August 18th, 2004
|10:31 am - Yeah, *that's* intelligent. . .|
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there are very specific reasons that I disagree with groups like Greenpeace.
This is one of them.
Killing 11,000 fish to protest overfishing? wtf were they smoking?
Be very careful which groups you send your money to. The word "enviornmental" doesn't make it all happy.
Current Mood: angry
Current Music: "Trouble on the Horizon", -JB
Bycatch includes anything that can't be sold, which is why 80% of it or more is always bycatch.Of course it's not the fishermen's intention to acquire bycatch, but the nature of bottom trawling is that almost all living beings on and in the seabed are caught and only the target species are kept while the rest is discarded - most of it heavily injured or dead.
According to the article, and Greenpeace
's and the blog's own admission
, it's the process that kills and injurs the bycatch, not that they're already dead to begin with.
|Date:||August 18th, 2004 08:13 am (UTC)|| |
right, but greenpeace didnt' catch those fish. they were given them by the people who caught them. read the blog again.
" The skipper on one of the many beam trawlers that work the Dogger Bank invited us to come on board and talk about fisheries in the area. They also gave us some of the bycatch they bring on board every time a fishing net is taken in. "
Then why would they say
:"We caught the fish in the North Sea on board the Greenpeace ship Esperanza using a standard 10 meter commercial fishing net," said Jettka. "The net has a huge pipe attached that sucks up fish indiscriminately like a giant vacuum cleaner."
The blog and the spokespeople seem to disagree, but I'm not convinced that they made up 11,000 fish simply from what they were given.
Further info can be found here: http://www.greenpeace.org/deutschland/
It appears from the article there (English version
) that they did, but I can't read German, and the main English site doesn't have a story about this.
Well, we can't figure it out, I don't think, unless we get more information (or figure out how to read German to see what they say on the Greenpeace site).
I'm still more likely to believe the news article than the blogs, but I'm naturally suspicious of blogs anyway, and especially of Greenpeace.
|Date:||August 18th, 2004 08:48 am (UTC)|| |
news vs blogs and Devil's Advocate
I am just as suspicious of news as blogs. The accuracy of print media is frequently in question because the time span and editorial staff to check out stories is severely lacking. I have a hard time believing anything published on the internet has a higher level of scrutiny before it goes out.
I do agree with the notion of being careful to trust the word environment, in any form, in any context, the denotations and connotations are different enough. As for protesting, you need to get attention sometimes. If the 11,000 fish save millions is it a fair trade off?
|Date:||August 18th, 2004 07:55 am (UTC)|| |
I don't see the problem. they didn't catch the fish, the fish they collected were already dead, having been caught and discarded by other fishing ships. it's not like they killed thousands of fish.
|Date:||August 18th, 2004 10:32 am (UTC)|| |
A few points...
First, Greenpeace has some some terrific work over the years, and since their founding in Canada in the early 1970's, has spread all over the world.
Thus, they have also make a lot of enemies...and it could be that the news source, in this case Reuters, has a strong business leaning. Thus, their coverage may be slanted against Greenpeace. No news source is really objective, and one must realize that...objectivity is a path, not a place where you can arrive at, and understanding the bias of different news sources is important to properly reading the news. Also, reading multiple sources helps a great deal. Many times I have read/seen/heard stories reporting on the same incident that have very different points of view, and sometimes even totally different facts! I trust the media to get the gross facts right, but not the details. For example the afore mentioned article...I am sure that thousands of fish were dumped in the place they said, as everyone can see that, but the details, like where they got the fish, could be...well...fishy.
So, go and read the following article to get another view. http://www.terradaily.com/2004/040817164029.rdw60use.html
It states that Greenpeace recovered the dead fish after they were discarded by a troller...so who is right?
Remember, your reality tunnel will affect what you read, and how you interpret things. It may also prevent you from questioning the so-called "facts" as present, as long as they fit your reality tunnel. Your reality tunnel includes the idea that you don't like eco-activists like Greenpeace, and thus you took the Reuters' article at face value, and didn't do any fact checking...but it only took 20 seconds of research to find another news article that contradicts the Reuters article.
Eris has spoken.
just goes to show how the news can skew an 'impartial story' for their own benefit.
i've donated to them in the past, and when financially secure again (in my own mind...we're pretty secure, but i'm paranoid) will continue to do so.
|Date:||August 31st, 2004 07:27 am (UTC)|| |
wrong quote on reuters
right, would have been a fishy story if we had killed the fish. Reuters sent out an invented quote. They mixed it up somehow. Later on there was a reply saying:
BERLIN, Aug 17 (Reuters) - Environment activists piled thousands of dead fish at the foot of Berlin's biggest tourist attraction, the Brandenburg Gate, on Tuesday in a demonstration against over-fishing and pollution in the North Sea.
"It's not the fish but the politics that really stink," said Bjoern Jettka, press officer for Germany's Greenpeace.
On a hot August day at peak tourist season, visitors to the famous neo-classical landmark were greeted by the smell of 11,000 rotting fish displayed on a 100 metre long table under banners bearing the slogan "Don't waste life!".
Jettka said Greenpeace got the already dead fish from the unwanted catch of a Belgian fisherman who uses the so-called "beam trawl" method where a net is dragged along the sea bed.
"The North Sea beam trawlers have nets that suck up all the living creatures in their path indiscriminately like a giant vacuum cleaner," he added.
The dead fish on display -- some 95 percent of the catch, including endangered species of octopus and sea urchin -- were those that commercial crews would normally throw back overboard for failing to meet traders' criteria.
"Some 700,000 tons of dead fish are thrown back into the sea each year -- this waste problem will affect future generations if no one takes action," said Greenpeace marine biologist Thomas Henningsen.
"Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder must hear our protest."
Demonstrators hoped the prominent site, flanked by luxury hotels and foreign embassies, would attract attention and urge Schroeder to pressure the European Union to reduce over-fishing and pollution in the North Sea.
((Reporting by Sarah Goodwin, editing by Jon Hemming; Berlin newsroom; Tel: +49 30 2888 5210))
All the best