12 ms·

There are two problems with your response. The first is that not all of the ocean is a shared resource. Within national boundaries the ocean is anything but a

by dfc 12y ago

There are two problems with your response. The first is that not all of the ocean is a shared resource. Within national boundaries the ocean is anything but a shared resource. See Fisheries Management[1] and for a specific example see Stellwagons Bank[2]. The other problem is that just because something is a shared resource does not mean that it is automatically a lost cause. See tragedy of the commons[3]: Elinor Ostrom found the tragedy of the commons not as prevalent or as difficult to solve. She and her coworkers looked at how real-world communities manage communal resources, such as fisheries ... and they identified a number of factors conducive to successful resource management. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_management [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellwagen_Bank_National_Marine_Sanctuary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellwagen_Bank_National_Marin... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

e40 12y ago
There is one problem with your response ("The first is that not all of the ocean is a shared resource.), 99% of the ocean is a share resource and there are no fences between the shared and unshared portions, so fish and other wild life can cross the boundary (during migrations, etc). If the shared portion of the ocean were to be destroyed (over-fished or polluted) then I dare say that the unshared portion would be, too.
- dfc 12y ago
  You can dare to say whatever you like. The problem is that the experimental results dare to tell another story: Studies have consistently shown that organisms within marine reserves tend to grow larger and live longer than individuals in adjacent unprotected areas. Monitoring results from 89 no-take marine reserves around the world have shown that, on average, fish density, biomass, size, and diversity all increased within marine reserves (Halpern 2003, Lester et al. 2009). This is very important because fish that are larger and older tend to produce significantly more eggs and larvae than smaller fish. Also, larvae produced from older fish tend to have a higher survival rate (Francis et al. 2007) [^1] The behavior of the commercial fisherman near the MPAs in New Zealand is extremely apropos: For reasons not fully understood, when areas are closed to fishing, snapper aggregate within them, forming large resident populations. Spiny rock lobsters (crayfish to New Zealanders) do the same. Their density inside the reserve is about 15 times higher than outside. Commercial crayfishermen have cashed in on the reserves success because the outward migration of crayfish—a process marine biologists call spillover—brings the crustaceans to their pots, strategically placed just outside the boundary. These former skeptics are now some of the reserves staunchest defenders. They refer to it as our reserve and act as marine minutemen, reporting poachers and boundary cheats. ... Reserves where fishing is banned are now seen as potential stud farms and fish hatcheries, replenishing the surrounding seas. [^2] [^1]: http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/do_no_take_reserves_benefit_adjacent_fisheries.pdf http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/d... [^2]: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/04/new-zealand-coast/warne-text/2 http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/04/new-zealand-coast/...

by dfc 12y ago

e40 12y ago

There is one problem with your response ("The first is that not all of the ocean is a shared resource.), 99% of the ocean is a share resource and there are no fences between the shared and unshared portions, so fish and other wild life can cross the boundary (during migrations, etc). If the shared portion of the ocean were to be destroyed (over-fished or polluted) then I dare say that the unshared portion would be, too.

dfc 12y ago
You can dare to say whatever you like. The problem is that the experimental results dare to tell another story: Studies have consistently shown that organisms within marine reserves tend to grow larger and live longer than individuals in adjacent unprotected areas. Monitoring results from 89 no-take marine reserves around the world have shown that, on average, fish density, biomass, size, and diversity all increased within marine reserves (Halpern 2003, Lester et al. 2009). This is very important because fish that are larger and older tend to produce significantly more eggs and larvae than smaller fish. Also, larvae produced from older fish tend to have a higher survival rate (Francis et al. 2007) [^1] The behavior of the commercial fisherman near the MPAs in New Zealand is extremely apropos: For reasons not fully understood, when areas are closed to fishing, snapper aggregate within them, forming large resident populations. Spiny rock lobsters (crayfish to New Zealanders) do the same. Their density inside the reserve is about 15 times higher than outside. Commercial crayfishermen have cashed in on the reserves success because the outward migration of crayfish—a process marine biologists call spillover—brings the crustaceans to their pots, strategically placed just outside the boundary. These former skeptics are now some of the reserves staunchest defenders. They refer to it as our reserve and act as marine minutemen, reporting poachers and boundary cheats. ... Reserves where fishing is banned are now seen as potential stud farms and fish hatcheries, replenishing the surrounding seas. [^2] [^1]: http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/do_no_take_reserves_benefit_adjacent_fisheries.pdf http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/d... [^2]: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/04/new-zealand-coast/warne-text/2 http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/04/new-zealand-coast/...