While not seen in the US in many countries process all kinds of fish for human consumption. The use of large amounts of fish (mostly from the sea) for conversion to fish meal for feeding fish is in some places met with the accusation that you are using the fish for recreation (U S production) while third world peoples are starving. Much like the argument that using corn for fuel results in starving people.
I am not starting a political discussion so please don't go there. Just pointing out that some take that position and it can/may effect our access to enough fish meal.
In the end, I think its an economy and the fish meal must go to the highest bidder. There are strong incentives to find an alternative for aquaculture from the standpoint of availability and cost. I haven't seen any evidence that private sport fisheries consume enough of it to cause an impact like those described. So while such arguments are given room to air it is doubtful that they will have any significant influence.
It is possible that alternatives may have the impact of easing fishmeal demand and help to keep it more affordable in the future. We will have to see.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers
