0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: another_someone on 24/09/2007 22:09:11I still don't see it going to be easy to have the Chinese, Russians, Burmese, Americans, North Koreans, Somalis, et al, sign up to this – let alone allow appropriate audits to ensure it functions properly.It depends, on the benefits and rewards.
I still don't see it going to be easy to have the Chinese, Russians, Burmese, Americans, North Koreans, Somalis, et al, sign up to this – let alone allow appropriate audits to ensure it functions properly.
Quote from: another_someone on 24/09/2007 22:09:11The trouble is that scientists and environmentalists are not omnipotent. Even assuming that all environmentalists were saints, and all fishermen were sinners, that the scientists and environmentalists are still only offering theory, and you still need a feedback mechanism to demonstrate that theory translates to practice (in other industries, e.g. Mining – you can have geologists who will tell you where to mine for whatever you are looking for, but one does noit glibly accept the geologists theory, one tests it against practice, and often the geologists get it wrong – how are you proposing we test the environmentalists theories against practice?).How do you access the health of the sea?
The trouble is that scientists and environmentalists are not omnipotent. Even assuming that all environmentalists were saints, and all fishermen were sinners, that the scientists and environmentalists are still only offering theory, and you still need a feedback mechanism to demonstrate that theory translates to practice (in other industries, e.g. Mining – you can have geologists who will tell you where to mine for whatever you are looking for, but one does noit glibly accept the geologists theory, one tests it against practice, and often the geologists get it wrong – how are you proposing we test the environmentalists theories against practice?).
Quote from: another_someone on 24/09/2007 22:09:11As I said above, whether you regard it as profit, or something else, you still need a feedback mechanism that rewards results, not merely rewarding conformance to theory. Profit is the traditional way of doing this, but if you want some other means, then by all means think of another way of doing it – but if results are not rewarded, then there will be no way of separating good practice from bad practice, and the final outcome will always be failure.It is not an easy question to answer. I just don't want to say 'Targets', there I did it [:-'(].
As I said above, whether you regard it as profit, or something else, you still need a feedback mechanism that rewards results, not merely rewarding conformance to theory. Profit is the traditional way of doing this, but if you want some other means, then by all means think of another way of doing it – but if results are not rewarded, then there will be no way of separating good practice from bad practice, and the final outcome will always be failure.
Quote from: another_someone on 24/09/2007 22:09:11But if the UN is planning an running all of this, then how can you regard that as anything but centrally planned? What is less central than the UN?Well only because the fish farm would release the fish in response to the action of the fishermen.That would give the fishermen a form of control over the numbers released; Maybe you could work it the other way, a penalty for over fishing, sorry, these are just ideas.
But if the UN is planning an running all of this, then how can you regard that as anything but centrally planned? What is less central than the UN?
Quote from: another_someone on 24/09/2007 22:09:11I don't think you need much of a study into why fish die when they are taken out of the water.Well some don't die maybe with a slightly different catch system they could all survive.
I don't think you need much of a study into why fish die when they are taken out of the water.
As another suggestion you could release the fish eggs in similar area to where they are born naturally, you would expect a high mortality rate, but that would probably be the cheepest and most efficient option.
Ownership does and can bring responsibility but if the owner is inclined they could do the bare minimum(legally). The owner of a dog who never "harms" his dog and feeds it the minimum amount needed, gives the dog very little attention; The owner would, in the eyes of the law be responsible. Ownership does not make a person responsible, it asks that the owner keeps to the laws relating to the ownership of an item, they can however only be prosecuted after breaking the law, once the damage is done, and then only if they are caught.
In some cases if a person never had ownership of a item in the first place, they would not have had the opportunity to damaged it.
How does that saying go some people say 'who broke it?' others says 'its broken, I'll fix it'.
Those that caused this problem are probably no longer fishing/eating/doing something that damages the sea. Government are already giving legal restrictions to fishermen, in an attempt to solve the problem(with no consideration to farm released fish).
Which is why I suggest that the current situation, could be maintained, and fish farms or egg farms could give the fish stocks and extra leg up, in conjunction with the legislation currently being enforced; It's simpler and might work.
But now your coming around to my way of thinking – you need tangible rewards to motivate compliance and good practice. Simply relying on altruism, aside from being insufficient motivation, tends to do more to motivate superficial compliance than genuine good practice.
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 18:39:48How do you access the health of the sea?The problem with assessing anything is first to define it.The first problem is what exactly are you really trying to achieve?Up until now we were talking about sustainable fisheries – that is a measurable thing (not easily measurable, but measurable) – but how do you define the health of an entity that you cannot even say what its normal functionality is?
How do you access the health of the sea?
Even when you are dealing with something one supposedly understands a lot better, it can often be impossible to define what is meant by 'health', so how do you define it for the entirety of the seas?
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 18:39:48Well only because the fish farm would release the fish in response to the action of the fishermen.That would give the fishermen a form of control over the numbers released; Maybe you could work it the other way, a penalty for over fishing, sorry, these are just ideas.But which fish farm releases how many fish in response to which fisherman's actions – this requires either a direct link between the activity of fishing and the fish farms, or some intermediate control through an organisation such as the UN.
Well only because the fish farm would release the fish in response to the action of the fishermen.That would give the fishermen a form of control over the numbers released; Maybe you could work it the other way, a penalty for over fishing, sorry, these are just ideas.
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 18:39:48Quote from: another_someone on 24/09/2007 22:09:11I don't think you need much of a study into why fish die when they are taken out of the water.Well some don't die maybe with a slightly different catch system they could all survive.Of course, it might be that in the long term, as we keep throwing fish back in the water, we may stimulate evolutionary changes in the fish to make them better able to survive the experience, but I would not see that as being a quick fix solution.
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 18:39:48As another suggestion you could release the fish eggs in similar area to where they are born naturally, you would expect a high mortality rate, but that would probably be the cheepest and most efficient option.It rather depends on the type of fish.Some fish give live birth (although these are probably more likely to be larger fish, that would be difficult to farm anyway).
At the opposite extreme, you have fish like salmon, that spawn millions of eggs, but immediately die. In this case, it can make very little difference whether the fish lays its eggs in the wild, or in captivity, since you ill never be able to have the same fish operate as an egg laying factory (in the way the poultry can lay eggs year after year after year). Nonetheless, I suppose you could I suppose breed a number of generations in captivity solely for the purpose of collecting a large number of eggs, and then release the eggs.
The problem is that as yet I doubt we know well enough the conditions under which the eggs should be released to optimise survival in the wild.The reality is that to date only a very small fraction of the species in the sea, even the commercially viable species, have been successfully farmed. Some almost certainly never will be, but no doubt that with time we will learn how to successfully farm others.
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 18:39:48In some cases if a person never had ownership of a item in the first place, they would not have had the opportunity to damaged it. Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever.Of course, I have never been to Australia, and I do not own any animals in Australia. One can say that I have had not had the opportunity to be cruel to an animal in Australia, but it is scarcely a relevant argument. Should I so choose, I could be cruel to my next door neighbours dog, despite the fact that I do not own the animal.
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 18:39:48How does that saying go some people say 'who broke it?' others says 'its broken, I'll fix it'. Agreed, but you still need to decide who will fix it.Who broke it matters not in the least, but if 10 different people all try to fix it at once, you will simply get a complete mess, so you have to allocate responsibility to one person, and then ensure that the person does what he is responsible for doing.
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 18:39:48Those that caused this problem are probably no longer fishing/eating/doing something that damages the sea. Government are already giving legal restrictions to fishermen, in an attempt to solve the problem(with no consideration to farm released fish). Governments are taking action, but the problem with governments (and this is inherent in all government activity, which is why so much of it fails) is that governments never actually make themselves responsible for the consequences of their actions – there is never a comeback on a government if its policies fail. Even in a supposedly democratic system, there are far too many policies all tangled up together for any real responsibility on a policy by policy basis, and even when the government does change, the change is merely of the party, and not much changes in terms of policy (and what does change usually has more to do with doctrine than to do with pragmatic assessment of the success or failure of individual policies). Furthermore, the time horizons for politicians is far too short to be meaningful in terms of long term responsibility for decisions (although to be fair this can sometimes be true of business as well, although less so for family run businesses).
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 18:39:48Which is why I suggest that the current situation, could be maintained, and fish farms or egg farms could give the fish stocks and extra leg up, in conjunction with the legislation currently being enforced; It's simpler and might work.Certainly, I do not disagree that fish farms will provide many opportunities that would otherwise not be available for the future of fish production and consumption.
I think there are still many problems with fish farms, not least that there are still so few species that we yet understand how to farm.I am totally against running the whole project as a purely political exercise, where the only quality control on the exercise is the results in the ballot box. That is too blunt an instrument to manage such a complex task.
I also think we are a long way from releasing farmed fish back into the wild, and even the eggs would have to be carefully screened for parasites before realising into the wild, although the eggs might be more plausible that the returning of the fish themselves.
I do think that you have to be clear in your own mind as to what the objectives are that you are seeking before you can say whether plan X or plan Y is better to achieve that result. We started this with the assumption that we were looking at sustainable fish harvesting;
but you have now introduced this vague notion of the 'health of the sea'. Please explain what you mean by that, and how would you judge plan X as being superior or inferior at achieving that end result than plan Y?
Quote from: another_someone on 25/09/2007 20:48:31But now your coming around to my way of thinking – you need tangible rewards to motivate compliance and good practice. Simply relying on altruism, aside from being insufficient motivation, tends to do more to motivate superficial compliance than genuine good practice.I agree that you need benefits for those involved, however given the right type of people, eg those involved in environmental conservation, the reward scheme would not need to be so complex. In some programmes those involved actively want to do the work, as they believe in the project and its aims and objectives; as a result there is less of a need to offer extensive benefits. Biggest problem would be finding those people.
Quote from: another_someone on 25/09/2007 20:48:31do you define the health of an entity that you cannot even say what its normal functionality is?Environmentalists must have an answer to that.
do you define the health of an entity that you cannot even say what its normal functionality is?
As I just said, for environmentalists to say for example 'that the sea is in trouble' they must have an idea of what constitutes a sea not in trouble.Can any environmentalists reading this give any examples? Sea ecosystems how do you asses health? I know with forest ecosystems they count the number of large predators, can you do the same with the sea? Would you need to check water quality? Survey Plant life, coral? Environmentalists/marine biologists should have answers to those question surely? Are there any reading this?
Quote from: another_someone on 25/09/2007 20:48:31But which fish farm releases how many fish in response to which fisherman's actions – this requires either a direct link between the activity of fishing and the fish farms, or some intermediate control through an organisation such as the UN.That's a different system again, just another idea, who runs it? How to fund it? What system of rewards and penalties should be used? What are the main themes of success and failure? Each way of doing it brings lots of questions.
But which fish farm releases how many fish in response to which fisherman's actions – this requires either a direct link between the activity of fishing and the fish farms, or some intermediate control through an organisation such as the UN.
OK your suggesting that fish "might" evolve to cope with being caught? What about just find better ways of catching the fish so they don't die?
This is only for the idea about, charging less for tagged fish, so they throw back natural ones.
Quote from: another_someone on 25/09/2007 20:48:31It rather depends on the type of fish.Some fish give live birth (although these are probably more likely to be larger fish, that would be difficult to farm anyway).You could release the pregnant fish in those circumstances.
It rather depends on the type of fish.Some fish give live birth (although these are probably more likely to be larger fish, that would be difficult to farm anyway).
Quote from: another_someone on 25/09/2007 20:48:31The problem is that as yet I doubt we know well enough the conditions under which the eggs should be released to optimise survival in the wild.The reality is that to date only a very small fraction of the species in the sea, even the commercially viable species, have been successfully farmed. Some almost certainly never will be, but no doubt that with time we will learn how to successfully farm others.Well that's why an egg farm would be better, you wouldn't be farming the fish, you would keep a small number and release the eggs; the farms could be small as a result and located as near as possible to the point of release.
I am merely pointing out that before ownership is given, you can never fully assess what the consequences of ownership will bring. At present no-one owns fish stocks, they move between different territorial waters etc. If ownership is given to a group or individual there could very well cause unforeseen problems.
Ownership is ownership. Could they not, have the right if they choose to remove all their fish and put them in tanks? They own the resource if they were all caught and put it tanks the owner could argue that the fish are being treated well? Then all of those fish would be tanked bread in captivity. Its a extreme example but if the financial reward was big enough the owner could do it. That would result it the complete removal of an entire species from the sea(legally).
I know I have been arguing for government or NGO over sight. Mainly because this should not be a exercise in economics.
Well There is a new form of government, what if the politicians were held responsible for there decisions even after they left office? That would make for better government. So how should they be punished?
I don't see this as a political exercise, I see it as an environmental exercise, trouble is that it becomes political because it affects anyone who eats fish, anyone who works in the fish industry and also affect the sea as well.
Quote from: another_someone on 25/09/2007 20:48:31 but you have now introduced this vague notion of the 'health of the sea'. Please explain what you mean by that, and how would you judge plan X as being superior or inferior at achieving that end result than plan Y?Well we need a plan first these are all just ideas, there are lots of ways to do it:1. The fish themselves released2. Just pregnant fish released3. Just the eggs releasedit would probably be the case that you would need to do all three depending on the fish. That would be replacing the fish stocks by simply releasing either egg or fish.Then the other commercial ideas for funding the projects including tagging fish which fishermen would be charged for catching(probably wouldn't work and the tagged fish would be thrown back).Setting a flat tax on all fish but charge less for tagged fish, therefore natural fish get thrown back(dead).Releasing tagged fish which are recover by those that released them, after they have lived and bred in the wild, the tag could stun them and assist in the harvesting, A kinda free range fish.
That not including all the different motivation for why were discussing it in the first place, Right the objectives:1. To preserve fish stocks, eg. To return fish stocks to the levels of say, 30 years ago. QUESTION: Is that possible? Or safe to do? Could that be counter productive, as the sea could not handle the old stock levels in todays eco-climate?
2. To preserve the fishing industry.
3. To protect all the species that rely on and live in the sea.
If you set up a system that employs 5 people, you can carefully select the people involved to ensure whatever criteria you choose. When you have a worldwide system that must employ thousands, probably millions of people (in one capacity or another), you have to deal with your average human being (including some that are even the wrong side of average). Whatever system you set up has to manage this diversity of people, and not naively assume that you can hand pick every last one of them.
Not only is this passing the buck, but: Ask 5 environmentalist, and I would guess you would get 6 answers (which should be no surprise, as you could say the same regarding most controversial issues when considered by independently minded people).If you leave other people to decide the objectives to be reached, you may just not like the answer they give you (then again, I suppose it is what most followers of religious orders have been doing for a long time – the question is whether you regard environmentalism to be a religion, with decisions being deferred to religious leaders).
Are you saying that you are not interested in the 'health of the sea', but are interested in satisfying the environmentalists?
I can see how the number of large predators could be seen as an indicator of the amount of food available to it, but of course that assumes a particular image of what the purpose of a forest is, and judging purpose can be very arbitrary. In particular, as we discussed about targets before, one can use such things as crude targets without really achieving much (so, one introduces lots of big predators, and then imports lots of food for them to eat, and so achieve the targets while bypassing the mechanism it is meant to represent).Beyond that, I would ask if we necessarily want big predators in our forests? We may get all dewy eyed at the pictures of tigers in India, but we are not the ones who need to fear going into the jungle, and I wonder if we would feel so sanguine if we had school children being carried off by forest predators? It may be 'healthy' by this standard, but is it healthy for humans?
Clearly, one needs a centralised market oversight; but the point about the centralised authority is that it should only provide structure and not detailed control. It should provide a system for resolving disputes, and determine the rules by which the system works, but should not seek to manage the system.The system should be self funding, since the fishermen would be paying royalties of some kind to the fisheries, just as a radio station might pay royalties to a record label. Clearly, this is only going to work if there are new records published, or new fish released.
The only ways I can think of doing that are:Be more selective about what one catches. This would mean either avoiding nets altogether, or somehow separating the species of fish before they being enmeshed in the nets. Either way, I can only see this would be to have some intelligent process operating underwater (it did occur to me that we could use trained dolphins in the way shepherds use sheep dogs; alternatively use robotic equivalents).The other alternative would be to build large and expensive fishing boats that contain large water tanks. Rather than pulling the fish onto a dry deck, pull them into a shipboard pool, where the fish could be kept alive until the species can be segragated.
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 23:46:04 This is only for the idea about, charging less for tagged fish, so they throw back natural ones. This was something I already suggested for other reasons.
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 23:46:04 Quote from: another_someone on 25/09/2007 20:48:31It rather depends on the type of fish.Some fish give live birth (although these are probably more likely to be larger fish, that would be difficult to farm anyway).You could release the pregnant fish in those circumstances.But this would have all the problems of releasing live fish in any other circumstance.
But we had discussed earlier that you would be farming fish, because that is how you would produce the eggs (otherwise where does your supply of eggs come from). The issue was not about whether you farm the fish, but about what you would release into the wild.
What we need to design are systems that are flexible enough, and robust enough, to deal with the unforeseen; but not be surprised that there will be unforeseen consequences.Clearly, we do have some historic experience of what private ownership brings with regard to terrestrial life, as we have in the past first moved from a hunter gatherer lifestyle (roughly where fishing is today), towards agriculture (through various different models of ownership).
Theoretically possible (unless the law forbade it – which is always a possibility); but why would they do it (there may be some reasons for doing it, but some of those reasons might even be legitimate, as it may ultimately be seen in some circumstances as the only way of protecting the species).
Two thirds of the Earth is covered by sea, and at present most of the sea is common 'land', and so is freely available to all who choose to use it. Dry land covers only one third of the Earth, and is generally very expensive to use. The reasons for a commercial organisation to choose to use an expensive resource like dry land, when they could use a free resource, like the open sea, would have to be very compelling indeed (and if it is that compelling, then it might even be legitimate).
Economics should be seen as the means and not the ends. If you design the system correctly, you can use economics as a tool to achieve whatever ends you desire, but the process of economics allows the system to 'genetically' evolve to create the optimum solution to achieve the ends.
Ofcourse, I do fully accept that this is dependent on creating the right economic environment to achieve the desired ends, and if you get that wrong, you will indeed have adverse effects.
It is political because it is controlled by political bodies.In some ways, one cannot effect any social change without involving political entities, but the problem is that politicians are not capable of the management of such projects (no reason why they should be, since it is not expertise in management that got them to be successful politicians).
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 23:46:04That not including all the different motivation for why were discussing it in the first place, Right the objectives:1. To preserve fish stocks, eg. To return fish stocks to the levels of say, 30 years ago. QUESTION: Is that possible? Or safe to do? Could that be counter productive, as the sea could not handle the old stock levels in todays eco-climate? That is a good question, and part of the problem with this whole discussion.The world changes, and preserving yesterday in aspic is just not 'healthy' in the sense that it undermines the processes of evolution.
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 23:46:042. To preserve the fishing industry. That is the area that I was most concentrating on, since it is at least an easily identifiable and understandable target (with certain caveats, insofar as that too must evolve like all else).
Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 23:46:043. To protect all the species that rely on and live in the sea.Same problem as the preservation of historic stock levels – things don't stand still, and trying to freeze yesterday cannot work, even if it was desirable.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52If you set up a system that employs 5 people, you can carefully select the people involved to ensure whatever criteria you choose. When you have a worldwide system that must employ thousands, probably millions of people (in one capacity or another), you have to deal with your average human being (including some that are even the wrong side of average). Whatever system you set up has to manage this diversity of people, and not naively assume that you can hand pick every last one of them.I agree, but if the farms worked as I am thinking they should, then the Numbers employed in the whole scheme would be small.
This is a responce to the claims made by environmentalists looking at sea life, if the environmentalists hadn't made the claims, then I would never have considered a way of repairing the damage and problems. Some enviromentalists claim there are problems and want all fishing stopped.I am therefore just stating that reality, they said 'there is a problem', for them to do so, means they must have an idea of what the sea would be like without any major problems. No buck passing at all, they brought it up as a problem, I'm asking if this 'fish farm' idea could help solve it?Nothing more.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52Are you saying that you are not interested in the 'health of the sea', but are interested in satisfying the environmentalists?Hardly, I as I just said, am looking for solutions to problems they have raised. That does however, mean that to a degree I am relying on them.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52The only ways I can think of doing that are:Be more selective about what one catches. This would mean either avoiding nets altogether, or somehow separating the species of fish before they being enmeshed in the nets. Either way, I can only see this would be to have some intelligent process operating underwater (it did occur to me that we could use trained dolphins in the way shepherds use sheep dogs; alternatively use robotic equivalents).The other alternative would be to build large and expensive fishing boats that contain large water tanks. Rather than pulling the fish onto a dry deck, pull them into a shipboard pool, where the fish could be kept alive until the species can be segragated.I was thinking along lines of an on board tank as well.I can't believe it would be that expensive, you would fill it with sea water, four sides and a pump. The hard part would be separating the fish.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 23:46:04 This is only for the idea about, charging less for tagged fish, so they throw back natural ones. This was something I already suggested for other reasons.For other reasons? Which were?
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52Quote from: sooyeah on 25/09/2007 23:46:04 Quote from: another_someone on 25/09/2007 20:48:31It rather depends on the type of fish.Some fish give live birth (although these are probably more likely to be larger fish, that would be difficult to farm anyway).You could release the pregnant fish in those circumstances.But this would have all the problems of releasing live fish in any other circumstance.Well no the problems would be reduced as you would only be releasing a small numbers of fish, rather than massive quantities that would be released under a 'fish farm'.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52But we had discussed earlier that you would be farming fish, because that is how you would produce the eggs (otherwise where does your supply of eggs come from). The issue was not about whether you farm the fish, but about what you would release into the wild.Yes you are still farming, just smaller numbers, it would probably be done in tanks. Fish farms today hold huge numbers of live fish, an egg farm would hold far less.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52What we need to design are systems that are flexible enough, and robust enough, to deal with the unforeseen; but not be surprised that there will be unforeseen consequences.Clearly, we do have some historic experience of what private ownership brings with regard to terrestrial life, as we have in the past first moved from a hunter gatherer lifestyle (roughly where fishing is today), towards agriculture (through various different models of ownership).Well, if we are looking at ways of preserving natural habitates and ecosystems, the above example of private ownership does not suit the objectives.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52Theoretically possible (unless the law forbade it – which is always a possibility); but why would they do it (there may be some reasons for doing it, but some of those reasons might even be legitimate, as it may ultimately be seen in some circumstances as the only way of protecting the species).They would not be protecting the 'species' they would be protecting their investment.
There is a instant problem, currently, individuals are leaving the sea to its own devices(to nature), if that changes they will all start playing with it; the outcome could be a good one, but that's unlikely. We are already fishing, my suggestion is to release fish to make up for the damage done by fishermen, while not allocating ownership of all the fish.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52Two thirds of the Earth is covered by sea, and at present most of the sea is common 'land', and so is freely available to all who choose to use it. Dry land covers only one third of the Earth, and is generally very expensive to use. The reasons for a commercial organisation to choose to use an expensive resource like dry land, when they could use a free resource, like the open sea, would have to be very compelling indeed (and if it is that compelling, then it might even be legitimate).Not forgeting that currently all countries are involved in a sea land grab at the UN.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52Economics should be seen as the means and not the ends. If you design the system correctly, you can use economics as a tool to achieve whatever ends you desire, but the process of economics allows the system to 'genetically' evolve to create the optimum solution to achieve the ends.Sadly the ends are generally always making money, and as much money as possible.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52Ofcourse, I do fully accept that this is dependent on creating the right economic environment to achieve the desired ends, and if you get that wrong, you will indeed have adverse effects.If you give ownership of the sea to someone they will explot it for economic gain. I cannot see that solving the problem. Even if you put in place strong laws, they can be reversed in court.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52It is political because it is controlled by political bodies.In some ways, one cannot effect any social change without involving political entities, but the problem is that politicians are not capable of the management of such projects (no reason why they should be, since it is not expertise in management that got them to be successful politicians).It should be run by those that want the same objective achieved. So greenpeace or another NGO for example.
Well yeah, but how do nonexistent fish evolve? The main objective has to be to stop fish going extinct.
I know, they don't stand still. As an idea you could estermate the total damage done by fishermen and then set that as the objective, to put the sea in a position where human activity goes unnoticed.
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 13:08:58Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52If you set up a system that employs 5 people, you can carefully select the people involved to ensure whatever criteria you choose. When you have a worldwide system that must employ thousands, probably millions of people (in one capacity or another), you have to deal with your average human being (including some that are even the wrong side of average). Whatever system you set up has to manage this diversity of people, and not naively assume that you can hand pick every last one of them.I agree, but if the farms worked as I am thinking they should, then the Numbers employed in the whole scheme would be small.Are you really telling me that you expect to run the whole world's fishing industry, and fish farming industry, across 7 continents, with a total of 5 employees (or even anything in that order of magnitude)?
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 13:08:58This is a responce to the claims made by environmentalists looking at sea life, if the environmentalists hadn't made the claims, then I would never have considered a way of repairing the damage and problems. Some environmentalists claim there are problems and want all fishing stopped.I am therefore just stating that reality, they said 'there is a problem', for them to do so, means they must have an idea of what the sea would be like without any major problems. No buck passing at all, they brought it up as a problem, I'm asking if this 'fish farm' idea could help solve it?Nothing more.Should not the first question then be, prove there is a problem at all?
This is a responce to the claims made by environmentalists looking at sea life, if the environmentalists hadn't made the claims, then I would never have considered a way of repairing the damage and problems. Some environmentalists claim there are problems and want all fishing stopped.I am therefore just stating that reality, they said 'there is a problem', for them to do so, means they must have an idea of what the sea would be like without any major problems. No buck passing at all, they brought it up as a problem, I'm asking if this 'fish farm' idea could help solve it?Nothing more.
We have had declines up to 90% of some fish, and overfishing seems to be the main culprit. Whether or not fish stocks can recover is a different matter, we may have altered the marine ecosystem so much that recovery might not be possible.
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 13:08:58Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 01:23:52What we need to design are systems that are flexible enough, and robust enough, to deal with the unforeseen; but not be surprised that there will be unforeseen consequences.Clearly, we do have some historic experience of what private ownership brings with regard to terrestrial life, as we have in the past first moved from a hunter gatherer lifestyle (roughly where fishing is today), towards agriculture (through various different models of ownership).Well, if we are looking at ways of preserving natural habitates and ecosystems, the above example of private ownership does not suit the objectives. That is a statement of prejudice rather than a statement backed by argument.
So releasing fish into the sea is not playing with the environment?
I totally and utterly disagree with this.Ofcourse, for a very very small percentage of people, looking at the numbers in their bank account is all they are interested in, but for 99.999999% of the population (including most millionaires and business people) making money is the means they fund what they want to do in life, and is not an end in itself. For many people who are lucky enough to be in a business they enjoy, the success of there business brings the two together, for others, simply working to make money is a means of achieving something outside of their business.
Are you really saying that the scheme you are proposing (whatever it may be) would be above the law, and no court could possibly force it to do something you might not agree with?
In any case, there will come a time where commercial fish stocks become so scarce that they are no longer commercially viable to fish, and at that point they will no longer be fished.
You first have to define what is meant by damage – different definitions can lead to different estimates.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 16:47:03Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 13:08:58I agree, but if the farms worked as I am thinking they should, then the Numbers employed in the whole scheme would be small.Are you really telling me that you expect to run the whole world's fishing industry, and fish farming industry, across 7 continents, with a total of 5 employees (or even anything in that order of magnitude)?No, for what ever reason you keep thinking along the lines of an overall world market system; that in some ways has checks and balances for fishermen, the proposed fish farms, and anyone else involved, probably up to and including the shops that sell the fish.All I am really proposing, is a farm that attempts to replace the fish lost through over fishing(and doing it in the simplest way possible), I am therefore only really considering the farms and nothing more. You would try to keep the numbers as small as possible, its cheaper. You could have 5 people per farm and then say 20 farms over the world, that is only a hundred people, funded by charity, they could just produce and release as many fish as possible, but really given the funding shortages that would undoubtedly arise from working as a charity, they probably wouldn't release that many. No massive networks, little farms trying to make a difference.
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 13:08:58I agree, but if the farms worked as I am thinking they should, then the Numbers employed in the whole scheme would be small.Are you really telling me that you expect to run the whole world's fishing industry, and fish farming industry, across 7 continents, with a total of 5 employees (or even anything in that order of magnitude)?
I agree, but if the farms worked as I am thinking they should, then the Numbers employed in the whole scheme would be small.
There are 1,000 to 1,500 fish farms in or around the coast of the UK, producing about 70,000 tonnes of fish per year. The most common species farmed are Rainbow Trout and Atlantic Salmon, but 100 tonnes of carp, 100-1,000 tonnes of marine fin fish and 60+ tonnes of eels are also farmed (1). Salmon farm production has rocketed from 500 thousand tonnes in 1979 to 40,500 in 1991 (9). Fish farming shares many of the problems of other intensive animal farming, not only causing suffering to fish, but resulting in pollution of the environment and destruction of wildlife.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 16:47:03Should not the first question then be, prove there is a problem at all? QuoteWe have had declines up to 90% of some fish, and overfishing seems to be the main culprit. Whether or not fish stocks can recover is a different matter, we may have altered the marine ecosystem so much that recovery might not be possible.I consider that a problem. The recovery of fish stock is an objective, but what counts as satisfactory level for the stocks? I can not answer that, can you? Can anyone?
Should not the first question then be, prove there is a problem at all?
Clearly, the natural habitate outside my window is thriving. All the wolves and bears trying to eat me. Hardly based on prejudice, as you said before with agriculture people worked to protect their interests, so they could if the owned one fish, work to remove other fish that ate their fish(that would clearly improve the ecosystem).
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 16:47:03So releasing fish into the sea is not playing with the environment?There is a difference I am proposing replacing what fishermen have taken, if you only put back what has been removed then it is not so much playing, as it is attempting to compensate for other human action.
That is not about individuals, it is about corporations/companies, individuals may work for money to do things. Corporations generally work to make as much money as possible for there shareholders. There is a difference.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 16:47:03Are you really saying that the scheme you are proposing (whatever it may be) would be above the law, and no court could possibly force it to do something you might not agree with?Where do you get these questions? Ofcourse not, I am merely pointing out that the law often follows the will of the person, with the most lawyers.
You clearly want everything on earth and in space to be owned by someone, I don't.
I disagree that economically extinct fish would no longer be fished. If there were only 10 cod left in the world, the cods value would be huge, and no doubt someone would try to cash in on that, probably by farming them.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 16:47:03You first have to define what is meant by damage – different definitions can lead to different estimates.Agreed, but I am not a marine biologist, neither are you as far as I am aware, the definitions would have to be set by those that have a full understanding of the situation. If I had all those answers I wouldn't be posting it here for discussion, I would be taking it to someone for funding.
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 20:04:18No, for what ever reason you keep thinking along the lines of an overall world market system; that in some ways has checks and balances for fishermen, the proposed fish farms, and anyone else involved, probably up to and including the shops that sell the fish.All I am really proposing, is a farm that attempts to replace the fish lost through over fishing(and doing it in the simplest way possible), I am therefore only really considering the farms and nothing more. You would try to keep the numbers as small as possible, its cheaper. You could have 5 people per farm and then say 20 farms over the world, that is only a hundred people, funded by charity, they could just produce and release as many fish as possible, but really given the funding shortages that would undoubtedly arise from working as a charity, they probably wouldn't release that many. No massive networks, little farms trying to make a difference. 20 little farms spread around the world is in your view sufficient to make a significant impact on the world's fish population (covering how many different species of fish?).http://www.pisces.demon.co.uk/factshe6.htmlQuoteThere are 1,000 to 1,500 fish farms in or around the coast of the UK, producing about 70,000 tonnes of fish per year. The most common species farmed are Rainbow Trout and Atlantic Salmon, but 100 tonnes of carp, 100-1,000 tonnes of marine fin fish and 60+ tonnes of eels are also farmed (1). Salmon farm production has rocketed from 500 thousand tonnes in 1979 to 40,500 in 1991 (9). Fish farming shares many of the problems of other intensive animal farming, not only causing suffering to fish, but resulting in pollution of the environment and destruction of wildlife. So, 20 more fish farms in addition to the 1,000 to 1,500 (just in the UK) that already exist today (actually, looking at the rest of that page, I suspect the figures are already significantly out of date)?
No, for what ever reason you keep thinking along the lines of an overall world market system; that in some ways has checks and balances for fishermen, the proposed fish farms, and anyone else involved, probably up to and including the shops that sell the fish.All I am really proposing, is a farm that attempts to replace the fish lost through over fishing(and doing it in the simplest way possible), I am therefore only really considering the farms and nothing more. You would try to keep the numbers as small as possible, its cheaper. You could have 5 people per farm and then say 20 farms over the world, that is only a hundred people, funded by charity, they could just produce and release as many fish as possible, but really given the funding shortages that would undoubtedly arise from working as a charity, they probably wouldn't release that many. No massive networks, little farms trying to make a difference.
I am beginning to suspect that you do not fully understand the full scale of the issues involved.
20 is just not even in the ball park.
A problem in what way? Is it your assertion that the loss of any species, be it the woolly mammoth, or T.Rex, is a problem?
if we start to say that human interest has no place in our designs upon our environment, then we as a species may as well commit collective suicide.
Furthermore, there seems to be a contradiction in your suggesting we are putting back what the fishermen take out; yet to try and detach your system from what fishermen take out (i.e. you seem to think there is no need for an administrative coupling between catches and levels of release – that was your justification for suggesting you only needed 5 people to run each fish farm).
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 20:04:18You clearly want everything on earth and in space to be owned by someone, I don't.No, not everything. I want every problem owned by someone, and with ownership of the problem should come ownership of the associated resources needed to fix the problem. If there is no problem, then you need no owner of the problem.
Until recently, we did not have problems with maritime resources, so I would have argued as vehemently against ownership of maritime resources as today I would argue for it.
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 20:04:18I disagree that economically extinct fish would no longer be fished. If there were only 10 cod left in the world, the cods value would be huge, and no doubt someone would try to cash in on that, probably by farming them.If they are being farmed, then they are not extinct.
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 20:04:18Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 16:47:03You first have to define what is meant by damage – different definitions can lead to different estimates.Agreed, but I am not a marine biologist, neither are you as far as I am aware, the definitions would have to be set by those that have a full understanding of the situation. If I had all those answers I wouldn't be posting it here for discussion, I would be taking it to someone for funding.I would disagree.Scientists can tell you how things work, they cannot tell you how they 'ought' to work (religious leaders will tell you how things ought to be – whether you accept their doctrine or not is another matter). Scientists cannot define damage, but once damage is defined, they can make an assessment of how much of it there is.
Commercial FishingThe worldwide yearly catch of all sea fish is between 60 and 80 million tonnes (1). There are around 20,000 species of fish, of which 9,000 are regularly caught, but only 22 species are taken in large amounts. Five groups of fish make up half the yearly catch: herrings, cod, jacks, redfish and mackerel (2). In 1993 the total landing by UK vessels was 629,100 tonnes (3). Commercial fishing of the oceans has decimated both fish stocks and the aquatic environment. Additionally great suffering is inflicted on the catch itself.
Well no, if the idea was to be put into action, we don't actually know how many farms we would need. Your breding fish for release, not for human consumption.Therefore the fish wouldn't need to be fed as much as normal farmed fish, they could probably be kept for a shorter periods of time and released younger. If you just released the eggs again it should be a smaller operation. Point being you would need to decided, what fish your going to farm, what numbers you want to release, and the mode of there production. Don't look at me though, I'm never going to do it, I was just wondering if it would work.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 22:41:55I am beginning to suspect that you do not fully understand the full scale of the issues involved.Well that is an understatement, I just thought 'fish farms could help solve the problem of over fishing' and jumped right in.
Not wanting different forms of life to go extinct, because you value and respect all life.
Not forgetting that we need different forms of life to sustain our own survival.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 22:41:55 if we start to say that human interest has no place in our designs upon our environment, then we as a species may as well commit collective suicide.Well who is saying that? I am not, this is about protecting what we have and hopefully preserving it for the future, not only in the interest of the survival of fish, but also for human survival as well, we are all interconnected there.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 22:41:55Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 20:04:18You clearly want everything on earth and in space to be owned by someone, I don't.No, not everything. I want every problem owned by someone, and with ownership of the problem should come ownership of the associated resources needed to fix the problem. If there is no problem, then you need no owner of the problem.Anything can be a problem, it's relative.
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 22:41:55Until recently, we did not have problems with maritime resources, so I would have argued as vehemently against ownership of maritime resources as today I would argue for it.As today you do consider there to be a problem, just to throw this back at ya, what do you consider to be the problem?
Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 22:41:55Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 20:04:18I disagree that economically extinct fish would no longer be fished. If there were only 10 cod left in the world, the cods value would be huge, and no doubt someone would try to cash in on that, probably by farming them.If they are being farmed, then they are not extinct.There just would not be any in the sea.
Has damage to the sea been defined? Marine biologists must have models of healthy sea ecosystems.
Here they talk about 'healthy sea' but don't really define what they mean by it:http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/oceans/healthy-seas-healthy-society/healthy-sea-healthy-society-sep01.pdf
Loss of sea life and the affects on the atmosphere here:http://www.fisherycrisis.com/CO2/predators.htm
Objectives and definitions of/for a healthy sea here:http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/BSAP/FINAL%20Ecological%20Objectives.pdfhttp://www.helcom.fi/environment2/ecoqo/en_GB/objectives/
This is no easy problem to fix and the numbers are huge. Around 70 million tons a year. How many farms would you need to replace that? The 1,000 farms only produce 70,000 tons of fish a year, lets say that with improvements over the last 14 years they can now produce slightly more, say 100,000 tons. You would need a minimum of 70,000 farms to produce 70 million tons of fish.That is all based on current system of farming for human consumption, and not using an egg release system. Not really a plus, but only 22 different types of fish are taken in large amounts, that helps.As far a job creation gos, even if each farm only had five people it would be massive.
There would be differences, but not as significant as that.The problem is that you still need to maintain a breeding stock, even if you do not grow the fish to maturity, so it is only the last generation of fish which you would be able to release early, the earlier generations you would need to keep to their full life in order to use them as breeding stock.
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 23:45:47Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 22:41:55I am beginning to suspect that you do not fully understand the full scale of the issues involved.Well that is an understatement, I just thought 'fish farms could help solve the problem of over fishing' and jumped right in. No problem – better to jump in and find out than to be afraid to dip your toe in the water.
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 23:45:47Not forgetting that we need different forms of life to sustain our own survival. Indeed, but different forms of life is not the same as every form of life.
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 23:45:47Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 22:41:55 if we start to say that human interest has no place in our designs upon our environment, then we as a species may as well commit collective suicide.Well who is saying that? I am not, this is about protecting what we have and hopefully preserving it for the future, not only in the interest of the survival of fish, but also for human survival as well, we are all interconnected there.Indeed, we are interconnected; but the interconnection is more complex than merely saying if species X goes extinct it will pot human existence in jeopardy. Some species are clearly beneficial to human survival, some are a threat, and some can be both.The fact is the humans did live through periods when many animals have gone extinct, while the human species has gone from strength to strength. This is not to say that we will continue forever to get stronger; but it certainly contradicts any idea that the extinction of a species is itself necessarily threatening to human survival.
As I indicated earlier, my main concern was to retain fish as a valuable source of human nutrition (although I must say that I do not like fish (as a food) very much myself).
Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 23:45:47Quote from: another_someone on 26/09/2007 22:41:55Quote from: sooyeah on 26/09/2007 20:04:18I disagree that economically extinct fish would no longer be fished. If there were only 10 cod left in the world, the cods value would be huge, and no doubt someone would try to cash in on that, probably by farming them.If they are being farmed, then they are not extinct.There just would not be any in the sea.Firstly, if they are farmed, then the value of cod would remain low, so making the 10 left in the sea unprofitable.Secondly, if they are being farmed, then they can be used to repopulate the sea.Thirdly, simply viewed as an argument against allowing a species to go extinct – it would not be extinct. Looking at the marine environment, you might say that it would be significantly depleted from the marine environment, but it would not have violated your earlier moral argument about not letting a species to go extinct.
The report itself seems to imply that a total cessation of fishing would achieve a desirable increase in the amount of CO2 that the oceans would absorb, but as I indicated above, the data they have used does not seem to support their conclusion. Another suggestion has been put forward recently (reported in the news today)
get people thinking
that suggests making significant changes to the ocean environment in order to increase the rate at which CO2 is absorbed by the oceans – this is certainly not conservation, in the sense that it does not seek to conserve the environment of yesterday, but rather manage the environment of tomorrow to better meet our needs (I do not comment as to whether the plan would work, only that it is at least a forward looking plan rather than a look back at yesterday).
One thing I do notice is the constant reference to 'natural' when referring to things such a nutrient levels, landscapes, etc. The problem is that of itself this is a meaningless work, since all things that are are natural, and if by natural, they mean the level that would exist is no human being had ever roamed this planet, we don't know what that would be. The only workable meaning of the word 'natural' is to say the levels that existed before human beings roamed this planet, but ofcourse, it would be unnatural for things not to have changed of their own accord since then.
I would agree with most of that.Increasing the size of the farms would both reduce the relative labour costs, but would in general improve the efficiency of the farming process, as it does with all farming; but then, as with other types of farming, the larger fames carry their own environmental costs in terms of land usage, and even in disease management of the stock.
Had a thought the other day sort of related, OK some want to ban fishing altogether for a few years to protect and allow to recover certain fish stocks. Now one of the reasons it has not been put in place is because fishermen livelyhoods would be put at risk. Well as a suggestion why not pay these fishermen a salary over the ban period? So instead of fishing they could police the waters(check no-one is fishing) in-conjunction with the coast guard, but also they could spend their day removing old nets and doing conservation work in the very areas they know, work and understand. I can't think of a group better qualified considering they work at see, they may need conservation training and other training but that could be a solution. There could be a funding issue, but if it was run as an EU scheme, and prepared for, the funding would hopefully be less of an issue. You could target certain fish stocks one year then change the next year to another fish.
Paying people not to work is what unemployment benefit is, and it has its own problems.
Quote from: another_someone on 08/12/2007 17:20:09Paying people not to work is what unemployment benefit is, and it has its own problems.surely they are paying people who can not find work, not paying people not to work! If i am wrong, im straight down the job centre monday morning.
Quote from: paul.fr on 08/12/2007 17:24:16Quote from: another_someone on 08/12/2007 17:20:09Paying people not to work is what unemployment benefit is, and it has its own problems.surely they are paying people who can not find work, not paying people not to work! If i am wrong, im straight down the job centre monday morning.Indeed, but that is in effect what the suggestion is - that one takes the fishermen's jobs away from them (at least for a short period) so they cannot find their usual employment.The point I was trying to make is that paying people not to work, whether it is fishermen who have had their jobs taken away, or other people who cannot find work, is not only ruinous to the nation, it is also demoralising for the people involved.