Though lionfish meat is not regularly stocked in stores, customers can order it through the Publix Reel Variety program, and expect its arrival in roughly a week. One pound of lionfish meat sold for $27.99 per pound at a Publix in Florida. People have also requested lionfish at the Fort Myers’ Blue Star Seafood store (Tometich, 2015). There is even a lionfish cookbook being written (Morell, 2010). With this growing demand, the lionfish meat market is a viable solution to the lionfish invasion.
Other suggestions have been made to teach and encourage native predators to eat lionfish, such as groupers, sharks, and eels (Hackerott et al., 2013). In fact, lionfish have been found in the stomach contents of some Atlantic and Caribbean fish, though
…show more content…
Green, 2014; Hackerott et al., 2013; Morell, 2010; Valdivia et al., 2014). CIEE professor Patrick Lyons claims the only successful method for decreasing lionfish populations is by hunting them (Carberry, 2014). Unfortunately, lionfish are difficult to harvest and inhabit a wide range of areas, making culling operations relatively expensive (Bejarano et al., 2015). This being said, initial culling operations should focus on nursery habitats for commercial fisheries, spawning sites, mangroves, and protected areas (Bejarano et al., 2015; S. Green, 2014). This will help protect highly valuable marine resources as these sites are crucial habitat for juvenile fish (S. Green, 2014). By focusing on such ecologically important areas first, eradication efforts may have far reaching …show more content…
It’s one of the first studies of its type to demonstrate that reduction of an invasive species below an environmentally damaging threshold, rather than outright eradication, can have comparable benefits.
Even more promising is the fact that some of those recovered fishes included the economically important Nassau grouper and yellowtail snapper (S. Green, 2014). However, culling operations should be combined with predator conservation and the creation of a market for lionfish consumption to provide the best results.
While all of these solutions can help keep lionfish populations in check, many scientists doubt they will ever be fully eradicated (Cote et al., 2013; Edwards et al., 2014; S. Green, 2014; Morell, 2010). This fate should inspire stricter trade legislation of exotic species along with increased public awareness efforts (Cote et al., 2013). It is an effective example that not all environmental damage is reversible.
Invasive species do not only affect other species in their ecosystem, but also cost the United States more than one hundred and twenty million dollars each year in damages (“Cost” par. 2). Invasive species come in all different forms, and all have a negative impact on the environment. These species can come into a new area without being detected at first, but as time goes on their effects can soon be seen. Efforts are being made to prevent these invasive species from destroying fish population and habitat, but in order to be successful they need to be done on a much larger scale. In order to protect Wisconsin's waters, which are already infected with many invasive species that cause great damage to our bodies of water, more actions need to be taken. It is vital to remove all invasive species from Wisconsin’s waters because it will improve fish habitat, native fish population, and water quality.
The 1800’s the George’s Banks off the coast of New England was very generous to the fisherman who fished the sea for a living. There was a balance between what the fisherman took and what the sea could provide. By the mid-1900 that balances began greatly to shift. Technology developed during the 1950s allowed fishermen to take in much more fish than previous years. Through continued over fishing and lack of controls in place at the time, the fish stock depleted to the point the George’s Banks could no longer support the fisherman.
In 1831, Asian carp were brought over as a delicacy. Asian carp are originally from Asia (Barbara A. Somervill 13). They were imported by catfish farmers in 1963 for federal research on controlling aquatic vegetation. In 1966, the first Asian carp had escaped into Arkansas waters. By 1970, grass carp we're being stocked in Arkansas waters to help with over vegetation. In 1972, big head carp were brought in the United States by a fish farmer in Arkansas to improve his water quality and fish production. In 1973, silver carp were introduced for phytoplankton control (Watershed Council 1). Over time, they were brought over for different reasons and made their way into many of the United States waters. The federal government had transported the invasive species to help the waters but, they did not realize the bad effects that the fish would have on the future environment. People need to find a way to stop them before it’s too late. Their rapid breeding has had a great toll on the environment and is still affecting it today. Over population can destroy the environment
The aquarium of life is filled with all sorts of wonderful fish, each having its own purpose: clown fish to entertain, gold and neon tetras to illuminate, emperor plescostomas to rule, sharks to bite, bottom feeders to pick up the waste left behind and of course feeder fish, to be eaten. Unlike its expensive companions a feeder fish is only worth about 7.2 cents. It is kept in crowded, disease infested waters, sold at a pathetic price, and is made to sacrifice its body for the "common good."
The eradication of species numbers average at a toll close to one hundred percent of earths total living creatures. “It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct” (Sahney, and Benton 759). Not only where marine and terrestrial species effected but this catastrophic event is the only recogni...
Zipkin, Elise F., Kraft, Clifford E., Cooch, Evan G., and Sullivan, Patrick J., “When Can Efforts to Control Nuisance and Invasive Species Backfire?,” Ecological Applications, Vol. 19, No. 6 (2009): 1585-1595, accessed October 11, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40346271.
Have you ever asked yourself, “Shouldn’t we do something about invasive species since they’re so bad?”. Actually, invasive species can be very good for the environment, just that we only ever talk about the downsides. This essay will argue that humans shouldn’t act to remove invasive species because when humans try to move invasive species, things like birds might not have food and the government will be losing money we need to pay someone to remove the invasive organisms. ‘
With a coastline of over 202 000 km and over a fourth of the world’s freshwater resources, it is no wonder why Canada’s fishing industry is a huge part of its economy.1 Canada exports more than 75% of its fish to over 130 countries worldwide. Many of the 7 million people who reside on the coast depend on the ocean’s resources. In total, Canada’s entire fishing industry is worth around 5$ billion dollars a year, being one of the world’s most valuable. However, the coasts have not been treated by respect; overfishing, over consumption, and wasteful practices has deteriorated, not only the industry, but the ecosystems and fish populations. This is a huge global issue; the worldwide collapse of fisheries has been project for 2048. Slowly, as the trends continue, we will inevitably see many fish species start to disappear. In fact, the ill-treatment of species on the Canadian border has already devastated a large specie, the cod.
on repair and recovery. Invasive species can cost up to 120 billion dollars a year just to repair the
Invasive alien species are disrupting and changing the normal ecological functions of biomes, ecosystems, and the biosphere as a whole (CBD, 2009). They are a threat to biodiversity and can cause damage to, or even eradicate native species which natural cycles and other organisms depend on. While disrupting energy flow, food chains, and shaking the structure of ecosystems to the core, invasive species create not only ecological, but also a whole host of social, economical, and health issues that affect the livelihood of almost every organism on earth, including humans (CBD, 2009).
Introducing exotic species has been a highly debated issue. Why should we bring another animal or plant into a region to eradicate another species? That’s the question that people have been asking for ages. Of course, there are positives to bringing in another species, but many times, there are just as many negatives. Also, these species can be introduced accidentally or intentionally. The new organism may cause no obvious problems and eventually, it will be considered “native” to the area. For example, corals are “perhaps the oldest animals on the planet, and these long-lived corals have evolved in one of the Earth’s most stable environments” (Eichenberg, p.2). If a new type of fish were to be put into the ecosystem with the corals, the coral would be affected. First, the fish might eat the coral. Second, they could use the coral for shelter, and possibly damaging it that way. Third, the fish could bring predators that might also eat the coral. Introducing an exotic species has the “rippling affect” of dropping a stone into a pool of water. Everything outside the epicenter is affected. A study was done at Cornell University, and they estimated that $120 billion per year are spent fixing the problems caused by exotic species” (Chiras, p.
According to World WildLife Fund, many ecosystems around the world are being destroyed, eliminating many plant and animal species that inhabit them (“Pollution”).
Oceans are such so vast that people underestimate the impact their actions —seeming so insignificant— have on them. Humans have by and large taken the oceans for granted; not considering how important a healthy ocean is to our survival. A popular mind-set is that the oceans are a bottomless supply of fish, natural resources, and an infinite waste dump. There are myriad reasons why the oceans should be saved and the most obvious one is marine life. With 71% of the Earth being covered by water, it is obvious that sea creatures are predominant form of life, making up 80% of the species of life on Earth. However, as important as marine life is, that is not the only reason why saving the oceans is crucial. The ocean floor provides natural resources such as, oil, natural gas, petroleum, minerals, medications, and ingredients for foods and products. The economic benefits of the oceans are huge and significant, as well. Fishing and fish products have provided employment to 38 million people and have generated about $124 billion in economic benefits. However, oceans are on the verge of crisis, marine life, natural resources, transportation, the economy, and important ingredients are at risk due to overfishing, pollution, and acidification. Thus, in this essay I will argue that, oceans are not impervious to human activity and threatening the health of the ocean threatens the health of humanity, since oceans key to our survival.
Did you know that more than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct? According to Pandey, the author of Humans Pushing Marine Life toward ‘Major Extinction’, nearly 10,000 species go extinct each year, and this rate is estimated to be 1,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate (1). Human beings are causing irreversible damage to the oceans and their wildlife, which is being led by two major reasons: Commercial fishing or over-fishing, which damaged the marine environment and caused a loss in the marine life diversity, and pollution, which is a primary way of the extinction causes that drastically modifies the marine life habitat. As a result of the commercial fishing and pollution, many of the marine species will start disappearing of the oceans. Briggs emphasizes that over-fishing “has induced population collapses in many species. So instead of having less than a hundred species at risk, as was the case some 30-40 years ago, there are now a thousand or more (10).”
In 2009, Sylvia Earle gave a presentation in a TED conference on a rising problem that the world faces: the ecologic depletion of the world’s oceans. The ocean accounts for a massive portion of the recycled carbon dioxide back into oxygen, and provides food for huge parts of humanity and for huge numbers of animals. I agree with her conclusions that the oceans are being depleted and this can only mean bad things for humanity, but I disagree with her solution. To solve the problem, Mrs. Earle claims that the United States and other countries should expand their protected zones of the ocean. However, an ocean is not like a land environment, where you can section off parts of America to save isolated habitats. Fish travel often travel and migrate hundreds of miles to find food and suitable mates, this is especially true the larger the fish is. Sectioning off parts of the ocean only solves part of the problem, because the fish in that area will simply swim out of the area and then be caught by fisherman. The only way to incorporate government protection into the oceans, is for the government to effectively own the oceans within its borders and then lease the rights to fish or put quotas on the number of fish that each fisherman can take out.