Seeing as the so called MCS were name dropping Chris Packham last week as someone who supports 'no take zones'. I d recommend everyone goes to the following link "Chris Packham asks –‘What’s the point of nature reserves?’". He says "they are useless for conservation as they are isolated areas, just useful for geeks like himself to look at on a Sunday". A no take zone is the equivalent to nature reserves on land!!!! Can anyone else on this Judasidal site (MCS on Facebook) put 2 and 2 together and come up with the right answer. If you want to promote Sir David Attenborough's conclusion to his lifes work, visit the Optimum Population Trust website please.
“All environmental problems become harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”
“All environmental problems become harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”
David Attenborough
No take zones are nothing like nature reserves on land; they are areas that are left free of destructive fishing practices that allow populations to expand out into the surrounding waters. I've been to New Zealand and seen them in use, the fishermen are really pleased with how their catches outside have improved.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that NZ needed a no take zone policy in the first place is ridiculous. It's very sparsely populated, has a very long coast line for fish to breed around and is situated next to Australia and Antartica which are not exactly highly populated to say the least. Surely every fisherman in China doesn't fish there. Though with the construction of the Three Gorges Dam, which has wiped out the fish supply for the biggest city in the world - Shangai - it would not surprise me!
ReplyDeleteYou're quite right! Just let everyone go in and take whatever they want. After all we all want cheap fish don't we! Who needs to protect the oceans, or anywhere else for that matter!
ReplyDelete