Comment by rolobio
2 years ago
I watched a documentary years ago about jellyfish invading Japan. Basically, the jellyfish population was exploding because the fish didn't exist to eat the baby jellyfish and keep them under control. The Japanese fishermen were furious that they kept catching jellyfish, rather than the fish that they wanted. They were the cause of their own suffering. Sounds like things haven't changed...
I hesitate to think that Japan could do something about it though. If they stopped over-fishing, that would just attract Chinese fishermen who would fill the gaps. Just can't win without global cooperation.
Fish management doesn't really require global cooperation. It does require some sacrifice. Where I live 100 years ago herring spawn covered nearly every shoreline. I live in an archipelago so there is a lot of coastline. Now there are sporadic patches of herring spawn. The herring fishery is a multi million dollar industry. Herring is also the base of the larger fin-fish population. We can't harvest all the food for larger species and harvest larger species and expect everything to just be fine. If there is an abundance of food for a species they will spawn in greater numbers (well known predator-prey dynamic). Sacrificing the herring fishery would allow larger species a path to build populations.
That is something that can be done at a local level without global cooperation. Don't harvest all the food for the larger fish we like to eat.
>That is something that can be done at a local level without global cooperation.
You're assuming some foreign operator won't come to your local waters to illegally fish. China has shown they will fish literally anywhere they can get away with it.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/26/world/asia/ch...
Read that article again closer, paying attention to separate the examples of illegal behavior from simply fishing.
"Much of what China does, however, is legal — or, on the open seas at least, largely unregulated." -- quote from your link.
Fishing "right up to the exclusive economic zone", means you're in international waters and can fish freely. They continue their activities because there are no legal means to stop their behavior. It's completely legal to fish in international waters.. just as it's legal for the US military to conduct freedom of movement operations in international waters. Countries can complain, but it doesn't give them the right to stop the behavior.
That's the problem.
3 replies →
It's worth noting that Korea and Taiwan are right behind China in illegal fishing (#3 and #6, respectively).
For reasons, it doesn't win you any friends when you complain about them, though.
4 replies →
That is what a military is for...
2 replies →
So has Japan.
6 replies →
I know China-bashing is popular on this website, but a quite search of market data reveals that China isn't even in the top 10 of tuna producers NOR consumers.
Basic economics would suggest that a country with low nominal GDP/capita would not be the final destination for a global commodity (with relatively high production cost) like deep sea fish. Given that your production site is in the Pacific Ocean, why would you sell in Shanghai when you can sell in San Francisco where the average person spends ~10x or more USD on food?
TFA even says the West Pacific (i.e. China, Japan, Korea) is the region suffering the least, due to local conservation measures.
5 replies →
> If they stopped over-fishing, that would just attract Chinese fishermen who would fill the gaps.
Maybe that's true, but isn't this the exact same argument used by Americans: "Why should I stop driving my SUV, when China will burn that gas anyway?"
False Equivalence
When the gas is gone those SUVs will simply stop working. When the fish are gone large populations of people will not have sufficient food to eat.
When enough CO2 is in the air large populations of people will not have sufficient food to eat either.
moreso, "why should the government [because private industry would anyway with the prices] invest in solar and wind instead of coal, China will burn the coal anyway"
SUVs/Trucks -> Midsize by individuals driving 95% < 30 miles is less meaningful change than many other changes. (especially considering the future of the SUV is hybrid/electric). The math changes if the question becomes, instead of size of car, reducing the car/household for walking, biking, or carpooling.
> If they stopped over-fishing, that would just attract Chinese fishermen who would fill the gaps. Just can't win without global cooperation.
There's a way to deal with intruders (or, let's call it by its name, pirates) into maritime space: stop their ships, seize them or torpedo them. It's only a question of time IMHO until this happens, China has been making enemies at sea in its neighborhood, even up to Africa, for years now.
They could start eating jellyfish to pick up the slack.
Yes, that is the second half of the documentary. They were trying to come up with delicious recipes to take advantage of the situation. I don't imagine I would like to eat jellyfish either, but I would certainly give it a try.
> They were trying to come up with delicious recipes to take advantage of the situation
And this plan will be a failure from the start. The pool of edible species is just a very small part of the total.
Leatherback turtles eat jellyfishes. What if we stop killing them instead? or increase the ludicrous amount of resources allocated to protect turtle nests?
it doesn't taste like anything... it's 90%+ water, and water solid remains is basically tofu: absorbs the flavor of what it's cooked with
The Chinese prepare it quite well! It's great with some chili oil in a salad
95% water. The economics just don't work. Is spending dollars in fuel to move tons of water from the sea, trow the 90% again to the sea and sell the remains for pennies.
Unfortunately not
They are not even remotely substitutes nutritionally
Maybe? I mean sea urchin is delicious, popular, and sells at a high price but still seems to threaten a lot of kelp forest