Al Gore was criticized by environmentalists today for serving Chilean Sea Bass at his daughters wedding. I doubt that Gore was aware of this species being endangered but he certainly is now.

Chilean sea bass is otherwise known as patagonian toothfish. It is an antarctic species and a large portion of the catch is illegal and it is highly endangered.

This item has been on the menu at Chestnut Grill for a number of years and I presume still is. I have complained about this on a several of occasions by way of messages to the chef through the waiter or waitress. One time the answer came back that the fish is already dead so it may as well be cooked.

I don't know if any other restaurants or stores in the Northwest sell this fish, but they shouldn't.

Spread the word: "Don't eat Chilean Sea Bass or Patagonian Toothfish". And pester anyone selling it to stop selling it. And if the bastard continues to sell it then go elsewhere.

http://cooking.cdkitchen.com/TheCompetentCook/137.html

Myth 1: Chilean Sea Bass
To paraphrase the Saturday Night Live character, Linda Richman, made famous by Mike Meyers, "Chilean sea bass is neither Chilean nor sea bass. Discuss." Unfortunately, this is pretty much true. This deep water fish is actually the species known as "toothfish," unrelated to sea bass. It is mostly harvested in southern ocean waters off the coast of Antarctica, less frequently caught in Chilean waters. It was given the name "Chilean" because Chile was the first country to market toothfish commercially in the United States. Another myth is that of endangerment. Although Chilean sea bass is certainly overfished in many areas, it is not quite a species on the verge of extinction. However, the U.S. Departments of State and Commerce report jointly that "large, unreported catches from illegal fishing of this valuable fish has made effective management difficult."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...eabass16.shtml

Wednesday, October 16, 2002
Something fishy about sea bass scare
By DAVID MARTOSKO
GUEST COLUMNIST
"Is Chilean sea bass an endangered species? No."
This refreshing morsel of truth came from the U.S. Departments of State and Commerce in their latest comments on the subject. But elite chefs in Seattle and across the country, unencumbered as they are by pesky facts, are buying into environmental hype. One by one, they are banishing Chilean sea bass from their menus, based on the say-so of a few agenda-driven environmental scare groups.
This latest campaign mirrors the equally unnecessary "Give Swordfish A Break" crusade of 1998, run by a special interest group named SeaWeb. That effort, which sought to eliminate Atlantic swordfish from restaurants, also drew official skepticism. A National Marine Fisheries Service spokesman said at the time: "It will end up having a detrimental effect on our fishermen . . . I know a lot of (U.S. fishermen) who have lost their jobs already."
The federal government maintained throughout that swordfish were never in any danger. And some fishery analysts say SeaWeb's fishy jihad actually backfired. It seems that when the four-star restaurants stopped serving swordfish, the market was flooded with fish. You didn't think the fishermen were going to stop catching it, did you? When supply went up, the price went down; suddenly, mid-priced and family restaurants could afford to put swordfish on their menus.
So while white-tablecloth dining may have been sans swordfish for a while, Mr. and Mrs. Middle America got to try the dish instead. Back in the swordfish boycott's heyday, SeaWeb's president acknowledged to reporters that she chose Atlantic swordfish as her poster-fish because it would capture the public's imagination, not because it was threatened.
"We wanted something majestic," she said then. Chilean sea bass was Bon Appetit Magazine's 2001 "Dish of the Year," which is about as majestic as you can get. Why the current fuss? Why would the National Environmental Trust force-feed us this new solution in search of a problem?
Seattle diners who are denied the chance to try Chilean sea bass might look for answers from seafood marketers such as EcoFish, a commercial distributor whose real-life slogan is "helping people make meals that reflect their morals." I'm not kidding. Running a seafood business is an expensive undertaking, and this conspiracy is all about marketing, not conservation. Tax-exempt groups influence public opinion, creating an artificial demand for "eco-friendly" fish; elite chefs buy and serve it (to those few who can afford it) in the name of "social consciousness," and big-name foundation money keeps the non-profit "do-gooders" in the black.
With the competition declared politically incorrect, marketers such as EcoFish sell approved products and promise to donate part of their profits as charitable (read: tax-exempt) gifts to the rest of the propaganda squad, which can then be counted on to continue repeating the mantra of overfishing, conservation and guilt-free alternatives.
In the case of EcoFish, all of the major non-profit players sit on an advisory board convened to decide which fish deserve this year's scarlet O (for off the menu). Don't be deceived into thinking that we're talking about small, shoestring-budget save-the-whale groups.
The two biggest fish in this particular sea of foundation money are the Packard Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts. Together, they're worth more than $14 billion, and they're calling the shots. The Pew Charitable Trusts has spent more than $4 million to keep SeaWeb running. It also heavily funds other non-profits (such as Audubon, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Oceans Campaign) whose programs are geared toward placing fish species off-limits, often without science in their corner.
Here's the coup de grace: The National Environmental Trust, which is officially sponsoring this year's Chilean sea bass boycott, is essentially a wholly owned Pew subsidiary. Pew set it up and remains its biggest donor by far (more than $25 million to date). The Packard Foundation holds a permanent seat on the board of EcoFish, as do several of its grantees. In addition, Packard has given SeaWeb at least $150,000 and also donated $5 million to the National Audubon Society's Living Oceans campaign (whose chairman, Carl Safina, is another EcoFish adviser).
Packard has also seeded the Marine Stewardship Council with $1 million. MSC is the third party certifier that issues its seal of approval to fisheries adhering to certain environmental guidelines -- including, of course, the myth of protecting overfished and endangered species such as Atlantic swordfish and Chilean sea bass.
The "Take a Pass on Sea Bass" scare campaign is being pushed by the same two big-money foundations as the earlier swordfish boycott, and it is just as unnecessary. Chilean sea bass are not endangered. No amount of propaganda, however expensive, will change that.
Seattle restaurants should take note: Sometimes it's the biggest whoppers that deserve to be tossed back.
David Martosko is research director for The Center for Consumer Freedom (www.ConsumerFreedom.com), a coalition supported by restaurant operators, food and beverage companies and individuals.

Chilean Sea Bass is not on the endangered species list. There is a problem with poaching (overfishing) that could lead to that. But it hasn't yet.

Then by all means let's buy the stuff so they can become endangered. And while we are at it why not dynamite the whales?

Here is an article in wikipedia on this matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonian_toothfish


I acknowledge that this fish is quite delicious. I prefer it broiled with lemon butter and a dash of pepper.

That's why I'm not having kids.

And talkradiobug, where did I encourage anyone to buy it? Sorry for correcting your false and misleading post with accurate and true information free from bias or political statement. Geez.

I always thought that Sword Fish fell out of favor with high end restaurants when they realized they could get a cheaper fish that tastes better and could still charge the same price they charged for Sword Fish.

If you think Patagonia Tooth Fish is an unappatising name that requires a more menu friendly name, consider the Orange Roughy also known as the Deep Sea Perch. It belongs to the Slimehead Family. It is interesting what happens to a fish that was once considered a throw away/garbage fish when it becomes a menu necessity.

This isn't exclusive to fish, Wikipedia "Canola Oil".

You might be right, SG. And you might as easily be wrong.

Here is another website claiming severe problems with that species. http://www.eduplace.com/activity/bass_math.html


From what I have seen on the web there is a huge problem that should not be lightly ignored.

A rule of thumb is to stay away from big fish. The bigger the fish or higher-up in the food chain, the more mercury content it will have.

But... we're too busy with waterfoul right now [foie gras]. Don't complicate our food-protesters.

__________________
WHYY pays their CEO $750,000 a year. So WHYY should I renew my membership? Seems they have no problems finding money and spending it unwisely.


And this is why you should donate to PACCA, not PETA:

In September, PETA made headlines in Vermont and across the nation for asking Ben & Jerry's ice cream to use human breast milk in their ice cream, instead of cow milk

There has been a fuss about fish in Seattle for as long as I can remember, but this is the first time I've learned that Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts is actually deeply-involved in the fish furor.

__________________
WHYY pays their CEO $750,000 a year. So WHYY should I renew my membership? Seems they have no problems finding money and spending it unwisely.


And this is why you should donate to PACCA, not PETA:

In September, PETA made headlines in Vermont and across the nation for asking Ben & Jerry's ice cream to use human breast milk in their ice cream, instead of cow milk