Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree that stricter regulations need to be pout on wild habitats to ensure they stay healthy. For example Hawaii has stopped all sunscreen from coming onto the island due to its harmful effects to coral reefs.
I completely agree with habitat restoration especially with salmon and the introduction of dams in north America. The loss of habitat to dams for salmon has caused the destruction of a lot of spawning grounds. If we were able to take some of these down or provide salmon with a was around I believe that we would see an increase in the population and diversity of genetics.
I agree that fish travelling through various countries waters is a problem we have faced with many fisheries. Unless multiple countries are all on the same boat with how we want to sustain our fisheries, there is really no way to manage these fisheries.
I do agree with Ron in that it is hard to say truly how well the Pollock fishery is going because there could very well be people out there not playing as fairly as we believe them to be. this was the challenge with the cod fishery as well since so many people from so many countries fished it until they were kicked out. with so many hands in one pot its hard to keep track.
I agree with you completely. As a society we have chosen to do what is convenient for us rather than what is right and what is sustainable. This hashtag reminds me a lot of the plastics movement and how we have chosen single use plastics because they are convenient despite their detrimental effects on the environment.
I love this hashtag and the way you integrated them together by saying that basically if we don’t get our act together and learn from the past then we will never improve and end up causing a lot of damage end ending up with only few fish. I agree that we should learn from the past as well as embrace what the future hold for us in our fisheries.
I also like to review my notes and then take some time before coming back to it so I have time to absorb the information before going back and not cramming.
I also like to knock out the easy questions first. Though, like I said in my post also, I need to make a sheet for the terms and historical people as that was something I had trouble with.
I like your idea of not considering just a few years of data but rather to view history in a much larger, broader approach and interpret things from there.
I agree that if people knew just how much cod there was in the years prior verses how much there was for the younger generations then they would have had more incentive to change.
I agree that we have no right to use up one resource and then simply replace it with another. It is also hard to tell what other impacts there could be by completely using up one resource.
I like the idea of sustainability being for future generations rather than ourselves. A lot of people don’t see the impact we are having because it is not going to affect us as much as it will the future generations.
Do you think the human population will eventually reach its carrying capacity, or do you think that since we keep trying to make more and more food that we are going past what should have been our carrying capacity?
It does seem like this is our best option of two bad choices. Some would say that GMOs are bad for our health, but there’s really not much science to prove that. It seems like this is the best option we have until we can figure something else out to provide enough food for our population. Though, I think researches should be looking at how to use the food we have now more efficiently since so much is thrown our or goes to waste each year.
I think that if salmon farmers don’t change their practices soon then they will have too great an effect on wild salmon stocks. This new breed of salmon is not one that can survive in the wild, so why are they allowing so many to escape the farms in the first place? Is there not something they can do to prevent this?
