Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared
1–10 of 112 posts
Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared
#2What’s the fatality rate of those monitors vs. the rest of the crew?
Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared
#3Dang that’s sad, I’m not intimate with the industry but commercial fishing just seems like (no pun intended) a net negative on the world. I do love watching deadliest catch though
Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared
#4Commercial fishing at sea should be banned IMHO.
It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.
Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared
#5Commercial fishing at sea should be banned IMHO. It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.
Yeah, looking that way. Biggest contributor to plastic in the ocean, directly killing it too.
Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared
#6Hopefully the availability of fast IP networks at sea will help with observers disappearing without a trace in the future.
Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared
#7Commercial fishing at sea should be banned IMHO. It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.
No post body was provided.
Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared
#8Commercial fishing at sea should be banned IMHO. It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.
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.
Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared
#9Commercial fishing at sea should be banned IMHO. It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.
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, or "a quota of zero" is much more observable and enforcable than keeping track of individuals' permits and catch limits. Not here for enabling more violence on behalf of the enforcer class, but this argument didnt make much sense to me
Re: Keith Davis was protecting the oceans, then he disappeared
#10Commercial fishing at sea should be banned IMHO. It's unsustainable, and even if quotas could make it sustainable, they are all but unenforceable.
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.