TTK12G3 on 19/9/2008 at 23:18
demagogue is right; enforcement is king in this issue.
Queue on 19/9/2008 at 23:26
So who do you think should be President?
My vote's for the Gortons Guy--love his fish sticks.
SD on 20/9/2008 at 00:21
Marine sanctuaries is the answer. Protect (say) one fifth of the oceans from any fishing activity. Allow the remainder to be fished by whomever. The fallow 20% will teem over with life, and will restock the remaining 80% for perpetuity. No dicking around with quotas needed, just honest to goodness conservation in action.
Ko0K on 20/9/2008 at 02:37
Quote Posted by SD
Marine sanctuaries is the answer. Protect (say) one fifth of the oceans from any fishing activity. Allow the remainder to be fished by whomever. The fallow 20% will teem over with life, and will restock the remaining 80% for perpetuity. No dicking around with quotas needed, just honest to goodness conservation in action.
I can tell you right away that this won't work because nobody will agree on the boundaries of such sanctuaries.
demagogue on 20/9/2008 at 04:48
All of this going on (in the posted article) is domestic regulation, within the US's Exclusive Economic Zone. Once you go international it's a whole other bag of worms. You need every major fishing country's agreement, simple revisions now have to be major int'l diplomatic affairs, and each one has to police their own fleets.
I studied int'l fishing regulation in the Pacific and good lord is it a mess... Also enforcement, again ... I was talking about how impossible it is to police a few hundred sq miles of coastal water. 1/5 of the ocean is 30 million out in no-mans-land! And who polices; a UN navy? Also, each fish stock has its individual issues, own zones, own demand, own regrowth, etc, so it's hard to lump them together. Oh, and: Japan.
Int'l regulation is necessary, of course, but it's frustrating to say the least...
One low hanging fruit we can easily fight for, though: global moratorium on bottom trawling. There's no need for it ... anywhere. Write your congressman today, plz.
Ko0K on 20/9/2008 at 06:21
Quote Posted by demagogue
Oh, and: Japan.
I'd like to see you elaborate on this a bit, because if I were to say something as to what I think you're insinuating, I'd be sure to sound as though I have a huge chip on my shoulder, which I actually do. Long story short, I believe the Japanese should be confined to their own territorial waters. ...and it'd have to be clearly explained to them in writing that "territorial waters" means about a dozen miles off the shoreline, lest they mistake that as 'anywhere.'
demagogue on 20/9/2008 at 07:06
They just have notoriously aggressive fishing fleets scouring every inch of the globe in a big way, giant markets for at-risk species (bluefin tuna etc), and there isn't a strong domestic advocacy presence that knows how to press legislators, most of the pressure is usually foreign. It's harder to get consumers or activists to care and get organized. So it's harder for the gov't to get political capital to push for regulation and enforcement. Because of my experience living there and with a Japanese, I guess I feel I can get away more with those kinds of asides as playful jabs (although with a serious edge). I probably wouldn't have done that for another country (I'm looking at you Spain :mad:, just kidding).
In fairness, it's nothing even specific about the culture itself. It's just, from the perspective of making an effective regime, at least for the Pacific, you're going to have to contend with Japan and what its political system is realistically capable of ... but the US and Korea and Russia and China, too. It was more of a playful jab at the time I said that, though. Regulation is a challenge for every major fishing State. It just helps for one to keep their eyes open about how the real world works, beyond just words on paper.
Thief13x on 20/9/2008 at 20:08
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Hahahah you should see the guns the Coast Guard carry. And if you're talking about the east coast, then I believe (Iceland? Canada?) has already proven itself willing to board poachers.
The Coast Guard can't even keep track of who has a fishing license how are they supposed to keep track of how much fish they are catching?
As cuthroat an dangerous as that business is, I can't see this as a bad thing however, but with how tight commercial fishing budgets are I kinda doubt that many companies are going to survive if you put additional regs on their profit
edit - That said, I see this following the same pattern as oil: Our country's regs prohibit us from mining so much of our own oil so companies simply import it from a country with fewer regs and more oil. I don't think supply is the problem here, I think it's demand and socialism with never work in a global economy
jay pettitt on 20/9/2008 at 20:55
Perhaps we should put quotas on demand then..?
Thief13x on 20/9/2008 at 21:35
sure! good luck regulating the black market though
