2
1
Is overfishing a problem in our world today? Overfishing is a large problem. The national fisheries all around the world are slowly depleting and if the problem continues to be a problem the fisheries will be depleted. There are regulations already toward the problem of overfishing and the regulations are not working. The major problem is that the United States government does not give much focus toward the over fishing problem. The United States government should put more focus toward this overfishing problem, but not to take over this whole problem.
1
Is overfishing a problem in our world today? Overfishing is a large problem. The national fisheries all around the world are slowly depleting and if the problem continues to be a problem the fisheries will be depleted. There are regulations already toward the problem of overfishing and the regulations are not working. The major problem is that the United States government does not give much focus toward the over fishing problem. The United States government should put more focus toward this overfishing problem, but not to take over this whole problem.3
1
The problem of overfishing has been increasing over the years. Marcia Clemmitt says that 90 percent of the world’s fish – such as swordfish and tuna – have disappeared (Clemmitt, Marcia). There has the been research on this problem since 1990. Over the years the fisheries population have been decreaceing and it numbers have been falling quicker each year. Overfishing is when the amount of the fish caught is higher than the number of the fish that can reproduce each year. So the population of the organism is falling each year. The regulations on the fisheries are to set the number fished lower than the reproduced. These worked for some time but there are fishermen that do not follow the regulations. These fishermen can get away from breaking these regulations because the regulations are not strong enough. The area that have the largest problem are the areas called fisheries. Fisheries are fishing grounds where the organisms that are being caught is abundant and also grow to try and keep the population to a normal number. This is why the government needs to focus more on fixing the regulation to prevent overfishing.
1
The problem of overfishing has been increasing over the years. Marcia Clemmitt says that 90 percent of the world’s fish – such as swordfish and tuna – have disappeared (Clemmitt, Marcia). There has the been research on this problem since 1990. Over the years the fisheries population have been decreaceing and it numbers have been falling quicker each year. Overfishing is when the amount of the fish caught is higher than the number of the fish that can reproduce each year. So the population of the organism is falling each year. The regulations on the fisheries are to set the number fished lower than the reproduced. These worked for some time but there are fishermen that do not follow the regulations. These fishermen can get away from breaking these regulations because the regulations are not strong enough. The area that have the largest problem are the areas called fisheries. Fisheries are fishing grounds where the organisms that are being caught is abundant and also grow to try and keep the population to a normal number. This is why the government needs to focus more on fixing the regulation to prevent overfishing.4
2
The government needs to put more of a focus on the regulations of the national fisheries. The problem is that the government is not making much of an effort to improve this problem. The government claims that they don’t have to money to put into this problem, but the government will send almost three times more on there other programs. So the problem is not the money it is how focus they are on protecting the national fisheries. The main thing is that the government has done some bills to help the regulations but it is not enough to make much of an improvement. The way the government can help is to give support to groups that they have already established like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These government administrations would improve if there were more of a governmental focus. This focus should be to improve the conditions of the national fisheries and not to just keep everything out. According to Marcia Clemmitt, Congress authorized $16.6 billion for fiscal 2006 for NASA, rising to $18.5 billon by 2010 (Clemmitt, Maricia). This shows that there is money for other programs like the NOAA. All of the programs like NOAA and several others only get 650 million dollars annually with no show of increasing of the years. That is a large difference in the focus on what the government want to happen. So the government should look on how they are spending money and to think which is more important to the near future.
2
The government needs to put more of a focus on the regulations of the national fisheries. The problem is that the government is not making much of an effort to improve this problem. The government claims that they don’t have to money to put into this problem, but the government will send almost three times more on there other programs. So the problem is not the money it is how focus they are on protecting the national fisheries. The main thing is that the government has done some bills to help the regulations but it is not enough to make much of an improvement. The way the government can help is to give support to groups that they have already established like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These government administrations would improve if there were more of a governmental focus. This focus should be to improve the conditions of the national fisheries and not to just keep everything out. According to Marcia Clemmitt, Congress authorized $16.6 billion for fiscal 2006 for NASA, rising to $18.5 billon by 2010 (Clemmitt, Maricia). This shows that there is money for other programs like the NOAA. All of the programs like NOAA and several others only get 650 million dollars annually with no show of increasing of the years. That is a large difference in the focus on what the government want to happen. So the government should look on how they are spending money and to think which is more important to the near future.5
My opponent will say that the solution to the overfishing problem is to have the government to come in and put a complete ban on fishing in certain areas. They want to put twenty percent of the ocean as a protected area. Which means that the will be no fishing or very limited fishing. Peter Kareiva states the slogan is twenty percent in 2020 (Kareiva, Peter). Another claim is that these protected areas will bring more and larger fish. But they do not even mention how long it will take for that even to happen. They also do not mention how limiting the fish will be after they lift the ban. They also claim that if the government just puts more regulations that the problem will just continue to grow and just be worse than what it was now. There are many flaws in this argument. First the regulation where working when they where first put in but now the regulations are out of date. They need to be brought back to date and they will be able to improve the problem. Second is that banning fishing in twenty percent of the ocean will cause more problems. The major problem it will bring is it will worse the world hunger problem. Because most of the world coastal communities live off of fish, the banning of fish will keep them from getting fish that they need to survive. Even if the ban is not on the area they fish. It will bring other group to overfish that area. The third flaw is that the ban will just move fishermen to a different area to overfish. This is why the regulations will be better than just going in and put in a ban. Lastly if the government claims that they cannot even increase the money needed to improve the groups that are already there then how will the government pay if they take completely over. It will cost the government more money to take over than to just improve the programs that they already have.
My opponent will say that the solution to the overfishing problem is to have the government to come in and put a complete ban on fishing in certain areas. They want to put twenty percent of the ocean as a protected area. Which means that the will be no fishing or very limited fishing. Peter Kareiva states the slogan is twenty percent in 2020 (Kareiva, Peter). Another claim is that these protected areas will bring more and larger fish. But they do not even mention how long it will take for that even to happen. They also do not mention how limiting the fish will be after they lift the ban. They also claim that if the government just puts more regulations that the problem will just continue to grow and just be worse than what it was now. There are many flaws in this argument. First the regulation where working when they where first put in but now the regulations are out of date. They need to be brought back to date and they will be able to improve the problem. Second is that banning fishing in twenty percent of the ocean will cause more problems. The major problem it will bring is it will worse the world hunger problem. Because most of the world coastal communities live off of fish, the banning of fish will keep them from getting fish that they need to survive. Even if the ban is not on the area they fish. It will bring other group to overfish that area. The third flaw is that the ban will just move fishermen to a different area to overfish. This is why the regulations will be better than just going in and put in a ban. Lastly if the government claims that they cannot even increase the money needed to improve the groups that are already there then how will the government pay if they take completely over. It will cost the government more money to take over than to just improve the programs that they already have.6
The problem is overfishing and the government does not want to focus on this problem. The government does not have to change much, but they need to change what they are doing now. The problem is still there and if nothing is done the problem will just grow. So the government needs to do something before the problem just goes out of control. The government could go back to the regulations and change them so that they are up to date. The government can fund their programs that are already there a little more. So that improvements can be done. This needs to be done or we will become they destroyers of our own future as a human race.
The problem is overfishing and the government does not want to focus on this problem. The government does not have to change much, but they need to change what they are doing now. The problem is still there and if nothing is done the problem will just grow. So the government needs to do something before the problem just goes out of control. The government could go back to the regulations and change them so that they are up to date. The government can fund their programs that are already there a little more. So that improvements can be done. This needs to be done or we will become they destroyers of our own future as a human race.
“If the problem continues to be a problem…” Try taking out “…to be a problem…” and adding a comma. It should make the sentence stronger. “…depleting, and if the problem continues, the fisheries will be depleted.” Regulations toward???
“…and it[s] numbers have been falling..” The area[s] that have the largest problem are….”
“…to money to put….” ??? I think you mean “spend” instead of “send.” In the same sentence, there should be their. Check your draft for errors.
???”With no show of increasing of the years.” Can you make this sentence clearer? I’m confused.