And in EU, the French government just announced that it will "strongly oppose" forbidding deep ocean scrubbing nets in "protected areas" (which are therefore totally unprotected). They look like caricature villains from a comic book or something. Bonkers.
The Dutch experimented with pulse fishing [0]. This had some good benefits for the sea and didn't seem to negatively impact the fishing industry over here much. It was banned again by the EU, according to some due to lobbying on behalf of other countries that were afraid they'd have to start investing in it too.
If it doesn't destroy the plants too, it probably ~is better for the ecosystem than what it's replacing, but if aliens come and start dragging electrocution nets over human cities to electrocute us all, we won't be able to say we didn't have it coming.
This doesn't look like a significant advance in sustainability, rather in fishing efficency; a "better" sustainability score doesn't mean it's sustainable. In the same way that replacing coal with nat. gas doesn't solve global warming.
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.
Governments and corporations lack motivation to cease this behavior, as there are continually available markets willing to pay for and meeting consumer demands.
One of those major issues that seems likely to drown with a million other major issues.
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.
If you're allowed to keep bycatch, then the incentive to reduce it is suddenly gone - easier to just find a way to accidentally also make money off it.
The law of supply and demand expects the marginal cost of each additional fish to be more expensive. What if it's not. What if it costs the same amount of money to catch fish until you catch the very last fish. Suddenly the price of fish jumps from $.03/fish to infinity. Some sort of quota system has to be implemented and enforced to not come to such an abrupt halt on a market like that. Fish is one thing, at least there are alternatives, but peak oil, or peak natural gas are going to be, barring some technological mitigation, catastrophic to our modern way of life.
"For example, Mitsubishi, a company which handles 35-40% of Japan’s imported Atlantic bluefin tuna, has been deep-freezing and stockpiling thousands of tons of bluefin each year, seeking to profit by selling bluefin at extremely steep prices in the future when the bluefin tuna is extinct or near extinction."
I remember one of my undergrad economics professors going on a rant about how we will never run out of oil or tungsten or whatever because the marginal cost will increase gradually until we find alternative materials.
It sounded very intelligent and convincing to me at 18, and sounds downright idiotic to me now.
I know that oil and tungsten are materially different from fish. Marginal costs of digging things out of the ground does in fact tend to increase gradually with scarcity, as do incentives to devote resources to basic research into recycling, consumption reduction, and alternatives.
But teaching undergrads about tungsten and not fish is just propaganda.
Edit: To be clear, the point is not that my professor was idiotically wrong about oil and tungsten specifically. The "idiotic" part is to assume and furthermore imply to young students (who don't know any better) that the general principle holds equally well in all domains. Maybe "arrogant" would be a better word than "idiotic".
Oil and gas are different than metals though because some deposits spurt out of the ground, while others require heroic drilling, pumping and refining efforts that take more energy to realize. This is the concept of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). When it takes more energy to get the oil out of the ground than is in the oil, it might be better to use the energy for something else and leave the oil in the ground.
Indeed, your professor was starting under the assumption that our civilization will not collapse. If you want to know what happens when the resources your civilization is built on run out, you're probably better off asking a historian than an economist.
s someone who degreed in economics, and has been studying the economic resource situation formally and informally for nearly five decades, what I've come to realise is that economics has a very shaky grasp on the actual, and sensible, pricing of extractive resources.
Economically, mining is exploitation of any resource on a basis which fails to account for the full ecological formation costs of that resource.
In the case of petroleum, we can look at one ecological cost: time.
Petroleum formed over a period of hundreds of millions of years. It's been extracted by humans for a couple of hundred years. Even on napkin math, the time cost is being discounted by on the order of one million fold.
If the resource were so vast that it could not be meaningfully exhausted, this wouldn't be an issue. But we've hit peak conventional oil within numerous major producer countries, and quite probably the world, which corresponds to roughly half the total exploitable resource having been exhausted.
The economic theory most often mentioned for pricing of nonrenewable resources is Hotelling's Rule, formulated in 1932. I've read that paper numerous times, and the fact that strikes me most about it is that although it cites earlier economic works and numerous references of the author himself, it cites absolutely no scientific, geological, or petrochemical references. It's utterly devoid of any real-world grounding.
And we have pricing data to invalidate it, one of the most comprehensive being crude oil prices dating to 1870 or so. That's published as part of BP's Annual Statistical Review of Energy, showing both nominal and inflation-adjusted prices.
What's clear is that price does not follow the trend predicted by Hotelling, but rather reflects, at various times, unrestrained extraction (when the price collapses), various catellisations and embargos (when it peaks), and several periods of long-term managed output, during which it remains quite nearly constant. The longest and most stable such period was from the early 1930s to the early 1970s, following the establishment of regulated extraction in the United States (at the time the world's peak, and surplus-capacity, provider of oil).
Immediately prior to this period, following major discoveries and unregulated extraction in East Texas, the price fell from a target $1/bbl to $0.13/bbl, and finally as low as $0.02/bbl. The rational for pricing wasn't Hotelling's model, but the bare minimum price required to meet marginal costs of extraction.
More recently, in the 2000s and 2010s, what's emerged has been the flip side of demand destruction, where prices of oil can rise to the point that economic activity can't support them, and demand collapses, with it ultimately price (as more expensive marginal wells are withdrawn from production). Price has see-sawed between highs as the global economy surged, and lows, as it collapsed. Sometimes exogenously as with the 2020 global COVID pandemic, which saw US spot futures prices fall negative briefly at contracts expired and delivery had to be made --- there was no available storage and traders paid to have their oil offloaded.
The upshot is that extractive commodity prices don't behave as one might expect during periods of exhaustion. Rather than rising monotonically, they'll jump around on thin trading, surges in supply and demand, and external influences.
I've found in particular the rationale around land rents for minerals and extraction, dating to David Ricardo, are an interesting place to poke around. Hotelling's Rule is based on that, though through an intermediary.
There's also the associated legal concept of the Rule of Capture, which is applied to the notion of property rights in mineral resources is also based on some curiously fallacious legal argument. Which also leads me to realise that amongst various categories of knowledge, legal practice seems to be its own animal, based variously on statute, precedent, and persuasion, rather than empirical foundations.
(Other realms of knowledge include revelatory knowledge, commonly in religion; convention and authority, in various fields; communities of practice as with technical arts and some societies; and poetic or literary knowledge, essentially of narrative and record which are passed down but again need have no basis in any external empirical foundations.)
There's the equivocation between economic wealth and accounting profits, which are ... somewhat related ... but divided by the fact that the former includes all accounting of external costs and benefits, whilst the latter does not. Financial systems are cost- and risk-externalising machines.
I've recently discovered Katharina Pistor through the Ezra Klein podcast. She writes on the relationship of property to economics. She is hitting on themes I'd been struggling towards and does some excellent analysis and research. Transcript:
Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have just published The Big Myth, which looks at the selling of the notion of free markets, specifically in the US. It's an outgrowth of their earlier work on disinformation in the tobacco, CFCs/ozone layer, lead, and oil / global warming disinformation campaigns by major corporations.
I've yet to land a copy, but from several interviews the work seems useful though quite probably incomplete, as there was an earlier practice of such advocacy in Britain, as evidenced by The Economist's prospectus announcing in 1843 a new publication "THE ECONOMIST, which will contain— First.—ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day..."
A later editor of the Economist, Francis Wrigley Hirst, was key in persuading Oliver Wendell Holmes of the concepts of free markets and their applicability to the realm of free speech, ultimately leading to the expression "the free market of ideas" in a 1950s US Supreme Court judgement. That draws on (though mischaracterises) John Stuart Mill's writings on free speech and liberty as well.
I've written on that last variously on HN, this seems a reasonably coherent summary:
Susan Gordon's written on how J.S. Mill's notions have been distorted and misrepresented in "John Stuart Mill and the 'Marketplace of Ideas'" (1997) <https://philpapers.org/rec/GORJSM> (full text on Sci-Hub / LibGen).
There's more, though this is a good start and seems to be less generally acknowledged even amongst notable critics of economic orthodoxy. Steve Keen, Philip Mirowski, and Mariana Mazzucato would be other good names to read.
> 2.7 trillion fish are caught every year, or up to 5 million caught every minute.
Bycatch aside, this number absolutely floors me. There is no way this number can sound remotely sustainable to anyone, right?
I love seafood, but I know the issues with overfishing so I don't eat it often and when I do, I do my best to only eat sustainably caught or farmed fish...but I feel absolutely hopeless seeing numbers like this.
Overfishing is an issue for sure, but the number just speaks to home unfathomably huge the oceans are.
Poke around and look up how big wild schools of anchovy can be, or how many krill it takes to feed a whale. And each of those numbers you find are just teensy little blips. The ocean is really big and its teeming with life.
The ocean is really big and its teeming with life.
As earlier responses have noted, this is an exceedingly common misperception. It further fails to acknowledge harms done.
Estimates are that upwards of 90% of all marine animal life has been destroyed largely by human activity.
Vast fisheries have utterly collapsed, notably Grand Banks cod off Newfoundland, sardines off California, orange roughy, and more. Surviving fisheries are hugely impacted, often with both far fewer and far smaller individuals than in historical records.
Records and understand themselves are exceptionally limited, as major scientific study of the oceans dates only to the mid-20th century, after which much of the harm had already been done.
A fascinating trivium is that there is more oil floating in tankers over the oceans than there are fish swimming in it.
And, as myshpa noted, the deep oceans tend not to have much biological activity. Fish (and plankton) aggregate near continental boundaries where upwelling provides essential nutrients. Sunshine and water alone are vastly insufficient.
"There are large areas in the middle of the major oceanic basins called the subtropical gyres. These could be considered the deserts of the ocean in that the biomass (total mass of all organisms) density and biodiversity are low. This is because the ocean circulation doesn't replenish the nutrients available in these areas for algae to live off, which are the base of the food-chain.
In general, you tend to find much more biomass and biodiversity closer to the coasts. But you can get hotspots of productivity in other places such as upwelling regions and also near seamounts (shameless plug of my paper on this)."
"People assume, well oceans are massive so fish stocks are massive as well. But if you went hunting for game as a protein source you wouldn't assume it lives at the top of every mountain and bottom of every valley. You know it has a range that confines its distribution and therefore its abundance. You dont go hunting across the vast, empty desert.
Commercial fisheries know this and are squeezing the last bits they can out of the pelagic fish we all expect on the dinner table (tuna, mahi, etc), but as you aptly point out, the majority of fisheries biomass is near the coast. Fish we eat do not come from habitat that covers 70% of the planet, its much closer to < 10 %."
The sheer number of animals that are slaughtered to produce meat for human consumption is absolutely mind-boggling. In addition to the fish, humans killed 72 billion chickens, 3.3 billion ducks, 1.3 billion pigs, over a half-billion geese, turkeys, rabbits, sheep, and goats (each!), over 300 million cattle, and over 70 million rodents for food in 2019 alone [1].
Animal agriculture overall generates more CO2 emissions than every automobile, ship, and airplane on Earth - more carbon than the entire transportation sector. An overwhelming majority of arable land on this planet is used to feed those animals, fated to death from birth, rather than humans - in many developing countries, humans starve while livestock are plumped for slaughter and export. [2]. 75% of historic deforestation in the Amazon, 55% of erosion, 60% of nitrogen pollution, and 44% of anthropogenic methane and nitrous oxide emissions (each) are a direct result of animal agriculture [3].
If you live in the US, like I do, it's not just the animals and the environment that suffer under animal agriculture. It's an open secret that undocumented children are exploited to work in slaughterhouses in this country [4] while politicians are actively rolling back protections for those exploited children [5] to ensure that boneless skinless chicken breasts stay cheap at WalMart.
There is no such thing as sustainable animal agriculture - it is a lie used to greenwash products, to make us feel righteous when we pay for corpses at the grocery store or restaurant. The only sane and ethical response to this devastation is to completely reject the economic exploitation of animals - to adopt a fully vegan philosophy. Of course, this does cause some difficulties in the modern context (especially in the US), but the trouble of learning to cook vegetables and seitan is nothing compared to the harm that animal agriculture causes to billions of humans and non-humans every year. (It also cured my high blood pressure and pre-diabetes in three months, but everyone knows vegetables are good for you :)
>>There is no such thing as sustainable animal agriculture - it is a lie used to greenwash products
Yeah I absolutely don't agree. I don't believe it can be done at scale - but it can be done. Watch a channel like Harry's Farm on youtube - guy basically has cattle on moors where nothing else could possibly grow - they just stay there all year, eat grass, then one day they get slaughtered. There is nothing about farming them this way that's unsustainable.
>>The only sane and ethical response to this devastation is to completely reject the economic exploitation of animals - to adopt a fully vegan philosophy.
I think you might be getting too much of that "greenwashed" propaganda yourself friend.
We should be fighting against factory farming with all our might, and especially the US is a sad place when it comes to animal rights. But going out and saying it can't be done sustainably is a lie peddled by people who either literally can't imagine how it can be done, or who don't want to see it. I believe meat can be sustainably produced, but it should be reflected in its cost - people shouldn't be eating meat 3x times a day because it's so cheap.
Sustainable animal husbandry represents less than 5% of the total.
> but it can be done
We may also find farms where there are no animal inputs used. It can be done.
> it should be reflected in its cost - people shouldn't be eating meat 3x times a day
Removing all subsidies for dairy, meat & fishing would help a lot.
>> The only sane and ethical response to this devastation is to completely reject the economic exploitation of animals - to adopt a fully vegan philosophy
> I think you might be getting too much of that "greenwashed" propaganda yourself
If you don't see the logic in it, then you just haven't found the power to really acknowledge all the problems associated with it.
>>Sustainable animal husbandry represents less than 5% of the total.
That sounds very different to "There is no such thing as sustainable animal agriculture - it is a lie used to greenwash products"
>>Removing all subsidies for dairy, meat & fishing would help a lot.
I agree.
>>If you don't see the logic in it, then you just haven't found the power to really acknowledge all the problems associated with it.
I absolutely do see the logic in it, but someone saying that the only way to solve this is by going vegan is no different than someone saying that the only way to solve global warming is to stop driving cars. Would that solve the problem? Of course it would. Are the chances of that happening greater than 0? No, they aren't. This isn't personal criticism of course - if you feel that going vegan is consistent with your logical and moral stance, please go ahead. But I don't think we should even pretend that veganism is the solution to this problem on a global scale, because I don't believe you would get anywhere near the required number of people on board with it. The steps that I think are far more realistic are - more sustainable animal husbandry, sharp rise in cost of meat to reflect its true cost(which will naturally reduce the amount of meat consumed), and yes, like you said - removal of artificial subsidies to those industries.
Nearly 100% of my meat comes from locally raised grass-fed-and-finished cows. They are rotationally grazed and live their whole lives in the outdoors. It is actually much, much cheaper than buying meat from a supermarket - ground beef is half the price, steaks are as little as 10%, because all cuts are priced the same. (My dairy comes from another, similar farm, and while it is much better, it is more expensive.) I also went all through the slaughterhouse and no, there's no kids there.
I eat a lot of eggs. 100% of my eggs and the occasional chicken come from my parents, who, with twelve chickens, produce an insane surplus of eggs, letting them eat whatever bugs they find and feeding them scraps.
People will argue this isn't scalable, and maybe it isn't. But the price of my beef suggests it is underutilized at this time. Certainly more rural and semirural people could keep chickens. I would favor this alternative anyway, since industrial-scale food production isn't just inhumane, it produces inferior products that are subject to enormous risks and shocks as producers race to centralize and become more and more efficient. You don't want hyperefficiency in your food supply. Hyperefficiency means fragility.
Massive industrialized agriculture is its own ecological disaster. The farming of corn for ethanol (!!!) and the massive, endless fields of soybeans and canola in the US midwest (foods eaten by almost no American a few decades ago) are permanently destroying the ecology of nearly half the US. It's annihilating topsoil at alarming rates, eradicated huge swaths of natural wildlife, and filled watersheds with massive amounts of fertilizer and pesticides which are then contributing to killing all the fish. You see how we've come full circle.
Do you know what would be great and sustainable for the midwest? Fill the plains with cows. For thousands of years, they were filled with ruminants. The cows must be kept in tightly packed herds to emulate their behavior when predators are present. This will regenerate the topsoil, as that's what formed much of it in the first place, and end the flow of poison into the waterways. I'm not opposed to returning the buffalo instead, if you prefer.
You talk about greenwashing - that's a big part of the push behind veganism. Obviously there's sincere people like you, but there's a lot of money in producing highly processed foods and (soon) artificial meat. Highly processed foods (besides being a health disaster) can be easily produced via "food science" from relatively stable, controllable inputs, which animals are not. They are much easier to scale, which is where the real money comes from when you're selling commodities. Frequently, even when one input does become a problem, it can be replaced with no obvious impact to the consumer.
It's not about taking a holistic look what what we need to do ecologically and environmentally, which would include meat. It's about cash.
> fated to death from birth
Everything born into this world will die. That's nothing special about livestock.
> It is actually much, much cheaper than buying meat from a supermarket
Thanks to subsidies ... taxes taken also from vegans ;)
> the massive, endless fields of soybeans
"More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh"
> Fill the plains with cows. For thousands of years, they were filled with ruminants
You need also predators ... and I don't mean weekend hunters. Without predators the ruminants tend to stay in one place and eat everything, till nothing than desert remains. See Sahara and near east.
> there's a lot of money in producing highly processed foods and (soon) artificial meat
Not yet, and artificial meat may not be here in next few decades (the scale is the problem). Soon is an overstretch. Artificial meat doesn't need to be highly processed ... in principle it's just plant protein (flour), starches, colorings (red beet etc.) and spices, maybe oils and vitamines. No magic, no complicated processes involving toxic chemicals etc (depends on the oils, tho).
> holistic look what what we need to do ecologically and environmentally, which would include meat
Meat is not necessary in those equations. We don't need to eat meat to live and prosper. We have composting and syntropic agriculture. We don't need animal inputs in agriculture. We can rewild areas used for animal farming (75% of 50% agriland of habitable land) and let the wildife rebound and manage the ecosystems. We can restore carbon sinks (double the forests) and stop anthropogenic wild life die offs. We don't have to rape the nature as we do now. For that the vegan movement is the logic outcome.
Sorry, your first link is profoundly unpersuasive. I don’t see anything wrong with killing animals for a purpose, nor anything inherently evil in suffering. I appreciate that you have a different value system, but I don’t share it. I do have a problem with treating animals as commodities and as inputs to industrial processes.
> Thanks to subsidies ...
Incorrect.
> "More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils.
I think it’s clear I oppose growing soy for animal feed. At any rate it’s misleading to exclude vegetable oil as something people directly eat, when nearly every American consumes a huge proportion of their daily calories from soy and canola oils.
> You need also predators ... and I don't mean weekend hunters. Without predators the ruminants tend to stay in one place
Yes, I specifically mentioned the need for rotational grazing, which builds up topsoil and stops desertification.
> We don't need to eat meat to live and prosper. We have composting and syntropic agriculture. We don't need animal inputs in agriculture. We can rewild areas used for animal farming (75% of 50% agriland of habitable land) and let the wildife rebound and manage the ecosystems.
I disagree. I and many other people need meat to prosper.
Ecosystems are not steady state without our inputs. And certainly nobody besides me is going to support the mass reintroduction of predators. What you’re describing is just a different kind of human managed ecology.
Also, properly managed livestock can absolutely be a carbon sink.
With your last video, you’re preaching to the choir. It’s still true we all die.
We've heard similar arguments in post-soviet countries regarding farming land - private land owners will take better care of the land, will protect the wildlife, won't poison their own land, etc.
Privatization didn't help ... small owners rent their land to the big ag, wildlife is still being decimated, land degradation accelerated, and now there are new deserts in central Europe (last week there was a sand storm in Hungary and Slovakia).
I mean, the USSR’s state-run actions completely drained and destroyed one of the largest inland seas in the world. Public isn’t always the answer either.
What really works for ocean policy is putting informed experts in charge of global regulations and everyone adhering to the rules under strict observation and penalties. It’s just really hard to get those institutions setup.
There’s an opportunity to use the existing UNCLOS framework to establish rules around commercial fishing operations, but they’ve been stalled for years. Likely because China is the worst offender and currently disputes a lot of the rules around sea/ocean territory given their interests in their immediate maritime spaces.
Just look at the state of forests in those countries... Parts of unique national parks razed to the ground... Land owners just want to get rich ASAP everywhere.
I will happily cover my land in radioactive sludge today [1], in exchange for a one-time payoff that exceeds what I paid for it (Or, worse yet, what I can expect to recoup from it in <whatever finite time horizon I care about>).
Also, it's not like fish are going to respect lot borders. Overfishing in the lot next to mine will damage my lot's value. The only correct way for me to respond is by overfishing my lot.
[1] And leave my neighbours to deal with the long-term fallout.
Where are you from? I'd like to move if people around you take care of their land. Here in Michigan people don't often do that.
My private well is contaminated with 85 ppt (and my bloodstream, at 30ppt years after fixing the water supply) of PFAS because Wolverine tannery owners decided to dump ScotchGuard contaminated scraps in the swamp behind their homes.
The river through that same town, likewise, is no longer a world-class trout stream because homeowners on the stream banks fill it with nitrates and algae blooms by fertilizing their lawns. Lakes are clogged with zebra mussels because fishermen won't clean their boats and drain livewells/bilges while traveling between lakes, and the very fish they're going around to catch are down precipitously as a result of those actions. Once-productive farms? Soil's depleted. Old growth forests? Clear-cut, replaced by scrubby tangles and immature pines. The whole Great Lakes ecosystems? I give it less than a decade before invasive carp come through Chicago's unreliable electric deterrent.
The lack of radioactive sludge opportunities is unique, most other land-destroying activities are well established.
Land keeps its value because it's scarce and the growing population and growing economy keeps needing it, not because it's maintained to anything remotely like the ecological quality it once had.
Imagine someone just flying a helicopter through a forest scraping up the wildlife in huge nets, picking out the snails, and dropping the rest of what they scooped up to their death. Yet it happens all day every in the oceans and no one cares.
It used to be for every pound of wild caught shrimp caught, more than 4.5-5 pounds of other fish species were caught as bycatch and discarded dead. But now thanks to by catch reduction devices that is down up to 30%, so an optimistic 3.15-3.5 pound of bycatch.
I also feel that not building world-destroying robots should be something we should be able to reach consensus on. My current favorite world-destroying robot photo is from the battle of Lutzerath:
We’ve already destroyed a third of Earths forests, and most grassland has been converted to agriculture. We didn’t use nets, but the result has been the same.
I would love to see all commercial fishing banned as well for something like 10 years. Unfortunately there are other countries that would not respect the ban and even if not countries, individuals would ignore it as it would create a black market.
I still think the idea should be discussed and maybe g20 nations come up with some agreements.
Hopefully things like lab grown fish improve and maybe we can move people away from the real thing.
I keep telling my kids they are lucky anytime we get the treat of having some fish as in their future it may not be something available to the common person.
Lab grown fish are one thing, but simple fish farms already work really well, the issues are that the fish don't eat a natural diet and are sicker and less healthy to eat. Maybe that's an easier problem to solve than growing fish meat in a lab.
I'm unclear why you'd stop at commercial fishing . Just ban all fishing and all fish consumption. The premise that your children could one day eat fish is the problem
The us has a large surplus of Asian carp. It’d be beneficial for the ecosystem if this invasive species became popular to eat to encourage more fishing of it.
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.
It makes me ashamed to be human. Reading stuff like that, and thinking about what we do to cows, sheep, lambs, chickens, etc, it dawned on me a while ago that humans have no right to treat animals like they're just a bunch of cells to be treated however we want, like a serial killer treats their victims. But that animals are fellow beings, a lot like us in many ways. I didn't want pain, or someone to kill me, so I figured they didn't either.
It was so easy to stop eating animal "products". The whole thing started to seem obscene, like a nightmare - ads on TV trying to tempt people to eat slaughtered baby sheep etc. I thought I'd miss the taste of meat but never have. (I feel so weird writing that sentence now.)
I encourage everyone reading this not to be a part of the problem, to stop contributing to this desecration. If no-one ate meat, this genocide of sea life would just stop. For every person that stops, we get closer to that. I realize in some cultures, it's not so simple, but in many, it is.
>But that animals are fellow beings, a lot like us in many ways. I didn't want pain, or someone to kill me, so I figured they didn't either.
I respect your noble pursuit of not eating meat, and I have encountered arguments similar to yours enough times now that I feel compelled to respond in genuine kindness as someone who does like to eat meat (within "reason").
Animals are benignly cruel to each other beyond your imagination or the production of what nature documentaries will show you. Nature is a fight of survival. No animal wants pain or to be eaten, yet that is the reality that every wild animal faces. The conversation of humanizing animals is very interesting, but in the process we disregard the reality of their natural existence. Their lifespans are short, and often brutal. I weigh the reality of wilderness to the reality of industrial farming and ask myself if there isn't some kind of middle ground. I think there is. You can raise animals in pastures where they free range outside. They have a relatively peaceful, predation, free life after which you consume them (by killing them quickly and painlessly).
I deplore the reality of industrial farming and "agricultural waste". Chickens being raised for one singular body part and then thrown away. We do not treat any of our food with respect, living or otherwise. We are not efficient. We do not care about quality. We don't even try consuming the whole thing. That's where I find this industry disgusting. Meat should not be this disposably cheap.
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 everyone.
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, animal lives are not morally equal to human lives.
Then come back and tell me that what we do to the animals is humane and morally ok. Killing (and skinning alive) living beings who don't want to die when you don't have to is not humane.
> otherwise you'll become that annoying vegan
I'm already there ... and I don't care. I'm using my voice for those who can't speak. And they don't matter less than you do.
Your first point isn't consistent as a counter argument. Parent wasn't saying "animals do it so it's fine for us too". That's obviously wrong given the broad range of behaviors animals have that would be absolutely ridiculous if a human did them.
Parent was saying killing animals to eat them is not necessarily cruel. All animals die. In nature, this death is often painful and drawn out. Farming, with very little compromise, can be immensely more humane that what the average wild animal experiences. It is often not, but that can be fixed, both by the individual (buy from local less horrible farms) and by society (better regulation).
All that being said, I mostly avoid meat and dairy due to concerns over animal treatment.
Animal rights is the most important movement. Everything every other movement
says applies to animals as well, yet they get ignored, and they do not have a
voice.
From the article
> "It's devastating," he said. "This is more than just an income issue for me. It's an inability to do what I love. So, on a financial level and on a personal level, it's devastating."
I'm glad it's a financial loss. Nobody should be a commodity. And it's wrong that it's what somebody loves to do.
We moved to the Irish countryside and hearing the dairy cows wailing for their calves that have just been taken away from them is an uexpected meat/dairy deterrent.
When I was much younger, we had a donkey that had a breach birth, and the foal became stuck. It was awful, in every sense of the word. The foal ended up dying mid-birth, and we then did everything we could to save the mother. To the point where we were had a chain wrapped around the dead foal for pulling, and we had to cut up and break its bones to get it out.
We eventually saved the mother, but that donkey was truly scarred. For about two years, I would of said that donkey was clinically depressed. It really changed my perspective on just how intelligent animals actually are, and I’m sure they feel complex emotions just like us.
I had never paid much attention to donkeys until the neighbours got one a couple years ago. They really are a fascinatingly emotive and sensitive animal and more like a pet than typical livestock. It comes up to the fence to socialize with us and get snuggles, and rubs noses with our border collies. It plays with their German Shepherd and with their kids in the yard. It likes to snuggle. It is protective of the miniature goats and sheep that it cohabits with.
I expected it to be more similar to a horse, but it's different. Far less aloof. Kind of want one of my own now.
I wonder if today's epidemic of depression isn't in part fueled by the consumption of milk from grieving cows.
That distress has to get into the milk; this is one of the pathways of epigenetic regulation -- meaning the distress is heritable, and may impact cross-species.
I've always been impressed by vegetarians, because of their comfort in the moral convictions that keep cows alive and suffering for their dairy and children, but never dead for their meat (and an end to their suffering).
The thought-terminating cliche raises its head again.
There is nothing "ecologically" sound about keeping cows alive and burping on the cheapest feed available. This is not a criticism of your response, just pointing out that these kinds of cliches become culturally embedded after a certain amount of time, even if they do not reflect the reality.
Humans need to start living in harmony with nature. We need to stop using artificial fertilizers that end up in the ocean and slowly suffocating and starving animals. I like oxygen and so do they. We must also stop spraying literal poison on the land and exterminating the insect population that other animals need to survive. We must stop cooking the planet and especially the oceans, and stop burning forests in order to grow things like avocado.
However I understand that people do need to eat something, and thus I would encourage people to consider their diet based on the more complex plane than vegetarian vs meat. Most food, especially cheap food, do have negative consequences on the environment. If you can, look into the background of food you buy, alternative raise and farm your own food (chickens are excellent pets and one of the best way to keep grass down without using machinery, and they eat practically everything that would go into a compost). It doesn't scale but it do reduce the problem. Those that want to take a even bigger step can try the few environment friendly choices like say seaweed and shellfish. There is zero risk of mussel genocide, through one has to be aware of the farming method.
Humans cannot help themselves disturb the delicate balance in many natural systems. Corporations are the real extremists today and a difficult challenge our society faces due to the effects it has on human society and all other species on this planet.
As I began in my second paragraph above, people do need to eat something. Right now that means sacrifice the environment if we want to keep everyone alive in the short term.
Long term we could have farming that has zero environmental impact, like vertical farming with fully contained and controlled environment. It would cost huge amount of money and with the current economical system it would be impossible to feed everyone on the planet, but the technology is technically there.
Right now however, a person should to take into account the environmental impact that different food has. Going into a store and buying a avocado will leave the buyer with some blood on their hands. They can try to reduce the amount of blood by making a difference choice depending on how a specific food is produced, but it will be more complex than just looking if it contains meat.
IMHO going vegan is the only practical strategy for reducing the impact of your diet. You have no practical way of knowing most of what's going on in the supply chain for most products, or their true carbon footprint, but overall, the footprint of growing plants and feeding them to animals is way higher than just eating plants yourself. The laws of physics are, to some extent, "on your side" when it comes to boycotting animal products for sustainability reasons.
There ~are some plant products with well publicized ethical or sustainability scandals like coffee, chocolate, date palm, and avocados, that are worthy of looking into once you've already gone vegan. By all means look into those and try to source them carefully if you can or add them to your boycott, but be careful not to buy into the greenwashing false-equivalence that because some plant products ~are wasteful, it's OK to eat meat.
Wealthy people in developed countries won’t change. They either don’t want to inconvenience themselves or acknowledge that they’re the problem - or both.
People will instead say nonsense like, “corporations are the problem.”
I think it’s great that you’re taking steps to reduce your impact on the world (I’ve made many myself: no meat, no kids, no driving, no flying, small dense housing), but honestly don’t get your hopes up for anyone else following suit.
Wealthy people's habits may be the problem, but its important to understand that putting the blame on individuals' choices is a trap and distraction. The solution is regulation. Heavy, obtrusive, expensive regulation, which is required because as you say most people won't change.
> Heavy, obtrusive, expensive regulation, which is required because as you say most people won't change.
People will just vote it down. And not just the rich; the middle classes, the working classes, practically anyone who stands to lose even a few dollars or a few luxuries. People will only accept regulations that don’t affect themselves.
Yeah, I honestly don’t care if most people won’t change. I’ve done what I want to for the planet and I’ll be long dead before the bill for climate change really comes due. It’s their kids’ problem not mine. Good luck to them.
The meat I eat comes from a ten minute bike ride's distance from my house.
The heavily-processed vegetable-based "product" aggressively marketed to you has been shipped halfway round the world, having been farmed using just about the least sustainable farming practices imaginable.
Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.
Very little food is air-freighted; it accounts for only 0.16% of food miles.
Many of the foods people assume to come by air are actually transported by boat – avocados and almonds are prime examples. Shipping one kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the United Kingdom would generate ... only around 8% of avocados’ total footprint. Even when shipped at great distances, its emissions are much less than locally-produced animal products.
If your grocery doesn't have locally produced, affordable, delicious vegan junk food by now you should be pissed off at the people producing your food and demand better.
If someone said I could live my life and be happy but at the end I have to die or not live at all I am going to choose life. The same is true for the animals I raise. They get to have a very peaceful life where they are spoiled. They get heat in the winter, fresh water daily, the correct amount of calories each day, treats which they love like fresh picked berries and other foods they love, protection from predators, and all and all a very privileged life. But in the end they do die as painlessly as I can make it.
If I didn’t raise these animals they just wouldn’t have existed to begin with. So I do feel bad they have to die but I also gave them a great life.
Your animals are pets, not a food production system. Those animal farming practices will not scale to feed 8 billion people. Most ~humans are not receiving the standard of care you claim to be providing your animals with.
The idea that continuing to live is a personal decision is tempting as a part of a moral code (Ayn Rand takes this idea to absurd conclusions, for example.), but depression/suffering must be ~extremely severe for people to get over their self-preservation instinct. You are ~not, in any meaningful way, making a conscious decision to continue living for the rest of your natural life. You never gave consent to be in the situation you're in as a human being, and the animals you're raising ~certainly didn't.
Overfishing usually results in jellyfish blooms - if there are no fish to consume the available zooplankton then jellyfish will. There's stacks and stacks of papers written on that phenomenon.
> So people just need to start harvesting jellyfish and eating them instead of fish.
Why to eat stupid jellyfishes when all that you need to enjoy a 100% nutritive and delicious diet is to start eating other people?. Hoomans are plenty, easy to find, fatty, err sorry... enormous, yummy, delicious and had everything that our body needs.
Can we talk seriously again now? Only the 0,0001% of the jellyfish species are edible and they are basically a water globe devoid of nutrients.
wild...as a hunter who has made the trek to California a few times for Javelina hog and black bear, i had no clue they even offered a permit for salmon at all...its just not something advertised much.
I've been Salmon fishing in California since I can remember. There are few things I love more than being on the water going for Kings as the sun comes up.
I'm really bummed we won't have a season, but having more fish in the future is worth the short term cost.
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 there. So they finally put in a hard stop after years of kicking the can down the road.
I suspect we'll see additional cessation of fishing in other areas as it further unravels that we've been chronically overfishing for decades.
Britain after WW2 overharvested mackerel from their seas for so long that they had to put permanent fishing quotas and even today the mackerel have not fully recovered from overfishing over half a century ago. Anglers have an enormous impact on fish and wildlife stocks.
They did a moratorium on crab fishing by crab fishermen but allow trawling for groundfish that a) picks up crab as bycatch and b) destroys their spawning grounds.
It’s not a great example of an effective policy response.
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 work in those towns. Take away fishing and the economy in these towns stops. There is no Fortune 50 company with infinite pockets to swoop in and "make things right" either via the goodness of their own hearts, or by lawsuits.
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 selfishness: "my desires today are more important than your needs tomorrow."
Cod stocks collapsed in the early 1990s, with a moratorium on fishing enacted in 1993. It took until 2011 for signs to show that the ecosystem was recovering.
My understanding is that the cod are not expected to recover to numbers previously seen at all, though. The smaller number present today seem likely to comprise a permanently smaller proportion of the new habitat that has formed in their absence.
I looked into this many years ago so perhaps that has changed. I hope so. Otherwise it means the Canadian Atlantic was irreparably altered by modern fishing in the blink of an eye, and the rest of the world is working hard at doing the same thing right now.
>
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 there. So they finally put in a hard stop after years of kicking the can down the road.
The Atlantic cod industry waves hi.
Or, it would, if there was still an Atlantic cod industry.
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.
Absolutely. We definitely need to put a spotlight on this and other dwindling fish stocks. Even though there are other populations to draw from, once they're gone they are very, very hard to get back.
The article doesn't seem to mention whether they are only canceling the season for big time commercial fishing or for all fishing altogether. I suspect it's the latter. Too bad that the government can't seem to grasp the concepts of scale and profit motive. The wildlife populations are getting wrecked from large scale fishing operations mass-scraping the sea clean, not from Joe Sixpack dipping their rod in the ocean on the weekend and hoping to come home with one or two fish.
The ratio of commercial:recreational quoatas depend on the numeric value for the season, but at lower quotas the ratio skews heavily recreational. So when the run is substantial, commercial fisheries can fish, but when the run is marginal, more of the quota is recreational:
Allowable non-treaty ocean harvest (thousands of fish)
Coho: C R
0–300 25 75
>300 60 40
Chinook:
0–100 50 50
>100–150 60 40
>150 70 30
Sport Fishing can put a huge amount of pressure on stocks too. During the salmon season there are hundred of boats off Stinson Beach (NW of the golden gate) fishing, same for Pacifica and Half Moon Bay. For every commercial boat there are many, many smaller boats. It all adds up.
Do you happen to know if there are any places in California to go fly fishing, if any? My curiosity deriving from David James Duncan's The River Why and Norman Maclean's A River Runs Through It.
There are a ton of excellent places. You can go for steelhead in the Klamath and Trinity rivers, lots of trout in the Sierra Nevada mountains (I'm partial to the Truckee River watershed), and if you want to try something really different go for striped bass on a fly in some of the Central Valley Foothills reservoirs in late-August or September. I've even gone surf-fishing on fly for Skates and sharks in San Diego at the beach.
There's a lot of different fly fishing experiences in California from traditional trout to really unique stuff. Please do try some out!
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.
I've gone there several times but stopped when things got too crowded. They've also seen a significant decline in stocks I believe, especially along the inside passage.
Great news. I live in the area this story was filmed in and have been to that pro shop. I really hope they can weather a lost season and feel bad for the tough times ahead. But I’m happy and proud that our state is willing to take drastic measures to protect the resource. I hope that as we focus on balance and stewardship, populations of salmon, and abalone, to continue to rebound so that the fisheries are healthy and reopened, and we can all enjoy the bounty from this region’s ocean.
This is exactly how I was feeling reading this thread. We are only concerned about the salmon to preserve the industry and not the salmon themselves or the ecosystem.
Sometimes I hear Millennials and Gen-Z say they don't want to have kids because the world sucks and think they're doomers but they have a point.
It's unclear if abalone will ever rebound to the extent of allowing for much harvesting. There was a brief, unnatural boom in the abalone population due to humans almost wiping out their natural predator: sea otters. Now the sea otter population is recovering and they take many of the abalone.
Withering syndrome also started impacting abalone populations around the same time as the sea otters. It's still a problem.
More recently, sea star wasting syndrome has killed off the predators that kept sea urchins in check. Sunflower sea stars are now locally extinct. Those urchins eat the same kelp as abalone and have out competed them along most of the California coast.
Hey, thanks for the great comment and info, it seems mostly accurate. I started diving for abs in 2007 until they closed the fishery, and continue to spearfish Sonoma/mendo coasts to this day. One of my best friend is an abalone scientist/researcher for CA fish and game and the UC Davis Bodega Bay marine lab, so I get some info directly from “boots on the ground” so to speak. I’d like to add/clarify for any other curious readers, as abalone are a huge interest of mine.
The otters are actually not a real problem for abalone. Yes, otters are a natural predator, but the current sea otter population is not recovering to levels that would seriously impact abalone recovery. To my knowledge, the Otter population is still plateaued at around 3-4k globally (used to be hundreds of thousands) In addition, many otters are found south of San Francisco, and while their range does historically include waters well north off GG bridge (where the red abalone are) it’s not a significant amount. I live within 10 miles of the Sonoma coast and frequently visit, I’ve seen maybe 5 otters in the past 10 years, even while kayaking/diving.
The biggest challenge for abalone right now is the lack of kelp beds (food) to recover a huge population die off in 2014/15 during a red tide event. The red tide devastated populations, literally thousands of shells washing ashore. In the wake of the die off, and unfortunately in conjunction with the timing of the sunflower star wasting disease killing off the urchins main predator, this left a huge vacancy for urchins to move in and create “urchin barrens” which are just rocks and ecosystems covered in urchins, nothing else. Urchins compete with abalone for food, and bull kelp for space to grow. So now the abalone, and their food source, don’t have the physical space to re-establish.
There was a sighting of the sunflower star in Sonoma this year so there are hopes that they will make a ferocious come back. In additions, the massive population boom of urchins has led to wasting and disease within that population, which is now slightly declining (good).
Abalone take 6-7 years to reach harvesting size and I think a few years before they can reproduce, so their recovery will always take a while. But it looks like we may have turned a slight corner this year.
Although you are totally right that they may never RE-open the fishery, I still hold hope they will someday as it’s an incredibly fun hobby and I love eating abalone. But at the end of the day, I just want to see healthy/balanced ecosystems. The waters used to be a lot more interesting when there was more abs, kelp, and other critters instead of the depressing urchin barrens of the last so many years. Thanks for reading.
Honestly, good. Our commercial fishing operations have really, really depleted stocks and we need more than a couple years to let them build back up.
It's one thing if you are out line fishing and throw back the live fish who are caught on your line you don't want. But net fishing and just destroying a huge percentage of whats in your net because it's not what you wanted is absolutely outrageous.
> For years, the salmon fishing industry has been locked in a political struggle in the legislature and the courts over how much water is being allocated to Central Valley farmers. An estimated 80 percent of the state's water goes to agriculture, leaving cities and fisheries to fight over what's left.
This is the core issue. With droughts tending to increase rather than decrease, CA probably needs to reevaluate its commitment to supporting its (very large) agribusinesses.
CA needs to rethink its water law. Parts of the agribusiness industry are at least providing decent bang for the gallon. But the fact that there are fields of low value alfalfa being watered tells you the incentives are all screwed up.
Almonds use a lot of water but they are also quite valuable. Maybe we get there eventually, but to start we just need to make enough of a price signal come through that the really low value + high water usage stuff stops.
I'm not sure if it's in the best long term interest of the entire state if a few niche businesses based entirely around salmon fishing have a bad year. The calculus is those businesses will either struggle now or struggle forever when most of the fish are gone
If I set up shop as a Blackberry developer and RIM goes out of business, I have a tough year as I regroup and figure out next steps for myself.
Every business has dependencies outside of its control, and yeah, sometimes you may have to go bartend for a bit. It sucks, but business never comes with total guarantees. Planning for this stuff can help.
In my state, all the lobster fishing people have a "co op" to jointly decide how to manage the public resource of the fish in our waters so that they can come together and make the kind of conservation decisions together, and create some force to prevent anyone from defecting and catching everything in a down year. This gives them more stability year to year and a little bit of possible price fixing.
Of course not. The more accurate word is "cartel" (note: I see management of a shared resource as a perfectly legitimate justification for cartel behavior).
Since it's literally a good old boy network, probably with threats and violence or maybe they have legal backing? I don't know the legal details, I just know they set the rules and they voluntarily reduce fishing seasons to keep stock at healthy levels.
Some people prefer catfish over salmon. Tastes vary.
Catfish is a pretty good substitute for salmon in terms of macronutrients. Salmon does have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids. But catfish may be safer in terms of heavy metals and other toxins, depending on where the fish were raised.
Here in Sweden we have major issues with hydroelectric power preventing salmons from reaching their spawning areas. Some rivers have limited or event stopped fishing because there just aren't enough that survive the trip past the power stations (that assuming there is a path past them for the fish to use).
We have a similar issue here in Switzerland (a river that ends in the ocean in northern Germany) were salmon disappeared 50years ago. Too many gates, hydroelectric plants etc.
As a child I heard that story about bringing the salmons back. That it took 50 years and not yet a success is somehow very disappointing and I wonder if other countries will afford such ling-term restoration projects.
Northern California and Oregon have removed some dams because of this problems, but there are particular fish for whom it's still a big problem. As you can imagine with a fish that returns to the same streams, and a large river system, you can have some tributaries that are fully accessible, some that are slightly accessible, and some that aren't accessible at all.
Yes, it's been on the brink for a while with both hydroelectric and flood control dams and usage for agricultural irrigation of deserts reducing water flow. Many of the California Chinook salmon mentioned spawn on the Sacramento River.
belorn, this has long been a big problem in all of the US west. This article starts with a good, quick history of that problem. https://pcffa.org/dams-and-salmon/
This should not come as a surprise to anyone following all kinds of dystopic salmon gymnastics the govt has been doing to get salmon to our sushi bars.[1][2]
I find farm raised salmon to be much much higher quality than the wild caught stuff. I think it's mainly down to the farm raised fish being killed and cleaned and put on ice all within about an hour, compared to up to a week in the gillnet, then another couple days in a slimy grody hold, then another day or two to unload at port, and another day or two to clean before it even gets packaged and shipped.
At this point it seems to me like the best thing a Bezos-type could do is purchase massive plots of land and put ownership in some sort of permanent non-transferable non-development trust. Or buy land adjacent to National Parks and roll them in to the existing park. You get the idea.
everyone who is capable (there are a lot of us!) can we please just eat a little less of this stuff? I’m not asking for much, like a tiny tiny bit less, if you can. Just like one time consciously skip it and cackle “haha i’ll get you next time ocean” if it helps! this is not going well
As with all such things, the question isn't always "can we reduce consumption" but "can we improve efficiency"
I don't know the right answer, but hypothetically if 50% of fishing is waste, then reducing demand/consumption by 5% won't be as impactful as reducing waste by 20%.
And unlike the massive amount of consumers who all have to make different individual choices to achieve that, efficiencies in industries is likely to be centralized in a few big players.
I'm more concerned about your soybeans from Brazil eliminating the rain forests. No. Not until you cut back on your soybean and pea based plant based products, which are doing much more damage.
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.
Over 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises are killed as bycatch every year.
2.7 trillion fish are caught every year, or up to 5 million caught every minute.
Fish populations are in decline to near extinction.