by xyfang on November 5, 2015 - 10:16pm

In the article How to Catch the Overfishermen, the author’s main purpose is to highlight the catastrophic environmental impact that overfishing has in the society. The author points out that one of the causes of overfishing is the food consumption of fish. In fact, approximately 3 billions of people get more than one fifth of their protein in fish which partially contributes to overfishing. This environmental issue is considered as a major problem, because there would be less diversity in ocean and fish would probably disappear eventually. The author argues that governments are more interested in the economic aspect of fishing instead of taking into consideration the impact that overfishing would bring in a long term. In fact, he explains that governments have unrealistic quotas for fishing which leads to illegal catch of fish. According to an American research group, the Pew Charitable Trusts, one fifth of the fish consumed in the society is caught illegally. The author states that as technology evolves, it would be easier for fishermen to catch fish in the oceans. However, it is ironic that technology such as big data would also allow governments to catch those illegal fishermen. The author finally suggests a solution in the article: the use of big data to track fishing boats. He comments on the efficiency of this data collection and hopes that governments could be stricter on their rules and laws. He believes that this measure could control the phenomenon of overfishing.


After reading the article and the course notes, I think that all harmful actions such as banning bottom trawling should be prohibited by governments. In fact, they importantly contribute to overfishing and strict laws should be installed in order to protect those animals. In my opinion, I think that having specific protected areas is a good solution. In other words, fishermen would be prohibited to fish in certain marine places in order to protect those local marine animals. However, there is an issue with this solution, fish can migrate, there are probabilities that they go beyond the protected areas. In this case, alternative solutions should be installed by governments in order to reduce the environmental impacts caused by overfishing. In short, in my opinion, governments are the ones that should take the responsibilities facing this major global issue.





Fishing is the only hobby that I can think of that my parents are avid for. As such, they have in countless times forced me to tag along with them. I find it plausible that fish is the source of 1/5 of our protein intake but I don't think that everything that is caught from trawling is actually eaten. I'm sure that most of the fish goes bad before anyone gets to buy it so the problem isn't really about our fish consumption but the fishing itself. From your summary, I realize that the government reacts in odd ways; they are interested in the economic aspect of fisheries BUT still impose tight quotas... I agree that bottom trawling should definitely be banned, as much of what is caught is probably thrown out. I agree with your solution but I must add that the government will do nothing about it if it isn't in their interests.

About the author