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

California cancels salmon fishing season

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 231 posts

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#111

Post by eweise »

kposehn wrote: post #105
eweise wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bummed as well. Just got into fishing a few years ago. Was going to get a fishing kayak this spring for catching salmon off the coast but now I guess I'll wait.

Might be worth going for halibut this year. If the coastal waters are still super cold it should keep the SF bay quite active for the season, so you could always try hitting the sand flats off South SF. I haven't done it myself but others had great luck last year.

Good idea. That's actually what I've mainly been fishing for around Tiburon. I've had pretty good luck there.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#112

Post by throwaway2037 »

hadlock wrote: post #22
bradleyjg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can’t hurt, but I don’t think something like this is really going to fix the problem. Dams, water levels abs temperatures, ocean trawling, acidification … there’s lots and lots of stress on salmon population aside from anglers.

There was a bombshell report about an immediate moratorium on crab fishing in Alaska, that came out of nowhere, seemingly. About a month later there was a (very, very quiet) report justifying the moratorium. The short version is that effectively scientists had been asking for reduction in fishing in the area for decades and finally the remaining stock in the area was so low it was critically endangering the ecosystem…

You had me until the last sentence:

    Anglers have an enormous impact on fish and wildlife stocks.
In English, the term "anglers" generally means hobby fishers -- hook and line, if you like. Are you saying that individuals have an enormous impact? I doubt it. I tried to Google about it, but I find nothing. The damage is mostly caused by industrial fishing and global warming.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#113

Post by throwaway2037 »

nerdponx wrote: post #63
hadlock wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I suspect there's quite a lot of claw back by local government. Fishing is a rare industry where most boats are owner-operated and almost all their revenue is funneled back into the local economy (shipyards, shiphands who are employed on the boats themseves, marinas (usually owned by the city) etc) so for a place like alaska getting rid of fishing is hugely crippling for their local economy and the people who wo…

And this is the irony of short-termist policy making. By blocking reforms in order to maintain some localized status quo, you are very often dooming the future of that localized status quo. Instead, you should be planning ahead to scale it down or transition out of it entirely, and attempting to help people make that transition smoothly over the course of a generation. Ultimately it's just another form of greed and s…

Yes, and never once did any of these owner-operator fisherpeople say: "Hey, we might be overfishing. Let's fish less." In my whole life, it is 100% opposition to any quotas. They are fishing themselves into poverty. It is bizarre. The future is aquaculture for 90+% of what we eat from the oceans/rivers/lakes.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#114

Post by amrocha »

myshpa wrote: post #86
amrocha wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not fallacies, they're fundamental disagreements. 1. No, animals do not have rights. 2. No, animal lives are not morally equal to human lives. 3. No, eating animals is not cruel. If you disagree with these then that's fine, we can have a discussion about that, but you have to understand that not everyone agrees with you on these points otherwise you'll become that annoying vegan that pushes their beliefs on e…

Let's ;) > No, animals do not have rights. What about pets? Let's talk about dairy industry ... why don't we switch to dog milk? Nothing wrong with dog's milk. Full of goodness, full of vitamins, full of marrowbone jelly. Lasts longer than any other milk, dog's milk. Why? No bugger'll drink it. Plus of course the advantage of dog's milk is that when it goes off, it tastes exactly the same as when it's fresh. > No, an…

Ok, but it might get long. And again, I'm not looking for an adversarial discussion.

1. Animal Rights

Animals don't have rights because rights are a human construct. Absent humans, animal rights don't make any sense. Animals can only have "rights" in their relationship to humans, and humans are the ones enforcing those "rights". Therefore I don't think animal rights as a term makes sense. To me, they're closer to societal rules (or laws) for interacting with animals. This also goes for pets.

I don't know what you're getting at with dog's milk. Sure, I'll drink dog milk. Lots of people eat dog all over the world too.

2. Animal lives

Morality is a concept that applies to humans as they deal with other humans. You can only be judged immoral by another human being. A human being slaughtering a cow isn't judged to be immoral by the cow, because the cow has no concept of morality, only survival.

Therefore, the unprovoked killing of animals is not inherently immoral, like killing humans is. However, the purpose and method can be deemed immoral.

3. Eating animals is not immoral

Killing an animal for food is acceptable to me, and to the vast majority of people, since it is something we are all subject to in nature. Having food preferences is also not immoral. Bears and other animals have food preferences. Therefore choosing to eat meat instead of something else is not immoral.

However, I believe causing undue harm and cruelty are immoral. I don't want to contribute to a system that enables that cruelty.

4. Dominion

I don't know why you linked me this. I've already seen it. I know how fucked up industrial farming is. That doesn't mean eating animals is immoral.

Lastly, I disagree that they don't matter less than me. They do, I think humans are more important than animals.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#115

Post by jeffbee »

rcpt wrote: post #44
myshpa wrote: post #15

It's not just the draughts. https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts "Species like thresher, bull and hammerhead sharks have lost up to 80-99% of their populations in the last two decades. Seabird populations have declined by 70% since the 1950's. Studies estimate that up to 40% of all marine life caught is thrown overboard as bycatch. Six out of seven species of sea turtles are either threatened or endangered due to fishing…

Cancel all commercial fishing

You could not simply cancel it. You would also have to sail around sinking the scofflaw fleet, which might cause tensions with other countries.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#116

Post by wil421 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #73
bradleyjg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies estimate that up to 40% of all marine life caught is thrown overboard as bycatch. This is a fairly important part. It’s one thing to fish and eat. It’s another thing to fish and destroy. Trawling is the strip mining of the sea.

In the US, you are required to discard bycatch under penalty of law. As a professional fisherman you aren't even allowed to eat it. They don't want to discard it, they are required to. The regulation nominally exists to disincentivize bycatch but anecdotally it seems to just ensure that bycatch becomes waste.

There’s a big difference between bycatch you can’t keep and being required to throw away all bycatch, I’m presuming that’s what you mean.

NOAA states:

>Fishermen sometimes catch and discard animals they do not want, cannot sell, or are not allowed to keep.

There’s a huge difference in not allowed to keep and we would keep for ourselves. If you’re netting a bunch of undersized fish you have to release them, I catch lots of undersized fish I’d love to eat but I’m not legally allowed to.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding-bycatch

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#117

Post by GolfPopper »

pvaldes wrote: post #97
rcpt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancel all commercial fishing

Equals to kill several millions of people. Bad idea.

Worse idea: doing absolutely nothing to change our course of action until our decisions no longer matter because ecosystems have collapsed and hundreds of million of people are dying. That's how you get The Jackpot.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#118

Post by hedora »

jeffbee wrote: post #115
rcpt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancel all commercial fishing

You could not simply cancel it. You would also have to sail around sinking the scofflaw fleet, which might cause tensions with other countries.

1) International waters.

2) I paid more than I’d like so the US could buy the biggest guns.

Re: California cancels salmon fishing season

#120

Post by hedora »

myshpa wrote: post #15

It's not just the draughts. https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts "Species like thresher, bull and hammerhead sharks have lost up to 80-99% of their populations in the last two decades. Seabird populations have declined by 70% since the 1950's. Studies estimate that up to 40% of all marine life caught is thrown overboard as bycatch. Six out of seven species of sea turtles are either threatened or endangered due to fishing…

Also, coral reefs and kelp forests are suffering unprecedented losses.
Post reply on HN