As a fisherman who practices sustainable fishing and abides by the regulations in place, and has witnessed the rebound of several species I target, I call bullshit.
Cod collapsed 90% in _30 years_ and was not regulated in nearly the same way as snow crab is. Your dismissive tone isn't constructive and betrays your lack of knowledge.
Ah yes, how dare I challenge a fisherman whose income is based on 'harvesting' from the ocean (imagine an entire industry the existed by going into national forests and harvesting whole herds of elk or flocks of birds, people wouldn't stand for it, but somehow fisherman are ok). I read through his previous comments, nothing indicates it is beyond the pale for me to ask he expand on this 'rebound'. He stated there was a rebound, I asked what 'rebound' means as he provided pretty nebulous information. Should I not be allowed to ask him to expand on his statement? Especially since he claims his 'rebound' allows him to call 'bullshit' on others.
The problem is that "sustainable" is always based on past observations. There were 40+ years of observations for these crab and a stable fishery. But if the environment changes for the worse, the data-based definition of "sustainable" for a stock might not change fast enough to compensate.
So the "new sustainability" under climate change has to be much more precautionary than before, and yet not shut down on false signals. It's tricky science even when intentions are good.
>Farmed seafood, in general, is a sustainable option, requiring far less feed per pound compared to other farmed sources of protein like beef, pork, and chicken.
That is one advantage if true but that just means more sustainable than beef, pork, and chicken.
Is there a condition that would prevent their farming? Like the accessibility of the feed?
> Conventional operations use large amounts of fishmeal and fish oil (and hence more wild fish) in their feed. All rainbow trout on the U.S. market is farmed-raised in the U.S., where farming operations are held to strict environmental standards. Improvements to feed have enabled less wild fish to be used.
...byproducts of processing the wild filets. I'm saying I doubt they're catching wild fish for the purpose of selling them to fish farms. Of course, it improves profit and hence incentive
Crass, sure, but true. Humanity is the reason certain animals are even capable of continuing existing. For example, chickens, pigs, cows, etc. The populations (and genetic diversity) would be far less if they were allowed to roam naturally all the time. With farmers releasing cows to free range, as well as keeping and breeding cows, the cow as a species is guaranteed to survive.
It's a complicated subject but the simplest answer goes back to the circle of life. There are two survival strategies of a species. Either becoming a predator, or become very useful prey. Which, in crass terms, basically means that if humans don't buy it (don't eat it, therefore don't insure it's survival), it will die out (e.g. it's "worthless") if it cannot evolve into a predator species.
