Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cut-Throat
Quote:
|
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.
Linear Mode
