Item — HN Reader

The article explains that those wrecks are oases of marine life. Those living forms can’t defend their real estate to the court because they can’t speak and because fishermen are lobbying against restriction (of that real estate enforcement).

Ben Haskell try to preserve those marine sanctuaries by asking politely to stop, hoping fishermen love to marine life may restrain them for destroy it.

1 comments

We have huge industries devoted entirely to finding and killing that life. Why would we worry about whether, when we do that, it's living in a shipwreck we gave it or a reef that grew over time?

The article goes on further to explain that, "Shipwrecks create richer habitats that in turn boost fishing conditions, but only as long as the wreck is preserved."

Collect taxes and build artificial reefs.

Many reefs are also fishing protected areas for the same reason, why this one should be treated differently?

What's the goal? Is the idea to stop fishermen from hurting themselves? Is it that removing a sunken ship would interfere with the natural processes that put the ship there?

Reefs can't be fishing-protected areas because of the presence of fish. The presence of fish is how we pick fishing-intensive areas.

> Reefs can't be fishing-protected areas because of the presence of fish. The presence of fish is how we pick fishing-intensive areas.

Not. Complex problems don't have simple answers.

We don't define fisheries by the presence of fish. We define fisheries by the presence of fish that --can be-- fished. This means normally age, not number. And age can't be measured easily in many species so we use size instead. Distance to the coast, population status and life cycle are also hugely influential.

And governments with teams devoted entirely to regulate this industries and manage ecosystems.