• save boissiere house
  • Top Posts

  • The World is Talking, Are You Listening?
  • a

  • Festival of the Trees
  • Scoutle

    Connect with me at Scoutle.com
  • Advertisements

If first you don’t succeed, keep smearing (there’re a lot of stupid people out there)

As mentioned in the previous post, Al Gore’s dinner of Chilean Sea Bass (from a certified sustainable fishery) prompted a smear campaign. The critics either couldn’t be bothered to fact check their story, or chose to ignore the facts for maximum effect. Regardless, it has since been made very apparent that the fish was from a sustainably managed population. After all, if someone bothers to go to the trouble of certifying their fishery, the correct thing to do is to encourage them. If environmentalists boycotted things like this, there would be no incentive to manage the population.

Except for the apologies for the smear (yeah, I’d hold my breath waiting for them), that should have been the end of the matter. But some people haven’t quite figured out what the saying “when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging” means.

My last post attracted the attention of a blogger out to demonstrate “liberal hypocrisy”. While I’m sure there are always valid criticisms to be made, this guy demonstrates little but the extent of his cluelessness. Jason “Jinx” McHue, long-term resident of Pharyngula’s “Dungeon” writes:

Sustainable stocks? Well, whoop-dee-doo. Does that mean I can go out and capture a few endangered – but tasty! – species, produce a sustainable stock of them and eat them? I seriously doubt it.

While I seriously doubt his ability to go out and establish a farmed population, the underlying idea (if done properly, obviously) is sound. Get the permits, establish a farmed population, and no one is going to tell you you can’t harvest [whatever the species] for your own consumption. It isn’t like this is something revolutionary. Of course, in the case of the Chilean sea bass, we aren’t talking about an endangered species – we are talking about an endangered fishery. But I get the impression that this guy doesn’t really let facts get in his way.

The environmentalist nuts would be quick to condemn me for it even if I made sure to replace and even add to the number of animals I removed from the wild.

Perhaps the “nuts” might “condemn” him – but the vast majority of environmentalists would see nothing amiss with a properly run captive breeding project.

Of course, there is also the matter that the enviros aren’t talking about: “sustainable stock” means “captive.”

Um, no Jason, it doesn’t. “Sustainable” fisheries are managed to sustain production over the long term – you know, simple things like making sure that harvest doesn’t exceed ingrowth + natural mortality. But “foot-in-mouth” disease is par for the course for right wing bloggers. Facts? Nah, they don’t waste time with things like that.

I’m betting these fish don’t have much room to roam. Remember how up in arms the liberals were about the spotted owl back in the 1980s? They claimed that the owls needed thousands – even tens of thousands – of acres to live. Undoubtedly, keeping these fish captive for the sole purpose of yanking them out of the water, cleaning them while they are still alive and serving them up on a plate is cruel, isn’t it? I mean, you know how these people are when it comes to slaughtering chickens and cows.

Wow – what sort of skewed perception of the world does this guy have? (Oh, yeah, stupid question…it’s pretty obvious). City boy who’s never seen a real fish in the wild or understands how farming (fish or animal) works, presumably. I wonder who he thinks has been “farming” these fish for the 40 years it takes them to mature.

Anyway, why aren’t these people rallying to have the “sustainable stocks” used to repopulate the wild population? Maybe then the wild population wouldn’t be endangered anymore and this would no longer be an issue.

Why not? Well…because these are wild stocks. If you manage them properly they should be able to sustain themselves (it’s right there in the word “sustainable”). The sad thing about blogging is that it allows people like this guy to run their mouths without having a clue. “Free speech”, I suppose. You’re free to broadcast your total lack of a clue. The sad thing is, I tried to explain some of this to the boy. I see my comment still hasn’t appeared on his blog. I suppose some people are happier broadcasting nonsense.


One Response

  1. […] Yet another blog for me to not update « Can organic agriculture feed the world? If first you don’t succeed, keep smearing (there’re a lot of stupid people out ther… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: