The ecological impacts of our addiction

^^??

70/30 is better than 0% captive/100% wild

how do i know it even helps? no one knows... but if 7/10 people recycle at home or 7/10 people stop throwing their cigarette butts out their windows etc.

1. our lanfills wouldn't be nearly as crowded (over 1,900lbs annually per person in trash)
2. we wouldn't need as many street sweepers or have as much litter on the side of the road

my point is 1 person probably won't make a difference - but over time if more people did a small part it would make a difference. Owning a car, using paper, participating in this hobby are all parasitic interests... the least "some" of us could do is suck and be more than just consiencious - but instead have action and take responsibility... possibly by giving back or supporting efforts (aquaculture) that help us take less from the earth.

trust me, I've seen terrible human impacts on reefs... in areas I've recently dove at - there was probably 1/3 the fish/corals /i saw previously 15 yrs ago. Heck, my last dive I didn't see one blue or french angel and only saw one juvinal queen... 15 yrs ago i would have seen 10+ of each on a single dive! =( the caribbean is dieing. (look at the O2 levels too =/ I only hope the pacific isn't doing the same since it's out of sight - out of mind for most americans.

what's the world pop now? 6.7 billion or something? estimated to be 15billion by 2020 or 2050 or something? ouch! =(
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11270363#post11270363 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef
^^??

70/30 is better than 0% captive/100% wild

how do i know it even helps? no one knows... but if 7/10 people recycle at home or 7/10 people stop throwing their cigarette butts out their windows etc.

1. our lanfills wouldn't be nearly as crowded (over 1,900lbs annually per person in trash)
2. we wouldn't need as many street sweepers or have as much litter on the side of the road

my point is 1 person probably won't make a difference - but over time if more people did a small part it would make a difference. Owning a car, using paper, participating in this hobby are all parasitic interests... the least "some" of us could do is suck and be more than just consiencious - but instead have action and take responsibility... possibly by giving back or supporting efforts (aquaculture) that help us take less from the earth.

trust me, I've seen terrible human impacts on reefs... in areas I've recently dove at - there was probably 1/3 the fish/corals /i saw previously 15 yrs ago. Heck, my last dive I didn't see one blue or french angel and only saw one juvinal queen... 15 yrs ago i would have seen 10+ of each on a single dive! =( the caribbean is dieing. (look at the O2 levels too =/ I only hope the pacific isn't doing the same since it's out of sight - out of mind for most americans.

what's the world pop now? 6.7 billion or something? estimated to be 15billion by 2020 or 2050 or something? ouch! =(

If population is not controlled, saving newspapers won't be enough.
 
100% agree! =)

it will basically just give us more time... or prolong the inevitable if the extra time isn't used wisely =(

I guess I hope that through suppoting aquaculture etc. that one day we won't even need to get animals from the ocean. Same with other things... if we could re-use 100% of the newspapers/other resources and walk everywhere instead of drive then a higher population might not even affect the oceans/planet thus allowing it to recover (like CFC's and the ozone layer).

I'm dreaming of a utopia of course =/ I'm 1 small man with a dream... but I prefer to move forward by at least trying to make a small difference rather than not try at all. For me, every captive bred fish/coral I get "may" be one more "saved" (not harvested) from the ocean which could spawn and help its species and others "try" to continue survival or recover from say - a hurricane or pollution.
 
I agree to an extant... but I'm just saying it's better than nothing. What would really need to happen is a global culture change that would get to the roots of many problems... but that's not happening anytime soon - heck, I live in TX and so many people here are so "us" and "them" people.

/sigh
 
I cant buy into the idea that our being interested in keeping reefs at home makes us inherently hypocritical... it does not...

Let me ask this: if all aquarium trade in reef organisms was stopped tomorrow, how much would that impact the losses on the reefs?

Also, throughout history, people have always harvested from the wild, whether for food, for pets, for wealth, or whatever... this is no different... the real question is how you do your reef keeping, and whether you do the best you can to care for the animals you have in your tanks... Hypocrites say one thing and do another... reef keepers do not inherently do this... we can ensure sustainable harvesting by spending our money with vendors that harvest in the friendliest way possible... otherwise, we can just stop keeping reefs... and I am convinced that this would in fact have a worse effect on the reefs than having us all show our tanks to friends and relatives, and to children, and explain what the system is, and how the animals are endangered, etc.

And just one more thing... the reason there are more deer today than in recent history is more because we have eliminated the predators than because of hunters, or because of farm food... we are now the only real predators the deer have... and so the population booms... hunting may help that... but it is not a big revenue producer where the funds go to saving the forests... some do, yes... but mostly the lands preserved are private clubs existing specifically for hunting and fishing... the true wild lands are mostly owned by the government, and those are being sold off at an alarming rate under the current administration...
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11302285#post11302285 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by paulsilver
I cant buy into the idea that our being interested in keeping reefs at home makes us inherently hypocritical... it does not...

Let me ask this: if all aquarium trade in reef organisms was stopped tomorrow, how much would that impact the losses on the reefs?

Also, throughout history, people have always harvested from the wild, whether for food, for pets, for wealth, or whatever... this is no different... the real question is how you do your reef keeping, and whether you do the best you can to care for the animals you have in your tanks... Hypocrites say one thing and do another... reef keepers do not inherently do this... we can ensure sustainable harvesting by spending our money with vendors that harvest in the friendliest way possible... otherwise, we can just stop keeping reefs... and I am convinced that this would in fact have a worse effect on the reefs than having us all show our tanks to friends and relatives, and to children, and explain what the system is, and how the animals are endangered, etc.

And just one more thing... the reason there are more deer today than in recent history is more because we have eliminated the predators than because of hunters, or because of farm food... we are now the only real predators the deer have... and so the population booms... hunting may help that... but it is not a big revenue producer where the funds go to saving the forests... some do, yes... but mostly the lands preserved are private clubs existing specifically for hunting and fishing... the true wild lands are mostly owned by the government, and those are being sold off at an alarming rate under the current administration...

Where did you get your data on public land sales?

Also, on the deer population, without predators, how can the population boom? That would require more habitat to sustain a larger population. Deer don't live in heavy undergrowth, but like areas between open spaces and trees for protection. When man cleared large areas of forest, it enlarged the habitat that benefit deer. So the wolves quit killing them and humans gave them much more room than they had before. And we can all enjoy them when they strip your trees or get hit by a car.
 
Oh boohoo, of course it's biased, it's a pro environment website, but there's nothing wrong with the info. The page I linked is simply a public record of what BushCo. has done interjected with an occasional editorial comment. And, if you're worried about bias, don't ever listen to me because I'm biased as hell. The important part is that you can't dismiss any of the info that's on there. You can disagree with what it means, but the facts are solid.
 
Come on guys, keep politics out of it. Lets not get this thread closed like so many of the other threads in this forum. There is plenty of room to talk about what we are doing or should be doing without getting into the political blame game.
 
the true wild lands are mostly owned by the government, and those are being sold off at an alarming rate under the current administration.
Public land is wasted land, didn't you know? Unrestricted capitalism is the name of the game for Neoliberals (and yes, it's liberal, not neoconservative as it has been sold in the US).
The page I linked is simply a public record of what BushCo. has done interjected with an occasional editorial comment.
Clearly political statements. Regardless of whether you or I agree with them or not, they aren't allowed here.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11353579#post11353579 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Clearly political statements. Regardless of whether you or I agree with them or not, they aren't allowed here.

And who made those statements?
 
I believe at some point in this discussion we were talking about aquaculturing seafood and how/whether it was a good alternative to the commercial fishing that is raping our oceans. I may have my discussions mixed up, but this might be interesting to many of you anway:

March 27, 2008
Salmon Virus Indicts Chile’s Fishing Methods
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
PUERTO MONTT, Chile â€" Looking out over the low green mountains jutting through miles of placid waterways here in southern Chile, it is hard to imagine that anything could be amiss. But beneath the rows of neatly laid netting around the fish farms just off the shore, the salmon are dying.

A virus called infectious salmon anemia, or I.S.A., is killing millions of salmon destined for export to Japan, Europe and the United States. The spreading plague has sent shivers through Chile’s third-largest export industry, which has left local people embittered by laying off more than 1,000 workers.

It has also opened the companies to fresh charges from biologists and environmentalists who say that the breeding of salmon in crowded underwater pens is contaminating once-pristine waters and producing potentially unhealthy fish.

Some say the industry is raising its fish in ways that court disaster, and producers are coming under new pressure to change their methods to preserve southern Chile’s cobalt blue waters for tourists and other marine life.

“All these problems are related to an underlying lack of sanitary controls,” said Dr. Felipe C. Cabello, a professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at New York Medical College in Valhalla that has studied Chile’s fishing industry. “Parasitic infections, viral infections, fungal infections are all disseminated when the fish are stressed and the centers are too close together.”

Industry executives acknowledge some of the problems, but they reject the notion that their practices are unsafe for consumers. American officials also say the new virus is not harmful to humans.

But the latest outbreak has occurred after a rash of nonviral illnesses in recent years that the companies acknowledge have led them to use high levels of antibiotics. Researchers say the practice is widespread in the Chilean industry, which is a mix of international and Chilean producers. Some of those antibiotics, they say, are prohibited for use on animals in the United States.

Many of those salmon still end up in American grocery stores, where about 29 percent of Chilean exports are destined. While fish from China have come under special scrutiny in recent months, here in Chile regulators have yet to form a registry that even tracks the use of the drugs, researchers said.

The new virus is spreading, but it has primarily affected the fish of Marine Harvest, a Norwegian company that is the world’s biggest producer of farm-raised salmon and exports about 20 percent of the salmon that come from Chile.

Salmon produced in Chile by Marine Harvest are sold in Costco and Safeway stores, among other major grocery retailers, said Torben Petersen, the managing director of Marine Harvest here.

Arne Hjeltnes, the main spokesman in Oslo for Marine Harvest, said that his company recognized that antibiotic use was too high in Chile and that fish pens too close together had contributed to the problems. He said Marine Harvest welcomed tougher environmental regulations.

“Some people have advocated that this industry is too good to be true,” Mr. Hjeltnes said. “But as long as everybody has been making lots of money and it has been going very well, there has been no reason to take tough measures.”

He called the current crisis “eye-opening” to the different measures that are needed.

On a recent visit to the port of Castro, about 105 miles south of Puerto Montt, a warehouse contained hundreds of bags, some weighing as much as 2,750 pounds, filled with salmon food and medication.

The bags â€" many of which were labeled “Marine Harvest” and “medicated food” for the fish â€" contained antibiotics and pigment as well as hormones to make the fish grow faster, said Adolfo Flores, the port director.

Environmentalists say the salmon are being farmed for export at the expense of almost everything else around. The equivalent of 7 to 11 pounds of fresh fish are required to produce 2 pounds of farmed salmon, according to estimates.

Salmon feces and food pellets are stripping the water of oxygen, killing other marine life and spreading disease, biologists and environmentalists say. Escaped salmon are eating other fish species and have begun invading rivers and lakes as far away as neighboring Argentina, researchers say.

“It is simply not possible to produce fish on an industrial scale in a sustainable way,” said Wolfram Heise, director of the marine conservation program at the Pumalin Project, a private conservation initiative in Chile. “You will never get it into ecological balance.”

When companies began breeding non-native Atlantic salmon here some two decades ago, salmon farming was seen as a godsend for this sparsely populated area of sleepy fishing towns and campgrounds.

The industry has grown eightfold since 1990. Today it employs 53,000 people either directly or indirectly. Marine Harvest runs the world’s largest “closed system” fish-farming operation at Rio Blanco, near Puerto Montt, where 35 million fish a year are raised until they weigh about a third of an ounce.

As the industry abandons the Lakes region in search of uncontaminated waters elsewhere, local residents are angry and worried about their future.

The salmon companies “are robbing us of our wealth,” said Victor Guttierrez, a fisherman from Cochamó, a town ringing the Gulf of Reloncavi, which is dotted with salmon farms. “They bring illnesses and then leave us with the problems.”

Since discovering the virus in Chile last July, Marine Harvest has closed 14 of its 60 centers and announced it would lay off 1,200 workers, or one-quarter of its Chilean operation. Since the company announced last month that it would move south, to Aysén, the government has said the virus has spread there as well, in two outbreaks not involving Marine Harvest.

Industry officials say Chile is suffering growing pains similar to salmon farming operations in Norway, Scotland and the Faroe Islands, where a different form of the I.S.A. virus struck previously.

Norway, the world’s leading salmon producer, eventually decided to spread salmon farms farther apart, reducing stress on the fish, and responded to criticism of high antibiotic use with stronger regulations and the development of vaccines.

Researchers in Chile say the problems of salmon farming go well beyond the latest virus. Their concerns mirror those of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, which heavily criticized Chile’s farm-fishing industry in a 2005 report.

The O.E.C.D. said the industry needed to limit the escapes of about one million salmon a year; control the use of fungicides like green malachite, a carcinogen that was prohibited in 2002; and better regulate the colorant used to make salmon more rosy, which has been associated with retina problems in humans. It also said Chile’s use of antibiotics was “excessive.”

Officials at Sernapesca, Chile’s national fish agency, declined repeated requests for interviews for this article and did not respond to written questions submitted more than a week ago.

But Cesar Barros, the president of SalmonChile, an industry association, said, “We are working with the government to improve the situation.”

He dismissed the broader criticism of sanitary conditions, saying there was no scientific evidence to support the claims. But researchers charge that the industry has been reluctant to pay for scientific studies, which Chile sorely needs.

Residual antibiotics have been detected in Chilean salmon that have been exported to the United States, Canada and Europe, Dr. Cabello said.

He estimated that 70 to 300 times more antibiotics are used by salmon producers in Chile to produce a ton of salmon than in Norway. But no hard data exist to corroborate the estimates, he said, “because there is almost an underground market of antibiotics in Chile for salmon aquaculture.”

Researchers say that some antibiotics that are not allowed in American aquaculture, like flumequine and oxolinic acid, are legal in Chile and may increase antibiotic resistance for people. Last June the United States Food and Drug Administration blocked the sale of five types of Chinese seafood because of the use of fluoroquinolones and other additives.

But huge numbers of fish go uninspected. The F.D.A. inspected only 1.93 percent of all imported seafood in 2006, Food and Water Watch said, citing F.D.A. data.

Stephanie Kwisnek, a spokeswoman for the F.D.A., said that she did not know the percentage inspected. But she said the F.D.A. tested 40 samples of the 114,320 net tons of salmon imported from Chile in 2007. None of them tested positive for malachite green, oxolinic acid, flumequine, Ivermectin, fluoroquinolones or drug residues, she said.

The F.D.A. is planning an inspection trip to assess Chile’s overall controls on its farmed salmon, she added.

Mr. Petersen, the managing director of Marine Harvest in Chile, said the company planned to return to the Lakes region in a few years, once the area had become free of contamination. In the longer term, he said, Marine Harvest will leave Chile’s fresh-water lakes and produce more older salmon in closed systems where it can maintain “biological control.”

Meanwhile, neighboring fishermen who have been affected by the fish-farming industry can only hope for better days. Mr. Guttierrez, 33, said that just six years ago he and his fishing partner would haul in 1,100 pounds of robalo on a typical day. On a recent day he pointed to that morning’s catch of only 88 pounds in a cooler in the bed of a pickup truck.

He lamented the changes he had observed in the fish: they are rosier than before, and their skin is flabbier. He said he suspected that the wild fish were eating the same food pellets that the salmon were being fed, which he said were falling to the sea floor.

“If the water continues to be contaminated, we will simply have to go to another area to find our fish,” he said. “But it is getting harder and harder.”

Pascale Bonnefoy contributed reporting from Santiago, Chile.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/w...r=1&ref=americas&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
 
Back
Top