It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Feds Close Most of Northeast to Cod Fishing

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 10:40 AM
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

I could see Japan and China 12 miles off the Pacific coast....but the Atlantic?
Long way to go for relatively few fish ...when the Pacific catch would be greater.

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 11:25 AM
a reply to: WhiteAlice

We were 6.9 billion a couple years ago. We're around 7.3 billion (rounded) now with projections of being at around 11 billion by 2050. Where is your decline in human population?

Have you heard of cancer? What about all the poisons we have floating around in our environment, our water, air, food, poisons which cause tens of millions of pre-mature deaths? Definitely worth mentioning when it comes to the FED spending our money and resources. Obviously, the population has increased over time, but one can easily see how those numbers are going to begin to decline very shortly if we don't stop what we're doing to the planet. Who gives a crap about cod, if there's not going to be anybody around to fish it and eat it? With the rate we currently are poisoning ourselves to death, there is INDEED a threat to the human population. An imminent one. The FED should be spending our resources and our tax money on relative and immediate issues and let the local governments handle this COD issue, let the market handle it.

Deny fallacies, irrational statements, and well, ignorance.

Obviously this is an opinion of mine, and a thought, a reaction I wanted to toss into the collective. You're not a regulator here, this is an open forum and discussion. Nobody is forced to agree with my responses. But I think I communicated EXACTLY what I wanted to communicate here. Which was my absolute distrust in the FEDERAL Government in ALL that it does. However rational or irrational the response may seem to you.

edit on 16-11-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 02:08 PM
a reply to: Visitor2012

My grandmother died of salivary cancer. My grandfather fought off multiple cancers in his lifetime. Now before you go thinking that this is evidence of general air or water pollution, I'm also going to point out that my grandfather was an atomic veteran and so the radiation exposures probably are the actual source of those cancers. In fact, the federal government agreed on that long ago and actually repaid my family for the injuries done. And that's not easy to do.

People die. That is true. However, not everyone dies of cancer rather like how my other grandmother survived her own cancer (the one that died chose to die). Our rates of births still surpass our rates of death and our average life expectancy, contrary to what you're alleging, is actually increasing.

Insert neat little graph of average life expectancy over time:
Neato life expectancy graph over time

See? It's increasing. Now, of course, having clean water and clean air are tremendously important to me. How could they not be as I did actually attend university to become an ecologist? I'd be the weirdest ecologist on the planet if I didn't think those things were important. However, keep the arguments in reality and with those things that are actually substantiated by evidence. We're not dying out. We're still flourishing and if there is a decline anywhere, it's not premature deaths but instead in a growing general lack of desire to propagate. More and more young people are choosing to not have children or have only 1--neither of which is a replacement rate for people.

In terms of sustainability though, a decline of population would actually not be a bad thing for either planet, people or cod. Not all of our resources are eternal and are instead limited as in taking so long to develop that they are non-replaceable. Additionally, you lessen the number of people and well, you decrease the need and/or propensity for air and water pollution. That's a multiple win again for planet, people and well, those pesky cod. Of course, before you suggest it, I'm not suggesting that genocide would be a good thing or is what we need. I think people making smart choices about the fact that we basically live, breathe, poop, and breed in what is technically a gigantic bubble is, well, good.

edit on 16/11/14 by WhiteAlice because: fixed link

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:10 AM

originally posted by: graceunderpressure
Here's a thought that might make the cod's absence more palatable. Ever since our local fishmonger told us about the number of worms he finds in the fresh cod, I just haven't been able to stomach it. I miss the fish & chips but the thought of all the creepy crawlies is just too much. Apparently, the worms are "harmless." Still...

I can tell you for a fact that your source is correct.

I started fishing off the coast of Massachusetts when I was 6 years old and continued up until I left there at 52. I remember that last time My nephew and I went fishing, he caught about 5 cod. We were cleaning them on the tailgate of my station wagon and while slicing the meat, hundreds of worms started wriggling out of the top. I would guess that they were about a half inch long.

We threw that one into the ocean, and started on the next one. It too was infested. We tossed it, and went on to the next. Well, let's just say we went home empty-handed.

As far as the dwindling fish population, I can tell you that I've known for over 20 years that the fish and shellfish population has been reduced drastically. The all-day fishing cruises that I used to go out on are now strictly gambling cruises today.

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 03:22 PM
a reply to: Sparkymedic

Cod has natural parasites. There is not one fillet that does not get inspected and de-wormed in any fish market in the NorthEast. They never talk about it, but it is an absolute fact. They do it under ultra-violet light, and get most of them.

We are way beyond being able to sustain Cod populations. I have lived in the NorthEast all of my life, and there is absolutely no comparison to the fish populations 30 years ago. Not only Cod, but Haddock, Flounder, Hake and Halibut... all down at least 90% of their numbers back then, It is sad, and needs correcting. The fisheries have been counting on their lobbyists to keep the catch limits sustainable for them, and not the fish. This is where it starts and ends. There has to be a moratorium on ground fishing and an absolute ban on drag fishing. It will take 20 to 30 years to get them back if we just stop fishing. Facts.

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 04:25 PM
Icelandic cod has been marketed as the best cod available so as long as global water warming doesnt effect cod supply should still be fish and chips in some markets

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 06:05 PM
Hmm...i eat sushi and i have yet to get a nasty bug or worm in me
a reply to: signalfire

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 06:26 PM
a reply to: Kali74

Your analysis seems to be correct, IMO

When you are told to quit your livliehood for the common good, IT AIN'T FAIR!, is a natural reaction.

When you killed the goose, take your beating and STFU.

Protecting the commons is one of the FEW fully justifiable actions that the Federal Government makes. When all of the facts, not self-approved opinions, support the protective actions, make it so.

Too many think that their privileged position is a RIGHT. Too many think that their exceptionalism is beyond reproach. It's enough to cause a retch reaction. What they should ask for is assistance to weather this downturn in fortunes. Perhaps even join forces with the regulators to make sure that the ban is complete till the stocks replenish. In turn the enforcement agencies should consider that employment as an important part of the absolute control to re-hab the sea's environment.

Its that or further failure of applying intelligence to OUR problems.

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 07:00 PM
a reply to: charlyv

Bottom drag fishing is so destructive, I can't believe it is still so widespread. Not only does it destroy the bottom, most of what they net is by-catch and trashed, something like 90%. It is not a sustainable way for us to keep feeding our selves that way.

It really is a thin line between what is fair to the fishermen and what needs to be done to protect the fish stocks. I do believe there are much smarter ways to fish, however in some locations the damage is so bad that it will take many generations to reach sustainable levels only if we give it a chance.

Only about 50 years ago, the world looked at the ocean as an endless supply of fish. Now most of us realize that is not so.

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 09:44 PM
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

A moratorium on commercial cod fishing was called in 1997.

How is this different than what you have states here?

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 09:57 PM
a reply to: MRuss

Well, so far I have found an ban in 1992, in Canadaian wateres

and they have been trying to "fix" this "problem" for decades

But so far, I haven't found the specifics of a 1997 Maine area moratorium.

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:12 PM
Cape Cod was named by Bartholomew Gosnold, an English explorer who visited its shores in 1602 and took aboard a “great store of codfish.” (From )/

Today, we could rename it " Cape Sand Shark" , and it would have the same intended relationship to what you would catch most if you fished there.


posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 12:39 PM
a reply to: graceunderpressure

And, if there's anything gross in the Dungeness Crabs, please don't tell me about it.

Probably not, but do you own a geiger counter yet? If your going to eat Pacific seafood, a little
peace of mind might be in order. Of course China is dumping all kinds of pollution into the Pacific
like there was no tomorrow.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in