October 21, 2019 at 6:04 pm #196161Kortney BirchParticipant
In the concluding section, the four priorities introduced are: 1. profound reduction in fish effort, 2. conversion of significant portions of ocean ecosystems to no-catch areas, 3. global protection of unmanageable species, and lastly, 4. protection of the bottom of the food chain. All of these priorities are listed out to work towards a goal of helping wild fish; Greenberg uses these priorities to question society’s choices and decisions. All four of these points are completely valid and I definitely support. From watching out for the smaller fish that seemed to never go away, to taking a hard look at the amount of fish being expelled from the oceans, it is clear that humans really need to act fast. Greenberg’s second priority really stands out to me personally because it seems as though fishermen don’t respect the animals who give us a food source. It is imperative to treat the fish well that provide for us, and by regulating more fishery reserves and protecting more wild fish, we can finally try to make amends for the damage we’ve done.
If I were to propose a fifth priority for wild fish, it would be something along the lines of instating an overall fishing limit for each fishing ground. This “fishing limit’ would not need to necessarily be a set a number, but a comparative value of what healthy population sizes should look like to ensure sustainable generations to come. Maybe certain fishing grounds could be open for however many seasons, then different areas would be open to help rotate and maintain enough fish in a given area. This could potentially hurt individuals who have to travel farther for fishing if it was say for subsistence needs, but there could possibly be an exception for special cases. This idea would be all about rotation and not over-exploiting fish in one area, while still keeping fishing available in nearby places.October 22, 2019 at 12:42 pm #196174alwhitney2Participant
I really like your idea of having certain areas open for a season, and then closing that area, and opening other areas. It reminds me a lot of rotational grazing, done on farms with ruminants (goats, sheep, cattle, etc.). By rotating the pasture your animals are on, you improve the health of your pastures (by not eating them down completely), and the health of your animals (reduced parasites, and better food). I think the same principals could apply to fishing fish stocks like that, too. By not fishing too heavily in any particular area, and regularly giving certain stocks a break, we can maximize the size of individuals we catch, without negatively impacting the genes of the stocks (by killing off the large fish constantly, and only allowing smaller fish to reproduce, resulting in the overall average size to go down).October 22, 2019 at 6:05 pm #196182bmmatalaParticipant
I completely agree with this idea of a fishing limit within certain areas to a certain extent for certain people of course, but I also don’t think that people will always listen to this or obey this unless it was enforced in someway
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.