Stop the killing of (baby) seals in Canada, Russia and Norway
Nelson Santos
This is a request to these countries to stop the slaughter of baby seals
for commercial purposes, it is disgusting the images of the murderers
laughing while they are beating small baby seals with a club, don't they
have a heart, it is time for the people to act against such governments
who put profit over Nature, money over humanity, they are just as naughty
as Hitler, or Stalin.
Nelson and Margarida, Lisboa, Portugal
"All we are saying, it's give peace a chance"
Bill Cantwell
While you are at it maybe you should stop Portugal from catching those
small baby fish in their LARGE Trawler nets,(I MEAN LARGE,ONCE YOU LINE
THE INSIDE OF ONE OF THOSE NETS NOT TOO MUSH CAN EXCAPE.)
not caring even what speciesthey are catching.I guess the only difference
is that the baby seal looks so very cute it's a great marketing tool, and
you should be able too make alot of money from pushing save the seal,
where as if it was save the herring!!!!!!!!!!
You would have to work for a living maybe. I can tell you that nothing is
quite what it seems on the surface and before you shoot your mouth off,you
could check around home.
Bill
--
Bill Cantwell...!!!!!!!!!!!!Keeping a light lit for you!!!!!!!!!!!!
bl...@freenet.carlton.ca
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960527...@student.cc.fc.ul.pt>,
Nelson Santos <gn...@cc.fc.ul.pt> wrote:
>This is a request to these countries to stop the slaughter of baby seals
>for commercial purposes, it is disgusting the images of the murderers
>laughing while they are beating small baby seals with a club, don't they
>have a heart, it is time for the people to act against such governments
>who put profit over Nature, money over humanity, they are just as naughty
>as Hitler, or Stalin.
>
Why is killing seals so wrong? The only reason I can think is that they
look cute. Killing animals is not murder. Nor is it anything compared to
what Hitler or Stalin did. Your comparison is an insult to every one of
their tens of millions of victims.
>Nelson and Margarida, Lisboa, Portugal
>
So people do not hunt in Portugal? Or are the animals they hunt not so
cute as "baby seals".
Osmo
Vladimir Smirnov
Please remove this thread from soc.culture.russian.moderated.
- Moderator
--
Home page: http://128.100.80.13/vladimir/
SCR.moderated home page: http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/usenet/scrm/
----------- "I have a clue and a life." - M.Kagalenko ----------------
m.nixon
Why remove the thread???
Does the truth hurt?
Paul Rodgers
In article <Ds7BC...@utcc.utoronto.ca>, m.nixon.@utoronto.ca
says...
>
>Why remove the thread???
>Does the truth hurt?
>
Right. Now that violence against children, around the globe, belongs
to the our dark past...!! Lets concentrate our high motivated
civilities toward the fight against violence done to animals...
Or do we have our priorities crossed-wired?
Paul Rodgers
Kari Yli-Kuha
prod...@synapse.net (Paul Rodgers) writes:
: In article <Ds7BC...@utcc.utoronto.ca>, m.nixon.@utoronto.ca
... and all this crap just because of one forged film made by Greenpeace??
I wonder...
--
/Kari (male, btw.)
--
Bachelors should be heavily taxed. It is not fair that some men should be
happier than others. -Oscar Wilde
Brad Dillman
Paul Rodgers wrote:
>
> In article <Ds7BC...@utcc.utoronto.ca>, m.nixon.@utoronto.ca
> says...
> >
> >Why remove the thread???
> >Does the truth hurt?
> >
>
> Right. Now that violence against children, around the globe, belongs
> to the our dark past...!! Lets concentrate our high motivated
> civilities toward the fight against violence done to animals...
>
> Or do we have our priorities crossed-wired?
>
> Paul Rodgers
from misc.invest.canada:
What stocks or mutual funds do you recommend?
Since this was posted to a misc.invest group,
you must be thinking of something; please share.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
'THAT was the answer! Survival must cancel out programming!' - Ruk
Brad Dillman, Design Engineer, Milltronics Ltd.
br...@milltronics.com tel:705-740-7639 fax:705-741-0466
E. Charters
Man, poor bare forked ignorant animal that he is has been murdering
animals for 3 million years. Last one he will murder will be himself.
Conservation of species is not just noble its damn near self
preservation. Ultimately you survice on the animal species of the earth
who interact with the vegetable world if I may call it that, to keep it
fecund.
The picture of heartless newfies laughing with clubs in hand was too
much. I had to laugh too. Fortunately I stopped myself before I had
a seizure and beat poor Fido to death with a lamp stand.
I just hope they achieve a balance before the seal disappears too.
Take your pictures now.
EC<:-}
Dima Volodin
This is a request to these countries to stop the slaughter of baby
murderers laughing while they are pulling small baby carrots out of
their natural habitat and make them die slow, torturous death or even
kill them off with their bare teeth, don't they have a heart, it is
time for the people to act against such governments who put profit
over Nature, money over humanity, they are just as naughty as Hitler,
or Stalin.
Dima
canacc
Richard Dunhill
Dima Volodin wrote:
>
> This is a request to these countries to stop the slaughter of baby
> carrots for commercial purposes, it is disgusting the images of the
> murderers laughing while they are pulling small baby carrots out of
> their natural habitat and make them die slow, torturous death or even
> kill them off with their bare teeth, don't they have a heart, it is
> time for the people to act against such governments who put profit
> over Nature, money over humanity, they are just as naughty as Hitler,
> or Stalin.
>
> Dima
>
> "All we are saying, it's give peace a chance"
ROTFL (best laugh I've had all week, thanks)
Espen Nyborg
d...@sprint.net (Dima Volodin) wrote:
>This is a request to these countries to stop the slaughter of baby
>carrots for commercial purposes, it is disgusting the images of the
[snip]
>"All we are saying, it's give peace a chance"
Hilarious!!!
I guess you really meant: "give pea's a chance"?
Espen
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Espen Nyborg e.ny...@dial.pipex.com or ra...@dial.pipex.com
London http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/e.nyborg/
Vladimir Smirnov
> > In article <Ds7BC...@utcc.utoronto.ca>, m.nixon.@utoronto.ca
> > says...
> > >
> > >Why remove the thread???
> > >Does the truth hurt?
1. What's the truth? :)
2. No, it does not hurt. But there are different newsgroups for
different kinds of truths. The group soc.culture.russian.moderated
is for truths related to Russian culture. The truth about baby seals
is offtopic for this group.
3. The Charter of soc.culture.russian.moderated
stated that all articles crossposted to 5 or more groups are to be
rejected.
- Smirnov
bval...@mail.atcon.com
e.ny...@dial.pipex.com (Espen Nyborg) wrote:
>d...@sprint.net (Dima Volodin) wrote:
What about the cruelty to bears. The way a Canadian traps a bear?
They dig a big hole in the woods, puts some hardwood ashes in the
hole, sprinkles peas around the rim of the hole. When the bear comes
up, stops for a pea, they kick him in the ash-hole. Now THATS cruel.
Buzz
m.nixon
Nice side step!...
m.nixon
d...@sprint.net (Dima Volodin) wrote:
>This is a request to these countries to stop the slaughter of baby
>carrots for commercial purposes, it is disgusting the images of the
>their natural habitat and make them die slow, torturous death or even
>kill them off with their bare teeth, don't they have a heart, it is
>time for the people to act against such governments who put profit
>over Nature, money over humanity, they are just as naughty as Hitler,
>or Stalin.
>
>Dima
>
>
>
>
Ignorance is bliss....(you must be very happy indeed)
Wallace J.McLean
Dima Volodin (d...@sprint.net) writes:
> This is a request to these countries to stop the slaughter of baby
> carrots for commercial purposes, it is disgusting the images of the
Bloody hypocrite, don't you care about the ruthless murder of millions of
ears of baby corn?
--
"But it isn't Easy," said Pooh to himself, as he looked at what had once
been Owl's House. "Because Poetry and Hums aren't things which you can
get, they're things which can get you. And all you can do is to go where
they can find you." He waited hopefully...
Anatoli Mandelchtam
m.nixon wrote:
.>
.> d...@sprint.net (Dima Volodin) wrote:
.> >This is a request to these countries to stop the slaughter of baby
.> >carrots for commercial purposes, it is disgusting the images of the
.> >murderers laughing while they are pulling small baby carrots out of
.> >their natural habitat and make them die slow, torturous death or even
.> >kill them off with their bare teeth, don't they have a heart, it is
.> >time for the people to act against such governments who put profit
.> >over Nature, money over humanity, they are just as naughty as Hitler,
.> >or Stalin.
.> >
.> >Dima
.> >
.> >"All we are saying, it's give peace a chance"
.> >
.> >
.> >
.>
.> Ignorance is bliss....(you must be very happy indeed)
Some people just forget that good humor on a serious subject does not
always imply ignorance. Ignorant people usually don't bother posting
_anything_ on the subject. As for being happy... cheer up! I'm sure,
situation with baby carrots..oops! seals will improve.
Dima Volodin
e.ny...@dial.pipex.com (Espen Nyborg) wrote:
>d...@sprint.net (Dima Volodin) wrote:
>>This is a request to these countries to stop the slaughter of baby
>>carrots for commercial purposes, it is disgusting the images of the
>[snip]
>>"All we are saying, it's give peace a chance"
>Hilarious!!!
>I guess you really meant: "give pea's a chance"?
Fuck them peas - I was writing about poor little suffering baby
carrots. Peas are fucking gross compared to these little precious baby
carrots whose dead bodies are sold in supermarkets by dozens.
On the other hand, peas are suffering almost as badly, but I won't let
me into the discussion about peas unless someone invents good enough
criteria to distinguish between dumb, just merely organic fetus and
full-blown living and breathing plant.
>Espen
Dima
Larry Rossi
d...@sprint.net (Dima Volodin) wrote:
Come on people lets drop this thread, there are far more appropriate
newsgroups for this, whatever your views. Thanks
Larry
email: lro...@awinc.com
Trust everyone, but make sure you cut the cards
Bruce B. Clouter
To set the record straight once and for all boys and girls......
So called " baby seals " have not been harvested in Canada for fifteen
years.It is ILLEGAL to harvest seals under a predetermined age set by the
D.F.O. and any doing so are subject to prosecution under Canadian Laws.
If anyone or self-appointed GROUP supposedly representing the preservation
of animals tells you " baby seals " are harvested in Canada,I would suggest
you consider them with a degree of apprehension and DON'T GIVE THEM MONEY!!
Remember...In this world there are TRUTHS and LIES.Financial gains are
often obtained through LIES.It is YOUR responsibility to know the TRUTH.
NUFF SAID?
Ravi Kartha
How long are you going to clutter these newsgroups with your stupid jokes and
bad language. If those folk think we kill baby seals to pass the time, it's
their problem. If it rubs on your national pride, why don't you email them
directly to set them straight. Enough is Enough, you only perpetuate the
problem.
Francoise Kartha
Canada
In article <4or8ds$9...@newsreader.sprintlink.net>, d...@sprint.net (Dima
Joseph [Joe] King
On Mon, 27 May 1996 Nelson Santos <gn...@cc.fc.ul.pt> wrote:
->This is a request to these countries to stop the slaughter of baby seals
->for commercial purposes, it is disgusting the images of the murderers
->laughing while they are beating small baby seals with a club, don't they
->have a heart, it is time for the people to act against such governments
->who put profit over Nature, money over humanity, they are just as naughty
->as Hitler, or Stalin.
->Nelson and Margarida, Lisboa, Portugal
Wonderful. Now explain to everyone about how stopping the
harvesting of seals has impacted the fishing industry. There
exists a seal population that is totally out of control to the
extent that fish stocks, particularly cod, have been virtually
depleated and have become endangered.
Tell us about about the Portugese fishing trawlers and their
laughing sailors drag netting the grand banks with undersize mesh
and removing part of the food chain. Don't worry about the seal
harvesting in other countries. Worry about what your own
government is doing before you start using names like Hitler and
Stalin.
m.nixon
But it didn't (& doesn't) make me laugh!
Simen Gaure
In article <4ot9la$m...@Charlie.Solutions.Net>, joe...@solutions.mb.ca
(Joseph [Joe] King) wrote:
Wonderful. Now explain to everyone about how stopping the
harvesting of seals has impacted the fishing industry. There
exists a seal population that is totally out of control to the
extent that fish stocks, particularly cod, have been virtually
depleated and have become endangered.
I don't think any study concludes that seals have been responsible
for the serious depletion of cod stocks you mention.
(Which I believe must be the stock off Newfoundland)
These stocks collapsed as a result of overfishing.
There is, however, a possibility that a growing seal population may
hamper the recovery of the cod stock. This question has
only recently been raised and there's no conclusive evidence
in either direction. These two issues are frequently mixed.
Anyway, with the enormous fecundity of
cod there's little chance that predation may make a cod stock
biologically extinct unless detrimental changes to its habitat also occurs.
What may happen is that once the stock is reduced below a
certain threshold the stock may stabilize at a lower
equilibrium than before. Such hypotheses are notoriously difficult
to test.
--
Simen Gaure, Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo
Nelson Santos
Fuck off, you animal
Nelson, Lisboa, Portugal
Nelson Santos
Do they club the ears of baby corn?
Nelson, Lisboa, Portugal
Wallace J.McLean
Nelson Santos (gn...@cc.fc.ul.pt) writes:
> Do they club the ears of baby corn?
>
> Nelson, Lisboa, Portugal
I have already explained by e-mail, Mr. Santos, how clubbing is illegal.
When it occurs, we deal with it under Canadian law. Is the concept of rule
of law that difficult for you to understand.
From what I have seen posted in this newsgroup others have also explained
away the lies that you believe in so fervently. Dura veritas, sed veritas.
The truth hurts, don't it?
If you want to do something for the Canadian marine ecosystem, lobby your
own government and the European Union to keep their boats off the Grand
Banks and Flemish Cap, forever.
m.nixon
joe...@solutions.mb.ca (Joseph [Joe] King) wrote:
>Wonderful. Now explain to everyone about how stopping the
>harvesting of seals has impacted the fishing industry. There
>exists a seal population that is totally out of control to the
>extent that fish stocks, particularly cod, have been virtually
>depleated and have become endangered.
>
The seal population is not out of control...the only population that is
is the human population!
There previously existed (and would exist now if it wasn't for Human
"management" of nature) a balance between the fish stocks and the seal
population, as well as all the other entities involed within this food
web. Man's greed and selfishness have created this situation, and untill
we understand that we do not know enough to "manage" nature (and never
will), we will continue to see this kind of ecosystem destruction, and
our ignorance/arogance will continue to place the blame on others (ie,
the seals)
A solution?....remove the economic incentive of overfishing...How?
your guess is as good as mine....the invisible hand is always stacked
against nature!
>Tell us about about the Portugese fishing trawlers and their
>laughing sailors drag netting the grand banks with undersize mesh
>and removing part of the food chain. Don't worry about the seal
>harvesting in other countries. Worry about what your own
>government is doing before you start using names like Hitler and
>Stalin.
>
Too true!
Martyn Nixon
Elias Halldor Agustsson
This guy must have been watching the Greenpeace forgery (from 1987 I
think) and it must have unbalanced his mind. The film in question is a
film purporting to be a documentary about seal-hunting in the arctic, but
is entirely staged by Greenpeace themselves. Any killing of baby seals in
that film was done by actors at the behest of Greenpeace. They even
engaged in torturing the seals to show how nasty those arctic hunters
could be ...
Elías
--
© Elias Halldor Agustsson
© mailto:e...@itn.is finger e...@itn.is for PGP
© URL: http://www.itn.is/~eha (or http://www.nyherji.is/~eha )
John R. Shaw
On Mon, 03 Jun 1996 10:22:26 +0200, Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen
Gaure) wrote:
>In article <4ot9la$m...@Charlie.Solutions.Net>, joe...@solutions.mb.ca
>(Joseph [Joe] King) wrote:
>
> Wonderful. Now explain to everyone about how stopping the
> harvesting of seals has impacted the fishing industry. There
> exists a seal population that is totally out of control to the
> extent that fish stocks, particularly cod, have been virtually
> depleated and have become endangered.
>
>I don't think any study concludes that seals have been responsible
>for the serious depletion of cod stocks you mention.
>(Which I believe must be the stock off Newfoundland)
>These stocks collapsed as a result of overfishing.
I believe there is no study that backs up your contention either,
please provide a reference if I am wrong. The very sudden nature of
the collapse makes the over fishing you assume unlikely, and a few
recent stories indicate that the people studying the issue are still
unsure why.
The seals damage the fish population beyond the simple eating of fish,
they distribute parasitic worms into the fish population and the
incidence of worms has exploded with the increase in the seal
population.
If fish looked so cute and cuddly would there be such an outcry, I
think not !
***********************************************************
Life is change, how it differs from the rocks (M. Balin ?)
homepage at http://www.cyberus.ca/~jshaw/BayView.html/
(or http://www.cyberus.ca/~jshaw/ if your not 'forms enabled')
Please note that <js...@cyberus.ca> will shortly be redundant
the new prime address is <hor...@icons.net>
***********************************************************
John R. Shaw
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996 00:17:17 GMT, "m.nixon" <m.nixon.@utoronto.ca>
wrote:
> A solution?....remove the economic incentive of overfishing...How?
>your guess is as good as mine....the invisible hand is always stacked
>against nature!
>
Government incentives to fish are estimated (by the Economist
magazine) to earn the fisherman a fair bit more money than actually
selling fish, the comment is valid in almost every country in the
world (I think IceLand was one of the few they separated out). Canada
is one of the worst offenders, with fisherman on the Pacific coast
being able to earn a full years salary for just 14 days fishing
(special UIC program). Not surprisingly the number of 'fisherman' in
the area tripled within a short period after the program was
announced. Certainly cutting all government subsidy would save us all
a lot of money as there is no rational for this other than vote
buying. As I understand it fish farming at this point is just
marginally profitable, if the government subsidies were removed and
the price of wild fish rose to it's proper level then open seas
fishing might be largely replaced by fish farms, and certainly the
demand would decrease.
People should face it the good old days of hunter gathers are over and
it is silly to assume that the current situation in fishing is
sustainable.
Nelson Santos
I've already said that I don't agree with the destruction of fish banks
by the portuguese or by anyone else, but when the Canadian arrested 3 or 4
ships who were fishing there those who were using illegal nets, who
catch small fish were Spanish, not Portuguese, just to clear that out
Nelson, Lisboa, Portugal
Vladimir Smirnov
"m.nixon" <m.nixon.@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> The seal population is not out of control...the only population that is
> is the human population!
> A solution?....
Of course the solution is to start killing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hharvesting
baby humans :)
Simen Gaure
On Mon, 03 Jun 1996 10:22:26 +0200, Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen
Gaure) wrote:
>
>I don't think any study concludes that seals have been responsible
>for the serious depletion of cod stocks you mention.
>(Which I believe must be the stock off Newfoundland)
>These stocks collapsed as a result of overfishing.
I believe there is no study that backs up your contention either,
please provide a reference if I am wrong.
From "What Can be Learned from the Collapse of a Renewable Resource?
Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua, of Newfoundland and Labrador", by
J.A.Hutchings, R.A.Myers, Can J Fish Aq. Sci. 51:2126-2146 (1994):
"We conclude that the collapse of northern cod can be attributed
solely to overexploitation [...]"
(It's not a direct conclusion, but merely that all other plausible
hypotheses are excluded.)
The very sudden nature of
the collapse makes the over fishing you assume unlikely, and a few
recent stories indicate that the people studying the issue are still
unsure why.
The authors of the article above argue that it wasn't actually a sudden
collapse. Quoting from the article:
"northern cod have rarely been fished at sustainable
levels since at least 1962. Overfishing by long-distance trawlers
in the 1960s and 1970s had reduced the stock to near commercial
extinction in 1977. Since Canada's extension of fisheries
jurisdiction to 200 miles, two factors were of prime importance
in contribting to the overexploitation of the stock from 1977 to 1991"
[...]
"recruitment was *not* corrected for changes in spawner biomass,
the predicted rate of growth of the stock was greatly overestimated"
[...]
"The second factor was the overestimation of the stock size [] and
the concomitant excess of actual fishing mortality over targeted
rates."
I.e. one of the reasons for the collapse, is that the fishery was
rarely sustainable since 1962, and that a relatively sudden shift
from inshore gillnetting to offshore gillnetting increased
the catch above safe biological thresholds. The authors reject
hypotheses of environmental changes as a reason for the collapse.
Btw, the reason why recruitment was not corrected for changes in
spawner biomass, was probably that cod produce an awful lot of
eggs, and it was therefore assumed that the production of recruits
(3 year old cod) was not very dependent upon the number of spawners,
but only on environmental factors such as salinity and temperature.
(I.e. factors affecting the survival from egg to recruit.)
The authors shows that this assumption is wrong.
There is quite strong correlation (r^2 = 0.73) between recruitment
and spawner biomass in this cod stock.
However, it's possible that now, once the cod population has collapsed,
seals may have an impact on its recovery. I don't know of any studies
concluding anything about this. Though there are some preliminary
work, notably by G. Stenson at DFO, which studies the food consumption
of the seals in the area.
Foundation for Health Services Research
hor...@icons.net (John R. Shaw) wrote:
>Government incentives to fish are estimated (by the Economist
>magazine) to earn the fisherman a fair bit more money than actually
>selling fish, the comment is valid in almost every country in the
>world (I think IceLand was one of the few they separated out).
The Economist take too large bites sometime. If, for example, you look to
Norway's fisheries, they look heavily taxed and heavily subsidised. The
taxes, however, are not state taxes, but fees and export levys decided on by
the industry, and administrated by government officials. The subsidies are
mainly transferrals between different sub-sectors of the industries. It is
all a pot of money to bargain over within the industry, money that sloshes
around according to legitimacy of claims, and power. the government
subsidies have amounted to about US$150 pr. man-year. I suppose that
Economist has included everything, wich is misleading.
>Canada
>is one of the worst offenders, with fisherman on the Pacific coast
>being able to earn a full years salary for just 14 days fishing
>(special UIC program). Not surprisingly the number of 'fisherman' in
>the area tripled within a short period after the program was
>announced.
Wasn't that program subsidies for *not* fishing?
>Certainly cutting all government subsidy would save us all
>a lot of money as there is no rational for this other than vote
>buying.
What about the need for fishermen to secure an income in bad years? You
can't open and close fisheries like hot-dog stands.
>As I understand it fish farming at this point is just
>marginally profitable, if the government subsidies were removed and
>the price of wild fish rose to it's proper level then open seas
>fishing might be largely replaced by fish farms, and certainly the
>demand would decrease.
In this country, fish farming is wildly profitable. Even with relatively low
prices and no subsidies that I know of.
>People should face it (A) the good old days of hunter gathers are over and
>(B) it is silly to assume that the current situation in fishing is
>sustainable.
Statement (A) is hard to argue against. Statement (B) as well, allthough it
doesn't follow. However, husbandry and farming in the existing form is
certainly not sustainable. We may need a reduction in subsidies, but we also
need more control and agreement with respect to quotas and licenses for
fishing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arne Kolstad e-mail: hel...@oslonett.no
Scientific Researcher Telephone: +47 67929458
Foundation for Health Services Research Fax: +47 67929469
John R. Shaw
On 5 Jun 1996 08:11:56 GMT, Foundation for Health Services Research
<hel...@sn.no> wrote:
>The Economist take too large bites sometime.
It's probably the most respected economic magazine in the world, they
are entitled to take on large bites. The very high rates they can
charge for subscriptions, and the large number of very respected
financial publications that use them as a reference speaks for the
quality of what they do when taking on those large bites.
> If, for example, you look to
>Norway's fisheries, they look heavily taxed and heavily subsidised. The
>taxes, however, are not state taxes, but fees and export levys decided on by
>the industry, and administrated by government officials. The subsidies are
>mainly transferrals between different sub-sectors of the industries. It is
>all a pot of money to bargain over within the industry, money that sloshes
>around according to legitimacy of claims, and power. the government
>subsidies have amounted to about US$150 pr. man-year. I suppose that
>Economist has included everything, wich is misleading.
>
What is the source for the $150 per men-year and what is it based on ?
I would have thought that even administering the programs would cost
more than that. Would I be correct in assuming that what happens is
that the profitable portions of the industry are taxed heavily (sorry
user fees) and the taxes transferred to those that are not as
efficient, only work part of the year etc. If so while not a net
subsidy to the industry it has the same effects of distortion and
would subsidize more people into the industry than would be there
under a free system.
Would the billions Canada spends also dwindle to a few dollars,
because the main programs are called Unemployment Insurance and
Manpower Retraining and suchlike ? Governments love to hide subsidy
under other names, and I think it is correct to "include everything"
in this case.
>>Canada
>>is one of the worst offenders, with fisherman on the Pacific coast
>>being able to earn a full years salary for just 14 days fishing
>>(special UIC program). Not surprisingly the number of 'fisherman' in
>>the area tripled within a short period after the program was
>>announced.
>
>Wasn't that program subsidies for *not* fishing?
Yes, a lot of the subsidies are paying people to not fish, it's a
particularly absurd extension of the UIC programs that have encouraged
people to work part-time and draw full time salary for decades. This
attracts a lot more fisherman than there would be otherwise, and makes
the fish they catch cheaper as instead of being their whole means of
support the fish becomes only a portion, they don't need to save few
dollars for the rough times.
The tv program W5 discussed how on the west coast, because of this
program, they will "share" their catch, as they way they prove they
are fishermen to the government is to catch a few fish. Since the fish
must be caught on certain days to qualify, and the fish is such a
trivial portion of their income, the ones that do catch fish just
share it with those that didn't in case they are unlucky on the couple
of days that they actually fish. It's clear to them where the money is
to be caught.
>
>>Certainly cutting all government subsidy would save us all
>>a lot of money as there is no rational for this other than vote
>>buying.
>
>What about the need for fishermen to secure an income in bad years? You
>can't open and close fisheries like hot-dog stands.
You could make the same agrement about many industries, maybe most.
Look to the former USSR for an example where the problem is "solved"
by increasing government regulation and planning. The free market
cycle of shaking out the weak and inefficient producers in the poor
economic times would ensure that the poorer fishermen found other
employment. Managing their business should be their problem. One of
the effects would be to increase the obvious cost of fish, which as I
previously stated I think would be an advantage to stabilizing the
industry. Overall the cost should come down as we would not have to
pay people to work seasonally for full time pay, or pay for people who
may not be as efficient as others at catching fish in the first place.
>
>>As I understand it fish farming at this point is just
>>marginally profitable, if the government subsidies were removed and
>>the price of wild fish rose to it's proper level then open seas
>>fishing might be largely replaced by fish farms, and certainly the
>>demand would decrease.
>
>In this country, fish farming is wildly profitable. Even with relatively low
>prices and no subsidies that I know of.
>
Is anyone listening out there misc.invest.canada, do we have classic
case of a niche that has not been noticed yet ?? (how did they get on
the list anyway ?)
Then why do not many people enter this "wildly profitable" market ?
They could make even larger profits on a larger volume of sales, and
those that fish for wild fish would likely have difficultly selling
their catch. What about supply and demand am I missing in this ?
I do know that there are certain aspects of fish farming that are
profitable, like locally selling hatchlings to the government for
stocking lakes is profitable if you can get the contract and there are
a few dollars to be made selling brook trout in the farmers markets,
but these are not quantity sales to the public.
>>People should face it (A) the good old days of hunter gathers are over and
>>(B) it is silly to assume that the current situation in fishing is
>>sustainable.
>
>Statement (A) is hard to argue against. Statement (B) as well, allthough it
>doesn't follow.
Could you explain that to me then. I see them as logically connected
and you seem to agree in part of the next sentence. The only
difference to the domestic animal situation is the level of
effort/knowledge required to farm many fish species is higher and the
large numbers of wild fish allowed the wild harvest stage to last
longer than with land animals. Now we simply have too many people to
ignore it much longer.
>However, husbandry and farming in the existing form is
>certainly not sustainable. We may need a reduction in subsidies, but we also
>need more control and agreement with respect to quotas and licenses for
>fishing.
I don't know if you knew about the "turbot wars" Canada recently had
with Spain but when a peaceful country like Canada starts shooting
across the bows of fishing boats, and then was actually going to
display the net captured like a prize of war at a local fair, you know
the time has come for fundamental change. There is some room for short
term transitional management, but the problem is when has government
ever voluntarily withdrawn itself when the need has gone ? The fact
is there will be "fences" in the oceans eventually, and as long as it
is seen as common property you will have no incentive for proper
management as the only party with a common interest is the government
and they can only be temporarily competent at managing anything
economic in nature (IMVHO).
***********************************************************
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <helios-0406...@news.vgernet.net>,
Elias Halldor Agustsson <hel...@vgernet.net> wrote:
>This guy must have been watching the Greenpeace forgery (from 1987 I
>think) and it must have unbalanced his mind. The film in question is a
>film purporting to be a documentary about seal-hunting in the arctic, but
>is entirely staged by Greenpeace themselves. Any killing of baby seals in
>that film was done by actors at the behest of Greenpeace. They even
>engaged in torturing the seals to show how nasty those arctic hunters
>could be ...
Greenpeace is known to forgery. In some national park a tree had been
fallen on the read and a truck driver had cut it so that he could pass.
The Greenlie stole the stub and used it in central Europe to
demonstrate against Finnish forest industry. They claimed that it was a
proof of cutting.
Osmo
Simen Gaure
>In this country, fish farming is wildly profitable. Even with relatively low
>prices and no subsidies that I know of.
>
[...]
Then why do not many people enter this "wildly profitable" market ?
Many do.
They could make even larger profits on a larger volume of sales, and
those that fish for wild fish would likely have difficultly selling
their catch. What about supply and demand am I missing in this ?
The production of farmed salmon in Norway is so large that the prices are
falling. This leads to accusations of dumping from the largest
market, the European Union. So, the production is voluntarily
kept down. Those that fish wild fish have problems selling their
fish, but fortunately for them, wild salmon tastes better
than the farmed one, so there's a niche there.
Foundation for Health Services Research
><hel...@sn.no> wrote:
>
>>The Economist take too large bites sometime.
>
>It's probably the most respected economic magazine in the world, they
>are entitled to take on large bites.
You must be joking.
> It is
>>all a pot of money to bargain over within the industry, money that sloshes
>>around according to legitimacy of claims, and power. the government
>>subsidies have amounted to about US$150 pr. man-year. I suppose that
>>Economist has included everything, wich is misleading.
>
>What is the source for the $150 per men-year and what is it based on ?
The outcome of the later years negotiation between the government and the
Fishermen's association divided by the number of fishermen, i. e. on average
Nkr 250 mill/22000~= $150.
>I would have thought that even administering the programs would cost
>more than that. Would I be correct in assuming that what happens is
>that the profitable portions of the industry are taxed heavily (sorry
>user fees)
I already told you that most of the fees are decide upon and redestributed
by the industry itself.
>and the taxes transferred to those that are not as
>efficient, only work part of the year etc. If so while not a net
>subsidy to the industry it has the same effects of distortion and
>would subsidize more people into the industry than would be there
>under a free system.
I have actually tried to calculate the net effects as part of a project, but
it was too complicated. What I can say, is that it isn't so clear as what
you imply.
A free capitalization system in the fisheries leads to international distant
water fishing. Efficient from a business econopmic standpoint, but extremely
inefficient as a way of harvesting the oceans in a sustainable manner. You
won't find many within the Norwegian industry that will sign up for a free
capitalisation, even if it means that the big guys punish themself with
taxes.
>Yes, a lot of the subsidies are paying people to not fish, it's a
>particularly absurd extension of the UIC programs that have encouraged
>people to work part-time and draw full time salary for decades. This
>attracts a lot more fisherman than there would be otherwise, and makes
>the fish they catch cheaper as instead of being their whole means of
>support the fish becomes only a portion, they don't need to save few
>dollars for the rough times.
In Norway, this system is administered and financed by the industry itself.
Called "minstelott" or minimum lot. It is not a subsidy.
>>What about the need for fishermen to secure an income in bad years? You
>>can't open and close fisheries like hot-dog stands.
>
>You could make the same agrement about many industries, maybe most.
>Look to the former USSR for an example where the problem is "solved"
>by increasing government regulation and planning. The free market
>cycle of shaking out the weak and inefficient producers in the poor
>economic times would ensure that the poorer fishermen found other
>employment.
The problem is that this industry can't alow itself to be efficient in the
sense that the resources are depleted. This is the main problem today, not
inefficencies on the company level. The fishing industry has to think in
long term aggregate efficiency, and combine it with economic efficiency on
the company level.
>>In this country, fish farming is wildly profitable. Even with relatively low
>>prices and no subsidies that I know of.
>
> Is anyone listening out there misc.invest.canada, do we have classic
>case of a niche that has not been noticed yet ?? (how did they get on
>the list anyway ?)
>
>Then why do not many people enter this "wildly profitable" market ?
>They could make even larger profits on a larger volume of sales, and
>those that fish for wild fish would likely have difficultly selling
>their catch. What about supply and demand am I missing in this ?
Norway has some comparative advantages in this production form. The fish
farmers are constantly accused of dumping in France and the US. Dumping is
possible, but over 20 years?
Dima Volodin
"m.nixon" <m.nixon.@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>d...@sprint.net (Dima Volodin) wrote:
>>This is a request to these countries to stop the slaughter of baby
>>carrots for commercial purposes, it is disgusting the images of the
>>murderers laughing while they are pulling small baby carrots out of
>>their natural habitat and make them die slow, torturous death or even
>>kill them off with their bare teeth, don't they have a heart, it is
>>time for the people to act against such governments who put profit
>>over Nature, money over humanity, they are just as naughty as Hitler,
>>or Stalin.
>>
>>Dima
>>
>>"All we are saying, it's give peace a chance"
>>
>>
>>
>Ignorance is bliss....(you must be very happy indeed)
Teach me... Baby...
Dima
William J. Olsson
>
> I don't think any study concludes that seals have been responsible
> for the serious depletion of cod stocks you mention.
> (Which I believe must be the stock off Newfoundland)
> These stocks collapsed as a result of overfishing.
if you understood what the seals feed on..and what the cod feed on when
they are young..you would quickly realize over fishing is not the major
reason for the depletion of the cod stocks..
> There is, however, a possibility that a growing seal population may
> hamper the recovery of the cod stock. This question has
> only recently been raised and there's no conclusive evidence
> in either direction. These two issues are frequently mixed.
..the evidence is conclusive if you want to see it..
> Anyway, with the enormous fecundity of
> cod there's little chance that predation may make a cod stock
> biologically extinct unless detrimental changes to its habitat also occurs.
..such as an expoding seal population that feeds on the same feed stock as
cod???
> What may happen is that once the stock is reduced below a
> certain threshold the stock may stabilize at a lower
> equilibrium than before. Such hypotheses are notoriously difficult
> to test.
>
> --
> Simen Gaure, Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo
>
>
Simen..stick to math..
Dan Korolev
d...@sprint.net (Dima Volodin) writes:
>"m.nixon" <m.nixon.@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>Teach me... Baby...
With carrots?! How kinky!
Mark Freedman
I'm probably denser than most. Please explain how your plan to "stop the
killing of baby seals" will help my investment portfolio to grow.
Alternatively, delete misc.invest.canada from the newsgroups list.
--
mdf...@io.org Mark Freedman (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)