Wholesaler Labels Aquaculture as Immoral!

Let's not be dramatic now... no witch hunt here. They have a right to choose who they support but their reasoning behind their decision makes no sense at all. Their statements and positions are there in black and white. Anyone with critical reading skills will read their page and say, "WHAT?!" I know I did. It looks like mikejrice, snooknredz, ingtar shinowa, jake, swimswithfish, atticus818, charlottereefer, and rocketmandb all had similar reactions. Gcarroll, I'm sorry to say this, but your argument is invalid.

 

It states that they support only aquaculture in areas native to the species and even call it a moral and ethical stance. This, by logic would imply that companies like ora is immoral and unethical.

 

It was poorly written but you're all missing the point, one that Gresh and Greg are trying to make.

 

That they didn't mean it in that way. I get that point, but the only thing I have to go on is their public statement.

 

In my field, when reading it in black and white, it means what it says. Sorry

 

: Obviously you are only willing to see the light you want to see... carry-on, I have no time for such a one sided conversation.

You're probably using this to drive traffic anyways, not sure why I engaged in this thread.

 

It's HARDLY a piece of scientific literature And yes, there has been significant movement in this area in the last decade. There has been over $15m spent via NGO's on the issue, much of them during studies themselves. Look to MAC, EASTI and SEASMART if you want to see what they gathered, although much may be "privileged" information.

You have to look beyond journals as well as not all data is put into journals. Much of it is government records.

If you really want to dig deep, contact Dr Andrew Rhyne (NeAQ)or Dr Andrew Bruckner (NOAA). They have their fingers on the pulse and access to the data.

 

Mike,
I am a little worried. I love that you are writing, and at the same time this is the second time I can remember that you have published something guns-a-blazing without having done enough background research. You have more than their public statement, you could have contacted them for clarification and think people who publish opinions about other peoples work have the responsibility to do due diligence and strive for the most generous interpretation before publishing.
We have enough fires to put out from outside of the industry without starting our own.

Rich

 

The thing that bothers me is not what they support or do. It's what they are saying that they support and do. This is their public message. A public statement of beliefs should not need interpretation or research. The goal behind that page should be to inform anyone who happens by of how they feel about aquaculture.

 

Let me try coming at this from a little bit of a different angle because I feel the tension building and I genuinely am not trying to start an argument or devalue anyone's opinion/knowledge on the matter.

My interpretation of this and response came from the stance not of a writer but of a hobbyist and perspective customer. From that point of view, I knew nothing of this companies activities regarding aquaculture other than what they said in their statement. As I think we can agree, the way it was written was confusing at best, and without knowing more about them, this was the only conclusion I could come to. I'm not discounting what I'm being told here. I trust this community and the people in it, so I'm sure there is more to the story than what they said, but I still can't get contact information for them to even get their side. As it stands, they still have the same very confusing message displayed publicly on their website.