Whale Farming
dbo...@mindspring.com
this idea struck me.......WHALE FARMING. Well, why not? IVF whales to
produce more whale babies, then implant the babies with transmitters so
they can be tracked thru adulthood. They can be fed via food drops
from aircraft and then easily found to be harvested.
Do you hear that odd choking sound? What is it? Why are all the Save
the Whale people turning purple?
coco
> I was reading something about whaling reducing whale populations when
> this idea struck me.......WHALE FARMING. Well, why not? IVF whales to
> produce more whale babies, then implant the babies with transmitters so
> they can be tracked thru adulthood. They can be fed via food drops
> from aircraft and then easily found to be harvested.
Must be from a firm that owns the privatized ocean! And hey they are
making you pay to take in the air they own also!
>
> Do you hear that odd choking sound? What is it? Why are all the Save
> the Whale people turning purple?
I thought the purple color was from the sonar the Navy was sending
out, by orders of the new Eniro Rummy, that killed the Farmed whales!
Geee, did they not try to to farm the passeger pigeon and failed? Did
they not farm the thick-billed Parrot in Ariz only to release it and
have all released ones picked off by hawks? So, your going to far, the
food they eat also? Or are you going to drop McDonald's Food for them?
and:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/13347599.htm
excerpt:
erhaps the biggest problem, however, is that, on average, between two
and three pounds of wild fish are needed to produce one pound of farmed
fish such as salmon. Hence, while many people assume that farming
marine fish serves to reduce pressure on wild fish populations, the
opposite is actually the case.
The farming of marine fish, the way it is practiced today, further
exacerbates pressure on wild forage fish such as anchovies, herring and
menhaden that are commonly used in fish meal. In turn, this places
additional stress on other parts of the marine food web that depend on
these wild fish for food.
Government officials claim that raising fish and shellfish in the sea
is similar to raising livestock on land. It is not. Beef and dairy
cattle, sheep, and poultry are primarily herbivores. They eat little or
no animal protein.
A more apt land analogy to raising carnivorous fish would be rounding
up wild deer and ducks to feed to farm-raised wolves or tigers.
Obviously, we don't do this as it would make no economic sense. It
would cost far more to raise one of these meat-eating animals than one
could ever hope to gain from its sale as a food source.
The government also claims that a proposed $5 billion aquaculture
industry, five times greater than that which exists, could generate
500,000 direct jobs. However, extrapolating from the marine aquaculture
industry worldwide, the number of actual jobs likely to be created by
an industry of this size is far lower, closer to 50,000.
Finally, the government argues that increasing the domestic marine
aquaculture industry will help to offset the $8 billion annual trade
deficit in seafood. One wonders, however, why taxpayers should
subsidize a part of the seafood industry that has potentially damaging
consequences to the U.S. marine environment, and also lowers prices
that U.S. fishermen get for their catch, when the economic benefits are
likely to be marginal at best.
While fish farming in the ocean may hold potential to produce seafood
without damaging the marine environment, it does not now. Before
further opening up the nation's oceans to this type of activity, the
aquaculture industry needs to fix some of the major environmental
problems associated with raising carnivorous fish in the sea, and
Congress should require that it do so.
For unless steps are taken to ensure that farming marine fish is done
with adequate environmental safeguards, the costs to the nation's
marine environment, and ultimately to all Americans, may far outweigh
its benefits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA REICHERT directs the environment program at the Pew Charitable
Trusts. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.
Thomas.Palm
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
The odd choking sound comes from economists pondering how immensely
unprofitable your scheme would be.