There are many reasons for environmentalists to oppose the ranching and enhancement operations that help produce more salmon for the world to be nourished with. First of all, a huge amount of energy goes into the aquaculture of salmon, not only through human labor, but through the oil, coal, and electricity that is needed to make the cages, produce food pellets, run the boats, and keep numerous other gadgets running that assist in the development process. Because all of this energy is needed, "cage farming is among the most expensive food-producing systems, comparable to intensive terrestrial systems such as broiler farming or pig raising" (Folke & Kautsky 1991). So why so we continue to over fish and spend exorbitant amounts of money on raising salmon as our form of protein when we could more economically produce our protein on land, potentially reducing pollution at the same time?

Another key problem that environmentalists have with aquaculture is that it is said to be the largest source of non-point pollution in the US. The biggest part of this pollution is in the form of "bycatch", which consists of aquatic species being caught which were not the target species. 20%-30% of fisheries catch is discarded as bycatch, and that has a huge impact on the surrounding ecosystems. The bycatch is full of protein, which soon decays into or is broken by other pollutants into nitrates and phosphates, which in turn are the cause of eutrophication. Eutrophication is the accelerated growth of algae, which deprives the surrounding water of oxygen and causes fish kills. Sometimes the ecosystem is so badly damaged that toxic algae is produced which harms humans through mere contact with the water, or through biomagnification of the toxin in organisms of the food chain which we consume. The most impacting result of everything I have discussed here is that so much fishing, whether it is out in the open ocean or through aquaculture is creating an ecosystem change in the world's ocean.

"Fish farming" is a very controlled way of obtaining fish protein.  The variables, such as yield amount, are removed from having to deal with conventional fishing where there is no guarantee that there will adequate fish in the wild.  With fish farming, there is a guaranteed supply of protein.  The fishing industry doesn't have to worry about not bringing in enough fish.  The fish on fish farms are born and bred in a contained area and the fish are controlled by man.  "Fish farming" guarantees that fish will be available to those who desire fish protein in their diet.  So why is fish farming perceived to contribute to problems?  The people who depend on fish will have a steady supply of fish.  So what is wrong with fish farming?

Fish farming is centered solely on providing man with enough fish to consume.  Fish farming does not take into account genetic problems and a decline in genetic diversity.  The fish that are bred are genetically identical.  There is little, if any, variation in the types of fish of a particular fish species.  Having a genetically homogenous fish population causes the population to eventually be susceptable to disease since there is no variation within the fish themselves.  While wild stocks of a particular fish die out, so does the genetic diversity of a fish.  The only remaining populations are eventually the artificially raised fish that possess very little variation in genotype.

Fish farming also shifts the attention from the problems of natural fisheries.  If people are able to obtain fish protein, then why should we do anything to save the habitats of the wild stocks of fish.  Fish farming is anthropocentric; it encourages thinking about human needs only and not the larger picture of natural fishery habitat destruction.  For instance, fishpens in the Lingayen Gulf area of the Philippines are able to provide fish protein to the people of the area (Philippine Reporter, 1995).  However, people and the government fail to see the declining natural fisheries where not only fish are in danger of decline and possible extinction, but also the diverse coral reef system within the Lingayen Gulf.  If fish protein is provided for artificially through fishpens, then social sustainability of Lingayen Gulf will further decline.  While sources of food will no longer be a problem with
fishpens, people will have to pay for their fish instead of obtaining fish for free in the Lingayen Gulf itself.  The people around the Lingayen Gulf are generally poor and cannot afford to artificially obtain fish.  In the Lingayen Gulf, "human needs" are not necessarily met.

Clearly, the human need for fish protein is high in demand.  Fish farms seem to be a good idea, but fail to see the entire system of sustainablity.  An effective fishery must be established in the ocean itself if the people of the world are to continue utilizing fish protein.  Genetic diversity must be maintained if fish species are to continue to survive.  Social aspects must be taken into account and not merely the need for fish protein.  Natural methods must continue to be utilzed if an effective fishery is to be created.

There are several reasons why environmentalists could argue against the ranching of salmon, even though ranching has many benefits.  Founder stock must be taken from the wild, thus reducing the numbers reproducing in the wild.  Fisheries also produce a lot of waste that must be carefully controlled.  An enormous amount of polluted water can come from a fishery.

When these wastes are controlled there is not a problem, but when left to contaminate the waters, this pollution can be a major threat to the ecosystem. Another problem is the possibility of disease.  With such close quarters, the spread of disease would be difficult to stop, and these conditions could actually promote disease.  Then what would happen if the disease were not detected, and the diseased fish were released?  Fish are wildlife and need to spend their life in the wild, not being raised in captivity and then shoved out on their own to try to survive.

The main issue environmentalists could raise is the fact that the ranching of fish does not solve the problem of overfishing.  Ranching allows (or even promotes) overfishing to occur.  The real problem is not being addressed.  If overfishing were halted to allow the species to rebuild, ranching would not be necessary (at least to the extent needed today). Ranching could be used on a reduced scale--highly regulated ranching--to provide food while the natural stocks regain strength.  After the natural stocks have recovered, fishing will be able to resume, but only with more effective controls and regulations --that must be enforced.

DISCUSSION TOPIC:ENVIRONMENTALIST OPPOSITION TO SALMON RANCHING

First, we must remember that salmon "ranching" is producing a high-dollar-value product that is consumed by above-median income consumers in wealthy nations. We are not feeding the masses here. Next, it is critical to produce these ranch or farm salmon without impacting the wild salmon populations. The fish pens quickly overcome the assimilation capacity of the ranch environments with their feed and metabolic wastes. Their ecological footprint is much larger than the ranch. Many salmon have been transplanted to non-native habitats and their escape into the receiving environment is inevitable. The impact of these introductions is unpredictable. Any "domesticated" species represents just a tiny fraction of the species gene pool and "unnatural selection." After escapement, gene frequencies in the wild population may be altered. The dense aggregations of salmon in the ranch pens stress the fish and greatly facilitate disease transmission and epidemic conditions, which may impact wild populations. Finally, piscivorous predators are attracted to the salmon ranch and their depredation leads to efforts to reduce bird and marine mammal populations.

The total catch of chum salmon is 300,000 and as 60% comes of ranching, ranching and enhancement operations have an impact on the environment. Enhancement operations, which utilize some aquaculture techniques, such as
methods of closing the life cycle, are susceptible to the same risks, such as pollution. As one of four of the most ominous threats to the natural environment, pollution from ranching and enhancement can pose a serious problem.  Eutrophication from point source pollutants changes the ecosystem and  threatens species diversity.  Hence, despite the practice's ability to meet human needs it can risk the ability to meet those needs on a larger scale
if entire ecosystems are threatened.

There is opposition to the ranching/enhancement operations of chum and other salmon species by environmentalists because of the long term outcomes that these operations are posing.  While these operations may be meeting "human needs" for the time being, eventually we are going to wear them out and drive salmon to the brink of extinction.  According to Michelle Tay at the University of Oregon, the chum has "followed a pattern of decline if viewed from a 30 year perspective. In 1964, there were 632 recorded specimens. In 1985 there were 97 recorded and in 1985 there were only 60." This clearly shows that we are overharvesting our chum salmon stock.  There seems to be a general call and need for regulation in the harvesting of chum, making sure that enough salmon are left to replenish the hatchery's stock for the next season.  The other key concern is that by producing more hatchery fish than there are ocean-produced fish there is a threat to biodiversity.  This is because the hatchery and natural chum would be competing for the same territory and the ocean chum would most likely loose because of their small number compared with the hatchery chum.  The problem with having only hatchery chum is that it has been discovered that these fish tend to have more problems when they are forced to live in the wild.  According to the NWPPC hatchery chum have smaller migration rates and they cannot survive various temperature changes in the water.  This inability to survive in the wild would eventually lead to a permanent decline in the chum population.  So you can see why environmentalists would be opposed to hatcheries.  While hatcheries may be a temporary solution to the world's protein problem, they cannot be a permanent solution, at least not without some changes in human behavior.

The 65.3% of chum salmon from Alaska and other significant percentages of other salmon species going into hatcheries or other enhancement operations is really an issue between the environment, economists, and ethics.  I will explain the problem first, then issue both sides of the argument. The vast majority of chum salmon come from Alaska because in the areas it is demanded most the chum has become scarce.  In Japan and northern Europe, the price is high for salmon, whereas in certain parts of the U.S., the fish does not have a reputable liking therefore called "dog" salmon.  However, instead of being eaten the "dog" salmon is heavily hunted since it is the second largest Pacific salmon species after Chinook.  To get an idea of the intensity of captures for the market, in the past few years 11 million chum salmon were caught in Alaska, totaling over $32 million. Scientists, environmentalists, economists all saw the need for solving the overfishing otherwise we would all be at a loss.

"Ranching" or developing enhancement methods of these fish were solutions to scientists and economists in order to keep up with market demands and not leaving salmon in extinction.  For chum salmon, it is easy to raise in hatcheries because they enter the ocean with the need for care and feeding anyway, so it seemed perfect.  Three primary enhancement methods are streamside incubation, containing the baby fish in a permeable box while in a natural river setting; restoration, stabilizing and rebuilding water habitats to grow the fish; and public education, where there would be incubators in classrooms to teach information, like the 4-year maturity rate for chum salmon, in order to understand the capacity level for replenishing fish.  The economists set up permits to move the fish and the scientists would do all the necessary research, cataloging, sampling, and data analysis.

Sound perfect?  Well, not to the environmentalists against this "disturbance of nature."  There are several arguments against enhancement, ranching, or hatcheries.  1)  Artificial upbringing in any enhancement model will result in a reduced survival rate once released.  They will have to compete with the wild fish for resources and for gravel beds and the upbringing will lessen the "enhanced" fish.  2)  The gene pool will be limited in a hatchery, which will cause uniformity or a monoculture.  Two things will happen:  the dominant trait will be distributed to the entire stock and may later become a different species or a sub-species, and there will be a loss of genetic diversity to sustain themselves and would become extremely sensitive to diseases of the wild fish.  3)  Bears, eagles, and otters feed on salmon and would be directly affected by their abundance after a hatcheries release.  4)  The upstream will lose important sources of nutrients provided by decaying carcasses of salmon lured to certain areas to spawn .  5)  As an ethical issue, altering ecological niches and genetically engineered fishes for the benefits of humans is not right.  6) In the economic sense, "hatcheries are costly and divert resources from other efforts" (Pacific Rivers Council 195).  Even a natural hatchery is difficult to manage and rivers may not even be clean enough to support the fish babies.  These arguments show that environmentalists realize the threat to the salmon wild stocks and hope the seemingly plausible reasons for hatcheries will soon be proven to not be the solution.  With chum salmons hatchery revenues of $10,459,811 in 1996 in Alaska, environmentalists feel the economic interest is the driving force for them to sustain salmon, which is in the long run a short ended solution.

In the West Coast 300,000 metric tons of Chum Salmon are harvested, and 60% of that portion comes from "ranching".  Ranching is similar to aquaculture.  The same techniques are used, but in "ranching" the fish are
harvested in the sea rather than in captivity.  The founder stock is found in the wild.  The salmon are spanwned and are grown into frys.  Then they are  nursed into fingerlings, and then finally grow out to adults and sold to market.  The problem that environmentalist may have is that the  fisheries may be altering the genetic diversity of the salmon.  When choosing the founder stock the fisheries look for viral free fish.  Also they may harvest the larger fish, in hopes that the average length of the fishes spawned may be larger.  In my opinion fish ranching may become like farming.  Scientists and botanists have figured out how to alter the genes of some fruits and plants to make them larger or seedless.  Maybe gene altering of Salmon can occur in fish ranching.  Another problem with
ranching is the idea of "tragedy of the commons".  No one can own the ocean, everyone has a right to use it.  And this is where the problem can arise.  Because 60% of Chum Salmon come from ranching more people will want to take part in this growing market.  An increase in ranches could destroy the natural habitats of the ocean.  The resources used to maintain the ranches will be depleted, and the Salmon could die along with the habitat.  Tragedy of the commons can be avoided if we limited the number of fish ranches.  But another problem arises, and that is property rights.  Who is allowed to ranch?

Environmentalists have many reasons to oppose the rearing of salmon in fish farms. For instance, the surrounding waters will become more heavily polluted do to the excrement from the fish. This waste travels from the fish farm and out into the ocean. Along with this water, there could be bacteria/parasites which could upset the ecosystem the waste water is running into. Also, if the fish are raised in a non-native area, disaster could strike if any happened to make it into the surrounding waters. Representing a major unbalance in the local ecosystem, the non-fish would compete (and possibly outcompete) the native fish. While the world does need protein and fish farming is an easier
way to provide it, there are inherent dangers that are being overlooked. More research should be done in terms of the sustainability of not only the farm(s), but anything they might influence as well. This will allow protein for the hungry and less consequences for the fish farm industry.

Opposition to the practice of ranching by environmentalists may be due to a number of reasons.  First, the fishing industry uses more resources and advanced technology than is efficient to produce the number of yields of fish to meet the needs of the people.  They are investing a large amount of money and energy into feeding a population dependent on fish.  However, with the growing population, the greater the demand for fish, such as chum salmon, will also increase the demand on our natural resources.  Second, the practice of ranching does not promote species
diversity but may encourage inbreeding.  If a distinct genetic subgroup of salmon were grown in this aquaculture, a disease or a non-native predatory species introduced to the area would deplete the salmon population.  Referring back to Goodland and Daly, sustainability encompasses different types.  If the natural environment is disrupted by ranching or the depletion of resources for the fishing boat, the ecosystem would not be able to sustain itself.  If eventually the costs of fishing were not yielding the number of fishes needed to maintain human needs, it might devastate a country's economy.  If humans insist on eating enormous amounts of fish (though I understand the need for protein in the countries of Asia), the depletion of resources and the effects on the economy will have a huge impact on the environment.  Unless social changes are made, the problem may worsen.

        Environmentalists oppose salmon aqua-culture practises for good reasons.  Intensive aqua-farming done in the US is expensive and inefficent.  Specifically, Chum Salmon farms are catering to the wealthy minority, and are not a majority food producer.  Most people around the world cannot afford to eat salmon at current world market prices.
         From a world resource perspective, salmon ranching is linear in production.  The use of fossil fuels, and protein fishfoods, medicinals for disease, transportation expenses and  water pollution,  all add up to big bucks for production and a huge strain on natural resources. The parallel can be seen on land.  Intensive agriculture does basiclly the same thing. "Cage farming is among the most expensive food-producing systems, comparable to intensive terrestrial systems such as broiler farming or pig raising."(Folke and Kautsky1991).  This fact is often not known to the consumer.
        Specific problems for salmon farms include non-point pollution. Pollution is one of the big four envirnmental impacts that is changing the world.  Since salmon farms are a monoculture system in the US, recycling of wastes does not occur.  Some "enhancement operations"  are similar to sewage discharges, and have similar effects.  Oxygen depletion due to eutrophication leads to biota loss (Folke and Kautsky 1991).  Pollution from salmon farms affects the surrounding water bodies, thus having a much larger ecological footprint when looked at from a global perspective.
        Another serious issue is hatchery salmon combing with wild stocks. The differences in the genetic diversity within the species is lower in the ranched salmon, making them more suspetible to diseases.  Also competition
for breeding grounds, food and water quality, also upset the natural cycles of the wild salmon.
        There is no doubt that humans need to expand aqua-culture to feed the growing masses.  The world's fish stocks are going, going, gone. Sustainable protein production is absolutely essential.  Improving aquaculture by sing social resources like China's method of combing aqua-culture practies would be a great start.  Controlling and re-using the subsquent dischrges from salmon farms is also a must.  There are methods out there that are environmentally friendly and economically successful. Implimentation on a timely basis is the of sustainable aqua-culture practises is the best shot at saving the environment along with the people.

        I found Katherine Jeanhyo's disscussion, specifically her ponit #5, ethics of salmon farming.  I stronly feel that the issue of ethical pracitises from a humanatarian stand point should be one of the first things addressed when looking at aqua-culture farming problems/solutions.
        Bob Macfarlane's  comments on 'piscivorous predators' also piqued my interest.  I would like to know why/ how pisicivorous predators attracted to the salmon farms affect avian and marine mammal popluations.

There have been reports of sea lions, and perhaps other seal species, gathering at fish farm pens, entranced with all of those juicy fish just out of reach. Attempts have been made, apparently with some success, to tear into the nets and get at the fish. Also some salmon fishermen have complained about sea lions eating salmon bottle-necked at dams and fish passages.

Populations of both double-crested and olivaceus (neotropical) cormorants have been increasing. Since they are migratory species they are protected by international treaty with Canada and Mexico. The cormorants have come to love catfish ponds in the south. Since they are divers, rather than waders like herons and egrets, it is difficult to
keep cormorants out unless you cover the entire pond, and most ponds are too large for that. There is now motion in Congress to exempt cormorants and other fish-eating birds from protection, or at least grant them "take" permits that will allow the farmers to shoot them. I personally feel that farmers need to simply accept these losses as part of doing business, much as terrestrial farmers have to accept blackbird damage, etc. I mean, if you build it (the fish pond), and they (the birds) come, for free eats, that's just tough. Since it is the fish farmers' actions that have attracted the birds, that is no justification for reducing wild bird populations.

     Environmentalists as well as other ecologically minded individuals are opposed to the pracitce of fish ranching operations because of their negative impact of the water , the watershed and eventually the ocean. The fish are to live in a closed environment tightly compacted in an unnatrual living condition.  This causes mental impact on the fish and perhaps there procreation ability and desire.  Interfearing on any aniamals needs, desires and life scheme is in and of itself a terrible thing.  Because they pack so many fish into such a small area, the fish's waste has an impact on the ecosystem is greater then the ecosystems ability to fully except and deal with it.  It also interfears on the natural life cycle of the Salmon to go out to sea and return later at a certain specified time that is essential to the Salmon's existance on the earth.   To feed the earth and the huge addition to it in the future , we need to not eat meat, but eat vegetables and grain.  This yields to a much better exchange rate of protien and calories, then does eating meat.

Mangroves provide precious ecosystem services to humanity. How can valuation of mangrove ecosystem services assist in structuring the policy and regulatory role of governments to preserve these ecosystems? Give an example(s) to illustrate your point.

If we correctly appraise mangroves for all the things they can do for us now and in the future, we would be much more likely to protect them.  The largest obstacle to mangrove pretection right now is that they are often only taken for their economic value that they present here and now.  If we for instance consider mangroves for their valuable protection of roads, and cities near shorelines, perhaps people would want to protect mangroves, so that they can enjoy the protection that will be provided for them by a mangrove ecosystem in return.  I think it would be easier to convey the value of mangroves for their shoreline protection if we do convert that value to a number.  Floods that wipe out entire areas that could have been protected by mangroves should be studied and the economic
value of the destruction that was caused by the flooding can be used to show people and policy makers just how much mangroves are worth.  If thevalue of a destroyed city is more than the value that mangroves are often
given when only the monetary price of their trees for logging and maybe the value for the food they provide, then action will be taken to protect them.

First of all, mangrove is a very high productive plant as ecotone between the coast and tropical rainforests. Mangroves litter production is 896 grams dry wt./m^2/year (Lugo and Snedaker 1974), and 2248c/m^2 /year
to the soils and waters.  Mangrove leaf litter provides nutrient to feed bacteria so C/N ratio is going down. It provides Nitrogen that is the most essential element for all organisms, and it has a high rate protein.

Secondly, mangrove is a good habitat for diversity organisms; therefore, it is ecologically very important.

Thirdly  it is the most productive food resources for fishes since scientists are concerned about decreasing amount of fishes by being caught by people. Also mangrove causing turbidity reduces the effectiveness of large predators.

Fourthly, its ability to treat humans wasted is important. Mangrove ecosystems have been proposed as an alternative low cost sewage treatment system.

Therefore, mangrove is enormous beneficial to not only sustainable oceans but the whole ecosystem of the earth. Now, people get realizing why wetland should be preserved to treat wastewater and to keep it as organisms habitats. However, its just the beginning of recognition that mangrove has more efficient functions to sustain ecological system than other organisms.

Placing value on the mangrove ecosystems starts by understanding why it is valuable to us in the first place.  Mangroves are wedged between fresh water lakes and rivers and salt water oceans that provide essential
nutrients to the multitude of flora and fauna in the surrounding areas. It does not just supply food, however, mangroves are homes and shelters for the neighboring creatures as well.  Mangroves also feed people with
the fish, crabs, shellfish, prawns, and even honey that is nurtured there. Mangroves also provide medicines to health problems (i.e., skin disorders), and tools (i.e., hard wood) that people have become dependent
on.  Furthermore, mangroves provide other "ecosystem services" besides homes, protein and human amenities, which affect life beyond the mangrove ecosystem.  The services include coastal protection, soil building, and watershed protection.  There are so many valuable services that it may be a surprise that mangroves are in danger of survival. Once the value of mangroves are understood, addressing the problem and taking action are the next steps in structuring public policies on mangroves.  The problems are a multitude in itself, but the main problems
are the uncontrolled population growth, mangrove resource destruction (either by pollution, clearing, or over using the resources), and even the development of shrimp aquaculture.  Once the values are embedded in people and the destruction is known, several types of action can influence legislatures in preserving our precious mangroves.  Such examples include grassroots activism, lobbying, fund raising, local level organizations, voting, campaigns, etc. to help the mangrove's survival.  Pressure on the government increases when the local level activism spreads in the media to eventually make an impact at the national level.  The national uprising will add on the pressure and finally influence policy decisions that deal with finding ways to secure mangroves in a stable condition so that mangroves in the long run can stablize us.

Mangroves provide precious ecosystem services to humanity.  By slowing the flow of water from the mainland, they trap the sediments and create more land.  The leaves, which become detritus are a valuable part of the food
web.  This web increases the amount of fish in the area and if there is less detritus there will be increasingly less fish, which would be awful for the inhabitants of the area because fish are one of the main staples for life, both for food and also for income.  The roots of the mangroves help to stabilize the otherwise unstable, soft soils in the coastal areas. Another wonderful thing about mangroves is that they serve as giant environ-breaks if you will.  When there are harsh tropical storms, mangroves stand between the sea and the mainland, acting as a shield to
protect both the city and its inhabitants.  Without this environ-break there would be nothing to cut down the harsh winds and pounding waves that would endanger the villages.  By governments viewing mangroves in terms of
the important services that they provide for the country and for the people, they would be able to see how important it is that they take an active role in preserving the mangroves.  By calculating how much it would cost to stop the runoff of soils another way, how much it would cost in economic hardship for the country to loose part of its fish population, how much it would cost to stabilize the unstable soils of the coast some other way, and most importantly how much it would cost both monetarily and in human hardship to have to constantly be repairing the towns that would be exposed to the harsh sea during storms, the governments would be able to see that mangroves are a natural and very valuable asset that they should not exploit and get rid of.  Once a government realizes all the
services that mangroves provide, government policies could be made to increase preservation.  There could be policies enacted dictating how many mangrove trees per year could be cut down for wood.  This policy could be
formed by determining how long it would take to replace the mangroves being cut down, either by planting them or by the naturally placed mangrove seeds.  There could also be policies regulating the use of mangroves for shrimp aquaculture, limiting both the size and amount of aquaculture establishments permitted.  The bottom line is that governments need to actively appreciate this very valuable natural resource by protecting it and appreciating what mangroves do for their country.

Mangroves are a very important ecosystem. In terms of ecosystem services, mangroves provide soil building, watershed stabilization, coastal protection, fish habitats and nurseries, and a source of protein for people living near them (Web Chapter 4). With all of these benefits, it is sad to say that massive amounts of deforestation of mangroves is occuring. Valuation of mangrove ecosystems services can assist in structuring policy, by showing that
more money can come out of keeping mangroves intact than by destroying them. For example, it is known that fish use mangroves as nurseries. If mangroves are destroyed, eggs/fry would be consumed far more quickly due to the lack of shelter. This, in turn, would dwindle the stock of that species. This would affect humans as well, especially if that particular species of fish is caught for a source of protein. Fishers would not find a profit, fish markets would
not make a profit, and ultimately the consumers would lose money by having to pay more for the fish. As one can see, mangroves must be preserved in order to sustain life. Now is the time to start to value what little mangroves we have left.

If the value of mangroves as a nursery area for finfish and shellfish is given special recognition, it raises the awareness of government employees and citizens. For example, the Galveston Bay National Estuary
Program was instrumental in getting two small estuary sub-bays designated as Coastal Preserves by the state of Texas. As a result, an environmental inventory was conducted of the areas, remnant seagrass meadows (of 4 species of grass) were brought to the attention of everyone, and a management plan was instituted. Now, whenever a proposed development may have an impact on the coastal preserve, either the employees of the regulatory agencies, or members of the public, are quick to respond to the threat. The regulators have a reason to deny or
modify the proposed action. The public, who seem to be more alert than the regulators, alert the media and environmental groups to the impending crisis. These areas were long recognized by fisheries biologists and wildlife biologists as important nursery areas vital to wildlife and fishes, but without the special protection that the Coastal
Preserve brings to them, they were generally overlooked or ignored. The designation provides a tool or weapon to those who wish to protect them and raises the general consciousness level of their existence and importance.

        Mangrove habitats world wide have seen major losses.  22% loss in Honduras, almost entirely due to shrimp farm land use.  38% loss in Thailand with 80% of that loss due to shrimp farm development.  These are just a few examples of the sprawling destruction that is occurring around the globe.  The real crime in these areas mentioned is that the shrimp farms created where mangroves once stood are now in disrepair, or completely abandoned due to crop failure.  Most of these farms met with diseases that crashed the shrimp populations such as yellow head.  Soil
acidification (acid sulphate) was also a contributor to problems in re-establishing new growth (N.J. Stevenson 1997).

          This is not the only form or reason for mangrove destruction. Salt pond production, industrial discharges, urban growth, and mining all have a hand in habitat losses.  Governments must look at mangrove habitat in a more collective manner, see their collective value and defend these areas of intense biodiversity and energy production.  Socio/economic evaluations need to include energy exchange rates, sedimentaion barriers, estuary value for nuturing finfish and crustacean populations,  human interests that depend upon the local mangrove stands (web Ch 4) and biodiversity storehouse values.  These are just  a few reasons to protect these amazing environments.  Monitoring protected areas is absolutely essential if regualations are to be adhered to.

       In additon to regulating destruction of mangroves, governments as well as individuals can aid in restoring some of these disturbed areas.  If restoration is feasible (meaning there isn't a building or factory now on the land) then steps should be taken to attempt restoration.  Though re-creation of a mangrove stand is still in the exploratory stages, we learn by doing.  Replanting success has not been established because there is no data on the subject.  Where mangroves have been replanted, no evaluations have been done to determine success (N.J Stevenson 1997). Hopefully the near future will see that change.

     I think that the main achievement necessary to bring mangrove valuation into policies and regulatory actions is education.  The members of the governments responsible for these roles need to be informed of the entire value of the mangroves.  There are many aspects to mangroves that are incredibly beneficial, but may not be well known, especially to certain people in the government.  Although some government officials are concerned with the
environment, not all are conscious of the problems.  These people must be educated so they know why the mangroves need to be protected.  This education could come from environmental groups, lobbyists, or  citizens--anyone interested in helping.

    The full economic value of keeping the mangroves intact should be stressed.  Bringing economics into the argument could help foster support. Some people, politicians included, may not fully appreciate the fuctions that
mangroves serve.  However, by pointing out how much these fuctions are worth monetarily, these people may be swayed into helping the preservation.  The almighty dollar can have incredible effects.  Mangrove value needs to be assessed to the full extent.  Every possible value should be accounted for. Keeping the mangroves intact needs to be presented as valuable as possible.

    Government officials at all levels need to be addressed.  Local officials in regions with mangroves, state officials, national officials, and international organizations can all play a role in preserving the mangroves. Countries that do have remaining mangroves should be pressured to keep them intact.  With so little of the mangrove forests remaining, they need all the support they can get.