P.K. Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 I get the impression that Mr Supercilious Sebrof is an extremely sad character who can only boost what's left of his self esteem by lording it over anonymous internet forum posters. Just how sad is that... Frankly I feel sorry for him, but Slim probably doesn't, but I can't blame Slim for that.. BTW MilitantDogBoner, Bowden was writing about Delta over ten years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Sebrof, you are a great stomper on people - make you feel big? Ringwraith's gist is, I think, clear even to a pedantic knit picker like you - the territorial waters of Somalia are being fished and polluted by outsiders. If Somalia had a functioning state it would be able to gain income by selling fishing rights in its EEZ - the example of the Falklands spring to mind - it would also be able to control dumping and stop outsiders damaging the ecosytems it could gain an income from. Are you really wanting to fag up a thread doubting this? - go pick a fight with Knoxville rather than stomping on people raising perfectly sensible counterpoints. Oh and spiny lobsters are 1/2 way down my first link. Stomping, nit-picking, pedantic? Not trying to put someone down are you, Chinahand? By the way, spiny lobsters aren't lobsters. Sorry to nit-pick. Though it's perhaps a lesser vice than hypocrisy. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Yesterday's WSJ had an intersting article on convoys - link - it reckoned that insurance wasn't an issue, but did agree that convoys were the best way forward. Sorry to nitpick, but it doesn't mention insurance. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 6. RESOURCES AND FISHERIES IN SOMALIA 6.4. Deep-water lobster lbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/lobsters.php?menuentry=soorten&id=169"]http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/lobsters.php?m...rten&id=169[/url] More crawfish. I suppose you are now going to tell me that a rock salmon is a salmon. Or that lumpfish row is caviar. Or that a prairie oyster is an oyster. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 15, 2009 Author Share Posted April 15, 2009 Sebrof - I find a most interesting character - a comment is made that commercial fishing has been devastated, that fish stocks are being plundered by outsiders and waste being dumped. I think you will find all those statements are reasonably accurate - see here for some figures on prior commercial fishing. 1,200 "artisanal" boats 6,100 tonnes of fish 120 tonnes spinny lobster 11 larger scale "western trawlers" licenced from Italy, Japan etc 8,000 tonnes of fish 346 tonnes of deep water lobster Splitting it up - the subsistance fishermen are massively unproductive, but make up the mainstay of employment in the coastal communities - they can't compete against modern factory ships illegally entering their waters, while the licenced commercial side has collapsed entirely and has been replaced by unlicenced poaching by vessels from Kenya or Yemen or as far afield as Taiwan or China. The evidence that these trawlers are massively more efficient and having a massively greater impact on the fisheries than the locals I think is indisputable. As is the You seem obsessed with lobsters - good for you. So spiny and deep water lobsters aren't lobsters - fine - they are both available in commercially useful numbers off the coast of Somalia. I don't know what point you are trying to make - if you feel that claiming a spiny lobster isn't a lobster is some sort of victory on your part - well yippee for you. I fail to see your point, or your need to make multiple posts having a go at Ringwraith, who has been basically correct in what he's said. On toxic dumping here's a BBC link from 2005: Nick Nuttall of the UN Environment Programme ... [said] "We are talking about radioactive chemicals, heavy metals, medical waste.. you name it." He said that the waste posed significant danger to Somalia's fishing industry and also local marine life." Sebrof what do you think your contributions are adding to this discussion. I personally am just not seeing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 15, 2009 Author Share Posted April 15, 2009 Yesterday's WSJ had an intersting article on convoys - link - it reckoned that insurance wasn't an issue, but did agree that convoys were the best way forward. Sorry to nitpick, but it doesn't mention insurance. S He does a calculation that there is a 1% probability of a commercial ship being at risk of a $10,000,000 ransom - this will give a premium of approximately $100,000 which is not significant. There is not a commercial incentive to convoy - which is why the ships still sail in the area unprotected at the moment and leave the navy chasing them all over the Gulf of Aden and the Western Indian Ocean. If you can't not get that point from this article I really don't know what to say Sebrof. I really don't think your posts are contributing to this thread but that's your perogative of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 15, 2009 Author Share Posted April 15, 2009 More crawfish. I suppose you are now going to tell me that a rock salmon is a salmon. Or that lumpfish row is caviar. Or that a prairie oyster is an oyster. S I think he'll just say that these type of lobsters (will it make you feel better if I go "lobsters" - ok there you go) are a perfectly acceptable commercial catch which is tasty, nutritious and of value to the fishermen who catch it and the government that licences it. But at the moment the catch is being poached with both the local fishermen and the non-existent government loosing out. If he does I'll understand his point and its relevence to this thread. If the UN or whatever enforced fisheries protection and collected the fees into a development fund it would be an effort well spent at very little cost as the navies of the world are already having to patrol the area due to piracy. By the way, spiny lobsters aren't lobsters. S if that's the case why is every species that Ringwraith has mentioned in here then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Hilary Clinton seems to be in charge of some new idea to tackle the pirates, whilst the French navy seem to have captured a mother-ship 550 miles out, which should leave smaller boats somewhat stranded out there ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 More crawfish. I suppose you are now going to tell me that a rock salmon is a salmon. Or that lumpfish row is caviar. Or that a prairie oyster is an oyster. S I think he'll just say that these type of lobsters (will it make you feel better if I go "lobsters" - ok there you go) are a perfectly acceptable commercial catch which is tasty, nutritious and of value to the fishermen who catch it and the government that licences it. But at the moment the catch is being poached with both the local fishermen and the non-existent government loosing out. If he does I'll understand his point and its relevence to this thread. If the UN or whatever enforced fisheries protection and collected the fees into a development fund it would be an effort well spent at very little cost as the navies of the world are already having to patrol the area due to piracy. By the way, spiny lobsters aren't lobsters. S if that's the case why is every species that Ringwraith has mentioned in here then? Could not agree more Chinahand, and in fact your last link is one I posted previously to reinforce my point about the 'lobsters' existence as a valuable export resource for the Somalians! Sebrof fails to realise that most of these lobsters once caught, frozen, processed and exported will end up as a 'lobster' tail in some fine dinery around the globe. They will be sold as 'lobster' and diners will pay for them as such as I have more than likely eaten in places such as China or Taiwan. Sebrof fails to see that these seas fish stocks, 'teeming' as they are with extremely valuable fish and 'lobster' stocks are a valuable resource to the peoples of Somlia, perhaps this is indicative of his or her own prejudice against the natives of that country - let them fend for themselves - how so Sebrof? I also note that Sebrof has failed to address the toxic waste dumping issue, no doubt this is up to the governmentless Somalis to address! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I took issue with Ringwraith's original post. First he said: "For years now their once rich waters have been plundered by foreign fishing fleets, depriving them of a valuable resource and food source." The first simple fact is that the Somalis have not been deprived of a valuable food source or economic resource. Their own fishing industry is largely a subsistence one, and is not affected by large trawlers operating offshore. As the figures you have both produced show, their tiny commercial fleet lands less fish than a single small port like Peel would have done just a few years ago. And that's with 3,000 miles of coastline. Secondly, Ringwraith has adduced no evidence to show that the waters have been over-fished (except, as I pointed out, that there has been a lot of damage done to the coral reefs by local fisherman using dynamite, and this has reduced local fish stocks within the reef). But self-inflicted damage does not fit in with Ringwraith's view of the Somali pirates as victims. Next, Ringwraith added a statement about nuclear waste. "This has been washed onshore and caused death and sickeness in the coastal populations." I requested evidence for this, but neither of you have yet produced any. Ringwraith has seen some allegations on a website somewhere, and posted them as fact. There is no doubt some element of truth in them (I don't dispute that foreign trawlers operate in Somali waters), but I don't believe that any external factors are preventing this unhappy country from exploiting its own fish stocks. Thus the word "deprived" is not appropriate. I made the point about lobster to show that Ringwraith had no real knowledge of the Somali fishing industry. To people in Europe, lobsters have claws. After I had made the point, Ringwraith then claimed that there were lobster in deep waters. Again, they were crawfish. A little Googling is a dangerous thing, and no substitute for real knowledge. And you, Chinahand, need to be a lot more scrupulous when quoting websites. Your claim that "it reckoned that insurance wasn't an issue" reminds me of Lady Archer's comment about Jeffrey - "He has a gift for inaccurate precis". S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 The first simple fact is that the Somalis have not been deprived of a valuable food source or economic resource. So you are going to argue that there is no point in trying to reinforce Somalia's EEZ rights, licence the foreign poachers, and stop dumping in its waters. Why? - are you really going to say outsiders aren't profiting from their fishing in the area - most countries take a slice of that profit via licencing fishing you know. A researcher at the St Andrew's University has estimated about $300 million worth of fish is poached from Somali waters each year - I would call that an economic loss and don't get why you wish to totally dismiss the issue - is it really down to a silly spat with Ringwraith over the productivity of tropical seas compared to colder waters? Oh, and on the radioactive issue I've quoted the UN Environmental Programmes representative warning about the dangers of radioactive, heavy metal and medical waste damaging the fisheries and sickening the population - how much more information do you want? How about a UNEP report - Somalia’s coastline has been used as a dumping ground for other countries’ nuclear and hazardous wastesfor many years as a result of the long civil war and the consequent inability of the authorities to police shipments or handle the wastes. The impact of the tsunami stirred up hazardous waste deposits on beaches around North Hobyo and Warsheik, south of Benadir. Contamination from these waste deposits has thus caused health and environmental problems to the surrounding local fishing communities. Many people in Somalia’s impacted areas are complaining of unusual health problems including acute respiratory infections, mouth bleeds and skin conditions. Edited to add link to figures on the size of poaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 can we have a separate thread to discuss the Somalian fishing / waste dumping industry ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Sebrof claims to have lived in Somalia for half his life, and now makes the statement "A little Googling is a dangerous thing, and no substitute for real knowledge.". 1. Sebrof does not know about the toxic and nuclear waste dumping in Somali waters. 2. Sebrof does not know that the same Somali waters 'teem' with edible fish and lobster worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year, that could sustain at least 100,000 jobs - possibly more if you include other support industries. 3. Sebrof claims the Somali fishing fleet consists only of wooden canoes, he denies any kind of commercial fleet exists, or has ever existed - even when presented with the evidence of Somali - Russian joint ventures. Sebrof, the Somali local now claims that the country has "3,000 miles of coastline" - well I think you must mean kilometres my friend. You are a poor troll, you have no local knowledge, you cannot Google and you appear to have utter contempt for the people of Somalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 I think nit picking over people's innaccuracies isn't helpful. I think the gist of what is being said is reasonably clear to all. The pirates currently have no legitimate income. If convoys/more aggressive anti-piracy measures are undertaken they will be forced into ever greater poverty with a risk of further radicalization/violence. Simply shooting/capturing pirates isn't going to stop Somalia's problems affecting the wider world. It has a population in the order of 11 million people many of who have no livelihood other than their AK47. The seas off Somalia currently are not being exploited for Somalia's benefit. Controlling that would provide some money into a Development fund or similar. The dumping of waste has already caused such environmental damage as to involve the UN Environmental Programme, the EU etc. Controlling and ending this practice is in the interests of sustainable development and will improve the health of both the fisheries and the people who depend upon them. Unless Somalia can create infrastructure and development to provide alternative means for its population to make a living banditry and piracy will remain. It is unlikely to be able to do that on its own and having the wider world help to build up a new societal infrastructure is probably just as important as its current half hearted actions to destroy those parts of the current society that inconvenience its richer members and interfer with their trade and aid programmes. Having sustainable fisheries will be a part of this and turning pirates to fishermen is one perfectly good suggestion. Much more will be requred beyond that, but powerful vested interests both within and without Somalia are profiting from the current anarchy and overcoming that makes the development task even more difficult than usual. I see merit in trying to use the billions of dollars worth of equipment currently floating off the Somali cost to build as well as destroy and don't think the wider world should just go this is a Somali problem they should sort it out on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I think nit picking over people's innaccuracies isn't helpful. I think the gist of what is being said is reasonably clear to all. ......... Another solid post Chinahand, and you are right about the powerful vested interests. I wasn't really nit picking either, I honestly doubt Sebrof's 'local' connection, as he seems blissfully unaware of the issues. And typing miles instead of kilometres is not an easy error to make - unless he is just typing half remembered Google info. There is a danger the situation in Somalia will get out of hand, I just hope for a more sensible solution like the one you have outlined above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.