3 ms·

The only way to preserve tuna is not to eat wild captured fish and farmed carnivore fish (they're fed bycatch, 1 kg of farmed fish upto 5kg of bycatch). Comme

by myshpa 3y ago

The only way to preserve tuna is not to eat wild captured fish and farmed carnivore fish (they're fed bycatch, 1 kg of farmed fish upto 5kg of bycatch). Commercial fishing is extremely destructive industry, with huge amount of bycatch, no real oversight, no limits, and huge plastic pollution (46% of pacific garbage patch is fishing nets). https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts Bluefin tuna is one of the most expensive fish on the planet. Highest value of bluefin tuna: $3,100,000, conservation status: endangered Bluefin tunas are warm-blooded and can accelerate faster than a Ferrari Today only 3% of Pacific bluefin tuna remain A Mitsbishi subsidiary controls 40% of the worlds blue fin tuna https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/revealed-the-bid-to-corner-world-s-bluefin-tuna-market-1695479.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/revealed-t... Bluefin tuna frozen at -60C now could be sold in several years' time for astronomical sums if Atlantic bluefin becomes commercially extinct as forecast, a result of the near free-for-all enjoyed by the tuna fleet. https://fiskerforum.com/mitsubishi-hoards-frozen-bluefin-tuna/ https://fiskerforum.com/mitsubishi-hoards-frozen-bluefin-tun... It is observed that if the fish goes commercially extinct, the company is hopeful that it can turn a hefty profit from its frozen bluefin cache. Conservationists informed that legally commercial hauls are limited to 22,000 tons per year, but the actual catch is 60,000 tons, more than four times the maximum sustainable level. By its own estimates, Mitsubishi controls 35 to 40 percent of that stock.

rex_lupi 3y ago
Corporations controlling the existence of an entire species. Sickening.
- Fatty123 3y ago
  Shouldn't they then be legally liable?
  - myshpa 3y ago
    They're operating in legal space, for sure. Buying fish from others and freezing it for later use is not illegal. The rules of the game need to change. However, imposing limits isn't the solution (we have them now, and they're ineffective and practically unenforceable).
henearkr 3y ago
Like elephant ivory worldwide ban, a worldwide ban on the trade of bluefin could be extremely effective, and would undermine Mitsubishi's stupid plans.
- myshpa 3y ago
  A lot of them would still end up as bycatch. Of course, a ban might not solve the problem entirely, but it would certainly help. Btw, even though the elephant ivory ban is better than nothing, elephants are still facing extinction. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56510593 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56510593 Extinction: Elephants driven to the brink by poaching
inconceivable 3y ago
> A Mitsbishi subsidiary controls 40% of the worlds blue fin tuna lmao if this were a chinese company you can be sure tuna would be banned overnight.
MostlyStable 3y ago
I would avoid such black and white statements as "Commercial fishing is an extremely destructive industry". The term "commercial fishing" encompasses a multitude of different places, methods, regulatory regimes, monitoring practices, and more, and they range from _extremely_ well managed and sustainable to utterly disastrous. Bluefin Tuna happens to be one of the worst, because it's one of the very few where the species is so valuable that as it gets rarer, the price just climbs and continues to justify ever smaller catches. This is pretty bad for Bluefin Tuna, and could result in it being the first every commercially fished marine fish species to go extinct (yes; that's correct: no marine fish species has _ever_ gone extinct from human fishing). I'm an ecologist who got his degree in fisheries ecology. I'm very much in favor of better, more cohesive fisheries management. But I don't believe we will make any progress by tarring entire industries. All you do is create enemies out of allies.
- myshpa 3y ago
  I understand that commercial fishing, like everything else, is complex and diverse with both good and bad actors. However, if it were balanced, fish populations wouldn't be in such a dire state. This suggests to an outsider that the majority of the industry is harmful, and as such, I have no sympathy for it at all. Considering the fact that fishing is decimating fish populations globally (even sharks are facing extinction due to overfishing, bycatch, and plastic pollution) and causing havoc on sea floors with trawling for example, I don't feel sorry for having such a black and white viewpoint. > But I don't believe we will make any progress by tarring entire industries Considering that meat consumption is not essential for our sustenance or health, I believe that the only way to prevent further environmental damage and restore biodiversity is to ban all forms of animal farming, marine aquaculture, and fishing. We need to explore sustainable ways to harness the sea for our nourishment, sure, but I don't believe it has to involve fishing. I'm excited about the prospect of more affordable omega-3 from algae and seaweeds. I bet you'd prefer to see vibrant seaweed farms teeming with life rather than ecosystems devastated by overfishing or polluted by aquafarms.
  - MostlyStable 3y ago
    That's my point though, fish populations are _not_ universally in such dire straights. Yes, bottom trawling does cause extensive habitat damage, but bottom trawling is completely banned in lots of places. Yes, sharks are in _extreme_ decline in lots of places and face lots of overfishing, but I'm not actually sure that many species (if any) are at risk of _extinction_. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't be against shark fishing, it's ecologically disastrous, but be wary of claims of extinction). It's fine if you don't want to eat meat. But lots of people do. I've worked with lots of commercial fisherman. They can be (and in many places already are) powerful allies for sane, sustainable fisheries regulation. When you say things like "commercial fishing is universally bad", you communicate that you don't care if they are willing to limit fishing pressure and sustain populations, that you are going to try and ban them anways. At that point, why shouldn't they just fish as much as they can? I'm 100% onboard with algal aquaculture. I think it has a lot of promise. But that is completely orthogonal to conventional commercial fishing. The two are not competitors and in fact can be complements to each other. The options are not "either seaweed farms or devastated ecosystems". It's exactly this kind of false dichotomy thinking that is counter productive.

by myshpa 3y ago

rex_lupi 3y ago

Corporations controlling the existence of an entire species. Sickening.

Fatty123 3y ago
Shouldn't they then be legally liable?
- myshpa 3y ago
  They're operating in legal space, for sure. Buying fish from others and freezing it for later use is not illegal. The rules of the game need to change. However, imposing limits isn't the solution (we have them now, and they're ineffective and practically unenforceable).

henearkr 3y ago

Like elephant ivory worldwide ban, a worldwide ban on the trade of bluefin could be extremely effective, and would undermine Mitsubishi's stupid plans.

myshpa 3y ago
A lot of them would still end up as bycatch. Of course, a ban might not solve the problem entirely, but it would certainly help. Btw, even though the elephant ivory ban is better than nothing, elephants are still facing extinction. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56510593 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56510593 Extinction: Elephants driven to the brink by poaching

inconceivable 3y ago

> A Mitsbishi subsidiary controls 40% of the worlds blue fin tuna lmao if this were a chinese company you can be sure tuna would be banned overnight.

MostlyStable 3y ago

I would avoid such black and white statements as "Commercial fishing is an extremely destructive industry". The term "commercial fishing" encompasses a multitude of different places, methods, regulatory regimes, monitoring practices, and more, and they range from _extremely_ well managed and sustainable to utterly disastrous. Bluefin Tuna happens to be one of the worst, because it's one of the very few where the species is so valuable that as it gets rarer, the price just climbs and continues to justify ever smaller catches. This is pretty bad for Bluefin Tuna, and could result in it being the first every commercially fished marine fish species to go extinct (yes; that's correct: no marine fish species has _ever_ gone extinct from human fishing). I'm an ecologist who got his degree in fisheries ecology. I'm very much in favor of better, more cohesive fisheries management. But I don't believe we will make any progress by tarring entire industries. All you do is create enemies out of allies.

myshpa 3y ago
I understand that commercial fishing, like everything else, is complex and diverse with both good and bad actors. However, if it were balanced, fish populations wouldn't be in such a dire state. This suggests to an outsider that the majority of the industry is harmful, and as such, I have no sympathy for it at all. Considering the fact that fishing is decimating fish populations globally (even sharks are facing extinction due to overfishing, bycatch, and plastic pollution) and causing havoc on sea floors with trawling for example, I don't feel sorry for having such a black and white viewpoint. > But I don't believe we will make any progress by tarring entire industries Considering that meat consumption is not essential for our sustenance or health, I believe that the only way to prevent further environmental damage and restore biodiversity is to ban all forms of animal farming, marine aquaculture, and fishing. We need to explore sustainable ways to harness the sea for our nourishment, sure, but I don't believe it has to involve fishing. I'm excited about the prospect of more affordable omega-3 from algae and seaweeds. I bet you'd prefer to see vibrant seaweed farms teeming with life rather than ecosystems devastated by overfishing or polluted by aquafarms.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  That's my point though, fish populations are _not_ universally in such dire straights. Yes, bottom trawling does cause extensive habitat damage, but bottom trawling is completely banned in lots of places. Yes, sharks are in _extreme_ decline in lots of places and face lots of overfishing, but I'm not actually sure that many species (if any) are at risk of _extinction_. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't be against shark fishing, it's ecologically disastrous, but be wary of claims of extinction). It's fine if you don't want to eat meat. But lots of people do. I've worked with lots of commercial fisherman. They can be (and in many places already are) powerful allies for sane, sustainable fisheries regulation. When you say things like "commercial fishing is universally bad", you communicate that you don't care if they are willing to limit fishing pressure and sustain populations, that you are going to try and ban them anways. At that point, why shouldn't they just fish as much as they can? I'm 100% onboard with algal aquaculture. I think it has a lot of promise. But that is completely orthogonal to conventional commercial fishing. The two are not competitors and in fact can be complements to each other. The options are not "either seaweed farms or devastated ecosystems". It's exactly this kind of false dichotomy thinking that is counter productive.