LETS DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE THREAT
- Thread starter RedDevilDon2005
- Start date
Something to consider: a resource which is being exploited is one which people will want to conserve. A resource which is not being exploited is one which there is little impetus to conserve.
My point here is that if wild fish are not being harvested, nations and individuals will have little reason to protect them from the numerous other threats they face (pollution, habitat destruction, etc.). Whereas if they are being harvested, then sustainable harvest and protection from other threats is in the interest of all parties involved.
The trouble now is short-sightedness by fishermen and governments, and ineffectiveness of many governments. They harvest unsustainably because they aren't thinking about ten years or twenty years down the line. I'm speaking here primarily of the developing countries, but this applies to some wealthy countries as well.
So, what's the answer? There are three tacks, really, which I think should all be used:
First, the approach from above: tighter international regulation. Most of the wealthy nations are major importers of seafood; this gives them leverage to demand that sustainable harvest techniques be implemented and enforced in other nations.
Second, the lateral approach: education of commercial fishermen, policy-makers, and others about the consequences of unsustainable fishing. This has worked well here in the US; there was a lot of initial resistance to the heavy regulation of commercial fishing, but the fishermen (and lawmakers from states where fishing is important) have come around and largely realize the importance of sustainable harvest and work with the regulatory agencies and fisheries biologists instead of constantly fighting them.
Thirdly and most importantly, the approach from below: everything rests on the consumers. Vote with your dollars. Make it clear that you will only purchase fish that is sustainably harvested. This provides a clear impetus to nations and fishermen to implement those techniques.
Just some of my thoughts!
My point here is that if wild fish are not being harvested, nations and individuals will have little reason to protect them from the numerous other threats they face (pollution, habitat destruction, etc.). Whereas if they are being harvested, then sustainable harvest and protection from other threats is in the interest of all parties involved.
The trouble now is short-sightedness by fishermen and governments, and ineffectiveness of many governments. They harvest unsustainably because they aren't thinking about ten years or twenty years down the line. I'm speaking here primarily of the developing countries, but this applies to some wealthy countries as well.
So, what's the answer? There are three tacks, really, which I think should all be used:
First, the approach from above: tighter international regulation. Most of the wealthy nations are major importers of seafood; this gives them leverage to demand that sustainable harvest techniques be implemented and enforced in other nations.
Second, the lateral approach: education of commercial fishermen, policy-makers, and others about the consequences of unsustainable fishing. This has worked well here in the US; there was a lot of initial resistance to the heavy regulation of commercial fishing, but the fishermen (and lawmakers from states where fishing is important) have come around and largely realize the importance of sustainable harvest and work with the regulatory agencies and fisheries biologists instead of constantly fighting them.
Thirdly and most importantly, the approach from below: everything rests on the consumers. Vote with your dollars. Make it clear that you will only purchase fish that is sustainably harvested. This provides a clear impetus to nations and fishermen to implement those techniques.
Just some of my thoughts!
we have to write our countries leaders, propose new laws that would limit the amount they can catch per season. maybe new rules that make it more difficult to do the fishing, create ocean safety zones or "refuges" where they aren't allowed to fish, youare right, weare the biggest site, i've talked to people all over theworld on here, its just a matter of intrest in preserving our oceans. i like tuna and i wantmy childrens children to like it too, but at the rate were going, they'll all be gone
![[enjoyable_attempt]](/forums/data/avatars/s/41/41106.jpg?1431689636){kind=avatar}
Thats where we need help. I cant do it by myself. I know there are many clubs, scientist, etc... that are trying to help. what else is there?
Here's what I've been doing;
-only eat what is green listed on the Seafood Watch;
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx
-only buy from non-commercial fishers.
-support eco-tourism
I'm sure there's plenty more, but I have to head off to class soon.
-only eat what is green listed on the Seafood Watch;
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx
-only buy from non-commercial fishers.
-support eco-tourism
I'm sure there's plenty more, but I have to head off to class soon.
tcarswell;3462367; said:
I found this link. http://www.sharkmans-world.com/mega.html
list alot of sharks as being consumed. How anyone could be dumb and selfish enough to eat one of these is beyond me.
