Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I tried my hardest to read this hashtag as the one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish rhyme from Dr. Seuss haha. It doesn’t quite have the same ring, but it’s easily recognizable. I love the thought you put into each section of your hashtag. Not a single word was without meaning and that is very impressive.
Your hashtag is so creative! I like how you tied it in to the food for thought saying. It seems like something that could actually get the ball rolling.
The definition section was a little difficult and unclear in exactly what he was asking for. I guess I should’ve assumed that he wanted fishery specific definitions, but there are multiple definitions for the terms in a broader sense and that’s how I (and apparently you) thought about it
I don’t typically put a lot of time into studying or taking notes either. If I feel the need to after quizzing myself on broad topics, then I might. Usually, I find it’s not necessary. Studying has never been a huge thing for me unless it’s for rote memory courses. Even in those cases, I find that if I over study or cram too much, I do worse on the exam.
I like how in your post, you brought up probable solutions to the problems we see in the pollock that were also seen in the cod. I agree with most of what you have posted in the comparison and it is very similar to what I said myself. However, I wouldn’t say that the main difference in the two is that one replaces the other. I would say a major difference would be age of the fishery.
I agree with your post and said alot of the same things. However, part of the problem in cod was overestimating what we had. People thought there were much more fish than there were with the cod fishery and thought they were being sustainable too at this age of the fishery. It’s just something to think about.
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 love love love your response. It reminds me vaguely of trying to build an ecological house- you must locally source materials to get enough points. I’m not sure it would be something everyone is happy about, but a switch to local foods is a great way to limit the impact on the environment. I think a good way to make the shift happen in areas that would completely lose access to fish would be to build farms for those fish inside of the area. It would be expensive, but everything starts out expensive and is made cheaper with advancements. I think it’s a great and achievable idea.
I agree with your closing statement of sustainability. Leaving the world better than we found it, versus leaving it just as we found it is very insightful. I’ve used the phrase when referring to specific areas, like at band competitions or picnics, but I had never really thought about it in terms of fisheries or other industries. If only everyone had the same mindset!
I enjoyed hearing about your own shifting baseline dilemma. It’s always interesting to hear about how our baselines were affected, and how they affect others too. It’s good that you are aware of your baseline phenomena, but others may not be.
I like how you brought outside information into the post instead of just coping down what the book said. I personally didn’t think about the salmon meeting the human connection aspect of the list and you found a way to relate it. Now I see it as very reasonable. Salmon met pretty much every single one of the requirements.
I disagree that salmon are just as unsuitable as sea bass for aquaculture. No fish will be a perfect candidate, but, that being said, some are definitely better than others. For example, salmon have a much higher survival rate than sea bass. 15-30% of 7,500 is way better than 1 or 2 individuals out of a million. I will agree that no fish really likes human company, probably because they don’t have the mental capacity to form bonds like we see in other mammal species. As for comfort-loving, the salmon definitely don’t try to kill themselves in captivity to the extent that sea bass do. For reproduction, salmon are more likely to reproduce as well, but we don’t exactly need them to either due to the genetic modifications we now have. Sea bass completely shut down when put in a tank.
I would argue that the value of a natural resource comes from its frequency and ability to replace itself. The substitute is not the real resource, so it doesn’t have the same value. It can be replaced easier and should hold lesser values.
I love how your response was so articulated!! I 100% agree with your definition of sustainability and I appreciate your view that replacement isn’t the same as sustainability. Replacement isn’t okay. Basically, I agree with your argument involving wild vs. domestic fisheries.
I think the genetic engineering is simply a necessary evil at this point. I believe your issue ties in well with the issue of making domestic salmon closer to wild salmon to lower the impact, or making them so different that they couldn’t survive outside of the tank in any sense. I agree there are better methods of keeping the wild populations safe and healthy while also allowing for adequate food.
