Were this a single instance of blurring the edges in order to focus the
message, concerns expressed by Brad and Mark might appear overstated.
However, this high handed practise of 'lumping' is not uncommon, and does
threaten to undermine progress.
For example, I would ask you to consider the recent FDA/EPA statement on
mercury, specifically in Albacore Tuna. Despite having unambiguous data
showing that Troll-caught Albacore is consistently and considerably lower in
mercury than fish from other sources (Morrissey, OSU, 2004), and poses a
negligably health risk, NGOs have 'overlooked' this in order to paint a
broader brushstroke across all Albacore. To their credit, Monterey Bay
Aquarium is an exception.
The consequences to efforts to build trust and cooperation between
stakeholders and advocates may not be immediately apparent, but if we are
truly commited to cleaning up our collective acts, this should not be
discounted.
rgds Jeremy Brown.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Lundsten" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Brad Warren" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>;
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Birdbycatch] Blue Ocean Institute seafood guide


>
> On Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 03:24  PM, Brad Warren wrote:
>
> > this
> > lumping seems increasingly unnecessary, and I think it is likely to
> > cause needless offense among those
> > fishers who really do work hard to deliver seafood a conscientious
> > consumer can eat without
> > fear of contributing to grave harm at sea.
>
> Hello Brad and Carl,
>
> I agree with Brad's point above. For example, there is a huge
> difference between the toothfish caught by the legal CCAMLR vessels who
> have exemplary conservation practices and the toothfish caught by the
> IUU vessels, whose record causes toothfish to be on the "don't eat"
> category. One easily can make a case that such "lumping" is actually
> (another) disincentive to fish clean. If I were a CCAMLR fisherman, I'd
> be a little miffed at not getting recognized for my efforts, and would
> feel that maybe those efforts are all for naught. I'd probably feel a
> bit like a sucker for NOT poaching. Other guys are ruining the fishery
> and the market anyway, and I'm being blamed along with them, so why
> shouldn't I just get my share before it's inevitably gone? In this
> lumped-together predicament, unfortunately and ironically, natural
> selection does not favor the ethical. But if the clean fishermen were
> encouraged by not being lumped together, though it may not save that
> fishery, at least one impediment would be removed from trying to steer
> natural selection as best we can by endorsing the ethical through
> regulations and sanctions. I realize my suggestion poses practical
> problems of identification and tracking and so on; but my point remains
> the problem of producing unintended negative incentives.
>
> Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Birdbycatch mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/birdbycatch
>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
To leave the CTURTLE list, send a message to:
     [log in to unmask]
with the message:  signoff CTURTLE

If you experience difficulty, send an email to:
     [log in to unmask]
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>