Our Endangered Coastal Fishery

[Sam Salmon]

Lower end places often feature farmed Salmon-Chinese/Korean run Sushi Bars especially.

The Asian Pacific Post constantly has adds/articles promoting farmed Salmon-scroll down the page.

[Andrew Morrison]

oops, wrong thread. sorry.

Edited April 8, 2005 by editor@waiterblog (log)

[jamiemaw]

We will have some news next week about a special luncheon in late June to tackle the issue of sustainability, drink sustaining wine and take some sustenance.

Watch this space.

Edited April 8, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[appreciator]

Not to be a big old wet blanket.... but..... what if all the powers that be get the word out, and everyone supposedly knows what they should eat and what they shouldn't.... but still, you have those "fish loving ignorant folk/ restaurateurs /commando chefs" eating/ demanding/ serving fish that's just not on. What then?

I've read a fair bit of this thread and am wondering how, exactly, in a very formulaic way, "we" can get everyone on side.

What will it take? What's the plan?

Massive advertising campaign that scorns endangered fish/ shellfish?

Boycott all restaurants that serve anything other than fish/shellfish from approved list?

International campaign to enlist international consumers in boycotting endangered fish/ shellfish?

Or perhaps, this is something we all do, one consumer (one choice we make) at a time?

Edited April 9, 2005 by appreciator (log)

[jamiemaw]

Not to be a big old wet blanket.... but..... what if all the powers that be get the word out, and everyone supposedly knows what they should eat and what they shouldn't.... but still, you have those "fish loving ignorant folk/ restaurateurs /commando chefs" eating/ demanding/ serving fish that's just not on.  What then?

I've read a fair bit of this thread and am wondering how, exactly, in a very formulaic way, "we" can get everyone on side. 

What will it take? What's the plan?

Massive advertising campaign that scorns endangered fish/ shellfish?

Boycott all restaurants that serve anything other than fish/shellfish from approved list?

International campaign to enlist international consumers in boycotting endangered fish/ shellfish?

Or perhaps, this is something we all do, one consumer (one choice we make) at a time?

←

Appreciator,

I think that 'the plan' begins with education--our education. There can be little argument that, by first allowing ourselves to learn more about the inexact science of sustainability, then we can, in turn, elect how to communicate or act.

All ot the actions that you mention lie within the power of any collaborative. But first, I would hope, a little learning. Our luncheon in June is being designed to initiate precisely that.

Thanks for bringing forward these important questions.

Jamie

Edited April 9, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[FaustianBargain]

What will it take? What's the plan?

I think that 'the plan' begins with education--our education. There can be little argument that, by first allowing ourselves to learn more about the inexact science of sustainability, then we can, in turn, elect how to communicate or act.

[..]

Jamie

←

I have been speaking to someone about creating a new standard combining iso 26000(social responsibility standards) and iso 14000/14001(environmental management) that is specifically designed for how we eat. So far, the response hasnt been very good. Basically, for restaurants it would be a completely new standard as a combination of HACCAP, social responsibility and environmental management all brought together. Although, it sounds like a far fetched concept, I think the idea itself has some merit.

Edited April 9, 2005 by FaustianBargain (log)

[cubilularis]

What about evolution? We are the top of the food chain. We survive, we adapt. Once we were hunted, so we learned to make homes to protect ourselves. We foraged, but could not supply enough food so we learned to farm…

Science is the same way. In my lifetime people believed polio would wipe out the world. Science needs a catalyst to create remedies. Science will prevail, if you believe in our species, and find other sources of nutrients, better nutrient. But it will not happen until it is a necessity.

What you are proposing goes completely against nature and natural selection. Species get strong, eat other species ~ they go extinct or learn to adapt/protect themselves. The strong are left to populate the world to guarantee a continuing process.

Proposing ways to help weaker species, and more specifically food stocks, does not make sense. Instead of trying to preserve the 'inferior species', and hampering evolution, we should focus on growing ourselves as a species and focusing on our strengths and long term growth and sustainability through evolution.

...just a thought as I sit on my couch, drinking lemonade and eating a hotdog while watching basketball on the TV.

[jamiemaw]

What about evolution? We are the top of the food chain. We survive, we adapt. Once we were hunted, so we learned to make homes to protect ourselves. We foraged, but could not supply enough food so we learned to farm…

Science is the same way. In my lifetime people believed polio would wipe out the world. Science needs a catalyst to create remedies. Science will prevail, if you believe in our species, and find other sources of nutrients, better nutrient. But it will not happen until it is a necessity.

What you are proposing goes completely against nature and natural selection. Species get strong, eat other species ~ they go extinct or learn to adapt/protect themselves. The strong are left to populate the world to guarantee a continuing process.

Proposing ways to help weaker species, and more specifically food stocks, does not make sense. Instead of trying to preserve the 'inferior species', and hampering evolution, we should focus on growing ourselves as a species and focusing on our strengths and long term growth and sustainability through evolution.

...just a thought as I sit on my couch, drinking lemonade and eating a hotdog while watching basketball on the TV.

←

With respect, I have collanders that hold more water than your argument and think perhaps that you're putting us on.

To test its validity, one must only exaggerate it slightly: Extinct species do not adapt, they disappear. Don't believe me? Ask a dodo.

Simply put, Man is the only species that has the power to eliminate all of the other species and in the process himself. We have already been successful in doing that one species at a time. This does not, however, make other species inferior, just different. The reason is that when are no other species, there will be no Man.

It's misleading to think in terms of a 'food chain'--it's not. The ecology that supports our nervous little band of brothers and sisters looks much more like a web. Begin removing components of that web and . . .

But Man is also the only species that can save himself from himself. That's called responsibilty, and it's a useful antidote to greed.

Edited April 9, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[cubilularis]

Typical fundamentalist move...

Take the topic on a tangent and develop 'loose' theories into fact.

My point, and only point is; we are an ever-evolving species. Every mistake, every success leads to our evolution be it straight forward or paridigm.

We eat fish, we eat meat, we eat plants...for whatever reason, it is what we do, as a whole and it has done us well in our evolution.

For us to beleive we are 'above the big picture' is scary! People who believe we are removed from 'nature' scare me.

[nwyles]

What about evolution? We are the top of the food chain. We survive, we adapt. Once we were hunted, so we learned to make homes to protect ourselves. We foraged, but could not supply enough food so we learned to farm…

Science is the same way. In my lifetime people believed polio would wipe out the world. Science needs a catalyst to create remedies. Science will prevail, if you believe in our species, and find other sources of nutrients, better nutrient. But it will not happen until it is a necessity.

What you are proposing goes completely against nature and natural selection. Species get strong, eat other species ~ they go extinct or learn to adapt/protect themselves. The strong are left to populate the world to guarantee a continuing process.

Proposing ways to help weaker species, and more specifically food stocks, does not make sense. Instead of trying to preserve the 'inferior species', and hampering evolution, we should focus on growing ourselves as a species and focusing on our strengths and long term growth and sustainability through evolution.

...just a thought as I sit on my couch, drinking lemonade and eating a hotdog while watching basketball on the TV.

←

Perhaps you would like to keep pushing forward until we are on a diet of Soylent Green alone.

I might call it a delicate house of cards rather than a food chain. We have removed a few cards and some are in the process of being removed. It will come tumbling down soon enough if we do not do something about it. With very little effort, we can start to reverse some of these trends and put things back in balance. For those you know me, I am not part of the Birkenstock Brigade" or to I propose we all sit in a circle and sing "Kum By Ya " . The "inferior species" would be just fine if we were not trying to turn them in "Capt. Highliner Fishsticks".

More to come later - I am braising a giant panda right now and I do not want to over cook it and have to start again.

[FaustianBargain]

My point, and only point is; we are an ever-evolving species. Every mistake, every success leads to our evolution be it straight forward or paridigm.

I have once entertained the idea of employing evolution as an argument against intensive farming of the animals that come to our table as food. I gave it very serious thought for a couple of weeks and discarded it.

Do our waters, our glaciers, our seasons evolve in synch with our evolving technologies. If they proceed at an even rate, then your argument might hold true. However, it is difficult to pace the random and often chaotic explosions of science and technology with the measured evolution of the species.

Evolution, as you probably know, happens in small increments. I am currently reading Ancestors' Tale by Richard Dawkins and I am in awe about our species and earth..at the same time, I am a little concerned about how we fritter away our precious resources without paying heed to the consequences.

We eat fish, we eat meat, we eat plants...for whatever reason, it is what we do, as a whole and it has done us well in our evolution.

For us to beleive we are 'above the big picture' is scary! People who believe we are removed from 'nature' scare me.

←

There is actually an evolutionary theory(the key word being 'theory') that the animals we domesticated for our food or as our pets evolved to be eaten by us. The theory suggests that certain animals find evolutionary trade off in being domesticated because they can benefit from the humans during their reproductive phases. They are evolved so that they have lesser testosterone..higher serotonin levels etc.(experiments prove this) They escape the threat from wild creatures(those above them in the food chain, that is) during their most fertile reproductive phase when they are taken care by the humans. Their genes get a chance to replicate. Their demise and ultimately their appearance as food on our plates is a price worth paying for the fecundity of their genes. This applies to pets like dogs(derived from the vulpine family) and cows and goats and chicken etc.

I have always found the practice of slaughtering young lambs for their tender flesh rather perverse and it would be ironic if the above mentioned theory were true. Relatedly, the factory farming of animals is a mistake that has compounded effects that effectively derail evolutionary designs.

Let us take salmon for example. Salmon evolved to be food for bears. It is beautiful(in a macbre way) to witness the spawning instinct of the salmon at the same time as the bears come to the streams for their nourishment.

Or let us consider the shark or the crocodile. They have reached the pinnacle of evolution. The shark need not evolve anymore. In its environment, it is the ultimate killing machine. It is at the top of it's food chain. However, it can still fear mortality because of human expansion into its territory. At its peak, the shark can evolve nomore. Vertically, it has hit upon its ceiling. With no more room for further evolution, the species will become extinct.

Having said all this, it is an interesting experiment to consider human recklessness as a factor towards shifting evolution. It can and has been argued that evolution has frozen. We can evolve no more, but let us consider that invalid. Evolution takes tens of thousands and thousands of years to happen. From single celled creatures, from the bottom of an ocean, through a series of accidents and mutations and after thousands and thousands of years, we stand here today...at the top of the food chain. Assuming evolution to engage in what is obviously reckless behaviour will not offer comfort when the next couple of generations suffer. It is possible that we, the human species, might perish before the next evolutionary leap occurs. Thinking twenty steps ahead will only cause us to falter.

On a different note, I must protest the term 'fundamentalist' used here. It is essentially an insult hurled and denotes fundamentalist xians who denounce evolution and embrace intelligent design. This is no place to argue the merits of evolution over intelligent design.

[M'd]

Fixing the problem:

It is good to see us discussing (a very overdue topic-thanx Jamiemaw) with such obvious passion, ways to be sustainable in our fisheries through "don't eat/eat" lists etc.

However, we will still all end up meeting for said sustainable product on mass at C now and do so via a swarm of SUV's with likely a max of 2/boat. We'll wipe our mouths with handsome DRY CLEANED linen and happily use 3 or 4 times the necassary bathroom tissue while flushing a a small country's annual rainfall down the imported porcelain shit tube.

We all need to realize that it is not just about what we BUY/CONSUME that counts but also how we BEHAVE on this planet that will see our fisheries survive.

I move for a list of truley Environmentally Conscious restaurants to be assembled. C and Raincity have been mentioned. Who else?

---maybe Birkenstock will sponsor a promotional leaflet we could stick under a few million windsheild wipers. lol

Edited April 10, 2005 by M'd (log)

[jamiemaw]

Fixing the problem:

It is good to see us discussing (a very overdue topic-thanx Jamiemaw) with such obvious passion, ways to be sustainable in our fisheries through "don't eat/eat" lists etc.

However, we will still all end up meeting for said sustainable product on mass at C now and do so via a swarm of SUV's with likely a max of 2/boat.  We'll wipe our mouths with handsome DRY CLEANED linen and happily use 3 or 4 times the necassary bathroom tissue while flushing a a small country's annual rainfall down the imported porcelain shit tube.

We all need to realize that it is not just about what we BUY/CONSUME that counts but also how we BEHAVE on this planet that will see our fisheries survive.

I move for a list of truley Environmentally Conscious restaurants to be assembled.  C and Raincity have been mentioned.  Who else?

---maybe Birkenstock will sponsor a promotional leaflet we could stick under a few million windsheild wipers. lol

←

These are all commendable thoughts, M'd, and as we educate ourselves to these issues, hoepfully we can--both individually and perhaps even collectively--make choices to take up less room. I would be entirely happy to carpool and I'm sure others would too.

C and some other restaurants are already enrolled in the Ocean Wise program. Bishop's has had an organic program in place for years; Earls has had an organic greens program organized for about six years. So the opportunity, through this organization and others such as The Chefs' Table Society, lies first in education, of ourselves and ultimately the consumer, and then positive action.

FYI, restaurant linen is not typically dry-cleaned, but rather laundered.

Thanks for your thoughtful remarks, and we look forward to transmitting further information regarding the event shortly. As of this writing we are scheduling it for Saturday, June 25th at 1pm.

Cheers,

Jamie

Edited April 10, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[butter]

Last week, I turned down the special of Chilean Sea Bass that was REALLY being pushed. Perhaps I should put this in the thread about language barriers because when I told the server I didn't want it because it was close to being extinct he continued to describe what kind of fish it is and all the ways they could prepare it for me. I don't know how close it is to becoming extinct, it's just not one of my faves. I just wanted to test the waters and see what the reaction would be. Some people might think I was intentionally being ignored, but I have a feeling the server didn't understand the word extinct. Obviously, the chef of this restaurant isn't concerned about sustainability.

[jamiemaw]

Last week, I turned down the special of Chilean Sea Bass that was REALLY being pushed. . . .  but I have a feeling the server didn't understand the word extinct. Obviously, the chef of this restaurant isn't concerned about sustainability.

←

Where? Perhaps we should begin a Chilean sea bass alert thread.

[*Deborah*]

Last week, I turned down the special of Chilean Sea Bass that was REALLY being pushed. . . .  but I have a feeling the server didn't understand the word extinct. Obviously, the chef of this restaurant isn't concerned about sustainability.

←

Where? Perhaps we should begin a Chilean sea bass alert thread.

←

No kidding...it stuns me, I haven't eaten it in more than 4 years, in spite of having a really great recipe for it (and I don't have that many great recipes), and I'm not normally on top of things like that at all, so I'm assuming that more aware people have been not eating it for considerably longer.

[jamiemaw]

Last week, I turned down the special of Chilean Sea Bass that was REALLY being pushed. . . .  but I have a feeling the server didn't understand the word extinct. Obviously, the chef of this restaurant isn't concerned about sustainability.

←

Where? Perhaps we should begin a Chilean sea bass alert thread.

←

No kidding...it stuns me, I haven't eaten it in more than 4 years, in spite of having a really great recipe for it (and I don't have that many great recipes), and I'm not normally on top of things like that at all, so I'm assuming that more aware people have been not eating it for considerably longer.

←

I took the chef at Lift to task in print recently for serving Chilean sea bass. His response was that he has tried to put other items such as escobar on the menu, but many have snubbed it. So economics remain a big part of the issue, especially when you've just spent $6.5 million on your restaurant.

One reason the CSB became so wildly popular was because it's very forgiving; even in inexpert hands it's hard to screw up, and it does have that buttery flesh which for many of us is just a memory now.

Edited April 10, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[Leonard]

Fixing the problem:

It is good to see us discussing (a very overdue topic-thanx Jamiemaw) with such obvious passion, ways to be sustainable in our fisheries through "don't eat/eat" lists etc.

However, we will still all end up meeting for said sustainable product on mass at C now and do so via a swarm of SUV's with likely a max of 2/boat.  We'll wipe our mouths with handsome DRY CLEANED linen and happily use 3 or 4 times the necassary bathroom tissue while flushing a a small country's annual rainfall down the imported porcelain shit tube.

We all need to realize that it is not just about what we BUY/CONSUME that counts but also how we BEHAVE on this planet that will see our fisheries survive.

I move for a list of truley Environmentally Conscious restaurants to be assembled.  C and Raincity have been mentioned.  Who else?

---maybe Birkenstock will sponsor a promotional leaflet we could stick under a few million windsheild wipers. lol

←

It all starts somewhere.

Leonard

C GM

[*Deborah*]

Fixing the problem:

It is good to see us discussing (a very overdue topic-thanx Jamiemaw) with such obvious passion, ways to be sustainable in our fisheries through "don't eat/eat" lists etc.

However, we will still all end up meeting for said sustainable product on mass at C now and do so via a swarm of SUV's with likely a max of 2/boat.  We'll wipe our mouths with handsome DRY CLEANED linen and happily use 3 or 4 times the necassary bathroom tissue while flushing a a small country's annual rainfall down the imported porcelain shit tube.

We all need to realize that it is not just about what we BUY/CONSUME that counts but also how we BEHAVE on this planet that will see our fisheries survive.

I move for a list of truley Environmentally Conscious restaurants to be assembled.  C and Raincity have been mentioned.  Who else?

---maybe Birkenstock will sponsor a promotional leaflet we could stick under a few million windsheild wipers. lol

←

It all starts somewhere.

Leonard

C GM

←

What Leonard said.

Not to mention, why would you assume that your fellow eGulleteers are a bunch of wasteful environmental hooligans? I'll be walking over, myself.

[Zucchini Mama]

M'd said:

"We all need to realize that it is not just about what we BUY/CONSUME that counts but also how we BEHAVE on this planet that will see our fisheries survive.

I move for a list of truley Environmentally Conscious restaurants to be assembled.  C and Raincity have been mentioned.  Who else?"

I've decided that this is the year I get off my butt and start becoming a food policy activist.

I've started attending food policy events and panels and reading up on food politics. I'm planning on organizing an eco-feminist dining club in my neighborhood to discuss issues around sustainabilty and to start talking to our governing bodies about what we as responsible consumers want in terms of food labeling, etc.

There are many people in Vancouver who are well-versed in these issues. We need to get together and show leadership in these issues in Canada. I'm frustrated about how passive Canucks tend to be on these issues compared to the Brits. There are two food policy workers on city council. We need to develop a system that rewards responsible restaurants in Vancouver. Perhaps we could organize something with them. I plan on attending a city food policy meeting as soon as I get a chance.

I want my child to be able to eat fish in the future and to participate in the food culture that we're sharing here together in these threads.

Zuke

[M'd]

"Not to mention, why would you assume that your fellow eGulleteers are a bunch of wasteful environmental hooligans? I'll be walking over, myself"

I assumed ALL OF US are doing the wrong. I need only witness myself, and almost ALL others to conclude that this is an incredibely pressing issue. Egulleters are lumped into "US" in this case.----so am I.

p.s walking distance from C!?!--------NICE!

Leonard;

--yes it does start somewhere. Unfortunately it has started way too late in my humble opinion, and we need to make up for lost time. In this case I think any sensationalism from the media is WELCOME.

I am not trying to piss anyone off personally, but as a whole (our society not our Forum), we are supporting the Ahi Tuna, Thai Shrimp and Prawns, and afore mentioned Pantagonian Tooth Fish market.

[Keith Talent]

I blame the Patagonian Toothfish for evolving so deliciously.

[butter]

I blame the Patagonian Toothfish for evolving so deliciously.

←

And I blame all fish for not being smart enough to stay out of the nets or traps.

[jamiemaw]

The Vancouver Sun today came out guns a-blazin' in a very strong editiorial attacking federal Fisheries minister Geoff Regan for his government's inaction on DFO's mismanagement of the Fraser River fishery. The editorial was in response to BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Bryan Williams' report on the fishery, published March 31.

VANCOUVER SUN EDITORIAL

It seems nothing short of a scandal. Or perhaps the federal Libs simply have bigger fish to fry these days.

Edited April 11, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[annanstee]

Typical fundamentalist move...

Take the topic on a tangent and develop 'loose' theories into fact.

My point, and only point is; we are an ever-evolving species. Every mistake, every success leads to our evolution be it straight forward or paridigm.

We eat fish, we eat meat, we eat plants...for whatever reason, it is what we do, as a whole and it has done us well in our evolution.

For us to beleive we are 'above the big picture' is scary! People who believe we are removed from 'nature' scare me.

←

I am not sure why you keep using the word "fundamentalist"- I don't see anyone here is displaying the kind of rigidity that word connotates. And I am afraid the "facts" in your argument or pretty thin on the ground.

With all due respect, I think it is you who feel removed from nature. Your position seems to be that because we are at the top of the food chain we can take from it with impunity.

Isn't industrializing agriculture to the degree we have removing us from nature?

You must see that there is a law of diminishing returns...

The argument that you advocate is, it has become obvious, merely spitting in the wind. Ravaging the environment causes rapid ecological change. Rapid ecological change causes spurts in evolution. Evolution, while sometimes gradual, is often characterized by long periods of little change punctuated spates of rapid evolution.What causes these spurts? Historically, it has often been mass extinction, which opens up newly vacated ecological niches to be exploited.

And this, my friend, does not just apply to mankind, but to bacteria and viruses too. The sudden change in ecological niches causes them to evolve and suddenly infect new species. Like us. Now who's at the top of the food chain?

Do you think that increases in asthma, cancer, and new superbugs and viruses like the hantavirus, have no connection with deforestation, high yield animal husbandry, pollution, etc? Do you think that hunting species to extinction is not going to have a profound effect on the ecosystem- of which, you point out, we are a part? Do you not think that biodiversity is to our benefit?

I am not a radical person- I haven't had Birkinstocks since university- but I don't really understand how anybody can stand against sustainability when it is so clearly the best evolutionary choice we can make, even from a purely selfish perspective. I find it strange that people still are trying to divide us into redblooded neo-Darwinists and nutbar hippies- which by the way is a typical tactic of "fundamentalists" you so trenchantly oppose (see "Feminazis").

This not about whether we eat meat -which I do- it is about maintaining stocks for both our benefit and that of the species, and about assuring that our kids can eat as well as we do.

I hope I don't come off at a freak-but I can't accept the impending extinction of food stocks is just about evolution or competing money grubbing interests.

on another note

Hey Neil- do you think that the whole salmon thing is about demand?

I remember tourists/locals used to come and demand salmon all year round in

restaurants-hence the farmed fish, whereas now there is now more diner awareness of sourcing and the whole local/seasonal thing?

I know I always ask where salmon comes from.

I don't know, but I remember Chef friends complaining about diners who would ask if the salmon was fresh in January.

Ahem. I think I have ranted long enough

edited for heinous grammar

Edited April 11, 2005 by annanstee (log)