Our Oceans are Under Attack

Millions of innocent vegetables are being killed and eaten by humans every year. Save the vegetables eat meat. Doesn't every carrot deserve a happy life. I have even heard of tomatoes grown in large buildings. No free range there. Do your bit and eat meat.

 

How much water do vegetable farms use and how many millIon lts of chemicals a year.

 

Check your mirror for egg on the face. I don't post from ignorance, like some.

Oceans, Rivers, and Lakes are being overfished, no doubts about it.
Alarmist talk, especially by supposed to be scientists, damages their credibility. Combined with false statements of FACTS that obviously aren't facts, annihilates any credibility remaining.
Wouldn't buy a used car from people who act so irresponsibly.

Ocean fish cannot be counted. Declines can only be estimated in the historical fishing grounds with good historical records. Most of the oceans have never been sampled for biomass estimates. And many recent estimates of biomass in newly tested regions have no historical record.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/09/27/39347/counting-fish-101/

"What is a stock assessment?

Fisheries stock assessments are stringent scientific tools used to judge the health of fish populations. They give managers, fishermen, and the public a sense of the effectiveness of management strategies that sustain fish populations, ecosystems, and the socioeconomic viability of commercial and recreational fisheries. Yet, because counting fish is an inexact science, they tend to produce results that include a varying degree of uncertainty. This often leads to disbelief or mistrust about fishery science and management—a situation that erodes regulators’ ability to manage fish resources for the greatest overall benefit.

Assessments estimate a fish population’s size (how many exist), biomass (the sum of their weight), productivity (how quickly and often they reproduce), and age structure (how many old ones compared to young ones). The most complex assessments can include even more in-depth information on things such as the average number of eggs produced, the number of males versus females, how fast they grow, the habits of newly hatched fish, juveniles and adults, their migratory patterns, what they eat, and the rate at which they die naturally (natural mortality) and from fishing (fishing mortality).

Because we can’t see and count all the fish, scientists collect data from multiple sources. These include data from fishermen’s harvests, general oceanographic data from ocean observing systems and other sources, and sampling activities in which scientists on board NOAA’s research vessels and other platforms go out and catch and count fish themselves.

They then feed these data into computer models to generate assessments of the population as a whole. Like tiles in a mosaic, each data point contributes additional clarity to the overall picture of a fish population’s health or lack thereof.

Yet data used to develop stock assessments are imprecise because they are difficult and expensive to collect. An assessment is necessarily complex due to the biological system in which fish live. Scientists, therefore, must design models that make careful use of assumptions to extrapolate what the samples say about the population as a whole.

Because of this complexity, scientists recently started to recognize that they need to know more than just about the species in question—they need to know how that species fits into the broader ecosystem. Ecosystem-based management requires consideration of where an organism lives, what type of habitat it prefers, what it eats, what eats it, and the potential impacts changes in the environment. This approach requires information from many disciplines, different levels of ecological organization, and across a much longer time scale and geographic distribution.

All these data mean assessment documents are incredibly dense. They can fill hundreds of pages with data, statistics, and formulae all tied together with one or more statistical models. And still they contain considerable uncertainty due to the impossibility of replicating the actual dynamics of a fish stock that occur in a large natural ecosystem, and because fisheries assessments require projections of future events such as how many new fish will be born and survive from year to year, and how environmental conditions will change as a result of climate, weather patterns, or other external factors."


I see some egg, corner of your mouth!


http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/education/activities/counting_fish.htm

"Have you ever tried counting fish in an aquarium?

It can be pretty hard to count all the fish in a crowded aquarium. So imagine how hard it is to count fish in the ocean! In the wild, fish live in a variety of habitats that range from the shallows near shore to the deep depths of the ocean. Fisheries scientists need to know how many fish are in a given area so they can determine the number of fish that can be harvested. This is used to ensure healthy fish populations for future generations.

How many fish?

Like you, scientists cannot count every fish in the ocean, so they use a variety of tools to estimate the size of a fish population. How they make these estimates depends on the species they are studying. Most commercial fisheries catch fish in deep offshore waters, so scientists must go to these locations to determine how many fish are present. In offshore waters, scientists use large ships with a big trawl net to catch a sample of fish which is then counted. Because the ocean is so vast, scientists must create a plan to count the fish. Sometimes they place an imaginary grid over the ocean area they want to study and then select sections on the grid to sample. They must select enough of these sections to get a representative sample size. Scientists then add up the weight of all the fish of the same species within the sample and extrapolate that weight to the entire area of the grid to arrive at an estimate of the number of fish."

All those fish (by-catch) your article laments is wasted as fishmeal when could be fed to humans, isn't legal to sell as human food. See article excerpts below. By-catch are the extra untargeted fish species caught in seines.


http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14807/en


"Issue

Development in food preservation and processing technologies and liberalization of trade have contributed significantly to the globalization of fish trade and to the diversification of seafood, both in terms of species and products. It is currently estimated that more than 800 fish species are traded internationally under many different forms, shapes, brands and preparations.

As the prices differ depending on the product/species and consumer preferences and perceptions, it is important that market forces and environment provide for the protection of consumers from fraudulent and deceptive practices whereby low value species/products are substituted for high value similar species. At the national level, food legislation generally indicates that the label must not mislead consumers, but international trade and the use of similar terms for different products makes it complicated when a product from one country is introduced to another in which the market niche already exists."




"On the other side, food companies, trade associations and even entire countries can be protective of market niches for given fish species and products. This is because they consider that establishing such market niches often requires significant investment in research and development, publicity, promotion and consumer sensitization towards the claimed attributes of the specific product they try to protect. Therefore, the successful companies or countries do not accept that other similar products use the same commercial denominations and compete on the same marked niches. This may be a source of trade disputes between countries.

Recent examples of international trade disputes (scallop muscles, canned sardines, arbitrated by the World Trade Organization WTO, catfish, etc.) show that fish species identification is a recurrent and worldwide issue. Though these disputes generally involve a limited number of countries, they have a direct impact on international fish trade."




"Development of procedures based upon sound scientific method for fish species identification should allow for a more accurate management of protected species and look-alike species and mitigate economic impact of precautionary principle implementation.

Possible solutions

In its section 11.2 "Responsible international trade", FAO's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries calls for the liberalization of trade in fish and fishery products and for the elimination of unjustified barriers, in accordance with the principles laid down in the agreements of the WTO. But such liberalization can only take place in a framework of transparency and enhanced information to consumers, particularly as regards product labelling.

Reconciling both interests of those seeking to protect commercial denominations and those seeking to use these denominations for "similar" species requires international undertaking using a reliable approach and methodology."

Folks offering simple solutions, as in your post, are usually ignorant of the complexity of the problems.
As per my earlier post, species used for fishmeal are not used for human consumption.

 

Talk about rave

When I was with granddad fishing when a boy we would throw the anchor down in shallow water and pull up large muscles for bait to catch huge snapper with, but now the only snapper if you catch any at all in the same place are undersized, muscles are long gone and pollution muddies the one time clear water.

In that one time paradise today, I would say 99.9% large snapper no longer exist.
Large snapper are the ones that breed the most eggs for reproduction.
Common sense is humans are slaughtering the ocean, common sense is there is not enough fish in the future to feed the ever growing future population.
The answer is very simple, you do not have to kill and torture earthlings and can live a healthier longer life with out doing that, better still become considerate “love and kindness” of all things great and small.


Researchers at Loma Linda University in California have been conducting a study to determine whether vegetarians and vegans live longer than the rest of the population, and so far, the answer seems to be a resounding “Yes!”

Although the research—which originally began in 1958 and includes various studies on Seventh-day Adventists, who typically eat a plant-based diet as part of their religious beliefs—is only halfway finished, the results suggest that, on average, vegetarian men and women live 9.5 and 6.1 years longer, respectively, than their meat-eating counterparts.

The study also indicates that, in general, vegans are 30 pounds leaner—and five units lighter in terms of body mass index—and that vegetarians and vegans are less insulin resistant than meat-eaters.

Although many Seventh-day Adventists don’t drink, smoke, or consume caffeine, it’s obvious from the initial results that their food choices also play a role in their life expectancy—and their quality of life. Many other scientific studies have shown that vegans are less likely to suffer from chronic illnesses, so it shouldn’t come as any surprise that vegans tend to live longer. A 2012 Harvard School of Public Health study, for example, found that people who eat red and processed meats are much more likely to die from heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. Study participants who ate nuts or other plant-based foods instead of meat had a significantly lower risk of dying young.

Think about it: Vegan foods are cholesterol-free, generally low in saturated fat, and high in fiber, complex carbohydrates, and other essential nutrients. They’re often packed with protein and cancer-fighting phytochemicals, and vegans can easily obtain all the vitamins (including vitamins B12 and D) and minerals (including calcium and iron) that they need.

Meat, eggs, and dairy products, on the other hand, are high in artery-clogging cholesterol, saturated fat, and calories. They don’t contain fiber or various vitamins, and the hormones, toxins, and antibiotics that are often found in animal-based food have been linked to a litany of health problems.

Who do you think will have a better chance of living longer?

The vegans, of course! And the more people there are who eat vegan foods, the fewer animals there will be who are raised in filthy, crowded factory farms and killed in terrifying, blood-soaked slaughterhouses. It’s a win-win situation.


Read more: http://prime.peta.org/2012/11/longer#ixzz3GdDS6iiT

 

I have an opinion, a judgment really, that alarmists probably form their alarmist views from a "small" world perception.
The large size of the planet, the immensity of the oceans, and greater immensity of the atmosphere, simply doesn't impress them.
They are more impressed with tiny numbers, like parts per million.
Have there been any psychiatric studies of personality types prone to hysteria?
Our world is NOT petite or delicate.

 

I haven't been anywhere where fishing is better now than it was 50 years ago. Have you?

 

Myark, come to my house and arm wrestle with me.
I'm 66, weigh 100 kilos, can pick up two men weighing as much as myself, one over each shoulder, and run carrying them.
I have been doing this beginning since I played football (American) as a teenage school boy. Weighed 100 kilos then, also.
My chest is 52 inches, waist 36, neck size 19 inches circumference. I'm hard all over, no flab.
I can stand erect, balanced on one foot, and pull either other foot to touch my nose.
I'm more limber than many teenagers.
And can't remember last time I was ill.
I'll bet I outlive you, barring violent death.
Dive with me, free dive, and I'll swim underwater further and stay submerged longer than you.
And I've smoked for more than 50 years!
Still do. And doctors are amazed my lungs are clear, during my annual physical.
Secrets of good health? Varied diet, physical exercise, sea air, good mental attitude, and strong genes. I'm fortunate.
Oh, abstain from alcohol. Poison.

And cholesterol is NECESARY for life and health.


Cholesterol Is Necessary For Prostate Health *

www.prostate-massage-and-health.com/cholesterol.html - Proxy - Highlight

Cholesterol is so important to human life that your liver normally produces more of it each day than you could possibly eat each day.For prostate health, you must also make healthy blood. Blood rich in nutrients, oxygen, and necessary hormones.

 

Traditional fishing grounds are diminished. Over fishing is a real problem.

I object to unprovable so irrefutable statements posited as "facts", like "90% of large fish are gone" from the oceans.

It's the political agendizing of "science" I object to. Liars are despicable.

 

It's hard for me to accept that earth isn't hurtable when fishermen all over talk about how good fishing was before. And we have pictures of how good the catch was "back then"

Are there some newly found fishing grounds that are now outproducing the overfished traditional fishing grounds?

 

"I can stand balanced on one foot, and pull either other foot to touch my nose."

Can you send a picture of you doing this ?

I do believe you when you say "smoked for more than 50 years!
Still do and violent death" but the rest sounds egoistic.

 

As I've posted several times in the past, ocean currents are the "rivers" of life in the sea.
I use currents when towing. Towing is slow, @7 kts, so helpful or retarding currents are important considerations in voyage plans.
Faster vessels steer more direct courses.
The currents I travel in, are a continuous circus of marine life. Whales spouting, coveys of flying fish bursting from beneath my bow every few minutes, turtles, sharks, marlin, mahi mahi, everywhere, everyday.
At night, the sea glows red in my searchlight beam, billions of squid and shrimp eyes reflecting red.
I see a ship maybe once a week in Atlantic crossings. Fishermen only near the coasts.
Actually, the major ocean currents are best left unfished.
A cheap energy source for factory vessel propulsion, might make deep ocean trawling economical, and that is best not discovered till better international fishing management law and enforcement is in situ.

I think you misunderstand me. I agree overfishing and indiscriminate fishing is a problem.
I object to 'opinions" and "estimates based on POV interpretation" posted as FACTS.

 

I'll try to get a picture taken and post it.

Egoistic? I live healthy. I'm living proof. Your veggie view is contrary to what my life experience teaches me.
I have always eaten a large variety of vegetables. And meats. Not much wheat. Lots of corn meal, oats, rye, and buckwheat (graham cracker stuff).
I eat cornbread, corn tortillas, brown breads, and multi-grain breads.
I Like buckwheat pancakes and egg crepes, and cottage cheese pancakes (6 eggs, 8 oz cottage cheese, I tbsp. flour, blend for batter, makes 10 pancakes).
Serve each of these with cut up fresh fruit and a sour cream topping.
I love oatmeal for breakfast and cornmeal pumpkin bread.
Rather than deserts, I prefer another helping of main dishes. I eat very little sweets.
Lot's of coffee. Known to be healthy for you.
Rice maybe once a week, pasta every other week. White potatoes maybe twice weekly, boiled or baked.
Yams, sweet potatoes every week, most days. Love them.
I like chocolate, not sweet, but mixed with peppers in mole sauce, a Mexican dish. Served over fried or baked chicken usually. With rice.

 

One of the links that Yob posted is a very good description of how scientists "count" fish. Sort of surprising that he did post it, as it appears to refute his point that fish can't be "counted".

Can't be counted, one by one? Of course not. Volume and sustainability of fish stock? Yes.

 

That's not counting Imaginarynumber.
It's estimating.
Are estimates of anything usually accurate? Nope.
Are those local fishing ground estimates? Yep.
Is "90% of large fish in oceans gone" an accurate statement?
It's pure speculation. When touted as a "fact", it's a lie!

Is better international co-operation and policing of ocean fishing needed?
Definitely YES!

Is Myark's use of unprincipled declarations of speculation as facts, to push vegetarianism justified? No.

 

Can you do this ?

https://recordsetter.com/world-record/keep-toe-mouth-while-hopping-foot/10617

Longest Time To Keep Toe In Mouth