What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
67 Comments
- AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24Misleading how? You didn't think people were actually raping fish did you?
- niradg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15i disagree. wild fish stocks can be managed, but it requires diligence. and wild caught fish taste better.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14What goes around, comes around.
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/surfrider_foundation_brazil_sewage?size=_original - Ngai, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Definition of rape...
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice. - prowdtobebrown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13I think the bigger issue at stake here is how humans will relate to the ecosystem. Simply saving fish for the purpose of having fish to eat later on doesn't change that relationship. We destroyed the oceans, forests, everything else because we view everything as nothing more than an energy source to be consumed and used up. Changing that relationship, albeit much more difficult, is the best way to ensure the success of preservation efforts.
- Screwy1138, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Why is it up to Bush? Doesn't Congress pass the laws?
Shouldn't it be "but will the Dems make the right call?" - Jammer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9What do you "the US"? The world is at fault, not just the US. I suppose all of those huge Russian and Japanese factory trawlers hardly made a dent in the fish population at all, right?
What a bunch of *****. - Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Even chum fish like Alaskan pollock are being fished out. The new trend is to relabel marginally edible deep sea fish with yummy names. I remember when fish sticks were made from cod and other fish with recognizable names. Now they are just "whitefish", which means whatever crap with fins they manage to dredge up from the depths.
- Mitchum, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11FTA: "This disaster is particularly maddening given how avoidable it was: scientists are finding that one of the best ways to manage fish is simply to leave them alone. Even when a population has been trawled for years, in most cases if you exempt it from fishing for a while, it will recover."
This is easy to say, but in practice (supply/demand) it just drives the price up making poaching very profitable and very likely. Too bad. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Not to mention Scandanavian fisheries...
- RaptorJesus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6We can't count on government *****-ups to correct this problem, too many fat wallets depend on consumption. Environmental problems will be solved on a grassroots level, which means we need to eat less of meat and fish.
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Fisheries are local. Who cares if China overexploits their fisheries? That doesn't mean we have to overexploit our fisheries
- HotDiggidy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8We must learn to farm-raise all of our food. Shellfish are already raised on a massive scale. Aquaculture. At present there are too many humans living on this planet to continue any hunter-gather type of activities.
- Protean1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Try aquaponics, the combination of aquaculture (fish farming) and hydroponics. You can produce hundreds of pounds of fresh fish, fruits and vegetables per season from a system you could fit in your backyard.
It's a 3-part system; fish, plants and bacteria. Basically a small artificial ecosystem for you engineers out there. Fish crap in the water, water is pumped into hydroponic gravel beds, where bacteria convert the fish poo into the perfect plant fertilizer. The plants eat it up, and the cleaned water goes back to the fish, in a nice closed loop. - sashley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Not only does congress pass the laws, I seriously doubt President Bush could have created or cured the problem while he has been in office. The problem has taken a long time to develop and it will take a long time to correct. Blaming President Bush for this just isn't fair.
- Anachronus, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9And the biggest fisheries are now in China. So blaming Bush for that is more than a bit of a stretch.
- gabrielg01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6"...will Bush make the right call?"...He never made a right call, so then you know the answer.
- Dolomite, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Doesn't the Democratic controlled Congress make these kinds of laws? Maybe the Democrats should be the ones making the right call....
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Farm raising almost inevitably implies habitat conversion. Responsible management is a better option in most cases. The problem is, fisheries are almost always managed for maximum profit, not maximum survivability. We have the knowledge to keep fisheries from crashing, but we overfish because the only people who care about fishing policy are fisherman.
- jbmcqueen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3As much as I hate Bush, I agree with some of the above posts that this is not a trademark administration clusterf**k, this is a problem that has existed for generations both nationally and internationally. It is becoming a major issue now because we have pushed these stocks to their limits and now we can more plainly see the light at the end of the tunnel. And other countries are just as much (and in some cases WAY more) to blame as some of the most endangered fisheries such as the Xiiphid and Scrombrid fishes are highly migratory, and are thus being exploited across two or three continents, and across demographic groups (i.e. juveniles and adults). In short: major change has to happen, and soon, both at home and abroad.
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Plot a chart. X being the growth rate of the population, Y being population of the fishery. It makes a bell curve. Every environment has a maximum population.
You can fish at many points along the curve. You make the most money at the apex (at max. pop.). In theory, you can sustainably fish the greatest number of fish and be okay. If you are to the right of the apex, if you overfish, you're okay because the population may fall, but the growth rate is higher, so the problem self-corrects. But you make less money.
Guess where our fisheries fish?
At the apex, which is fine according to the theory, but the theory doesn't account for disease or other predators, or changes in currents or a billion different things. The model only forecasts population size, growth, and fishing.
That's why every fishery in modern history has collapsed. We put the maximum possible strain on the population through fishing, and if any of a thousand possible other strains come along, the population collapses. (If you fish to the left of the apex, you dramatically accelerate the collapse. Unfortunately, if you are unsure of the population size, you may think you are fishing to the right, but in reality you are fishing to the left) We use theoretical models instead of practical models, because the theoretical models give us more money in the short-term.
We know how to responsibly exploit our fisheries. But we don't do it. And we have been paying the price. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4mans ***** the earth up so much,too many humans too feed and the number just grows, something devastating is in the pipeline
- hgb5150, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6The author is calling for more federal regulation of fishing in US territorial waters, but what he neglects to mention is that coastal states already regulate fishing in their waters and place restrictions on the types and amounts of fish that can be harvested by recreational and commercial fishermen.
This is a call for expanding federal powers without providing any evidence that the federal government can do a better job protecting our fisheries than the states do. - lieutenantmudd, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4This isn't a state vs federal argument. It's a conservationist vs. business argument. Conservationists have the science to keep fisheries from collapsing. But you can theoritically earn more sustainably by fishing at a greater rate, which the fisherman lobby for and get. Unforunately, if any problem hits the fishery, the population collapses because the fisherman put the maximum possible strain on the fishery, while conservationists leave a really nice buffer.
It's about responsible management vs short term gain. Not federal vs state. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It's the circle of life. I just got done doing the same thing, taking fresh cow ***** (less than a couple days old!) from a nearby dairy farm and loading it into my truck so I can put it in my garden and grow nitrogen craving crops like corn and beans with it.
People don't like to think of it, but some day we'll all be worm food... and eventually some of what's left of us will go back into the same food supply we rely on to live. - SpeedyG, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3What? You thought there was some sort of required impartiality on digg topics?
- prowdtobebrown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2sorry for the spamming but
@screwy
The reason its up to Bush is because the act that he used to create the MPA in Hawaii is the Antiquities Act of 1906. Technically the area described in the article is a "national monument" and was so named via his discretion. Congress can do what it wants but it doesn't have the authority to use this act.
Section 2 of the act reads "That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments" here's a link to it: http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/anti1906.htm - Novion76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Will Bush make the right call?"
No - fight4yourright, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3We should deny Asians from fishing the sea too. They eat anything that crawls and swims. Everyone should stop eating meat too. We all should start eating grass and tofu...until it becomes a fad to be concerned about the well bing of grass and tofu.
- Screwy1138, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6But then we couldn't make this an anti-bush article?
I hate Bush, but the Diggers got caught spinning news this time. - RAEP, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5The answer: No. He won't.
- Screwy1138, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Digg him down quick! He's ruining our spin!
- sdpdt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Damn straight. They eat hagfish like Americans eat chicken.
- Screwy1138, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2We should really be doing both. Encouraging farming and improvements in farming, at the same time managing our environment much better. No need for them to be mutually exclusive.
- mortey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I don't think a lot of people realize how dangerous this issue actually is. Fishing is deifnitely being stretched to it's limit. I read somewhere that if we don't do something, we could have no fish left in the ocean within 50 years.
- th3heretic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I do the same except I have a cow and a horse so, ***** is readily avalible.
- misterhat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I know this is sorta off topic with the rest of the discussion, but the article has an awesome picture. If you look closely in the background behind the fish you can see a pod of dolphins ready to herd those fish.
- arpad, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And as you might expect, it's a hell of a lot easier to describe then it is to do successfully.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1we won't have no fish... but before I RTFA I'll mention that certain fish we've overfished have moved down the food chain. There aren't enough mature fish for some fish to live the way they have.
Farmed fish has its drawbacks, but farming overall is much easier on the environment than going out and catching our food from the wild with no regard to sustainability. - jstohler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hey, I resemble that remark.
- SillyRabbits, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@protean1
Nice environmentalist techno-babble there. It sounds nice in your hand-waving description. However, the reality is what you are describing is nowhere close to a closed system. You have to feed the fish. In efficient systems it takes about 2 lbs of protein to produce 1 lb of fish meat. Where does this protein come from? And, your system, in reality, ends up producing a lot more waste than the plants consume. Where are you going to dump all that solid waste? - goodoldharris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Mitchum:
Your supply/demand logic is also easy to say. But there are plenty of real world examples where wildlife populations have recovered as a result of bans on hunting/fishing. Even if enforcement is less than 100% and there is some illegal catching, it won't be anywhere near the amounts that are taken by commecial fishing vessels. - piranzamate, on 12/03/2009, -0/+1Have you lately purchased yourself a new fish tank? If so, there will come a time when you will need to clean your fish tank. When that time comes, and there is no beware that it will, do you know how you can go about properly cleaning
http://aquarium-fish-pets-supply-tropical.blogspot ... - Protean1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, it's hard to do, expensive to set up. You need to be a real wiz to put one together, frankly.
I screwed up a lot, built many beta rigs and killed a few tilapia before I got things balanced.
But now I'm eating fresh veggies, and have a hefty crop of fish on the way.
Sure it's not a total closed loop, I'm more speaking of the water loop.
You still need sunshine and fish food.
Plant and fish wastes are put into a worm farm right now, and it along with some duckweed in the fishtanks will cut my protein input down quite a bit. I don't expect a total closed loop any time soon but it's fun trying and speculating.
Careful, it's just as addicting as hot-rodding or PC modding in its own way :) - stoanhart, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I believe that human beings and fish can coexist peacfully.
- afbase, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I bet if we used the laffer curve in our fishing industry, we could maximize fishing returns and grow the population at the same time!!!!!!
- kelbear, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Dugg for fish rape.
And no, I didn't read the article. Or the summary. - sdpdt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Blame it on Family Petromyzontidae.
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I don't think so. It's bad business to damage your supply chain but lack of local regulation can make it very difficult to maintain because of the fly by night types that suck up resources. The states and localities are much more connected to what's going on and can negotiate with local businesses to come to a maintainable compromise. Sweeping federal dictates usually get in the way more than help.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is