An intersting article on where your market seafood comes from...

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

dytis-sm

Contributor
Messages
313
Reaction score
123
Location
Santa Monica, CA
# of dives
1000 - 2499
I cannot help noticing the absolute views against hunting by some SB members. Every article featuring a poacher or some F&G violation starts the witch burning mob... Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it is hypocritical to accuse scuba and free diving hunters for the ills of the seafood supply. The truth is that there is a finite amount out there and there are limits in place for us to manage it. Suggesting however that buying "sustainable" seafood from the market is more ethical, has never been more wrong since nobody can confirm how sustainable is sustainable... Here is an interesting article analyzing the complexities of seafood origin and sustainability

Every fish you eat is an environmental mystery, but would you pay more to know the truth? | | Comment is free | The Guardian
 
Last edited:
So the authors conclusion is that we should all pay more $$ for our seafood so the developing nations don't deplete their fish stock resources because we are all good citizens of the world.

Guess what.... We have no jurisdiction over what other countries do with their resources - they are sovereign.
 
So the authors conclusion is that we should all pay more $$ for our seafood so the developing nations don't deplete their fish stock resources because we are all good citizens of the world.

Guess what.... We have no jurisdiction over what other countries do with their resources - they are sovereign.

I think the underlying premise is that the Earth's resources in some way collectively belong to all of Earth's citizens. We are all stakeholders in planet Earth. Maybe there are ways for consumers to influence what happens to resources in another country's waters.
 
... We have no jurisdiction over what other countries do with their resources - they are sovereign.

Yes, we should respect their sovereignty.

If they don't know know what a "minimally sustainable fishery" looks like, though, it would be nice for someone to explain it to them before something like this happens again.


surexploitation_morue_surpeche-en-613px.jpg

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sorry, I got a message pointing out that maybe not everyone remembers what a complete economic catastrophe this was.

From the Wikipedia article (emphasis mine) ...

The collapse of the Northern Cod fishery marked a profound change in the ecological, economic and socio-cultural structure of Atlantic Canada. The moratorium in 1992 marked the largest industrial closure in Canadian history, and it was expressed most acutely in Newfoundland, whose continental shelf lay under the region most heavily fished.

Over 35,000 fishers and plant workers from over 400 coastal communities became unemployed. In response to dire warnings of social and economic consequences, the federal government intervened, initially providing income assistance through the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program, and later through the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, which included money specifically for the retraining of those workers displaced by the closing of the fishery.

Newfoundland has since experienced a dramatic environmental, industrial, economic, and social restructuring, including considerable outmigration.​

Even though the local economies were destroyed as thoroughly as if the towns had been bombed, the story has a surprisingly positive ending. Crustacean catch is starting to replace the lost groundfish catch.
 
Last edited:
I watched the full episode last night - the presenter does not even touch on US seafood. He examines Australian seafood labeling laws and goes out on Thai trawlers and Australian trawlers and looks at Thai prawn farming in the first episode - its a series. He is not advocating for a rise is seafood prices and for people to cut demand simply that people are aware of where their seafood comes from - the current situation is uncooked seafood must have a point of origin on the label, seafood cooked (ie fish and chips) does not have to have any labeling. He manages to get a handful of players together in the first episode to sit down and discuss the problem and one senator offers to take the issue to parliament for discussion. He also shows the difference in bycatch from the Thai trawlers and the Australian trawlers which use TEDs (Turtle excluder devices) and have an automated return to ocean by-catch system running. He is not trying to have cheap frozen prawns from thailand banned thus forcing all Australians to pay higher prices, his focus is on educating people on the practices used in fish farming and for more transparency in labelling to show the ocean to plate chain.
We have a system where sustainably caught seafood is available which has traceability back to the boat it was caught on and where it was caught at what time. He is requesting that the system is adopted by more food outlets and restaurants for peoples choice....its better than nothing. The aim of the program is to educate people not put anyone out of a job nor to try to make people eat less seafood.

Not sure if the vid will be viewable in your location but here is episode 1 What's The Catch With Matthew Evans S1 Ep1 | SBS On Demand
 
Wingy,

Thanks for the reference. Although the article deals with Australia, the problem is global. Fish do not recognize borders and although we may have rules and regulations, there are billions on the other side of the Pacific that have none. The series is food for thought for some of the critics of local hunting versus buying at the store...
 
Totally agree dytis_sm - if only every one caught one fish for dinner and went home satisfied we wouldnt have our oceans being raped while theres billions of tuna sitting in cans on shelves and yet we still keep catching more. Im looking forward to the next episode.
 
Wingy,

Thanks for the reference. Although the article deals with Australia, the problem is global. Fish do not recognize borders and although we may have rules and regulations, there are billions on the other side of the Pacific that have none. The series is food for thought for some of the critics of local hunting versus buying at the store...

Maybe the world police can shoot torpedoes at boats like the one in the article. Problem solved?

Being a member of a mob can be fun, I keep a torch and pitchfork in my garage so I don't miss any.
 
I cannot help noticing the absolute views against hunting by some SB members. Every article featuring a poacher or some F&G violation starts the witch burning mob... Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it is hypocritical to accuse scuba and free diving hunters for the ills of the seafood supply.
I don't believe there are many posters who are completely against hunting as long as it is done legally. Poachers and F&W violators are not the same as scuba and free diving hunters. Someone who knowingly breaks F&W regulations or tries to get away with taking more than their legal share are low life scum.
 
I don't believe there are many posters who are completely against hunting as long as it is done legally. Poachers and F&W violators are not the same as scuba and free diving hunters. Someone who knowingly breaks F&W regulations or tries to get away with taking more than their legal share are low life scum.

Of course the article was about just such a boatload of poachers. Not only that, but they had been poaching the same area for years and were complaining about the lack of fish in the protected area.

Since the laws in this case are already in place, it's simply a matter of the local authorities not enforcing the laws.

The article seems a bit silly as it seems to be pitching more laws, yet ignoring the fact that it is already illegal. I bet if they offered a reasonable bounty for poachers they would get the necessary assistance to enforce their existing laws.


Where did I put my pitchfork?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom