it's not the point of the article, but i find it fascinating that this industry has managed to figure out how to capture >400k wild animals per year and return ~90% of them alive to the ocean after harvesting their blood with a giant needle.
there must be an interesting story here about how they figured out that they needed to do this with a sustainable take rate (unlike most commercial fishing industries).
commercial fishing industries have a vested interest in achieving the maximum sustainable yield.
furthermore, legislation like quota systems are generally supported because it gives companies a golden ticket to harvest while denying newcomers from entering the space.
yet in practice overfishing occurs in species after species; individual interests do not always align with the macro interests.
that's why i think there's an interesting story lurking here. there were probably a small number of technocratic players involved (maybe even one) who were able to specify how the chain should work.
Monitoring and enforcement have been tough (infeasible). I’ve been away from conservation for a while now, but I’d hope it’s gotten better with satelites, drones.
Unfortunately overfishing is super common. Tragedy of the commons and all that.
Quota systems and overfishing aren't mutually exclusive either. There's plenty of fisheries quotas that are still higher than a sustainable quota should be.
That sounds logical, but in my experience as a coastal New Englander, boat owner and former Seafood.com employee, (albeit 20 years ago), commercial fishing _communities_ (possibly critically distinct from the "industries" you noted) skew heavily towards anti-fisheries management. Think "NMFS destroys families" bumper stickers.
Ha. My side was saying NMFS hadn’t met a salmon run they couldn’t manage into extinction. I mostly gave up in 2000. Since then, from the popular press, it seems the stakeholders had reduced the friction. Gods, that’d be nice. I’d love to take my (future) grandkids salmon fishing, like my grandpa did us.
There was an older article in the Atlantic that showed we aren't actually sure if the horseshoe crabs are unharmed by being taken out of the water and draining a lot of their blood. The declining numbers says we might be harming them or it might be some other factor.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/the-b...
I just literally don't understand catch and release. Your entertainment is to embed a hook in a fish so you can then remove it from the water, remove the hook, and throw it back in the water?
Presumably it's enjoyable to sit in nature, far from distractions, with a variable reward that something happens every hour or so, and occasionally the thing that happens warrants a photo and something you can tell your friends about? A bit like watching cricket, actually.
I was careful to not use words related to pain, because whenever you mention that people are quick to claim that fish don't feel pain. Probably because so many people catch & release.
I still have yet to see a study on the topic, so maybe they're right. But I doubt it to be honest.
Yeah, I've heard those arguments before and I find them pretty specious. We humans are always super quick to claim that it's ok to do <thing that inflicts pain> on <thing that we want to do it to> because <some reason that thing doesn't actually feel pain anyway>. It's been applied to fish, human infants, black people, and all manner of other creatures that someone wants to inflict something nasty upon.
I don't think it's about the fish in particular, but that we're training ourselves--practicing even--to be uncompassionate to all things, human or not. We're supposed to be the better species here.
Never done it but I've always assumed fishing is just about sitting and doing not much in a pleasant place, a form of meditation. Sucks for the fish though.
You set aside your responsibilities, shift into a different mental pattern, and do that for a few hours.
There are species of trout and salmon that are savvy at distinguishing between a piece of food and a hook disguised as one. Catching one can be a game over several hours. Once you have caught a fish, you put it back for your mates later on.
The reason for putting the fish back is that - often - more work goes into stocking the fisheries than than into fishing them. It is a bit like owning a boat. Courses of fish populations are repopulated through dedicated hatcheries, run by the fishing groups.
Also, there is a pokemon dynamic to creating your library of lures.
"Horseshoe-crab blood is exquisitely sensitive to toxins from bacteria. It is used to test for contamination during the manufacture of anything that might go inside the human body"
This seems like an impossibly random discovery. Did scientists test the blood of various animals until they finally found an optimum with horseshoe crabs ?
Please read the article entirely before rushing to comment...
”Bang, a pathologist, was interested in the creature’s primitive immune system. He settled on a protocol of injecting bacteria from seawater directly into horseshoe crabs, which cause their blood to clump into “stringy masses.”
Bang suspected this clotting had a purpose. It immobilized the bacteria, sealing off the rest of the horseshoe crab’s body from an invading pathogen. Intriguingly, their blood turned to gel even if he boiled the bacteria injection for five or 10 minutes first. This should have killed the bacteria and sterilized the injected solution. Bang realized the blood was sensitive not just to live bacteria but to bacterial toxins that persist even after sterilization.”
Or you can just post your comment without reading the long article and some gloomy scold will do the hard work for you :)
This reminds me of how the best way to get the correct answer to a question on a technical forum isn't to ask, but to post the wrong answer. Someone will be along shortly to correct you.
“My walk once took me past a beggar whose sign read, You do not DARE throw coins at ME! His body was purple with bruises but his bowl was always full.”
Perfect.
I could have sworn that this principle was an internet adage like Godwin's law or Poe's law, but I couldn't find one.
33 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 55.2 ms ] threadthere must be an interesting story here about how they figured out that they needed to do this with a sustainable take rate (unlike most commercial fishing industries).
furthermore, legislation like quota systems are generally supported because it gives companies a golden ticket to harvest while denying newcomers from entering the space.
that's why i think there's an interesting story lurking here. there were probably a small number of technocratic players involved (maybe even one) who were able to specify how the chain should work.
Quota systems and overfishing aren't mutually exclusive either. There's plenty of fisheries quotas that are still higher than a sustainable quota should be.
Why?
Also, anything can seem absurd if you are extremely reductionist and present it in an uncharitable fashion.
(I've never fished before, just some remarks)
> I just literally don't understand [how] catch and release [is entertaining]
Is that better? I know the meaning and used the word appropriately. I just left out a few other words because I thought my intent would be clear.
But you know, it's trendy to complain about "literally" now so have at it.
Presumably it's enjoyable to sit in nature, far from distractions, with a variable reward that something happens every hour or so, and occasionally the thing that happens warrants a photo and something you can tell your friends about? A bit like watching cricket, actually.
I still have yet to see a study on the topic, so maybe they're right. But I doubt it to be honest.
I don't think it's about the fish in particular, but that we're training ourselves--practicing even--to be uncompassionate to all things, human or not. We're supposed to be the better species here.
There are species of trout and salmon that are savvy at distinguishing between a piece of food and a hook disguised as one. Catching one can be a game over several hours. Once you have caught a fish, you put it back for your mates later on.
The reason for putting the fish back is that - often - more work goes into stocking the fisheries than than into fishing them. It is a bit like owning a boat. Courses of fish populations are repopulated through dedicated hatcheries, run by the fishing groups.
Also, there is a pokemon dynamic to creating your library of lures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_crab
The roe is edible too, but has to be prepared very carefully as it can contain the same poison (tetratodoxin) as blowfish/fugu:
https://praneesthaikitchen.com/2013/01/28/horseshoe-crab-egg...
This seems like an impossibly random discovery. Did scientists test the blood of various animals until they finally found an optimum with horseshoe crabs ?
”Bang, a pathologist, was interested in the creature’s primitive immune system. He settled on a protocol of injecting bacteria from seawater directly into horseshoe crabs, which cause their blood to clump into “stringy masses.”
Bang suspected this clotting had a purpose. It immobilized the bacteria, sealing off the rest of the horseshoe crab’s body from an invading pathogen. Intriguingly, their blood turned to gel even if he boiled the bacteria injection for five or 10 minutes first. This should have killed the bacteria and sterilized the injected solution. Bang realized the blood was sensitive not just to live bacteria but to bacterial toxins that persist even after sterilization.”
This reminds me of how the best way to get the correct answer to a question on a technical forum isn't to ask, but to post the wrong answer. Someone will be along shortly to correct you.
https://xkcd.com/386/
Perfect.
I could have sworn that this principle was an internet adage like Godwin's law or Poe's law, but I couldn't find one.