Fishing can be done sustainably, and is in some fisheries.
And by the fact that the ocean is so large, it industrial fishing is notoriously impossible to regulate - meaning that even if you "fish sustainably", it doesn't really matter - a large part of the market remains and will remain unregulated, by nature.
I used to believe it until I began reading salmon reports and various population studies for species like rockfish and lingcod, key commercial species.
Our definition of sustainable is essentially “not completely shitting the bed”.
We’re supposed to be a model of sustainability. I don’t have much faith.
We’re also talking about sustaining populations that have already been decimated in the last 150 years. Let’s not pretend the numbers we’re trying to hit resemble anything like healthy.
It’s an incredible disservice to ourselves and future generations to pretend industry standards for sustainability are anything more than an excuse to squeeze more juice out of a dried up fruit.
Plenty of fisheries are indeed quite local, and managed responsibly. Likewise some aren't.
I love eating fish but this is a fact we all have to face.
Availability is an issue in poorer locales, but unless you’re a fisherman yourself fish is also quite expensive.
The feed ratio for farmed salmon isn't 20, it's 1.2.
12 pounds of feed for 10 pounds of salmon.
The ratio is about 6 for beef, 4 for pork, 1.6 for poultry.
People who don't know things or make up statistics to support their environmental doom narrative do harm to the causes they are trying to help. Anyone skeptical of you can easily find your numbers are false, and very very false at that. Why would anybody believe any of the rest of what you have to say when clearly it's demonstrable that you don't know what you're talking about on an easily countered point.