3 ms·

That's the great thing about marine sanctuaries. You agree upon a region in the middle of the ocean to declare off-limits for fishing. The fish population of th

That's the great thing about marine sanctuaries. You agree upon a region in the middle of the ocean to declare off-limits for fishing. The fish population of those regions repopulates the rest of the ocean, and you have the best of both words. Unrestrained fishing, and stable fish stocks. You can even find perpetrators using satellites, which helps with enforcement. The hard part is agreeing upon regions both large enough and spanning enough biomes.

hga 16y ago
I think the really hard part is enforcement. E.g. see the Cod Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars) which were between two relatively developed and sophisticated European countries. It could get much messier, e.g. imagine the USNavy trying to enforce restrictions in the open seas on trawlers from the PRC. I'm not sure how useful satellites would be at finding perpetrators for the purposes of enforcement, at least not without sending a ship to confirm details.
- j_baker 16y ago
  "As a result, a fleet of Royal Naval warships and tug-boats were employed to act as a deterrent against any future harassment of British fishing crews by the Icelandic craft. The conflict involved several cases of vessels ramming each other." Was that all it took to have a conflict classified as a war back then?
  - hga 16y ago
    It was a conflict that was prosecuted by force instead of at negotiation tables, I think that'll suffice for the word "War". There was certainly a lot of treasure expended, if not blood.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    It was a definite case of Great Britain stepping way over its bounds as a nation and bullying a much smaller nation with a navy of much smaller proportions over a resource the British themselves had destroyed around their home Island. Very bad episode, and really reflecting bad on the security council as well, which should have stepped in. Of course th e British had considerable clout politically as well. If it hadn't been for that NATO base who knows what would have happened.

hga 16y ago

I think the really hard part is enforcement. E.g. see the Cod Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars) which were between two relatively developed and sophisticated European countries. It could get much messier, e.g. imagine the USNavy trying to enforce restrictions in the open seas on trawlers from the PRC. I'm not sure how useful satellites would be at finding perpetrators for the purposes of enforcement, at least not without sending a ship to confirm details.

j_baker 16y ago
"As a result, a fleet of Royal Naval warships and tug-boats were employed to act as a deterrent against any future harassment of British fishing crews by the Icelandic craft. The conflict involved several cases of vessels ramming each other." Was that all it took to have a conflict classified as a war back then?
- hga 16y ago
  It was a conflict that was prosecuted by force instead of at negotiation tables, I think that'll suffice for the word "War". There was certainly a lot of treasure expended, if not blood.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  It was a definite case of Great Britain stepping way over its bounds as a nation and bullying a much smaller nation with a navy of much smaller proportions over a resource the British themselves had destroyed around their home Island. Very bad episode, and really reflecting bad on the security council as well, which should have stepped in. Of course th e British had considerable clout politically as well. If it hadn't been for that NATO base who knows what would have happened.