"Atlantic and Pacific are just labels. As a responsible regulator - one would use the hard-learned experiences from the Atlantic to not repeat the same mistakes in the Pacific - "
I'm just asking why we should close down an industry based on studies done on the other side of the world in a different ocean with a different ecosystem. It seems all this controversy is over Atlantic non native species so why not the movement to remove these fish?
I'm just asking why we should close down an industry based on studies done on the other side of the world in a different ocean with a different ecosystem. It seems all this controversy is over Atlantic non native species so why not the movement to remove these fish?
Impacts are site-specific. Labeling 1 stretch of water as "Pacific" and then walking away saying there will be no impacts because that stretch of water is now somehow magically protected after being called the "Pacific" - is living in a make-believe fairyland IMHO...
Yes I can understand and appreciate using other impacts as a base line but to put forward the studies and say it is happening here are different. Closing an industry based on different ecosystems is not good management. Seems we use any study in the world to disprove this industry because we cannot find faults in our own.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.