Should more of the sea be closed to all fishing to protect wildlife?
In August and September 2019 Scoop and its partner PEP ran an open conversation on protecting New Zealand’s biodiversity, and 536 people voted. One of its most agreed statements called for more marine reserves where nothing can be taken.
A public Polis conversation on biodiversity in Aotearoa New Zealand
From a public Polis conversation in Aotearoa New Zealand, August 2019 to September 2019: “Protecting and Restoring NZ’s Biodiversity”. People wrote statements and voted agree, disagree or pass on each other’s. These rows are the statements most voters agreed with, the ones that split voters most evenly, and the ones the fewest agreed with, out of 146 that at least 15 people voted on. Statements about the voters themselves, insults and unchecked factual claims are left out. Passes are not counted.
Most agreed
More no-take marine reserves should be created, especially in the habitat of endangered animals, like Maui dolphins and endangered seabirds
Polis sorts voters into opinion groups by how they voted across the whole conversation. This one found 2: Group A (72 voters) and Group B (371 voters). These are the statements every group was most likely to agree with, ranked the way Polis ranks common ground: the chance of agreeing in each group, multiplied together. Under them is the statement the groups were furthest apart on.
We need to care for the foundations of the natural world (e.g. microbes, worms, beetles) and the insects, algae, lichens and other life at the bottom of the food chain, in addition to the big animals.
Group A14 agreed, 0 disagreed (100%)
Group B59 agreed, 0 disagreed (100%)
We should innovate to become more inclusive of nature and biodiversity in our city/town designs.
Group A55 agreed, 2 disagreed (96%)
Group B229 agreed, 1 disagreed (100%)
I no longer accept that it is economy versus ecology. A healthy biodiverse environment is essential for farming sustainability.
Group A14 agreed, 0 disagreed (100%)
Group B60 agreed, 1 disagreed (98%)
Where they split
Native forest soil and ground plants must be protected from browsing mammals to maintain healthy forests, water quality and reduce erosion.
Written for the hearth so this question has a whole card on each side to argue with. No visitor wrote them, so the two parts only a person can fill are empty: what happened to you, and who on the other side called the case against fair.
Yes
Where this card stands
Yes. Areas where nothing can be taken give fish and seabirds somewhere to recover, and the recovery spills over into the waters still fished.
How sure, before and after the case against
The strongest case against it
Closing fishing grounds puts the cost on small local fleets who fish nearby, while bigger causes of decline, like run-off and warming seas, go on.
What would change this card’s mind
If no-take reserves in comparable waters showed no recovery of fish inside them after ten years.
“Argue with this card” opens the card on the front page with this card’s position as the case against you. You write where you stand and what would change your mind.