Views on underwater hunting

[Mike Boswell]

Here we can get back to Darwinian issues..
The "Global Law" would be freedive harvesting only, for personal consumption.
Perhaps 5 to 10% of the world "could" do this effectively, but this same 5 tto 10% does not necessarily live near the oceans or places where the targeted species to consume would be....
Also, the deep ocean would re-stock, as you would certainly not have significant numbers of freedivers out 50 miles from shore decimating the tuna populations, etc.

A small impact would occur in areas near large human population centers, where good reefs and concentrations of targeted species would exist....but again, not a big piece of the world in the year 2010 or 2011, is going to be able to effectively feed their family on a 60 foot reef by freediving. If we go through an apocalypse ( Global Depression and Commercial Infrastructure Meltdown) , a higher percentage could develop the skills after 5 to 10 years..., but there would also be a much smaller population to deal with.....and the fish stocks would also have time to recover during the human disaster.


The seafood industry of today really NEEDS to be completely destroyed..shut down by all Governments, permanently. If all the commercial trawling, longlining etc was to stop, the private sector would never come close to utilizing even a fraction of the ocean habitat being decimated daily by the global seafood industry.
Of course, none of this could happen...governments do not want food distributed at an individual level, as this reduces the power of governments. It is far more effective from a governmental perspective, to control a huge food resource itself, and to control the distribution of it.
Similarly, if individuals were to all grow their own sprouts and algae, and the world was to adopt a raw vegan alternative, this would effectively eliminate one of the most powerful controlling forces the governments of the world have...so don't expect the political forces to ever move toward an end to the commerical harvesting of large animals and seafood.

DanV

p.s.
Personally I am not about to give up on strip steaks and hamburgers....I want red meat 7 days per week, at least 2 meals per day ( breakfast I have eggs), and any vegan that trys to get in the way of this is my "Enemy"...and this is not necessarily metaphorical....I do NOT like the Vegan Nazis.... I do have plenty of close friends that are Vegan, but they don't try to impose their choices on me......act like religious fanatics trying to convert everyone to their belief and their own special miracles( every religion has it's miracles, some vegans are often playing this game as well)

I agree with your comments re the Oceans, and I'm wondering why you don't apply the same logic to the "Lands". Unless we actively protect our land animal species and their environments, we are going to see major extinctions of many species.

Oh, wait...

 

[danvolker]

I agree with your comments re the Oceans, and I'm wondering why you don't apply the same logic to the "Lands". Unless we actively protect our land animal species and their environments, we are going to see major extinctions of many species.

Oh, wait...

.....Remember that virtually all of our metro areas where most of the world's or America's populations live, there IS NO animal life to go bow hunting after.....While I could handle the same "hunt it yourself if you want to eat it" as a moral imperative, it would mean you could not really live in South Florida if you want to eat red meat...Or that you could only eat red meat when you went on a hunting trip...which clearly could not be every day.....so we have cattle ranches...and distribution...a necessary evil if you will have large metro populations.

I have actually read some interesting research on how the vegan community has been using massively falsified data to show ridiculous CO2 release from cattle....where the more acurate and well reviewed data shows a much more "bound up" scenario.....and then there is the nonsense of Global Warming, which is cherry picked data ( eliminating any year or decade that hurts the theory of Global warming) to prove something is taking place, when it is not....the real deal here is big money getting to change the game, and make huge money on the changes.

Our "culture" is going to dictate what we eat. Right now, there are no big changes in the way Americans want to enjoy dinner or Thanksgiving

Regards,
DanV

 

[TMHeimer]

Depends on the location. The scallop bag limit has population considerations behind it locally. Other things, such as scallop dredging are banned now (since 1996), which allowed the population to recover....

I take your overall point though. There is so much waste associated with commercial fishing and there are a lot of species in severe trouble. Recreational fishing is the least of the worries...

I agree completely. You're confirming my point. Taking the 100 scallops in a certain area (whether they are eaten or not), may do no harm at all.

 

[Mike Boswell]

I'm a fellow meat lover, but I am increasingly convinced that it is unsustainable, given our inability to control our population. Beef in the US no longer comes from cattle ranches; It comes from vast feedlots which get their feed from enormous expanses of corn monoculture subsidized by the government, and slaughterhouses powered by illegal immigrant labor.

As the teeming billions of China and India raise their living standards, they too will want a Big Mac, and 300 million Americans will be joined by 2,000 million Chindians trying to join them on the top rung of the food chain. IMO, our culture is not going to dictate what we eat - our rapacity is going to dictate what - and whether - we eat.

As to Global Warming, I believe the experts are indeed hiding the truth from us, that truth being IMO that it's too late to reverse the process, and humanity will just have to live with the consequences. One of us is right, and the other is wrong, and we shall soon see which is which.

You are fortunate to have a grandstand seat, because if Al Gore and I (and virtually all climate scientists) are right, most of Florida will soon be flooded.

 

[TMHeimer]

Actually, TMHeimer has a good point. I think his shell-collecting hobby is damned stupid, but if it is not adversely impacting any species or habitat, what business is it of mine and who am I to judge? Conversely, if everybody in the world started diving tomorrow to responsibly take their two-fish* limit and dutifully consume it with their families, it might be more satisfying to your sense of ethics but the fishery would still be depleted and ultimately collapse. Legal, ethical, and esthetic considerations might be interesting topics for debate, but the only logical, objective standard for harvesting seafood is sustainability.

I completely agree. Your post has now become one of my all time favourites on SB. I have no problem at all with you thinking my hobby is stupid (I think that of other hobbies anyway). And as long as I don't impact shell populations (don't think I ever have), I respect that you will not judge me. A far cry from being tarred & feathered on a charter for taking like 4 shells). Am curious why you think shell collecting is stupid, but as you said, it's really not MY place to judge. Thank you & kudos!

 

[dburg30]

You are fortunate to have a grandstand seat, because if Al Gore and I (and virtually all climate scientists) are right, most of Florida will soon be flooded.

Just so I can follow along, when you say 'Soon' do you mean human 'soon' or earth 'soon'. I figure someone will get pissed at someone else and start wwiii or an asteroid will hit us before that soon happens.. But I'm also one that tends to believe that global warming, if it's happening, may have not been helped by humans, but I feel it would have happened if we were here or not.

 

[Mike Boswell]

Just so I can follow along, when you say 'Soon' do you mean human 'soon' or earth 'soon'. I figure someone will get pissed at someone else and start wwiii or an asteroid will hit us before that soon happens.. But I'm also one that tends to believe that global warming, if it's happening, may have not been helped by humans, but I feel it would have happened if we were here or not.

I'm 63 years old and I wouldn't invest in beachfront property in Florida - That kind of soon.

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml

 

[dburg30]

So that means New Orleans is probably screwed again too then? Outer Banks of NC.. etc?

 

[danvolker]

I'm 63 years old and I wouldn't invest in beachfront property in Florida - That kind of soon.

Well, I'm on the intracoastal in lake worth....if your right, I'll be enjoying beachfront property at some point

Either that, or it will be the beginnings of the next ice age, and the present beach will end it's erosional phase, and after a brief moment of geological time, it will be out closer to where the 60 foot deep reefs are now.

We could actually see both of these, in this order ....someone would see both..the geologic moment could be several human lifetimes.

Regards,
DanV

 

[Mike Boswell]

Well, I'm on the intracoastal in lake worth....if your right, I'll be enjoying beachfront property at some point

Either that, or it will be the beginnings of the next ice age, and the present beach will end it's erosional phase, and after a brief moment of geological time, it will be out closer to where the 60 foot deep reefs are now.

We could actually see both of these, in this order ....someone would see both..the geologic moment could be several human lifetimes.

Regards,
DanV

Yep. And when the ice age hits there will be a mile-thick sheet of ice sitting atop Manhattan.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...