DECLINES IN FISH STOCKS WORLDWIDE_the ecology of exinction

@Ionus,

Well they are not at all unified in their thinking, Ionus. Different countries have different agendas of their own, for all sorts of reasons. (Just like the example of the Australian states we talked about. Each one looking after its own particular interests at the expense the ecological good of the whole country.)

I don't exactly see that as "thinking globally".

2 Replies

@msolga,

It is a global market and they are pressured by countries outside their sphere of influence, so they are thinking globally. They are doing the best thing by the fishing in their area and if other countries have problems, then bad luck because they are acting locally with the politics of their country and its people at heart.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I think I've said just about all I can say on this, Ionus.

Quote:

They are doing the best thing by the fishing in their area and if other countries have problems, then bad luck because they are acting locally with the politics of their country and its people at heart.

Well some are. Others are dredging the oceans of the world, wherever ... for their own economic advantage.

If the all nations involved in this conference were thinking globally, they would be addressing the fact of severely diminished tuna stocks in the oceans. That is the issue.

I really can't add anything more to what I've already said, in response to what you're saying.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

I don't exactly see that as "thinking globally".

No one does. Its an example of "freeing oneself from the entire thinking process"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

No one does.

And a survey conducted by you means what ? Or did you make it up that everyone agrees with you ?

Quote:

Its an example of "freeing oneself from the entire thinking process"

You mean like ramming ships ?

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Ramming ships has absolutely nothing to do with overfishing tuna, Ionus.

1 Reply

@msolga,

No. Hang on. I'm wrong about this. An article fromrom 2008. Possibly there have been more such episodes.:

Quote:

Turkish tuna fishermen ram Greenpeace ship

Activists vessel campaigning against overfishing in the Mediterranean. Gavin Parsons / Greenpeace via AFP-Getty Image

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkish tuna fishermen rammed their boat into a Greenpeace ship Friday and pelted it with lead fishing weights, the environmental group said. No one was injured.

The fishing vessel was among several that swarmed the Arctic Sunrise, which was carrying activists campaigning against overfishing in the Mediterranean. The boat rammed the Greenpeace ship at high speed, said Yesim Aslan, a spokeswoman for the group.

The barrage of lead weights damaged a helicopter that the activists had used earlier in the day to document the vessels' activities, Aslan said.

Activists on the ship also heard shots being fired and the Coast Guard in the Mediterranean port of Iskenderun was called to intervene, she said. ...<cont>

http://maritimecalamities.blogspot.com/2008/05/turkish-tuna-fishermen-ram-greenpeace.html

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

And a survey conducted by you means what

That vacuous statements like the above dont need surveys to detect.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Quote:

A proposed ban on polar bear trade was also defeated at the meeting.:

Geeze, MsOlga, this is the DECLINES IN FISH STOCKS WORLDWIDE thread.

You use this ploy as a soft cudgel to steer things away from issues that you don't like and then steer them back when you think there are points to score.

While we're there.

Quote:

No trade reprieve for polar bears

...

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) decried the outcome in Doha as a "death knell" for the bears.

"This is a missed opportunity, a final chance to respond to threats" facing the bear, said Jeff Flocken, director of conservation group the Global Fund for Animal Welfare.

Other environmental groups, however, said hunting for export is limited and well-managed, and that the ban would not boost the animal's chances for survival.

"The polar bear does not meet any of the biological criteria for inclusion in Appendix I. Trade is not a significant threat to the species," said TRAFFIC, an NGO that monitors wildlife trade.

Several NGOs said the drive to uplist the animal was largely "emotional."

The final tally was 48 votes in favour of the Appendix I listing, 62 against and 11 abstentions, according to IFAW.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100318/top_news/species_cites_un_polar_1

"emotional"; ya think?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You stated no-one....lets see, over 6 billion people...you arent prone to widely exagerating are you ? Because that just makes you bewildered.

0 Replies

I just bought a standard size can of cat food with tuna in it, for A$ 0.96 . Assuming there were a problem with fish stocks, why is the price so low ?

2 Replies

@Ionus,

cat food doent use bluefin, they use albacore which is a warme water species (and was the one most loaded with mergury .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

So anyone worried about tuna stocks would only be worried about sushi, because within about 3,000 years anothe species will have evolved to fill that niche, if remaining tuna fails to diversify. So yet again for a piddling local reason we stifle global action.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Monkeys and gorillas are related. We are worried about declining numbers of gorillas , so efforts to protect them dont necessarilly include that brilliant strategy to let surrogates "evolve" into gorillas.

Interesting, Id expect nothing less .

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Ionis"S "global action" seems to rely heavily upon the power of evolution. Thats gonna have some big trouble getting passed in Texas.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

That'll be because you can't persuade them that evolution is not a dangerous idea and you can't because you are too scared of even trying.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Do you miss me? you are shopping around stalking my posts. I dont believe You have anything substantive to add here. I could be wrong but, from the sound of that last post, I think youre starting early tonite.

1 Reply

Japanese thwart tuna exports ban
MICHAEL CASEY, DOHA
March 20, 2010
FISHING nations have scored a victory over environmentalists, with a United Nations wildlife meeting overwhelmingly rejecting a US-backed proposal to ban the export of the Atlantic bluefin tuna.

Japan won support from scores of poorer nations with a campaign that played on fears that a ban would devastate their economies. Tokyo also raised doubts that such a radical move was scientifically sound.

Japan acknowledged the stocks were in trouble, but echoed a growing consensus at the meeting that CITES should have no role in regulating tuna and other marine species. It expressed a willingness to accept lower quotas for bluefin tuna but wanted those to come from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, or ICCAT, which currently regulates the trade.

In the end, there were 68 votes against the measure, 20 in favour and 30 abstentions.
full artical here
http://www.theage.com.au/world/japanese-thwart-tuna-exports-ban-20100319-qm61.html

1 Reply

@dadpad,

Sorry to tell you this, dp, but we've already posted information & responses to the International Commission for the Conservation decision.

Me, I'd be quite interested in learning more about the Commission, itself, but I have an awful feeling it might lead down another IWC road. Sounds very much like the same sort of shenanigans, similar backroom wheeling & dealing scene to me.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Sorry to tell you this, dp, but we've already posted information & responses to the International Commission for the Conservation decision.

Well i wouldnt know.
Because of all the crap posted by ionus and spendy that litters this thread i havnt read anything after my last post.

1 Reply

DECLINES IN FISH STOCKS WORLDWIDE_the ecology of exinction

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know