Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Greenpeace changing their PR agency does not alter the science about fisheries.

No, but it does indicate a change in the way they sell their position.

Until relatively recently Greenpeace ran its canvassing operation in-house, and not only trained its canvassers to canvass, but also gave them at least a rudimentary education on the issues they were soliciting support for. The Fund doesn't do that, it gives any legally able body a clipboard, has them memorize an emotionally laden pitch, and pushes them out the door to sink or swim.

This gives a whole new meaning to "Finding Nemo".

 dogma wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Greenpeace changing their PR agency does not alter the science about fisheries.

No, but it does indicate a change in the way they sell their position.

Until relatively recently Greenpeace ran its canvassing operation in-house, and not only trained its canvassers to canvass, but also gave them at least a rudimentary education on the issues they were soliciting support for. The Fund doesn't do that, it gives any legally able body a clipboard, has them memorize an emotionally laden pitch, and pushes them out the door to sink or swim.

Though the entire Greenpeace sideline is a sideline. I posted the image because it was a good visual representation of the issue - not so people could dive off the deep end into the murky waters of off topic discussion (puns very much intended - you all deserve them!) about how Greenpeace have changed maaaan.

The underlying issue remains, regardless of what protest organisations do or say; hard data shows how fish stocks are being depleted at an alarming rate and how, surprisingly, unsustainable fishing practices are unsustainable. The sea is not a bottomless pit of fish; it is a resource that must be carefully managed just like any other.

Looks like it's time to start breeding the super salmon.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I was taought that in general Pregnant women, old people and kids should never eat fish.

It's really only larger predatory fish, tuna, salmon things like that. Pollutants tend to concentrate as you go up the food chain. Something like farm raised catfish is fine.

A funny factoid about piracy in Somalia. Their country has been raped by industrial fishermen for years. It was one of the cases of the famine they had since their local fishermen in their dinky little boats couldnt catch anything. Pirates moved in and made the waters too unsafe for the commercial fishermen to operate in and the fish stocks rebounded greatly in only a few years. Who said the pirates didnt do good for Somalia?

Unfortunately, we cant police the open ocean. UN is flipping useless as usual. The only thing that will work to stop these pirates of our oceans is force. They do not have the right to keep screwing us all over for their own pockets. For the cost of a couple torpedoes we can and should help the oceans.

Guys. I already explained the reason for no more fish. Why does nobody accept this?

Col. Dash wrote:
A funny factoid about piracy in Somalia. Their country has been raped by industrial fishermen for years. It was one of the cases of the famine they had since their local fishermen in their dinky little boats couldnt catch anything. Pirates moved in and made the waters too unsafe for the commercial fishermen to operate in and the fish stocks rebounded greatly in only a few years. Who said the pirates didnt do good for Somalia?

Unfortunately, we cant police the open ocean. UN is flipping useless as usual. The only thing that will work to stop these pirates of our oceans is force. They do not have the right to keep screwing us all over for their own pockets. For the cost of a couple torpedoes we can and should help the oceans.

So, Shoot fishing boats full of workers?
Good Idea.

That great white is too close to the camera.

(Doesn't the latest research indicate that megalodon looked more like a giant tiger shark, with a boxier nose, than a great white?)

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Guys. I already explained the reason for no more fish. Why does nobody accept this?

You didn't knit a sweater with a matching hat.

Col. Dash wrote:
A funny factoid about piracy in Somalia. Their country has been raped by industrial fishermen for years. It was one of the cases of the famine they had since their local fishermen in their dinky little boats couldnt catch anything. Pirates moved in and made the waters too unsafe for the commercial fishermen to operate in and the fish stocks rebounded greatly in only a few years. Who said the pirates didnt do good for Somalia?

Unfortunately, we cant police the open ocean. UN is flipping useless as usual. The only thing that will work to stop these pirates of our oceans is force. They do not have the right to keep screwing us all over for their own pockets. For the cost of a couple torpedoes we can and should help the oceans.

Well, we are the ones eating the fish caught by those industrial fishermen. So instead of shooting them, maybe we could just eat less fish instead? Shooting torpedoes at them for something we pay them to do for us seems a bit... unfair?

 Chongara wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I was taought that in general Pregnant women, old people and kids should never eat fish.

It's really only larger predatory fish, tuna, salmon things like that. Pollutants tend to concentrate as you go up the food chain. Something like farm raised catfish is fine.

So Mackerel and Sardines are safer?

If you like fish and want to eat sustainable fish.

The website or app Seafood Watch is great for this, it is maintained by the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

I'm at the point where I shrug, say "oh well" and move on with my life. I don't have the energy to care anymore about people screwing themselves over when they have the knowledge necessary to avoid and/or solve the problem. I can survive if fish drop off the market, and I love farm-grown tilapia anyway.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm at the point where I shrug, say "oh well" and move on with my life. I don't have the energy to care anymore about people screwing themselves over when they have the knowledge necessary to avoid and/or solve the problem. I can survive if fish drop off the market, and I love farm-grown tilapia anyway.

It's even better if the tilapia are helping your vegetables grow aswell.

 loki old fart wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm at the point where I shrug, say "oh well" and move on with my life. I don't have the energy to care anymore about people screwing themselves over when they have the knowledge necessary to avoid and/or solve the problem. I can survive if fish drop off the market, and I love farm-grown tilapia anyway.

It's even better if the tilapia are helping your vegetables grow aswell.

If I ever live in a place that has room I'll be all over one of those setups. Mmmmm...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm at the point where I shrug, say "oh well" and move on with my life. I don't have the energy to care anymore about people screwing themselves over when they have the knowledge necessary to avoid and/or solve the problem. I can survive if fish drop off the market, and I love farm-grown tilapia anyway.

It's even better if the tilapia are helping your vegetables grow aswell.

If I ever live in a place that has room I'll be all over one of those setups. Mmmmm...

Already beat you to it.

Time to start eating insects to take the pressure off of the fish population.

What should I name my fast food franchise that specializes in insect cuisine?

The commercial fishers in the open oceans are effectively pirates with no one watching how they are fishing. They sit out past the national boundaries and rape to their hearts content. Shooting worked for Somalia of all places, it will work in international waters. Take out a few and they wont do it anymore out of fear. If you have a peaceful way to solve the issue, go for it. And no not eating fish isnt the answer, you will never get everyone on board with this, especially Asia which is one home to the biggest offenders. Farming sustainably is nice but full scale isnt environmentally friendly. Salmon and shrimp farms are horrbile for the environment.

Its not megladon, its Sharktapus. It mostly inhabits the Bermuda triangle.

Oh, sure, let's just go and kill fishermen doing their jobs and risk international diplomatic crises. Real mature solution that is.

 nels1031 wrote:
What should I name my fast food franchise that specializes in insect cuisine?

iFood - that way people will buy it regardless

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
What should I name my fast food franchise that specializes in insect cuisine?

iFood - that way people will buy it regardless

I vote Bug burgers, then we can abbreviate it too Bug-gers

 BlaxicanX wrote:

The global catch of fish and seafood is falling at three times the rate reported by the United Nations and urgently needs to be slowed to avoid a crash, reports Christopher Pala. The finding comes in a new study for Nature which quantifies the huge illegal industrial fish pillaging taking place around the world, together with artisanal catches, which in 2010 added over 50% to UN estimates.

Full article here.

Hard to believe- there are sooo many fish. Also I had no idea how much fisheries were don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n poor nations after having already exhausted the resources of their own countries.

This has happened before in many fisheries, but it is specific fisheries that are hurt. Over all there are a lot of fish in the ocean but over half of them are undesirable as a human food source. Over harvesting seems to be a general theme for us humans, there are several fisheries that have recovered since the early 1900's fishing boom, but many more that are still recovering. In the past the ocean was seen as a unending resource, and you could never exhaust it. Do a search on swordfish and Marlin that fishery has yet to fully recover but is doing well. Blue-Fin Tuna (or is it Yellow-Fin I can't remember), Chilean Sea Bass, and Cod in some areas still doing poorly. Part of the problem is habitat damaging fishing practices (Benthic Trawls) and also nets made from super strong cord and are nearly invisible to most fish.

One of the biggest issues is many third world nations that use chemicals to harvest reef fish, reef fish have a specific means of breeding and colonizing then recolonizing reefs. basically they kill and harvest the entire reef, then invasive cichlids colonize the reef and prevent native reef fish from coming back. Most of these cichlids are undesirable as a food source. They don't taste good.

So when they say the ocean is running out of fish they are mostly talking about the ones we humans like to eat.

Reporters never translate science into a new article correctly. Being in the fisheries field, I remember my boss giving a reporter information about an invasive species causing problems, but what he wrote had nothing to do with any of that.

SilverMK2 that is one of the best posters, I remember seeing that one in college when I was studying fisheries. It is very accurate. Notice the catch difference of the large trawl net, then notice the bycatch (the stuff you don't want). the smaller boats have smaller nets and can avoid most bycatch. During the early 1920's-1930's when fish started to become scarce or smaller (fish we wanted to eat) fishing companies bought more and bigger boats to make up for the catch loose of the other fewer smaller boats, over the next 20-30 years it only compounded the problem. Its the reason we have closed fisheries and quotas now.

Jehan-reznor is correct where money is involved nothing will happen until its too late.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I was taought that in general Pregnant women, old people and kids should never eat fish.

It's really only larger predatory fish, tuna, salmon things like that. Pollutants tend to concentrate as you go up the food chain. Something like farm raised catfish is fine.

So Mackerel and Sardines are safer?

Yep: http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/guide.asp

The basic process is this. Lets say you dump some random toxic-to-humans pollutant in the water in a sufficient amounts such that the plants wind up having about X units of that pollutant in them at any one time. Some little critters come around eat many units of those plants, and wind up with the sum value of the pollutants in all the plants they consume inside them. Some bigger critters eat those, and the sum value of all the pollutants in them wind up that bigger critter when the amount in each of those smaller critters was already the sum value all the plants that each had the baseline value of pollution in the area. Then some big bass critters comes around and eats the ones that ate the small critters, and winds up with the sum pollution value in each of those, each of which was the sum of all the smaller critters, each of which was the sum of all the plants which had the baseline pollution values.

It's kind of simplistic a model but that's the basics of it. You can easily see that as you move up the food chain the concentration of any pollutant (assuming it can be readily absorbed and stored by each step in the chain), tends to grow somewhat exponentially while the body size of the critters involved grows less rapidly. This means the pollutant per unit body weight of the critters grows and becomes more toxic.

That said, with apologies given to any pregnant members of this forum the average gamer is male, has a high body weight and is relatively young but not a small child. Most of us probably don't have anything to worry about from chowing down on all the Tuna we want.

I am not inclined to believe things than Greenpeace claims at all. Remember when they had to special snowflake and feth up the Nazca lines? http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30422994

Visits to the site are closely supervised - ministers and presidents have to seek special permission and special footwear to tread on the fragile ground where the 1,500 year old lines are cut.

Earlier this week 20 Greenpeace activists from seven countries unfurled a protest banner very close to the location of the lines.

Yeah...
Even if they were right about something this time, it would be a very difficult process to slow down at all. It boggles my mind how much seafood goes through the Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo on a daily basis. Some places like Japan depend so heavily on seafood for their diets that even reducing the amount of fish coming in would be a massive shift from the cultural norm. How do we feed so many people in an area primarily dependent on seafood if we were to cut back-- or worse, if the fish populations were actually depleted?

 KommissarKiln wrote:
I am not inclined to believe things than Greenpeace claims at all.

It was just a pretty picture dude...

Even if they were right about something this time,

While past actions of Greenpeace is not really the point of this thread, it is worth pointing out that the research is not linked to Greenpeace; even if it were, the past actions of Greenpeace have little to no relevance when discussing scientific and statistical data, other than if there is a query over their validity due to bias.

it would be a very difficult process to slow down at all. It boggles my mind how much seafood goes through the Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo on a daily basis. Some places like Japan depend so heavily on seafood for their diets that even reducing the amount of fish coming in would be a massive shift from the cultural norm. How do we feed so many people in an area primarily dependent on seafood if we were to cut back-- or worse, if the fish populations were actually depleted?

The same thing would need to happen regardless; a switch to alternative food sources. Either "artificial" fish (such as whatever the veggie version of fish is? (and I am aware that many veggies eat fish because it is not a cute and cuddly "real" animal ), or something completely different. Pretty much no foodstuff is non-replacable with alternatives, even if it might take a short while for this to be arranged and purchasing/distribution to get a handle on it.

Short term disruption, longer term adaptation, and the removal of fish from all but the most expensive dinner tables... same as with other exotic foods.

 Chongara wrote:
The basic process is this. Lets say you dump some random toxic-to-humans pollutant in the water in a sufficient amounts such that the plants wind up having about X units of that pollutant in them at any one time. Some little critters come around eat many units of those plants, and wind up with the sum value of the pollutants in all the plants they consume inside them. Some bigger critters eat those, and the sum value of all the pollutants in them wind up that bigger critter when the amount in each of those smaller critters was already the sum value all the plants that each had the baseline value of pollution in the area. Then some big bass critters comes around and eats the ones that ate the small critters, and winds up with the sum pollution value in each of those, each of which was the sum of all the smaller critters, each of which was the sum of all the plants which had the baseline pollution values.

The concept is called Bioaccumulation which was best researched by Rachel Carson, although she used insecticide (PCB's) in her research.

http://w3.marietta.edu/~biol/102/2bioma95.html

It should be noted that mercury can be naturally occurring in pristine water, not all mercury is pollution. Trace amounts are found in water even in pristine areas around the world.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Things

My bad for not going through the actual article, if even to see who wrote it. As soon as GP was mentioned, I just did a kinda sorta tune out (tuna out?) because of the shenanigans I've known them to cause . Somehow I thought they were the ones behind this entire notion. But seeing as they aren't, I'll be a bit more serious. We can't eat the Megalodons eating all the rest of the fish because they're gonna contain waaaay too much mercury.

Nah, but for real, I think it'll take quite some time for seafood alternatives to really gain any traction, especially in areas that traditionally eat mainly seafood for 2-3 meals a day.

On the topic of tuna specifically, it is worth noting that the kind of tuna is a massive determining factor in how much mercury it may have. Interestingly enough, the high-quality tunas (such as bluefin, albacore) tend to have the most mercury, several times that of the 'light tuna' blend which is cheaper and commonly used in sandwich joints.

On mercury levels in fish overall, a safe rule of thumb is that the smaller the fish the less mercury it will have. It's not perfect but is a pretty simple and surprisingly reliable method.