DECLINES IN FISH STOCKS WORLDWIDE_the ecology of exinction

Basically Io it is a feminist strategy. To denigrate masturbation creates a social and biological dynamic in which ladies have the upper hand and we all know the charges when that happens.

It seems every time that your involved n a conversation, you are only happey as a bully. Thing is, most people arent impressed at all, let alone cowering .

As someone previously mentioned, Your credibility is no longer in doubt. Its nonexistent. I predict that youll soon be off this board and relegated to the facebook people where you can scream into space all day long.


PS, this is my thread so , keep on the subject or else Ill report you to the mods. You get too many reports and they kick you off.

Show me one instance where I started the name calling....just one. If I give more than I recieve, it is simply because I am generous. I have stepped into threads when I thought someone is being bullied, but I still waited for the bully to throw the first stone. Show me where I started the name calling ....

How many wanks do you think Darwin had on his five year trip on the Beagle and where do you think his fantasies had got to by the time he arrived back.

Go ahead. I would hate for you to have to report yourself for the same thing.

Fair warning. LEts get back to real business.

You stated that you were (and I paraphrase) Indifferent to the concept of conservation and limiting catches so that sea life can rebound. Why do you feel this way? You dont think fish (as a resource) arent valuable enough to conserve?

Im really trying to understand your open hostility to this concept. SOmething political?

US Libertarians have a "hands off everything belief", do you believe as they.?

I am probably mistaken as a "hands off everything" type because I am very concerned for the environment. Having a piecemeal approach is wasteful, but it seems it is all that can be achieved given the limited attention span of the average joe in the street. They can be made to focus on tigers and whales, but these things will all die out anyway (perhaps along with us) if we dont save the big picture. A complete species going extinct might be the necessary shock required. I would dearly love to save the cuties, I am not the unemotional prick I might seem....but not at the cost of losing them in the long run. I would much rather lose some now and save entire ecosystems.

The oceans are in grave danger. People think radiation is a hazard but it is a doodle compared to chemical poisons. THAT is what causes cancers in people. There is no link between cancer and pilots, living in the mountains or any other life style of higher exposure to radiation . Cancer is far more prevalent near factories. How much goes in the ocean ? We need to save as much as possible, and the problem is simply one of population. There are too many of us, too few of them.

Cancer , by Bruce AMes own admission, correlates quite well to age, diet, smoking, and certain chemicals (including arsenic and alpha radiation).

However, we can take the oceanic ecosystem in its entirety and restore market fish species. Like I said before, the US and CAnadian lobster industry is a perfect example of what conservation can do. CODFISH, probably once the worlds biggest food fish, has been wiped out by overfishing and without the benefit of seasons, off limit zones, and catch limits it wont recover soon, if at all. It appears that cod are actually evolving into bottom feeding rather than deep pelagic feeders. SO now we may pay for our irresponsibility BY not having any cod available to market.

I say that We must save ecosystems one component at a time. The bluefin tuna, a cold water fish, would eat the pelagic cod fry and now, with cod disappeared tuna began losing even before the Japanese began "Hoovering the ocean bottom" for their tuna (Relax, Im also indicting the US and Icelandic and Norwegians and Canadians) but the Japanese began this huge decimation exercise.
Tuna may be able to be farmed but only as long as we can develop aqauculture from egg to adult and not as is being done in the MEd. Its all interelated by the food web and we need to restore where we can and then adjust catches by season, limits, licenses, and size of catches. That way we may not have the super availability of fish , but well have some and that would relieve some of the food problems

Cancer is associated with industrial areas and modern food rather than any other claimed link such as high altitude and radiation.

I disagree. We do that because that is the only way to get people behind conservation. It is wasteful of resources and futile in the long run. Our planet has one problem...too many people. Clearly there is no political will to tackle this problem and there never will be untill we are forced to address it.

The multitude of problems in the natural world can all come back to one cause - people - they need space to live and resources such as food, energy, and minerals.

I am pessimistic about what we can achieve by trying to save large animals that will become extinct anyway, it is just a question of when. We need to save entire ecosystems and families, not species.

John Dryden, in the preface to Annus Mirabilis (1667) had described Nature or reality as the "horizon-line" of the artist's observation. One might say also for the scientist.

Above the line was the "heroic" or "grander-than -life", the images of which "beget Admiration". Below it was the burlesque, the absurdities of which "beget Laughter".

One too good to be true and the other too grotesque.

Mrs Bracegirdle, for example, addressing a gathering at the vicarage on the evils of gaming, drinking and fornication before her knickers dropped to her ankles and then when they have done so without her noticing.

It seems to me that the "horizon-line" in this case might be to imagine the fishermen as a plague from the cod's point of view. From Nature's point of view.

The economic facts of trawler operations are such that depredations of the species produce circumstances in which trawlers cease to operate and any cod that escape the plague inherit a nutrient bed of some nourishing plenteousness just as survivors of the Black Death and other plagues did. Hence they prosper with a rapidity directly proportional to that number of cod eggs which are fertilised out of the very large number spawned which I gather is in the millions for every lady cod.

Hence the species is replenished and the fishing is easy and profitable.

With your quasi-communist suggestions we get an accountant's compromise of some complexity but not irreducibly so. Returns on investment in trawlers being agreed at levels found in other industries. Excepting banking of course. The trawlers, and their crews, are then permanently at sea at 10% rather than alternating between periods of redundancy, during which other occupations may be taken up, and periods of 2,000% orgies.

The plague bacillus, fish and chip shop customers say, has to shift for itself, which is hardly a serious hardship these days when a large slice of TV ads are begging and pleading for it to slurp down a vast array of super succulent delights to the eye and to the tastebuds.

But there is no need for you to worry fm. The number of people who don't understand these obvious and simple facts of evolution is far greater than the number of people who do and so you will be admired for your heroic stance by many more people than those who laugh at it. Which I presume is the main objective. And one can avoid the company of those who laugh at it at the touch of the Ignore button but then there is a risk that one might be the subject of unmitigated admiration which can cause the head to go all funny with imaginings of omnipotence.

But I must warn you that if the teaching of evolution theory becomes widespread the number of people who will laugh is bound to grow unless the teachers are chosen on the basis of complete ignorance of the theory and are only being energised in order to **** on religion for political purposes mainly to do with the popularity of sexual promiscuity and general licence.

Your scheme will also involve the interposition of bureaucratic control mechanisms which by their very nature catch no fish. Desk jobs.

We save a reef, or a species. Thats apparenntly all wecan do because most people who care, really cant even decide on where to hold a meeting. The oceans are stratified enough so that target species can be managed fairly well. Statistics can be set up to determine the "health" of a species nd track its recovery/

To not do anything because of ascientific indecision is far worse. You can return ceratin fish species to viability by moratoria on fishing, habitat restoration, and control of seasons and numbers. I didnt even realize that there could be an argument to that approach. We certainly cannot establish recovery for the entire pelagic fishery due to the startification and wide range of species and their interdependency.
I beleive in solving problems rather than becoming overwhelmed at their complexity.

Human Population control ,although an irritant, is handled by totally different means

Radon is as significant a cancer producer as is smoking. Read some of Bruce AMes work (father of the AMES TEST). Hes since revised his beliefs that "chemicals" are an important part of environmental cancers. Hes only found that 3 or 4 chemicals, each with a specific mode of action , are carcinogens. PCBs , once thought a major cancer causer, have yet to be proven a carcinogen

In fact, capitalism stands in the way of human population control. In industrialized nations, the fertility of males is in decline. In pre-industrial or "sub-industrial" nations, it is on the rise. The equations which once applied to Europe (centuries ago) was that a large number of children assures the labor force for non-mechanical farming, and provides a hedge against the old age of the parents--a son and/or a daughter to give them a place by the fire and their meals. In manor records from England and France in the middle ages there are many examples of elderly serfs, often a widow, making or enforcing an agreement by which a son or son-in-law would have the use of the strip field to which the elderly serf was entitled, in return for specified benefits--meals (often with the number of times a week on which meat were served specified), a seat by the fire, a straw paillasse and a blanket.

These attitudes still prevail in what until recently was known as the third world. Having lots of children provides labor and a "retirement plan" in nations which don't have social security systems, and for workers whose employers provide no pension schemes.

There is no reason to assume that we have reached to carrying capacity of the planet's resources to feed us. Plundering the seas willy-nilly without regard for the long-term consequences is not necessary to feed the population we now have. The recent panic over the supply of rice was a result of flaws in the distribution system, and the exclusive or almost exclusive dependence on rice as the dietary cereal in many parts of the world. The agricultural capacity of the world can easily supply our current population. Achieving some degree of economic stability in most of the world would very likely have the effect of stabilizing the world's population. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of having a vicious guard dog. You benefit from it, but you don't want them running loose without supervision. The United States, for example, is one of the world's major producers of rice. However, since grain rice cannot be imported into Japan (the government there meets shortfalls with direct purchases by the government), American producers specialize in and concentrate on specific consumer products, such as the sushi on which sashimi is served (America supplies the bulk of sushi consumed in Japan).

The worst thing about the scandalous manner in which the oceans are exploited is that it is unnecessary.

My argument is that complacency is based on not being shocked into action. If species were becoming extinct, especially the cutsie ones, people would have to set in place legal frameworks that are more long term. Racing around and just barely saving a species and then racing off and just barely saving another is convincing people that there is nothing else that can or should be done. It also means save the tiger is competing with save the whale, a rather pointless exercise in emotions.

I certainly dont think of myself as overwhelmed at the complexity. Putting out spot fires is pointless if they continue to erupt faster than you can put them out. The source of the fires is the solution. We will be defeated if we continue to have a paniced knee-jerk response to the environment. Long term solutions are very rare, depsite the obvious need for them right now. Taking away resources and political will for short term fixes that in the long term rob you of those same is to not understand the complexity at all.

Studies come, studies go, opinions change the full 180. A map of cancer as a percentage of the population shows it occurs far more in cities than in moutains or even around nuclear power plants or areas where radiation exposure is higher. This suggests that after millions of years of life bathing in radiation, maybe it isnt the demon the communists convinced us of during the cold war. Unless it is our proximity to our fellow humans that is causing cancers, than one would suspect the life style or environment. If we are not ingesting carcinogens than what else is there ? I am certain you are not trying to prove cancer doesnt exist in greater percentages now than before..or are you ?

Most all environmental problems are being handled regionally and species declines are being looked at species by species. EG mountain gorillas have a very strong governmental pledge to act. However, the biggest issu to save this species is shitty governments who dont take the effort to properly distribute the foodstuffs that come pouring in. Poverty from oppression leads to quick attempts to get money and poaching is the biggest death dealer to mountain gorillas.

In Botswana, the elephant of the big "pans" and the Okonvango, are doing quite well. WHy? I feel its because Botswana hgas a rel stable govt, takes care of its people and manages the elephant herds as a business.

WE CAN do the same with sturgeon,Atlantic cod, Artic pollock,Mako shark , swordfish, bluefin tuna, chilean seabass, mola mola, black grouper and red snapper (Im sure theres many more) (NOTICE, each of these species operates in a different niche and needs to be handled separately and really cannot be handled as a big picture item).

First steps, moratoria that lead to determining the species count and then coming up with a management scheme for sustainable catches. Gonna take work, but I dont see throwing up our arms and declaring that it cant be done is a valid response.


I dont buy that in the least. We managed to save the barren ground grizzly bear,the Peregrine falcon, the bald eagle, AND the lobster, AND the alligator, AND the nutria (they are , along with alligators a real pest in the south). Weve brought bison back from the brink, and even the AMerican CXhestnut' s genes are living again in new hybrid Chines/AMerican chestnuts.

A little discussed matter is the dumping of untreated and partially treated sewage into rivers and ocean outfalls, does affect the habitat of fishes. I mean how would one like is backyard dumped on with sewage? Fishes breathe that water and all the micro-organisms like bacteria and lice and so on. I am sure that is killingthe fishes. I know a lot of developed countries are dumping their sewage. Oh well.

Industrial pollution is probably worse. Effluent may make an unpleasant environment for fish, but if there is a danger, it would be to inshore fishermen who eat their own catch.

Industrial waste dumping, though, endangers the fish and those who eat them. The Japanese have so polluted their coastal waters and the Inland Sea that the government warns them not to eat the fish from those waters. That is why, since the mid-1950s, the Japanese began going farther and farther afield to do their fishing.

??? I thought you were replying to me ??

In that time, how many species became endangered compared to how many were saved ? And how long can we keep that up ? If a species can attract money it can be saved. If it cant, it is doomed. The racing around reponse is wasteful. Lets lose tigers and whales, then maybe we can start to save important things. Ever seen a poster or an add to save the microscopic plant life in the oceans ? No ? Neither have I. Whales, tuna, sharks, turtles, and humans all have Buckley's chance of survival without a pristine environment. What effort is being made to clean up all the dumping that went on after WWII ? Or the poisons that are seeping into the oceans from undeveloped countries ?

Where is the frame work to save all species, not just the ones in happy snaps ? The UN has promoted the world heritage areas but this is a siege mentality. We need corporations to justify the use of a new product, not just do market research to see if someone will buy it after they have been convinced they need it.

There are too many humans; they encroach on reserves, they buy things they dont need and it will only get worse. We need more than someone running around waving their arms over their head yelling help.