- This topic has 4 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
An additional priority to add to Greenberg’s list, I would add restoration of critical fish habitat. This would be the prioritization of restoring fish habitat that is vital, such as breeding areas for salmon, or coral reefs. For example, restoring salmon breeding habitat might involve tearing down non-functional dams, restoring riparian shade, combating the effects of sedimentation, and ultimately replanting these streams and rivers with salmon. This would immensely help salmon stocks in the lower 48, which, if they are also being severely reduced in fishing pressure, would help promote genetic diversity that has been lost. Furthermore, if we were to restore coral reefs, through combating sedimentation, warming temperatures, and acidification, we would restore critical environment to many species of fish. If we were to designate these areas as “no fishing” zones, this would further solidify many species ability to maintain healthy populations, and ultimately, a healthy ecosystem. In the end, this would all help our oceans fish stocks, and the ever changing interactive system. We can also prevent further destruction of potentially vulnerable fish habitat. Limiting forestry activities, clear cutting, dam construction, and mine construction. Much like the 2018 salmon habitat protection measure, we ought to assume that our activities will likely damage a fish’s life cycle, and developers should be forced to show ways that they will minimize this. Overall, recognizing the need for any particular fish to not only be preserved so they can recover, but the need to recover any particular fish’s habitat as well. Simply marking off areas as no fish zones is not enough, if those areas have been destroyed and are no longer usable by the fish.
I agree when you say that simply having no fish zones isn’t enough to stopping people from continuing doing what they are currently. This is a really good idea to try to ensure that the restoration of populations are made, and when you say that developers should be forced to show ways that they will minimize this I know that this is a thing in some places but when they do try to fix the problem they started it doesn’t always work the best in the end.
I like how you made a point of enforcement. Regulations mean nothing if not enforced. As for the rebuilding, I love the idea. Rebuilding is so important when it comes to problems like habitat destruction. On the other hand, though, I always ask myself the consequences of undoing what has already been done. For example, tearing down a non-functional dam that has been there for decades may not actually give the outcome you want. It could just initiate another shock to the already recovering ecosystem. The fish adjusted to having the dam there, and breaking it could just do more damage than healing. I think that’s why issues involving restoration are hard.
I think this is a great 5th priority. I think there’s a lot to be said about the damage that we have done to habitat and ecosystems that Greenberg doesn’t really go too far into. I think even if we were successful in the first 4 priorities, some species would still have a far too difficult time building up their numbers because of the damage done to their habitats so I think your 5th priority is a must to make full recovery a possibility!
I agree and think this is a great 5th priority. One other thing that may help to augment your approach would be to drastically cut or eliminate environmental credits. The process of “swapping” great habitat for “marginal” habitat affects a lot of great coastal areas in the lower 48.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.