Pros and Cons of Aquaculture

Aquaculture refers to the farming of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals. Marine and freshwater species are grown in captive areas, including areas on land, such as tanks and enclosures, as well as in pens in natural environments like oceans, rivers and lakes. Fish farming produces many of the fish that we eat, use for bait, or buy for aquariums. It could potentially help to limit the loss of marine biodiversity because populations of endangered species could help to be restored.

A large variety of countries practice aquaculture, including our own, and it is a large source of trade worldwide. Different countries can produce fish and other countries around the world can benefit from them. Aquaculture is a source of jobs and revenue for many people. 

However, aquaculture has a variety of different effects on the environment and is fairly controversial. 

Pros of Aquaculture: 

• Growing fish and other species in organized areas allows researchers to closely examine them and learn more about them without having to go into the natural environment for research. People can study different species without having to disrupt the natural environment to do so. They can learn about them and about better ways to care for them.
• Large destructive nets do not have to be used to catch fish. As I mentioned in an earlier post, large trawl nets have horrible effects on ecosystems and can destroy miles of coral reefs that took hundreds of years to form. When fish are grown in captivity, these nets don't have to be used once a stable population forms. 
• Endangered species can be grown in captivity and put back into the wild to restore natural populations. People can capture animals whose populations are declining and ensure their survival up to a certain point. 
• People can get jobs in the aquaculture industry and earn money to help support their families. 

Cons of Aquaculture:

• Research on captive species is not always accurate because animals behave differently in captivity compared to in the wild. 
• Chemicals like antibiotics, anti-foulants and pesticides used in aquaculture can pollute the environment and have negative consequences. Eutrophication is also a possibility.
• Diseases can be easily spread among creatures in an aquaculture facility because animals are in such close quarters with one another. If one fish gets sick, many others could as well. There are also potential contamination issues with wild species if the contained animals escape.
• Other fish have to be used to create fish food so they still have to be caught in the wild.
• Land has to be used to grow fish in facilities, which is a potential waste of resources.

My Opinion: 

I am currently divided on my viewpoint of aquaculture. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue, and I believe further research is required for me to make a definite decision. Aquaculture could potentially save fish and other marine species, but it is at the cost of energy and land resources to do so. At least in the short run, I would definitely favor the protection of species. 

Sources: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/what_is_aquaculture.html

http://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/farmed-seafood

http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/en

Harmful Effects of Whaling

In addition to sharks and other fish, marine mammal populations are also being reduced from human actions. Despite attempted regulations, countries such as Norway, Japan and Iceland still continue to practice whaling in large numbers. Although there was a ban passed by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1986, these countries still continue to kill whales. Over 50,000 whales have been killed since the ban went into effect. 

Japan started a "scientific whaling program" soon after the ban was established so they could have a cover for their commercial whaling program. Instead of being used for science, the whale meat is sold or given to people at cheap rates so that people will be encouraged to buy it and support the industry. The Japanese have been killing hundreds of whales each year under for their supposed research. 

Iceland also used a "scientific program" to avoid the limits on whaling. In 2006, it resumed commercial whaling because they left the commission for a period of 10 years and reentered under new regulations. In just 2010, they killed 148 fin whales (which are endangered) and 60 minke whales. 

Norway did not respect the whaling ban at all until 1993 and set its own quotas for the killing of whales. They have a limit of killing up to 1000 minke whales per year, which is a very large number because they kill many breeding females which can have a drastic effect on the population and on future populations. 

Between Japan, Norway and Iceland alone, thousands of whales are killed each year. 

There are currently three types of whaling in existence: commercial, special permit and indigenous. 

Whaling results in so many harmful effects for the environment and should be limited as much as possible. Fewer people depend on whale meat for survival (however if they truly do, whaling should be allowed so they can sustain their populations, as long as it is done as minimally as possible) so there is less demand for the whales to die. Whaling is never really done humanely and it takes so many years for whales to grow that their populations cannot regrow very rapidly. 

Whales are important parts of marine ecosystems, yet, just as with sharks and various species of fish, they are being killed by humans in tremendous numbers. They are killed in vast numbers and in inhumane ways and whaling should be limited as much as it can be so that whale populations have a chance to make a comeback. 

Sources: 

http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/our-work/whales/which-countries-are-still-whaling

http://us.whales.org/wdc-in-action/whaling

https://iwc.int/whaling

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans/threats/whaling/whaling_facts/

https://iwc.int/environment

Environmental Repercussions of Overfishing

In addition to the issues I have previously discussed, overfishing plays a very large part in accelerating the loss of marine biodiversity. Although 200 million people depend on fisheries as a source of income and 20% of the human population use fish as their primary source of protein, there are few regulations to ensure that fish populations remain intact. In fact, fish populations are dropping at tremendous rates. In 1900 the ocean had over six times the amount of fish it did in 2009 and in some areas, like the North Sea, it was 17 times easier to catch fish. Populations of large commercial fish like cod, haddock and flounder have dropped by almost 95%. More than 70% of the fish species on the planet are at risk of elimination, if they haven't been destroyed already. 

The Causes

Many fisheries are improperly managed or use illegal practices to get fish (i.e. throwing bombs in the water so all the fish die and float to the surface- a method that destroys not only undesirable fish but also coral reefs). Some fisheries catch up to 50% of their product with illegal methods. Even if more laws are established to prevent overfishing, industries may not abide by them anyway. Although many countries have some sort of fishing regulations, ocean destruction is almost double that of forests.

The Effects 

When any species of fish is killed, the ecosystem becomes unbalanced. Species of animals that eat them, such as whales and dolphins or other fish, will also decrease in number or will also be eliminated. When species begins to die, ecological dead zones are created. 

If we kill off fish populations, we will no longer be able to use them for food. People would suffer from malnutrition or even famine. People will lose jobs and will thus be unable to make money and provide for their families. When the Northern Cod Fishery in Newfoundland, Canada collapsed in 1992, over 40,000 people lost jobs and the cod populations were never restored.

Potential Solutions

More enforcement needs to be established so companies will fish more sustainably and existing laws will be followed. It won't benefit industries in the long run to catch more fish now if the populations are destroyed in the next few years. Once existing laws are fully enforced, more should be created to ensure population stability. More of the ocean should be set aside for marine protected areas (MPAs). These areas are vital so that at least some of the species can remain safe. Currently, less than one percent of the ocean is protected.

Normal people can help solve the problem of overfishing as well. People can watch the seafood that they eat to make sure they are getting it from a sustainable place. Organizations like Seafood Watch provide info via apps and websites to show you what kinds of fish are safe to eat throughout the year. People and nations must work together to solve the problem of overfishing so that species can survive for the years to come!

Sources:

http://overfishing.org/ 

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-overfishing/

http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing

http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800