any profesional fishermen out there

I'm thinking of writing a paper on something I call "Trickle Down Environmentalism"

Its basically the prevailing condition among the public institutions to spend huge amounts of public money in conservation efforts geared specifically towards animals of questionable need rather than towards animals in desperate need

for instance spending millions on elephants and prairie dogs rather than amphibians virtually all of which are endangered threatened or in decline and many of which provide food and environments conducive to spawning fish

it seems like the fishing industry has lost several fisheries which could have and should have been prevented due to funds simply not being available. The health of the fish stocks being in part maintained by the health of our wetlands and salt marshes.

I know of one case alone where 50m and likely more in overruns is being spent to provide housing for 7 elephants, a complete waste of public funds if you ask me. It would be far better spent actually going towards more critically endangered species and environments.

so I'm curious about species of fish that might have been saved from commercial extinction had the recieved the attention they deserved when they were first noticed to be in decline. I would like to compare that to spending by our public sector institutions which we have entrusted with our conservation efforts

might be interesting to at least collect some data and see if there are instances were say millions are spent on big fuzzy public attracting animals in lesser need while at the same time species in desperate need but less visible and less cuddly so to speak are allowed to fail

basically I would be interested to see exactly were the money is going VS where it is needed

 

The fishing regulations don't make much sense as they stand. It would be better to institute moratoriums in certain areas and rotate them annually. The mesh size and minimum fish size had us sending injured and dead fish back in the water.

 

be careful with your wording, Bos. "public institutions to spend huge amounts of public money in conservation" - they spend nothing relative to the sport and commercial fishers and hunters on conservation. I agree about a stupid damned elephant and the illegality of the ivory trade, as well, while they are being eradicated as pests across their home territories... with nothing to do with their ivory. If they would allow legal harvesting of the critters, it would insure their survival better than any zoo. Check out the elephants of Alaska, for example - and I don't mean wooly mamoths - the Anchorage zoo had these things trapped in a pen in F'ing snow in the name of conservation (and making money). I think they finally mecifully died or were moved to another pen for people to gawk at somewhere else... Funny, I just saw that the zoo director is an an acquaintance of mine, Tex Edwards - He wouldn't be happy to hear my opinions. I don't care one bit about your salamanders either, Bos. They aren't exactly self aware. Public money should not be spent on anything other than order and defence, so I'm with you there.

 

Money isn't necessarily the answer for habitat preservation though. Wetlands usually get destroyed by development, either filling in of the lands to make room to make more strip malls or construction and dumping upstream.

I agree with Gonzo, if you want to preserve the remaining fish stocks, quit fishing them for a few years and then rotate areas. If you want to preserve the wetlands, then keep people from building on them.

 

Sure, when I was a young guy I was an inshore fisherman. In season the boat would become overloaded with catch and we would return early...now its more profitable to stay at the dock , conserve fuel and open up a pizzeria. We behaved irresponsibly....

At present all commercially viable fish are critically depleted and there is no hope of recovery. Atlantic salmon, Tuna, Codfish. Demand , economic benefit and habitat destruction by too many people.

Double or triple the human population and it looks even worse.

About the only thing that can be done is to abandon commercial fishing by the industrialized countries then create dedicated marine reserves... maintain them at great cost...and preserve the remaining biodiversity.

The situation is the same with animals, the rain forest..all natural resources..... All gone... the only hope is dedicated wildlife sanctuaries, specialized programs and vast sums of money to preserve what remains...

The California Condor. The Mountain Gorilla.. Is this public expenditure good or bad ? Only the next generation can answer this and in the meantime , the present generation must do whatever it takes to preserve remaining stocks and biodiversity.

Use your vote to prevent the next generation from becoming commercial fisherman by STOPPING the issue of commercial fishing licenses. .

 

Double or triple the human population and it looks even worse.
Indeed, makes you wonder who killed ZPG.

 

ugh..

 

..population increases over the last century are the real causes of all the polution, over fishing and overproduction of resources....we URGENTLY need to stop reproducing, get back to the 1 billion we had a century ago and begin a sustainable life...or we will eventually simply ruin everything and everyone...simple really and not a fortune needs to be spent to do it....every country needs to recognise the problem and do something about it....

 

http://www.faze.co.za/Sea Reef/Sea Reef.html

 

Sure...artifical reefs are a natural form of fish farming. A great resorce for local subsistence fisherman and reef species preservation, but artificial reefs do nothing for the economically important pelegic , migratory , anadromous species .

Virtually all the viable fishing business's I see are based on fish farming...good or bad that's about the only choice.

 

But is fish farming sustainable ? I guess that depends on the feed being used.

 

Farming shellfish, like mussels is sustainable. . Carnivore farming is a dead end. Reef "fish farming" is a valuable way for governments to sustain local indigenous fishing communities and keep them on the water, off social services and out of already overcrowded mega cities. .

 

Pretty much this.

We can have 6 billion people OR we can have a higher standard of living, but we can't sustain both. Lower population, more even distribution of resources, and a lower per capita impact on the planet are all things we, as a species, need to get serious about.

 

I said to the mor rons in SA - start with what you have and what you have control over.

Reserve certain sea areas by putting floating under water obstructions up so netting cannot take place in that area.

I can tell you now - same as here - everyone wants to just sit and blame someone else for the fcukup of not enough fish, but not a single one of them want to do anything about it.

If one area puts up reefs to multiply the reef fish, it will enhance not only the reef fish, but be a food source for other fish as well. As soon as that begins to bear fruit it should begin to catch on.

70% of earth is our own disposal to breed fish in - all we have to do is to start making it the way it can become productive LOL, same way we are fcuking the land up. At least there are no squatters that can move into the and destroy whatever there is.

It should be about the most productive farming exersize there can be, you don't even have to feed the figgin things.

 

Oh and btw, similar should be done for fresh water fish. It has not been exploited as badly as the sea, but it's coming. But hey no, lets wait untill most is almost extinct.