Visualizing Environmental Science - Avoid Over-Fishing of Earth's Oceans

In taking considerations from both arguments, and even inserting other arguments, such as, world hunger, the fact that still fish is without a doubt one of the best sources of proteins. In addition, the nation's health average; with fish being the biggest source of Omega-3 fatty acids, (which a diet in omega-3 fatty acids, is been proven beyond a doubt to cut cholesterol and fight heart disease.) I propose that the best way to solve this problem is with a one, two, three punch method. In that we,

1. Devote more resources to a larger scale study of the issue, conducted over 20 years.

2. While the study is being conducted, we also get other countries that support large scale fishing of the oceans to go along with a scale back method, cutting fishing by 3% the first year, and 3% each additional year, during the study, and see if this increases the earth's big fish population.

3. In addition, we invest in beginning large scale, land or cove based fisheries, to breed and release half and harvest the other half of big fish such as swordfish, marlins and so forth, for the nations markets.

Research and identify the effects of large scale "big fish" fishing has on earths oceans.Set up research to be conducted over the next 20 years to verify if steady fishing is hurting the situation beyond any sense of repair. Something as big as this, we should afford time. And the same amount of time should be invested in the production of fisheries along the coast. the total time for this will span over 20 years.Cutting back, on fishing 5% per year for the next 20 years. By cutting back only 3% per year, we don't dig into the fisherman's pocket to hard at once. Also by providing low interest loans to the anglers, for them to go into the fish hatchery business we will establish them in a similar trade if they choose to remain. Moreover, in effect the fishing by the end of 20 years could be to a virtual standstill, so if the initial reports are correct, the big fish population should have returned to normal numbers. By the end of 10 years, we should have cut fishing by over half. And the fisheries should be established, albeit single producers or by co-opt, this way the world will not suffer such a massive nutrition de-flux by cutting these valuable resources out of our food chain. In addition, the fishermen, should be established in a new line of industry, so hopefully jobs will not be lost. We take the findings of the study, and see if the 3% per year has had an impact, on the initial prognosis, and or if fishing on a such a massive scale needs to go more aquatic farming on the matter. I imagine, to the hard nosed environmentalist, this will seem like a loss. To the more progressive environmentalist, I hope it will be deemed as a push forward in the right direction. To the fisherman, I am hoping they will concentrate on the positive that they will remain in business during this transition period, as well as possibly provide record breaking years for wild fishing in the future. The ones who will review it negatively, I am sure will deem this as an act for government to control their business. That is not the case, because I think by providing low-interest loans to sell their boats and start into aquatic farming might be more profitably for them in the end as well.

By removing the fisherman and his techniques out of the equation, we will providing a much more stable condition in the Earth's oceans for the overall ecosystem if not local ecosystems. I would say this plan effects the community by keeping the worlds fishing operations around a lot longer compared to if the Earth's big fish population is depleted, and more importantly I think the economy will hold, jobs will be transferred and still providing a great nutritious food as well for the community to eat.

Jobs will get odd at first I am sure. Men who go out on the open seas are used to a few weeks of back breaking work at almost 24-hour days. Now they will clock in and out at an 8-10 hour day, go home, and hopefully for the same amount of pay. It will mend if not repair any natural resources we have, because now we should not require as much marine diesel fuel as we needed before. As well as the obvious jump in big fish population. I am hoping the lifestyle changes will proved a better health for former fishermen, who put themselves at high-risk weeks at a time. Moreover, hopefully a better lifestyle for the public because at the end of the 20 year study. Hopefully we will know more about commercial fishing impact, and if these conclusions can be adjusted to any other form of how we live our life and the impact we make on the planet, especially the Earths ocean's, after all we know more about the surface of the moon, than we do Earth's oceans.