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.

Ahtman wrote:And this will work because we have unlimited resources.

To the extent that my argument stated 'and you put in absolutely every resource available to insure that there is never a murder or tunafish harvested anywhere in the world' then that'd be a problem.

To the extent that you recognise a cost benefit approach, and apply resource up to the point of best possible return considering other priorities, it isn't much of anything.

Don't forget to look at all of the facts.

1) Canada opposed a total ban on Blue-fin Tuna fishing. However, the Canadians support actually enforcing the current laws about fishing of Bluefin Tuna.
Fishermen in Atlantic Canada have strict maximum quotas on their bluefin tuna catch, which they follow and keep underneath. Also, Canadians fish for bluefin tuna (even commercially) using a boat with fishing rods hanging off of the sides. How Canadians catch tuna. In addition to not being a dangerous form of overfishing, this method generally catches older fish that have already spawned and are nearing the end of their life cycle (hence why we catch such big fish)
Fishermen in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean catch tuna by trawling. This means dragging giant nets behind a boat and scooping up absolutely everything. How Blufin Tuna are fished in the Eastern Atlantic. This includes young fish, old fish, and pregnant fish. The Eastern atlantic also has much higher quotas of what they can catch. And guess what, they consistently overfish. These quotas are greatly exceeded each and every single season. In 2007, 61,100 tons of bluefin tuna were caught—twice the quota set by ICCAT. Canada matched their quota in 2007.

So, all of that considered, is it reasonable for Canada to want to keep their Atlantic communities who rely on fishing afloat? Eastern Canada is impoverished compared to the rest of the country, and many of the fishing communities are just struggling by. However, even in these economic straits, Canada obeys the fishing quotas and uses ecologically sound methods of catching tuna.

Canada opposed the bluefin tuna ban because we want other nations to act as responsibly as we are.


On to Polar Bears.

The hunting of Polar Bears has been a part of Inuit culture for as long as there has been an inuit culture. Numbers of inuits are, understandably, still quite low. This, combined with their use of traditional methods and the care they take with the polar bear population mean that in Northern Canada, polar bear numbers are on the rise. Hunters in the north have been reporting increased numbers of polar bear sightings, and no 'official' census of their numbers have been done by scientists since the early 2000s.

I think it's wise to oppose the ban of an activity which is part of the Inuit culture, and has not been shown to be detrimental to the numbers of these animals.

Munch Munch! wrote:This. This is what I believe in. He is right. Animal extinction is a natural part of life. They are dying for a simple reason. They cannot adapt. And I know what a lot of people are saying. Extinction has to happen by natural means, where their habitat is destroyed or killed by a predator. But what they aren't realizing is that we are the reason they are dying. We are the top predator. To progress and multiply, we have to kill others. Kill or be killed. Trying to save a creature who has a high chance of extinction already is a waste of resources, time and effort. We shouldn't try to save all these animals just because we like the pretty little birds and fishies. These animals have lost the evolutionary arms race. It is unfortunate, but this is the way things are.

Evolution is a basic force, much like entropy. In time buildings will come apart, just as naturally as species will die out. But if we want to keep that building we repair it, because its in our best interests. Similarly, if it is in our best interest to maintain a fish so that future generations can eat it as well, then we should control present fishing levels.

Orkestra wrote:Don't forget to look at all of the facts.

1) Canada opposed a total ban on Blue-fin Tuna fishing. However, the Canadians support actually enforcing the current laws about fishing of Bluefin Tuna.
Fishermen in Atlantic Canada have strict maximum quotas on their bluefin tuna catch, which they follow and keep underneath. Also, Canadians fish for bluefin tuna (even commercially) using a boat with fishing rods hanging off of the sides. How Canadians catch tuna. In addition to not being a dangerous form of overfishing, this method generally catches older fish that have already spawned and are nearing the end of their life cycle (hence why we catch such big fish)
Fishermen in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean catch tuna by trawling. This means dragging giant nets behind a boat and scooping up absolutely everything. How Blufin Tuna are fished in the Eastern Atlantic. This includes young fish, old fish, and pregnant fish. The Eastern atlantic also has much higher quotas of what they can catch. And guess what, they consistently overfish. These quotas are greatly exceeded each and every single season. In 2007, 61,100 tons of bluefin tuna were caught—twice the quota set by ICCAT. Canada matched their quota in 2007.

So, all of that considered, is it reasonable for Canada to want to keep their Atlantic communities who rely on fishing afloat? Eastern Canada is impoverished compared to the rest of the country, and many of the fishing communities are just struggling by. However, even in these economic straits, Canada obeys the fishing quotas and uses ecologically sound methods of catching tuna.

Canada opposed the bluefin tuna ban because we want other nations to act as responsibly as we are.


On to Polar Bears.

The hunting of Polar Bears has been a part of Inuit culture for as long as there has been an inuit culture. Numbers of inuits are, understandably, still quite low. This, combined with their use of traditional methods and the care they take with the polar bear population mean that in Northern Canada, polar bear numbers are on the rise. Hunters in the north have been reporting increased numbers of polar bear sightings, and no 'official' census of their numbers have been done by scientists since the early 2000s.

I think it's wise to oppose the ban of an activity which is part of the Inuit culture, and has not been shown to be detrimental to the numbers of these animals.

Actually the Census for 2010 in some parts was completed for the bears. if your talking about a full censuse then your correct. And thanks for writing up the fish explaination, it saved me the trouble. thugh you left out a few points of intrest.

Orcasaurus: your correct, the bears are starving. a few facts are that bears need the pack ice for fishing and hunting, that packice is dwindling.
Its a sad fact that the bears live in a ecosystem that isnt exactly abundant in food. this isnt a new problem, canada has been aware of it for over 50 years, there are measures in place to supliment the bears food supply, but its extreamly costly and because of the bears natures as solitary creatures, you cant impliment a wide feeding regeim. were talking 10s of thousands of square kilomiters. so some bears do get taken care of, but its no were near effective.
bears eats everything, and i mean everything, they are one of the few animals that lists humans as a food sorce. if its edible they will consume it , they live a place where food is scarse and getting food has become pretty much as hard a battle as you can think of becasue of the climate change reduicng the pack ice.

As I have already said, there is a strong argument that the numbers of polar bears being reported and recorded is due to them being forced further south and towards human habitation due to being unable to find food on the ice as it melts and becomes fragile.
You've both said they are starving, so they are desperate to find food, ergo we see and record more of them. You actually agree that the pack ice is dwindling, that the bears environment is being destroyed, so you actually think therefore we should be allowing the hunting of an animal that is undergoing this sort of pressure? An apex predator that has always existed in relatively small numbers and is now actually really endangered. Polar bears don't eat anything and everything. There is footage of them starving to death next to a river full of salmon because they have no idea how to hunt them. There are increasing numbers of polar bears washing up on the shores or being seen from ships drowned as they swam trying to find food and died of exhaustion.

As for the Bluefin, it's going extinct, reduced catch methods by countries who are using a modicum of ethical reasoning in their hunting methods does not change the fact there are those who flout those ethical methods and catch them on an industrialised scale. There simply aren't enough left for people to catch any. Dress it up any way you like it, unless a total ban takes place, there will be no more of this animal. This is really straightforward, there will be no more. We have already seen the increased and geographically shifting populations of humbolt squid due to the reduction of the sharks and other large game fish that would have usually hunted them, the squid are decimating small fish shoals and are virtually alien in many of the waters they are now being seen in. You can't take a species out of the equation and not have ramifications, potentially rendering the North Pacific an oceanic desert.

Polar bears don't eat anything and everything. There is footage of them starving to death next to a river full of salmon because they have no idea how to hunt them.

False, if the bear could get at the fish it would eat the fish, just because this perticular bear couldnt, doesnt mean it wont eat fish. the Polarbear is the only bear that will eat humanswhen hungry, were on the menu just like the seal and anything else it can get its hands on. the polar bear will eat anthing because it knows that it must, instictively or not.


There are increasing numbers of polar bears washing up on the shores or being seen from ships drowned as they swam trying to find food and died of exhaustion.

again: because of climate change, and not because of hunting. your whole arguement is that the bears are indangered because of hunting. that simply isnt the case, smarter and less gulible persons than you have said just this, hell, WWF came out and said they 'oppose' the CITES based on this fact. but i guess there isnt any more reason to discuss this, you have demonstrated nothing but an unwillingness see the real issue, and harp on about something akin to a scratch while ignoring the sucking chest wound that represents global climate change.

I think this thread has pretty much run its course now, sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.