Direct link to latest edition of Pool 32 Mag - click on this image

What is Pool 32 Mag all about ?

Pool 32 Mag is a new fly fishing e-magazine for everyone who loves fly fishing, and wish to follow environmental issues as well.

The best part is that it's a totally FREE e-mag and it can be downloaded by anyone, anywhere on the planet.

Check it out, sign up or send it on to a friend who is just as crazy about fly fishing as we are.


If you chose to scroll further down you will find the Pool 32 Blog

"our cyber world of fishy stuff".


We HATE spam mails, so we will of course

handle your mail info's according to our very strict privacy policy.


Copyright © Mark Wengler

No photo reproduction of any kind without prior written


"Fly fishing isn't just a sport - it's a state of mind!!"

Check out earlier issues of Pol 32 mag


November 20, 2011

Easing the pressure from fishing

We must suffer short-term economic pain to make our seas sustainable
Easing the pressure from fishing and shipping will hurt – but collapse of our oceans will hurt a great deal more....

By Paul Gompertz

Our marine environment is facing a defining moment. We are an island nation set in the midst of what were once some of the most productive seas on the planet. But a report earlier this year from the Independent Panel on the State of our Oceans (IPSO) warns us that the decline in the vitality of our oceans is in fact worse than our direst predictions. The pressing question is – what are we going to do about it?
Fishing used to be a battle against the elements in which every success was hard won and most fish escaped. While it can still be a battle against the elements, improved catch techniques and equipment mean that most fish don't escape. We may be getting better and better at catching, but it is taking more and more effort – about 17 times morethan at the end of the 19th century, when the downward trend in fish stocks began in earnest.
But hugely reducing the fish stocks isn't the only thing we have done over the past 100 years. We have also disturbed vast areas of sea bed and destroyed rich habitats which has further reduced the productivity of the seas. We have poured effluents and pesticides and mining residues into the sea via our estuaries. We have removed gravel and oil and sand and gas. We have caused the temperature of our seas to rise, disrupting marine systems. In short, we have exploited the sea mercilessly and everywhere. This once huge larder, climate regulator, heat exchanger and absorber of carbon is stressed beyond endurance.
There is only one sensible answer for a human race intent on surviving as long as possible. We must nurse it back to health and productivity – we must manage it sustainably.
One vital step in that management is to create marine sanctuaries, places where damaging human activity is not allowed. Who would argue against the idea that 25% of the sea should largely be left to its own devices, with human beings "only" allowing themselves exploitation of the remaining 75%? We have one last chance to get this right; can't we, in the interests of future generations and the health of our planet, confine ourselves to three-quarters?
It would seem not. The proposal before the UK government to establish a network of marine protected areas covering 22% of our inshore waters is being undermined from every direction, largely on the grounds that short-term human self-interest is more important than long term sustainability.
There are two broad threads to this argument. One says that we don't have enough evidence to define protected areas accurately, so until we can we should carry on as before. Damage until you can manage. However, the reverse now needs to be true. If we don't know enough about an area to exploit it without damage, we should keep out. If you can't manage, don't damage. At least one-quarter needs to be protected urgently, to avoid disaster. So let's protect the quarter currently being proposed, and then seek to refine the network of protected areas as more evidence becomes available.
The other argument – one which is being advanced by some MPs in the south-west – says that some of the sites selected require too much human sacrifice – mainly economic sacrifice – to be realistic. This is perpetuating the very thinking which brought us to our current state of imminent collapse. There must be change, we must exploit less, we must ease the pressure on our seas. This means that some activities will be reduced. Less pressure from fishing, less pressure from shipping, less pressure from extractive industries. There are bound to be places where this will hurt. But it is manageable hurt. Collapse of our oceans is not manageable and will hurt a great deal for a great many people. We must choose the lesser of two evils now, while we still have the chance.



No comments:

Post a Comment