Bush Seeks Ban on Destructive Fishing

[jpak]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2006/oct/03/100306782.html

President Bush called for a halt to destructive fishing on the high seas Tuesday and said the United States will work to eliminate or better regulate practices such as bottom trawling that devastate fish populations and the ocean floor.

Bush directed the State and Commerce departments to promote "sustainable" fisheries and to oppose any fishing practices that destroy the long-term natural productivity of fish stocks or habitats such as seamounts, corals and sponge fields for short-term gain.

He said the U.S. would work with other nations and international groups to change fishing practices and create international fishery regulatory groups if needed.

The memo was issued a day before United Nations negotiations open in New York on an effort to ban bottom fishing anywhere it's unregulated. While Brazil, Chile, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa and, now, the U.S. have expressed support for regulating bottom trawling on the high seas, Spain, Russia and Iceland are among those that oppose it.

<more>

[hatrack]

1. More Greenwash Bullshit comin' right up!

Yeah, his deep committment to ocean & fishery health goes WAY back . . . .

:puke:

[Botany]

2. One of many hates for bush is because he ruled in favor of .....

.... his rich buddies in development and agribusiness and forced the
some western states to give them the water and that in turn doomed
the wild run Pacfic salmon in Washington, California, and Oregon.

He really cares about fishery mangament.

[Ian David]

3. More reliance on anti-biotic intensive farm-raised fish...

another gift to the pharmaceutical industry.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

4. Um...guys? Hello! *waves* Bottom trawling is bad.

It is destructive. It wipes out a whole lot of sealife to collect a few species. Other countries realize it's also a bad thing, can we please admit that once in awhile Bush may be doing something that's not 100% evil?

I mean, it's rare, but a soul might peak out once in awhile. I, for one, support Bush on this one. I feel dirty saying it, and he might fuck the whole thing up, but this sounds like a good thing. And he's teamed up with other countries on this, they should balance out whatever stupidity he may bring into it.

[mopinko]

5. not about evil

he is rewarding someone, or punishing someone. it has nothing to do with what is right. that just makes it easier to do.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

6. So you prefer we continue to rape the bottom of the ocean?

Seriously, it's something that NEEDS to be regulated. I see no problem with countries getting together and restricting the destruction of our marine life. This shouldn't even be a Bush issue, this is an environmental issue. It's one of the few things I've seen from him, that I think we should all get behind.

[mopinko]

12. we can get behind this without giving credit to bush

and i suspect that if you read the fine print, he has exempted his friends and punished his enemies in a way that completely disregards the environment. take a pill.

[hatrack]

7. What, exactly WHAT, is this administration going to do?

Let's see, I'd be willing to bet on some studies, followed by some intensive consultations with industry stakeholders, and then maybe, sometime lin late 2008 or early 2009 (so that they won't actually have to do anything), they'll boldly lead the charge for an exciting new voluntary program whereby commercial fishing fleets will be politely asked to reconsider their suicidal habit of bottom trawling.

Of course, by then, they'll be busy harvesting jellyfish, since they're likely to be the only thriving species left.

It's not that we don't know that bottom trawling is bad. It's just that anytime this ship of fools calls for "stewardship" the needle on my bullshit meter slams right and cracks the glass.

And what, exactly, are they going to do to stop bottom trawling? WHAT?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

8. Well, it looks like it's going to be an international coalition.

I'm sure a coalition of countries run by the U.N. can figure out some way to reasonably regulate it. They're also calling for a ban in unregulated waters, which would reduce the bottom trawling overall anyway.

I can't believe you're honestly saying that we should just leave the industry unregulated, because Bush is historically fairly useless on the environment. I don't know exactly what the regulations should be, but that's probably why I'm not leading the group in the U.N.

Some regulation and restriction is better than none. The oceans are in major crisis. I think we should put any effort necessary into trying to thwart the progression of it. Whether your imaginary bullshit meter's glass gets cracked or not, this is something that we should give a chance.

God, I can't believe this conversation is even taking place on DU. It's pretty sad that it is.

[jpak]

9. While I think there are grounds for more than healthy skepticism here

I think that ChimpCo deserves a **temporary** pass on this.

Current fisheries practices have got to change...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

10. Exactly. nt

[hatrack]

11. Do you think that I don't know what's going on environmentally?

Do you honestly believe that I am unaware of how quickly events are unfolding?

Do you honestly believe that I don't know what's at stake here?

I've been posting in EE for more than five years now - thousands and thousands of news and scientific articles - and 9/10 of my posts sink like rocks. I guess the acidification of the planet's oceans, the collapse of Arctic sea ice, explosive growth in GHG outputs and increasingly overwhelming evidence that, thanks to natural positive feedback loops in places like Siberia and Arctic Canada, climate is pretty much out of our hands don't quite tingle the political funny bones of DU readers like a horny House pedophile, but maybe that's just how it goes.

More to your point, the one thing I have NOT seen in five years and beyond, is the inclination of this administration to do anything -ANYTHING - that could potentially substantially damage the financial interests of anyone imaginable who might be tapped as a GOP donor in the next election cycle. There have been three, and only three specific actions I can recall this administration taking which have had a beneficial environmental effect - 1). administratively raising CAFE standards for light trucks (by 1.5 MPG); 2). moving to cut off-road diesel emissions through lower-sulfur fuel and 3). declaring the Hawaiian Islands National Monument. Of course, as far as Item #3 is concerned, since all those islands are likely going to be biologically dead within 20 or 30 years, it pretty much defines "Pyrrhic victory", but it might be nice for the few thousand who can visit pre-collapse.

So, (for example) when I post an article (as I did just yesterday) that sea lice from farmed salmon are killing 95% of wild salmon juveniles in waters of British Columbia, I think I am more than justified in assuming that this is something about which Bush et. al will do absolutely NOTHING. Honestly, do you believe that the Bush administration will move against commercial salmon farms within the United States, where the same effects are well-documented? Do you think they will act to restrict the growth of this industry in any way at all for long-term species and ecosystem health? Maybe I'm being just a bit too cynical, but I rather doubt it. And if they are unlikely to move against commercially farmed salmon, what then are the odds of them pushing vigorously to create and enforce global fishing restrictions and regulations?

Also, please show me where in my earlier statement I stated that fisheries should remain unregulated. I think fisheries need to be not only regulated, but severealy restricted and probably eliminated from large regions of the world's oceans. But again, is an administration congenitally and ideologically opposed to regulation even as a theoretical function of government going to move for any such thing? Unlikely.

So, by all means, if you want to root for an administration that has done next to nothing in the realm of fisheries and oceans for going on six years to make an impact on biosphere destruction, knock yourself out. I'm sure we'll all eagerly await the next study and onging stakeholder dialogue over the next year or two as another 95% of juvenile salmon runs are wiped out, and as corals bleach and estuaries putrefy and red tides spread.