In the north sea cod stocks are so low that they are now endangered what should be done about it should fishing be banned personally i think it a bit extream but something has to be done whatdo you think should be done. It is not just in the north sea where there are problems.

Fish hatcheries are probably the best and most ideal solution to this situation: human-controlled fish nurseries, floating off shore in the Atlantic ocean. They have already been working on nurseries like this and have successfully reared schools of up to 500,000 fish. A large drum floats in the middle of a large net, which contains a computer that regulates the feeding process. Periodically, the drum needs to be refilled and maintained, which is low-cost. The net surrounding the school provides protection, and ensures area for the fish to grow, natural water salinity, and other natural environment factors. I believe, in fact, that the schools they raised were north atlantic cod, but don't quote me on that. In a matter of years, the system will hopefully be perfeted, and schools of millions of fish can be reared to satify some of the demand for product in the commercial fishing industry.

Should commercial fishing be made illegal?
No, certainly not. It is a highly unrealistic idea, first of all, and also, commercial fishing actually does very, very little to the marine populations of most fish. The reason the north atlantic cod has become endangered is simply because of too much concentrated fishing in that area. Some companies have huge fishing ships, which actually act as floating factories that catch, clean, prepare, and package cod for market. Although there are onyl a few of these ships, they can erradicate thousands of cod a day. (they are specifically designed for cod)

Perhaps government regulations on the fishing industry would be an immediate solution to this problem. This is a far more realistic proposal.

A similar argument could be mass production and other problems caused by industrialization and trying to keep our huge growing population (or at least those who can afford it) satisfied.

Large factories all over the world also create invincible hazards to our environment. Our air quality affects us all more directly than the health of the ocean.
Also, workers in many countries still have terrible working conditions, which leads to the deaths of a considerable portion of our fellow folk.

Just wanted to point out some connections.

At any rate, I don't find much logical reasoning for banning commercial fisheries unless it gets out of hand.
Limited commercial fisheries, good.
Wild reproductions of commercial fisheries that are more of a threat to the ocean than we can afford, very bad.

Longline fishing and netting is depleting the oceans of huge amounts of sealife. It's essentially the equivalent of detonating a tactical nuclear weapon over a city. Nets and longlines can kill hundreds of thousands of creatures in one fell swoop. And if they break or get loose, they continue killing. That's part of the reason entire large portions of the oceans are essentially dead or dying. To make things worse, a relatively small portion of what is caught is what fishermen intended to catch; much if not most of the bycatch is unusable.

A moratorium on that kind of massive harvesting might prevent any more large-scale destruction. But, frankly, I'd wouldn't be totally opposed to an outright ban at this point.

I think they should fish something else and let the population grow back to normal size. Then it would be okay and they could repeat the process if the populations get low again.

scuse darlin but why would you take away commercial fishing? we know your against it but some reasons would be nice

commercial fishing (like huge ships that use giant nets and take in 100s of fish a day) should be illegal.
but people (like my grandpa) who go out and catch a fish a week aren't hurting anything
actually they are aiding the population by eliminating the weakest members of the population (Darwin's survival of the fittest

yeah thats green backs a buck is another term for money but the don't go togther.

dude i meant green bucks as in money...k

quote:

Originally posted by harita:
th question s wrongly framed!!! what is important survival of an entire species or some green bucks????

I do believe you were refering to "green backs", to which I reply; green bucks (sic).

Don't Commerical fish then, but if some one says I need to give up my dreams of King Salmon and Halibut fishing I'll fight'em till I die

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
The more viable action would be to ban the fishing of cod in the North Sea, but not ban it completely. However, this probably is commericial fishing you're talking about, and they can't really differentiate between species of fish they catch until the fish are already dead.

so ban fishin... th govt of th countries which ban fishin ll provide other employement options to the fishermen... collection of shells etc.... there was a paper on how collection of shells on th sea cost aft tsunami... could become a source of livelihood... they contain th much needed calcium..... its pathetic to trick th animal n kill it... let em live..

quote:

Originally posted by reactionary05:
Why should they ban fishing, just cause a certain species of fish can't survive? Who's more important; people's incomes or a couple of fish?

th question s wrongly framed!!! what is important survival of an entire species or some green bucks????

quote:

Originally posted by reactionary05:
Why should they ban fishing, just cause a certain species of fish can't survive? Who's more important; people's incomes or a couple of fish?

Well, lets think here. They keep fishing for a few more years and the fishing industry is totally and irrevocably destroyed anyway. Renewable resources need to be consumed responsibly. The lumber industry in America figured that one out. You can't just harvest untill everything is wiped out. You starve.

The more viable action would be to ban the fishing of cod in the North Sea, but not ban it completely. However, this probably is commericial fishing you're talking about, and they can't really differentiate between species of fish they catch until the fish are already dead.

Why should they ban fishing, just cause a certain species of fish can't survive? Who's more important; people's incomes or a couple of fish?