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.

Final Research Paper: Rough Draft

This Aint Just Another Fish Tale

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. According to the Gulf Council, State fishing regulations are to be fallowed as long as they do not exceed limits that are set by the Federal Government. The council also notes that state regulations are in place to protect species of fish that are not covered by Federal regulations. 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.” 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, the World Wildlife Foundation states that “52% of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, and 24% are overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion.” 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. Nigel Williams backs up this idea in a 1998 article from the national publication, Science. He points out that “findings indicate that more such protected areas must be created if there is to be any chance of salvaging vanishing ecosystems.” Sadly, since his article in 1998, it would seem that little has been done about the overfishing problem.
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. 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. According to the WWF, 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.
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 effected 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. 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.
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. 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. Sure, we all have the ability to enjoy delicious tilapia or halibut now, but that pleasure will come to an end if something isn’t done to tighten up current rules and regulations on commercial fishing.
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

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

“Problems: Poorly Managed Fishing.” World Wildlife Foundation. Updated February, 2008.
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/problems/problems_fishing/in dex.cfm

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

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

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?current Result=09628452%2bsp020009%2b02x0148r%2b0%2c3F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2
Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26 jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3Dcommercial%2Bfishing%252C%2 Bcoral%26wc%3Don

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

Bib. Retry

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.

Jeantheau, Mark. “Pretty Mermaids Are Always Over Fishing For Compliments: The Causes and Effects of Overfishing.” Grinning Planet. Published May 7, 2005.
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/06-07/overfishing-article.htm

Grinning planet is an organization that takes a look at environmental issues from a little lighter side. They use family-friendly jokes and cartoons to spread the message about different issues. Mixed in with the jokes are serious articles such as this one about the cause and effect of overfishing. This article will be useful for me because it breaks the topic of overfishing down to a problem and a solution.

Nuttall, Nick. “Overfishing: A Threat to Marine Biodiversity.” 10 Stories the World Should Hear More About. United Nations. Published in 2006.
http://www.un.org/events/tenstories_2006/story.asp?storyID=800

I thought this would be a good article to read because it actually comes from the UN. The story falls under the organization’s, “10 Stories the World Should Hear More About.” I thought this would be a great way to back up my opinion, and the article states a few good facts as well. It talks a lot about the impact overfishing will have on the “200 million people” that rely on fish for livelihood and food security.

“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

I liked this site because one, it was from the World Wild Life Foundation, and two, it is packed with tons of facts that I will be able to use to back up my opinion. I also liked the fact that the site is well organized and is easy to read. They state a few straight forward facts, such as “ technological advances that have made large-scale fishing easier.” The cool thing is that there is a hyperlink on the words “technological advances” that takes me to a whole other article about technological advances of fishing boats.

“Overfishing.” Alaska Oceans Program. Alaska Conservation Foundation. Copyrighted 2005.
http://www.alaskaoceans.net/facts/overfishing.htm

This site was good for me because it has to do specifically with the overfishing problem in Alaska. I am hoping to be able to talk a little bit about the fishing problems in Alaska, and this will probably turn out to be a great source for that. The article delves into the history of Alaska commercial fishing, and also gives 3 different deffinitions of overfishing; one political, one legal, and one scientific.

“Overfishing.” Greenpeace International. Copyrighted 2007.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/overfishing

One of the best things about the topic I am doing is that there are a lot of articles from major organizations that I will be able to support my argument with. This article is no different. It comes from the Greenpeace Organization, and is a little smaller than most of the other articles, but is filled with facts. One of the key points in this article is the example of cod fishing off of Canada, which has gone through a major decline in the last few years.

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/index.htm

This was a neat article from a contributor I would have never thought of (thanks Google!). It actually came from CNN’s Money section, and it talks about the effect overfishing will have on the fishing economy. I liked this article because rather than concentrate only on the negative, it talks mostly about the solution to the problem. I will definitely fit this somewhere into my paper!

“FEATURE: Overfishing turns the Mediterranean into a barren sea.” International News Service in English. Copyright 2006.
http://www.bookrags.com/news/feature-overfishing-turns-the-moc/

This article is from the International News Service and is about the depleting number of fish in the Mediterranean Sea. There were a couple of interesting things that I would like to take out of the article. One of the pieces I want to use is the article talking about how a lot of the smaller fishing vessels realize that something needs to be done, where the larger fishing companies only see the sea as a source of money.

Tao, Kenny. “Fishing in the North Atlantic: What’s Left?” University of California, Irvine. 1998.
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/global/sensem/S98/Tao/bio191cw.html

This is actually an essay by Kenny Tao, and it comes from the University of California, Irvine. I haven’t gotten the chance to read all of the essay yet, but Mr. Tao has included some very good information including statistics, quotes, and even a few graphs. His paper is focused on the North Atlantic, and I am sure I will find many good facts I can use for my paper.

Dauphin Island Sea Lab. "Coral Reef Decline - Not Just Overfishing." ScienceDaily. 31 August 2005.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050830072609.htm

This is an article from the publication, “Science Daily.” the title of the article is “Coral Reef Decline - Not Just Overfishing.” As the title suggests, the article talks more about the damage to coral reefs due to global warming, overfishing, and coral disease. I definitely want to talk about the coral reefs in my paper, and this will be a good source for that.

Journeymanpictures. “Overfishing - USA.” Journeyman Pictures. Accessed via Youtube. Oct. 2003.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKrHjpBUpYs

This is an interesting video titled “Over Fishing - USA.” I clicked on the video and was happy to find out that the video is actually focused on overfishing in Alaska. They talked a lot about the Stellar Sea Lions and their depletion due to the fact that their food source is being wiped out by large fishing vessels.

Hilborn, Ray. “Managing fisheries is managing people: what has been learned?” Fish and Fisheries 8 . Dec. 2007. p285–296.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2007.00263_2.x

This was a section out of the book, Fish and Fisheries 8 which was published in December 2007. In the text, Hilborn talks about ways to get fishermen to stop overfishing. I would like to use this text to help talk about ways of changing our current fishing problems.

T. E. LAUER, J. C. DOLL, P. J. ALLEN, B. BREIDERT, J. PALLA (2008) 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
Fisheries Management and Ecology, pg. 15
http://libapps.uaf.edu:2080/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2007.00567.x

In 1997 a commercial fishery on Lake Michigan was closed down. This article was from a study that a group of people did on the fishery over the last 10 years. Their study showed that there was an increase in the average size of yellow perch after the closure. I would Like to use this as evidence that it’s not too late to do something about overfishing.

Smulyan, Mariltn H. “Making Waves For a Healthy Ocean.” Bay Nature. Dec 2007. p34-40.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27330403&site=ehost-live

This article is by Mariltn, who talks about the importance of protecting the Bay Area in San Fransisco. She talks about a few difference aspects of saving the bay, and the one I focused on was titled, “Restoring fisheries and saving ecosystems.” In this section she talks about a Protection Act passed by Legislature in 1999. She also talks about the current biological condition of the area.

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

This is a PDF of a commercial fishing pamphlet from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. I will be using this as a reference to some of the areas fishing regulations and rules.

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

This is an article by Nigel Williams which appeared in the February 1998 issue of Science. In the article he talks about how more protected areas need to be created in order to save the ocean’s ecosystems. I will use this article in talking about how current fishing limitations aren’t good enough.

Raloff, Janet. “How Low Will We Go in Fishing for Dinner?” Science News. 1998. p98.
http://libapps.uaf.edu:2066/view/00368423/ap071147/07a00100/0?currentResult=00368423%2bap071147%2b07a00100%2b0%2c02&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3Doverfishing%26wc%3Don

This article appeared in the Science News Journal in 1998. The article talks about how some fish have been already fished out, and now other types of fish are being depleted in their places. I will use this to talk about how the overfishing problem effects all fish, not just certain types.

Grammar Girl- Run-Ons

For episode 49, Grammar Girl speaks on the topic of run-on sentences. Unlike last weeks article on commas, I like to think that I do a fairly good job of not writing with run-on sentences. If anything, I tend to overuse punctuation in my writing. It was interesting none-the-less to learn a little bit about these improper sentences. For example, I did not realize that run-on sentences were actually sentences missing punctuation. Instead I though (as Grammar Girl predicted) that run-on sentences were simply sentences that were too long. I also agreed with Grammar Girl’s statement that, “it’s important not to over-think your sentence structure.” When I was in high school, teachers put so much emphasis on proper sentence structure, that it would often take me days to write a 3-page paper. Now that I am in college and papers of these lengths are due sometimes daily, I sort of self taught myself to ignore all the rules. I do this while I am getting ideas down on paper, and then I go back and try to fix the problems. I find this method allows me to write multiple-page papers in hours rather than days.

Solution For a Safer Ride - Essay # 2: Final Draft

Try driving around the town of Fairbanks, Alaska for a day and you are sure to see at least a couple people riding around on snowmachines or ATVs. There’s nothing wrong with people having fun riding these machines, the only problem is that they are often riding within a few feet of fast moving road traffic, or riding on trails not designed for recreational use. It seems like every year there is at least a couple deaths here in the Interior due to accidents involving recreational vehicles and automobiles. Although it may cost the city some extra money, Fairbanks needs to build its residents a recreational trail system because it would provide a safer riding environment, plus help both local land owners, and recreational riders.
It’s funny to think that a city packed full of ATV and snowmachine owners, not to mention an abundance of unused land, doesn’t really have any type of established trail system for recreational riders. There are a few trails throughout town that riders use, but these trails are supposed to be cross-country ski trails in the winter, and hiking/walking trails in the summer. There have been many arguments from skiers who are upset because their trails are getting torn up by snowmachine tracks, and both skiers and hikers are upset when riders come flying by, barely avoiding them on the narrow trails. Their frustration is completely understandable. These encounters are often very dangerous, and are largely due to the absence of trails for the recreational riders.
If the city would be willing to build its citizens a good recreational trail system, It would greatly reduce the dangerous encounters between riders and pedestrians. Head out of town for five minutes in nearly any direction and there is an endless supply of unused land. This land would provide perfect riding conditions for riders, and would keep snowmachiners and ATV riders off of hiking trails and bike paths. This way, riders could enjoy nice trails without having to worry about coming across hikers or skiers, and the pedestrians would be able to enjoy their trails without having to jump out of the way of high speed machines.
It would probably be safe to assume that the biggest reason there is no trail system is because of the cost. While the initial laying out of the trail system could possibly cost the city quite a bit of money, the fallow up costs would be minimal. During the summer months there would be almost no expenses except for maybe the occasional clearing of timber. During the winter, the city could choose to pack and smooth the trails, but with the high amount of traffic that would likely be on the paths, this wouldn’t really be necessary. Spending a bit of money over one summer clearing out trees and establishing trails would be well worth many years of increased safety for the people of Fairbanks.
Another big problem with the current riding situation in the interior is that local land owners are having trouble keeping riders off of their land. Driving through nearly any neighborhood in town during the winter months will show that there is a big problem with snowmachiners driving through the lawns of homeowners. Most people just don’t understand the damage that is being done by their machines. They think that because the snow is there, the ground underneath isn’t being harmed, but what happens is that the snow becomes so compacted, that air can not get down to the ground, and ends up suffocating the grass and killing it permanently. After the snow melts, it’s easy to identify the areas where snowmachines had spent the winter traveling back and forth.
It’s hard to blame the snowmachiners for this problem when they are simply trying to find places to ride. A lot of snowmachiners and ATV riders have to travel out of town to find good riding areas, and those who ride in town are usually doing so because they don’t have a choice. A lot of the town riders are either too young to drive themselves out of town, or simply don‘t have the money it takes to take trips out to good riding areas. They are forced to live with what they have here within the city limits, and that mostly consists of either cross-country ski trails or private property where they are not welcome.
The city of Fairbanks isn’t entirely to blame for the lack of good riding trails. The people who live in the area simply are not getting involved in making any changes. Sure, there are private conversations between riders who wish there were better places to go riding, and the hikers/skiers are sure letting the riders know what they think, but not enough people are stepping up to talk with local government about fixing the problem. Most people probably think that their voice wont make a big enough impact to change anything, but similar arguments have brought about changes in other areas around Fairbanks. For instance, last summer there was a bike path put in from Geist Rd. going out towards Ester. The project took all summer, and undoubtedly consumed a large amount of city budget, but the city was willing to invest in the project because it improved safety for it’s citizens. If enough people went to the city government, or even just signed a petition, I believe there would be a good chance of seeing new recreational trails being built in the near future.
We need to make the city understand that it would be beneficial to everyone if their were a few trails where riders could go have fun without harming land or endangering other people. It would cost the city some extra money, but the money would be well spent if put towards recreational trails. After all, one of the duties of a city government is to keep it’s citizens safe and happy, and these trails would do just that. With a city full of people who enjoy riding their ATVs and snowmachines, it only makes sense to build them a place to do so safely, and out of the way of pedestrians and road traffic.

Grammar Girl Response: Episode 45

For episode number 45, Grammar Girl talks about the over use of commas. When I first started reading the article, it brought a smile to my face because I know I am very guilty of that particular crime. I don't know if it's something that I have always done, or if it is a habit that I just recently got in to. For this entire school year I have noticed that I use a lot of commas, but when I would look over my papers it seemed like they were in the right places. After reading Grammar Girls article however, I realize that I am in fact using them far too often.

I thought the article was good because it made me realize that I do use commas too much, but I was hoping that Grammar Girl would have had more tips in recognizing those excessive commas. She explains when you should and shouldn’t use them, but doesn’t really give tips on how to spot them once they’re already there - which is what I have the biggest problems with.

Solution Essay Responses

The first essay, “A Modest Proposal,” was actually a satire piece written by Jonathan Swift. He proposed that the country of Ireland eat 1-year-old babies that come from families of poverty. He said that the solution would help poor parents earn money, and would also help the economy of Ireland. The solution isn’t very effective because this type of idea would never gain ground in nearly any society, the though of carrying out Swift’s suggestions would hopefully sicken any normal person. As ridiculous as the proposal is, Swift does about as good a job at actually being persuasive as anyone could hope to be in making this proposal. He has a lot of good points, and a solution that would probably work (if it weren’t so disturbing). Swift used a lot of sarcasm, and because of this, I would assume that he was trying to make an argument. It most likely had something to do with Ireland’s economy, or with how the rich viewed the poor.

In the second essay, Scott Carney proposes the idea of making organ donation mandatory upon death. He says that there is a high demand for organ donors, and he offers his proposal as a solution to the problem. In my opinion, I think that his solution has the potential to be very effective. He proposed that people will be automatically enrolled to be organ donors, but would have the choice to opt out if they wanted. I see nothing wrong with this solution because the people are still given a choice of what they want to do, and the government wouldn’t be forcing anything upon anyone. Carney is very persuasive in his argument, and he achieves this by using a bunch of quotes and facts from people with experience in the matter at hand. The target audience for this essay would most likely be people who are interested in finding a solution to the problem. The essay probably wouldn’t be an effective argument tool, but would make a good reference for people who are trying to learn more about the subject.

Plagiarism assignment.

The plagiarism and paraphrasing pages that were assigned were very good learning tools for people who don't know what plagiarism and paraphrasing are. I know that I could have used these references back when I was in high school because the teachers all made plagiarism sound like you only got in trouble if you copy and pasted someone's work. I would be guilty of taking someone’s written work and changing a few thing here or there or changing the order of the ideas, but only because I didn't realize that it was still plagiarism. I finally learned the correct way to put information in my papers when I was in my junior year of high school, and my teacher made us do an assignment much like this one. Since then, I like to think I do a pretty good job of getting information out of resources without committing plagiarism...and I "promise to NEVER EVER do it." (Sullivan)

Postsecrets Response

I visited the site, postsecrets.blogspot.com, and found it very interesting. I think the concept is pretty intriguing, that people send in their “postcards” that have some of their biggest secrets on them, and they are read by thousands of people. I suppose having a secret you’ve kept inside for so long, and then telling it to the world, would be relieving to some. I don’t know if I would personally get any gratification out of sending one of these cards in, but if it helps other people, than I think the site is doing a good thing. I’m sure that there are a few people that would send in a card that wasn’t truthful, but I’m sure that most people who send in the cards are telling the truth. Someone would have to have a real problem to send in a fake card to these people.
One of the cards that had the biggest impact on me is the one which said, “ I love my husband more than I love my daughter. I often wish she was NEVER born.” I don’t really know why it had such a big affect on me, but when I read it I became really saddened knowing there was a little girl out there who’s mother didn’t love her. I know that when I’m having a hard time, it’s the love I get from my family and friends that helps me get through it, and it’s sad knowing she doesn’t have that. My favorite card out of the bunch was the “I NAIR my butt” card because I thought it was really funny at it made me laugh.

Essay 2 Workshop: Ryan Cary's "A Case For Glass"

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 Fairbanks has good recycling programs, it needs to build a glass recycling program because large amounts of glass are going to the landfill, littering is increasing, and glass can be easily recycled with the right resources.

2. Does the thesis state the author's position on a controversial topic? Is it at the end of the first paragraph?

Yes, the thesis states his position on the topic of recycling glass, and it is at the end of the first paragraph.

Reasons:
List below the author's reasons for holding his or her position. Are they listed in the thesis, or in the body of the paper? They should be listed in the thesis, and expanded upon in the body of the paper.

1. “there is a large amount of glass that is going straight into landfills”
His first reason is listed in the thesis, and is expanded upon in the first paragraph in the body of the paper.

2. “littering is increased due to a lack of places to recycle”
The second reason is listed in the thesis, and expanded upon in the second paragraph in the body.


3. “and because glass is a material that is easily recycled given the correct resources.”
This third reason is in the thesis also, and is expanded upon in the final paragraph of the body.

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

The audience for this essay would primarily be people living in Fairbanks, and people who are interested in recycling within the community. I would imagine that some people reading this essay would agree, and some would probably disagree, depending on their views on recycling. The essay is highly informational, and could be used as an argumentative tool against those apposed to a recycling program. For example he gives an example of the UAF recycling program being canceled after one year, and defends against an argument the opposition might have.

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?

1. The only counterargument I found in the paper was the one about the UAF program, and not starting it back up because it failed once. He defends the argument by saying that there is no proof, and that the statement is a logical fallacy.

Even though there is only one example, I don’t really understand why there would need to be three counterarguments for this paper. Counterarguments would be important in position papers such as our first one, but I think too much energy would be used coming up with counterarguments instead of coming up with a problem and a good solution.

Title:
Does the paper have an interesting title? If not, help author come up with one.
I think the title, “A Case for Glass” is a pretty good title, the only thing I would worry about is the fact that a reader wouldn’t know what the paper is about, and someone who would enjoy a recycling article might skip over it. When I first read the title, I wasn’t sure what the paper was going to be about.

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

The lead sentence is good, with a “shock and awe” effect. The lead sentence is, “The landfills are filling up and soon the earth will be one large garbage heap.”

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

The conclusion is very good also. It leaves the reader, especially Fairbanks residents, thinking about their environment, and their responsibility to maintain it.

Flow/Transitions:
Does each paragraph expand upon the thesis? Do the paragraphs flow? Which paragraphs have bumpy transitions?

He did a good job of making the paper flow. All of the thesis supporting topics came in order through the paper, and the paragraphs flowed together fairly well. The transition between the second and third paragraph might need a little changing. The sentences go from the landfill problem to littering without much of a transition. I might suggest something along the lines of, “unfortunately, glass that doesn’t end up in the landfill is ending up as litter in the streets.” ….just a suggestion! The rest of the paper looks good. Good luck on the final draft!

Recreation Trails (Essay 2 RD)

Try driving around the town of Fairbanks, Alaska for a day and you are sure to see at least a couple people riding around on snowmachines or ATVs. There’s nothing wrong with people having fun riding these machines, the only problem is that they are often riding within a few feet of fast moving road traffic, or riding on trails not designed for recreational use. It seems like every year there is at least a couple deaths here in the Interior due to accidents involving recreational vehicles and automobiles. Although it may cost the city some extra money, Fairbanks needs to build its residents a recreational trail system because it would provide a safer riding environment, plus help both local land owners, and recreational riders.
It’s funny to think that a city packed full of ATV and snowmachine owners, not to mention an abundance of unused land, doesn’t really have any type of established trail system for recreational riders. There are a few trails throughout town that riders use, but these trails are supposed to be cross-country ski trails in the winter, and hiking/walking trails in the summer. There have been many arguments from skiers who are upset because their trails are getting torn up by snow machine tracks, and both skiers and hikers are upset when riders come flying by, barely avoiding them on the narrow trails. Their frustration is completely understandable. These encounters are often very dangerous, and are largely due to the absence of trails for the recreational riders.
If the city would be willing to build its citizens a good recreational trail system, It would greatly reduce the dangerous encounters between riders and pedestrians. Head out of town for five minutes in nearly any direction and there is an endless supply of unused land. This land would provide perfect riding conditions for riders, and would keep snowmachiners and ATV riders off of hiking trails and bike paths. This way, riders could enjoy nice trails without having to worry about coming across hikers or skiers, and the pedestrians would be able to enjoy their trails without having to jump out of the way of high speed machines.
It would probably be safe to assume that the biggest reason there is no trail system is because of the cost. While the initial laying out of the trail system would indeed cost the city quite a bit of money, the fallow up costs would be minimal. During the summer months there would be almost no expenses except for maybe the occasional clearing of timber. During the winter, the city could choose to pack and smooth the trails, but with the high amount of traffic that would likely be on the paths, this wouldn’t really be necessary. Spending a bit of money over one summer clearing out trees and establishing trails would be well worth many years of increased safety for the people of Fairbanks.
Another big problem with the current riding situation in the interior is that local land owners are having trouble keeping riders off of their land. Driving through nearly any neighborhood in town during the winter months will show that there is a big problem with snowmachiners driving through the lawns of homeowners. It’s easy to understand that people don’t realize the damage that is being done by their machines. They think that because the snow is there, the ground underneath isn’t being harmed, but what happens is that the snow becomes so compacted, that air can not get down to the ground, and ends up suffocating the grass and killing it permanently. After the snow melts, it’s easy to identify the areas where snowmachines had spent the winter traveling back and forth.
It’s hard to blame the snowmachiners for this problem when they are simply trying to find places to ride. A lot of snowmachiners and ATV riders have to travel out of town to find good riding areas, and those who ride in town are usually doing so because they don’t have a choice. A lot of the town riders are either too young to drive themselves out of town, or simply don‘t have the money it takes to take trips out to good riding areas. They are forced to live with what they have here within the city limits, and that mostly consists of either cross-country ski trails or private property where they are not welcome.
It would be beneficial to both the land owners and the recreational vehicle riders in Fairbanks if their city would build a few trails where riders could go have fun without harming land or endangering other people. It would cost the city some extra money, but the money would be well spent if put towards recreational trails. After all, one of the duties of a city government is to keep it’s citizens safe and happy, and these trails would do just that. With a city full of people who enjoy riding their ATVs and snowmachines, it only makes sense to build them a place to do so safely, and out of the way of pedestrians and road traffic.

Sources

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/06-07/overfishing-article.htm

Grinning planet is an organization that takes a look at environmental issues from a little lighter side. They use family-friendly jokes and cartoons to spread the message about different issues. Mixed in with the jokes are serious articles such as this one about the cause and effect of overfishing. This article will be useful for me because it breaks the topic of overfishing down to a problem and a solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing

Haha, what can I say, it’s Wikipedia! I liked this entry because it talked about overfishing in a different way than most of the other articles I found. It actually talks about how overfishing can be broken down to two different categories. First, is the more popular category of “biological overfishing” where the reproduction of fish is effected. The article also looks into what they call the “economic overfishing” which is the effect on the profitability of fishing due to the current rate of fish being taken out of the sea.

http://www.un.org/events/tenstories_2006/story.asp?storyID=800

I thought this would be a good article to read because it actually comes from the UN. The story falls under the organization’s, “10 Stories the World Should Hear More About.” I thought this would be a great way to back up my opinion, and the article states a few good facts as well. It talks a lot about the impact overfishing will have on the “200 million people” that rely on fish for livelihood and food security.

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/problems/problems_fishing/index.cfm

I liked this site because one, it was from the World Wild Life Foundation, and two, it is packed with tons of facts that I will be able to use to back up my opinion. I also liked the fact that the site is well organized and is easy to read. They state a few straight forward facts, such as “ technological advances that have made large-scale fishing easier.” The cool thing is that there is a hyperlink on the words “technological advances” that takes me to a whole other article about technological advances of fishing boats.

http://www.alaskaoceans.net/facts/overfishing.htm

This site was good for me because it has to do specifically with the overfishing problem in Alaska. I am hoping to be able to talk a little bit about the fishing problems in Alaska, and this will probably turn out to be a great source for that. The article delves into the history of Alaska commercial fishing, and also gives 3 different deffinitions of overfishing; one political, one legal, and one scientific.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/overfishing

One of the best things about the topic I am doing is that there are a lot of articles from major organizations that I will be able to support my argument with. This article is no different. It comes from the Greenpeace Organization, and is a little smaller than most of the other articles, but is filled with facts. One of the key points in this article is the example of cod fishing off of Canada, which has gone through a major decline in the last few years.

http://whyfiles.org/139overfishing/

I liked this article because it was a little different than the rest, and it brought up a good point that none of the others had thought of or talked about. It talks about the increasing number of shark attacks, and relates them to the fact that the sharks are being pushed closer to shorelines because of deep sea overfishing. It’s a fairly short article, but I thought it’s topic was interesting.



http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/24/magazines/business2/Prob6_Overfishing.biz2/index.htm

This was a neat article from a contributor I would have never thought of (thanks Google!). It actually came from CNN’s Money section, and it talks about the effect overfishing will have on the fishing economy. I liked this article because rather than concentrate only on the negative, it talks mostly about the solution to the problem. I will definitely fit this somewhere into my paper!

http://www.bookrags.com/news/big-eye-tuna-stocks-near-collapse-moc/

This is actually a newspaper article from the Reuters North American News Service. This particular article is strictly about the depletion of Bigeye Tuna, which is a major ingredient in many Japanese restaurants. The point that I will most likely use is the fact that the bigeye tuna is starting to become depleted only because the bluefin tuna has already been fished to a dangerously low level.

http://www.bookrags.com/news/feature-overfishing-turns-the-moc/

This article is from the International News Service and is about the depleting number of fish in the Mediterranean Sea. There were a couple of interesting things that I would like to take out of the article. One of the pieces I want to use is the article talking about how a lot of the smaller fishing vessels realize that something needs to be done, where the larger fishing companies only see the sea as a source of money.

http://overfishing.org/discuss/index.php?topic=43.0

This is an awesome bank of videos that shows how drag netting works, and what it looks like on the sea floor. A lot of people are against drag netting because it allows boats to take huge quantities of fish, but it also harms the sea floor by destroying coral and other fish habitats. One particular good video is titled “Trawling Debate” and it is a debate done in the late 80s which contains many good points.

http://overfishing.org/pages/Satellite_images_from_bottom.php

This is actually a bunch of pictures that show how drag netting works. I thought it was interesting to see how much area these boats actually cover with their nets. In some of the pictures, there are boats lined up five or six deep, trolling huge areas of water. There are also some descriptions that have a few good facts about drag netting that I will use for the paper.

http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/global/sensem/S98/Tao/bio191cw.html

This is actually an essay by Kenny Tao, and it comes from the University of California, Irvine. I haven’t gotten the chance to read all of the essay yet, but Mr. Tao has included some very good information including statistics, quotes, and even a few graphs. His paper is focused on the North Atlantic, and I am sure I will find many good facts I can use for my paper.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050830072609.htm

This is an article from the publication, “Science Daily.” the title of the article is “Coral Reef Decline - Not Just Overfishing.” As the title suggests, the article talks more about the damage to coral reefs due to global warming, overfishing, and coral disease. I definitely want to talk about the coral reefs in my paper, and this will be a good source for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKrHjpBUpYs

This is an interesting video titled “Over Fishing - USA.” I clicked on the video and was happy to find out that the video is actually focused on overfishing in Alaska. They talked a lot about the Stellar Sea Lions and their depletion due to the fact that their food source is being wiped out by large fishing vessels.