Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sandy]

you could conceivably estimate the total ocean fish stocks and then divide it by the amount used by any particular industry and claim my industry uses only a small percentage of stock, therefore we really do not have an effect . That means nothing towards the conservation of a particular species or even down to the local stock wherein a couple of trawls or net sets may in fact wipe out a run or local substock, whether targeted or as by-catch and who the end user may be.

[absolon]

Let me help you connect the dots...   Over harvesting by fishermen is a problem because:
a) there is an increasing demand by the aquaculture industry for fishmeal,
b) with the increased demand the market value keeps rising
c) this provides greater incentive for the fishermen to catch these fish  
d) there are no regulations limiting the amount of fish caught by these fishermen.

Limit the salmon feedlots, or eliminate fishmeal from their diet and the problem will be solved!

Obviously, or at least obviously to a rational mind, the most effective way, and indeed the only way to limit the harvest would be to regulate catches by commercial fishermen.

Eliminating farm demand will simply mean that portion of the harvest that supplies farms will be shifted to supply pig or chicken farmers or prawn production or freshwater trout production or catfish production or even human consumption. If the value of the catch was decreased because of eliminating demand from salmon farming the phenomena of price elasticity would result in an increase in demand from the other protein market segments due to lower cost.  This increased demand would nicely absorb the increase in production that would occur as the fishing fleet increase their unregulated catches in order to preserve their fishing income.

There is a current attempt to regulate catches by commercial fishermen but it has not been successful because of reluctance by the countries whose fishing fleets catch these fish to accept catch limits.

No matter how much you bend logic and fold economics, the problem is one caused by commercial fishing, and it won't be solved by the foolish fantasies of a few fish farm fighting fanatics.

[absolon]

you could conceivably estimate the total ocean fish stocks and then divide it by the amount used by any particular industry and claim my industry uses only a small percentage of stock, therefore we really do not have an effect . That means nothing towards the conservation of a particular species or even down to the local stock wherein a couple of trawls or net sets may in fact wipe out a run or local substock, whether targeted or as by-catch and who the end user may be.

In a market  composed of many different sources of price sensitive variable demand, how can you possibly regulate supply by regulating the demand from a single, proportionally small segment? We're not talking the hypothetical ideals of misguided rhetoric here. We're talking practical reality.

It is not possible. The only way to regulate the market is by limiting harvests, by regulating the catches of the commercial fishing fleet.

[Sandy]

In a market  composed of many different sources of price sensitive variable demand, how can you possibly regulate supply by regulating the demand from a single, proportionally small segment? We're not talking the hypothetical ideals of misguided rhetoric here. We're talking practical reality.

It is not possible. The only way to regulate the market is by limiting harvests, by regulating the catches of the commercial fishing fleet.

I agree if it's available, and cost effective it would be used as a source of food.
Are you saying it is not possible? or are you saying it would only be possible by regulating the catches of the Commercial fleets? if so, why cannot local up to international fleets not be regulated or control ed as to their intended catch and therefore by the laws of supply and demand making a particular ingredient cost ineffective? It really depends on the will of the most influential parties: that probably negates any theories based on practical reality.

[absolon]

I agree if it's available, and cost effective it would be used as a source of food.
Are you saying it is not possible? or are you saying it would only be possible by regulating the catches of the Commercial fleets? if so, why cannot local up to international fleets not be regulated or control ed as to their intended catch and therefore by the laws of supply and demand making a particular ingredient cost ineffective? It really depends on the will of the most influential parties: that probably negates any theories based on practical reality.

Sandy, here is the report that was behind the news article that spawned this rather mistitled thread:

http://www.iwatchnews.org/node/7900/

It will answer some of your questions and makes plain why the harvest is still unregulated.

[alwaysfishn]

Many people think that buying farmed salmon saves wild fish. Think again.

http://www.sectionz.info/issue_1/Z1_Facts_Footnotes.pdf

[Bassonator]

Geez more eco journalistic crap, thanks for that.....

[alwaysfishn]

Geez more eco journalistic crap, thanks for that.....

You're welcome.....   I find that I'm taking your comments more seriously since you got rid of that avatar. 

[absolon]

Many people think that buying farmed salmon saves wild fish. Think again.

http://www.sectionz.info/issue_1/Z1_Facts_Footnotes.pdf

The damage done as a consequence of commercial fishing is orders of magnitude greater than any that results from feeding farmed salmon.

The damage done to the ocean food web by releasing up to 5 billion hatchery reared salmon to free range in the Pacific is orders of magnitude greater than the damage done by feeding farmed salmon.


A few people try to suggest that farming salmon shouldn't be permitted and that we should rely on wild fisheries and ranched fish. Brilliant!

[Bassonator]

Its funny how we are so worried about our so called depleted sockeye stocks and the so called damage that the fish farms are doing, yet know one seems to be worried about the MSC and their designation that our sockeye stocks are sustainable.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon.

[Sandy]

Its funny how we are so worried about our so called depleted sockeye stocks and the so called damage that the fish farms are doing, yet know one seems to be worried about the MSC and their designation that our sockeye stocks are sustainable.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon/british-columbia-sockeye-salmon.

I happen to agree that the MSC thing is a sham and in my opinion nothing but a marketing tool for the fish selling industry. I even have got into a bit of trouble for openly questioning some of their so called certifications.
Take a look at the Scottish Haddock certification: or as you pointed out the Sockeye debacle, or the Skeena runs that are being over fished/intercepted by Americans , but the process does not look closely enough at the destination streams only looks at the main River.

[mykisscrazy]

It's too bad certain groups don't jump aboard the Issues associated with Salmon Sea Ranching.
You will see in a few more years that this will become more of an issue on our wild stocks than sea pen aquaculture.

[chris gadsden]

It's too bad certain groups don't jump aboard the Issues associated with Salmon Sea Ranching.
You will see in a few more years that this will become more of an issue on our wild stocks than sea pen aquaculture.

Take it on.

[Sandman]

A far more accurate title for the thread given the article you based it on would be "Overfishing is depleting the ocean's fish stocks".

If you had bothered to read the information I provided, you would be aware that fish meal production has been fairly steady for many years. The increasing use in salmon farming has not meant that more is produced. Instead it has meant that less is used for terrestrial animal feed. A decrease in use in salmon farming would simply mean the meal would be used for terrestrial animal feed again. The fishermen who have depleted the world fish stocks aren't fishing for the salmon feed market and don't care where the catch ends up; they are supplying the protein market and that market will take all they can produce. Blaming the salmon farms is the functional equivalent of blaming you for the environmental pollution and damage caused by the oil sands projects because you use oil in your car.

The only way to preserve the fish stocks is to control the fishermen that are overharvesting. That is what that article you based the thread on states and in spite of your entirely predictable attempt to turn it into an indictment of salmon farms, it is the only rational conclusion that can be arrived at.

While the global production of fishmeal has not risen above 7 million tonnes since 1995, it has fluctuated between 5 ans 7 million tonnes since then:



Since then "aquaculture's share of global fishmeal and fish oil consumption more than doubled over the past decade to 68% and 88%, respectively"¹

Since those pig farmers you mention still need to feed their livestock, they will put increased pressure on the market and drive prices up further, encouraging even more over fishing.  While your analogy of blaming AF for the damage caused by the oil sands is a good one, until we DO blame ourselves for consuming these globally damaging products, we will continue to have people arguing that they should be allowed to continue damaging the environment because "the consumer wills it."  I have lived within walking distance of my workplace so that I can walk to work instead of drive.  This means I rent as I cannot afford to buy in the neighbourhood, but it is what I can do for the environment.  I use those carbon credits for my weekly trips to the flow in my fuel efficient Honda civic.  You have to do what you can to stop the rampant destruction of the environment in the name of the consumer.

STOP BUYING FARMED SALMON!!

1. Naylor et al., "Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources," PNAS  September 8, 2009, vol. 106, no. 36, pp. 15103–15110

[absolon]

Once again, the statistical devil is in the details. Aquaculture consists of very much more than salmon farming. Of that "aquaculture's share of global fishmeal anod fish oil consumption" salmon farming accounts for only 15 to 17% of meal and 43% of oil. (see charts on pages 8 and 9 of this link, the third time I've posted it: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6kd_eFBlBU4J:www.aquafeed.com/documents/1230754702_1.pdf+fish+meal+production&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi6gOpnt9Ow_8sFD9-2BvtGpojoo6FcGUkQsI2Qo3ewNr_d1lKysLTqZDtkZZ2dFMnQc_MBHNd952KfkvJcdta088_vNI4CM0d3N0YmLhi9wg8SaIVlbhKSgTGHA_KXTl7oc8Dg&sig=AHIEtbTRpHO9N2WqNvLImx0N0eiweDt6iQ )

The market will absorb any amount of production. Curtailing demand by one sector simply leaves more available to be absorbed in other sectors. The only viable way to limit use is to limit supply by regulating the fishery.

Your argument against consuming globally damaging products applies equally to the consumption of the products of commercial fishing and the consumption of ranched salmon.