If you work out the math on this (and you don't have to, because the environmental justice foundation did) , you find that 1 dolphin saved costs 382 mahi-mahi, 188 wahoo, 82 yellowtail and other large fish, 27 sharks, and almost 1,200 small fish.
By trying to help dolphins, groups like Greenpeace caused one of the worst marine ecological disasters of all time.
From a Southern Fried Science post about tuna fishing. 'Dolphin safe' tuna is much worse for the ecosystem.
This is just one of many examples of how people have a stupid attachment to charismatic megafauna, instead of focusing on the envirnomental issues that really matter, like ecosystem stability and habitat loss.
3 comments:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one.
I assumed 'dolphin-safe' meant tuna caught using those nets with holes in the back that let dolphins and turtles out but not smaller fishes... but I see those aren't in use in the major tuna fisheries in Asia... so thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Dolphins are very visible posterchildren, easy for people to relate to. What if zoos and conservationists moved from merely pushing animals to pushing... habitat/actions?
Coincidentally your post appeared just after news sites (finally) picked up this statement on pandas being a money drain, that should be cut in favor of paying attention to species that may have better survival opportunities. Was this post inspired by that one? Another excellent example of 'charismatic megafauna.'
I never saw the thing about pandas. It makes sense, though. They were always an evolutionary dead end. I've never liked the things.
Post a Comment