Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 112 posts

Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared

#31

Post by reedciccio »

beachy wrote: post #25
p1necone wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A full ban would be much much easier to enforce. You see a fishing boat? It gets a military escort out of your national waters. You see the same boat again? It gets blown up. Compare with having to board a random sample of boats (and there'd be a lot, because a lot of them would be legitimate), check documents, check catch totals etc.

Yes, because blowing up a boat crewed by poor third world sailors trying to make some money to feed their families back home is a truly proportionate response.

You should remove the people aboard before blowing up the fishing vessel :)

Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared

#32

Post by philliphaydon »

ars wrote: post #13
jacknews wrote: post #4

Commercial fishing at sea should be banned IMHO. It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.

It's already slowing going away anyway, being replaced by fish farms: https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-aquaculture I can't seem to find any source with data past 2015. Aquaculture is already cheaper than wild caught. In stores (judging by labels) wild caught is already becoming marketed as a "premium" product, with prices to match, which will reduce demand.

I would never eat Norwegian farmed salmon. Norwegian fish farming is on par with US pig farming.

Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared

#33

Post by maxbond »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #26
jacknews wrote: post #4

Commercial fishing at sea should be banned IMHO. It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.

Oceans have been terribly overfished, but people need to eat. Many poorer countries rely on fishing to help then feed their populations. Banning commercial fishing would be like banning commercial chicken. A huge loss of a major cheap source of protein, and nothing to replace it with.

Then when we get together as a global community to ban fishing, let's also agree to pay for the transition to aquaculture and other sustainable forms of acquiring protein (according to the renewable resources available in a given region). If "take away their livelihood without giving them an alternative" isn't acceptable - and of course it isn't - "let's do nothing" isn't the only alternative we should consider.

Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared

#34

Post by philliphaydon »

p1necone wrote: post #10
User23 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning is just setting a quota of zero, which you've already agreed is effectively unenforceable. Obviously control has to be on the demand and not the supply side. Banning the sale of fish, or punitively taxing it, would be two options to make commercial fishing economically unattractive.

A full ban would be much much easier to enforce. You see a fishing boat? It gets a military escort out of your national waters. You see the same boat again? It gets blown up. Compare with having to board a random sample of boats (and there'd be a lot, because a lot of them would be legitimate), check documents, check catch totals etc.

Bit hard to escort when most illegal fishing happens in international waters.

Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared

#35

Post by _freek »

ars wrote: post #13
jacknews wrote: post #4

Commercial fishing at sea should be banned IMHO. It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.

It's already slowing going away anyway, being replaced by fish farms: https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-aquaculture I can't seem to find any source with data past 2015. Aquaculture is already cheaper than wild caught. In stores (judging by labels) wild caught is already becoming marketed as a "premium" product, with prices to match, which will reduce demand.

Fish farms have their own problems. The amount of waste it generates, sea lice issues and the fact they feed their ‘premium’ fish tons of ‘fish meal’ as a source of omega 3 which still needs to be caught. It’s a step up from fishing at an industrial scale but not sustainable in the end.

Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared

#36

Post by shafyy »

jacknews wrote: post #4

Commercial fishing at sea should be banned IMHO. It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.

There's no sustainable amount of large scale commercial fishing. Quotas are a joke. Labels are a joke.

Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared

#37

Post by jxramos »

ars wrote: post #15
jacknews wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think indoor/raceway farmed fish is the future, once we work out sustainable food sources, eg insects. I'm not sure how credible that is for marine species, but I'm sure it's possible for some, and we don't have to completely cut fish from our diets. In the meantime, I agree, we should be banning the sale/import of some species of fish.

Why insects? Tilapia eat plants, and other fish eat tilapia.

Wow a vegetarian fish, I never contemplated such a thing. What kind of plants do they eat anyways?

Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared

#38

Post by ArnoVW »

philliphaydon wrote: post #34
p1necone wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A full ban would be much much easier to enforce. You see a fishing boat? It gets a military escort out of your national waters. You see the same boat again? It gets blown up. Compare with having to board a random sample of boats (and there'd be a lot, because a lot of them would be legitimate), check documents, check catch totals etc.

Bit hard to escort when most illegal fishing happens in international waters.

Most fishing happens in economic Exclusion zones (200 miles out), over which states have souvereignty

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared

#39

Post by Guthur »

maxbond wrote: post #33
dukeofdoom wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oceans have been terribly overfished, but people need to eat. Many poorer countries rely on fishing to help then feed their populations. Banning commercial fishing would be like banning commercial chicken. A huge loss of a major cheap source of protein, and nothing to replace it with.

Then when we get together as a global community to ban fishing, let's also agree to pay for the transition to aquaculture and other sustainable forms of acquiring protein (according to the renewable resources available in a given region). If "take away their livelihood without giving them an alternative" isn't acceptable - and of course it isn't - "let's do nothing" isn't the only alternative we should consider.

Oh you so benevolent, force people at gun point to abide by your will, right?

Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared

#40

Post by dukeofdoom »

zozbot234 wrote: post #28
dukeofdoom wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oceans have been terribly overfished, but people need to eat. Many poorer countries rely on fishing to help then feed their populations. Banning commercial fishing would be like banning commercial chicken. A huge loss of a major cheap source of protein, and nothing to replace it with.

Commercial chicken is not hunted in the wild, so I'm not sure how that comparison makes any sense. The oceans are already being depleted of fish in a highly unsustainable way so if you care about that protein source, shutting down large-scale fishing altogether is exactly what you should do.

The logistics of what you are proposing is just not there, unless you're cool with committing another man made famine like the Holodomor. I actually find it disturbing with the ease you're willing to starve the poor of the world.

Ocean fishing requires very little energy input, but provides huge amounts of ready to eat food output. You can't replace that in many parts of the world. Not every place has good farm land for one, or the technological infrastructure, or even political stability.

Give you and example. Egypt went from a population of 8 million to 80 million in the last century. Do you think they can grow all that food in the desert? or do they rely on fishing and on global imports of food items...like grain from Ukraine. How will the poor do when you take out one of their sources of food. While simultaneously the price of energy is sky rocketing and global trade is under threat do to conflict and as countries begin to hoard fertilizer and food for their own populations, in anticipation of the the coming winter.

Post reply on HN