Posted on 10/30/2008 6:25:29 AM PDT by cogitator
If they’re being over fished then that’s a problem. But that’s a problem with the over fishing not with the use. When captured fish becomes food for ANYTHING it’s not wasted, the headline and core of the article are wrong, harvesting food and making it food is fine. If we’re harvesting too much well then we need to deal with that, but how it’s being used doesn’t determine if it’s too much, the existence of a breeding population of the creature and things that naturally feed on the thing determines if it’s too much.
Sorry, this is alarmist baloney. But then, Cogitator, you've shown that you swallow alarmism hook, line and sinker. (Yes, I did read your 'about' page. It told me all I needed to know.)
That was interesting, albeit stupid, reading, thanks for pointing it out.
But then, Cogitator, you've shown that you swallow alarmism hook, line and sinker. (Yes, I did read your 'about' page. It told me all I needed to know.)
Thanks for the love, guys. Read these, and feel free to continue questioning my alarmism and nuttery. It's healthy and it keeps me balanced. Your insights are valuable and I appreciate your opinions and viewpoints.
Big-Fish Stocks Fall 90 Percent Since 1950, Study Says
'Only 50 years left' for sea fish
Reference: Jackson et al. Colloquium Paper: Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0802812105.
Strange, as it doesn’t cover the fish that are the subject of the article. Hmmm.
Notice the vast majority of those starting dates are “pristine” which means they’re just guessing, they don’t actually know what the bio mass was ever but now they’re saying it’s dropped 60 70 or 80 percent from some unknown level that existed at an unknown time.
It does: “Small pelagics” in estuaries and coastal seas, estimating a 45% decline. Because small pelagics like menhaden are filter feeders, and other small pelagics eat zooplankton, they tend to be found in higher productivity coastal areas (such as the menhaden fishery in the Chesapeake).
It’s all a guess, anyway. I don’t believe thses numbers at all.
It's not "guessing". They used historical records, archaeological data (like shell middens), sediment cores by counting fish bones, historical records from fishing fleets and coastal communities, and more recently, more detailed assessments. You can read this to get a flavor:
"Jackson unearthed historical records showing the British slaughtered as many as 13,000 turtles a year in the Cayman Islands alone. From those and other records, he estimates there were once 45 million turtles swimming around the Caribbean."
You can certainly examine and question the accuracy of the "pristine" estimates, but they do have methods for making them.
Picture of an aboriginal shell midden (taken in 1958).
Their next move will be to call for the Mr. Wu (of ‘Deadwood’ fame) method of hog feeding.
Except that many other animals are also omnivores, such as chickens and other birds, and certain fish, and given the chance will similarly eat members of their own species, and I don’t believe Leviticus forbids the consumption of most birds or fish.
Actually it is guessing. Any attempt to figure out how much of whatever living thing there was before people showed up is guessing. They might have some evidence and techniques to use to make it an educated guess, but it’s still a guess.
The concept of sustainability assumes a static nature system. There is no such principle in nature as sustainability. All creatures seek to exterminate other creatures. When that food supply drops below harvestable levels it is abandoned for another or the predator dies out.
The extermination rate is nearly 99% as a function of natural selection. Why are these dummies trying to fool with Mother Nature?
The assumption that humans as arguably the dominant species should act in ways that contradict natural law is based on anxiety laden psychology, not science. It is our duty to wipe out every species possible. Only then will they be replaced with a rainbow of new species. You gotta love nature.
Specifically, what was 'stupid' about it? Have you read his 'about' page?
So human beings would just ‘evolve’ not to eat fish, right? ::::sarc tag in case it is needed::::
Claiming algore’s political hoax glubull warming is real is stupid. The spurious evidence posted is stupid. the whole premise is stupid.
one-third of the world's marine fish catches are ground up and fed to farm-raised fish, pigs, and poultry... disregarding the serious overfishing crisis in our oceans... "Forage fish" include anchovies, sardines, menhaden, and other small- to medium-sized fish species which are the primary food for ocean-dwelling marine mammals, seabirds (especially puffins and gulls) and several large fishes. Currently, catches of forage fish are predominantly used in animal feed, but these species are highly nutritious and well-suited for direct human consumption.Soylent Green is people!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.