Drowned Wandering Albatross. © BirdLife

I was going to ignore it, but I'm up for an argument anytime - so, what the Heck, I'll post my thoughts online and invite anyone who wants to have a pot-shot at me to go right ahead...

Nor is there a mention of organised boycotts in my post. I could've suggested a boycott, but I didn't because I don't think for one minute that I could influence enough people to make a boycott work. What I did do was to make the connection between the consumer and the deaths of thousands and thousands of albatrosses. The connection is there for all to see: fishermen go fishing because consumers buy fish. HOW they fish is connected too. They fish the way they do because it's efficient, it's cheap, and it's pretty obvious that no matter what carnage they wreak on the marine environment consumers don't seem interested in either punishing them or pushing to change their behaviour. Every time a sandwich is bought that contains fish caught in this way it's a tacit gesture of support for long-lining, and by implication another message being sent out that the seabird deaths don't matter. Every time someone goes into a restaurant and asks for Swordfish it's the same: the consumer orders off the menu, the restaurant-owner needs more fish, the fishermen go out to get it for them, and more albatrosses die. I don't see for one second how this isn't true.

Now, do I really think that if a few birders stop eating tuna sandwiches the 19 species of albatross threatened with extinction will be saved? That's missing the point entirely. So many of us - birders, non-birders, Joe Schmoe in the street, everyone - says that there's nothing the individual can do to "save the planet". No, on our own, unless we happen to be a President or Bill Gates, there's not a lot we can do. But that shouldn't mean that we DON'T do what we CAN. Before I went veggie I really liked the taste of Tuna - chopped up into mayo with lemon and black pepper it's delicious. It's low-fat and it's mainly protein too. The fact is though that the way Tuna and Swordfish and a host of other marine animals are caught means that they, along with 19 species of albatross, are being driven towards extinction. My choice then and now is simple enough: do I support the fishing industry by eating their "product", or do I not. Put another way, the question is: Do I - as an individual consumer - want to financially support an industry that is destructive and wasteful, and that kills thousands of birds? The answer then and now is "No".

The next question that can fairly be asked is, Do I think that by choosing not to eat fish I will have an impact upon the long-line fishing industry? No, I don't. The amount I would contribute to the fishing industry by buying a tuna sandwich once a week is - to use a relevant metaphor - 'a drop in the ocean'. So why bother? Again, that's not the argument. The real question should be, Who do I want to give my money to? The long-line fishing industry or the organic farmer, for instance? The long-line fishing industry or the fishing co-operative that tries to work "ethically". The argument is not what effect I as an individual can have, but whether or not I personally want to financially back an industry that is killing thousands of seabirds (and, incidentally, millions of fish) every year so that I get one extra choice for lunch. The answer is, "No, I don't".

Of course, it's an entirely different question if you ask, What if millions of individuals decided not to back the industry either? Then there'd be a huge impact. Is anyone calling for the closure of the industry though? For job losses? Hardship for poverty-stricken people who have "no choice"? Leaving aside the fact that as fishing "stocks" disappear through over-fishing, marine pollution, and rising marine temperatures there'll be job-losses anyway, as I pointed out, the savethealbatross.net website isn't pitching for a boycott or an industry shut-down: the campaign wants fishing fleets to change the way they operate, to fish but to not kill albatrosses while they're doing it: by flying streamers above the long-lines for instance, or by using quickly sinking hooks and hauling them in differently. (Of course, the impact of a boycott would most likely be a change in the way that the industry operates, but that's another matter - I was asked to flag the campaign as it stands, and that's why I posted what I did.)

It won't come as a surprise to anyone who knows me that I personally think that not eating fish at all is the best way to protect fish and albatrosses, but I'm not trying to push a vegetarian agenda on people who believe differently, and I can't imagine BirdLife ever trying to do that either. It's not realistic unfortunately (and no large NGO is going to advocate a campaign it would think it had no chance of winning). What I passionately believe is that we all need to be much more aware of where the money we spend actually goes and what it supports, and whether in this instance that money could be better used to drive change that (surely?) any birder would like to see - the survival of some of the most beautiful and awe-inspiring birds on the planet.

Like I said at the top of this post,' All I'm saying is that we have a choice...'