Dolphin "safe" tuna is an ecological disaster according to "WhySharksMatter." That's the nom de plume of a blogger interested in...guess what...sharks. That's him over there on the right, next to the guy in blue.
He has a strong opinion on dolphin-safe tuna and he has a point. But there is also a point on the other side, and it's a good chance for a rousing debate.
Who's right depends on what you value more, dolphins or broader ocean ecosystem health. At least that's the way I see it. We could protect dolphins totally during tuna fishing only if we're willing to allow other animals like fish and sea turtles to suffer harm and become depleted (or further depleted).
Dolphin lovers might say that protecting dolphins from harm is more important than saving sea turtles or fish. How do we balance? There is no scientific answer to that question, it's about values.
Who's out there with an opinion? You can argue it here or over at the home waters of Why Sharks Matter. Tweet
5 comments:
We can protct all of the species by just banning all commercial fishing. One line one person, thats it no exceptions.
Cheers
I agree with Fish Whisperer. Stop commercial fishing. Can you live without eating fish? Yes. Can you live without any fish in the oceans? Not for very long.
Have you ever seen dolphins drowning in nets? Condoning cruelty is not a good solution to the ecological problem.
Guys... according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2 billion people get at least 25% of their daily food from the ocean.
Many of these 2 billion people are absolutely dirt poor.
Yes, people wealthy enough to have a computer and have enough free time to blog can probably live without fish. Many of these people cannot.
When you say "Ban commercial fishing", I hear "fish are more important than poor people"
Thanks, Mark, for featuring my post.
Post a Comment