DECLINES IN FISH STOCKS WORLDWIDE_the ecology of exinction

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're either being disingenous and erecting a straw man, or you failed to understand what i'm saying.

I understand what you are saying, I disagree with it.

Quote:

Their choice to eat fish and whale meat is a cultural choice, and of pretty recent date.

Their population growth and available land and options for food push them to that choice. Dismissing it as just being a "cultural choice" is to dismiss very relevant logistics to them. I am saying that this is a logistical choice to your cultural choice and whether that is a recent choice or not doesn't make it merely a cultural one.

Quote:

Meeting their food needs with fish and whale meat is the cultural choice to which i have been referring. I would rather not have to repeat that again and again.

You can repeat it all you want, but that isn't going to make me agree with it.

1 Reply

Quote:

The glue that bonded the social hierarchy was rice, produced of course by the farmers. The standard of measurement for rice was the koku, equivalent to approximately 5 bushels. One koku could feed one person for a year. The estimated annual production of rice in Japan at this time was 25 million koku. The shogun was responsible for the distribution of this national crop. He took 20% off the top for himself. In addition, he distributed significant amounts to the local lords, the daimyo. According to Charles J. Dunn, the most powerful daimyo (the Kaga in northern Japan) received 1,300,000 koku. There were over 270 daimyo in Tokugawa Japan who received at least 10,000 koku.

I didn't immediately find a source for the population of Tokugawa Japan. The author of this passage, one Jeff Sellen, states:

Much of this discussion was adapted from Charles J. Dunn, Everyday Life in Traditional Japan, Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1969

Before someone alleges that i'm just mired in fascination with history, and not making any relevant point, this is offered in evidence that the inability to feed their population is of recent date in Japan, as is their fixation on sea food.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Can you explain to me the superior logistics of importing bluefin tuna from Canadian Atlantic fisheries over importing, for example, beef from Canada or the United States, from Pacific coast seaports?

I don't really care if you agree with my point or not, you offer nothing in refutation, other than a vague comment about logistics.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Can you explain to me the superior logistics of importing bluefin tuna from Canadian Atlantic fisheries over importing, for example, beef from Canada or the United States, from Pacific coast seaports?

Bluefin tuna is a delicacy in Japan, it is not a staple. That comparison makes no sense when it comes to explaining why Japanese eat fish as it would be like comparing the logistics of beef to caviar in America.

I can easily explain to you the superior logistics of their overall reliance on fish than beef, and that is because they can actually fish a substantial portion of their own fish while they cannot raise their own beef and have to import it from countries that are very far away (not only do they not raise much beef, but none of their immediate neighbors can raise enough for them to switch from fish to beef). This is a no-brainer. There are some fish right next to them and all the cows are far away. That is a huge logistical difference. And even more importantly they can catch their own fish (and not pay other countries their prices for it, subject to their export regulations) and can control their own food source (which has big logistical implications in trade wars, real wars and economic problems).

Quote:

I don't really care if you agree with my point or not, you offer nothing in refutation, other than a vague comment about logistics.

It's not vague Setanta, having to eat imported food is a legitimate logistical problem that drives up costs and causes dependency on other countries. It's clear as day that Japan's land limits their choices and is a big reason they eat a lot of sea food.

Could they possibly eat other food? Probably, I didn't eat sea food in Japan (went hungry a lot). But to say that this is not hugely driven by logistics is to ignore the huge influence logistics has on cost and viability.

An American could also just eat imported food, but that will add logistical challenges to said American that aren't just "cultural". We subsidize farming that isn't economically competitive in order to preserve our own control over those food sources. Controlling your food source is a simple and obvious logistical advantage. So obvious that I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, if you want to deny the obvious things that push them towards sea food that is your prerogative.

1 Reply

whatever;

A grand jury soon could hand up indictments over cheap imported shrimp being mislabeled as "Caught in the U.S."

Federal agents have been hot on the trail of some gulf coast processors, who have allegedly been cheating consumers. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U-S imports 90 percent of its shrimp, about 1.9 billion pounds, from nations like Vietnam, Indonesia and China.

For years, federal investigators say they've suspected some shrimp processors have been re-packaging pond raised imports in an attempt to pass them off as wild caught shrimp from the U.S.

Now, they've reportedly caught some companies red-handed.

Several months ago, investigators with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration teamed up with the La. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and raided several seafood processing companies in Louisiana and Mississippi, seizing thousands of pounds of shrimp labeled "caught in the U.S., but imported from Mexico and Ecuador. Investigators say it appears the packages were mislabeled somewhere else.

Louisiana Shrimper Ronnie Anderson says it's a money making ploy, considering consumers will pay more for U.S. caught shrimp than shrimp that are imported.

"They see they can make a dollar, two dollars a pound just by transferring boxes. It's big money, it's better than drug dealing."

The average consumer probably wouldn't be able to identify mislabeled shrimp, but investigators say they could tell the shrimp weren't caught here by DNA tests and by the way they were packaged.
A grand jury soon could hand up indictments over cheap imported shrimp being mislabeled as "Caught in the U.S."

Federal agents have been hot on the trail of some gulf coast processors, who have allegedly been cheating consumers. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U-S imports 90 percent of its shrimp, about 1.9 billion pounds, from nations like Vietnam, Indonesia and China.

For years, federal investigators say they've suspected some shrimp processors have been re-packaging pond raised imports in an attempt to pass them off as wild caught shrimp from the U.S.

Now, they've reportedly caught some companies red-handed.

Several months ago, investigators with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration teamed up with the La. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and raided several seafood processing companies in Louisiana and Mississippi, seizing thousands of pounds of shrimp labeled "caught in the U.S., but imported from Mexico and Ecuador. Investigators say it appears the packages were mislabeled somewhere else.

Louisiana Shrimper Ronnie Anderson says it's a money making ploy, considering consumers will pay more for U.S. caught shrimp than shrimp that are imported.

"They see they can make a dollar, two dollars a pound just by transferring boxes. It's big money, it's better than drug dealing."

The average consumer probably wouldn't be able to identify mislabeled shrimp, but investigators say they could tell the shrimp weren't caught here by DNA tests and by the way they were packaged.

0 Replies

Quote:

Atlantic bluefin tuna is the highest valued Atlantic tuna species in the market. The United States is responsible for about 2% of the global Atlantic bluefin tuna catch. Over half of the U.S. catch is exported to foreign markets, primarily Japan. The United States also imports bluefin tuna for consumption, mainly from Malta, Canada, and Spain, among several other countries.

Quote:

Bluefin stocks remained relatively stable until the 1970s when their value soared as sushi and fresh steaks in international markets, particularly in Japan, which led to a dramatic increase in fishing effort by the U.S. and Japanese longline fleet in the Gulf of Mexico. Spawning stock biomass (SSB) saw a steady decline from the early 1970s to 1992l since then it has fluctuated between 18 and 27% of the 1975 level.

Quote:

Since a total harvest of 3,319 tons in 2002 (the highest since 1981), total catch in the West Atlantic declined steadily to a low of 1,638 tons in 2007 and then increased to 2,015 tons in 2008. The decline was primarily due to considerable reductions in catch levels for U.S. fisheries. U.S. landings for 2007 and 2008 were 758 and 764 metric tons, respectively.

Source at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fishwatch page

According to the CIA World Factbook, the population for Japan in 2009 (estimated) was just over 127,000,000. For sake of argument, lets call that 130,000,000 (which reduces the consumption proportion per capita). According to ICCAT--the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna--the annual take of Atlantic bluefin tuna is 60,000 tons. If ony 10% of that were going to Japan (and i saw online claims that Japan takes 80% of the annual catch, but did not consider the source sufficiently reliable to state this as fact), that would be 12,000,000 pounds a year, or about an ounce and half per capita. Having advanced a low end argument, allow me to point out to you that bluefin tuna pays the supplier in the neighborhood of $100/pound (that's a nice neighborhood to be in)--the Japanese pay much, much more than that. Explain to me again the logistical superiority of that equation.

The Japanese take a tiny fraction of that catch, and they do it in the Gulf of Mexico, and to much lesser extent, in the Mediterranean. To get to the Gulf, they sail completely across the Pacific, through the Panama Canal, make their catch, go back through the canal and sail again completely across the Pacific. To get to the Med, they sail down the China Sea, completely across the Indian Ocean to the Suez Canal, make their catch, and sail back across the Indian Ocean and up the China Sea. Can you explain the logistical superiority of that transaction? I can explain it you--the Japanese capitalists who sell bluefin tuna to their own people are making a killing, which in English would most often be referred to as highway robbery.

American and Canadian beef would cross the Pacific once, and sell for a hell of a lot less than bluefin tuna. This is a cultural choice, don't try to feed me some bullshit about logistics.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

So obvious that I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, if you want to deny the obvious things that push them towards sea food that is your prerogative.

You really don't understand the extent to which the Japanese import their food, and how much cheaper meat from domestic livestock would be to the seafood, for which they've developed a taste only since the end of the Second World War, do you? You're deluded if you think they take even a significant fraction of the fish they eat themselves.

1 Reply

on the other hand;

Quote:

Thousands of fishermen converged on the nation's capitol Wednesday to defend their right to fish and ask the federal government for more flexible rules until scientific data can prove stricter regulations are needed.

"We are not going to lose this oTTne, because we are going to persist," U.S. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said from the dais, according to media reports.

In a statement, Mica said legislation he introduced would delay fishery bans, but it was "stonewalled in Congress by the

Administration and Maritime Council."

"I am shocked and disappointed that the Administration would impose these economically damaging polices, especially during this time of distress and with so many Americans already out of work," he said.

Fishermen from several Atlantic states turned up to blast federal bans on red snapper, grouper and other species that feed their livelihoods. They shouted, "Where's the data?" and waved signs that read, "United We Fish" and "I Fish. I Vote."

The National Marine Fisheries Service proposes banning commercial and recreational fishing for all 73 managed snapper and grouper species.

The ban makes the species off limits in federal waters from Florida to the Carolinas.

A red snapper ban went in effect on an interim basis last month and lasts through June. But the federal fisheries service can extend the ban another six months as it considers a year-round ban that also would apply to grouper and would stay in effect until red snapper rebound.

The council would ban fishing for the other species as a way to prevent bycatch of red snapper.

The final vote on the longer-term ban is expected later this year.

0 Replies

OK, i was wrong about the amount of seafood they import. Keep in mind, though, that whale meat is included in the amount of seafood they either import or catch themselves. From a Business Net précis of an article in Food and Drink Weekly in November, 2001:

Quote:

Japan imported total food imports of $46 billion in 2000, up 3.9 percent from the previous year. Fish and seafood accounted for the largest share of total food imports at 33.6 percent, followed by meat (19.1 percent), cereals (10.4 percent), fruit (6.9 percent) and vegetables (5.9 percent).

Now, this shows that i was wrong about how much of their seafood is imported. But it also beggars your arguments about how they are forced to rely on seafood because of how little food they produce on their own.

0 Replies

This précis of a 2003 article from Market Asia Pacific at Highbeam-dot-com contradicts the previous claim about how much of their seafood is imported, and is more in line with what i recall reading at other sources:

Quote:

Japans fishing companies are facing a number of obstacles that are giving foreign suppliers a competitive edge in Japan for the first time in recent history. Overfishing of the waters around Japan and environmental degradation are taking their toll on local fish harvests. Of the roughly 10 million tons of seafood consumed in Japan each year, about 5.2 million will be imported in 2003. The volume of imports should continue to rise in 2004 as local supplies dwindle.

1 Reply

In addition to not buying your logistics argument, allow me to once more emphasize the seafood and whale meat come from essentially unmanaged wild stocks, where as beef, pork, mutton and poultry come from domestic livestock sources which the human races has been successfully managing and sustaining literally for thousands of years. Even if it were not a cultural choice (something which i do not concede), the Japanese can easily, and very likely much more cheaply, feed themselves from other sources.

0 Replies

Lots of contradictory testimony out there. See, for example, this article from Japan Times, which cites yet another set of statistics on seafood consumption and importation.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

The area of "the donut hole" , which is that area of the Bering sea that lies in between the territorial waters of Russia , US, and CAnada, is suffering extreme overfishing from lack of any management, despite clear rules established by multiple treaties. The territorial waters of Canada, US, and Russia are, according to seafood biologists, doing fine because of management of catches and seasons. However the donut hole is being targeted by Russia, Japan, Norway , GB primarily and the reults are going to be another series of ":cod wars" since the targets are Pacific cod, hailbut, and polloock. The pollock stocks are in as bad a shape as the Atlantic cod situation off the Grand Banks.

The problem is that the same logic for much of the overfishing and stock extinction is because the "pro siders" see this as a market driven rather than a resource driven situation.

I started a thread a few months ago that flopped on its ass. It was titled something like "Will industry do the right thing?" (when faced by difficukt deciions that involve environmental or conservation issues.). I still submit that capitalism can be its own worst enemy wrt to "Sustainability of anything", fish stocks are a mighty example.

1 Reply

Well, capitalism is what i assert drives the seafood economy of Japan. China is how the largest single importer of seafood, but they have ten times the population of Japan, so that, per capita, they're not eating anything like the amount of seafood the Japanese consume. I submit that the Japanese market is profit-driven. The article i cited about the drop in the consumption of seafood by the Japanese is, to my mind, evidence to that effect.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Actually conservation would be good businee but it doesnt maximize profits. SO nations vacuum the seas.
Its interesting how monk fiswh couldnt be given away (sorta like lobsters) . WHen a marketing ploy (and I blame Julia Child) began to talk about thi as a "poor mans lobster" the fish was decimated by people who , before that ad, wouldnt have gotten near a monkfish exce[pt in an aquarium.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert, can you tell me what the unit of measurement in your map is?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

the Japanese pay much, much more than that. Explain to me again the logistical superiority of that equation.

Robert did. It's a luxury item, the same as caviar. It's not put into tins to be later mixed with mayonaise.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

the seafood, for which they've developed a taste only since the end of the Second World War,

You're deluded if you believe that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I submit that the Japanese market is profit-driven.

I doubt that this is a safe submission. Admittedly, I don't know specifically about Japan. But I do know that the European fishing fleet tends to be heavily subsidized, because the waters it's fishing in lack enough fish to make it profitable. Are you sure the market for Japanese fishing is in a free-market equilibrium?

That said, I agree with what seems to be your general point, that overfishing is a case of the tragedy of the commons. Individual welfare of fishers are out of line with the general welfare of the fishing industry. Government quotas or fees on fishing could improve on the free-market outcome here.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Are you aware that bluefin tuna sells for on the order of $100 US per pound--to the supplier? While that is probably the most expensive fish, none of them go cheap in Japan. This is definitely a case of "free market" economics.

3 Replies

DECLINES IN FISH STOCKS WORLDWIDE_the ecology of exinction

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know