Fish: Wild or Farm?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I'll split the fees with you!

 

[sgeeeee]

I'll split the fees with you!

You guys are so good, I'm doubling my tip this week.

 

[setab]

You guys are so good, I'm doubling my tip this week. 

Works for me, but I'm really easy.

setab

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I dont want anything to do with your tip, especially after that conversation about male prostitutes and wild animals!

 

[saluki9]

WOW! Just when I thought that everything that could be argued on the internet had been, I reach the Salmon debate.

Could this possibly be the end of the internet?

 

[Martha]

WOW! Just when I thought that everything that could be argued on the internet had been, I reach the Salmon debate.

Could this possibly be the end of the internet?

Not only are they arguing about salmon, we have done it here before. For seven pages. http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=5123.0

I see CT has bowed out early this time.

 

[REWahoo]

Not only are they arguing about salmon, we have done it here before. For seven pages.

Yep. Seems fishy to me...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I didint see this as an argument. Go figure.

If I buy one thing and it tastes like crap and I buy something else and it tastes good, am I doing it wrong because someone who really knows what they're talking about assures me that I am, in fact, doing it wrong? What would I do differently that would produce a better outcome?

Not that changing ones mind or behavior as a result of a discussion on the internet isnt even remotely feasible...but...hey...you never know...

 

[bosco]

Not only are they arguing about salmon, we have done it here before. For seven pages. http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=5123.0

I see CT has bowed out early this time.

thanks for the link, Martha. It explains a lot.

It is obvious that CT is very passionate about his hobby and sincerely believes that his hobby is far more important than the livelihood of a lot of families.

It is also clear that his "30 weeks" of sport-fishing in Alaska makes him the uncontested expert on ANYTHING having to do with fish from taste to biology. Never mind that I have lived in Alaska for 26 years, have sport-fished, commercial trolled, gillnetted, and worked the spawning streams for fish and game. That would probably just make me a "deck ape." Never mind doctors and biologists and their studies. Bah! Shills of the all-powerful commercial fishing industry.

His characterization of the commercial fishing industry as some gigantic lobby might have some truth for offshore trawlers harvesting cod and pollock but has little to do with the reality of salmon politics in Alaska.

Without going into too many details, I can tell you that commercial salmon fishing, especially trollers, have been losing out to the sport-fishing industry for decades. In reality, the "sport-fishing lobby" is led by very well-organized charter operators and lodge owners who are typically far more well-to-do than the owner of a 40 foot power troller, not to mention hand trollers. They have consistently bit off bigger and bigger slices of a fixed or diminishing pie with the argument that they aren't a commercial enterprise but just "transportation" for sport-fisherman. The reason the pie is fixed or diminishing (at least as far as king salmon is concerned) is not because the stocks are endangered (there are far more salmon around in Alaska now than there were in the the 50s and 60s) but due to the international salmon treaty and its quotas. For some unfathomable reason, BC does not have to count sport-caught salmon on their allocation but Alaska does. This means that every time the sport catch goes up the commercial allocation goes down. The length limit on kings (called 'springs' in Canada) is also much shorter than in Alaska so more sport-caught fish are kept. This situation creates a lot of conflict. Conflict that could perhaps be partially addressed by renegotiating some of the treaty provisions.

And while I'm sure this is not true in CTs case, I have seen studies that show that a very large percentage of the sport-caught salmon go from boat (after sitting in the sun for 2 hours and getting belly-burn--most, not all, sport-fisherman have no idea how to properly treat fish once they are caught) to freezer for a year or two, to the garbage.

I do agree with CT about one thing--fish are a public (actually international) resource. So I think that sport-fisherman deserve a lot of consideration in how the resource is allocated. But to pretend that a charter or lodge outfit is not some sort of commercial industry is ridiculous (all one has to do is listen to their radio chatter to realize that they are a commercial fleet in their own right).

Commercial fishing is integral with the Alaskan lifestyle. Pardon us if many Alaskans don't want to give that up for some weekend warrier self-appointed expert who flies up once or twice a year and feels that he has more right to it.

 

[unclemick]

Ah yes - the sport vs comerrcial vs 'farm raised' - oh toss in those dirty fore-in -gers and their imported products.

Better than Ford vs Chevy, Rep. vs Dem. and other memorible non emtional discussions.

Grew up with that in Washington/Oregon/Alabama/Louisiana - skipping Colorado.

This being the 14th year - step daughter in spare room did(not?) send money to renew her crab and shrimp license in LA.

I hear tell the MO river has catfish though!

heh heh heh heh heh - discresion being the better part of valour and all that there.

 

[Brat]

There are a variety of ways to farm fish. I have three concerns: the sources (including methods of harvesting of "scrap fish") and content of farm fish feed; assuring genitic diversity of wild species; and impact on the sea bed of concentrated fish poop.

I assure you eagles don't mind dining on farmed fish!

 

[laurence]

Never understood the "way of life" argument, the whaling industry was a "way of life", so what, we let one more generation do it, then when that particular species is extinct, the way of life is gone anyway! Like the lamenting of the loss of timber industry jobs in Northern California. Can we keep the last 1% of old growth redwoods, please? THey would only keep the mill open another few years, and the jobs are still lost.

I read somewhere that 90% of commercially caught fish ends up in pet food. Between that and the rising levels of mercury in fish, I can't say I'd cry a river to see the industries closed down, way of life or no.

 

[bosco]

My main point which you seem to have missed, is that 90% of the wild fish in the oceans are gone. When they are all gone, what are the commericial fisherman going to fish? It happened on the east coast of Canada with Cod Fisherman. Heck, it happened on the river I fish on Kodiak Island in 1935 when the commerical fisherman strung nets across the river and decimated the Salmon Run. They put the 7 canneries out of business that they built on the mouth of the river. No government regulation at all, that's what most Alaskans want (Red State) - But the regulations saved them!

My main point, which you seem to have missed, is that farming salmon CONTRIBUTES to the decline of wild fish. Please don't compare a high seas cod fishery with a salmon fishery where the harvesting is primarily done at or near the terminal areas (yes, I know there is some high-seas salmon interception but most of them are harvested in non-international waters). If you know so much, you can probably understand the difference and the implications in terms of enforcement and international issues that result.

And if you are going to base your argument on historical data, then you might realize that Alaska wasn't a red state in 1935--it wasn't a state at all. What about anything that I've posted causes you to think that I am opposed to regulating fisheries? My opinion is no good because I live in a red state? You are right--there weren't regulations in 1935. Not at all true today.

You need to educate yourself on basic logic, before you engage in discussions like this.

Sport Fishing endangering Commercial Fishing - You've got to be kidding? The commercial fisherman will put themselves out of business! Sport Fisherman, for the most part release all their fish. I have not taken a fish back from Alaska in over 20 years. (I can't keep it fresh enough) .Most native Alaskans live there but they don't have a clue about their environment. And most have never been out of Anchorage!

I am not kidding. More precisely, unmanaged and unrestricted growth of charter fishing has the potential to endanger commericial trolling for King salmon, and cohos may not be far behind. I suspect it will eventually be sorted out politically--I think there are beginning to be some limits on charter fishing business. I'm all for limits on commercial fishing. Let's just not exempt certain gear groups totally and lets come up with a solution that results in sustainable fisheries AND not favoring one group at the expense of another. You may or may not be aware that there are also constitutionaly guarranteed subsistence rights for Native and rural residents which must be figured into the equation.

At the present point in history, it is not overfishing that is destroying the resource. It is loss of habitat. Fish farming contributes to this.

BTW, instead of dumping on all commercial fisherman and accusing them of strip-mining the ocean (been listening to your charter operator too much--who's brainwashed?) why don't you start with checking out some facts. Start here

http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/finfish/salmon/catchval/history/1970-2004s.php

Check out the commercial catch rates for all species. It was the mid 1970's when limited entry was instituted. Funny thing--a few years later the harvest rates went up. Doesn't look like the pattern of fishing them to zero you keep mentioning. Also bear in mind that the king salmon take is set by treaty, so the trend it it's case is less meaningful.

Are you seriously arguing that most, or even many sport fisherman in Alaska release their fish? Try again. I'm all for it and applaud you if you do, but it is not the norm here.

So now you are also an expert on native Alaskans. Well, yes, about 1/2 of Alaskans live in Anchorage. But to say that most have never been out of Anchorage is patently absurd. And to say that most don't have a clue about their environment is an example of the quality of the 'facts' you have been presenting here.

BTW, if we were talking about commercial crab harvesting, you'd have a better argument. Salmon are easier to manage in some ways because of the fact that their escapement numbers can be more easily and accurately assessed.

If you think harvesting wild fish in the Ocean is a renewable resurce, why don't you think there is a comparable resource harvesting wild animals. Like maybe Buffalo? - People that fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it! Alaskans may believe that Salmon escapement laws will protect their Salmon runs, but Japan, Korea and the Phillipines and soon to be other Asian nations are netting salmon on the high seas, before they even reach the Alaska Commerical fisherman. The only way I see this ending is the price of farm raised Salmon to be low enough so it does not pay to harvest wild fish.

I dunno--maybe the Buffalo Limited Entry Comission didn't do it's job? Give me a break--you are using fish and game regulation policies from the 1800s (or lack thereof) to argue for your position in Alaska today? Do you believe that there remains sufficient buffalo habitat for herds to roam the unfenced prairies even if the stocks could be built up again? Once again--habitat, habitat, habitat. Your argument is logically equivalent to saying that we shouldn't fly on jet airplanes because biplanes have a high rate of crashing (don't know if they do, just made it up).

I agree that there is a problem with high seas fisheries. I disagree that they way to solve it is to lock out small-time Alaskan operators. And again--maybe take a look at the harvest statistics. If we want to save salmon runs, we'd best be worrying about habitat preservation. This is the battle in Alaska-against bad logging and mining practices, and other destructive development (like fish farms). There are enough fish for commercial, subsistence, and sport purposes if we protect the environment.

You need to educate yourself on the planets resources, before you engage in discussions like this.

So far, all I have seen from you is strongly worded opinions and little in the way of facts. Maybe you need some education?

 

[bosco]

Never understood the "way of life" argument, the whaling industry was a "way of life", so what, we let one more generation do it, then when that particular species is extinct, the way of life is gone anyway! Like the lamenting of the loss of timber industry jobs in Northern California. Can we keep the last 1% of old growth redwoods, please? THey would only keep the mill open another few years, and the jobs are still lost.

I read somewhere that 90% of commercially caught fish ends up in pet food. Between that and the rising levels of mercury in fish, I can't say I'd cry a river to see the industries closed down, way of life or no.

counter-intuively, commercial (and, for that matter, sport) fisherman in Alaska are among the most zealous conservationists and go head to head against logging and mining interests regularly. So in some ways, having a responsible fishing industry can help preserve the environment. Admittedly, it hasn't always worked that way in the past but people do learn. I agree with you about whales and redwoods. This isn't the same.

I seriously doubt that 90% of commercially caught salmon ends up in pet food. Salmon have little mercury compared to, say, swordfish or albacore. I'm sure that the guts and bones may get ground up and put in pet food. Probably weigh them and include it in the statistic....

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

What I said is the future of eating fish in the World is via farming, not harvesting wild fish.

That sounds quite reasonable. But the farmed ones still taste like crap!

I like wild poultry too. Doesnt taste like wet cotton.

 

[Cut-Throat]

What I said is the future of eating fish in the World is via farming, not harvesting wild fish.

That sounds quite reasonable. But the farmed ones still taste like crap!

I like wild poultry too. Doesnt taste like wet cotton.

As for you, I suggest that you get your Wild Turkey Permit before Thanksgiving this year. If your lucky enough to bag your bird, you have a lot of fun cleaning it.

 

[bosco]

I disagree that they way to solve it is to lock out small-time Alaskan operators.

I never said that! - You are overreacting! What I said is the future of eating fish in the World is via farming, not harvesting wild fish. When farming is more efficient than rounding up wild animals it will put commerical fisherman out of business. They will decide to quit on their own because their wild product cannot compete with farm raised.

It's already happening!

Same as farming chickens, hogs, beef and everything else you eat. The writing is on the wall. Why be ignorant of the facts!

I cannot argue with this. And maybe I am overreacting. Places that have already ruined their habitat (e.g. Washington State) have turned to fish farming. And farming already produces cheaper product (although I still maintain it is inferior). The Columbia and it's drainages used to produce 90% of the King Salmon on the west coast. It was mostly dams, not fisherman, that wiped that out.

However, it does not follow from this that all commercial fishermen should be regulated out of existence in areas where things are still working. And fish farming needs to be done in a more responsible manner than it has--which will raise the price. I deplore some commercial fishing--offshore deep-water trawling that plows up the ocean bottom and destroys habitat for example.

The way that this will all happen is through smarter consumers. Aside from the great taste debate, consumers will pay more for cleaner fish, whether farmed, hatchery, or wild.

It seems that buffalo and range-fed beef are making a comeback as well. Or maybe the future is vegetarianism. Frankly, given the global warming and pollutant runoffs into the ocean, maybe the future of ANY kind of seafood is in danger.

 

[Brat]

What I said is the future of eating fish in the World is via farming, not harvesting wild fish.

That sounds quite reasonable.  But the farmed ones still taste like crap!

I like wild poultry too.  Doesnt taste like wet cotton.

One of the reasons why the flavor is off is the feed.  Salmon are pink because they eat smaller fish.  Feed for farmed salmon isn't the same.  They are pink only because a dye is put in their food prior to harvest.

Wild salmon stop eating as they go up-river to spawn.  One of the reasons why spawning salmon way up-river aren't the best eating is thay have been fasting, and they are tired...

The pressure on the wild fisheries is huge because of the need for human proten around the world.  There are rogue fishing operations that don't care about the long term health of the fisheries.  IF fished can be farmed cheaply at sea in those big-bag nets there is a chance that some of the pressure on wild fish will decrease. 

 

[haha]

The pressure on the wild fisheries is huge because of the need for human proten around the world. 

Finally someone understands! Save a fish, eat a fisherman!

Ha

 

[bosco]

The pressure on the wild fisheries is huge because of the need for human proten around the world.

Finally someone understands! Save a fish, eat a fisherman!

Ha

lol eat humans--you are what you eat!

 

[HFWR]

Not gonna do it...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

But I will!!



Maybe later...