Overfishing: A Path to a World Without Fish

Living in today’s world gives humans many advantages. Thanks to advancements in technology, accomplishing almost any task has become much easier, and everyday activities have become much more convenient. The world of commercial fishing is no exception to this fact, and our world is suffering because of it. Technology on today’s fishing boats allow fishermen to hunt down schools of fish and simply drop their nets and scoop them up. By doing this, commercial fishing boats are able to catch multiple tons of fish in just a couple hours of work. Although there are currently rules and regulations on commercial fishing, the government should increase enforcement because fish populations are being depleted, aquatic ecosystems are being destroyed, and those who depend on the fishing industry will suffer.

Commercial fishing regulations vary from country to country, and are often hard to enforce. Here in the United States, there are Federal commercial fishing regulations that must be fallowed. On top of the Federal rules, there are also rules for individual states. State fishing regulations are to be followed as long as they do not exceed limits that are set by the Federal Government. Most state regulations are in place in order to protect species of fish that are not covered by Federal regulations (The Gulf Council). All fishing regulations lay out criteria such as minimum size limits, which state how big a fish needs to be in order to keep it. Criteria can also include trip limits and total quota caps. Trip limits are limitations for how much fish a vessel can come in with, and quota caps limit how much each vessel can catch in one fishing season. In addition to catch criteria, rules are in place that regulate where vessels can catch fish, and what kind of fishing techniques they can use (such as drag netting or single-hook line).

It would seem that having all these rules would help limit the damage done to the fishing population. However, taking a closer look at these regulations shows that they really aren’t all that effective. In a commercial fishing pamphlet that is handed out by the Fishery Management Council, it shows that there are in fact no trip limits or quota caps for many species of fish. Where there are limits, they are often amounts such as “6,000 lbs gutted weight” for trip limits, and quotas of 1.02 million pounds “gutted weight” (The Gulf Council). These numbers were for “Deep-water Groupers,” but there were other fish species that had similar amounts. The truly scary fact about these restrictions is that they are for single shipping vessels. This means that there are hundreds of boats out there that are potentially bringing in over a million pounds of fish each. Also remember that this is one classification of fish in a single fishing season, and restrictions are based on “gutted weight.”

With poor regulations such as these it is not so hard to imagine the impact fishing vessels have over the world’s fish population. As a matter of fact, “52% of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, and 24% are overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion.” (World Wildlife Foundation). This means that over 76% of the world’s fisheries are in danger of being completely wiped out. Numbers like these are astonishing, and at the rate we are going, the unthinkable could become a reality. WWF goes on to say that if commercial fishing keeps up the same pace, every single species that is currently being fished for food could be completely collapsed by the year 2048. This may seem like a long way away, but future generations could be facing a world without the joy, and sometimes necessity, of fish for food.

There have been efforts all over the world to try and control fish population, but they simply aren’t enough. Besides laughable Federal regulations, there have also been bans on fishing in some areas. While this tactic does work, banned areas are usually fairly small, and limited compared to how many there should be. This is pointed out in a 1998 article from the national publication, Science. The author points out that “findings indicate that more such protected areas must be created if there is to be any chance of salvaging vanishing ecosystems” (Williams).

Sadly, since his article in 1998, it would seem that little has been done about the overfishing problem. This can be seen not only in the continually decreasing fish population, but also in the overall structure of the marine ecosystems. More specifically, the marine food web has begun to shift due to the fishing efforts of large commercial fishing vessels. Scientist classify each aquatic organism and place them in a specific niche in the food web. The bottom is classified as 1, and consists of plants and algae. The classifications progress up to level 5 which is reserved for killer whales and the largest sharks. According to an article by Janet Raloff, “humans have traditionally fished primarily from levels three and four.” Janet goes on to explain that because these larger fish are being fished out, smaller fish start to become more sought after by commercial fishing companies (Raloff). This creates a problem because not only do we begin to see a decline in population from these smaller fish, but the reducing numbers make it even harder for the higher ranked fish populations to recover.

A common adage says that “desperate times call for desperate measures.” By the statistics given by the WWF, there is no question we are in desperate times. Extreme measures have been taking place in some regions, and luckily it appears that we may still have time to fix our problem. According to a study done by Ball State University, the Indiana commercial fishery on Lake Michigan was closed down completely in 1997. Their study indicates that 10 years after the closure, mean length of local yellow perch had increased, and so had the proportion of female fish (T. E. LAUER). Of course this was just one fishery, and in truth, it made little difference in our global problem. However, successful experiments such as these do give a sliver of hope to those concerned about the current condition of our oceans.

Unfortunately, fish populations aren’t the only thing suffering from current fishing methods. Over the last half-century, huge advancements in fishing technology have increased catch production, but have also created a huge problem for our world’s coral reefs. Trawling is a technique that has been used for decades. Coral reefs used to be safe from this fishing technique because the sharp coral would rip up the fisherman’s nets. The World Wildlife Foundation points out that this all ended in the 1980s when large rubber tires were added to the end of the nets, allowing the trawlers to move over the coral without getting damaged. According to the same article, a study was done here in Alaska which showed that after a single pass by a drag net, 55% of the effected coral still showed signs of damage a year later (WWF - Trawling). This is truly devastating when you take into consideration the fact that the same nets are often drug over the same spot more than once, and can be drug for many miles. It’s no wonder these corals have such a hard time recovering when they are continually damaged year after year.

In most places, new laws and regulations are being put to work that prohibit the use of trawling in shallow reef areas. The regulations usually limit the commercial fishing vessels to fish with multiple hooked lines. While this helps tremendously with reef damage near shorelines, deeper sea waters continue to be affected by insufficient protective guidelines. Technology again plays a big role in the creation of these problems. Where trawling at large depths used to be near impossible, it is now very common for vessels to fish at depths nearing a mile or more. In 2002 there was a study done by the Royalty Society in the northeast Atlantic Ocean which researched the amount of damage done to deep coral during normal fish trawling operation. During the study the fishing vessel would troll at depths up to 1500m. The study report noted that “coral by-catch” was common, and that some pieces were up to 1 sq. meter in size and up to 4550 years old (Hall-Spencer, Allain and Fossa). The damage done during this study had a large impact on the ocean bottom by its self, but what needs to be taken into account is that the study covered only a fraction of a per cent of the global damage done by trawling vessels. Quantifying such devastating effects on our ocean’s ecosystems makes it hard to justify the lack of protection these reefs receive.

Unfortunately, damaged coral reefs are not the only negative byproduct of commercial fishing. Thousands of other animals are dying every year due to being caught up in nets or fishing lines. Sharks, dolphins, turtles, seals, sea otters, and even sea birds are constantly being hauled in with the fish. These animals usually end up drowning from lack of oxygen or are wounded so badly from the heavy nets that they don’t survive if they are let go. A study was done in 2003 by the Ecological Society of America which concentrated on the mortality rate of the Black-footed Albatross in the North Pacific. After the five year study, they concluded that U.S. and international vessels were responsible for the deaths of as many as 13,800 Black-footed Albatross per year (Crowder). It’s hard to imagine the total impact our fishing vessels are having on the ocean’s animals, but these types of studies give a good look into what kind of damage commercial fishing boats are doing.

Most people realize that commercial fishing is quickly depleting fish populations, and many people are aware of the damage it causes our coral reefs, but very few people realize the impact commercial fishing has on themselves and millions of others around the world. If the commercial fishing industry is allowed to keep harvesting fish at the current pace, it wont be long before they fish themselves out of business. That would mean the end of a $158 billion industry according to Business 2.0 Magazine (Durst). That’s 158 billion dollars worth of jobs that people currently use to support their families with food and shelter. Unfortunately owners of big commercial fishing companies are only thinking about the money they can make now. They show little, if any concern for the future of not only their workers, but also the millions of people around the world who depend on fish for food.

Here in the United States, we eat a fairly large amount of fish, but compared to some countries, our consumption is fairly small. Asian countries, especially island nations such as Japan and the Philippines, rely much more heavily on fish as a food source. These island countries not only eat more fish, but they also rely more heavily on fish for protein. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations shows that some of these islands receive over 50 per cent of their protein from fish compared to right around 20 per cent for the rest of the world (FAO). This means that while Americans view eating fish as a privilege, a lot of other countries see fish as a necessity. It also means that if global overfishing doesn’t get better soon, many people will be forced to live without one of their major sources of food.

Unfortunately we live in a world where making money is priority number one for most people, and many will do whatever it takes to earn their living. This is the attitude that is causing the depletion of the world’s fish population and the destruction of their habitat. Sadly, there isn’t much anyone can do to change this mindset, but that doesn’t mean marine animals and coral reefs can’t be saved. If governments around the world would tighten current fishing regulations and create more non-fishing zones, marine ecosystems would surely become more healthy and rich. However, if people continue to turn their backs on the problem, we will soon see the collapse of global fisheries, complete destruction of their ecosystems, and millions of people around the world will be out of jobs and a valuable food source. It’s up to the government to make sure this doesn’t happen, and it’s time to step up before it becomes too late.

Works Cited

Crowder, Rebecca L. Lewison and Larry B. "Estimating Fishery Bycatch and Effects on a Vulnerable Seabird Population." Ecological Applications (2003): 743-753.

Durst, Sidra. "Problem no. 6: Overfishing. Kona Blue’s Deep-ocean Aquaculture Could Help Save Declining Fish Populations." Business 2.0 Magazine 26 January 2007.

FAO. FAO.org. 2002. March 2008 .

Hall-Spencer, Jason, Valerie Allain and Jan H. Fossa. "Trawling Damage to Northeast Atlantic Ancient Coral Reefs." Biological Sciences (2002): 507-511.

Raloff, Janet. "How Low Will We Go in Fishing for Dinner?" Science News (1998): 86.

T. E. LAUER, J. C. DOLL, P. J. ALLEN, B. BREIDERT, J. PALLA. Changes in yellow perch length frequencies and sex ratios following closure of the commercial fishery and reduction in sport bag limits in southern Lake Michigan. Scientific Report. Chicago: Ball State University Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2008.

"The Gulf Council." January 2008. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. March 2008 .

Williams, Nigel. "Overfishing disrupts entire ecosystems." Science (1998): 279:809-810.

World Wildlife Foundation. 29 February 2008. March 2008 .

WWF - Trawling. 29 February 2008. March 2008 .

Workshop for Cary's Essay #3

Thesis:

1. Restate the thesis in your own words. If the thesis is a question and not an assertion, make it an assertion. Make sure the words “although” and "because" are in it.

Although the Army claims to be building character and making its soldiers stronger, it does quite the opposite because it encourages activities that prevent individual growth, limits soldiers abilities to make choices, and it imposes strict rules which limit one’s decision making.

2. Does the thesis argue a link between a cause(s) and effect(s)? Is it at the end of the first paragraph?

The thesis argues that the Army is prohibiting (causing) the growth of an individual, which is the opposite of what its recruiters claim to do.

3. List the cause(s).
Encouragement of questionable activities, making choices for its soldiers, and imposing strict rules

4. List the effect(s).

The inability to grow up, limits soldier’s choices, and does not allow soldiers to make decisions.

Audience:

Who is the author's audience? Will the audience already agree with the author, or is the author writing to the opposition? How can you tell? Give specific examples.

I would think that the audience of this essay would be persons who are considering joining the army or other form of military. This essay would be a good source of information for people who didn’t have an opinion for or against the authors views. The author targets this type of audience in the closing paragraph where it sounds like he is talking directly to an audience of potential recruits.

Counterargument:

List the counterarguments (arguments of the author’s oppositions) used in the paper (there should be at least three). Does the author adequately address these arguments? Do you think there are other arguments that could be addressed? Do you see any logical fallacies?

Most of the counterarguments in this paper come from the image the Army tries illustrate itself as. For instance, “The army often markets itself as a path to independence,” and the quote, “The army provides a remarkable environment for personal growth.” The author does address these views well.


Title:

Does the paper have an interesting title? If not, help author come up with one.

The title is, “The U.S. Army – Road to Indecision?” I think this title is good because it gives a view into what the paper is about, and is also interesting.

Introduction:

Is there a catchy lead sentence? What is it? If there isn't one, what would you suggest?

The lead sentence is, “From television commercials to radio broadcasts, no matter where one goes there are always recruitment slogans and jargon being thrown around to join the U.S. Army.” I think the lead sentence is very good, it would be a big attention grabber for someone thinking about joining the army or other form of military.

Conclusion:

How does the author conclude the paper? What do you think of it?

The author concludes the paper by giving his first hand experience of being in the army, and offering some advice to those who are thinking about joining the military. I liked how it was concluded. Even though I’m not thinking about joining, it was still interesting to hear his views.

Flow/Transitions:

Does each paragraph expand upon the thesis? Do the paragraphs flow? Which paragraphs have bumpy transitions?

The author did a good job of allowing the paper to flow properly. It was very easy to read, which always makes a paper more enjoyable to read.





The paper can be found at http://caryenglish.blogspot.com/

Steroid Use in American Society (Essay 3)

What was once simply just a way for bodybuilders to gain a competitive edge, steroids are now endangering the lives of millions of Americans. Over the last couple of decades, steroids have made their way from gym bags belonging to professional power lifters, to the locker rooms of local high school athletes. While steroids in professional sports used to be somewhat of a taboo, it is now hard to read through the sports section of a newspaper without finding an article on the newest discovered users. While most people tend to point fingers at these athletes, are they really the ones to blame for current steroid problems? Although blame is often put on professional athletes, our society as a whole is responsible for the popularity of steroids because it glorifies all-stars, pressures young athletes, and fails to effectively reprove known users.

When children are growing up, they often dream of what they are going to be when they get older. For many kids their dreams consist of becoming professional athletes. While these dreams used to consist of making that game winning touchdown pass or championship winning homerun, today’s kids often dream of the multi-million dollar pay checks and fancy mansions they see other athletes toting on television. These kids start to realize the kind of money and fame they can achieve, and begin to lose their love of the game. When they get into high school, they start to realize that if they want to become professional athletes themselves, they need to stand out from the rest of the kids. Those who want it the most will do anything it takes to achieve their money driven dreams, and that includes cheating their way to the top by using steroids and other performance enhancing drugs.

The result is athletes coming out of high school and college who are able to run faster, jump higher, and hit harder thanks to the extra boost they get from these drugs. These elite (thanks to steroid use) athletes are the ones who will end up in commercials, and on the covers of magazines and cereal boxes. It’s easy to sit back and point the finger and criticize the athletes who use steroids, but when you really think about it, who can blame them? Our society chooses to idolize the athletes who score the most points and win the most games. The guys who we see in every other commercial aren’t there because they spent the most time giving back to their community or because of their sportsmanship; they’re there because they score the most touchdowns or win a lot of races. This can be seen in a 2006 article by Sports Illustrated in which it lists the 50 highest paid athletes. The top ten earners included names like Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James (Freedman). While none of these athletes are accused of steroid use, it does show that our society rewards the players who win or score the most points. These sorts of incentives are what drive athletes to cheating in hopes of becoming bigger and better than the rest.

Steroid use in professional sports is bad enough, but when kids in high school begin using performance enhancing drugs, the results can be deadly. Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop our society from pushing kids to the point of steroid use. Teenaged athletes are the most effected by pressure, and they are often receiving pressure everywhere they go. It can come from parents, friends, coaches, teammates, and even professional scouts. When an athlete enters high school sports, there is a big jump from the recreational forms they played when they were younger. Not only are coaches more demanding, but there is now a whole audience depending on you to play well and do your best. Not to mention the pressure that comes from within themselves after seeing the popularity of older star athletes and the perks they receive in school and around the community.

With all of this pressure upon them, it’s not hard to imagine young kids turning to steroids. This is especially true when they realize professional athletes are using them and in most cases going unpunished for it as well. While most people make an uproar about steroids in sports, the truth is that not much is being done about fixing the problem. Major League Baseball did its own independent investigation into the alleged steroid use of its players. They even went as far as to hire former Senate majority leader George Mitchell to head the investigation in hopes of getting to the bottom of the situation. The investigation and its final report named 89 players who were found to have used steroids at some point in their careers. The report was made public in December 2007, and since then, not a single suspension has been handed out to anyone found guilty in the investigation (Blum). This coupled with the fact that the buzz created by the Mitchell Report lasted less than a week makes the lure of steroids that much more appealing.

So until we as a society make steroids the enemy that it should be, its impact will be felt throughout all levels of the sporting industry. It’s always easy to point the finger at those in the spotlight, but it’s important to remember that our society is what helped drive them to use these drugs. It is our nature to idolize those who lead their teams to victory, just as it is natural for young athletes to want to be like those stars. Unfortunately, until professional sports organizations do something to buckle down on steroid use, the reward will continue to outweigh the risk, and our society will continue to entice steroid use by athletes.


Sources

Blum, Ronald. "Suspensions increasingly unlikely for players mentioned in Mitchell Report." Associated Press. 12 March 2008. 5 April 2008 .

Freedman, Jonah. "Fortunate 50." Sports Illustrated. 2007. 5 April 2008 .

Overfishing Our Worlds Oceans (Final Paper Rough Draft 2)

Living in today’s world gives humans many advantages. Thanks to advancements in technology, accomplishing almost any task has become much easier, and everyday activities have become much more convenient. The world of commercial fishing is no exception to this fact, and our world is suffering because of it. Technology on today’s fishing boats allow fisherman to hunt down schools of fish and simply drop there nets and scoop them up. By doing this, commercial fishing boats are able to catch multiple tons of fish in just a couple hours of work. Although there are currently rules and regulations on commercial fishing, the government should increase enforcement because fish populations are being depleted, aquatic ecosystems are being destroyed, and those who depend on the fishing industry will suffer.
Commercial fishing regulations vary from country to country, and are often hard to enforce. Here in the United States, there are Federal commercial fishing regulations that must be fallowed. On top of the Federal rules, there are also rules for individual states. State fishing regulations are to be fallowed as long as they do not exceed limits that are set by the Federal Government. Most state regulations are in place in order to protect species of fish that are not covered by Federal regulations (The Gulf Council). All fishing regulations lay out criteria such as minimum size limits, which state how big a fish needs to be in order to keep it. Criteria can also include trip limits and total quota caps. Trip limits are limitations for how much fish a vessel can come in with, and quota caps limit how much each vessel can catch in one fishing season. In addition to catch criteria, rules are in place that regulate where vessels can catch fish, and what kind of fishing techniques they can use (such as drag netting or single-hook line).
It would seem that having all these rules would help limit the damage done to the fishing population. However, taking a closer look at these regulations shows that they really aren’t all that effective. In a commercial fishing pamphlet that is handed out by the Fishery Management Council, it shows that there are in fact no trip limits or quota caps for many species of fish. Where there are limits, they are often amounts such as “6,000 lbs gutted weight” for trip limits, and quotas of 1.02 million pounds “gutted weight” (The Gulf Council). These numbers were for “Deep-water Groupers,” but there were other fish species that had similar amounts. The truly scary fact about these restrictions is that they are for single shipping vessels. This means that there are hundreds of boats out there that are potentially bringing in over a million pounds of fish each. Also remember that this is one classification of fish in a single fishing season, and restrictions are based on “gutted weight.”
With poor regulations such as these it’s not so hard to imagine the impact fishing vessels have over the world’s fish population. As a matter of fact, “52% of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, and 24% are overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion.” (WWF). This means that over 76% of the world’s fisheries are in danger of being completely wiped out. Numbers like these are astonishing, and at the rate we are going, the unthinkable could become a reality. WWF goes on to say that if commercial fishing keeps up the same pace, every single species that is currently being fished for food could be completely collapsed by the year 2048. This may seem like a long way away, but future generations could be facing a world without the joy, and sometimes necessity, of fish for food.
There have been efforts all over the world to try and control fish population, but they simply aren’t enough. Besides laughable Federal regulations, there have also been bans on fishing in some areas. While this tactic does work, banned areas are usually fairly small, and limited compared to how many their should be. This is pointed out in a 1998 article from the national publication, Science. The author points out that “findings indicate that more such protected areas must be created if there is to be any chance of salvaging vanishing ecosystems” (N. Williams).
Sadly, since his article in 1998, it would seem that little has been done about the overfishing problem. This can be seen not only in the continually decreasing fish population, but also in the overall structure of the marine ecosystems. More specifically, the marine food web has begun to shift due to the fishing efforts of large commercial fishing vessels. Scientist classify each aquatic organism and place them in a specific niche in the food web. The bottom is classified as 1, and consists of plants and algae. The classifications progress up to level 5 which is reserved for killer whales and the largest sharks. According to an article by Janet Raloff, “humans have traditionally fished primarily from levels three and four.” Janet goes on to explain that because these larger fish are being fished out, smaller fish start to become more sought after by commercial fishing companies (J. Raloff). This creates a problem because not only do we begin to see a decline in population from these smaller fish, but the reducing numbers make it even harder for the higher ranked fish populations to recover.
A common adage says that “desperate times call for desperate measures.” By the statistics given by the WWF, there is no question we are in desperate times. Extreme measures have been taking place in some regions, and luckily it appears that we may still have time to fix our problem. According to a study done by Ball State University, the Indiana commercial fishery on Lake Michigan was closed down completely in 1997. Their study indicates that 10 years after the closure, mean length of local yellow perch had increased, and so had the proportion of female fish (Ball State). Of course this was just one fishery, and in truth, it made little difference in our global problem. However, successful experiments such as these do give a sliver of hope to those concerned about the current condition of our oceans.
Unfortunately, fish populations aren’t the only thing suffering from current fishing methods. Over the last half-century, huge advancements in fishing technology have increased catch production, but have also created a huge problem for our world’s coral reefs. Trawling is a technique that has been used for decades. Coral reefs used to be safe from this fishing technique because the sharp coral would rip up the fisherman’s nets. The World Wildlife Foundation points out that this all ended in the 1980s when large rubber tires were added to the end of the nets, allowing the trawlers to move over the coral without getting damaged. According to the same article, a study was done here in Alaska which showed that after a single pass by a drag net, 55% of the effected coral still showed signs of damage a year later (WWF Trawling). This is truly devastating when you take into consideration the fact that the same nets are often drug over the same spot more than once, and can be drug for many miles. It’s no wonder these corals have such a hard time recovering when they are continually damaged year after year.
In most places new laws and regulations are being put in place that prohibit the use of trawling in shallow reef areas. The regulations usually limit the commercial fishing vessels to fish with multiple hooked lines. While this helps tremendously with reef damage near shorelines, deeper sea waters continue to be affected by insufficient protective guidelines. Technology again plays a big role in the creation of these problems. Where trawling at large depths used to be near impossible, it is now very common for vessels to fish at depths nearing a mile or more. In 2002 there was a study done by the Royalty Society in the northeast Atlantic Ocean which researched the amount of damage done to deep coral during normal fish trawling operation. During the study the fishing vessel would troll at depths up to 1500m. The study report noted that “coral by-catch” was common, and that some pieces were up to 1 sq. meter in size and up to 4550 years old (Royalty Society). The damage done during this study had a large impact on the ocean bottom by its self, but what needs to be taken into account is that the study covered only a fraction of a per cent of the global damage done by trawling vessels. Quantifying such devastating effects on our ocean’s ecosystems makes it hard to justify the lack of protection these reefs receive.
Unfortunately, damaged coral reefs are not the only negative byproduct of commercial fishing. Thousands of other animals are dying every year due to being caught up in nets or fishing lines. Sharks, dolphins, turtles, seals, sea otters, and even sea birds are constantly being hauled in with the fish. These animals usually end up drowning from lack of oxygen or are wounded so badly from the heavy nets that they don’t survive if they are let go. A study was done in 2003 by the Ecological Society of America which concentrated on the mortality rate of the Black-footed Albatross in the North Pacific. After the five year study, they concluded that U.S. and international vessels were responsible for the deaths of as many as 13,800 Black-footed Albatross per year (ESA). It’s hard to imagine the total impact our fishing vessels are having on the ocean’s animals, but these types of studies give a good look into what kind of damage commercial fishing boats are doing.
Most people realize that commercial fishing is quickly depleting fish populations, and many people are aware of the damage it causes our coral reefs, but very few people realize the impact commercial fishing has on themselves and millions of others around the world. If the commercial fishing industry is allowed to keep harvesting fish at the current pace, it wont be long before they fish themselves out of business. That would mean the end of a $158 billion industry according to Business 2.0 Magazine (CNN). That’s 158 billion dollars worth of jobs that people currently use to support their families with food and shelter. Unfortunately owners of big commercial fishing companies are only thinking about the money they can make now. They show little, if any concern for the future of not only their workers, but also the millions of people around the world who depend on fish for food.
Here in the United States, we eat a fairly large amount of fish, but compared to some countries, our consumption is fairly small. Asian countries, especially island nations such as Japan and the Philippines, rely much more heavily on fish as a food source. These island countries not only eat more fish, but they also rely more heavily on fish for protein. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations shows that some of these islands receive over 50 per cent of their protein from fish compared to right around 20 per cent for the rest of the world (FAO). This means that while we enjoy the ability to go out and have a good fish dinner, a lot of other countries are dependent on that same dinner. It also means that if global overfishing doesn’t get better soon, many people will be forced to live without their major suppliers of protein.
Unfortunately we live in a world where making money is priority number one for most people, and many will do whatever it takes to earn their living. This is the attitude that is causing the depletion of the world’s fish population and the destruction of their habitat. Sadly, there isn’t much anyone can do to change this mindset, but that doesn’t mean marine animals and coral reefs can’t be saved. If governments around the world would tighten current fishing regulations and create more non-fishing zones, marine ecosystems would surely become more healthy and rich. However, if people continue to turn there backs on the problem, we will soon see the collapse of global fisheries, complete destruction of their ecosystems, and millions of people around the world will be out of jobs and a valuable food source. It’s up to the government to make sure this doesn’t happen, and it’s time to step up before it becomes too late.



Resources

(The Gulf Council). Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. “2008 Commercial Fishing Regulations for Gulf of Mexico Federal Waters.” January 2008.
http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/com%20brochure2008web.pdf

(WWF). “Problems: Poorly Managed Fishing.” World Wildlife Foundation. Updated February 29, 2008.
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/problems/problems_fishing/index.cfm

(N. Williams). Williams, Nigel. “Overfishing disrupts entire ecosystems.” Science. February 1998. p279:809-810.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/279/5352/809

(J. Raloff). “How low will we go in fishing for dinner?“ Science News, Vol. 153, No. 6 (Feb. 7, 1998), pp. 86


(Ball State). T. E. LAUER, J. C. DOLL, P. J. ALLEN, B. BREIDERT, J. PALLA. “Changes in yellow perch length frequencies and sex ratios following closure of the commercial fishery and reduction in sport bag limits in southern Lake Michigan.” Ball State University. Fisheries Management and Ecology, pg. 15 (2008)
http://libapps.uaf.edu:2080/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2007.00567.x

(WWF Trawling). “Fishing Problems: Destructive Fishing Practices.” World Wildlife Foundation. Updated February 29, 2008.

(Royal Society). Hall-Spencer, Jason; Allain, Valerie; Fossa, Jan H. “Trawling Damage to Northeast Atlantic Ancient Coral Reefs.” The Royal Society. Biological Sciences. (2002). http://libapps.uaf.edu:2066/view/09628452/sp020009/02x0148r/0?currentResult=09628452%2bsp020009%2b02x0148r%2b0%2c3F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3Dcommercial%2Bfishing%252C%2Bcoral%26wc%3Don

(ESA). Estimating Fishery Bycatch and Effects on a Vulnerable Seabird Population, by Rebecca L. Lewison and Larry B. Crowder. Ecological Applications. Ecological Society of America. © 2003
http://libapps.uaf.edu:2066/stable/view/4134691?seq=6&Search=yes&term=bycatch&term=fishing&term=commercial&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcommercial%2Bfishing%2Bbycatch%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3Dfishing%2Bjobs%26hp%3D25&item=1&ttl=67&returnArticleService=showArticle


(CNN). Durst, Sidra. “Problem no. 6: Overfishing. Kona Blue’s Deep-ocean Aquaculture Could Help Save Declining Fish Populations.” Business 2.0 Magazine. CNN. January 26, 2007.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/24/magazines/business2/Prob6_Overfishing.biz2/i ndex.htm


(FAO). FAO Fisheries Circular No. 821 (and subsequent revisions), Fish and Fishery products - World Apparent Consumption Statistics based on Food Balance Sheets (1961-2001)
http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/3463#container

Essay 3 Rough Draft

What was once simply just a way for bodybuilders to gain a competitive edge, steroids are now endangering the lives of millions of Americans. Over the last couple of decades, steroids have made their way from gym bags belonging to professional power lifters, to the locker rooms of local high school athletes. While steroids in professional sports used to be somewhat of a taboo, it is now hard to read through the sports section of a newspaper without finding an article on the newest discovered users. While most people point there fingers at these athletes, are they really the ones to blame for current steroid problems? Although blame is often put on professional athletes, our society is responsible for the popularity of steroids because it glorifies all-stars, pushes young athletes, and fails to effectively reprove known users.
When children are growing up, they often dream of what they are going to be when they get older. For many kids their dreams consist of becoming professional athletes. While these dreams used to consist of making that game winning touchdown pass or championship winning homerun, today’s kids often dream of the multi-million dollar pay checks and fancy mansions they see other athletes toting on MTV Cribs. These kids start to realize the kind of money and fame they can achieve, and begin to lose their love of the game. When they get into high school, they start to realize that if they want to become professional athletes themselves, they need to stand out from the rest of the kids. Those who want it the most will do anything it takes to achieve their money driven dreams, and that includes cheating their way to the top by using steroids and other performing enhancing drugs.
So now there are athletes coming out of high school and college who are able to run faster, jump higher, and hit harder thanks to the extra boost they get from these drugs. Because of their enhanced performance, these elite athletes are the ones who will end up in commercials, and on the covers of magazines and cereal boxes. It’s easy to sit back and point the finger and criticize the athletes who use steroids, but when you really think about it, who can blame them? Our society chooses to idolize the athletes who score the most points and win the most games. The guys who we see in every other commercial aren’t there because they spent the most time giving back to their community or because of their sportsmanship, they’re there because they score lots of touchdowns or win a lot of races. This can be seen in a 2006 article by Sports Illustrated in which it lists the 50 highest paid athletes. The top ten earners included names like Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James (Sports Illustrated). While none of these athletes are accused of steroid use, it does show that our society rewards the players who win or score the most points. These sorts of incentives are what drive athletes to cheating in hopes of becoming bigger and better than the rest.
Steroid use in professional sports is bad enough, but when kids in high school begin using performance enhancing drugs, the results can be deadly. Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop our society from pushing kids to the point of steroid use. The pressure they receive comes from everyone around them. It can come from parents, friends, coaches, teammates, and even professional scouts. When an athlete enters high school sports, there is a big jump from the recreational forms they played before. Not only are coaches more demanding, but there is now a whole audience depending on you to play well and do your best. Not to mention the pressure that comes from within themselves after seeing the popularity of older star athletes and the perks they receive in school and around town.
With all of this pressure upon them, it’s not hard to imagine young kids turning to steroids. This is especially true when they realize professional athletes are using them and in most cases going unpunished for it as well. While most people make an uproar about steroids in sports, the truth is that not much is being done about fixing the problem. Major League Baseball did it’s own independent investigation into the alleged steroid use of it’s players. They even went as far as to hire former Senate majority leader George Mitchell to head the investigation in hopes of getting to the bottom of the situation. The investigation and its final report named 89 players who were found to have used steroids at some point in their careers. The report was made public in December 2007, and since then, not a single suspension has been handed out to anyone found guilty in the investigation (Blum). This coupled with the fact that the buzz generated by the Mitchell Report lasted less than a week make the lure of steroids that much more appealing.
So until we as a society make steroids the enemy that it should be, it’s impact will be felt throughout all levels of the sporting industry. It’s always easy to point the finger at those in the spotlight, but it’s important to remember that our society is what helped drive them to use these drugs. It is our nature to idolize those who lead their teams to victory, just as it is natural for young athletes to want to be like those stars. Unfortunately, until professional sports organizations do something to buckle down on steroid use, the reward will continue to outweigh the risk.

Kelly's Workshop

Rough Draft #1 Workshop Questions
Overall
1. What do you like best about the paper? Be specific.

The paper started out with a good lead sentence which would grab the attention of most readers. I also liked that the paper was packed full of facts, so I learned a few things from it.

2. Email the author and ask for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions.

The author told me that they were concerned about the organization of the paper, and was worried that it was all making sense.

I feel that the paper is very well organized, and it flows very well also. The paper was easy to read, and easy to fallow through the argument.

Thesis
3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis? What argument does the thesis make?

The thesis says “scientists have found…” so it’s doesn’t state her exact opinion, but I think it’s implied that she agrees with them. The argument is that phytoplankton have a stronger influence on greenhouse gasses than people “going green.”

4. What group of people agrees with the author? What group disagrees with the author?

In the paper the author states that there is a debate between scientists whether artificially increasing the population of phytoplankton would work or not. I think scientists and biologists would be the only ones who actually knew enough about the topic to make valid arguments for or against.

5. Does the paper have an argumentative thesis statement using ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE?

Yes

Content
6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest! (Friends don’t let friend turn in boring essays!)

I would give it a 8

7.Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader? Be specific (e.g. “the 3rd is dullsville”; “the conclusion is really vague”).

It might be nice to have a paragraph that explains what exactly phytoplankton and diatoms are. The author talks a lot about what they can do (like photosynthesis), but doesn’t give a concrete explanation of what they are (at least I didn’t see one). Luckily I happen to be taking a marine biology class right now so I could fallow, but it would probably be nice for people that weren’t sure what they were.

8.What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise? If there are none, go back to #3.

The only one I thought about as I read the report was that some phytoplankton blooms can cause high levels of toxins in the surrounding waters which can make people sick and kill marine animals.

9.Has the author dealt with these objections?

She talked about other objections, but not this particular one.

10.Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection?

Yes, I thought that the paragraphs all fit well with the thesis topic, all of them belonged in the paper and flowed well.

Style
11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic?

The transitions were good which made the paper flow really well and made it easy to read.

12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening?

Yes, the opening sentence is an important one, and should catch the attention of most readers.

13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction?

Yes, the concluding paragraph ties it all together, and ends the arguments well.

Research
14. How many different sources are cited in the paper (don’t look at Works Cited or References (depending if it's MLA or APA); look at the parenthetical citations. The medium does not matter.)

I found 6 different cited sources.

15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?

No, the author uses a wide variety of different sources.

16. Does the author have more quotes in his/her paper than personal opinion?

No.

17. Are there any sources listed on the Works Cited or References that are not cited within the body of the essay? (This is a no-no)

No.

18. Is all the information retrieved from research, including opinion, ideas, paraphrases, quotes, and statistics, cited with in-text (parenthetical) citations? If not, list specifics of what needs to be cited (friends don’t let friends turn in plagiarized papers).

The only thing I saw was that the thesis for the report was the same as part of a quote that was cited later in the paper. The author sites the source for the quote, but not for the thesis.

19. All quotes in research papers should be commented upon. Does the author comment after every quote? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was.

Honestly, I’m not too sure what is meant by “commented upon.” The author is usually using the quotes as a way to back up a statement.


Kelly's paper can be found at: www.kellylowry.blogspot.com

Breaking Ice Shelf Reading Response

Reading the four different articles about the recent ice shelf that broke off of Antarctica was interesting. I usually don’t jump around to more than a couple sources to read about a story, so it was surprising to me how similar they were. They all tried to deliver at least some facts behind the story, with article’s 1 and 2 in my opinion going the deepest into these facts. Article 3 seemed to be more of someone’s analyses and opinion on the occurrence, and article 4 was really just a quick run-over of the story. So anyone looking for cold hard facts would probably be reading one of the first couple articles, and someone looking for a more leisurely read would most likely enjoy article 3 the most. I also can’t help but feel that anyone reading article 4 simple stumbled upon the article, and won’t pay much attention to it after.

All of the articles also share pretty much the same claim that global warming was the cause for the breaking of the ice shelf. While they all shared the same idea, for the most part they all delivered in a slightly different way. As I stated before, articles 1 and 2 were loaded with facts which make for very informational, and very credible articles. While article 3 might not have been as informational, it was the most fun for me to read. The laid back nature of the article was easy to fallow, and the author also did a good job of giving counter arguments to his/her claim, and then defending against them. Article 4 simply didn’t do a good job of pulling in the reader, and I found myself spending more time trying to determine whether the picture was real or not, than thinking about the article its self.