Caroline Thompson

English 102

Section 86

1/29/17

Inquiry Proposal: Overfishing

I chose the topic of overfishing, which is the depletion of stock fish due to too much fishing in

our oceans, such as off the coast of Australia. I connect well with this topic because of my large

interest in marine science and my background in that particular field. I also have an interest in

environmental issues and this falls under that category. I grew up in Maryland on the Chesapeake

Bay which sparked my passion for the ocean. From growing up there fishing, crabbing, and

playing with jellyfish I decided to continue my interests by coming to USC. Here, my major is

marine science so I have a decent amount of background knowledge on our worlds oceans from

current and previous classes I have taken. Several of these classes have had sections focusing on

the issue of overfishing and its effects on our environment and humans. From these classes I

have been able to learn about what the phrase fishing down the food web means. Much

research has been done pertaining to this issue allowing for attainable research for me to use in

my own research paper. Research has shown problems with overfishing include; overall

depletion of food sources/fish, food web affects such as fishing down the food web, extinction

of species, bycatch products, animal entanglement, etc. These are just some of the problems that

overfishing has caused and that need to be addressed. However, although the problems have

clearly been found in our fishing habits I am curious to find out what will prevent this from

getting to a point of no return that we cannot fix. What alternatives are there to make fishing
more efficient and less damaging to the environment? Are the regulations being enforced today

useful in stopping overfishing from becoming an issue? Some alternatives include different

fishing nets to release bycatch and prevent entanglement.

Sources:

The Washington Post, Just how badly are we overfishing the oceans?

The central claim in this article is that overfishing is a controversial issue that some believe has

been fixed due to regulations, but others believe it is still getting worse. The article uses major

evidences from several scientific sources showing both sides of the issue. He also uses graphs to

display world fish stocks as well as increasing fishing effort over the years. He also references

the U.N.s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. All these references either support that

the fisheries are doing better or that they need more attention in order to stop the issue from

becoming worse. The article includes how overfishing is affecting us, and touches on whether or

not it is something we actually need to be worrying about. The sources he uses throughout the

paper are credible because the research was received from marine scientists and fisheries experts

from universities. The article is also credible because it shows both sides of the argument, not

just one biased view on whether or not overfishing is actually an issue. Lastly, overall the

Washington Post is a well known news source that people rely on for information.

The New York Times, Where have all the cod gone?

The central claim in this article is that our fisheries system causes negative long term

environmental effects to nature and will continue to do so depleting fish in the ocean. The article

uses major evidences by discussing the statistics of how cod populations continued to be

depleted throughout the years in the Gulf of Maine. The article also discussed that although
alternative technologies were made to catch the same amount of fish as before, they were

catching a higher percentage of the population due to the decline in population. This evidence

helps support that not advanced enough technology is not the problem in overfishing, its that we

are depleting the fish before they have the time to reproduce. This is a credible source because it

is from the New York Times and it uses statistics to support the argument. However, the author is

no scientists, so the article could very well be biased and be leaving out key information to make

you believe otherwise.

The Economist, The tragedy of the high seas

The central claim is that fish is an important resource for humans, however we are continuing to

deteriorate our resources through overfishing. The article uses major evidence such as fisherman

persuading the government to spend other peoples money on the fisheries industry, when in the

end it is detrimental to the environment. This brings up the question such as what the role of

government is in this situation. Should the government be using tax payers money to fix this

issue and why? It also uses evidence for suggestions on what there should be to fix overfishing

such as a global registry of fishing vessels, more marine reserves, and reforming new polices. It

discusses how the damage done however cannot be reversed due to the ways of humanity itself.

This article may not be as credible because there are not many outside references used to

establish credibility. However, the author is not a scientist and may lead to the article being

perceived as biased and focusing only on one opinion rather than accounting for both sides from

a scientific view.

Mostly all three of these articles agree that overfishing is damaging to the environment and needs

some regulation. However, the first and second article show both sides of the argument while the

third only shows one side. The second and last article seem to lead more towards the claim that
overfishing is negatively affecting the environment and needs to be fixed. But the first article is

more neutral in the debate between the two. But the last article also seems to believe it cannot be

reversed or fixed. The different perspectives can influence my own by allowing me to have a

better understanding of their view, however it does not sway my opinion at all on overfishing. In

order to write this topic with authority I need to know that my audience might not know as much

about the topic as I do, and I need to inform them as much as possible on the topic. They also

will be learning along with me and my research when I am trying to find the answer to my

inquiry questions. I will have to expand on some statements to explain myself as well as provide

convincing evidence to get them to see my side.

Inquiry Questions:

What are some alternatives to prevent overfishing from having long term environmental

effects?
What role should the government and tax payers have in fixing this issue?
What sustainable alternative methods are being used or developed to deal with the issue

of overfishing?