Comment by MostlyStable | Hacker News Reader

Comment by MostlyStable | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I would avoid such black and white statements as "Commercial fishing is an extremely destructive industry".

The term "commercial fishing" encompasses a multitude of different places, methods, regulatory regimes, monitoring practices, and more, and they range from _extremely_ well managed and sustainable to utterly disastrous.

Bluefin Tuna happens to be one of the worst, because it's one of the very few where the species is so valuable that as it gets rarer, the price just climbs and continues to justify ever smaller catches. This is pretty bad for Bluefin Tuna, and could result in it being the first every commercially fished marine fish species to go extinct (yes; that's correct: no marine fish species has _ever_ gone extinct from human fishing).

I'm an ecologist who got his degree in fisheries ecology. I'm very much in favor of better, more cohesive fisheries management. But I don't believe we will make any progress by tarring entire industries. All you do is create enemies out of allies.

I understand that commercial fishing, like everything else, is complex and diverse with both good and bad actors.

However, if it were balanced, fish populations wouldn't be in such a dire state. This suggests to an outsider that the majority of the industry is harmful, and as such, I have no sympathy for it at all.

Considering the fact that fishing is decimating fish populations globally (even sharks are facing extinction due to overfishing, bycatch, and plastic pollution) and causing havoc on sea floors with trawling for example, I don't feel sorry for having such a black and white viewpoint.

> But I don't believe we will make any progress by tarring entire industries

Considering that meat consumption is not essential for our sustenance or health, I believe that the only way to prevent further environmental damage and restore biodiversity is to ban all forms of animal farming, marine aquaculture, and fishing.

We need to explore sustainable ways to harness the sea for our nourishment, sure, but I don't believe it has to involve fishing. I'm excited about the prospect of more affordable omega-3 from algae and seaweeds. I bet you'd prefer to see vibrant seaweed farms teeming with life rather than ecosystems devastated by overfishing or polluted by aquafarms.

That's my point though, fish populations are _not_ universally in such dire straights. Yes, bottom trawling does cause extensive habitat damage, but bottom trawling is completely banned in lots of places.

Yes, sharks are in _extreme_ decline in lots of places and face lots of overfishing, but I'm not actually sure that many species (if any) are at risk of _extinction_. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't be against shark fishing, it's ecologically disastrous, but be wary of claims of extinction).

It's fine if you don't want to eat meat. But lots of people do. I've worked with lots of commercial fisherman. They can be (and in many places already are) powerful allies for sane, sustainable fisheries regulation. When you say things like "commercial fishing is universally bad", you communicate that you don't care if they are willing to limit fishing pressure and sustain populations, that you are going to try and ban them anways. At that point, why shouldn't they just fish as much as they can?

I'm 100% onboard with algal aquaculture. I think it has a lot of promise. But that is completely orthogonal to conventional commercial fishing. The two are not competitors and in fact can be complements to each other.

The options are not "either seaweed farms or devastated ecosystems". It's exactly this kind of false dichotomy thinking that is counter productive.

> I'm not actually sure that many species (if any) are at risk of _extinction_

Many sharks closer to extinction than feared: Red List

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-sharks-closer-extinction-red.h...

Overfishing puts more than one-third of all sharks, rays, and chimaeras at risk of extinction

https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/overfishing-puts-more-...

Overfishing is Driving Eels to Extinction

https://vegnews.com/2022/9/forsea-foods-cell-technology-eels

Around a third of freshwater fish species are threatened with extinction, and 80 species have already been declared Extinct. Since 1970, mega-fish populations have crashed by 94% on average, while migratory fish populations have fallen by 76%.

https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/freshwater_practice...

Endangered North Atlantic right whales are in 'crisis'; species approaching extinction

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/19/north-a...

Eating mackerel no longer sustainable, Good Fish Guide advises

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/mackerel...

> It's fine if you don't want to eat meat. But lots of people do.

Not necessary, destructive, unsustainable.

> why shouldn't they just fish as much as they can

And they don't? Really? They'd leave money in the ocean?

> either seaweed farms or devastated ecosystems

It sure looks like it.

This is a wall of text and links, most of which have nothing to do with my claims, or our discussion. I never said anything about whales or freshwater fish species. And I never claimed that _no_ fish populations are unsustainably fished, so finding a single one that is at risk is completely beside the point.

The only links that are sort of relevant are talking about "risk" of extinction, and frankly, I think that's kind of meaningless. Technically, every species on earth, including humans is at some level of "risk of extinction" from one thing or another. Considering how rare marine fish species extinctions are (especially caused by humans), I personally think we should be careful using that phrase. As someone who as actually done fishery population and health assesments, I can tell you that the phrase isn't much more than PR. It doesn't have any rigorous scientific meaning.

But even if that wasn't the case, the fact that some species in some places are at severe risk _still_ doesn't mean that commercial fishing everywhere is unsustainable. That's my entire point. That commercial fishing is extremely heterogenous. And it's _very_ easy to avoid bad fisheries and stick to good ones. Especially if you live in the US where _most_ fisheries are relatively sustainable managed (even more so if you stick to West Coast fisheries, which have some the best, most comprehensive and rigorous management policies on the planet).

You then moved on to freshwater fishes and whales, things I never mentioned. My guess is because those things are _actually_ at risk of extinction and so your case is much stronger. Unfortunately, they also have nothing to do with marine commercial fishing.

If you think that eating meat is immoral and you want people to stop for that reason, that's fine. But say that. Don't misrepresent the sustainability of commercial fishing.

> I never claimed that _no_ fish populations are unsustainably fished

Warning, another wall of text ahead:

Virtually empty oceans by 2048 (https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts#bgMedia_comp-kmm1uv52)

> that commercial fishing everywhere is unsustainable. That's my entire point.

I never said that ALL fisheries are unsustainable. Your might be the one that isn't. One of many.

> freshwater fishes and whales ... they also have nothing to do with marine commercial fishing

Over 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises are killed as bycatch every year (seaspiracy.org/facts)

> If you think that eating meat is immoral ... But say that

I believe it's immoral to overlook the fact that our population has now reached 8 billion and to insist on consuming the same, or greater, amounts of meat in the face of environmental degradation and the very real threat of massive extinctions happening soon, especially when it isn't necessary. We're currently experiencing a massive, sixth extinction event, affecting 75% of all species, unless I'm mistaken. This process would typically take around 2.8 million years, but we're on track to accomplish it in about 100 years. And commercial fishing is imho a big part of the problem.

> Don't misrepresent the sustainability of commercial fishing.

"2.7 trillion fish are caught every year, 5 million every minute, studies estimate that up to 40% of all marine life caught is thrown overboard as bycatch, etc. etc."

"Six out of seven species of sea turtles (i know, not fish) are either threatened or facing extinction. In the USA, 250,000 sea turtles are captured, injured or killed every year by fishing, estimated 500,000 worldwide" (see seaspiracy for sources)

Your fishery practicies might be sustainable. Maybe. Time will tell. Maybe it won't matter at all.

You seem to have taken the Seaspiracy video at face value and just accepting everything they say. I'm a working marine ecologist, and I can tell you that _at best_ they are twisting tihngs to the worst possible interpretation. Documentaries are not fair and balanced descriptions of reality. ALmost ever. You should take what they say with massive heaps of salt.

As for "I never said ALL fisheries were unsustainable".

Yes you did. When you refused to acknowledge nuance and that some of them were fine, and to not tar the entire industry with a broad brush, that was you saying that they are all bad. You can't have it both ways. You are trying to now admit nuance, when admitting nuance is all I wanted from you from the beginning. If you are willing to admit they aren't all bad and some are sustainable, then don't call the entire industry destructive. None of your links is going to get around that one fact, and none of your links are refuting it.

> As for "I never said ALL fisheries were unsustainable". Yes you did.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36880043 (3 responses back)

"I understand that commercial fishing, like everything else, is complex and diverse with both good and bad actors."

See? GOOD and bad actors.

> then don't call the entire industry destructive

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36880043

"However, if it were balanced, fish populations wouldn't be in such a dire state. This suggests to an outsider that the majority of the industry is harmful, and as such, I have no sympathy for it at all."

See? The majority is harmful ... so some that are not.

> None of your links is going to get around that one fact, and none of your links are refuting it.

You don't agree with me ... then maybe you should present some arguments. If your industry is so good (in its entirety), so beneficial and protective, then there must be a lot of studies documenting its positive impacts on biodiversity and the conservation of our oceans.

> I'm a working marine ecologist

You've said that already. In a fishery. Are you happy with the state of our oceans? Do you feel that everything is fine? No problems on the horizon?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Powerful quote. I resisted sharing it before, but now it seems almost necessary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com