NationStates Jolt Archive

I have, with the support of my region, submited a new proposal which i think is of the outmost importance for the enviroment, and the planet we will leave to our children and grand children.
Many spieces of fish is today under the treath, or soon to be under the treath of extermination.
Therefore we want to impose a fishing quota for all fishes, to assure the re-growth of our most vulnerable spieces of fish.
I therefore ask for your vote on this proposal, to make sure that our children, and grand-children will be able to catch and eat fish in the future.

==========================================================

Fishing quotas
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Nieder Ostland

Description: Today we have a major environmental problem ahead of us. Many spieces of fish are soon going to be under the treath of extermination. This is because many nations today allow their fishermen to catch as much fish as they want to.
This have lead to a major decrease of the population of many spieces of fish.
A few examples would be the baltic herring, the salmon, the herring, the cod, just to name a few fishes.

Therefore our proposal is:
1: Introducing fishing quotas for all nations, depending on the size of their population and the size of the fish population
2: A worldwide ban against catching fishes that are not fully grown
3: a worldwide ban against fishing any spieces of fish during their mating season
4: Introducing a re-growth program for any spieces of fish that are under threat of extermination, or spieces of fish that soon will be under the treath of extermination.

By doing this now, we would have reastablished the population of many of our most vulnerable spieces of fish within the next 15 - 20 years.
==========================================================

I only have one thing to say....

http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/fs84.jpg

:D That's kinda funny.

But anyway, I see your point with this proposal. Quite personally, I think the UN has better things to deal with, but, since you brought it up...

What kind of "quotas" are you setting? A "quota" would indicate that each nations that commercially fishes would be required to bring up so many fish each year. I think the term you are looking for is "limit." Also, how will these limits be set? You say that the quota/limit will depend on the sizes of the human and fish populations, but do not specify anything.

And run that through a spell-checker.

What kind of "quotas" are you setting? A "quota" would indicate that each nations that commercially fishes would be required to bring up so many fish each year. I think the term you are looking for is "limit." Also, how will these limits be set? You say that the quota/limit will depend on the sizes of the human and fish populations, but do not specify anything.

And run that through a spell-checker.

The state of California calls them "take limits" (OOC: trust me here, this is related to my work).

Example:
Biological Opinion on Delta Smelt (http://news.fws.gov/NewsReleases/R1/3624E296-65B8-D693-79D762CE12121BB7.html)


The biological opinion also sets new incidental take limits for delta smelt. The new take limits are based on the most recent 11 years of data (1993-2003). The Service concludes that, using the more recent information, the adaptive management measures in OCAP will provide better protection for the species.

But when it comes to fisheries, not incidental "take" as in the case of the CA State Water Project, the term frequently used is in fact "quotas".

Here is an Environmental Defense (an NGO POV) page on the subject:

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/system/templates/page/subissue.cfm?subissue=1

Or for those of you like would rather see the media spin, here is a BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3333395.stm

And the government POV (this one is from Canada -- cool place):

http://interactive.usask.ca/ski/fisheries/commercial/rules_quotas.html


Commercial fishing quotas are calculated based on the productivity available from each lake, divided into allocations to all users. Allocation priorities are assigned to: 1. conservation, 2. Treaty fishing, 3. subsistence fishing, 4. sport fishing, 5. and commercial use by outfitters and commercial fishermen (by the department of Environment and Resource Management).


The idea of fisheries quotas is something my government supports -- that should be no surprise to many nations. And my government would certainly call upon other "Green" states to join the CCSM in promoting sustainable development.

But clause 3 of the proposal includes language that my government feels (while appropriate) may cost the proposal / resolution votes. Usually the way fish management works (based on my experience from being a fly on the wall of a few Salmon debates) is that it is the adult females of a species that matter. The male salmon populations aren't really treated with the same concern as the females. And even then, takes and quotas aren't usually a complete ban, but one that would promote population growth.

If the author would like, my government would be happy to research and make a suggestion on a more flexible approach to clause 3.

Individual Fish Quotas worked great for Halibut, however, it is quite diferent than what is proposed here.

Under that system lotteries were drawn for quotas (the totality of which were determined by biologists), and fisherman could use the market system to trade such quotas accordingly. The result, Halibut is available year round, and made a comeback the likes of which was never before seen.

Same such system worked for sulfur emissions. Lowering its emissions at a greater rate than any other air quality measure in the states and world. Despite the successes, the programs have not been adopted for similar problems, as they are market approaches, and not top down regulations.

If the author would like, my government would be happy to research and make a suggestion on a more flexible approach to clause 3.


Any help is of course very appreciated.
So if you want another approach on clause #3, please, go ahead. I'm open for negotiations. And, thank you for your help.

Individual Fish Quotas worked great for Halibut, however, it is quite diferent than what is proposed here.

Under that system lotteries were drawn for quotas (the totality of which were determined by biologists), and fisherman could use the market system to trade such quotas accordingly. The result, Halibut is available year round, and made a comeback the likes of which was never before seen.

Same such system worked for sulfur emissions. Lowering its emissions at a greater rate than any other air quality measure in the states and world. Despite the successes, the programs have not been adopted for similar problems, as they are market approaches, and not top down regulations.

Actually the Clear Air Act Amendments Offsets program is fairly well documented, and something that might be worth considering for fisheries quotas. I actually like the idea of incorporating market systems to trade quotas.

The problem we are going to have with either example is that Halibut (and if you have a link that would be most welcomed) and Air Quality constituents is that the quotas are set for very specific things.

We'd almost need a general "CYA" provision to push the real details to an (imaginary) UN committee, and then we could just talk about setting up quota based systems based on biological opinions balanced by incorporation of a market trading system.

While I'm excited about this, this isn't the normal way NationStates deals with problems. Usually NS hands situations with a more top-down approach, and we'd really be tossing a lateral here with this idea.

Here is a good place to start Miki,

http://www.lobsterconservation.com/halibutifq/

And how does this affect Vastiva's Fish Farms?

Are you telling us we can't catch and eat the fish we intentionally protect and farm just for that purpose???

In other words - these are stocked fish, who are protected already, or who are raised in locales and whose existance is encouraged by Vastivan naturalists with the intent of their becoming food later.

Pickled Herring is our twelfth largest export - we supply most of Antarctica with our product (though some areas consume more then others). As such, we actively farm and encourage the growth of herring schools in our exclusive fishing zone.

Are you trying to outlaw our environmentally-friendly practice, which feeds our people???

Arrr, we got bigger fish ta fry...

the less ye catch, the more fer us!

Quotas apply to naturally occuring fish populations. Farm raised fish help alleviate consumption of wild fish (though not as tasty as nutrient rich).

However, I wouldn't be surprised if PETA tried to commandeer your fish via litigation thinking they were compatible with the wild variant.

Actually, number four throws this resolution out of whack. Don't support it, as your beneficial farms would be re-classified and no longer allowed to produce fish for consumption (Again, PETA would stop your beneficial activity).

Quotas apply to naturally occuring fish populations. Farm raised fish help alleviate consumption of wild fish (though not as tasty as nutrient rich).

It does the raise the question though if we should consider giving credits for farm raised fish, though not at a 1:1 exchange rate.

The reason:
http://salmonofthewest.fws.gov/wild.htm

Compared to hatchery fish, wild fish are usually more successful at surviving the rigors of the natural environment long enough to reproduce.

Or:
http://www.ems.org/salmon/salmon_types.html

The flesh of farmed salmon is a pale color so farmers add the dyes canthaxanthin or astaxanthin or both to the feed salmon eat to improve appearance for consumers.

And more about just farmed salmon:

http://www.ems.org/salmon/wild_vs_farmed.html


And there is a large body of literature about salmon genetic and behavioral differences between fish breed in captivity and wild fish, though most of the data is still forthcoming.

In character
CCSM biologists have similar reports ... I'm just not able to share them right now. ;)

Out of character
Actually, last April I worked with the USGS on a hydrodynamic / hatchery release flow-split study. The funny part, when hatchery fish are released in the wild, it takes them a while to get used to their new environment. Seals love this, and will swim inland and eat the dazzed and confused young salmon. We had inserted coded wire tags to our fish (the chief biologist did this), and so when the seals would eat a group of fish, when the seal would swim by our accoustic devices to pick up the coded wire tag radio signals, instead of getting a single blip, we'd have a "cloud" of fish swimming back and forth much faster than a salmon could!

Vastiva is not starving its people or throwing away a multi-trillion dollar many decades old project for this proposal.

We ask the insertion of clauses about farmed fish, or "free ranged" fish intended to consumption.

By the latter - we use dumping to encourage fish population growth, as we dump what to marine life is "FOOD" and to people is "waste". This increases the fish population particularly in that area who can then be harvested with little to no environmental impact.

I have to vehemently campaign against this resolution. In Adam Bay, the notorious Adam Shark is overpopulating the coastline (because we sort of accidentally killed off all the other major predators in the area) and they have gotten so thick it is nearly impossible for them to even swim around each other. The whole Bay is full of bloody, rotting shark carcasses, and dozens of people are eaten alive every month. :( The sharks come by and feed off the dead bodies of the other sharks, and just grow more in number.

Maybe Nieder Ostland is having trouble with a dwindling fish population, but Adam Island needs the ability to catch and kill as many of these sharks as possible, ESPECIALLY during mating season!

I have to vehemently campaign against this resolution. In Adam Bay, the notorious Adam Shark is overpopulating the coastline (because we sort of accidentally killed off all the other major predators in the area) and they have gotten so thick it is nearly impossible for them to even swim around each other. The whole Bay is full of bloody, rotting shark carcasses, and dozens of people are eaten alive every month. :( The sharks come by and feed off the dead bodies of the other sharks, and just grow more in number.

Maybe Nieder Ostland is having trouble with a dwindling fish population, but Adam Island needs the ability to catch and kill as many of these sharks as possible, ESPECIALLY during mating season!

What if we formed an "International Maritime Organization", and charged this new international organization with staffing itself with biologists, who can then request governments like yours to send biological opinions. The IMO biologists, like UN committee members would be loyal to the UN. Their decisions based on science, not politics. And they could review the Adam Island biological opinion and "set" a really super high quota for different species, in this case the quota for hunting Adam Sharks would be very high.

It seems to me that a IMO based on using science tailored to the needs of NationStates would be an excellent idea.

Naturally my government would be happy to house the organization, as it does many other international organizations, but in this case, a IMO in tiny landlocked Miervatia is really an unwise choice. But I am getting ahead of myself here, we should be focusing on what is important for our Planet NationStates, and my government understands and agrees with you. Quotas need to be flexible and encourage sustainable growth, but not unbalanced. Or at least that is the opinion that the Confederation's biologists. ;)

That makes a lot of sense. Give the scientist groups more latitude in the resolution and allow them to make exceptions to the 'no killing any fish during mating season' rule. If the proposal is tweaked for that sort of thing, I can see it working very well to help balance the ecosystems we all share.

Someone leaked this possible proposal to my press.

There has been a rush on pickled herring, which can now not be found in any major city. Tuna riots have been quelled, but there is an undercurrent.

A new black market in trout is rumored.

It does the raise the question though if we should consider giving credits for farm raised fish, though not at a 1:1 exchange rate.

The reason:
http://salmonofthewest.fws.gov/wild.htm



Or:
http://www.ems.org/salmon/salmon_types.html



And more about just farmed salmon:

http://www.ems.org/salmon/wild_vs_farmed.html


And there is a large body of literature about salmon genetic and behavioral differences between fish breed in captivity and wild fish, though most of the data is still forthcoming.

In character
CCSM biologists have similar reports ... I'm just not able to share them right now. ;)

Out of character
Actually, last April I worked with the USGS on a hydrodynamic / hatchery release flow-split study. The funny part, when hatchery fish are released in the wild, it takes them a while to get used to their new environment. Seals love this, and will swim inland and eat the dazzed and confused young salmon. We had inserted coded wire tags to our fish (the chief biologist did this), and so when the seals would eat a group of fish, when the seal would swim by our accoustic devices to pick up the coded wire tag radio signals, instead of getting a single blip, we'd have a "cloud" of fish swimming back and forth much faster than a salmon could!

I need to get back to field research. It is moments like that make being away from a comfortable bed and shower worth ten trips without either.:)

We were measuring air emissions from a dairy once, a cow got out, and ran into our met tower. Knocking part of it into a puddle, and running off with the GPS. The Dairymen put it back together before we arrived the next morning. The humidity was 100%, wind varied between 0 and 70 miles an hour at varying heights at the same time (at 1.5m intervals) and the GPS readings transmitted to the laptop told us it was a couple hundred feet south of where it was physically located, however, it wasn't in the same place each time. After noticing hoof marks it all made sense. Went and found the marker hanging from the cows neck. The Dairymen didn't notice it when putting the heiffer back, and told us nothing happenned that night.

Another time we used samplers from Texas that used high powered vacuums in an orchard, so powerful one sucked up a squirrel. It was surprising taking the top off that sampler the next day. (It survived, and really hates humans now, wherever it is)

I like frankenfish. It would be interesting to see a 200 lb rainbow trout.

See also Antarctic Cod.

What we ment with fishing quotas is of course to protect species of fish that are under the threat of becoming endangerd species, or even extinct.
If there's a species that there are many of, or even TOO many of (Like in the case of the Adam shark in Adam island) you can of course catch a vast amount of that fish.

Oh, and If my idea of quotas had been introduced, then you wouldnt have HAD this problem, since the other predators in your bay would still have been alive.