| At a friend's house
recently, I had an elk steak for the first time in my life. It was
delicious -- perhaps even more so because it was a special, one-time
treat for a non-big-game-hunter like myself. As we all know and readily
accept, wild game just isn't available for sale in the United States.
Commercial hunting was long ago outlawed; only recreational hunters are
allowed to take wild game, and only for their personal consumption. So here's an inflammatory question: What about putting an end to commercial fishing as well? It would mean no more wild salmon on restaurant menus, no more swordfish, no more mahi-mahi (aka dorado), no more halibut. But no one is complaining about the absence of commercially available elk or bighorn sheep or ruffed grouse. We get by just fine with meat products from domesticated livestock like cattle and hogs and chickens and with the occasional farm-raised buffalo or emu or quail. Likewise, it's not as if ending commercial fishing would mean the end of commercially available seafood. Plenty of fish species (not to mention shellfish and crustaceans) are already being successfully farm-raised. Non-anglers might miss out on some of the real delicacies like bluefin tuna, but most of the seafoods that can't be farmed and thus would no longer be available commercially are just that — delicacies. Of course, ending commercial fishing in the U.S. would mean a lot more than just fewer seafood options on restaurant menus. It would put an end to what amounts to a way of life for a lot of hard-working people, not to mention leaving them unemployed and impacting the nation's economy as a whole. I don't mean even to promote the idea; I mean only to point out the interesting contrast between the way we view the commercial harvest of wild mammals and birds and the way we view the commercial harvest of wild fish. |