DECLINES IN FISH STOCKS WORLDWIDE_the ecology of exinction

@dadpad,

Quote:

Lets start with reducing fertiliser runoff and topsoil erosion. Those farmers that can afford to, plant shelterbelts along drainage lines. Farmers alter fenclines to protect existing vegetation where it is economically viable to do so. Then set about enhancing or replicateing vegetaton constructs.
but they only do this where it is economically viable to so. In some cases harvestable primary products are necessary to make this kind of change.
governments have been throwing money at this kind of project for years yet it is still piecemeal.

They should have marginal farmland resumed by the government and the trees brought back. Too many marginal areas are farmed, which requires irrigation and fertilizer.

0 Replies

reduction of toxic and non toxic effluent from rivers is another area where the piecemeal approac is working.
Small areas or industry specific programs have been and continue to be run to reduce or remove effluent being piped or pumped into rivers that of course eventually flow into the sea.
Why small areas or why only one industry at a time?
because that method is financialy socialy and politically acceptable to all participants. yep sometimes it need to be sold on the basis of cute and furry but who really cares if it achieves the intended goal.

conservation groups like http://www.australianwildlife.org/News/Scotia-Saving-six-of-the-worlds-rarest-mammals-from-extinction.aspx are currently or have purchased properties in QLD NT and WA for the express purpouse of locking them up and preserving vulnerable species. is this a piecemeal approach? I think so. it hasnt changed my lifestyle or yours but it is working

... and no i dont donate. The save the gay whale cute and furry mob do.

I've long been a proponant of population control or at least relating population density to rainfall and soil fertility but the reality is we have what we have. we cant make people in india or china breed less. Trying to change everything everywhere all at once whichi percieve to be your approach just wont work.

dinner time

4 Replies

Quote:

They should have marginal farmland resumed by the government

aorta. a catchcry for thise who dont actually want to do anything themselves.

Who should have marginal farmland resumed?

How much time have you actually spent outside the built up area?

0 Replies

@dadpad,

dadpad wrote:

Trying to change everything everywhere all at once whichi percieve to be your approach just wont work.

This is an attitude one sees displayed by those who fulminate about conditions related to any problem, but who don't actually want to be responsible for doing anything. If one rants about a problem, but throws up one's hands at the scale of an allegedly insoluble problem, one isn't obliged to actually do anything useful, or even to give any consideration to solutions. One of the best expressions from the tree hugger crowd is "think globally, act locally." I heartily concur. Huge problems can at least be dramatically reduced, if not actually solved, by a lot of small step efforts.

0 Replies

@dadpad,

Quote:

Spendi... pull your head in! you've contributed nothing (as usual) to this thread. Your kind of Englishman equiped with a superiority complex fucked Australia and a few other countries as well right good. We don't need your help to fix the problems the English created.

I didn't know Australia was fucked right good. In what way is it fucked right good anymore than it might have been had we let it alone? Which other countries are fucked right good? In what way are they fucked right good anymore than they might have been if we had let them alone?

From whence electricity if they had been left in the Stone Age?

Quote:

better yet send me your address. I'll come over and shut your gob for you.

I think that's a criminal offence. It is here. If our port of entry authorities knew who you are you would be refused entry to the UK and probably Europe.

And I might not allow you to shut my gob.

I presume you will threaten violence to anybody who disagrees with you. That's a barbaric superiority complex.

And it's a superiority complex running amok that thinks it has any answers to these problems. There are no answers. Emotionally charged, attention seeking simplicities are part of the problem. The only result of them is to keep up the growth rate whilst sitting smugly on the moral high ground. The "Green Bank" bullshit in microcosm. That Connery chap pollutes at Olympian standards.

I sit in my rooms, as Goethe advised. I never go on holiday and I walk to the pub. I don't have a car. And I can afford a few dozen.

You fly around the world and encourage others to do. You're the problem and you are just trying to hide the fact with a few easy phrases to make yourself feel better about it. Anybody tells you that truth and you smack them in the gob probably when they are not looking.

Tramps are ecologically beneficial. People who sit on their porch and watch the world go by. One "greenie" I read about did a 40 mile round trip in a gas guzzler to get a pizza. And paid a price for the gas which is a fraction of the real cost with long term accounting.

0 Replies

Quote:

"think globally, act locally."

"aorta. a catchcry for thise who dont actually want to do anything themselves."

The save the cute ones crowd want to throw their arms up in the air and say it is too hard. Far better to asuage our conscience by doing pathetic little bits so when it all falls over we can say well we did our bit, it is not our fault.

Example : Lets expend considerable resources to save one whale from the ice near greenland. Whales died before, and whales died after, but that year we went all out to save one whale that was from a non-endangered species. What heroes !

Example : Lets save the Panda, an animal that is not threatened by man, it has just become too stupid to breed. Its solutions to life's problems are not working and nature is extincting it. In steps the cute and cuddly protection team. It must be going extinct due to nasty horrible man ! We will save it and be heroes !

Whilst all this is going on, lets ignore real solutions because they are too hard.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

1) whether or not these authors were right
2) whether or not you understood what they said
3) what influenced these writers, apart from pure science

1They make good cases, and are supported by still other researchers .Their work is cited by successive researchers. HMMMMMMMMM.

2 Thats what learning is about isnt it? Are you of a habit to just read things that you are unable to understand? If you dont understand them at first, do you not "Look em up"?

3 Several ofthe above have had influences far beyond just their limited fields, but all have great influence within their fields of ecology.

Quote:

You started the name calling by insulting me from what was said in another thread which clearly had nothing to do with this topic, but was a part of your general insecurity in debating me.

I think youve had a convenient slip of your memory old boy. YOU were the one who tried making the argument about dinosaur DNA and I merely asked you "Who found Dinosaur DNA"(there was no insult in that question other than the one you somehow perceived)
and then you sorta went ballistic. my question was not intended to be anything other than a focused question that grew out of your inappropriate reference to dinoaur DNA. I think you were merely embarrassed at being "Outted" on that point . Now you are making generalizations about me and my mental state. Very Happy

Ill let others decide whose being petulant.

Quote:

Spendi understood every word and could extrapolate where my points would lead and what they meant.

Somehow this I find perfectly understandable. Its amazing that, every time I read a spendi post that , I marvel at how Britain once ruled the world. Laughing

-----------------------------------------------------Everything below is more or less substantive to the thread--------------------------------

Quote:

Lets ignore the piece-meal approach and get all countries to sign off on insecticides and excessive use of fertilizers. This is the bottom line and it will have to be done eventually or whales will be swimming in a dead ocean, albeit not for long.

Somehow, I think that this would be even more devastating to the food production of the world. I know that , in the US and in several other ag countries (Brazil, ARgentina). Agricultural chemicals are now severely tested for carry-over and breakdown kinetics. Where we used to use ATrazine and Cymazine and Triazine for cornand soybeans, weve developed more integrated herbicides that break down more quickly after initial knockdown. Many people dont like it but genetically modified grains are also being tested for environmental effects(even though , in my reading, I dont ee that GM foods is going to be an answer because its so damn diofficult to predict effects on surroundings).
Weve quit using DDT because of its effects on fish and birds and mostly for the fact that it quickly becomes ineffective because of evolved immunity by pests. Instead Integrated Pest Management is what theyre trying today. However, the search for organic ag chems and integrated pest management doesnt mean that we will somehow "quit" using ag hemicals. I think thats unrealistic

Quote:

Lets stop an open market where all you have to do is invent some new throw away device and convince people to buy it. Put a freeze on items made of non-recyclable materials. How much garbage generates poisons when they could be used for recycling ?

I generally agree with the second part. (Im not sure I even have an opinion about the first part). Packageing has become lethal and toxic to the environment. A have such products like "non phosphorus" detergents and medicines.

Quote:

Stop all this bullshit about Global Warming and build Coal Power Stations for the third world

I dont disagree about man induced global arming (although the globe IS warming). I think that an additional (and more easily accomplished)approach for electricity generation is to do several orders of gas exploration and use natural gas. It appears that the geological formations containing significant (useable) gas has recently "exploded" into a realization that we have a world gas surplus. The development of slant drilling and formational fracture technology has turned thick fissile shales and sandstones into major gas producers. AInce resources in several third world countries has been relatively untouched

Coal removal is a particularly destructive form of energy extraction. We have entire states in Appalachia where entire cities are under mined or mountain top removals have rendered streams unfit for life. IN THE US, the problem with coal mining is that the rules of envirnomental contro, dont affect "exiting plays" . SO many coal producers made the argument that their fields are merely extensions of their historical coal fields that were in operation since the 1800's. THAT is total bullshit to me. Coals real value should be up there with oil but its being peddled becauase the industry (at least inUS) skirts all major regs with the exception of reclamation rules, so they keep a coal mine open for fuckin EVER. IM not a friend of exiasting treatment of coal miners, they dont even need to ahve their drillers, engineers, blasters etc, LICENSED as professionals. SO e are still seeing shoddy mining techniques and bad engineering. In the US , coal mining is a cluater **** where the big money (many coal mines are third string tenants of big oil). ACTUALLY, Im a big fan of nuke power and I feel that we are all suffering from TMI and Chernobyl terror. I think that no Russian engineering or Chinese engineering firm should be allowqed to design/build nuke plants until they undergo several generations of retraining. I believe taht the French breeder reactors are the state of the art . (I dont believe the French ahve WEVER had a nuke accident because of design redundancy and engineering management and inspection). QWe make fun of the French yet heres an industry that they are the world Leaders of. I think Id like to see a few newnukes.

Quote:

Stop the emotional bullshit gripping the world by reporting the science, not the opinion of greenies.

I guess that you have some issues with the greenies. I think that they do some good in many situations. WE NEED A FEW LORAXES.
Whenever any organization gets to suspend its primary missions it needs to be re constituted. Whether its Sierra Club, NRA or the RED CROSS, I see where all ahve succeeded and failed. Im a card carrying supporter of the SEASHEPHREDS because I feel that Japan is doing an illegal act on humanity amnd someone has gotta stand up to em, and so far PAul Watson is that guy. Im afraid that the gun loonies will kill him.

Quote:

That is just a few to start with. There are many things that could be done, but fools want save crap like the Panda, an animal so dumb it wont breed in the wild let alone zoos. It hasnt lost habitat, nature gave up on it but fools want to save it.

If we lose some major species it will shock people out of their belief things are proceeding well. They are not. We are losing.

AHAAA, youve got a thing with Pandas. I get it.
1Theyre cute and you think that "cute" is driving the forces of species restoration. ACTUALLY, panda habitat IS being encroached severely. You could have substituted grizzly bear for panda and seen a totally different outlook. (One of the experts I quoted in my last post was the Craighead brothers whove set the policy for grizzly retoration) Their plan had been adopted and it has shown marvelous results. We were going to lose grizzlies within one generation (sorta like bald eagles and American bison)
"NAture" didnt give up on grizzlies and they arent any smarter than PAndas. All they needed was some space and some protection in the wild and some large tracts f connected lands so they could bvreed and live unmolested.

Im not willing to lose species where we dont ahve to just to make a point. REASON: I dont think there will be apoint to be made once something is gone. (Once its gone it loses immediacy immediately).
Saving the bald agle has resulted in a huge cottage industry of eagle spotting and national consciousness.. PAndas have pretty much united an environmental movement in China (I applaud their awakening sensitivity to environmental poisons that have seeped through their country) SUMMARY, we still agree and disagree on aeveral subjects so qwe can debate (I like debate) or we can throw rocks, (Im done with that , it wastes any points one makes as somehow sounding merely combative)

Some people have agreed with me but (I have to say) Ive also rec'd PMs from people who have sided with you, so obviously youve plunked someones chord on this subject.

Since I started this as a supplement to the whaling threads, (Actually this thread was counter to JTT who was mixing "aseafood " issues in the whaling thread so I started this one. Im still of the opinion that we cannot afford to totally lose several speciews of food fish. That would be silly to just abandon a source of protein that, if managed properly, could again serve humans with fish and chips. I believe that you will see there are vast numbers of folks who are working hard to restore the cod fish. Nobody is saying "Lets let em die off, thatll show the fuckers"

1 Reply

@dadpad,

Quote:

... and no i dont donate.

So you think locally and do nothing...

0 Replies

@dadpad,

Quote:

reduction of toxic and non toxic effluent from rivers is another area where the piecemeal approac is working.
Small areas or industry specific programs have been and continue to be run to reduce or remove effluent being piped or pumped into rivers that of course eventually flow into the sea.
Why small areas or why only one industry at a time?
because that method is financialy socialy and politically acceptable to all participants. yep sometimes it need to be sold on the basis of cute and furry but who really cares if it achieves the intended goal.

Wish Id said that. Its perfect.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

1) I ask if their right and you say they must be because they are a part of the crowd - ah, yes, the lemming principle....
2) I ask why do you expect us to believe you have understood it fully and you reply :

Quote:

Thats what learning is about isnt it? Are you of a habit to just read things that you are unable to understand?

What does that mean ?
3) I ask what has influenced them and you tell me what they have influenced.

Quote:

YOU ere the one who tried making the argument about dinosaur DNA and I asked you "Who found Dinosaur DNA"

Do you really believe that or are you just lying driven by ego and forgetfulness ?

Quote:

and then you went balliastic.

The sequence is there for anyone to read. You are making a fool or a liar out of yourself.

Quote:

Ill let others deide whose being petulant.

No you wont. You are busy trying to convince them now. You do read what you write, dont you ?

Quote:

I marvel at how Britain once ruled the world.

I knew you were amero-centric but I didnt think you knew NOTHING of history. I expected that from **** for brains.

Quote:

I think that this would be even more devastating to the food production of the world.

So you approve of fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides to reduce food shortages that **** for brains says doesnt exist. Does one hand agree with the ohter in the cute and cuddly world or are you happy to fight each other and waste resources ?

Quote:

but genetically modified grains are also being tested for environmental effects

So are a lot of drugs that turn out to be very dangerous. Thalidamide met every applicable standard.

Quote:

Coal removal is a particularly destructive form of energy extraction. We have entire states in Appalachia where entire cities are under mined or mountain top removals have rendered streams unfit for life. IN THE US, the problem with coal mining is that the rules of envirnomental contro, dont affect "exiting plays" . SO many coal producers made the argument that their fields are merely extensions of their historical coal fields that were in operation since the 1800's. THAT is total bullshit to me. Coals real value should be up there with oil but its being peddled becauase the industry (at least inUS) skirts all major regs with the exception of reclamation rules, so they keep a coal mine open for fuckin EVER. IM not a friend of exiasting treatment of coal miners, they dont even need to ahve their drillers, engineers, blasters etc, LICENSED as professionals. SO e are still seeing shoddy mining techniques and bad engineering. In the US , coal mining is a cluater **** where the big money (many coal mines are third string tenants of big oil).

Are you throwing your hands up in the air and saying it is too hard to get them to stop ? "Think Locally, Do Nothing ". And while you dither about why people are so unkind the third world starves for energy.

We agree on nuclear power, but you think the french have a solution ? Just so I understand you lot, I have to hate the british, love the french...got it ! The problem with Nuclear Power is simple. The fools have insisted on building every single power station to a different set of plans. Who argued for this ? The engineers who get more money if they build them differently. If they were all the same, modifications could be uniform as well as updating equipment and safety improvements. As it is now, we have to reinvent the wheel every time we build one.

Quote:

Im a card carrying supporter of the SEASHEPHREDS because I feel that Japan is doing an illegal act on humanity amnd someone has gotta stand up to em, and so far PAul Watson is that guy.

Nothing to save locally ? Hate the Japanese as well as the British...got it ! They have no right to eat whale because God made the whale but thats not like Tuna because you eat Tuna.

And you wonder why I am disgusted with the current agenda ? Seriously ?

Quote:

and so far PAul Watson is that guy. Im afraid that the gun loonies will kill him.

We can only hope. Another sanctimonious prick who is so egotistical that he will use force to get his way. Well what is wrong with using force to get him to stop ? I am sure he would approve or is he another double standards too faced arsehole greenie ?

Quote:

Im still of the opinion that we cannot afford to totally lose several speciews of food fish.

You know those big fish you like to eat (but not the whale because it is too big) well they eat smaller fish. If they dont exist then their dinner is still there, and we can eat that. The food chain is inefficient in that protein in the higher animals takes a lot of smaller animals to keep it and maintain it, which eventually goes back to a lot of plant life is required. No where have I seen anyone, including you, express concern for the bottom of the food chain, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART. Who's local problem is that or shall we all just think globally and sink Gombaya. That will work.

2 Replies

@dadpad,

You are bailing out a sinking boat with a thimble. And you do this :

Quote:

because that method is financialy socialy and politically acceptable to all participants.

Quote:

but who really cares if it achieves the intended goal.

This is exactly my point. It is not achieving any more a desirable goal than painting over rust.

Quote:

I've long been a proponant of population control or at least relating population density to rainfall and soil fertility but the reality is we have what we have. we cant make people in india or china breed less. Trying to change everything everywhere all at once whichi percieve to be your approach just wont work.

You are saying why bother, exactly what dummies have been accusing me of in this thread. It doesnt have political power because no one can see the need to control the growth of the human population, no one can see the importance of the microscopic life in the oceans. Everyone is too bust saving whales and cheering fools attacking fishermen trying to support their families but that is alright because they are Japanese...why dont they attack Norway or Iceland ? Are they too white for people to hate ? If someone was killed it might be murder ?

Microscopic life in the oceans are the lungs of the planet, not the rain forest where hippies can go OOohhhhh ! a tree ! lets hug it and love it and pet it and I will call it george.

Microscopic life in the oceans sustain every creature in the oceans.

So everyone should never agree to save the oceans, lets all pick a puddle and look after that.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Your entire previous post is pure nonsense. See ya .

You seem to want to be taken seriously but youre not adding anything to some store of scholarship, youre just using auto-gainsay to address anyones previous post and then you fail to deliver anything compelling to consider . I can understand why youve got some affinity for spendi-speak. He does the same thing as you (except he doesnt get as out of control as you, and we all know that hes not really a passionate member of these debates, hes just some drunk whose picking up rocks and handing em to you to throw)

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Quote:
and then you went balliastic. The sequence is there for anyone to read. You are making a fool or a liar out of yourself.

Quote:
Ill let others deide whose being petulant.No you wont. You are busy trying to convince them now. You do read what you write, dont you ?

Quote:
I marvel at how Britain once ruled the world.I knew you were amero-centric but I didnt think you knew NOTHING of history. I expected that from **** for brains.

Youre not clever enough to be a comedian so I know that your above contradiction was a total accident. You first accuase me of being a liar by means of "trying to manipulate any readers" and then you seem to want to uase the same position to asupport your point. Thats surely rich enough for the QA2K jokebook.

DID YA NOTICE THAT IM USING ONE OIF YOUR PELLETS AS MY NEW SIG lINE?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Somehow this I find perfectly understandable. Its amazing that, every time I read a spendi post that , I marvel at how Britain once ruled the world.

Aaahh but it did.

Quote:

reduction of toxic and non toxic effluent from rivers is another area where the piecemeal approac is working.
Small areas or industry specific programs have been and continue to be run to reduce or remove effluent being piped or pumped into rivers that of course eventually flow into the sea.
Why small areas or why only one industry at a time?
because that method is financialy socialy and politically acceptable to all participants. yep sometimes it need to be sold on the basis of cute and furry but who really cares if it achieves the intended goal.

Wish Id said that. Its perfect.

It's pure bullshit fm. That's why you wished you had said it.

The effluent is caused by the demand for cheap food by a growing population. Cheap food is a necessity because it allows larger proportions of income to be used to buy SUVs, airline tickets, restaurant meals, gee-gaws, knick-knacks and much else and thus reduces unemployment and keeps the Dow afloat. A growing population with excessive demands for pecuniary emulation, invidious comparison and conspicuous consumption of goods and services (see TV ads and A2K "am I not the bee's knees" posts) powers industry, stock markets and pension plans AND toxic run offs. Like night follows day.

When racism ceases and the whole world consumes 20,000 barrels of oil per 300 million grabbers ( approx 420,000 barrels a day or 168, 000,000 barrels a year all processed, distributed and consumed) the effluent won't run off because effluent will be what we live in and we will be the endangered species.

The fanny merely distracts attention from the real causes and ensures nothing serious will be done and those fannying come up smelling of roses in the eyes of teenage girls, who like to thrum with self importance, and those who choose to read third rate science books which flatter them rather than risk tackling the likes of Veblen which takes the piss out of them and who is obviously on Ignore.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I had to turn on signatures to see what you think is so clever of you.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
and then you went balliastic.
The sequence is there for anyone to read. You are making a fool or a liar out of yourself.

Quote:

Quote:
Ill let others deide whose being petulant.
No you wont. You are busy trying to convince them now. You do read what you write, dont you ?

Quote:

Quote:
I marvel at how Britain once ruled the world.
I knew you were amero-centric but I didnt think you knew NOTHING of history. I expected that from **** for brains.

Youre not clever enough to be a comedian so I know that your above contradiction was a total accident. You first accuase me of being a liar by means of "trying to manipulate any readers" and then you seem to want to uase the same position to asupport your point. Thats surely rich enough for the QA2K jokebook.

???? You are becoming bizarre...Do you seriously believe that or are you trying to bewider me with a spin that doesnt even exist ????? You think there is a contradiction there... Shocked

Quote:

DID YA NOTICE THAT IM USING ONE OIF YOUR PELLETS AS MY NEW SIG lINE?

Good for you...it will be the cleverest thing you ever post.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

You are becoming bizarre

Hells bells Io. He's been bizarre all the 6 years I have been arguing with him. I'd wager he even consumes at 3 times the rate of the average American let alone others. He's a walking, talking, sleeping toxic effluent producer. He lives better than Henry the VIII. He's a socialist don't you know?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

IONUS, claiming that I began insulting him in the "Asteroid thread" said this and I followed up

Quote:

Thinking about it, who says they are extinct ? Ever eaten a chicken ? It seems the T-Rex's closest living relative (based on DNA) is the chicken

Then Farmerman responded with the really insulting post that, in its entirety said
WHO THE HELL HAS T-rex DNA??

Either you are a complete insecure individual or you were trying to sound authoritative about something that your totally unequipped to understand, Now which was it dude? Im sick of your posturing as an offended searcher of truth. Your arguments are flat and without any substance. Youre a complete fraud and I think Im not alone in that. Ive argued with some of the best herein and Ive taken my lumps and have learned from my mistakes. YOU, on the other hand , are like the crazy guy who keeps beating his head on the wall expecting different oucomes with each head bang. If you want to argue, contribuite something substantive , not mere insults and denials of ANYBODY's previous data(do you realize that you only agree with SPENDIUS????). From the scholarship of your posts, I suspect that You arent smart or educated enough to support any of the grand statements youve made. Youre just spouting baseless opinions probably drawn from some all night radio show for folks whove been abducted by aliens and who all believe that 2012 is the end.

You can argue with Shpendy, he thinks that you make sense.

AS far as AMeri centric. I do like to read the history of the AMerican continents back to about 4.5 billion years or so.

Ive used your fevered insult as my sig line so that anyone can see what to expect should they wish to try to talk sense with you. Maybe you can bully some folks in your RV park, Im immune to guys sounding tough, cause theiyre usually all bluffs anyway. WHats your story?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

His story fm is far too dangerous for your mental equilibrium. He thinks you are merely papering over the cracks smirking with self satisfaction and tweeting like a budgie in a pretty cage with **** piling up on the floor.

And he's spot on too. Your assertion festivals notwithstanding.

0 Replies

I have been to the thread in a while, so this is likely off topic to the current flow. I was given a calendar of historic Cape Cod pictures which had accompanying commentary. The shots were from the mid-1800s through the early 1900s. According to the writing, fish stocks off Cape Cod, especially mackerel, were in decline at least as far back as the 1840s. I hadn't realized that!

0 Replies

That doesn't really surprise me, although this is the first i've heard of it. Fishermen and whalers from Europe began exploiting the Grand Banks, the Belle Isle Strait and the waters off Newfoundland and Greenland as early as the 15th century. The last Greenlander (of European descent) was found by a Dutch whaler which by then (mid-15th century) was just one of many that exploited the waters from what is now Massachusetts to Cape Farewell in southern Greenland.

I suspect that there are other species which have disappeared in the last 550 years, too.

1 Reply

DECLINES IN FISH STOCKS WORLDWIDE_the ecology of exinction

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know