You’ve got it backwards there, with tilapia and catfish you can turn crap into fish maybe unappetizing to some people however very sustainable.
Simply stating that a “billion pounds” of fish are being harvested is no indication in and of itself that anything bad will happen to an ecosystem. If that represents 1% of the available fish in the ecosystem, it’s a drop in a bucket. The ecosystem will adjust to cover the difference. Remember, we harvested cod for centuries at ever increasing numbers, and it wasn’t until very recently, comparatively, that we managed to overwhelm the ecosystem’s ability to compensate.
Further, it’s possible that we had already managed to screw the ecosystem in the Bering Sea up completely, by removing the natural predators of haddock, which are probably various large mammals long since seriously impacted by our presence and habits in Alaska and Siberia. In which case, our harvest of the fish may be a way of bringing the ecosystem back into “balance.” cf: deer populations in America.
Now, mind you, I tend to believe that, if they are bringing balance back to the system, they are more likely to be the Anakin Skywalker of this story, but you have to do more than just quote a number that seems very large to you to back up your belief of impact.
MOD NOTE: There were two threads on the same topic, which I have merged so as not to have two simultaneous threads on etc.
Sorry for any confusion this causes in the thread to date, but it will certainly help for future.
It is possible, though it requires some work, to eat sweetwater farm fish like trout, saltwater farm fish like salmon and other salt water fam creatures like shrimps, without damaging the enviroment, by buying “certified organic”. This means that the feeding and raising was done according to the organic guidelines, without pesticides, antibiotica, sustanaible and long-term. (Shrimps are being raised cheaply in Asian countries in a devastating way - when the farms move on after 5 years, they leave oversalted bays with destroyed mangroves and no other sea life behind).
I only have the names of approved organic fish farms in Germany, not for the US, though. You would have to look at the certified organic labels in the US and see which offer fish.
Wild caught fish should always bear the MSC label (Marine Steward ship council), that is supported by the WWF, and watches the methods of fishing, and the amount of fish species left.
I ate at a buffet Chinese restaurant today and was, overall, very satisfied.
However, they had a couple of dishes labeled as “crab meat” that were obviously
some form of sea-based playdough.
I wonder how they get away with that? If I sold glass and Zirconia as diamonds, obviously law enforcement would be (rightfully) knocking on my door.
You are a victim of “surimi,” a foodstuff of fish meat pulverized and reconstituted as fake seafood. Our Japanese pals have been doing it for over a thousand tears. The only time I found it close to successful was as slices of “scallop” in scallop shells I suspect had been licked by sea otters.
The actual paper
Fisheries biologist who studies in Alaska here. A couple comments…
-
Alaska salmon are indeed well-managed (MSC certified and that). But we’re not out of the woods yet! A recent study found that fresh flied-in salmon were one of the most carbon-hungry foods out there (compared to say farmed frozen). Sigh, win on one side, lose on another…
-
Disturbing ecosystems (on the level of pollock removals on the Bering Sea) certainly changes ecosystems. It’s possible to change ecosystems without it necessarily being “bad” outright. It’s very similar to changing wild forest land to (healthy and sustainable) agricultural land. Sheer numbers of removals don’t tell the whole story, the question is, what does society want its ecosystems to look like? As pointed out above, since the removal of whales and all sorts of other top predators has been effectively completed for 100+ years, “natural” is not necessarily meaningful as an option. In many of the parts of the northeast where cod collapsed, 20 years later there’s a huge boom in a fishery for tasty, more lucrative scallops (previously chomped on by cod).
-
The Worm paper that Cecil cites certainly examined a lot of statistics, but it’s “doom and gloom in 2050” message relied on fairly (overly) simple extrapolation of trends. It got a message across (“what happens if we do absolutely nothing”) but as has been since pointed out, many many places aren’t doing nothing. A very recent paper in Science (Hilborn, Worm, and others) painted a more optimistic picture; to wit, when people get the message, they can put protections in place. Some countries have succeeded, some have failed. For the consumer, while it’s often the “doom and gloom” stories that make the headlines, MSC and other consumer guides (mentioned already above) are very good resources for choosing the right wild fish … and there are many… to eat for a sustainable source of some good omega 3s.
dropzone said:
That’s a lot of crying.
See these links:
http://www.lib.niu.edu/2002/oi020509.html
By the way, creating markets for invasive species is not always a good idea. There are downsides and sometimes no evidence that creating markets will have any substantial positive effects. However, in this case, the national Asian carp working group developed a well-reasoned argument as to why market development would be a good idea in the case of Asian carps, and it is a primary strategy in the national Asian carp action plan. So eat all you want, and feel good about it. They are low on the food chain, and low in contaminants, and high in Omega-3 fatty acids.
Reply: snort. 
A local restaurant serves a scallop-flavored surimi that is mighty tasty.
As I have suggested in posts I shan’t look up, there is little that humans can do that comes close to our ability to wipe out other species. A report on NPR several years ago both bemoaned the rise of the ancient carp and told the tale of a company that formerly specialized in another breed of carp but which found its coffers filling with the alien breed. OTOH, in college my friends were from a neck of the woods where clubbing invasive carp was a recognized pastime. Just goes to show.
I saw the first part of the article about salmon farming and thought I should respond as a Kiwi (New Zealander.) I clicked through and found that NZ was in the other part of the article about our poor old Hoki - if it tastes good what’s the problem? You wouldn’t want to pucker up to a hen for example, but they taste great too.
If you want the best of both worlds, request New Zealand alpine salmon. These are raised in pens in hydro-electric canals that are fed by snowmelt, they spend their whole lives swimming against pristine fast flowing freezing water and are 100% organic.
Or consider the appearance of the monkfish or the lingcod, both thought to be desirable on your plate, at least from a purely culinary standpoint - the SeafoodWatch list says the monkfish (aka goosefish) is an “avoid”. The lingcod populations have rebounded and it is listed as a “good alternative”.
Alaska seems to have a very good sustainability program - Wild Alaskan Sockeye Salmon is a great choice !
Uh, that was the ASIAN carp, not the ANCIENT carp they were talking about on NPR, by the way. Same fish as I am demoing the dismantling and cooking of in the links.