Cod in
Trouble A. In 1992, the devastating collapse of the cod stocks off
the east coast of Newfoundland forced the Canadian government to take drastic
measures and close the fishery. Over 40,000 people lost their jobs, communities
are still struggling to recover and the marine ecosystem is still in a state of
collapse. The disintegration of this vital fishery sounded a warning bell to
governments around the world who were shocked that a relatively-sophisticated,
scientifically-based fisheries management program, not unlike their own, could
have gone so wrong. The Canadian government ignored warnings that their fleets
were employing destructive fishing practices and refused to significantly reduce
quotas citing the loss of jobs as too great a concern. B. In the 1950s
Canadian and US east coast waters provided an annual 100,000 tons in cod catches
rising to 800,000 by 1970. This over fishing led to a catch of only 300,000 tons
by 1975. Canada and the US reacted by passing legislation to extend their
national jurisdictions over marine-living resources out to 200 nautical miles
and catches naturally declined to 139,000 tons in 1980. However the Canadian
fishing industry took over and restarted the over fishing and catches rose again
until, from 1985, it was the Canadians who were landing more than 250,000 tons
of northern cod annually. This exploitation ravaged the stocks and by 1990 the
catch was so low (29,000 tons) that in 1992 (121/2000 tons) Canada had to ban
all fishing in east coast waters. In a fishery that had for over a century
yielded a quarter-million ton catches, there remained a biomass of less than
1700 tons and the Fisheries Department also predicted that, even with an
immediate recovery, stocks need at least 15 years before they would be healthy
enough to withstand previous levels of fishing. C. The devastating
fishing came from massive investment poured into constructing huge "draggers".
Draggers haul enormous nets held open by a combination of huge steel plates and
heavy chains and rollers that plough the ocean bottom. They drag up anything in
the way, inflicting immense damage, destroying critical habitat and contributing
to the destabilization of the northern cod ecosystem. The draggers targeted huge
aggregations of cod while they were spawning, a time when the fish population is
highly vulnerable to capture. Excessive trawling on spawning stocks became
highly disruptive to the spawning process, and ecosystem. In addition, the
trawling activity resulted in a physical dispersion of eggs leading to a higher
fertilization failure. Physical and chemical damage to larvae caused by the
trawling action also reduced their chances of survival. These draggers are now
banned forever from Canadian waters. D. Canadian media often cite
excessive fishing by overseas fleets, primarily driven by the Capitalist ethic,
as the primary cause of the fishing out of the north Atlantic cod stocks. Many
nations took fish off the coast of Newfoundland and all used deep-sea trawlers,
and many often blatantly exceeded established catch quotas and treaty
agreements. There can be little doubt that non-North-American-fishing was a
contributing factor in the cod stock collapse, and that the capitalist dynamics
that were at work in Canada were all too similar for the foreign vessels and
companies. But all of the blame cannot be put there, no matter how easy it is to
do, as it does not account for the management of the resources. E. Who
was to blame As the exploitation of the Newfoundland fishery was so
predominantly guided by the government, we can argue that a fishery is not a
private area, as the fisher lacks management fights normally associated with
property and common property. The state had appropriated the property, and made
all of the management decisions. Fishermen get told who can fish, what they can
fish, and essentially, what to do with the fish once it is caught. In this
regard then, when a resource such as the Newfoundland fishery collapses, it is
more a tragedy of government negligence than a tragedy of the general
public. F. Following the 1992’s ban on northern cod fishing and most
other species, an estimated 30,000 people that had already lost their jobs after
the 1992 Northern Cod Moratorium took effect, were joined by an additional
12,000 fishermen and plant workers. With more than forty thousand people out of
jobs, Newfoundland became an economic disaster area, as processing plants shut
down, and vessels from the smallest dory to the monster draggers were made idle
or sold overseas at bargain prices. Several hundred Newfoundland communities
were devastated. G. Europeans need only look across the North Atlantic
to see what could be in store for their cod fishery. In Canada they were too
busy with making plans, setting expansive goals, and then allocating fish, and
lots of it, instead of making sound business plans to match fishing with the
limited availability of the resource. Cod populations in European waters are now
so depleted that scientists have recently warned that "all fisheries in this
area that target cod should be closed." The Canadian calamity demonstrates that
we now have the technological capability o find and annihilate every commercial
fish stock, in any ocean and do irreparable damage to entire ecosystems in the
process. In Canada’s case, a two billion dollar recovery bill may only be a part
of the total long-term costs. The costs to individuals and desperate communities
now deprived of meaningful and sustainable employment is staggering. Who does the writer blame for the collapse of the Newfoundland cod fishery
A.The US fishing industry. B.The Canadian government. C.The foreign fishing industry. D.The Canadian fishing industry.