February to ban bottom trawling on more than 370,000 square miles off the Alaskan Coast.

In recent years, the government has declared the West Coast groundfish fishery an economic disaster due to a combination of overfishing and poor ocean conditions. Nine species were declared overfished, some fisheries were closed and the groundfish fleet was cut by a third to allow remaining boats to earn a better living.

Environmentalists said Wednesday’s decision won’t just help groundfish species recover, but will protect delicate sea-floor ecosystems that scientists are just beginning to study.

“There’s whole world down there that people don’t know about,” said Karen Garrison, who heads the ocean initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s beautiful, it’s fragile and it’s full of life.”
 
Fireworks tomorrow night

Deep Trouble
Environmentalists describe their boats as weapons of mass destruction, their practices as barbaric and their actions as criminal but some deep sea trawler fishermen call those environmentalists hairy hippies. Pete Cronshaw investigates what has escalated into more than a war of words as environmentalists target New Zealand's bottom trawling fishing industry. Is there really an underwater environmental disaster going on just off our coasts?

Error 404
 
You can actually see the show if you click on the link below the picture ... but those on dialup might not be too happy (it's ~ 12 minutes long).

We've just finished filming another piece today, but this is unlikely to air until October (and will be a domestic telecast only). In the meantime, I thing there's a segment to air on Discovery Channel (Australasia) on 14 July - a programme called 'One Step Beyond'. I was told that the fishing segment aired on this 'current affairs' programme, but haven't seen it and am not entirely sure. It's ~ 10.30pm NZT, ~ 6-7pm Ausi time. We did it late last year, but it's still topical. There's another segment likely to air on an Australian programme called 'Dateline' that we did several weeks ago, but I haven't a date for that either.
 

Shop Amazon

Shop Amazon
Shop Amazon; support TONMO!
Shop Amazon
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Back
Top