Originally Posted By: Todd
Originally Posted By: Hair
When fuel shortages and pollution from cars were a problem, did we make less cars? Did we stop driving? Did we close off roads to save fuel?


Originally Posted By: "Todd"
Don't put in so many hatchery fish, and don't kill so many wild fish.


It's not so simple, not cut and dry like your example.


Yes, it is...if we want to do what we say, which is reduce the problems of overfishing and too many hatchery fish on the spawning grounds.

It would be refreshing if everyone involved would at least say the truth...fishing comes first, fish come second...instead of paying lipservice to the fish and then forming every single policy around the premise that first we will not stop or reduce our fishing, and then we'll see what we can do to tread water with the rest.

There's no reason to be so dishonest about it...anyone with half a brain can see it...may as well get it out in the open.

Fish on...

Todd


Todd,

Sustainable fisheries (which is in no way dishonest or misleading) can be accomplished using (and/or including) options other than reducing harvest and hatchery production. We are not bound by your narrow opinion to achieve solutions. "Solutions". The plural version.

How did we get there with cars Todd? We improved the engines for increased efficiency, the bodies for less resistance, made the fuel cleaner to reduce emissions, better tires, better design from top to bottom. Sure we could have reduced the number of cars, or blocked off roads, and yes it would have saved fuel or the environment. But it wouldn't have been sustainable now would it? Neither is a future dependent on reduced harvest and reduced hatchery production. Ideally, I'd like the solutions to have the same effect as reductions, and I think it's possible if we don't limit ourselves to narrow minded approaches.