The reading states that a fishing ban is not the best course of action to protect menhaden's and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor states that the author should re-examining the subject reveals differnet point and refutes each of the authors' reasons. First, the reading states that making restrictions on the fishes made a big . The lecture states that the ecology will be balanced then after the relation between the predator prey will be balanced after that. Second, the reading states that menhaden are a food source for all animals, the prohibition of fishing menhaden would break a supply chain. The professor counters this point by saying that menhaden is not the only food source, so anyone can replace the menhaden.
