Walmart?

Check out “Collapse” by Jared Diamond for an interesting study of what happens to societies that choose not to use sustainable food gathering practices.

But you’re so right, people will always want to eat fish and your ideas are much more sustainable than what we have now. Good.

Phil, I would respectfully say that death by fish may be fine for you, but marine mammals dying with a hook or fishing line around their intestines, loons dying of lead poisoning or whales dying from nets in their infected jaws is anything but quick, and most certainly not worth it.

But what are the odds of that happening? More likely low and slow is the way you’d go.

Demand something different!!!!!! If you like Grouper you will love Corvina….If you like Swordfish you will love Cobia….If you like Tuna you will love Wahoo…If you like snapper you will love Margate….If you like cess pool Farm Raised Salmon you will Love IQF Wild Coho or Sockeye Salmon….Make sure you “Maine” Lobster is really from Maine and not from Canada (Canada has no size restrictions)

It is bad enough that urban development has destroyed all of the vital spawning grounds for the majority of the coastal fin fish populations in Florida and the Bahamas.

It starts with each and every Chef and ends with each and every diner

Thank you for my allotted soap box rant

The global enforcement body would determine how many layers of deterrence are needed, what the individual layers should be, who would enforce them and how. Some layers would be voluntary, followed by layers with teeth to inflict punishment.

There are no clear standards now, and those who would thwart clarification of standards should be first warned, then excluded from the process.

But the fact of the matter is that fisheries can indeed be fished commercially in a sustainable way – look at the Alaskan fisheries as one example. The Sicilian matanza-style tuna fishing is another.

Size and scale matter in both hunting and fishing. We ended market huntiing in 1918 because the resource couldn’t hack it. Now there are more whitetail deer than there have ever been in North America, even though non-commercial hunting has been going strong in all those ensuing years. It is possible that fishing will go the same way – i.e., non-commercial only.

But if we manage to stop destroying habitat – and it is habitat that primarily determines a species’ population, not hunting or fishing per se – and reduce the scale of our fishing efforts, in effect purposely making ourselves less efficient, then the fisheries will recover to the point where guys like me can make a living off the oceans again.

Anyway, that’s my $0.02.

you are right, far from it. True farmers and fishermen with notable execptions (like whalers and many many others….) are TRUE stewards of the land. I trust the land and ocean to them. But Carrie…long netting the oceans and discarding 70% of the dead catch is criminal. Comercial or not it is unforgivable. Killing dolphins in quantities to harvest tuna is unforgivable. Carrie this is not Kansas and we don’t live in a wizard of oz world. I see no need to devastate and ravage nature AT ANY LEVEL.
Wether they are slaughtering elephants in an animal preserve or just devastating the oceans… there is nothing good about it. It is shameful and it dimishes our environment.

It’s a damned shame that we humans did not act out of compassion for marine animals in fishing nets, seabirds poisoned by oil spills etc etc, imagine if we had moderated bottom trawling and ocean pollution, not to mention found alternative fuels, 15 years ago.

If we had we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.

Hank, folks that are still out there killing whales and overfishing the oceans are just plain bad folks. A hunter that goes out and shoots up the woods does it because he wants to hurt and kill and maim creatures that are not threatening him/her and are totally defenseless. These people are the lowest sort of selfish unfeeling people on earth. There is NO EXCUSE to overfish the ocean or kill every creature on the planet. NONE. None of these folks are starving or couldn’t find some other means to make a living. They have a right, the don’t have a right to destroy the planet.. is neither here nor there. They DO IT because they can.

I’m not a nutritionist so there may be caveats to all this, but there are 3 components of nutrition: nutrients, bioavailability and absorption. So if fish is better on the last 2, there may be issues.

But people who are frustrated should simply try to find a good, simple nutrition book and most importantly LEARN TO READ LABELS! BBC Science website is where I get cutting edge info on this stuff too.

As a side note, as a veterinary nurse (and biologist) I discourage cat owners from feeding fish to cats; it has thiaminase, an enzyme which destroys thiamine, a vital nutrient that cats need, plus mercury levels, plus cats evolved from African wildcats who don’t eat fish. So we can cut back some from that supply.

The steps that need to be taken will no doubt be rejected by many, leaving those with an actual sense of responsibility to bear more of the burden.

Just like when a country goes to war to defend itself and some of her sons need to give up their lives in her defense. Sacrifices are inevitable, but the more people embrace them sooner, the easier it is to pay the price.

Fishing needs to have similar limits, most notably on technology: Fisheries survived before the advent of the factory trawler and the mega-boats my Newfie colleague above mentioned. Ban them and leave fishing to owner-operated little boats (like Alaska’s salmon fishery) and you will regain some sustainability.

But will fish every be cheap again? Probably not.