Jeremy Jackson: How we wrecked the ocean

Yes, yes....that is simply your opinion, as I have mine, but, mine is a little deeper. Without risking the mods furry here, let me simply state mine is a belief system...bibically based.

 

Ah.

 

Given there were much smaller transgressions that had insanely strong repercussions from a deity, I wouldn't go about dismantling a few full days of work of said deity in the chase of profit.

 

I love the banter! Chasing a profit you say....of course! We still have free enterprise and capitolism here in the USA. However, remember, people are eating from the bounty.

 

I was saying not to destroy 4 days of a god's work in pursuit of profit, since you've mentioned that you have a biblical belief that you can do what you want to it. I imagine he'd be a bit more ticked about something like destroying 90% of his creation than acting afoul to a single other person.

I mean, what would Michaelangelo say if you decided to paint over 90% of the Mona Lisa only a week after he was done painting it? Now upsize the reaction to a deity with total control over every aspect of the universe, and you can see where I'm coming from - that is, if you decide to think about this rather than hold your position for the sake of holding it without considering what you're arguing.

That's not even to mention that "free market" is totally misunderstood by the vast majority of the people who express their undying will to make the system less regulated. "Free market" systems are known to degrade into monopolies very quickly without proper regulation, a fact Adam Smith (the guy who wrote "The Wealth of Nations", the book that brought the ideas of the "free market" into public view) acknowledged. The concept, implemented correctly, isn't "do whatever you want", it's "create a system of rules that are enforced upon organizations that helps to create competition between organizations and prevent gross abuse of power" - despite what certain people espouse the "free market" to be.

It also doesn't mention that resources are limited here on Earth. The bounty isn't unlimited, and can't be treated as such. It can be made to seem unlimited, but much planning needs to go into the use of resources so it's efficient, and their use doesn't create conditions where the system collapses.

I also didn't mention that your post comes off much like a troll. There's nothing to it other than an antagonistic way of wording your opinion that capitalism can do no harm.

 

Corporations are just as willing to destroy coastal economies and have mercenaries and torpedoes on boats to shoot at the competition if there's no laws in place to stop it.

I dont know what to say to this. I think within 200 miles (U.S. waters) that is still considered murder. And I do believe their are laws against that. I really cant believe youd think that fisherman would torpedo each other? Why would murder be any different on water as it is on land? Fisherman all have an interest in a combined effort to conserve stocks and ensure that a healthy ecosystem is maintained. Any conservationist (not preservationist look up the difference in those two terms) knows that the marsh and inshore waters are where fry, crab, shrimp grow up. A healthy marsh is a healthy fishery is what we say in the business.

No, you don't own the entire ocean and all of its inhabitants, nor do you act in the common good by fishing there.

Actually, the People of the United States OWN all the resources in this land (200 nautical miles offshore and from border to border) last time I checked. An unused natural resource does nothing for the public good.

If your logic applied (public land = do what you want), there would have been no debate about ANWAR, Yellowstone would be full of geothermal power plants, and there wouldn't be a tree left standing in the US.

Again look up the definition of a conservationist, than you can reapply my logic to ALL natural resources. By the way mineral rights in the U.S. supersede any other rights including property rights. For good reason, as the public good is the priority here. Furthermore, national forests act in the public good and are cut and replanted quite frequently. These leases are similar to the federal oil leases in the gulf that MMS leases to the evil oil companies. By the way, revenue generated on all federal leases is applied to the "public good". Grazing rights are leased on national wildlife refuges as well.

Any military base would be free game for someone to walk onto and build on (government land = public land, since we own the government), I could remove a section of highway and build a skyscraper there....

You taking things out of context. Again public land is USED in various ways. I think there are acceptable uses defined ALREADY for every square inch of public land. However, some people want to restrict everything and create a wildlife nirvana devoid of human presence. This is completely unrealistic. I doubt many would be willing to live in 1880. And I dont think humans are going anywhere soon.

It seems to me to be the direction of not letting people kill off too many species for the environment to recover.

Their is a huge difference in between allowing harvest of a sustainable renewable resource and shutting down fisheries and economies. The data being collected by others shows you have increases in recruitment year over year. The data also shows you have an average increase in the size of fish. This means you reach the TAC sooner with fewer fish. This has been put on display as proof that over fishing exists! So by their logic, catching 10lb fish instead of 5lb fish and reaching the allotment faster is all the proof they need to cut seasons and bag limits again. The fact of the matter is that NMFS does not know how many fish are in the gulf. They wont even address the fact they lack the data to shut down a fishery.

Artificial environments, while good for populations of fish, cannot be relied on for sustained populations. Look at what happened with the oil rig in the gulf. That was a prime example of an artificial environment - and the relative ease with which those environments can be completely destroyed in seconds.

I am talking about hard substrate like concrete and encrusted pipe when we talk about reefs. The deepwater horizon is not artificial structure, it is a drilling rig. It is not a prodution platform. it is a "floater" that is not even anchored such as Nancen or Boomvang. That is not a "prime" example. The prodution wells and platforms in shallow water are a great example of extremely productive artificial habitat. The gulf is pretty mud a huge mudflat in the shallow waters. Not much relief, and scattered rocks until you get to the shelf. Artificial hard substrate on the bottom can be relied upon, and does not go away as you suggest. It is one of the most viable options in building a fishery. You cant expect fish to reproduce without some way for the young to survive? Habitat with hiding spots in shallower waters are the only way that it happens.

So, since you imply there's some sort of conspiracy going on without mentioning their motives or objectives, I ask, what exactly do you propose
their end game is, and what do you say their motivation is?

I believe that the end game is for all fishery stocks to be controlled/awarded to whoever the biggest contributor/payee is. This is about MONEY. What other motivation is there? Follow the dollar? The only other motivation is for the hardcore environmentalist (do some research on Jane Lubchenco, and EDF. These environmental groups aren't as friendly as you would think) to achieve their utopia with no fishing, hunting, farming, mining, etc..

You're complaining that they're protecting a species from fishing using unorthodox methods, disregarding the fact that the ICUN says it's a critically endangered (aka "just about extinct") species with too little information to determine the population accurately...?

Not complaining, just pointing out the fact a way was found to create two different species out of one species. A problem was created to stop a fishery from being utilized and enjoyed. The ability to determine population accurately is because they exists in 450'+ depths in large numbers. The only way to access them and study them is to use rov's. That goes into funding which there is not alot of going around right now. You cannot attach tags or popup tags on them because hauling them up would kill them because of the pressure difference.

"wanton waste" isn't exactly specific. As for the 1/2 of an amberjack limit: if that sort of low limit existed on other big fish that are now nearly extinct or otherwise endangered, we wouldn't be in a situation where many of the larger fish are in serious population decline."wanton waste" isn't exactly specific. As for the 1/2 of an amberjack limit: if that sort of low limit existed on other big fish that are now nearly extinct or otherwise endangered, we wouldn't be in a situation where many of the larger fish are in serious population decline.

You are guilty of wanton waste if you cut an amberjack in half and take half home. The other half is edible and is considered wanton waste. Wanton waste is illegal, you know against the law? So they were seriously considering putting a 1/2 fish limit on amberjack. Public outcry reversed that decision temporarily. There are just as many amberjack in the water as snapper. NMFS considered this because they dont have the data to back up their position. Dont you see the problem with that? You cant tell me a problem exists without proof. In the scientific community as well as fisheries management their is such a thing as peer review. And Im not talking about .orgs that are bought and paid for.

 

....

 

"Separating the two species prevents overfishing, which is known to have occurred already. In regards to the jewfish, the ROV argument isn't neccesary. The first picture on wikipedia is of one with a diver; hardly 450 feet deep. They're found on reefs, again, not 450 feet deep by any stretch."

did you mean to say jewfish? hahaha

 

I completely thought the same thing as you when I first heard that name. Then, I looked it up, and it's pretty much what it's been called for quite a long time. Possibly because Jewish people used to eat them, as they're the biggest kosher fish in the Caribbean.

It's more properly called the Goliath Grouper.

No, no, I'm not digging at Jews with the whole Goliath thing. I'm dead serious.

...where's the /facepalm when you need it? ;D

 

haha this just gets better and better! pun, pun, pun. i like it!