5 ms·

I understand that commercial fishing, like everything else, is complex and diverse with both good and bad actors. However, if it were balanced, fish population

by 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.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > I'm not actually sure that many species (if any) are at risk of _extinction_ Many sharks closer to extinction than feared: Red List https://phys.org/news/2019-03-sharks-closer-extinction-red.html https://phys.org/news/2019-03-sharks-closer-extinction-red.h... Overfishing puts more than one-third of all sharks, rays, and chimaeras at risk of extinction https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/overfishing-puts-more-than-one-third-of-all-sharks-rays-and-chimaeras-at-risk-of-extinction https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/overfishing-puts-more-... Overfishing is Driving Eels to Extinction https://vegnews.com/2022/9/forsea-foods-cell-technology-eels https://vegnews.com/2022/9/forsea-foods-cell-technology-eels Around a third of freshwater fish species are threatened with extinction, and 80 species have already been declared Extinct. Since 1970, mega-fish populations have crashed by 94% on average, while migratory fish populations have fallen by 76%. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/freshwater_practice/the_world_s_forgotten_fishes/ https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/freshwater_practice... Endangered North Atlantic right whales are in 'crisis'; species approaching extinction https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/19/north-atlantic-right-wales-noaa-crisis-approaching-extinction/70429914007/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/19/north-a... Eating mackerel no longer sustainable, Good Fish Guide advises https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/mackerel-loses-sustainable-status-as-overfishing-puts-species-at-risk https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/mackerel... > It's fine if you don't want to eat meat. But lots of people do. Not necessary, destructive, unsustainable. > why shouldn't they just fish as much as they can And they don't? Really? They'd leave money in the ocean? > either seaweed farms or devastated ecosystems It sure looks like it.
  - MostlyStable 3y ago
    This is a wall of text and links, most of which have nothing to do with my claims, or our discussion. I never said anything about whales or freshwater fish species. And I never claimed that _no_ fish populations are unsustainably fished, so finding a single one that is at risk is completely beside the point. The only links that are sort of relevant are talking about "risk" of extinction, and frankly, I think that's kind of meaningless. Technically, every species on earth, including humans is at some level of "risk of extinction" from one thing or another. Considering how rare marine fish species extinctions are (especially caused by humans), I personally think we should be careful using that phrase. As someone who as actually done fishery population and health assesments, I can tell you that the phrase isn't much more than PR. It doesn't have any rigorous scientific meaning. But even if that wasn't the case, the fact that some species in some places are at severe risk _still_ doesn't mean that commercial fishing everywhere is unsustainable. That's my entire point. That commercial fishing is extremely heterogenous. And it's _very_ easy to avoid bad fisheries and stick to good ones. Especially if you live in the US where _most_ fisheries are relatively sustainable managed (even more so if you stick to West Coast fisheries, which have some the best, most comprehensive and rigorous management policies on the planet). You then moved on to freshwater fishes and whales, things I never mentioned. My guess is because those things are _actually_ at risk of extinction and so your case is much stronger. Unfortunately, they also have nothing to do with marine commercial fishing. If you think that eating meat is immoral and you want people to stop for that reason, that's fine. But say that. Don't misrepresent the sustainability of commercial fishing.

by myshpa 3y ago

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.

myshpa 3y ago
> I'm not actually sure that many species (if any) are at risk of _extinction_ Many sharks closer to extinction than feared: Red List https://phys.org/news/2019-03-sharks-closer-extinction-red.html https://phys.org/news/2019-03-sharks-closer-extinction-red.h... Overfishing puts more than one-third of all sharks, rays, and chimaeras at risk of extinction https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/overfishing-puts-more-than-one-third-of-all-sharks-rays-and-chimaeras-at-risk-of-extinction https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/overfishing-puts-more-... Overfishing is Driving Eels to Extinction https://vegnews.com/2022/9/forsea-foods-cell-technology-eels https://vegnews.com/2022/9/forsea-foods-cell-technology-eels Around a third of freshwater fish species are threatened with extinction, and 80 species have already been declared Extinct. Since 1970, mega-fish populations have crashed by 94% on average, while migratory fish populations have fallen by 76%. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/freshwater_practice/the_world_s_forgotten_fishes/ https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/freshwater_practice... Endangered North Atlantic right whales are in 'crisis'; species approaching extinction https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/19/north-atlantic-right-wales-noaa-crisis-approaching-extinction/70429914007/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/19/north-a... Eating mackerel no longer sustainable, Good Fish Guide advises https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/mackerel-loses-sustainable-status-as-overfishing-puts-species-at-risk https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/mackerel... > It's fine if you don't want to eat meat. But lots of people do. Not necessary, destructive, unsustainable. > why shouldn't they just fish as much as they can And they don't? Really? They'd leave money in the ocean? > either seaweed farms or devastated ecosystems It sure looks like it.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  This is a wall of text and links, most of which have nothing to do with my claims, or our discussion. I never said anything about whales or freshwater fish species. And I never claimed that _no_ fish populations are unsustainably fished, so finding a single one that is at risk is completely beside the point. The only links that are sort of relevant are talking about "risk" of extinction, and frankly, I think that's kind of meaningless. Technically, every species on earth, including humans is at some level of "risk of extinction" from one thing or another. Considering how rare marine fish species extinctions are (especially caused by humans), I personally think we should be careful using that phrase. As someone who as actually done fishery population and health assesments, I can tell you that the phrase isn't much more than PR. It doesn't have any rigorous scientific meaning. But even if that wasn't the case, the fact that some species in some places are at severe risk _still_ doesn't mean that commercial fishing everywhere is unsustainable. That's my entire point. That commercial fishing is extremely heterogenous. And it's _very_ easy to avoid bad fisheries and stick to good ones. Especially if you live in the US where _most_ fisheries are relatively sustainable managed (even more so if you stick to West Coast fisheries, which have some the best, most comprehensive and rigorous management policies on the planet). You then moved on to freshwater fishes and whales, things I never mentioned. My guess is because those things are _actually_ at risk of extinction and so your case is much stronger. Unfortunately, they also have nothing to do with marine commercial fishing. If you think that eating meat is immoral and you want people to stop for that reason, that's fine. But say that. Don't misrepresent the sustainability of commercial fishing.