One of the things that scares me more than long-lining, which targets the top of the food pyramid, is the vacuuming of the ocean for the middle tier -- the medhaden and their relatives. These are fish not caught for human consumption but for processing for their oil and protein. The floating processing boats catch huge shoals of the fish.

So what, we don't eat them, what's the big deal?

Well, lots of sea life that we do eat depends on those little fish that we don't eat. Guess what happens when you deprive say, tuna, of their food source?

Those damned pogie operations need to be reined in. I can't imagine how terrible the harvest must be in countries that have no inclination to environmentalism.

B

How much will the price drop? To the $4.99 level? What you are asking is that we spend more money to buy a product so it will drop in price. Fair enough. Are you talking about a "shot in the arm booster" for the fishermen and farmers or are you talking about an eternal subsidy so it lowers the price by a bit? IOW, are you asking me to spend more now in the hopes of lower costs in the future or are you asking me to spend more now in the hopes of spending more in the future?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Same here. VA is about to bust Omegas @$$, but it has been a long time coming. The problem with longlining is the bycatch is dead or wounded beyond recovery. The biggest scofflaws in the world are the Japanese longliners, as they have been in the past with whaling. Sinking their entire fishing fleet and offering to supply them fish at a discount would go a long way towards stabilizing the ocean.

And then what? On to the next scofflaw country? We might have to go to war with half the world for that. That will make Iraq look like a picnic.

Again, who would pay for it? We can bust the local companies and pat ourselves on the back and feel good about it. However, when it goes overseas, it now becomes a different ball game. Not everybody will agree with the findings and certainly not with the cure. Look at Kyoto. Who did it end up benefiting? luckily we had the smarts to stay out of it otherwise we'd end up take it in the rear.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Aklim, earlier CMAC & I made reference to "The Tragedy of the Commons", a book by Garret Thomas. The ocean is a commons and is suffering the same fate as the English commons suffered in the 17th through 19th century.

In the old days in England most land was owned by various lords. But there was some land not owned by the lords that was open to non-nobility. These people had access to common land (hence commoners and "House of Commons"). The commons were grazing land that the non-nobility to graze their livestock on. This worked just fine for a few centuries when the human population was rather static and when people raised what they needed, selling the excess to traders. But things changed with the shift from faith to science, the population increased, industrialization and trade increased and that resulted in a great profit motive for commoners who produced excess to sell their surplus.

There was no formal regulation of the commons. When the system was largely clanish that was not a problem. But as civil society emerged, written rules supplanted familiar relations. One of the results was there was no longer restraint on herd size. Worse, they had no formal concept of what we now call, "carrying capacity" -- the amount of a species of animals that can be sustained by a given resource. In the case of the commons, the resource was the carrying capacity of the land for grazers such as sheep and cattle.

Herders noticed that if the total herd size got too big that the weight per animal decreased. However, if a particular commoner ran a large herd, even though the individual animals were smaller, the aggregate was larger. So commoners ran larger and larger herds while carrying capacity decreased as the herds degraded the environment. Eventually the system collapsed through animal disease and degradation o fthe commons, leaving the commoners destitute and prey for the industrialists who profited off of the bounty of cheap labor.

The oceans are a common. Overfishing favors the most industrious fishermen and penalizes the conservative fisherman. Since there is no "controlling legal authority" there is no reason that the various species of interest wont be harvested, one species at a time, into extinction.

This is the proper time for government to exercise it's power and influence over free trade. So far, most countries have failed to do that and so, the tragedy continues before our eyes.

B

I think I get what you are saying. Also, I don't deny this is an issue. However, the problem I see is like you say. So far, most countries fail to do what they should. With that in mind, I don't see how any idea of a sanctuary will work. The only way I see it working is if all the govts get together and say "This BS ends here and now. This area is off limits and if we catch you trying to sell your catch from that area, you will be fish food." Without total cooperation, I don't see how it will work. You are not talking about the pond in your backyard. This is such a huge area that no one country can make a difference. Problem is how to get everyone committed and not have one country giving it's citizens a "nod and a wink".

How will you get everyone on board and not just pay lip service to the commitment? When I was in Singapore, they were adamantly anti-communist. They will not trade with any communist country. My passport said that I could not visit any of those countries and listed them out by name. Sounds good to me. What did they do? Forbid the govt agencies from buying or selling from communist countries. Sweet! OTOH, Private companies were doing business with those countries. I know because my Dad was and is one of them. Govt still collected taxes WITHOUT investing a penny of it's own money, debriefed all the businessmen who visited those countries and could still claim that they are not dealing with communists.

So, will other countries REALLY commit to it? I think most will give it lip service with a few not committing to it. IOW, we have the same mess we have today. No change.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Just exactly the same way any critical resource is protected, out of the barrel of a gun.

Oil or the lack of it causes the world to grind to a halt. This we know. It will not even be a "next week" issue. It is more of a "now" issue. With that, we will find it difficult to get the world together to do something.

The Ocean is a "several decade" issue. IOW, it isn't going to hit home in the next couple of months. Many will not even take it as a critical resource. Do you think it will be easy to do it out of the barrel of a gun? Do you even think the UN will consider it a "must do soon" issue? I think not. So, who wants to go to war with the rest of the world?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

You do what you must do to protect what you have. Depending on others for security is a fool's fantasy.

Therefore this will be in international waters. How will you enforce it? If you are talking about a 12 mile area, it will be difficult even tho is is US waters. Assuming the article is correct, who else will agree with it? You are talking of at least 1/3 of the water surface. You can't close off such a large section. We can't even close off the mexican border and that is way smaller an area. Now you want to take on the world? It will lead to fighting with most of the world. Close off fishing and start sinking ships will be an act of war. Even if it doesn't, do we have the money to do that? We are running a deficit as it stands. Such an expense, even IF, and I doubt it, it could be done, will be so expensive, we can't maintain it.

Only 2 options remain. We either get everybody on board or we leave it till it is right in our faces and then people will HAVE to do something. At that point, fishing will be so slow, it won't be too much of a sell. Again, we are talking about international waters where we all have a right to be there. Now you are going to tell others that they cannot fish there and we will sink them. Isn't it like me telling you that you cannot be at this public park because of this, that or the other?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

you are rushing in with details. first we must recognize the necessity of it.

tom w

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

You sink vessels that violate your rule.

Oh my. I hate God. It's all clear to me now.

Bro-man, you scoff and snear at what you consider to be green-ness, oblivious to the fact that the entire web of life that enabled your countless ancestors to raise up a family long enough to give rise to your very person subsisted, in total - physical bodies anyway, on a large network of green living things, all of them dependent on a semi-stable functioning of climate systems.

No matter what belief system one subscribes to, Theism, Deism, agnosticism, aetheism and everything in between, good reason to be grateful to healthy growing GREEN things ought to be a no-brainer.

If one adheres to a rigid and proud notion of your idea of who God is, it has to be recoginzed that God gave birth to all green things and at some point, surely must have noted and pronounced it "GOOD" that his creation, man, and all other animal creations depended directly or indirectly (carnivores) on green, growing things.

You don't have the barest clue about my morals or lack of. You jump to conclusions based on well worn ruts of snap judgement that comprise a large part of your mental activity, best I can tell. That's sometimes referred to as "weak $h!t."

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Could you be a little more vague please? Complaining about grammatical errors is a bit thin, I'll admit, but it does point to a certain lack of attention to scholarship, of which the good gentleman displays plenty.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

More brilliance from our buddy. NPR? They're a news organization, the professor spoke on one of their shows.

As for people not caring about it, didn't you catch any of the rancor that acoompanied the closing of the cod fishery on the east coast cuz it was just about completely collapsed? Hasn't recovered to any significant degree yet.

You think 3rd worlders are trying to crash our borders now? Hang on bro, it's only going to get worse. Poor fisherman around the world will be doing their best to get to the wealthier nations, more and more.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K