Steve O'Shea said:In another thread:
A very good point (although I disagree with harvesting whales). The word that catches my eye however is 'sustainable'. This brings me to an alternative way of 'sustainably harvesting' fisheries resources.
People hail the Quota Management System [QMS] as the best way to sustainably manage fish stocks, assuming you have an accurate way to assess those fish stocks, and know the fundamental biological data about species life histories and interconnectedness with their environment. Sadly we know too little about their life histories, and almost nothing about trophic interconnectedeness.
I would like to see an alternative 'QMS' developed. We know that it is the effort (trawls, dredges, frequency) that damages the environment (sea bed and water column), and removes from the system (ecosystem) huge numbers of bycatch species that are of no commercial value and are discarded. As we pillage the environment, increasing effort to catch fewer fish, we end up doing more damage to it ('Catch Per Unit Effort' [CPUE] decreases, Total Catch may remain the same, but environmental damage increases).
Why don't we quota the effort?
Example: "The fishing industry is allowed to conduct 'x' trawls within a given area any given year, regardless of CPUE"
How could a system like this be developed?
Steve O'Shea said:It makes sense to have observers do this sort of work, but the problem lies in the diversity of species retained in these trawls/dredges. For instance, here are a few pics of typical bycatch (invertebrate) from a scampi trawl. Very(!!!) few scientists can identify this stuff, so the expectation that an observer without formal scientific training could do it would be a bit much. If you asked me to identify the finfish bycatch then I'd struggle (my expertise is with invertebrates only). Finding someone with skills in both invertebrate and fish identification would be a major challenge!
Anyone want to have a guess as to what these animals are? They're not the most charismatic of beasts, but they are important nevertheless.
I'm with stupid. (Agreements all around).chrono_war01 said:We have over fished almost everything that's edible in the ocean for the pass like what? 50 years? The ocean can only absorb the loss of a few more entire ecosystems before the whole thing collapses like a pile of bricks right on our heads. There is no sustainable fishery, we have gone to far down the road of destroying our planet to have anything that can be salvaged and be restored to even what would be a shadow of its former self.
But to heck with it! We all love our favourite diarrhea fish which were caught by obliterating said fish's habitat. After all, global warming is just a myth, just like the myth and nonsense about the "harms of bottom trawling" Pfff..everyone knows that bottom trawling is done on clear sandy beds without harming the environment! If we've done in for years, why not continue, it'd be one heck of a way to go, engineering the destruction of the entire human race by trawling some place that nobody would probably see. HOOOYA!
Heavens; there's a leak, a spy ... someone has been reading my mail! There's a forthcoming Greenpeace release (July) wherein we refer to this as the 'Jenga principle'.chrono_war01 said:... before the whole thing collapses like a pile of bricks...
sorseress said:What is so blinkin' frustrating is how few people seem to be paying attention! It's not just the oceans either....entire ecosystems in tropical rainforests are being clear cut or slashed and burned out of existence. We're losing species we didn't even know were there. ARRRGGGGhhhhh!
Amen.cthulhu77 said:Don't know if I agree with that...there is a plethora (and not a plethora of pinatas) of scientific programming on tv today...the base is that people typically care about their personal surroundings, and the immediate effects of those surroundings, rather than taking the long view.
What we need is rather a change in human mentality.