Save the Sea Kittens
 

Have you eaten your share of sea kitten today?

PETA have a new campaign to improve the image of fish in order to promote awareness of all the cruelty done to fish by man.

Sure we all know PETA are a bunch of greenie type weirdos who like to go to extreme lengths to get their point across, but please, can't they leave the children out of it???

Have a look at the website this quote comes from and you'll see what I mean.

Well both PETA (and Aliantha who will now reply hysterically) miss a bigger point. Man has so harmed the oceans since the mid 1980s that, for example, the once robust Grand Banks has now been depleted of cod for 16 years. Grand Banks were once one of the seven great fisheries in the world. But rampant overfishing - especially nets that capture, kill, and throw back 25% of the fish - has so depleted the Grand Banks that fishing has been banned for over a decade. 16 years later and the once plentiful cod on the Grand Banks are still near extinction with no sign of recovery.

A problem that exists all over the world and is still getting worse. The severe reduction in all categories of fish is (unfortunately) proceeding as the math predicted.

Why would I respond hysterically?

And you've missed the main point in that PETA while they may possibly be approaching this new campaign for conservationist reasons the issue is that they're obviously targeting children (or mentally retarded adults) with their website.

My opinion is that they're not trying to conserve fish for human consumption or otherwise. My opinion is that they're suggesting we're terrible for eating them, including the indigenous communities who rely on fish as an important source of protien such as the communities in PNG who my husband has been working closely with on exactly this issue.

They want us to eat seaweed... after the sea kittens have had their fill of course. I wonder if they can convince the sea kittens to stop eating smaller sea kittens?:rolleyes:

Save the Sex Kittens.

I thought PETA were pro-hunting anyway.
And as they believe the owning of pets is wrong (obviously assuming that scrawny feral cat populations live a much happier, jollier life) I can't see why picturing fish as kittens would help. Because any urban population allowed to breed unchecked become vermin and have to be culled at best and exterminated at worst.

Still, they always have been one sandwich short of a picnic.

In the US they are totally anti-hunting. Anything that they think is harming animals, they are against it, even if it helped save their sorry ass from cancer, or treated their brother for a head injury. If they truely believed the crap they spewed out they would never seek medical care.

Hmmmmmmm

I honestly can't remember where I read it.
It surprised me at the time, but then it kinda made sense - where people eat their kill I mean. The suggestion was that the animals hunted live more naturally than farmed animals do, to the effect that if you have to eat meat, you should be required to hunt it yourself and see how many people end up as veggies then, huh!? Huh?!

I accept I may be wrong on their stance - a little light Googling certainly suggests that I am.

People Eating Tasty Animals

There you go again. Was that really necessary?

cite something... anything to prove your timeline. This has been going on since long before the mid 80's. It started at least a decade earlier, probably more.

Of course. According to your reasoning, its been going on since the end of neanderthal man. But then classicman always posts attacks AND never risks posting a fact. Did classicman every cite a supporting facts for this (or any other) post? Of course not. He is doing as any good wacko would do. Post accusations and post subjectively - as he learned from listeningt to Rush Limbaugh.

Cite? classicman never posts citations. That is classic Limbaugh.

Meanwhile PETA (and Aliantha) miss the point. Since the 1980s, the world has massively depleted all fish stocks including something new - killing off and throwing back of 25% of the fish stock. A problem so severe that even after 16 years without fishing, the cod still have not returned to the Grand Banks. A problem now found all over the world.

I'm sorry tw - I missed your cite AGAIN - I got the "you know nothing so you're a whackoextremist part" though. I also got the "this is fact because I said so" part, but your proof was missing again. Try posting some actual facts to support your claim that the fish depletion began in the 80's. Otherwise STFU. mmmkay?


Man whats gotten into you lately? You are getting quite intolerable.
FWIW, I post a citation each and every time I'm asked.

He asked for a citation for why you picked the 80's as the defining moment. That, Sir, is a legitimate question, and your tirade is way out of line.
Couldn't of you just said that in the first place? Maybe they missed your point (not the point), because you told why you think the change in fishing technique has depleted fish stocks, while others including myself, are thinking about man's inhumanity to the oceans that has been going on for a very long time, and in more ways than just overfishing. While your point may be valid, you're thinking like an MBA. Our treatment of the oceans is much more troublesome than decreased food production. That, is the bigger point.

from another source:

and yet another:
Another reason (fact) is that this was not even considered an issue of "global importance" to most countries until the 80's. At that point there became a wider range on information and more reliable data available to substantiate the declining fish populations.

Additionally the decline in fish populations has many factors involved from global warming, or cooling as assumed in the 70's, to overfishing both commercially and privately. It was originally assumed that the private fishermen were the culprits. Only when strict limits were put upon them and the decline continued to worsen did the reality become known. Private fisherman are NOT the problem.

I have personally seen commercial boats take out entire schools. Yes, personally. They will group their boats together and repeatedly circle a school with their nets. It takes them very little time to completely devastate an entire school.

In recent years they have begun to follow the scallop trawlers. They have learned that the tuna follow these boats up the coast for an easy and reliable food source. Sometimes they are so close as to almost entangle their gear with each other. It's a sin, but these guys have gotten so technical and so advanced that the fish populations have virtually no chance.

We are looking forward to a certain crisis in about 40-50 years.

What makes you think that I personally am not aware of the problems with fisheries the world over?

My husband has written numerous papers on the subject. He's written a book on fisheries management in Australia. He has a phd in zoology and his subject was the biology and management of the swallow tailed dart of the surf zone carangid.

You don't live with someone with that wealth of knowledge without learning a few things.

Come back to me if you actually want to have a discussion on the subject mate.

Aliantha is not the topic. PETA is the topic. PETA missing the point. I gather you understand the point. But you fail to grasp that I am not discussing Aliantha. I am discussing the relevant part of the topic - which PETA seems to completely ignore.

Somehow, you have confuse a criticism of the point with a criticism of you? Why? You are not attached to PETA or a serous fisheries problem. But you missed (did not post) what is an obvious criticism of (mistake made by) PETA.

His is not a legitimate question because 'cite' without facts to justify a doubt is simply classicman's passive aggressive mockery again. You, on the other hand, are asking for further clarification in a responsible manner that includes clarification or foundation for your doubt or question. So you get a reply - not the turd.

Studies cite the 1980s as a point which fisheries were being depleted to levels that began a complete collapse of various species. It is now estimated that 90% of all species are in various stages of that complete collapse. Cod on the Grand Bank being a worst case example of what has been happening. After 16 years of banned fishing, Cod numbers still remain depleted for reasons not fully understood.

The 1980s is also when fish caught, killed, and thrown back went from near zero to 25%. Mankind now also trashes many other species that are important to stability of the ocean’s balance. Perfect example of what created this problem are drift nets which came into widespread use in the 1980s.

1980s is cited often as the time that numbers of fish taken exceeded a supportable number. Something like five of the world’s seven largest fisheries are now in trouble – on the verge of completely collapse. A problem made even more obvious by virtually no fish now around Taiwan and Japan where fish stock were depleted to complete collapse. The fish stocks never returned. What happened there long ago is now (and suddenly) being discovered all over the world.

Seems like you brought her into it - You made it personal.

And I cited several quotes/sources (see post #15) to back up my claim which tw AGAIN ignored because they do not agree with tw's politics. This seems very hypocritical.

Oh really? Again with the attack. ok, Where is the cite provided for tw's reply to Bruce who simply restated classicman's request? Looks like tw again wrote a long post based upon tw's assumptions, opinions and/or politics without any proof. Something that one poster would call "whacko extremist." Interesting indeed.

I disagree.

Looks like you made it personally about me and attached me to PETA yourself tw.

And again you attach me to PETA through your statement suggesting that I don't get the point you're making.

Your condescending attitude towards anyone else with knowledge on a subject (and might I add that many people here are more informed on this subject than you are) is why I felt it necessary to inform you that you're barking up the wrong tree when accusing me of 'not getting the point'. You're a rude little so and so with an over-inflated sense of importance when it comes to any topic you decide to shoot your mouth of on. Aside from that, your vitriolic responses to some other members here recently have left me with a very sour taste in my mouth with regard to your ability to even discuss a topic with any real intelligence at all. Your contribution to this forum is nothing more than a running joke, but you're the only one who doesn't get it. You think people take you seriously? You think anyone has any respect for your reconstituted drivel?

The answer is no. You're nothing more than a small man with a bad case of verbal diarrhea.

Fine. I stand by what I posted with no consideration or intent for personal attacks. PETA (and your criticism of PETA) misses the fundamental point. I never said you did not know this. I said you were criticizing the irrelevant thing. Any condescending - you added that to what I did not say and did not intend to say. To see condescending, then see what I have to say about TheMercenary's wife. Was that in the post? Of course not. Then nothing was personal. I will often appear rude because I just post and challenge facts - that have no attachement to people.

Meanwhile, your criticism of (silly) PETA completely missed a larger and more relevant point - my point then and still my point now.

Meanwhile, what can you add to this predicted collapse of so many fisheries?

PETA's Point - killing fish is cruel

tw's Point - mismanagement has depleted fish stocks and now there are serious problems which need to be addressed.

My Point - PETA are aiming this website at the wrong demographic and it's not going to go anywhere.

My Opinion - There are serious issues with regard to mismanagement of fisheries which need to be addressed and PETA do more to damage the likelihood of any recovery than they obviously realise. Telling people not to kill fish for food is not the answer. Proper management of a renewable resource is.

ETA: btw, I have some information on some of the by-catch reduction devices currently in use or on trial in Australia if you're seriously interested in learning what some people in the industry are working on to solve the by-catch issue which seems to be of serious concern to you.

Let's eat the twolls instead!

Over the line and you know it. I have never made a comment about your wife or family.

How Fucking Board is TW To be Arguing about FISH !!!!!

Oh Yeah Tw I have NEVER Put any body on ignore till Now !!!

See ya, Wouldnt want to be YA !!!!

Hey, fish are important! They make up a good proportion of our diet and they also provide us with a good excuse to go to the beach often. :D

Fish are not boring! lol

I didnt meen that fish are boring , it just seems TWs spoiling for a scrap ANY where he can find one , includeing Personal attacks .
We should ALL ignore him , may be he will go AWAY !!!

I doubt it , but hey you Never know

Fishing is a twoll's speciality ...occasionally they change the bait to see if they can stir up the waters and snag some bigger fish ....and it works.

He might. ;)

Talking about fish can be boring though really. I listen to discussions about fish and marine environments all the time, and believe me, it has often contributed to me drinking far more than I should have. lol

I'll drink to that! :D

and there you have it folks - fish lead to alcoholism. someone should do a study.

On it.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f8.../Bottomsup.jpg

Is that what is meant by "beer battered fish"?

Only when they start punching it.

Have seen little about the problem in Australian and Indian Ocean fisheries. For example, I read that all but 25% of the Australian barrier reefs are in some form of serious degradation or trouble. But that comes only from single sentences without supporting facts to confirm that number is really what they meant.

How bad is problem in Australian fisheries? I have also read suggestions that the problem may only be in the SW corner where pesticides and fertilizer wash into the ocean. It that also true or is the problem widespread all around Australia?

Pesticides in the water are a problem all over the place. Just recently it has been found that some fish hatcheries in the Noosa River are now completely sterile thanks to a pesticide banned in the US but used in Australia on Macadamia trees.

With regard to the reef, there are conflicting reports on what damage is occuring and who or what is causing it, or whether it's naturally occuring. Daryl has an associate who has written papers on both sides in order to garner more research dollars, so even within the scientific community, it's hard to know who to trust or believe. There is no doubt that the reef is in a period of decline, but the causes could be just about anything you might think of naming.

With regard to fish stocks in the Great Barrier Reef area, there have been a number of measures put in place to ensure the survival of many fish species such as restrictions on fishing zones for either or both commercial and ammature/recreational purposes. Different licensing laws for commercial fishers with regard to periods they're allowed to fish and catch restrictions and also mandatory installation of suitable by-catch reduction devices. These restrictions while great for the environment have had serious negative social repercussions such as an increase in domestic violence, divorce and suicide in all coastal fishing towns due to the fact that many fishers found themselves unable to provide a living for their families. The government severely underestimated the compensation package which would be required and this in turn caused more conflict between fishers and also local authorities. Daryl has been involved with this whole process and was at the time a member of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority committee. He advocated for the fishers and what compensation should be paid. Unfortunately initially he was one small voice (among a few others) which was shouted down. He was vindicated later when it was revealed the the government would be spending almost 10 times what they had initially planned to spend.

So, the issues with Australian fisheries is contentious at best. There are various groups involved in monitoring and managing fishers from all areas, but it's a big job and not much funding is available. There have been some wins though, but it's a constant battle.

That would be consistent and explain what I have read. Everyone seems to have numbers that don't always agree. None mention where those numbers come from, define the underlying concepts being measured, or the contraversy. I guess I will have to wait for the eventual article in Scientific American to understand why so many authors write as if they have the only fact.

Any ballpark numbers for depletion of any fish or shellfish species?

As I understand, knowledge about the Indian ocean has been minimal, at best, until the Chinese did some noteworthy research there.

Not off the top of my head, but I can say that the Orange Roughie is in serious trouble here just as it is in US waters, along with a lot of other species.

Gotta go now. Taking the kids to the beach to see if they can get eaten by a sea kitten. I'll try and convince Dazza to log on and tell you more about it if you're really interested.

So that is a fish. I kept reading about it but had no idea what is was. In fact, I kept rereading the sentence to correct what I thought was a typographical error. Is it an apex predator fish equivalent to tuna, bluefish, or swordfish?

Not at all - it is more like the saltwater version of a perch. Mot really predatory like those you mentioned at all. They grow very slowly and don't mature to reproduce for something like 10 or 20 years. They also are a relatively small fish growing to about a foot or 2 max. That's why their numbers are declining so fast. They are very tasty and high in demand.

I have this gift certificate for a fish store. Are Orange Roughies sold under another name (as some fish are)?

not that I know of, but I won't eat it. I tend to stay with whatever I personally catch or those species not as damaged as others. Just trying to do a little to save that which I can. Have some tilapia - very close to the roughy in taste, but a farmable fish.
Some cool info on the link there about tilapia farming.

That is more common than most people know. Shark is commonly sold as scallops too. Its a very common practice to "mix" in some inexpensive fish with the good stuff - increasing the profits. As WHIP says - Its all about the money.

That is such a huge problem. The average consumer just can't tell.

devils/ If they can't tell, why is it a problem? /advocate

real/$$$$$$$$$/ity

Ohhhh, the honesty issue eh?

yeh, whatevah.

incorrect labelling is a big problem in most places. Over the last few years consumers are at least required to be informed if the fish they purchase are local or imported which is a big step forward. Most shops also put the country of origin if they're imported. The reason this law was finally introduced is largely thanks to the asian prawn farming industry and their habit of loading the product with anti-biotics which are not permitted over here.

It definitely is a case of buyer beware though. Why wouldn't you inform yourself on what you're planning on putting in your body? Some things - such as imported prawns imo - could be very harmful.

tw - with regard to the Orange Roughie, they basically live on the tops of sea mounts and once the area is harvested they don't regenerate very well simply because of the reasons classic covered re breeding cycle etc along with the fact that they really don't move from sea mount to sea mount if that makes any sense, so before bag limits were introduced, a sea mount could literally be 'fished out' and that's the end of the OR.