Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Seafood Blues; NY Times
Topic Started: May 14 2007, 05:05 AM (315 Views)
Jack Frost
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
May 13, 2007
The Way We Live Now
Ocean Blues
By PAUL GREENBERG

Not long ago, inside the residence of Hawaii’s last queen, Laura Bush stepped to a lectern and carefully pronounced the word “Papahanaumokuakea.” A cheer went up, the Halau Pua Ali’i ’Ilima dancers chanted and Honolulu’s important people took turns praising the first lady’s pronunciation of the new name for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument, the largest protected marine area in the world and George W. Bush’s only act of unabashed environmentalism. But amid the easy island music and Laura Bush’s descriptions of the Laysan albatross (“who mate for life”), the significance of the monument felt buried. More than a native Hawaiian cultural heritage site, more than a nesting area for endangered albatrosses, Papahanaumokuakea represents something unique in U.S. conservation history: the first large-scale territorial victory of fish over fishermen.

The eradication of our seafood bounty through overfishing is one of those Lorax-like stories that inspire sad books like “The End of the Line” and “The Empty Ocean.” Many biologists believe that the populations of large, commercially sought-after fish worldwide have been reduced by as much as 90 percent of their historical size. 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.

Native Hawaiians knew this long before Laura Bush or any other outsider made landfall. In precolonial Hawaii, a district headman could declare portions of fishing grounds off limits by means of a rule called a kapu. By enforcing kapus, Hawaiians preserved spawning grounds of dozens of fish species. For Hawaiians this wasn’t an animistic ritual — it was a stewardship practice that preserved the sea’s wealth for generations.

The white man, too, has used the kapu to conserve resources, but mostly on dry land. Theodore Roosevelt (that Republican whom the White House cited in announcing Papahanaumokuakea) became America’s environmental president by protecting vast forests through executive orders. The warm glow surrounding T.R. has prompted later presidents to turn to the environment as a legacy maker. Richard Nixon’s various malfeasances are somewhat offset by his creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Bill Clinton threw up a Hail Mary late in his troubled second term by declaring 58 million acres of forest off limits to logging and road-building — a kapu that George W. Bush later annulled.

Now as Bush seeks to elevate his historical stature as well as his 33 percent approval rating, he, too, has done a kapu. But the Papahanaumokuakea monument was pretty low-hanging fruit de mer. Not only had much of the modern-day legwork to create the preserve been done under Clinton, but the archipelago is so remote that only a few fishermen had to be bought out.

If Bush really wants a legacy, he might consider taking the ocean kapu concept national. Since the beginning of this decade, a federal advisory committee has been laying the groundwork for a system of marine protected areas (M.P.A.’s) throughout American waters. Currently the United States protects less than 1 percent of its underwater territory, compared with more than 10 percent of its land mass. Increasing its ocean preserves to at least 10 percent — through a permanent network of M.P.A.’s — could prove instrumental to rebuilding cod in the East, snapper in the South and rockfish in the West.

The findings of the advisory committee are making their way sluggishly through the bureaucracy, but the process could easily die. This would be a tragic missed opportunity. By now, quite a few seafood eaters are aware that many popular commercial fish could disappear from their plates in the decades to come. A national network of no-fishing zones could help us avoid that future. Ample evidence suggests that in the long run — from several years to several decades, depending on the species — M.P.A.’s can halt the implosion of a vulnerable fishery and may even increase fish stocks outside the immediate M.P.A. area. Creating no-fishing zones in the ocean is about the only practical way managers have ever found to protect the big, old breeder fish that lay the most eggs and contribute the most to the endurance of a species.

The political influence of people who catch fish, however, has Bush treading lightly. Many recreational fishermen are so strongly opposed to no-fish areas that some states have passed “freedom to fish” acts. Federal fisheries legislation enacted this year includes language endorsed by recreational fishing groups that spells out new requirements for any areas closed to fishing. Such provisions threaten to limit M.P.A.’s before they’re even created.

But the president could argue that protecting fish is an economic issue. Most Americans don’t realize that seafood represents a significant commodity deficit in our international trade portfolio. Whereas once we were a net exporter of fish, we have turned ourselves into a seafood beggar nation, importing as much as 60 percent of our seafood at an annual cost of about $8 billion. This country’s multibillion-dollar commercial fishing industry would likely take a short-term hit from fishing-ground closures. In the long term, though, rebuilding fish stocks through M.P.A.’s would help sustain the American fishery economy and might help keep at home some of those billions spent on imports.

Presidential legacies come from actions that transcend the reactive political framework of the moment. Teddy Roosevelt protected millions of acres of American forest at a time when there was still plenty of timber. His

prescient vision of what America would need allowed him to rise above what America was ruining at the time. If Bush wants to assume the Rooseveltian mantle, he must stake a similarly ambitious claim. True, no Lorax would call W. a president who speaks for the trees. But if Bush were to act boldly on behalf of the sea, he might be remembered as a president who spoke for the fish.

Paul Greenberg, a W. K. Kellogg Foundation Food and Society Policy fellow, has written for the magazine about aquaculture. He is working on a book about seafood.

jf
Quote:
 
Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
See, it is Bush's fault. All those fish died in the last 6 years!
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Bush sees through an environmental initiative that was begun during the Clinton years, gets no credit for it.

Bush inherits the terrorist organization his predcessor did not have the stones to take out when he had the chance, and 9/11 is all Bush's fault.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
The article did seem very anti-Bush. A lot of countries have been much more irresponsible in managing their fisheries, and the last time I checked Bush was never president of any of them.
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Having voice my objection to the tone of the article, I agree that it would behoove us to continue promoting responsible fishery, and I would appreciate the president's upport in that issue.

That will require a great deal of aquaculture, which seems to be increasing as we speak. Most of the salmon we see is farmed, as it tilapia and trout. I know that has problems too, but it would seem they would be manageable.

Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Overfishing and the removal of apex predators such as the massive numbers of sharks that the Chinese kill for their "male enhancement" concoctions, will be the death of the world's coral reefs, more certainly than coral bleaching or global warming.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Frank_W
May 14 2007, 11:57 AM
Overfishing and the removal of apex predators such as the massive numbers of sharks that the Chinese kill for their "male enhancement" concoctions, will be the death of the world's coral reefs, more certainly than coral bleaching or global warming.

Out of curiosity, how does the death of the apex predators affect coral reefs?

Also, I thought the Chinese (and others who sell to the Chinese) killed sharks for shark fin soup... I remember seeing a show where they were catching sharks and cutting off the fins, and then dropping the sharks back into the water to die. But one big fin can fetch $10 000, so it doesn't look like this practice will be stopping anytime soon.
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Yes. That's what I'm talking about. Finning.

When there are no apex predators, the natural balance gets upset. If you scuba dive in Jamaica and Bahamas, you will be able to see how overfishing has ruined the reefs, there. Smaller fish multiply, then overcrowd, and then there's not enough food to go around, and pretty soon, everything is out of kilter. Plus, large sharks, octopi, etc., take a long long time to reach maturity, produce offspring, and for those offspring, (most of whom never reach adulthood) to mature and reproduce.

At the current rate, there will be no sharks left, and how terribly cruel to chop their fins off and dump them back in the ocean to bleed to death and/or drown! :cursing: :cursing: :cursing:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
perhaps a responsible viagra salesman could save the day
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
George K
May 14 2007, 09:11 AM
See, it is Bush's fault. All those fish died in the last 6 years!

Caught in the act!!!!! :biggrin:

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
May 14 2007, 03:21 PM
Yes. That's what I'm talking about. Finning.

When there are no apex predators, the natural balance gets upset. If you scuba dive in Jamaica and Bahamas, you will be able to see how overfishing has ruined the reefs, there. Smaller fish multiply, then overcrowd, and then there's not enough food to go around, and pretty soon, everything is out of kilter. Plus, large sharks, octopi, etc., take a long long time to reach maturity, produce offspring, and for those offspring, (most of whom never reach adulthood) to mature and reproduce.

At the current rate, there will be no sharks left, and how terribly cruel to chop their fins off and dump them back in the ocean to bleed to death and/or drown! :cursing: :cursing: :cursing:

But that's the way the free market works ...

You want a resource, the resource is free, so you take it and use it, regardless of the effect that it has on anyone else. Because, for the guy who cuts off the fin, it's in his personal best interest to take the fin and only the fin, and to dispatch of the rest of the shark in the most efficient and least costly manner possible.

If you want to stop that, you'd have to ... gasp! ... REGULATE the behavior of people who hunt sharks for their fins.

Thanks for offering up a perfect example of a situation in which the untrammelled operation of the free market does not create the optimal result.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply