Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think this is a really great hashtag. You bring light to so many of the things that are #notenough in the realm of fisheries. I think #notenough fits really nicely in this subject matter because it points to depleted species (not enough fish for the growing human population) and also points to things that humans aren’t doing enough of (research and management) so overall I think your hashtag is a perfect fit.
I really like this hashtag because it truly does not need an explanation. There is definitely a lot that people can learn about fisheries, especially from past mistakes throughout the history of fisheries. In addition to this, I think “rebuild” is a perfect word for what should happen now. I think it’s definitely positive and it’s moving forward, since things have collapsed it’s time to rebuild. Well done
I definitely agree with you about the cod fishery versus the salmon fishery. I wish I would have looked over the differences in those two. I realized we had talked about them so much and a lot of that conversation took place in the discussion boards. I did not really review the discussion boards prior to taking the exam, and maybe if I had I would have been more prepared to answer questions in regards to the difference in the two fisheries.
So I also had a technical issue when I was trying to do the test that resulted in losing quite a bit of time. For whatever reason, when I started the test it was not on a save-able copy, so once I realized that I had to transfer my answers to something I could save. I definitely think it’s a great point to address any possible technical issues we might have prior to taking the test. I know I will definitely do that differently this time.
I like that you brought up the difference in taste and use of both fish. I definitely forgot about that point when I was thinking about their differences. It seems the fact that Pollock was never a globally desirable fish might have contributed to why it is still around. It also makes me wonder what humans will find as the next gold rush, after exploiting the most desirable fish and meats. I think, as things begin to disappear, a lot of undesirable animals will all of a sudden become desirable.
You make a really good point about how the Pollock fishery has had strategic regulations that keep that fishery within a certain quota. Luckily for the Pollock fishery (and industry) that they were able to learn from some of the mistakes and fall outs from some of the older fisheries like the Cod fishery. It definitely makes me wonder how well those other fisheries could have sustained if they knew then what we know now.
I think this a great idea for a 5th priority. I definitely believe that the fishing industry, as large as it is, should put some of their attention into developing better, more ecologically friendly equipment. There is a lot to be said about the fish that are caught with these vessels and equipment, but even more to be said about the amount of fish and other species that are being destroyed due to bycatch. I think putting a ban on these fishing equipment would give the industry the incentive to invest in better, less harmful equipment, and I believe that will definitely help a lot of our depleting fish species recover.
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 would say in some ways that we do farm dogs. Not for harvest or to eat or anything like that, but we do breed dogs quite a bit. It might even be the case that we farm them so much because they have an inborn liking for man.
I think you make an interesting point about animals from the water and an “inborn liking for men.” We definitely don’t live in water so water animals see a lot less of us than terrestrial animals do. It does make me think about how much intelligence factors in to this specific criterion. For instance, I think dolphins like humans, I believe they just see us and we’re entertaining to them. Not that I think they are a good species for domestication or anything, but it does make me wonder if some smarter aquatic animals would have an “inborn liking for men.”
I definitely like the point that you make that pouring domestic salmon into a wild stream should not be anyone’s definition of sustainability.I also agree with your definition of sustainability and that there should be a balance in usage of wildlife and resources and the rate in which they replenish themselves.
I agree with your personal definition of sustainability. It definitely seems that there should be a balance of usage to replenishment. I think you make a good point about how farmed raised salmon makes sense considering we eat other farm raised animals but I do think that peoples’ desire for wild caught salmon far outweighs how willing people are to eat farmed salmon.
I think you make an interesting point about how humans are already too involved to back out. It basically puts humans at the ultimatum of if they want to continue eating salmon, they are going to have to continue on the path that they are on. I wonder if humans have become too involved that if they took their attention away from salmon altogether, they would reach extinction. I agree that Greenberg doesn’t explicitly say whether he believes it’s a good or bad thing, but his writing definitely leads me to believe that he feels strongly that these are negative things.
I also agree that genetic engineering is the next step in supplying enough food for our already overgrown population. I would wonder, though, if there is some intermediate stage between the food that we have now and mass genetic engineering. Something that would actually sustain our growing human population before having to fully move into genetic engineering. For what it’s worth, I think if such a thing existed, humans would reject it in favor of having something that is at least similar to the food they are used to and like, even if it happens to be genetically modified.
I think you make a great point about the implications of the wild fish gene pool should it be mixed with Salmo domesticus’ genes. Historically, we have seen what happens to species when humans expose a wild species’ gene pool with that of a domesticated species or even the effect that domestication has on so many wild species. More times than not, the genes that are unique to wild species washes away only to be replaced by traits that only benefit humans. It definitely seems that this situation is heading in the same direction which would be unfortunate for wild salmon, and wild fish in general.
