NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: Regulations for control of the global fishing industry to prevent overfishing and further damage to marine life.

Since modern technology has been introduced into the fishing industries, a wide range of species that inhabit our waters have been driven close to extinction. Large armadas of fishing boats sweeps international waters vacuuming it totally of several species leaving none left to reproduce. This mainly affects poor countries with an out of date fishing fleet and a high dependence of fish as a food source. Also it affects rich countries and its inhabitants because they need to pay more and more money for the fish. A healthy fish industry that does not overconsume its natural raw material will benefit each and everyone and in the end lead to higher catches of fish.

§ Countries with a fishing industry that stands for more than 5 % of the total uptake of fish in the world should be forced to uphold certain regulations considering the measures of trawls and other fishing nets, the size of the fishing fleet and also to withhold a fishing that does not damage the re growth of fish: Accepting certain minimum measurements of length and weight of the fish, preventing them from consume fish that not yet had have the time to reproduce at least one time.

§ Countries which impact is less then 5 % of the total uptake of fish, or if they are extremely dependant on the fish industry as a food source will be forced to follow to the same regulations as the other countries but could be granted certain reservations during a time of 5 years from the year when the resolution was approved by the UN delegates.


What say you? I apologize for my bad english but I hope you get the point anyhow...

Considering the number of nations, 5% is a pretty big number.

Description: Regulations for control of the global fishing industry to prevent overfishing and further damage to marine life.

EEEK! A NEW TOPIC! KILL IT! KILL IT BEFORE IT SPREADS!

OH NO, IT'S GOT ME. IT'S INFECTING MY BRAIN WITH ORIGINAL IDEAS! AAAAYYYYYYEEEEEE!

As you can tell, we get a lot of repeat ideas here. If you're not too freaked out to continue reading.

Since modern technology has been introduced into the fishing industries, a wide range of species that inhabit our waters have been driven close to extinction. Large armadas of fishing boats sweeps international waters vacuuming it totally of several species leaving none left to reproduce. This mainly affects poor countries with an out of date fishing fleet and a high dependence of fish as a food source. Also it affects rich countries and its inhabitants because they need to pay more and more money for the fish. A healthy fish industry that does not overconsume its natural raw material will benefit each and everyone and in the end lead to higher catches of fish.

Hmm. Little arguement there beyond to point out NS seems to never run out of resources.

§ Countries with a fishing industry that stands for more than 5 % of the total uptake of fish in the world should be forced to uphold certain regulations considering the measures of trawls and other fishing nets, the size of the fishing fleet and also to withhold a fishing that does not damage the re growth of fish: Accepting certain minimum measurements of length and weight of the fish, preventing them from consume fish that not yet had have the time to reproduce at least one time.

What are the regulations? Otherwise, it's rhetoric.

§ Countries which impact is less then 5 % of the total uptake of fish, or if they are extremely dependant on the fish industry as a food source will be forced to follow to the same regulations as the other countries but could be granted certain reservations during a time of 5 years from the year when the resolution was approved by the UN delegates.

Again, needs more detail.

What say you? I apologize for my bad english but I hope you get the point anyhow...

It's a good start, but it needs work to clarify what the regulations are.

It's a good start, but it needs work to clarify what the regulations are.

Agreed. Fishing is one of the few truly major industries in Olwe, and although we do support the cause of wildlife conservation, I would need to see more clear-cut regulations before offering this my support. However, it does look promising, and with some tweaking I'm sure it will be something I can get behind eventually.

EDIT: w00t! 69 posts! :D

Description: Regulations for control of the global fishing industry to prevent overfishing and further damage to marine life.

This affects us, so...



Since modern technology has been introduced into the fishing industries, a wide range of species that inhabit our waters have been driven close to extinction.

And this is bad... why? If they are commercially wanted, commercial industry finds a way to keep them around. If they are too stupid to survive and no one wantss to keep them around, let them go.

You will also have to prove that fishing is the greatest cause of this "problem".



Large armadas of fishing boats sweeps international waters vacuuming it totally of several species leaving none left to reproduce.

So does this affect only international waters, leaving our "exclusive maritime zones" alone?



This mainly affects poor countries with an out of date fishing fleet and a high dependence of fish as a food source. Also it affects rich countries and its inhabitants because they need to pay more and more money for the fish.

We pay less and less, as we took the handcuffs off the industry - then gave a few dictums about "catch rates over decades". Suddenly - more fish!



A healthy fish industry that does not overconsume its natural raw material will benefit each and everyone and in the end lead to higher catches of fish.


Profit motive - a good thing.



§ Countries with a fishing industry that stands for more than 5 % of the total uptake of fish in the world should be forced to uphold certain regulations considering the measures of trawls and other fishing nets, the size of the fishing fleet and also to withhold a fishing that does not damage the re growth of fish: Accepting certain minimum measurements of length and weight of the fish, preventing them from consume fish that not yet had have the time to reproduce at least one time.

300,000 nations have coast at last check... so 5% is going to be whopping huge.

We also question how you are going to measure the fishing fleet. Ships? Gross tonnage? Efficiency of catch? What about submarine fisheries?

As to reproductivity of fish - we support this. "A year off every three" would go far here, excluding certain species on a rotating list, much like rotating crops.



§ Countries which impact is less then 5 % of the total uptake of fish, or if they are extremely dependant on the fish industry as a food source will be forced to follow to the same regulations as the other countries but could be granted certain reservations during a time of 5 years from the year when the resolution was approved by the UN delegates.

you lost us here. Please rephrase and clarify.



What say you? I apologize for my bad english but I hope you get the point anyhow...

A good base idea, needs expansion, work on it - we'll help. ;)

Thanks for the replies I will take your demands under consideration and then return with a new proposal.

OMFGz!!!!!111!1 An original idea! Relatively original, anyway. It's too bad I'm opposed to it.

Roxacola Considering the number of nations, 5% is a pretty big number.

I understand that but the general idea of my proposal is to make a huge impact on the fishing industry. Anyhow I will make it higher in my new proposal.

DemonLordEnigma What are the regulations? Otherwise, it's rhetoric.

Well I hope you don´t want me to explain the exakt regulations on every fishing tool and every minimum measurements of length and weight of every species?
because if you do, I think I just have to give it a rest.

Vastiva So does this affect only international waters, leaving our "exclusive maritime zones" alone?

It will be changed to the next proposal including also National water


Vastiva you lost us here. Please rephrase and clarify.

Sure thing, At least I will try.

hang on there - they're "exclusive maritime zones" for a reason. We even registered them with the UN to assure we could fish there - and no one else could. And going into national waters is going to cause a major hissy fit.

Some advice for the proposer on making quotations in posts.

Use the following:

[ quote ] Text to be quoted. [ /quote ]

Delete the additional spaces between the brackets, and you have:

Text to be quoted.

If you want to attribute the quote to the original speaker, put:

[ quote=Nation A ]

at the beginning of the quote, remembering to delete the extra spaces. Then you have

Text to be quoted.

I hope that helps a bit. By the way, nice proposal.

hang on there - they're "exclusive maritime zones" for a reason. We even registered them with the UN to assure we could fish there - and no one else could. And going into national waters is going to cause a major hissy fit.

Well i spoke in general terms. Large armadas are sweping national as well as international waters. Maybe not your waters but alot of others, the countries that are concerned being to weak to stop them. In some cases of course they have permited it.

The point is that every UN member should be forced to follow the regulations of the proposal in their own water as well as in international water.

OMFGz!!!!!111!1 An original idea! Relatively original, anyway. It's too bad I'm opposed to it.

Actually there was a thread a few months ago about fisheries protection.

[OOC: I have no problem with global fishing regulations, but I really think the moderators should recode the Environmental category to include a new subtype: maritime / oceans. Basically it hardly seems fair to always have "all businesses" impacted on things that clearly don't impact land based industries. There is a large body of existing resolutions that would fit into this new subcategory ... but politically asking a bunch of young conservatives to enact realistic fisheries management is a tall task. Especially when they can invent statistics through creative roleplay to justify their existing world view. A new category might allow a new player a change to appeal to moderates.]

Here is a link to an old discussion worth checking out.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=373881

I think that some good ideas are in this thread. I'd first look to see if the original nation / player is still around. If not, the ideas can be taken. However, if the nation is still around, perhaps you have an ally. :)

I can assure you that though many nations aren't vocal, that there are a number of us that will vote in favour of a well thought out and well presented fisheries resolution. (Though I'd still love to see the moderators fix what I consider a misleading UN resolution sub-category.)

Good Luck to you! :)

Mearas, you need exact regulations for UN proposal. Not everyone shares the same regulations in NS. I know I have a completely set of fishing laws than you do, but that's due to the location of my nation and a lack of fish population problems.

Actually there was a thread a few months ago about fisheries protection.

"Relatively original, anyway." If I don't see it every two or three weeks, it's "relatively original". :D

Well i spoke in general terms. Large armadas are sweping national as well as international waters. Maybe not your waters but alot of others, the countries that are concerned being to weak to stop them. In some cases of course they have permited it.

The point is that every UN member should be forced to follow the regulations of the proposal in their own water as well as in international water.

We don't mind following regulations - we just want other nations not to interfere in our exclusive fishing zones.

Further, if we are already superceeding regulations (which is highly likely), we would ask for some sort of recognition of this fact by the UN. Such as an allowance against penalties in the case of disaster, something like that.