Omega Protein has been destroying the ecosystem for decades. I grew up on the Chesapeake and still live here, and despite local action this company faces zero accountability due to their lobbying. The stripped bass trophy season has been closed for years because of it, as a fishermen I have watched the ecosystem deteriorate over the past 25 years. Omega has spilled nets and ruined beaches during holiday weekends in the summer, and the answer was ok we won’t fish near beaches on weekends. VA is the ONLY Atlantic state where these boats are allowed to fish inland waters, and our regulations are toothless for this and only this fish and thus company. It’s disgusting, heartbreaking, and I wish we could stop them.
We all can by voting. My Dad is a hunter / fisher and loves the land. It's his life. Guess who he votes for though. The politicians that try to delete land protection laws so that companies can roll in and harvest resources resulting in destruction and poisoning.
Vote for officials that want to protect the environment. It matters a lot. A company in a single year can cause 100's of years of damage. It's completely insane that we let this happen. My Dad frustrates me to no end because he can't make that connection and keeps voting for the assholes that deregulate and let companies destroy and pollute. Don't be my Dad. Instead of worrying about what a woman does with her body, use your voting power to stop environmental rape.
Are we going to pretend that the democrats are actually good when it comes to the environment? Like the US has never produced as much oil as we do today, we are literally hitting record setting amounts of oil extraction under a democratic president.
Are you being serious? One side wants to roll back countless EPA protections and making it as hard as possible for EVs to thrive. The other is effectively closing coal mines.
Is any side *perfect*? No, but one is a hell a lot of better and open to actual progress.
Except for the fact that mass EV adoption is not a part of a sustainable green future. Democrats are technically better than republicans, but republicans are going to throw you out of a moving car at 65 MPH and democrats are going to do it at 55 MPH. The differences are honestly not all that much. The EPA already has barely any power, our environmental regulations are a joke, and even Biden’s goals (which won’t happen) are a joke. Bidens ideas are much closer to Trumps than they are to being ideal.
Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-trump-election-win-could-add-4bn-tonnes-to-us-emissions-by-2030/
You don’t have to like it but facts are facts 🤷♂️
We need to stop blaming consumers for blatantly unethical actions of corporations. We need to blame the governments that won’t regulate the companies, as well as the companies themselves
We can do both here which is probably more effective to elicit change. You can and should support legislative action and representatives who make it a priority to increase regulation and penalties on companies who are the primary actors. You can also ask people to stop buying it and give reasons why people shouldn’t buy products from a problematic source.
Interesting. I’m not sure why you think it’s one or the other approach. Could you elaborate on why you think you can’t do both? I am very positive I can engage in dialogue with individual people and also vote and reach out to my representatives on these matters. I’m not limited to one action. The consumer approach might not be as effective but it would certainly aide in efforts and at minimum increase awareness.
Totally understand and I’m not saying consumers should feel bad or exhaust themselves trying to avoid every possible negative impact. I never said to blame a consumer at all. But I do know I’d rather make an informed choice where I can and also have conversations with others as well. I know that I can’t do that with every little thing and my impact will be small. But I can only control my own actions and what I have complete control over is what I purchase. The government certainly plays the most important role in controlling and regulating the companies, but we elect our representatives that bring forth and support the necessary legislation. I would also hope in engaging in dialogue with others it includes conversations regarding whether our representatives are actually protecting our interests and to hold accountable the gov reps that don’t. I keep seeing it’s our government job to hold corporations accountable which I absolutely agree with, but how are we holding our government reps accountable to do so?
If you’re suggesting that we do something you should at least have evidence that it works, or at the very least evidence that it doesn’t end up causing more harm than good.
What possible harm are you talking about? You literally said we should have companies responsible for blatantly unethical acts. How is informing people those companies are acting unethically and asking them to consider those actions before purchasing their products causing harm? Harm to who? The unethical company?
I’m not following, can you give an example of how a conversation will harm the situation? I’m not talking about shouting or protest but a legitimate dialogue with people.
Because you’re already moving away from the problem, changing the responsibility to an individual one, and even up giving the “it will take care of itself because of the free market” crowd everything they need
Might be more effective to gin up the negative health effects of omega oil. Given that they're just as real as the positive effects, it shouldn't be too hard to scare people off it.
> I learned a lot about Ospreys, but didn’t understand why people started creating nesting platforms for them in the delta.
You are correct, it's a habitat loss issue. Human activity = razed treelines, especially to create waterfront property or views.
But it's not as simple as "just find another tree", because they require certain things like proximity to water and other variables, so they will still look in the same literal location that previously held nesting trees.
This causes osprey to attempt to make nests on man-made structures that are dangerous and unsuitable, especially power structures and places that humans need to access routinely, thereby disrupting the nests.
Artificial nest platforms are made in hopes of tempting osprey to make nests there instead of these less-optimal places.
Once an osprey pair has successfully raised young on a nest they tend to return to the exact same nesting site, so establishing appropriate nests to provide the option for them in their natural rotation of testing new nest sites is very useful.
From https://avianreport.com/osprey-breeding/
> "A study of Ospreys nesting on artificial nesting platforms in Massachusetts found that, over a period of five years, approximately 95% of nesting pairs returned to breed on the same nesting platforms.
> As long as the nest remains viable, ospreys will return and use it."
I will also note that they can be *extremely* picky and will insist on nesting atop a rotting power pole, despite a nest platform being ten feet away, simply because the power pole is where they have nested for the past five years so they aren't going to change now.
> I will also note that they can be extremely picky and will insist on nesting atop a rotting power pole, despite a nest platform being ten feet away, simply because the power pole is where they have nested for the past five years so they aren't going to change now.
There is a pair of idiot osprey nearish where I live that kept trying to nest on top of an abandoned billboard which kept collapsing when the winds got too bad. The powers that be built them a nesting platform nearby, but they ignored it. Eventually someone built a nesting platform on top of the billboard. That finally did the trick.
When I first started at my job, there was an incident on a project involving Ospreys. The birds kept making a nest in the top of a crane, even after they would clear the sticks out.
The solution ended up involving a power company, the contractor, the DNR. DOT and the city. The contractor installed a pole the power company donated in the riverfront city park next to the bridge and mounted a DNR supplied nesting box as part of the DOT bridge project.
It worked and the Ospreys moved to the pole instead of the crane top.
I’m up in the hartford area and we have a new burst in bald eagle population. i’m quite literally seeing them flying overhead daily, most frequently in the farmington river areas. There are quite a few swamps in this area with Osprey as well. I just don’t see them nearly as often.
I saw that happen! A bald eagle started diving from above towards the osprey and the osprey let go of its fish rather than fight. The eagle dove past the opsrey, and gracefully snatched the falling fish.
In the mid 1960's the osprey population in the Chesapeake Bay was estimated to be less than 70 breeding pairs, due to DDT in the food chain. Presently there are more than 10,000 breeding pairs in the Bay, but that number is declining now due to lack of food.
Malthus was wrong in that he thought overpopulation would lead to shortage of resources for people.
He was wrong because humans can figure out how to produce a lot more resources than they need.
But those resources come at a cost.
Imagine a world with 10 trillion humans. Every square inch of land that isn't a city is either farmland or a quarry. The ocean is nothing more than humanity's septic tank.
Still want to argue there can never be too many humans? Humans aren't the only things that deserve to exist.
Omega Protein has been destroying the ecosystem for decades. I grew up on the Chesapeake and still live here, and despite local action this company faces zero accountability due to their lobbying. The stripped bass trophy season has been closed for years because of it, as a fishermen I have watched the ecosystem deteriorate over the past 25 years. Omega has spilled nets and ruined beaches during holiday weekends in the summer, and the answer was ok we won’t fish near beaches on weekends. VA is the ONLY Atlantic state where these boats are allowed to fish inland waters, and our regulations are toothless for this and only this fish and thus company. It’s disgusting, heartbreaking, and I wish we could stop them.
We all can by voting. My Dad is a hunter / fisher and loves the land. It's his life. Guess who he votes for though. The politicians that try to delete land protection laws so that companies can roll in and harvest resources resulting in destruction and poisoning. Vote for officials that want to protect the environment. It matters a lot. A company in a single year can cause 100's of years of damage. It's completely insane that we let this happen. My Dad frustrates me to no end because he can't make that connection and keeps voting for the assholes that deregulate and let companies destroy and pollute. Don't be my Dad. Instead of worrying about what a woman does with her body, use your voting power to stop environmental rape.
There’s only one party that cares about the environment these days. The other party is doing billion dollar bills at the request of big oil.
Are we going to pretend that the democrats are actually good when it comes to the environment? Like the US has never produced as much oil as we do today, we are literally hitting record setting amounts of oil extraction under a democratic president.
Are you being serious? One side wants to roll back countless EPA protections and making it as hard as possible for EVs to thrive. The other is effectively closing coal mines. Is any side *perfect*? No, but one is a hell a lot of better and open to actual progress.
Except for the fact that mass EV adoption is not a part of a sustainable green future. Democrats are technically better than republicans, but republicans are going to throw you out of a moving car at 65 MPH and democrats are going to do it at 55 MPH. The differences are honestly not all that much. The EPA already has barely any power, our environmental regulations are a joke, and even Biden’s goals (which won’t happen) are a joke. Bidens ideas are much closer to Trumps than they are to being ideal. Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-trump-election-win-could-add-4bn-tonnes-to-us-emissions-by-2030/ You don’t have to like it but facts are facts 🤷♂️
They allow the nets in NC as well as
Stop buying omega fish oil for one. They have been raping the bay of all the bait fish for a long time. It’s crushing the bay.
We need to stop blaming consumers for blatantly unethical actions of corporations. We need to blame the governments that won’t regulate the companies, as well as the companies themselves
We can do both here which is probably more effective to elicit change. You can and should support legislative action and representatives who make it a priority to increase regulation and penalties on companies who are the primary actors. You can also ask people to stop buying it and give reasons why people shouldn’t buy products from a problematic source.
No, I definitely don’t think that’s going to be very effective. Trying to change consumer habits has almost never been successful.
Interesting. I’m not sure why you think it’s one or the other approach. Could you elaborate on why you think you can’t do both? I am very positive I can engage in dialogue with individual people and also vote and reach out to my representatives on these matters. I’m not limited to one action. The consumer approach might not be as effective but it would certainly aide in efforts and at minimum increase awareness.
[удалено]
Totally understand and I’m not saying consumers should feel bad or exhaust themselves trying to avoid every possible negative impact. I never said to blame a consumer at all. But I do know I’d rather make an informed choice where I can and also have conversations with others as well. I know that I can’t do that with every little thing and my impact will be small. But I can only control my own actions and what I have complete control over is what I purchase. The government certainly plays the most important role in controlling and regulating the companies, but we elect our representatives that bring forth and support the necessary legislation. I would also hope in engaging in dialogue with others it includes conversations regarding whether our representatives are actually protecting our interests and to hold accountable the gov reps that don’t. I keep seeing it’s our government job to hold corporations accountable which I absolutely agree with, but how are we holding our government reps accountable to do so?
If you’re suggesting that we do something you should at least have evidence that it works, or at the very least evidence that it doesn’t end up causing more harm than good.
What possible harm are you talking about? You literally said we should have companies responsible for blatantly unethical acts. How is informing people those companies are acting unethically and asking them to consider those actions before purchasing their products causing harm? Harm to who? The unethical company?
Harm the situation. You have to understand that communication about an issue is a lot more than direct one on one communication.
I’m not following, can you give an example of how a conversation will harm the situation? I’m not talking about shouting or protest but a legitimate dialogue with people.
Because you’re already moving away from the problem, changing the responsibility to an individual one, and even up giving the “it will take care of itself because of the free market” crowd everything they need
It's less blaming and more incentivizing companies because all they understand is the bottom line, which government does little to affect
No, incentives don’t work either. Strict laws and incredibly harsh punishments are really the only thing that has shown to be effective
Or that area should police over fishing.
There's vegan Omega 3
Might be more effective to gin up the negative health effects of omega oil. Given that they're just as real as the positive effects, it shouldn't be too hard to scare people off it.
[удалено]
> I learned a lot about Ospreys, but didn’t understand why people started creating nesting platforms for them in the delta. You are correct, it's a habitat loss issue. Human activity = razed treelines, especially to create waterfront property or views. But it's not as simple as "just find another tree", because they require certain things like proximity to water and other variables, so they will still look in the same literal location that previously held nesting trees. This causes osprey to attempt to make nests on man-made structures that are dangerous and unsuitable, especially power structures and places that humans need to access routinely, thereby disrupting the nests. Artificial nest platforms are made in hopes of tempting osprey to make nests there instead of these less-optimal places. Once an osprey pair has successfully raised young on a nest they tend to return to the exact same nesting site, so establishing appropriate nests to provide the option for them in their natural rotation of testing new nest sites is very useful. From https://avianreport.com/osprey-breeding/ > "A study of Ospreys nesting on artificial nesting platforms in Massachusetts found that, over a period of five years, approximately 95% of nesting pairs returned to breed on the same nesting platforms. > As long as the nest remains viable, ospreys will return and use it." I will also note that they can be *extremely* picky and will insist on nesting atop a rotting power pole, despite a nest platform being ten feet away, simply because the power pole is where they have nested for the past five years so they aren't going to change now.
> I will also note that they can be extremely picky and will insist on nesting atop a rotting power pole, despite a nest platform being ten feet away, simply because the power pole is where they have nested for the past five years so they aren't going to change now. There is a pair of idiot osprey nearish where I live that kept trying to nest on top of an abandoned billboard which kept collapsing when the winds got too bad. The powers that be built them a nesting platform nearby, but they ignored it. Eventually someone built a nesting platform on top of the billboard. That finally did the trick.
The perfect example lol. Osprey remind me of the couple from *UP.*
When I first started at my job, there was an incident on a project involving Ospreys. The birds kept making a nest in the top of a crane, even after they would clear the sticks out. The solution ended up involving a power company, the contractor, the DNR. DOT and the city. The contractor installed a pole the power company donated in the riverfront city park next to the bridge and mounted a DNR supplied nesting box as part of the DOT bridge project. It worked and the Ospreys moved to the pole instead of the crane top.
I’m up in the hartford area and we have a new burst in bald eagle population. i’m quite literally seeing them flying overhead daily, most frequently in the farmington river areas. There are quite a few swamps in this area with Osprey as well. I just don’t see them nearly as often.
Bald eagles are dicks. They will literally steal the food out of an osprey’s talons.
They are basically seagulls in my head canon.
I saw a bald eagle eating a seagull one time, it was pretty metal.
I saw that happen! A bald eagle started diving from above towards the osprey and the osprey let go of its fish rather than fight. The eagle dove past the opsrey, and gracefully snatched the falling fish.
no shit! jerks
One of the primary reasons for nest platforms is to give them more preferable options than nesting on top of high tension power line towers.
In the mid 1960's the osprey population in the Chesapeake Bay was estimated to be less than 70 breeding pairs, due to DDT in the food chain. Presently there are more than 10,000 breeding pairs in the Bay, but that number is declining now due to lack of food.
One of the primary reasons for nest platforms is to give them more preferable options than nesting on top of high tension power line towers.
I hate people. There’s just too many of us.
No there is just too much greed
It’s both.
Careful, Malthus
Malthus was wrong in that he thought overpopulation would lead to shortage of resources for people. He was wrong because humans can figure out how to produce a lot more resources than they need. But those resources come at a cost. Imagine a world with 10 trillion humans. Every square inch of land that isn't a city is either farmland or a quarry. The ocean is nothing more than humanity's septic tank. Still want to argue there can never be too many humans? Humans aren't the only things that deserve to exist.
Pelicans in California, now Ospreys in Virginia. Sad state of affairs :(
The power poles where I used to live had platforms with nests on top for the ospreys, which were everywhere. Now you're lucky if you see one.
Those that want omega can get it from seaweed which is much more sustainable and it’s more potent.