It will be interesting to see the study and perhaps it will tighten up restrictions on all boats. Nets just seem to be a bad idea.

I've seen what these nets bring up.It's like strip mineing te ocean floor.There's life frm te bottom that's been ripped up for miles and it gets dumped back to die. All the small fry thats our future fish is killed, That's the future catch.It's not replenishment.Maybe If more people could see what comes up in those nets there would be a bigger world response..It would'nt be hard to save,we would have to rely on farms a little more for a while. But, the reward for the future is worth it.

Is it not common sense to think that a GIANT NET will capture EVERYTHING in its path? Come on people. You don't need two years of "study" to figure that out.

OVERFISHING IS A VERY WELL KNOWN REALITY, LET'S STOP IT. GO GREENPEACE.

Also, note this passage, "There has never been a fishing vessel of this capacity in Australia before..."

Does this mean that these ships are allowed everywhere else? Apparently we need to take a hint from Australia.

I stopped eating seafood too. I don't want my money supporting commercial fishing any more than I want it to go to factory farming of animals. As one marine biologist put it: "I don't eat fish. I don't eat songbirds either." By which she was trying to remind us that "seafood" is essentially wildlife. Farming fish also has environmental consequences. Support sustainable, humane practices and things will slowly change...I hope.

As much as I am against these types of ships, it is a total misconception to think it will deplete the oceans quicker of fish in this area than is currently being done as there's still the annual catch limit.

It truthfully makes no difference whether one ship catches the entire allotment in a week or 100's of smaller ships catch the same amount over a year. So I'd have to believe this is driven more by protective economics than anything else. It's also been my understanding from reading about this in the Australian press that this ship would have to buy up the catch quotas from local fishermen.

I guess one could argue that the sudden a very large depletion in one area would impact the ecology so in reality all that's needed is to specify that fishing vessels can only catch X tons in a given square mile radius. Done right the regulation could make it economically disadvantageous for a ship this size.

It truthfully makes no difference whether one ship catches the entire allotment in a week or 100's of smaller ships catch the same amount over a year.

I disagree - the first one provides riches for a few individuals - the second provides jobs, food and lifestyles for untold familys. This no different than big corporate farming putting family farms out of business.

jrae, you missed the part where I said and you can confirm by reading the Australian press, that the local fisherman will need to sell THEIR catch licenses for this ship or a similar ship to operate. What is the difference between getting paid AUS$ X for catching and selling fish or being paid AUS$ Y (to take in account the fact they're saving fuel expenses and the like) for selling your license to someone to catch and sell the fish? In both cases the original license holder receives a payment. If they decide to sell their license they can then do something else in addition and would in fact be better off.

fix it man,

We allow the poorest and most uneducated people to breed at an exponential rate. We even reward them with increased funds for having more kids. One of my good friends works in a prenatal unit in downtown memphis. He regularly has 28-30 year old GRANDMOTHERS in the hospital watching their 13-15 year old daughters have their first baby.

No one wants to be responsible for their choices or make personal sacrifice in any way, shape or form. We all want the BIGGEST vehicle and house when we clearly dont need it. we dont care how many resources we consumed to build and drive it.

something will give eventually.

I am happily child-free myself and wish other women would choose the same for the sake of the planet. AND for the sake of quality of life for humans! We need to keep birth control free and accessible.

It's good a law is being looked at to help protect non-targeted sea life.We should have learned by now to treasure all life and appreciate the delicate balance nature maintains everywhere. It will always benefit us to continue to do so in the long run.

For all those concerned about over population and the "threat" we seem to be poising it seems some facts would be appropriate about now.To be over populated a nation must have insufficient resources and space to sustain human activities. So, is there world over population? Paul Ehrlich first introduced this idea in 1968 with his book, “The Population Bomb.” It succeeded in scaring the masses.His theories suffer under the impression that humans are the only thing fluctuating.

In 1990, it was estimated that the world could feed up to 35 billion people. Most sources estimate that the global population will level out at around 9.2 billion in 2050, and then start to decline. Already most industrial nations are nearing zero population growth. In 2003, the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Arkansas. The world may seem crowded, but it’s because humans cluster together for trade and companionship, not for lack of room.Indian economist Raj Krishna estimates that India alone is capable of increasing crop yields to the point of providing the entire world’s food supply. Lack of food is not the problem but rather the need for more efficient distribution. Even so, there are those who insist that we will continue to breed exponentially, causing a population explosion.

Abid Ullah Jan, a community development specialist stated in an article“Population rose six-fold in the next 200 years. But this is an increase, not an explosion, because it has been accompanied, and in large part made possible, by a productivity explosion, a resource explosion, a food explosion, an information explosion, a communications explosion, a science explosion, and a medical explosion,” which was published in 2003 called “Overpopulation: Myths, Facts, and Politics.”

Poverty, too, is not the effect of overpopulation, but rather the aftermath of poor leadership. In Ethiopia, government officials are blamed for causing poverty by confiscating food and exporting it to buy arms. Mismanagement by governments, taxation, land seizure and war further cause suffering. Economic down turns leads to fewer businesses and jobs, less students in classrooms, If the human heart could be softened so those who have extra and plenty would reach out and share with those who have less then our planet would not have the suffering we see.Even the illegal use of drugs and crime contributes to suffering and poverty. People will still claim there are too many people regardless of facts. It is easier then reaching out and making a difference.

Fix it man- Who's going to be the decision maker on reducing population? Anyone want to take the first step? Maybe those who cry for population control should set the example? How would you go about the reduction? Pull away from all nations that are not true allies, cut off foreign aid and food exports to all others. Then we could see a reduction in world numbers and there would be no hunger on our own soil. I once heard, " If we don't feed them, we'll have to fight them." My response- they won't fight long if they are starving.

Winddancersong:

The things I worry about are almost all exactly what you suggested are going to magically fix themselves. First I wonder what it is exactly that is going to make people not want to reproduce (have sex) by the year 2050. By far the two most prevalent underlying causes of excessive reproduction are poverty and lack of education. And that is the sector of the world population that is causing the "explosion" . And I don't see anything anywhere that is even coming close to trying to address this issue.

Also you refer to "could" and "is capable of" as if it is guaranteed to happen. What will happen if the overwhelming majority of scientists are correct, and we are at the very begining of an enormous global climate change event? What would happen to India's suggested guarantee of being able to feed the world all by itself if the ocean levels rise and India loses over 20 percent of it's land to ocean? And what magic wand is it that is going to get India to suddenly become first world proficient at production and distribution of food if somehow they don't ?

And you also suggest that there is a "productivity explosion" and a "resource explosion" . Really? where are all these resources going to come from? Have you ever looked on the internet at satellite imaging of the planet? Have you seen what has happened to the Amazon rain forest? Have you seen what has happened to the Congo rain forest? Have you not noticed that the reason countries like Australia are concerned about huge ocean going fish harvesting factories like the subject of the article, is because it is a well known and documented fact that the worlds fishery's are NOT "exploding" with resources. But rather becoming seriously depleted.

And the United States is the worlds leader in agricultural production. But the only way that has been maintained is through the use of petro-chemical fertilizers and pesticides. And we are also just begining to see the real problem that is on the horizon for us. That is depletion of the top soil throughout the U.S. And once it's gone, it's not coming back.

Indeed, what I see in the not to distant future are several medium to large scale wars on the planet. Not for oil. But for the two really important resources that just are not going to be available. That is water, and food. It would be great if we could get the world to decide that love is better than suspicion and hate. But I am maybe more of a realist on that issue. I just don't see it happening in time. And soon countries like India that MAY have a large food resource will have to fight to keep it. And the same goes for water. Which really is even more important than food. Because without water, there is no food.

Us Mexicans breed like rabbits. Have you looked around lately. It is like our parents expect us to have 5 plus kids.

fix it man

I agree. Population is out of control and if humans don't take some steps to control this it will take care of itself and it won't be pretty.

Have any of you seen "Idiocracy"???????? Please watch it! When I see women on welfare having baby after baby and then brag about the check every month... (I was a teller in my younger years and I'm not exaggerating)........I think of this movie.....I feel heartbroken for the children that are used as paychecks. Stop welfare and unmarried child support and I bet you the population will drop like a rock.

Gary Cooper, There is nothing "Magical" at all in my comments.I was quoting from an article written by AbidUllah Jan who is an community development specialist. His comment which started out with “Population rose six-fold in the next 200 years..." was referring to the past obviously, not the present, in the history of man and the increase of his numbers. Hence the word ROSE not rise or rising.

The reason the population is expected to level off and start to decline in 2050 is because of several factors. One is China's one child law which has been in effect for decades.Resulting in mostly male babies being chosen. About five years ago, an estimated 350 million men did not have any women, but that figure was conservative at best. As China was encouraging those men to seek wives outside of the country. It is estimated China will collapse within 50 years.

Second, most industrial nations are approaching zero growth, several have reached it, with Russia and Italy closest to becoming next. America itself has slowed down, including immigrations and is expected to reach between 2040 and 2050 what is called the Majority/Minority point.Where less then half will be Caucasian. But also where the aging population will be heavily influencing our country as the baby boomers will be mostly gone and smaller families aging that came in the decades that followed those baby boomers.Including the babies of women who put off starting families for careers at the start of the millennium.

Next people don't take into account the daily death rates occurring from natural or man-made sources and the life expectancy. In the United states women are expected to live to 78, with men 72. However, that is not the world life expectancies.In some countries men are expected to live only to 25, women to 23 because of disease. And four out of five children will die before age one.With half the people in the country infected.

Whether from old age, diseases, natual disasters flooding, fires, earthquakes, tsunami or man's actions like warfare.The highest numbers of deaths actually come to the very young and elderly in third world countries. That is not where the worlds greatest numbers will come from unless there is a supply of food and resources to feed them according to experts. Just like in the past as our community developer noted, the increase in numbers happens when resources increase along with many other factors. Birthrate increases don't happen in a vacuum.

Finally, science doesn't lie.You could stick every man, woman and child in the world from the year 2003 and they would have fit in Arkansas. Leaving the rest of the world COMPLETELY EMPTY.Think about that for a minute.People look at pictures of the world, but I'm not sure people really grasp how big it truly is.I have driven across the breath and width of our nation. It is huge.Maybe because we can move so fast in our cars we take for granted just how incredible the scope of our planet is.There are resources to provide food. Greed comes in,hatred plays it roles. Suffering happens because man makes poor choices in what he does with his resources.Not because this planet doesn't have enough to go around.

So the slowing reduction being seen now in birth rates across the world taken into account, most sources believe there isn't going to be a continual "explosion" regardless that some people still want to believe in it. Science isn't backing them up. Even if environment factors are taken in for feeding people. The problem is still distribution. Not lack of space or food. These are not my opinions. We Americans waste so much food, that is a well known fact. Yes, we need to be better stewards over this earth and what she provides.But telling everyone to stop having children isn't going to make us take better care of the world. Though it might make one feel justified about their opinions. In the long run however if everyone did, it would ensure, like the Chinese short sightedness will prove, one day we end up without a nation because we painted ourselves into a corner. I guess, like one person said, it would be a great way to rid the world of humans.Just convince everyone there are too many already!

People on welfare should have to take some form of BC and if they do have 1 more child by baby daddy number 7......It should be cut off and those kids monitored by CPS. I get so tired of watching women blame men for knocking them up and leaving. Marriage.....more than likely if he will marry you, then he will stay. This isn't always the case but it's a better assumption than a man you have known for a week and had unprotected sex with is going to stay a raise a child.

oh yeah kurt ,it;s like that is how the world is being over populated...and if you are a conservative if they gain full governmental control they may end access to all birth control or worse yet make it illegal like that catholic prick nut job santorum talked about and that VP Paul Ryan has also talked about

I'm independent.....I believe that birth control should be freely accessible and welfare should be cut back. That is how the world is being over populated. People shouldn't be having children that they can't afford and then expect everyone else to pay for them. I have children and we pay an arm for them.....but it is us, no one else.

now is the time to invest in commercial off shore fish farms! Tuna Cowboys!

Can we just sterilize the dumb ones????? I mean most intelligent people don't want but so many kids.

very rough and very mean ,,,but I get your point and understand your anger ,but violence to protect the planet might lead to war which would lead to more destruction of our planetary resources

Good luck finding Ethiopian pirates as it's a land-locked country.

I wanted to like Whale Wars, a reality show about international do-gooders fighting Japanese whale slaughter, but in reality they were juvenial, deluded and ineffectual. The world could use a real Captain Planet.

Any generosity given to any person will always be taken advantage of sooner or later unfortunately. :(

Because it's all about the money THEY make in THEIR lifetime and screw everybody else. Diagram of the human heart.