Display:
Considering this, that and the other, I see a much simpler solution: Ban fishing of wild fish entirely until populations rebound, then re-introduce small scale fishing. A ban should be much easier to enforce than quotas. Hire some former fishermen to police the seas for illegal fishing. A ban of a few decades or so also kills off the fishing industry. When re-introducing small scale fishing after stocks have rebounded it should be easier to control it, and the methods used, since we don't start off with large industry, up and running, and ready to cheat for a buck.
Allow farmed fish, but with strict regulations of environmental impact.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Jan 18th, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
someone:
A ban should be much easier to enforce than quotas.

But not politically.

This is the same old issue - vested interests with a culture of predation and exploitation, which are unwilling to let go until the host is dead.

We need better rhetoric and - as usual - wider media saturation to change the narrative before the problem can be tackled.

There's no point making practical suggestions, no matter how sensible they are, when no one is listening to them.

It's the culture of exploitation - in every possible sense - that has to be changed. It has to be named for it is, and all of its many different manifestations have to be tied together and debunked.

Once that's happened, actual solutions to real problems will become possible. Until then, any realistic planning is going to run into the usual nonsense about markets and industries and economic benefits.

The problems are systemic, and - currently - terminal.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jan 18th, 2008 at 11:06:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series