Skip to main content

The Herring Song

For all the fish that are in the sea, the herring is the fish for me!  These are the words of a song my mother used to sing, and the whole family would join in the chorus.  But how many fish are in the sea? 

Estimates of the numbers of fish in the oceans vary, of course. How could it be an exact measure? One figure given by scientists places the number of fish in the ocean at 3,500,000,000,000.  That is a lot of fish? 

So, what about 'the fish for me', the herring? Archaeologists counting herring bones  along North America's west coast recently found evidence that herring that had been abundant for thousands of years. 

 Like so many, they are in decline due to overfishing.  Herring collapse has signifcant knock-on effects both for humans and for ecological balance.  Over time, there have been serveral periodic collapses.  Sometimes the recovery has been slow. 

Herring is the fish for me could be a standard for seabirds, With loss of fish such as herring, the seabird population is dramatically affected.  This is certainly so for the Western Grebe that dive for carp, herring, mollusks, crabs, and amphibians, such as salamanders.  But not only does the Western Grebe suffer from loss of a major fish source, it's breeding is also impacted by human activity.  Little wonder then that the population of the Western Grebe is in decline.  

A broader food chain is also detrimentally affected by overfishing.   Killer whales eat seals that eat herring. By blowing bubbles,  Humpback whales confuse the fish before eating them. 

So, is this what the Herring song is about? Not exactly.  The song my mum sang was about the uses we could put herring to. 

Photo by Jet Kim on Unsplash

The Herring Song Clip

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha