- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In Four Fish, Greenberg discusses four achievable goals that should be societal priorities in regards to wild fish.
1. A profound reduction in fishing effort. In this section Greenberg talks about how there is an overcapacity in commercial fishing fleets due to the billions of dollars given by governments to fund fishing fleets. His proposal here is to put more of an effort towards an emerging group of fisherman that help fish species in addition to catching them and an increase in market prices for these fish.
2. The conversion of significant portions of ocean ecosystems to no-catch areas. In this section, his focus is on converting more areas of the ocean to no-catch areas. His focus for this is breeding grounds of species because this will allow them to reproduce and keep their population numbers sustainable.
3. The global protection of unmanageable species. In this part, he mentions how species that cross many country boundaries are difficult to protect because of different government policies and politics. He proposes here that the nations protect a species that is “too valuable to hunt” by closing down the fishery for that species.
4. The protection of the bottom of the food chain. In his fourth priority, Greenberg discusses protecting the fish species that are used for feed for other animals and that are harvested at high rates. Since they are fish that provide food for so many other species in the food chain, the depletion of these species would have a devastating effect on the entire ecosystem.If I were to propose a fifth priority, I think my proposal would be something of a contingency plan. Basically, my proposal would be a global attempt at farming for highly desired species, if the species is compatible. I propose this because I believe that people are unlikely to give up what they would have to in the other 4 priorities. This gives them a substitute while fleet sizes are decreased and fisheries are closed. Although we all know that some people have reservations about farmed fish, having domesticated fish (in my opinion) gives a temporary solution to satiate the desire for eating mass amounts of [specific] fish species while allowing for the depleting wild populations to repopulate. I understand that there are repercussions to farming fish, but I believe if people are going to agree to abandon entire fisheries or reduce commercial fishing, there needs to be a “selfish” benefit for humans, because protecting species will not be enough of a selling point for people. I think this 5th priority is a major selling point because you are selling people to the idea of how to protect various fish species, while at the same time allowing them to still get their favorite fish on their plate, so it is as if nothing has changed (even though they are eating farmed fish instead of wild fish). And in the end, if they are so particular on specifically acquiring wild fish for consumption, then they can pay the increased market price for them as discussed in priority 2.
People have to make a lively hoods in each environment. So if fish farms become even more exceptional in product, there would be a job transfer. Do you think the transfer will have farmed fishing at the same kind of places where we have fisheries today, or would they be based on satisfactory of rearing area.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.