Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Be Careful Where You Buy: Walmart's 36 million dollar Anti Fishing Donation.....

  1. #1

    Default Be Careful Where You Buy: Walmart's 36 million dollar Anti Fishing Donation.....

    Here is a link to an interesting read: http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/sh...88#post3619288

    As usual shop where you like, but in the back of my mind I know what I am thinking when the wife goes there for groceries.....

  2. #2
    Moderator bkmail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palmer, AK.
    Posts
    4,121

    Default

    Interesting read, we are financing our own demise....thanks for posting.
    BK

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Seward, AK
    Posts
    120

    Exclamation re:

    I've never spent a dime at a Wal-Mart store- they didnt have them where I grew up and by the time they had conquered the West I was already not a fan due to their refusal to carry music that featured a parental advisory label. turns out censorship is the tip of the iceberg with Wal-Mart and I have no problems finding bargains elsewhere, so who needs 'em. So here I was all excited to see this post when I followed you link and discovered that your slant, as well as the OP on that other forum is anti-conservation and anti-environmentalism? Whats up with that?
    I'll borrow a quote from that other page:
    "A quick visit to the Ocean Conservancy website should be telling enough for anglers interested in learning where Wal-Mart's profits are being spent," said RFA executive director Jim Donofrio. "These folks are pushing hard to complete California's network of exclusionary zones throughout the entire length of coastline, and they've made it very clear that they would like to see the West Coast version of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) extended into other coastal U.S. waters."

    So we're supposed to be against closing off sections of the California coast that historically have had the greatest biodiversity of rockfishes, but have been poorly managed by government agencies and overfished for years by the public? And rockfishes in California are only the first thing that comes to mind. Do you guys think these environmental groups even have the power to just close large swaths of our fishing grounds without any scientific evidence or public opinion taken into consideration? And how does this affect Alaska in the context of all this? My advice to you would be to get involved in your own local fishing politics in the areas you fish. Let the people of California or the people of Florida fight for their own fisheries or fight to conserve habitat.
    But yeah, do boycott Walmart. They might be working to polish up their image, but we all know you cant polish a turd.
    Last edited by bigfish6025; 08-19-2011 at 11:58. Reason: spelling, duh...

  4. #4
    Member Boreal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Southcentral AK
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfish6025 View Post

    So we're supposed to be against closing off sections of the California coast that historically have had the greatest biodiversity of rockfishes, but have been poorly managed by government agencies and overfished for years by the public?
    But yeah, do boycott Walmart. They might be working to polish up their image, but we all know you cant polish a turd.
    Nicely said BigFish. Several conservation groups in CA have partnered with commercial fishers to identify both areas of high historic catch, and high historic bycatch. The Conservation groups worked with the commercial fishers to identify the areas appropriate for protection, and they lobbied AS A PARTNERSHIP to implement those closures. Some of the fishers in the area chose to sell their boats and licenses because they didn't see a future in the fisheries there. The conservation groups purchased those, with the agreement that they would keep them local, and allow local fishermen to either lease them at rates they could afford, or sell them to local fishermen at prices they could afford. The point was to keep the quota and activity LOCAL. At least one of the fishermen also agreed to self-impose area restrictions to limit his fishing to areas of low bycatch. The result is that he's catching more of his target species, and fewer of the protected species. He's also profitable for the first time in a decade. Yes, this was funded, in part, by the Walton Family Foundation. They fund a lot of sustainable fisheries work. It's got to start somewhere. Any projects designed to create sustainable fisheries, that keep working waterfronts working, and local fishermen employed and empowered are good things.

  5. #5

    Default

    Trust me, I am totally ok with conservation, but I am fearful of closure as we all remember how hard it was to remove the scarlet letter in our high school english classes. Reversing complete closures is very tough to do and once it has happened as it almost takes an act of god to change it. I was not implying anyone should ban walmart or to shop there; it is just nice to know what they are funding. And after reading all of it, and reflecting upon the implementations for a while, the jury is still out if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I am intrigued by it. Thanks for sharing you insights.

  6. #6
    Member Boreal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Southcentral AK
    Posts
    294

    Default

    I think I understand your concern. It's a common misperception that these are "complete closures". Not at all. These are closures to specific types of commercial fishing (trawling) for specific rockfish species. The areas are still open to longline, pot, recreational hook and line, and just about every other marine use, as those activities generally do not harm the conservation target. That is the heart of a marine protected area. Those activities that threaten the conservation target (overfished species, delicate habitat like coral, etc.) are prohibited, but non-damaging activities are not affected at all. It's a common spin to imply that these areas are completely closed to all activities, and it gets the base all fired up. But while there are a few, very small closure areas, the vast majority of marine protected areas are open to just about all activities.

    Look at the Florida Keys Marine Protected Area. Commercial fishermen who initially opposed the MPA now credit the stock rebuilding ability of the area for saving their fishery.

    There's lots of good that can be done with careful planning that involves everybody with a stake in the process, including recreational users.

  7. #7
    Member hooternanny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Interior, AK
    Posts
    404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfish6025 View Post
    but we all know you cant polish a turd.
    i disagree because i have done it. all my life i been polishin turds. my pinion is that ya can polish a turd, but a turd is still a turd, no matter how much it's polished.
    edit signature here

  8. #8
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    The mission statement from the group you guys apparently don't like...

    ... the foundation focuses on globally important marine areas and works with grantees and other partners to create networks of effectively managed protected areas that conserve key biological features, and ensure the sustainable utilization of marine resources – especially fisheries – in a way that benefits both nature and people.
    OMG, how can we let this happen?!? No, much better to let us get in there unrestrained and wipe out the fishery! Who in their right mind would want to manage it for sustainable harvest!?!

    Ya'll crack me up. I'm heading to Wal-Mart to buy a new fishing rod from their huge sporting goods department.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  9. #9
    Member scott_rn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    power commuting twixt the valley and anchorage
    Posts
    803

    Default

    From the website
    We’ve helped introduce new nets and fishing gear to reduce wasteful fishing practices that often leave as many dead creatures in the water as make it to market.

    If they can just come up with a way to spare those kings the pollock fishermen killed last year. I'm going to wal-mart with JOAT.

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    my link clicking and thought process was almost identical to bigfish6025's, above. its easy to get me riled up about wal-mart, but this may not be one of those times...

  11. #11
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Marine protected areas are a really good idea, and there is a lot of science that shows that.

    I don't buy stuff from wal mart because its crappy stuff

    good on them for donating to conservation organizations though.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  12. #12
    Member Boreal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Southcentral AK
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scott_rn View Post

    If they can just come up with a way to spare those kings the pollock fishermen killed last year. I'm going to wal-mart with JOAT.
    Good news for you Scott, the pollock industry has been working to develop escapement devices for kings in the pollock nets. It lets out about 40% of the kings that get in. Not perfect yet, but it's a great start. BTW, I'm not a pollock fisherman, I just appreciate when industry does something (with their own dime, I might add) to lessen the impact of their activities. They're working on it, but more is needed.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    Marine protected areas are a really good idea, and there is a lot of science that shows that.

    I don't buy stuff from wal mart because its crappy stuff

    good on them for donating to conservation organizations though.
    I agree that MPAs are a good idea when implementation is based on science. Unfortunately the MPAs in California are not based on science. They are being driven by big agriculture money and clueless tree huggers that can ignore thousands of tons of pesticides being washed into the ocean off of farms and lawns, but somehow have a problem with a smiling little kid holding a fish he caught. The result so far is a string of reserves along the coast that are too small to have any positive impact (according to the scientists) with no enforcement of the boundaries, which has led to alternative definition of MPA: Marine Poaching Areas.

    Big_E

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •