Summary
I am speaking of the crisis not the status quo. The latest referenced article is illustrating why we will not develop off shore aquaculture. It may be just the first shot over the bow, but it illustrates that is seems everyone has their own vested interest and who suffers, the general population. They claim to be protecting the environment and our water resources, I think they have a small minded agenda. Look at the Big picture just once.
Analysis
In my analysis, "New direction in solving our fisheries crisis" I illustrated why I thought off shore aquaculture could be part of the answer to our fisheries crisis. I now feel that it appears it will not be happening anytime soon in the waters off the coast of the USA. That is a shame, more jobs, more fish and less dependency on our oceans inhabitants, seem to be a good combination.
I am not endorsing more pollution in our oceans, nor am I promoting uncontrolled growth without good oversight. But what I am endorsing is an open dialog with all concerned and not just a few special interest groups. We need to develop off shore aquaculture now. What I believe F&WW see is a very small portion of the big picture.
Just in case they have not been paying attention, and I do not think they have; we will need to produce 70% more food for an additional 2.3 billion people by 2050 while at the same time combating poverty and hunger, using scarce natural resources more efficiently and adapting to climate change are the main challenges world agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture will face in the coming decades, according to a discussion paper published last week by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
As stated by Russell McClendon in Mother Nature Network; "Fish is the only major food that's still largely gathered from the wild, and even as fish farming expands around the world, wild fishing is driving many prized species — such as bluefin tuna and red snapper — toward disaster. In 2006, Canadian marine ecologist Boris Worm predicted that all commercial fisheries will collapse by 2048 if overfishing isn't stopped. Although he scaled back that forecast this year after taking into account some nations' recent sustainability efforts, he and an international team of researchers still warned that 63 percent of fish stocks are dangerously low, with many still sinking".
Thinking of the 2 paragraphs above, we really need to revise our short sided view, as citizens not as special interests. I am speaking of large fisheries corporations, politicians who support an issue strictly for the benefits he or she receives personally, and but not limited to the environmentalist that only look at one side of the issue.
The article of reference is a small one, with localized interest. But in light of our need to observe the world's problems, we must not make this a one sided issue. As I recently stated, "Our oceans and its inhabitants need our help; not to continue to fish them out of existence but to improve our aquaculture methods, and then to supply fish that will ease the demand now put on our ocean's."
James Aliucci consults with leading institutions through GLG
Analyses are solely the work of the authors and have not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
