What outcomes could Be expected?
Fisheries often fall prey to overfishing and the exhaustion of stock. Fishing governance is an ongoing attempt to prevent such an outcome. Over time, fisheries regulation has generally moved from controls on inputs to controls on output, such as catch limits and Individual Transferable Quotas. Individual Transferable Quotas have reduced overcapitalization, and have in some cases allowed stocks to rebuild. However, because they enable market trading of catch shares which tends to concentrate fisheries in fewer hands.
This paper proposes applying a duty of stewardship to the existing fisheries governance structure. "Stewardship" is an obligation to be responsible for taking care of another person's property. The concept of stewardship easily applies to fisheries, because fisheries are natural resources which belong to the public. Current regimes, such as Individual Transferable Quotas ("ITQs") do not do enough to prevent the employment of destructive fishing practices and place the burden of natural resource management on the government. Assigning a duty of stewardship upon fishers, whether they own or lease an ITQ, would require fishers to be stewards of common resources and use responsible fishing practices.
The tragedy of the commons is a well-known phenomenon that describes what can happen if there are no controls on the use of a shared resource and too many users willing to deplete that resource (Hardin ). Fisheries often fall prey to the tragedy of the commons, and fishing regulation can be regarded as the ongoing attempt to prevent this outcome (Macinko and Schumann ). A variety of methods have been employed to manage fisheries, from input controls such as designated season lengths and types of gear that can be used to output controls such as catch limits. (Macinko and Schumann ). Many countries have implemented Individual Transferable Quotas, a form of property right that can be transferred. While ITQs have reduced overcapitalization of fish stocks, they have also enabled market trading which concentrates fisheries in fewer hands (Ecotrust Canada ; Bromley and Macinko ).
This paper proposes applying the duty of stewardship to all fishers. ITQs have reduced overfishing, but have insufficiently protected fisheries from destructive fishing practices and have resulted in the concentration of fishing into the hands of a few with less reason to think beyond the profits garnered today. As it stands today, the regulator alone is accountable for protecting the resource. Therefore, it has become necessary to legally require that fishers be responsible for protecting the health and productivity of the resource from which they extract. If the immediate benefits of employing certain types of fishing techniques outweigh the negatives of using other practices which are better for the long-term, then fishers have no incentive to be stewards of the fisheries. Consequently, the duty of stewardship must be applied to fishers via individual fishing contracts and/or government regulation that can be applied to any fisher.
The tragedy of the commons theory suggests that multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally on behalf of their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource if there are no individual property rights. According to the theory, this will happen even though each individual knows that depletion of the resource is not in their own interest, nor in anyone's long-term interest (Hardin ).
Private property rights are one way to effectuate sustainable stewardship of shared resources. Farmers are incentivized to conserve land when given permanent and exclusive ownership of that area (Leal ). When the owner can reap the benefits as well as suffer the consequences for misuse of property the owner is incentivized to consider the long-term consequences of mis-management land use. As Ziff puts it: "Private property can operate to reduce the ability of an owner to shunt off costs onto others. In the language of economics, private ownership can reduce social costs or `negative externalities'" (Ziff ). While private property incentivizes more sustainable stewardship of common resources, private ownership does not guarantee conservation of resources. If the value of short-term exploitation outweights the value of long-term conservation, then economic theory suggests that private owners have no incentive to act in such a way to protects the future availability of that resource. In fact, most private owners prefer profits now over profits later (Macinko and Bromley ). Bromley, presents several examples of laws that have been promulgated in order to legally require that property owners take care of their property, and argues that these laws would not need to exist if ownership was a sufficient incentive to maintain that property in good order. He concludes: "To be precise about the matter, if the `time preference' of a private owner is such that income now trumps income in the future, then private owners will be quite intent on liquidating (destroying) a renewable natural resource in order to spend the proceeds—or invest them elsewhere" (Bromley ). Consequently, private property rights are not always sufficient to prevent the destruction of a shared resource.
Private ownership is only one solution to natural resource protection. Regulations which focus on the harm can also serve to preserve shared resources. As Ziff points out, "the tragedy of the commons story is not so much an argument in favour of private property as it is a manifestation of the perils of unregulated common property" (Ziff ). Many researchers do not believe that the solution lies in property laws. Driesen, for example, advocates for a solution that focuses "upon the harms" and not on ownership (Driesen ). For example, pastures in the Swiss Alps have successfully been managed as common property for centuries without suffering from overgrazing. (Ziff ; Taylor ; Stevenson ). Another solution includes a permit system which places limitations specifically on the permit holder. In summary: private property rights are but one one possible way of preventing the tragedy of the commons. Researchers hold widely varying views about the relative effectiveness of the various possible solutions. What is not in doubt is that when there is completely unregulated, open access to a limited shared resource, then that resource is very likely to be depleted and destroyed (de Schutter ). Without regulation, natural resources like fisheries are likely to be depleted.
The problems related to open access marine fisheries lead fishermen to lack in responsibilities for future benefit flows. In fact, theoretically, open-access fishery implies that fishermen only care about their own catch today, but completely disregard their potential catch tomorrow and in the more distant future (Clark ). It is sometimes held that wealth or the prospect of wealth leads to over exploitation of resources and that myopic behaviour of fishermen is a result of the human nature (Ludwig et al. ). However, from an economics perspective, the problem is rather that poorly defined property rights lead to perverse economic incentives, which causes excessive effort and shortsightedness (Björndal and Munro, ).
Ownership alone is insufficient to prevent the irresponsible depletion of shared resources. Ostrom finds that the tragedy of the commons applies to fisheries with only one significant difference: the basis for ownership is capture rather than long-term possession. Coastal waters are ripe for overfishing, but regulatory controls and enforcement of such controls can protect fisheries.
Among the first effort to preserve fisheries was the introduction of licences (Squires ). Rather than having open access to fisheries, fishers now had to have licenses which granted them the right to fish. Only a limited number of licenses were available to be given out. As fishing technology has improved, fishers have been able to vastly increase their catch. This meant that the total fishing capacity of the fleet came to easily surpass the sustainable yield. In response to overfishing, governments applied strict conditions on licences, but problems persisted (National Research Council ). In some instances, fishing was limited to a certain number of days per year. In other instances, licenses limited the size of the vessels that could be used. Unfortunately these limitations had little effect – fishers quickly developed more efficient ways to fish the same amount of fish in the reduced timeframe and enhanced their fishing nets to make up for the size of their boat. Without protections, fishers had no incentive to fish sustainably because if they did not catch the fish today, their competitor would catch that fish.
To combat overfishing, governments restricted fishing by setting limits on the quantity of fish stocks that could be fished by license holders (Kerr et al. ). Thus, the regulatory approach shifted from a system by which who could fish and what could be used to fish was controlled (i.e. input control) to a system where catch limits were imposed (i.e. output control). Many output control regimes use a type of limited property right called an Individual Transferable Quota ("ITQ"). In an ITQ regime, the government sets a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for a region and/or a fish species, and grants fishers shares of the TAC, what is known as an ITQ. ITQs are transferable - they can be leased and sold. Transferability is permitted becauseit is expected that this will lead to "efficiency"; the fishermen with the lowest costs will be able to place the highest bids for the ITQs (FAO ). Herein lies the problem – the license holders no longer have any more than a financial stake in the health and viability of the fishery.
ITQs have reduced overfishing and helped to preserve fish stocks. The most important impact of ITQs has been to put a stop to the "race to fish." Some fisheries utilize the TACs, but do not assign individual quotas. This means that each season a TAC is set and once that TAC has been met in the aggregate the fishing season is closed. This system incentivizes individual fisheries to use whatever techniques to capture as many fish as quickly as possible. There are no consequences for using techniques that are harmful to the health of the fishery (such as techniques that capture significant amounts of bycatch in addition to the desired catch). Thus, behaviors dedicated to simply maximizing profits do not guarantee the most rational behavior nor the most productive, sustainable approach. Market based principles such as profit maximization do not actually guarantee that industries will act in their best interests.
While ITQ regulations have succeeded in conserving the particular fish stock managed by the ITQ regime, there is no certainty that ITQs alone can protect the future viability of the fishery (Chu ). If the TAC for a fishery is set too high, ITQs may succeed in limiting the catch to that amount, but too many fish will be caught and the resource will eventually be exhausted. Therefore, ITQs make little difference unless the TAC is set at the appropriate level. But even if the TAC has been properly set, exhaustion can be economically rational under a property rights regime if the benefits of fishing today outweigh the benefits of leaving fish for tomorrow (i.e. the discount rate). Sumaila modeled Canada's Atlantic cod fishery off Newfoundland, and found that a discount rate of 20% resulted in a predicted collapse that closely paralleled the actual collapse that occurred after ITQs were introduced to that fishery (Sumaila ).
ITQs have been criticized for a number of reasons. First, ITQ regimes have enabled fishers with licenses to reap significant profits, but have not set aside any money for the public or for the protection of the natural resource (Bromley ). As a public resource, it seems reasonable that the public should be compensated for the yearly depletion of the fish, even if it is sustainably depleted. Also, it would seem that license-holders should be responsible for contributing to efforts to maintain the health and viability of fish and their habitat. Second, ITQregimes typically concentrate ownership and profits into a few parties, usually large fishing companies and processors (Copes and Charles ). This often results in job losses and can be associated with the disappearance of small fishers who cannot compete with the larger companies. The hardest hit by the concentration of licenses in large fishing operations are the coastal communities and small-scale fisheries who depend on the fish for a livelihood and food (Davis ). As a result, ITQs have often faced intense opposition from small-scale and traditional fishers (Macinko ). Researchers are concerned about the consequences of utilizing ITQs in Third World nations, where traditional fisheries are seen as necessary for the survival of millions of low-income people (Kurien ). Even in wealthier nations, there are fears about the long-term impacts on ecosystems and communities that may result if economic efficiency is allowed to be the sole determinant of fisheries policy. Consequently, many are seeking alternative policy strategies that could achieve some of the benefits of ITQs while avoiding their worst negative impacts.
This paper proposes defining the legal duty of stewardship to fisheries and marine ecosystems and applying this duty of stewardship to the existing fisheries governance structure.
What is a duty of stewardship? Black's Law Dictionary defines a steward as "a person appointed to manage the affairs of another" (Garner ). Thus, the person who owns a valuable item outright generally has no duty of stewardship with respect to that item. There is nolegal obligation to take care of the item owned, though there may be obligations to take care that your ownership does not affect other privately owned items. Duties of stewardship, either implicit or explicit, abound in our everyday lives.
Land is one privately owned "item" where many researchers have discussed the application of the duty of stewardship. Legal experts, such as Hamilton () and Karp (), have argued that landowners should be subject to a duty of stewardship with respect to their land, even if they own it in fee simple. Under traditional concepts of land ownership, a landowner has complete freedom to use their land as they wish. This view is contrary to traditional concepts of ownership, which are founded on the idea that a landowner has nearly complete freedom to do as he likes with his land. This traditional view, however, is severely weakened by the fact that what an owner does with his land can have significant impacts on other people, across space and time. According to Karp (), "[l]and is fundamentally different from other forms of property. Because any parcel of land is part of a network of natural systems extending beyond the boundaries described in the deed, it attains an importance superior to any individual landowner or to any period in time. Land is essential to our right of survival". In a few jurisdictions, notably Iowa, this concept has been recognized and validated in common law, thus restricting the freedom of landowners to some degree (Hamilton ).
The concepts of stewardship and "land ethic" are highly controversial in the agricultural realm because these concepts appear to infringe on the presumption that the owner of real property should be free to do with their property as they wish. Legally speaking, fisheries are different from farms. While land owners own the land, fishers own neither the uncaught fish, nor the water in which the fish swim. Uncaught fish and marine resources, generally, are considered the property of the public. Therefore, the concept of a duty of stewardship – a responsibility to take care of the property of others - is compatible with the legal nature of a fishery. Because fishers are not owners, fishers must be explicitly subject to a duty of stewardship in order to be held legally accountable for fishing responsible.
Most proponents of ownership-based schemes such as ITQs argue that ownership itself promotes the conservation and protection of marine resources similarly to someone subject to a duty of stewardship. ITQ supporters believe that proper stewardship behavior results from a properly designed and implemented ITQ regime (Bromley ). Macinko and Whitmore dismiss this claim, and state: "The simple truth is that ownership does not ensure stewardship or conservation. We know … that both private and public owners may either care for natural resources or abuse them" (Macinko and Whitmore ).
While ownership may or may not improve the odds that an individual will be a good steward of natural resources, another important question remains. Will the future stream of benefits derived from being a good steward exceed the current benefits of natural resource overexploitation? Or in other words, what is a fisher's incentive to be a steward? It is rational to expect an owner to exploit natural resources if the benefits of taking natural resources today is greater than the benefits of ensuring their future existence. Much of this depends on the actions of other fishers who are at the same time weighing the same concerns. The fear is that another fisher will get what you did not catch, but have the capacity to catch. Therefore, without legislated or contractually set limitations on how and what a fisher can catch, the tragedy of the commons persists.
Poaching and illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing (IUU) alters the benefits that fishers can expect in the future. If fishers believe that other fishers can cheat and increase their returns, the future benefit stream will be seen as risky. Effective and credible enforcement will reduce the risk of being a good steward and balance current and future benefits. Therefore, proper enforcement is an integral part to the solution. Inherently this means that the management scheme would not in fact be voluntary. For fisheries, stewardship does not automatically flow from ownership. Consequently a duty of stewardship needs to be explicitly created and imposed (Macinko ). It is dangerous to assume that adequate stewardship will result simply from assigning ownership rights.
According to Macinko stewardship should be the goal itself, a mechanism for achieving conservation. He describes stewardship as "an ethic, an attitude, a responsibility" (Macinko ). For Macinko, the term "Stewardship" represents the legal and operational mechanism that this paper calls a "duty of stewardship", and the underlying meta-governance principles and ethics that justify creating this mechanism.
Ownership of property is tied to certain property laws, depending on the type of ownership. Without a legislated or contractual duty, the duty of stewardship is to be understood as a duty under tort law. The idea is that the duty of stewardship is applicable regardless of the category of property rights at play or it can be utilized in association with management measures that do not involve property rights. The duty of stewardship is intended to supplemental existing fisheries management methods because the current schemes are incomplete. It is not a standalone duty.
The application of a duty of stewardship is further justified by meta-principles or the underlying principles and assumptions of fisheries governance (Kooiman et al. ). As Kooiman et al. () says, "[w]hen governors define the problems they think should be addressed and the solutions to these problems, they inevitably draw on fundamental assumptions and worldviews that should be brought to the surface so they can be explained, defended and examined". Kooiman proposed a list of twelve ethics and principles for the meta-governance of fisheries (Kooiman et al. ). These principles justify the application of a duty of stewardship to fisheries governance. According to the meta-principles, the preservation of species and ecosystems is morally good. A duty of stewardship promotes environmental ethics by requiring fishers to preserve the marine environment on which they depend.
[I]n many ways Leopold's views provided a theoretical underpinning for the modern ecology movement, which attempts to alter how man relates to the environment and to assign the costs of environmental degradation to those responsible… Even if the United States experiences difficulty developing a true Leopoldian land ethic, it does not mean society is without methods to address agriculture's impact on the environment. In an increasingly legalized society we have come to rely on laws and legal duties as a substitute for a land ethic. Laws which impose a duty on landowners to protect their soil from erosion, such as one enacted in Iowa in 1971, and new laws requiring farmers to account for their impact on the environment have the effect of changing the man-land relation. It is true, by regulating the relation of individuals to society rather than the individual to the land, these laws function in a different ethical dimension than would a true "land ethic." But as society comes to view protecting the environment as a significant societal goal, the substitution of legal duties, although not a perfect proxy for a "land ethic," may be the legacy of the second stage of environmental policy toward agriculture.
The purpose of the "land ethic" is to obligate individuals to be responsible stewards of the land and prevent land degradation. Hamilton does not analyze the success of Iowa's laws in preventing land degradation. However, Eswaran argues that few jurisdictions in the world are successful in preventing land degradation. In addition, there is considerable disagreement about definition of land degradation, and about how it should be assessed and measured (Eswaran et al. ).
The scope of a duty of stewardship driven by the considerations of environmental ethics will vary depending on the focus of the ethic. Under a human-centred environmental ethic, organisms other than humans are valued only according to their effect on humans. A humancentric focus in turn narrows the scope of the duty of stewardship wherein the obligation to prevent environmental degradation extends as far as harms that negatively impact humans. Under a nature-centered environmental ethic, all organisms are morally relevant. Consequentially, the scope of the stewardship duty would be broader because actors would be obligated to avoid negatively impacting any nature.
Sustainable agriculture is defined in various ways, but in its simplest form, it means developing agricultural practices which protect the environment while preserving the economic profitability of farmers. The basis of the concept is that no agricultural system can be successful in either the short or long term unless it is designed to sustain the resources necessary for its operation. These resources include both physical resources of soil, air, and water, and also human and social resources of farm families, rural communities, and the economic structurenecessary for an agrarian system to function.
In other words, sustainable practices provide for current use of natural resources which is not at odds with the future health and viability of those natural resources. Iowa law defines "sustainable agriculture" as actions "preserving the high productivity and quality of Iowa's land" (Iowa Code ). Under Iowa law, agriculturists are required to care for the land so that it remains productive for someone else's use in the future (Iowa Code ). This legal requirement can be equated to the type of duty of stewardship advocated to be applied to fisheries – it is an obligation to preserve a natural resource, may it be land or a fishery, in good enough condition that a future user can enjoy the same quality of resource.
Fisheries are similar to, but not the same as land and agriculture. In the case of fisheries, the general public owns the resource, not the fishers. Even when fishers own quotas, that quota represents a beneficial right to catch a certain quantity of fish not a specific quantity of uncaught fish in the ocean that they own. Sustainable fishing is fishing in a manner that maintains and protects the ecosystems and populations needed to sustain the fishery. Because fishers do not own the fish or the ecosystem in which the fish live, the obligation to be stewards and the benefits derived from being good stewards are not necessarily self-apparent. However, in order to maintain livelihoods and food sources that have been depended on for decades, perhaps even centuries, the responsibility to preserve the fisheries becomes more obvious.
Another important meta-principle and justification for expecting/requiring fishers to be stewards is food security (Bavinck and Chuenpagdee ). Food security is sometimes regarded simply as a matter of quantity, but this is insufficient. The World Bank defines food security as "access by all people at all times to enough food for an active healthy life" World Bank (). Thus, achieving food security requires ensuring that an adequate food supply is physically and economically available to everyone, especially in regions that cannot produce enough food because of climate or geographic constraints, and especially for people with low incomes (Chuenpagdee et al. ). Not surprisingly, small-scale fisheries have been recognized as playing a vital role in improving food security in many countries (Kooiman and Jentoft ).
A duty of stewardship will protect small-scale fisheries and their ability to serve as a livelihood for many and food for others. Small-scale fisheries are the fishers most at risk of unsustainable fishing and illegal fishing. Obligating all fishers to be stewards of the fishery and surrounding ecosystem will benefit everyone, the fisheries and the communities who depend on fishing for a livelihood and source of food.
The duty of stewardship is essentially a call to not act without knowing the consequences. The precautionary principle states that one should not undertake an activity for which there is no evidence of its safety. Specifically, within the environmental context, the principle states that when ecological or health risks are suspects, those risks should be reduced and less-risky alternatives should be pursued where possible (Myers and Raffensperger ). Even in the face of inconclusive science, precautions should be taken. Furthermore, before engaging in activities that could potentially harm the environment, the risks should be researched. As good stewards, the mere possibility that an activity could cause irreparable harm would be sufficient to prevent further actions.
Kooiman recommended that the precautionary principle be applied to fisheries governance in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO ). According to the FAO: "[m]anagement according to the precautionary approach exercises prudent foresight to avoid unacceptable or undesirable situations, taking into account that changes in fisheries systems are only slowly reversible, difficult to control, not well understood, and subject to change in the environment and human values" (Kooiman et al. ). It is hard to say how the actions of today will affect the viability of the fisheries in the future. Consequently, it is in the best interests of fishers to investigate any potential risks from activities before engaging in them. The benefit of requiring the application of the duty of stewardship via legislation or individual fishing contracts is that if a steward has any question about the safety of his/her fishing practices and harms result as a result of his/her fishing, he/she would be responsible.
Kooiman also proposes applying the principles of responsiveness, respect and inclusiveness to fisheries governance (Kooiman et al. ; Kooiman and Jentoft ). All fishery stakeholders should be provided the opportunity to be heard and have their interests protected. They should be actively engaged in the creation and implementation of a fisheries governance structure, which should be structured in such a way to respond to concerns. By including all the stakeholders in the governance structure, you are more likely to get engaged stakeholders who understand and comply with the rules. Furthermore, the group can take advantage of the myriad of expertise available to them via the participation of such a wide group of stakeholders. Many stakeholders already regard themselves as stewards and their leadership within these governance structures can help to educate others.
To insure group values are respected, the rights of the public are vested in the state as trustee of the resource. As such, the state through its administrative agencies has a duty to administer, protect, manage and conserve the resource. Any existing private users have only usufruct rights that can be withdrawn whenever the state deems that they are inconsistent with the public trust. Because there are no private property rights, there is no basis for takings challenges in such reallocations. Furthermore, the legislature cannot alienate trust resources, which must remain with the state.
Under this doctrine, the State is the steward for resources on behalf of the public. In addition, the doctrine holds that the public's ownership of the resource cannot be alienated, and so the resource cannot become private property. If the government were to deny access by the public to these resources held in trust, a "takings challenge" could be initiated against the government (Hamilton ).
A large shortcoming of this doctrine is that while the government has self-designated as the "steward" of such resources, the only actions they are required to take are those that are explicitly prescribed by law. Otherwise, the government is not obligated to act to steward the resources. Therefore, a government cannot be sued unless a statute requires the government to do something, and the government fails to do it. In short, even though the doctrine places the state in a stewardship role, it does not impose a general requirement that the government behave responsibly.
Usufructuary obligations are similar to that of a steward's as described here. A usufruct has the right to enjoy the property and the fruit of that property (i.e. the profits that can be derived from the property such as crops), but does not own full rights to the property. However, the usufruct can lose their right to the property if their actions destroy the property. According to LeVan (), under Anglo-American common law, a legal life tenant "may not change the premises in such a way that remaindermen or reversioners would have "reasonable ground for objection thereto". In Japan, fisheries are managed by Fishery Cooperative Associations ("FCAs"), organizations made up of local fishers (Lim 199-200). The FCAs are responsible for designing the rules their members follow and coordinating with the government which sets allocation limits (McIlwain ). A usufruct prescribes essentially the same obligations as the duty of stewardship. A usufruct is allowed to utilize the resources available to them on the property; however, they cannot reduce the value or quality of the property or natural resources on the property.
Small-scale fisheries in developed countries are recognizing the importance of differentiating their products through sustainability. But to achieve this distinction requires an underlying and fundamental attitude change: these fishers must be able to present themselves as stewards of the sea. In order to benefit from this distinction fishers have developed various marketing schemes such as Consumer Supported Fisheries (CSFs) and Sustainability Labeling Schemes that highlight the use of sustainable fishing methods and the compliance with any fishing regulations in place. These schemes use tools such as eco, sustainable, and wild labeling, and traceability techniques to connect consumers with fishers (Kooiman and Jentoft ). Such marketing will entice consumers to buy only sustainably caught fish and fish-products, thereby pressuring other fishers to become stewards.
The effective use of market-based incentives such as special labels or preferred purchasing agreements requires both a voluntary adoption of the duty of stewardship and an educated consumer. First, consumers must understand how important it is that fishers are stewards. They must be educated as to the import of fishing sustainably and complying withlimits on the stocks and areas in which they can fish. If consumers understand this, they will be more inclined to purchase products to be fished sustainably. Second, fishers must benefit from the voluntary adoption of stewardship practices. In other words, fishers must reap benefits from being distinguished from fishers who do not fish sustainably or act as stewards. While market-based incentives may be effective, the circumstances call for a more immediate shift in practices. Legislation must be promulgated that requires fishers to be stewards, or contracts must be revised/written anew to include provisions requiring stewardship by license holders. There are many fishers who currently, without regulation, act as stewards.
Unfortunately the vast majority of fishers may fish within the limits of their ITQs, but not act as stewards. Being subject to a duty of stewardship would mean that a fisher who uses or consumes a fish stock in a way that destroys that stock or its habitat could be held liable for the damage he/she caused. Explicitly associating a duty to conserve the stock with holding a quota or licence would allow the possibility of legal action by a third party against a resource user who neglects this duty – not only against the regulator, as in the example in the preceding section. If enforced, fishers would be motivated to act as responsible resources managers.
When ITQs are leased, the lessee is less likely to have any feeling of obligation to do more than take advantage of their current license to fish. But the lessor has an incentive to ensure that the lessee does in fact act as a good steward. Similar concerns about the lack of an incentive for leaseholders to conserve a resource arise in agriculture. To combat that, many farm lease agreements include a "good husbandry provision", which act to impose a stewardship obligation upon the leaseholder. Retired landowners in Iowa are increasingly choosing to impose such a duty in farmland leases ([Cox 2011]a). The Iowa Supreme Court has held that "the purpose of a good husbandry provision is mandating the proper use of land rather than requiring high yields", a finding that clearly creates an obligation to act as a good steward of the owner's land ([Cox 2011]b).
If the duty of stewardship was acknowledged as an obligation on all fishers, including the lessees of ITQs, the lessor would be abled to hold the lessee accountable for any damages caused (Hamilton ). Where fishers use destructive practices in instances where they could use lessdestructive fishing gear or methods, lessor could get damages. It is in the lessor's interest to safeguard the future stream of benefits, while the lessee is exposed to strong incentives to maximize his current benefits (Munro et al. ). The duty of stewardship allows the lessor to do so even in the absence of strong enforcement. It might be necessary to state some of the practices that are unacceptable to the lessor, but it would be impossible to include an exhaustive list of everything that is and is not acceptable. Therefore, it will probably be necessary to definethe duty of stewardship in such a way that allows for unforeseen situations in addition to examples of known unacceptable practices. The benefit is that although the duty would cover a wide range of situations, the inclusion of examples would guide the courts and reduce the risk that a court might find the clause to be too vague to be enforced.
A stewardship clause in a quota lease agreement could resemble the following: "It is the duty of the lessee to exercise good stewardship with respect to the fish stock and the environment in which the fish stock lives. Good stewardship is defined as neither fishing, nor conducting other activities in the marine environment, in a manner which will or is likely to significantly degrade the fish stock or its environment, according to experience and/or scientific knowledge that is reasonably available to fishermen, UNLESS no reasonably feasible alternative manner of operation exists." There has been significant research on the proper methods of fishing.
Therefore, this research would serve as the basis for determining what practices and actions do and do not qualify as good proper stewardship. For example, if a lessee was found to utilize bottom trawling which has been found to destroy coral reefs and take in bycatch, the lessee would be found liable for failing to fulfill his duty of stewardship.
At the same time that regulations are put in place, economic incentives can also be used. For example, in order to be able to renew a fishing license the license holder would have to demonstrate adequate stewardship. If a fisher has not been found in breach of this duty, his/her license or quota could be renewed; otherwise it could be revoked. This would also mean that if the ITQ holder leases the quota to another fisher and that fisher fails to comply, the license holder could lose the license. This in essence disincentivizes the licensing of ITQs (which has other negative impacts on fishing, including pushing out small-scale fisheries) and makes the licensor accountable for properly vetting and monitoring the actions of the licensee. One of the benefits is that regulators would not have to dismantle the entire scheme to punish one person. Instead, the regulator would have the authority to cancel a specific fisher's quotas without affecting the system as a whole.
Ideally countries will implement a legislative duty of stewardship. However, if neither statutory law or a contract explicitly defines a duty of stewardship, the courts may be asked to find whether an implied duty of stewardship exists under common law. Different jurisdictions may answer this question differently, unless a higher court with a broader jurisdiction has made a decision. It is then up to practitioners to ask a court whether a duty exists, and whether a party has breached their duty. This is what happened in Heiderscheit, where Iowa's appeal court found an implied covenant of good husbandry (Heiderscheit ).
The legislature should impose a statutory duty of stewardship by codifying the duty into fisheries acts, using wording resembling that proposed above for a lease agreement.
One of the limitations of systems such as ITQs is that if one or a few fishers damage the resource, the impact is nevertheless absorbed by all quota holders. This may happen, for example, when a TAC must be lowered because of significant overfishing. In short, the "stick" is used against all. In principle, the recognition of a duty of stewardship would make it possible to penalize the specific culprit. This would encourage mutual self-monitoring among the users.
In jurisdictions such as the United States, a duty of stewardship may also have the benefit of replacing the unpredictability and theoretically unlimited scope of tort lawsuits with litigation based on the more specific and limited grounds that are specified by the legislation or precedents defining the fishers' duty of stewardship. A recent lawsuit against the US government for its alleged failure to control bycatch illustrates the problem; it is highly unlikely that the tour boat operator who launched the lawsuit is suffering more than a small fraction of whatever ecological harm has occurred, and it is certainly true that those whose actions could directly cause the problem would not be sued at all (The Boat Company ). A properly defined duty of stewardship would enable actions to be brought on the more relevant grounds of ecosystem and fishery damage, and would enable them to be brought against those who actually caused the damage.
A duty of stewardship will increase inclusiveness in fisheries governance. In catch share schemes, the government authorizes users (quota holders) to use the resource. Other stakeholders are not included in the management framework. For example, conservation groups and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are often excluded, and can only affect the current system by way of public awareness and other activities outside the management scheme. The public is excluded as well; the government as trustee acts on behalf of the public. Acknowledging the public as a stakeholder will increase accountability by acknowledging thatmore people than just the license holders are affected by the use of unsustainable fishing practices and empowers them to take action.
A duty of stewardship changes the relationship between quota holders and other stakeholders. For example, conservationists, small-scale fishers or NGOs could hold large-scale operators using destructive practices, such as trawlers, accountable. They could sue them for breaching their duty to use least destructive fishing practices. This in turn would allow stakeholders to take an active role in a framework that includes those who were previously unable to participate directly.
In this way, using a duty of stewardship appropriately could change the relationship between government and other stakeholders towards a more inclusive and balanced model. In contemporary fishery management, there is a strong call for self-governance and co-governance, as well as for community-based approaches. The duty of stewardship has the potential to bring the stakeholders into a new form of relationship where the government could itself be held accountable. In other words, the duty of stewardship may level the playing field. Furthermore, to the extent that the duty is shared, it could align the resource users and managers, including the government, so that they are more likely to cooperate in order to act in an ecologically sound manner.
As the world's human population grows, traditional "open access" capture fisheries have increasingly often collapsed. The "tragedy of the commons" scenario appears to model these fisheries quite well. Governments and regulators have implemented many types of controls in an effort to preserve fisheries. In recent years, ITQs have become a popular solution, partly because it is believed that they provide an incentive to conserve. However, ITQs have been found to concentrate ownership of ITQs in the hands of large-scale fishers and to do little to incentivize conservation.
This paper proposes that supplementing the ITQ regime with a duty of stewardship would require the necessary conservation and preservation needed in order to adequately protect fisheries for current and future use. The duty of stewardship concept originated in the agricultural context, and is well-suited to resolve unsustainable fishing practices. The duty of stewardship could be applied to fishers and regulators through legislation or contractual provisions. The duty of stewardship is also compatible with many important meta-governance principles proposed to be applied to fisheries. Apply an explicit duty of stewardship to fisheries will result in accountable regulators and fishers, will include all the affected stakeholders in the development and implementation the duty as well as the management of the fishery, and result in better fish and ecosystem conservation.


text:
Q: Can't get bar chart colors in Chart js working in React Js This is my first time working with Chart Js and I managed to get it displaying on my page but the keys 'label', 'backgroundColor', 'borderColor', and 'borderWidth' won't display. The keys 'labels' and 'data' work just fine as I can see the labels and the bars in the chart. I tried assigning the non-displaying keys to variables just like 'labels' and 'data' to see if it would work that way but no luck. I also tried passing hex colors and regular color names like red, blue, etc. but that didn't work either. If anyone could provide some assistance it would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
'use strict';

import React, { Component } from 'react';

var Chart = require("react-chartjs").Bar;

class BarChart extends Component {

  capitalize(name) {
    return name.charAt(0).toUpperCase() + name.slice(1);
  }

  render() {

    var pokeLabels = this.props.stats.map((label) => {
      return this.capitalize(label.stat.name)
    })

    var pokeDataSet = this.props.stats.map((set) => {
      return set.base_stat
    })

    console.log(this.props.stats);

    var data = {
      labels: pokeLabels,
      datasets: [
        {
            label: 'Pokemon Stats',
            backgroundColor: [
                'rgba(255, 99, 132, 0.2)',
                'rgba(54, 162, 235, 0.2)',
                'rgba(255, 206, 86, 0.2)',
                'rgba(75, 192, 192, 0.2)',
                'rgba(153, 102, 255, 0.2)',
                'rgba(255, 159, 64, 0.2)'
            ],
            borderColor: [
                'rgba(255,99,132,1)',
                'rgba(54, 162, 235, 1)',
                'rgba(255, 206, 86, 1)',
                'rgba(75, 192, 192, 1)',
                'rgba(153, 102, 255, 1)',
                'rgba(255, 159, 64, 1)'
            ],
            borderWidth: 1,
            data: pokeDataSet
        }
      ]
    }

    return (

          <Chart data={data} width="600" height="250" redraw />

    );
  }

}

export default BarChart;

A: So I was able to get the colors working by doing this:
    datasets: [
        {
            label: "My First dataset",
            fillColor: ["rgba(0,10,220,0.5)","rgba(220,0,10,0.5)","rgba(220,0,0,0.5)","rgba(120,250,120,0.5)" ],
            strokeColor: "rgba(220,220,220,0.8)",
            highlightFill: "rgba(220,220,220,0.75)",
            highlightStroke: "rgba(220,220,220,1)",
            data: pokeDataSet
        }

Hope this can help someone who has a similar issue!

A: The background color will change the color of the bars.
So, you can give different colors to different bar.
datasets: [
          {
        label: 'My First dataset',
        backgroundColor: ['rgba(0,10,220,0.5)', 'rgba(220,0,10,0.5)'],
        borderColor: 'rgba(0,0,0,1)',
        data: pokeDataSet,
          },
    ],

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


In Using AC with LEDs, part 1 and part 2, we looked at ways to adapt AC power to LEDs without the usual conversion to pure DC first.
Here, in part 3, we combine what we learned before to design a LED light that operated directly off AC mains.
Warning: AC mains is hundreds of volts, and is potentially lethal. Please take all necessary precautions before you start working with it!
Step 1: The No-transformer Transformer.
to give us the number of LEDs we need to be able to properly handle the power without additional resistors and other parts.
What if we bypass the transformer completely and consider AC mains? In some ways it is simpler - the voltage from transformers could vary greatly with the load we put on it, whereas AC mains are much more stable.
So, does that mean that if we put 47 LEDs in series, we can run the whole string directly off a 110v AC socket?
The answer is Yes! As long as we maintain the voltage across each LED at 3.5v or less, it will operate within its limits.
But then, let's not forget that for each positive cycle, there is a negative cycle! That means we need a mirror circuit like in (1).
Wow, that's an awful lot of bulbs!
However, if we add a blocking diode like in circuit (2), then we can safely operate our circuit. The 1N4003 is capable of handling 200 volts so is fine for US power.
For EU countries, the magic number is 103 LEDs (double if you want to use both cycles) and the diode for ckt (2) should be a 1N4004 or better.
Remember that, because we're using the diode to block half our cycle, the LEDs in circuit (2) only works 1/2 the time. How can we make them light up for the other half as well?
With a simple part called a Bridge Rectifier this can happen. This device is actually 4 diodes connected in a criss-cross way to make both cycles go in the same direction. Electronic fans will know this as part of the 'Full-wave rectification' circuit (as opposed to Half-wave).
With this addition, our LEDs will be turning on twice as often and we WILL get twice as much light from them.
So, we can start our build of a simple all-LED + a bridge circuit to run off 110v mains.
Lots of white LEDs - naturally! And TEST them all!
The first picture is what my circuit looks like when finished. Quick eyes will note that there are only 42 LEDs on board. Because of the need to accomodate the bridge on the board, and because of the relatively stable nature of our mains, we can run our lights a tad over 20mA.
The Bridge has 4 leads: 2 marked (~), a (+) positive and a (-) negative. The (~) ones go to AC Mains.
Start by connecting the Bridge (+) to the longer (+) lead of the first LED, then take the short lead to the long lead of the next LED. Do 1 row, double and triple check before soldering! Work your way down, ALWAYS connecting shorter to longer.
I have additional pictures below showing the various stages of completion. Print them out to help you do the wiring.
Because of the hazardous nature of the components when plugged in, I covered the circuit board with a triple layer of parchment paper, which has a good dielectric value, and can withstand over 400F of heat.
Then I mounted the board on the lid of a take out container, using a foam spacer from a DVD spindle, with a cutout for the power cord.
The light output is equivalent to a 40-watt frosted bulb, but the container is barely warm.
Remember: Always unplug the circuit before you touch any exposed parts.
Also, the LEDs will be running close to their rated current, which could mean temperatures as high as 85C on their surfaces.
You can combine circuits (2) and (3) to give our light a Hi/Lo switch. In Hi, the switch shorts the diode so that it operates in Full-wave mode as in (3). Opening the switch only allows current to flow half the time, just like (2).
Ozzies and Brits: You too can use the 42/47 LED circuits - just combine the US version (.4uF and 1K-ohm) circuit presented in part 2 and you too can make a AC-mains light with just 42 LEDs! Or check out the calculations in the following step.
Oh yeah, our 'big' light is super thrifty - running off 110-volt mains, it barely consumes 3-watts.
Find out about more ways to light your house with LEDs off A/C mains here!
To operate white LEDs (nominal voltage 3.3v) safely off AC Mains without using any regulation (other than the diode bridge), the magic number is: Vac * 1.4 / 3.3. Which is the minimum number of LEDs in series that will run off AC without exceeding its 'comfortable' operating range. The choice of LEDs can be 20mA or higher - AS LONG AS they are all the same type and attached in series.
Vdd= N * 3.3, where N is the number of white LEDs we wish to use in series.
Iled = 0.02, the current we want for our LEDs.
C = 1 / (2 * pi * f * (Vpk-Vdd) / Iled), where f is the mains frequency, but you can simplify it to: (58 / (Vpk-Vdd)) in micro-farads (uF), and should range between .1 and .5 uF. Make sure it is a non-polar capacitor.
IMPORTANT: Parts must be rated for at least Vpk, and enough current to handle Iled.
Those look like they run on 45v max so how do they help?
So if I wanted to run more LEDs from a 110V socket from the US exceeding the magic number. How would I do that? Would I just get a transformer and up the voltage so that I can add more LEDs in that strip? I'm just trying to make my own christmas lights for fun and make them super bright. I realize that I can only have around 47 LEDs from a 110Vac. You know how people add strips of christmas lights in series with each other? Like a strip of 100ct Led Strip connected to the wall(110Vac) and then people to add another one just like it to the end of the first LEDs strip to elongate the christmas light to put up all around the house. Is there a limit to how many I can run from a single socket? If so, if I wanted to run about 1000 LEDs from one household socket, what should I do?
Hi qs! I am very thankful for this, it really helps me a lot. I have a question though, you said, the max voltage is about 156V, is this equivalent to the DC voltage level?
I have arranged a bridge rectifier consists of four 1n4003, I measured its output voltage and the meter reads 105Vdc with measured input of 115Vac. Why is it the output is not 115*√2= 163V ?
The problem with calling what comes out of a full-wave bridge "DC" is the implication that it is the same current as what you might get from batteries.
The real waveform from your bridge, as this image Wikipedia shows is still very much recognisably "AC", except all the sine-waves appear in the same direction (polarity).
That is why you must add a capacitor to + and - to smooth out the "ripples" before your multimeter can recognize it as true "DC".
How can we compute for the value of the smoothing capacitor?
p.s.: Great instructables you have, qs!
Smoothing factor = 0 for none and 1 for 100%; note that this means that 100% smoothing is impossible (division by zero).
WARNING: This MUST be used in conjunction with a full-wave (bridge) rectifier circuit, or it's boom time!
Hey, can you explain me about calculation of filtering C in power supply or direct me any web link that has explained about calculating about it?
I'm really confused in f, Vrms, Vp-p for DC!
Although this may be because of my poor knowledge, Help me plzzz!!!
The a/c-mains (wall) supplied electricity in all countries has 2 basic values, Vrms and f. So they are easily discoverable by checking with your local power company or Google.
thank you very much for your response. Does it mean that the reading of 105Vdc is the RMS?
The meter is expecting a steady input so the reading will depend on the time frame your meter checks to see if the input has changed - the 'Samples/sec' number in the spec sheet.
So 88 LED's on both sides without using a Bridge Rectifier.
Yes, your calculations are right.
Coincidentally, Phillips has announce THEIR version of this 'big' light for 230v where they place 96 SMT (Surface mount) LEDs in series with a bridge rectifier. This allows the LEDs to run cooler and perhaps extend their life.
Something is wrong. Your pictured light is not 96 LEDs but rather 128 LEDs, so they cannot all be in series to run directly off 230VAC rectified.
I think the Phillips SMT (Surface mount) LEDs will be costing hell of a lot of money?
And you'd be right! No firm prices yet but bhey are claiming life in 10's if not 100-thousand hours and that a panel will save over $150 of electricity over their life.
$150 of electricity over their life time is peanuts?
I would rather stick to the present cheap ones, cause if they give me 5 years my money is worth it.
Over 2 years has passed and my LED Chandelier is being used daily is still going strong without any LED's packing up. Isn't that something?
The short answer is no, there are no cheap, safe (and accurate) ways to limit current in a variable supply situation. More so with AC circuits, since now you have to worry about current in both directions as well as the sine-wave power considerations.
Take a look at this: <http://www.dx.com/p/3-0a-100w-power-constant-curre...> Admittedly it's for 100w, but, at Au$30, you can afford two. Quite a few Australian readers have good comments for this site, and they have literally hundreds of LED drivers to choose from.
You can put LEDs in parallel to multiply current, and then in series to multiply the voltage until it matches the output of the driver.
If I were to use capacitors to drop voltage and create usable LED bulbs for replacing all the lights in my house will it in any way be harmful to the electric wiring in my house. I'm really curious because when it is possible to run LEDs with a simple driver circuit that you have described why do all the brand name LED bulb manufacturers include ICs, inductors and capacitors in their driver circuits. Thanks.


Your spouse and your doctor are nagging you for good reason: High blood pressure can have you teetering on the edge of a cliff, struggling to maintain a healthy heart and overall cardiovascular system.
High blood pressure is often referred to as the "silent killer," because you feel fine until suddenly you don't. And this issue is widespread, impacting an estimated 1 in 3 American adults.
The medicinal use of the fruit and leaves of the olive tree (Olea europaea) actually dates back thousands of years. Early references to its healthful properties can even be found in the Bible: "The fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine." (Ezekiel 47:12) Ancient Mediterranean cultures revered the olive tree for its healthful properties.
What it all seems to come down to is a compound called oleuropein that's found in both olive oil and—in particularly high concentration—olive leaves.
In what is perhaps the most interesting clinical trial, researchers looked at 20 sets of identical twins (to minimize any differences in response based on genetics), with each twin assigned to a different group. Two experiments were conducted.
Reductions in both systolic (the first number) and diastolic (the second number) blood pressure were observed in the group receiving olive leaf, while the control group actually saw slight increases. What's more, the olive leaf group began to see improvements in as little as 7 days!
In a second 8-week test, researchers compared the effects of a 500 mg daily dosage of the same olive leaf extract to a 1,000 mg dosage. The results were astounding. The participants taking 1,000 mg of olive leaf extract saw dramatic reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as well as modest, but statistically significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglycerides after 8 weeks.
Another double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 232 subjects echoed these results. It compared the blood pressure effects of a 1,000 mg dose of the same highly purified olive extract against a placebo.
Researchers were once again wowed when the olive leaf extract reduced blood pressure compared to baseline levels. By the end of the study, the olive leaf group's blood pressure went from an average of 145/91.3 (considered high blood pressure) to 133.5/86.5 (below the commonly recognized high blood pressure range).
And there was a bonus: To the researchers' surprise, the olive leaf group's cholesterol levels plummeted by an average of 16 points!
Oleuropein, the active component it contains, has been shown to promote vasodilation, the process by which blood vessels relax and expand to accommodate the blood moving through the vessels. It may also help enhance production of nitric oxide (NO), the messenger molecule in the endothelial lining of the blood vessels that causes vasodilation.[9,10] And it helps to inhibit ACE, an enzyme that causes blood pressure spikes.
Another way olive leaf helps blood pressure is by fighting free radicals. Oleuropein, as well as other polyphenols found in olive leaf, are strong antioxidants that help to reduce oxidative stress, which is implicated in both blood pressure and cholesterol imbalances.
As I'm sure you've been warned, maintaining healthy blood pressure and cholesterol balance is crucial to reducing your risk for cardiovascular problems.
Found inside the mitochondria of every cell in your body, CoQ10 plays a critical role in producing the energy your heart needs to circulate blood throughout your body.
The problem is that as we age, our body's natural ability to produce CoQ10 declines. In fact, by age 70, your natural CoQ10 levels may be 50% lower than they were when you were a young adult! In addition, statins and other medications can accelerate CoQ10 loss.
And when your heart lacks the essential fuel CoQ10 provides, your overall health can suffer dramatically.
In fact, studies show that CoQ10 deficiency has a strong association with serious cardiovascular issues. So it's not surprising that clinical research has shown that taking CoQ10 can be extraordinarily beneficial for your overall cardiovascular health. In one notable study, researchers found that 100 mg of CoQ10 daily improved heart function in 66% of subjects.
CoQ10 Can Help Lower Blood Pressure Too!
What's more, research suggests that CoQ10 may be olive leaf's perfect partner in supporting healthy blood pressure balance. A meta-analysis of 12 human clinical trials found that CoQ10 has the potential to reduce systolic blood pressure by up to 17 mmHg, and diastolic blood pressure by up to 10 mmHg without significant side effects!
If you're looking for a natural way to support healthy blood pressure, as well as your entire cardiovascular system, in my opinion, the easiest and most effective way is with a combination of olive leaf extract and CoQ10. In fact, I wouldn't waste my time and money on anything else.
And the only way to get all of the amazing benefits of olive leaf extract shown in the research is by taking a dietary supplement.* However, not just any supplement will do.
One vitally important thing you must realize when shopping for a supplement featuring olive leaf extract is that oleuropein is a very delicate compound. If it's not processed correctly, it quickly degrades and breaks down into a byproduct called hydroxytyrosol, which has virtually no blood pressure benefits at all.
Due to this fact, scientists developed a highly purified and concentrated olive leaf extract using special processing technology to ensure that the oleuropein does not break down easily.
This is the only olive leaf extract I have found that stays fresh and potent. For this reason, it's the only one I recommend. It's also standardized to contain high levels of oleuropein and polyphenols. Plus it's the very same extract used in the clinical studies that have shown remarkable results.
And CoQ10 has been shown to be difficult for the body to absorb, so any supplement containing CoQ10 should also include a clinically researched dose of BioPerine® black pepper extract which has been shown to increase the absorption of CoQ10 by 30%.
I always advise my readers to take both olive leaf and CoQ10 for maximum blood pressure benefits. But taking two different supplements can be inconvenient and expensive. I was surprised that nobody was combining these two amazing nutrients together into an affordable "all in one" solution.
So I took it into my own hands to make it easy for my readers to enjoy the remarkable benefits of taking an effective and affordable olive leaf supplement along with the added benefits of CoQ10.
I call my formula OliPure BP™ ULTRA, and it works fast, is guaranteed to be effective and costs as little as $19.95 per bottle!
This powerful formula provides an extra-strength 1,000 mg dose of the exact same olive leaf extract used in the studies I mentioned above, as well as a full 200 mg dose of CoQ10, along with 5 mg of BioPerine® black pepper extract to boost CoQ10 absorption by 30%.
PLUS, it includes two additional well-studied ingredients for blood pressure support, celery seed extract and magnesium, all in just 2 veggie capsules per day!
I encourage you to do your own research to make sure I'm not just shamelessly promoting my own product. But here's why I'm confident that OliPure BP ULTRA is simply the leading natural blood pressure support formula out there.
✔ Made with the Best Olive Leaf Extract Available Anywhere: OliPure BP ULTRA is made with highly purified, standardized Benolea® brand olive leaf extract, the very same extract used in the clinical studies.
✔ A Research-Based Dose: OliPure BP ULTRA is an extremely potent formula that provides the full 1,000 mg dose of Benolea® olive leaf extract shown in the research to have the greatest impact on blood pressure, as well as cholesterol and triglycerides.
✔ 200 mg of CoQ10: OliPure BP ULTRA includes a potent 200 mg dose of pure natural trans-form CoQ10 to help keep your heart energized and pumping strong, while providing additional support for healthy blood pressure balance and a healthy cardiovascular system.
✔ 5 mg of BioPerine® Black Pepper Extract: BioPerine® is standardized to contain 95% piperine and is the only brand of black pepper extract that has been shown in research to enhance CoQ10 absorption by up to 30%.
✔ Quality You Can Trust: OliPure BP ULTRA is guaranteed to be safe and effective. It's made in Stop Aging Now's own FDA-inspected facility located in Florida to meet or exceed the stringent USP standards for quality, purity, potency and disintegration. Plus, the olive leaf extract used undergoes special treatment to remove any possible pesticide residues, contaminants and pollutants.
✔ It's Affordable and Risk Free: This amazing formula is available for as low as $19.95 per bottle for a one-month supply. At this incredible price, it's like getting the CoQ10 for free! Plus it ships to you for free and comes with an "any reason" 365-day guarantee. That's right—take it for up to one year, and receive a full refund if you don't like it.
I honestly want this product to be the solution you've been looking for, and I want you to WOW your doctor at your next checkup. But I'm sure you've heard many promises before, which is why OliPure BP ULTRA comes with an unbelievable 365-day return policy.
The great news about OliPure BP ULTRA is that it goes to work quickly, and you'll start noticing the effects faster than you may have imagined.
OliPure BP ULTRA is a smart investment. I hope you'll give it a try!
Per Bottle, PLUS Free Shipping.
2. Phytother Res. 2008;22:1239-1242. doi: 10.1002/ptr.2455.
6. Nutr Rev. 2009;67:632-638. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00248.x.
12. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 Jul;55(7):1141-2.
15. J Hum Hyperten. 1999;13:203-8.
18. Clin Investig. 1993;71(8 Suppl):S134-6.
19. J Hum Hypertens. 2007;21(4):297-306.
20. Atta-ur-Rahman. Studies in Natural Products Chemistry: Bioactive Natural Products, Part 1000. Elsevier. 2011.
21. Planta Med. 1998; 64(4): 353-356.
22. J Med Food. 2013;16(6): 558-63.
25. Curr Ther Res. 1996;57(10): 767-74.
26. Trace Elem Electrolytes 2012;29(2):113-6.


John Brown Gordon (1832-1904), Georgia Governor and U.S. Senator, Confederate General, longtime commander of the United Confederate Veterans, married Fanny Rebecca Haralson, daughter of Senator Hugh A. Haralson.
For more information, see the article "John B. Gordon (1832-1904)" in the New Georgia Encyclopedia and his congressional biography.
The collection consists of papers of John Brown Gordon and the Gordon family from ca. 1841-1979. Papers relating to John Brown Gordon include correspondence, writings, photographs, and scrapbooks. The correspondence (1861-1930) consists of letters written to his wife, Fanny Haralson Gordon, mainly while Gordon was serving in the Confederate Army in the states of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland; letters (1864-1870) from Robert E. Lee; and correspondence to and from his family while he was serving as a United States Senator in Washington. Other Gordon family members represented in the papers include Hugh Haralson Gordon, Caroline Lewis Gordon, and Lewis Gordon. The collection contains an interesting set of letters (1941-1948) to and from Rev. John Dawson Gordon, whose parents were slaves/servants of the Gordon family from 1854 until they moved to California in the 1890s.
The collection also contains papers relating to the Haralson family, consisting mainly of correspondence (1841-1851) between Hugh A. Haralson, while serving in the U.S. Congress, and his wife, Caroline Lewis Haralson, and their daughters Elizabeth, Fanny, and Caroline. Mrs. Haralson's letters to her husband provide an indepth look at her management of their plantation in LaGrange, Troup County, Georgia, while her husband was away from home. The collection also contains genealogical materials relating to the Gordon, Haralson, Hodgson, Howard, and Lewis families.
Arranged into series by family member: Series 1. Genealogical materials; Series 2. John Brown Gordon; Series 3. Haralson family; Series 4. Hugh Haralson Gordon; Series 5. Hugh Haralson Gordon III; Series 6. Caroline Lewis Gordon; Series 7. Lewis Gordon; Series 8. Family bibles.
John Brown Gordon family papers. MS 1637. Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library, University of Georgia Libraries.
20 The Name and Family of Gordon compiled by the Media Research Bureau, Washington, D.C.
Nannette Hodgson Gordon, Mrs. Hugh H. Gordon, Jr.
25 1 Passport, Aviators Log Book, etc.


The world's first ever first paid-per-view, not pay-per-view, live video game event based on Blockchain has launched.
There are currently over 5,000 individual members signed up to the platform to earn INCNT from close to 400 merchants. Incent expects this number will grow four-fold on the back of the deal announced today.


text:
Hell Yeah! Street Fightin' Man, G-7!
Posted on February 1, 2006 by Mark A.
I'm a Stones fan for all the wrong reasons. I think songs like "Satisfaction," "Sympathy for the Devil," "Jumpin' Jack Flash," and "Paint it Black" are ok rock songs, but other than those tunes I've never had a particular affinity for their music. I just like the band for their antics and rock n roll attitude.
I love the fact that while Mick may have bedded thousands of women he also may or may not have had an affair with David Bowie. You don't see that on Gene Simmon's resume, and that"˜s why Mick's a rock god and Gene's only a rock idol.
I love the fact that their drummer Charlie Watts overcame throat cancer and still performs with the band. That's rock n roll, baby.
But most off all I love Keith Richards. Keith obviously made some kind of Faustian deal with the devil a long time ago, and I'm convinced that scientists will eventually find the cure for cancer hiding in his blood.
With all the drugs that Keith has ingested and shot during his illustrious tenure as lead guitarist of the Stones, not once has he overdosed and had the VH1 Behind the Music moment where he laments his debauched behavior. Only threats of jail made him "clean up." (insert eyeroll here) Keith is truly a rock god because he never apologizes for his behavior like some other rock bands (Motley Crue I'm lookin' at you)and he isn't impressed by much. He called the knighting of Mick Jagger "a fucking paltry honour." If that ain't rock n roll then I don't know what is.
One afternoon Leigh and I were channel surfing and I landed on an old Stones concert. They were playing "Satisfaction," one of the four songs by them I like, so I decided to leave it on for a few minutes. Near the middle of the song a fan chased by security guards ran up on stage. Keith turned down his guitar, unstrapped it, whacked the guy in the face with the back of the guitar, strapped back on, turned the volume back up and resumed playing as if nothing had happened. If you don't believe me you can watch for yourself; Keith doesn't even miss a chord:
That one moment solidified the Stones place as rock gods for me.
*You get bonus cool points if you can correctly identify the movie from which my title for this post originated.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Le discours de la quarantaine a été prononcé par le président américain Franklin D. Roosevelt le  à Chicago, à l'occasion de l'inauguration du pont entre le nord et le sud de Lake Shore Drive.

Histoire
Le président a déclaré que les nations responsables des guerres et du non-respect du droit international devraient être isolés des autres pays du Pacifique et conservés dans la quarantaine, comme des organismes infectieux, pour prévenir la propagation de la « maladie » de violence, d'agression et de d'oppression. Ce discours est vu comme en opposition avec le climat politique de neutralité et de non-intervention qui prévalait à l'époque aux États-Unis.

Roosevelt n'a pas indiqué explicitement les nations qu'il jugeait agressives (bien qu'on comprenait qu'il faisait référence à l'Empire du Japon, au royaume d'Italie et à l'Allemagne nazie), mais, pour la première fois, semblait faire écho à la capacité des États-Unis de sortir de la politique stricte de neutralité et intervenir concrètement dans la politique mondiale. Ce discours, marque une étape : il prend acte de l'échec de l'isolationnisme et introduit entre les dictatures et les démocraties une différence d'appréciation certes conforme à l'inspiration de la Constitution américaine mais en désaccord avec l'idée même de neutralité.

Le discours de quarantaine a suscité une controverse considérable à la fois aux États-Unis et au niveau international, et a été durement critiquée par les isolationnistes américains. Le célèbre dessinateur Percy Crosby, créateur de Skippy et critique très franc de Roosevelt, publia une revue de deux pages dans le New York Sun en l'attaquant. En outre, il fut fortement critiqué par les journaux appartenant à William Randolph Hearst et Robert R. McCormick, ce dernier étant propriétaire du Chicago Tribune, .

Cependant, ce discours retentissant du président des États-Unis n'aura pas de conséquences pratiques immédiates, même s'il reste comme un moment important de l'évolution la politique étrangère des États-Unis au  siècle.

Dans la culture populaire
Dans Presidential Agent, le cinquième roman de la série "Lanny Budd" d'Upton Sinclair, Lanny s'entretient avec le président américain Franklin D. Roosevelt au sujet de la conspiration pour un coup d'État pro-nazi de Cagoulard en France ; le président demande à Lanny de préparer la première ébauche du discours sur la quarantaine.

Notes et références

Voir aussi

Articles connexes
 Présidence de Franklin Delano Roosevelt
 Lois des années 1930 sur la neutralité
 Midway - Ce film présente le discours de quarantaine joué sur le générique d'ouverture.

Bibliographie
 Borg, Dorothy. "Notes on Roosevelt's" Quarantine" Speech." Political Science Quarterly 72.3 (1957): 405-433. in JSTOR
 Dallek, Robert. Franklin D Roosevelt And American Foreign Policy 1932 1945 (1979) online pp 148-51
 Haight, John McV. "Roosevelt and the Aftermath of the Quarantine Speech." Review of Politics 24#2 (1962): 233-259
 Haight, John McV. "France and the Aftermath of Roosevelt's 'Quarantine' Speech." World Politics 14#2 (1962), pp. 283–306 in JSTOR
 No more killing fields: preventing deadly conflict. David A. Hamburg, Cyrus S. Vance, 2003, Rowman & Littlefield. Pages 36–37. .
 Jacobs, Travis Beal. "Roosevelt's "Quarantine Speech"." Historian 24.4 (1962): 483–502. in JSTOR
 Ryan, Halford Ross. Franklin D. Roosevelt's rhetorical presidency (Greenwood Press, 1988).

Liens externes
 Transcription et audio du discours

Octobre 1937
Histoire de Chicago
1937 aux États-Unis
Présidence de Franklin Roosevelt
Discours de président des États-Unis
Discours

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Anton Tus (Bribir, 22. studenoga 1931.), stožerni general, prvi načelnik Glavnoga stožera Oružanih snaga Republike Hrvatske i savjetnik za vojna pitanja predsjednika Republike Hrvatske.

Životopis

Jugoslavenska narodna armija
Stožerni general Anton Tus rođen je 22. studenoga 1931. godine u Bribiru kod Crikvenice. U Narodnooslobodilačku vojsku i partizanske odrede Jugoslavije stupio je 1944. godine, s navršenih trinaest godina. Završio je Zrakoplovnu vojnu akademiju i Ratnu školu. Upravljao je svim tipovima ratnih zrakoplova bivše Jugoslavenske narodne armije (JNA), a bio je jedini pilot Jugoslavenskog ratnog zrakoplovstva i protuzračne obrane (JRZ) koji je pilotirao i američkim i sovjetskim nadzvučnim avionima. Od 1985. do lipnja 1991. godine general Tus je bio zapovjednik JRZ. U JNA je imao čin general-pukovnika. U svibnju 1991. godine savezni premijer SFRJ Ante Marković htio je smijeniti generala-armije Veljka Kadijevića te za novog saveznog ministra obrane postaviti generala Tusa, koji je tada još bio aktivan u Beogradu u JNA. Plan je bio da se, s generalom Tusom na čelu JNA, Stjepanom Mesićem na čelu Predsjedništva i Markovićem na čelu Saveznog izvršnog vijeća (SIV), neutraliziraju promiloševićevske snage u JNA. General Tus se složio s planom, a Marković je po dolasku u Zagreb o tome razgovarao s predsjednikom Franjom Tuđmanom. Iako je predsjednik Tuđman rekao da će razmisliti plan je propao nakon što je general Tus imenovan prvim načelnikom Glavnoga stožera Oružanih snaga Republike Hrvatske (GS).

Domovinski rat
U rujnu 1991. general Tus pristupio je Hrvatskoj vojsci, nakon čega je postao prvi načelnik GS-a. Na toj je dužnosti ostao do studenoga 1992. General Tus je konstantno, s profesionalnim vojnicima koji su došli u HV iz JNA, vršio pritisak na predsjednika Tuđmana da se ne može dobiti rat, odnosno voditi ofenzivne operacije, ako će se oslanjati isključivo na "policijsku vojsku" jer to nisu snage koje mogu učinkovito izvršiti zadaće obrane zemlje, a kamoli biti osposobljene za napad. Predsjednik Tuđman je do kraja, kada su već počeli ozbiljni oružani sukobi na teritoriju Hrvatske, vjerovao da će se rat izbjeći te nije žurio s ustrojavanjem vojske. General Tus je po tom pitanju s njime vodio teške i žučne rasprave, jer je predsjednik Tuđman želio izbjeći rat, tj. nije želio da se sukobi razbuktaju. Prema svjedočanstvu generala Tusa predsjednik Tuđman bio je uvjeren da će se međunarodna zjednica umiješati i spriječiti eskalaciju sukoba. General Tus je u tom razdoblju uvjeravao predsjednika Tuđmana da više nema vremena za čekanje, da su izgubljena dva mjeseca, da Srbi i JNA u Hrvatsku ulaze iz Srbije i Bosne i Hercegovine. General Tus kao ključ za hrvatsko naoružavanje, stabilnost i vjeru u vlastite snage, označava osvajanje vojarne JNA u Varaždinu. Predsjednik Tuđman je odobrio tu akciju na pritisak generala Tusa i ostalih časnika pristiglih iz JNA. Isto tako po generalu Tusu prva prava operacija HV-a bili su napadi i osvajanje vojarna u Bjelovaru i luci Ploče 1991. godine. U tih desetak dana napada na vojarne JNA, HV je uspio pribaviti oko 150 oklopnih transportera, 220 tenkova, 400 topova od preko 100 mm., 200 tisuća komada automatskih jurišnih pušaka i više milijuna komada streljiva. General Tus tvrdi da su školovani časnici udarili temelje HV-a, ojačali Hrvatsku vojsku, a oslabili JNA. JRZ i Jugoslavenska ratna mornarica (JRM) gotovo da nisu mogli funkcionirati nakon odlaska Hrvata i Slovenaca iz JNA.

General Tus je zajedno s ostalim časnicima HV-a već u zimu 1991. – 1992. godine razradio plan frontalnog napada i oslobađanja što većeg dijela okupiranog teritorija Hrvatske. Prema generalu Tusu Operacija Bljesak trebala se dogoditi već u zimu 1991. – 1992. godine, no primirje od 2. siječnja sve to je zaustavilo. General Tus kao načelnik GS-a bio je u sukobu s ministrom obrane Gojkom Šuškom, kojeg je smatrao vođom "neoustaške" linije u zemlji. Ministar Šušak počeo se miješati u rad vojske, tj. izadavati zapovijedi mimo GS-a. General Tus se žalio predsjedniku Tuđmanu, tvrdeći da ministar obrane može imati utjecaj na vojsku, ali nikako izravan, nego samo ili u dogovoru s načelnikom GS-a ili preko predsjednika kao vrhovnog zapovjednika. General Tus tvrdi da su tijekom Domovinskog rata postojale dvije linije zapovijedanja, jedna vođena GS-om, a druga ministrom Šuškom. Kao najdrastičniji primjer "duple linije zapovijedanja" general Tus navodi dogovor o Bosanskoj Posavini. Prema generalu Tusu HV je pokušavao održati Posavinu, ali se ministar Šušak već u svibnju 1992. bio nagodio s Radovanom Karadžićem o prepuštanju Posavine. General Tus je na jednom sastanku pokrenuo pitanje pada Bosanskog Broda izravnim pitanjem predsjedniku Tuđmanu, zašto je srušen most preko kojeg je GS htio poslati snage za obranu grada, te po čijoj su se odluci izvlačile snage HV-a. General Tus nije znao niti za jednu od tih odluka. Generalu Tusu je kratko odgovoreno da su snage HV-a srušile most, a predsjednik Tuđman je rekao da ni on nije bio upoznat sa svime.

Godine 1995. general Tus se osobno zauzimao za provođenje Operacije Una, jer bi to značilo definitivni ne samo vojni nego i politički poraz velikosrpske ideje u Hrvatskoj i BiH. General Tus je bio glavni vojni savjetnik predsjednika Tuđmana. Od 2001. do 2005. godine bio je i šef Misije Republike Hrvatske pri sjedištu Organizacije Sjevernoatlantskoga ugovora (NATO). Danas je u mirovini.

General Tus, zajedno s generalom Petrom Stipetićem, jedini je bivši zapovjednik JNA kojemu je u Beogradu suđeno, u odsutnosti, zbog veleizdaje i dezerterstva.

Citati:

Odlikovanja
 Velered kralja Petra Krešimira IV. s lentom i Danicom
 Red kneza Domagoja
 Red Nikole Šubića Zrinskoga
 Red hrvatskog trolista
 Orden jugoslavenske zastave

Izvori

Načelnici Glavnog stožera OS RH
Hrvatski vojni zapovjednici u Domovinskom ratu
Hrvatski generali
Hrvatski diplomati
Hrvatski vojni zapovjednici u JNA
Partizani
Nositelji Reda Nikole Šubića Zrinskog


Nearly a decade ago, J Street launched.
Together, we have helped transform pro-Israel politics and opened up a political home for those who care about Israel but worry about the path it's on under Netanyahu's far-right government. We have launched the country's largest pro-Israel PAC and opened up the political space for better policies — like the Iran nuclear agreement, which is making Israel, the US and the whole world safer. We have helped thousands of college students who are deeply committed to a two-state solution find their voice and a community on campuses across the country. We have cemented ourselves firmly in the Jewish community and sought to live out the values that are central to our tradition.
Join J Street Colorado at the Boulder JCC as we come together to celebrate — and look ahead to what kind of legacy we want to leave in the years to come.
More information can be found here. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email me at jodie@jstreet.org.
Thanks and we look forward to seeing you soon!


A summons calls the Norse farmer to quit the field and take on the role of a Viking raider. Having encased the torso and arms in durable leather armour, the warrior defensively clads the shins in the Odomar Viking Leather Greaves. This 9-10 oz. leather leg armour reinforces a sturdy defense in LARP combat. The flared edges and antique-brass plated rivets enhance protection. The handcrafted design of the greaves allows for both comfort and mobility. Three adjustable straps in the back secure the guards to your shins. Elegant Nordic vine patterns enhance the style of the Viking who wisely chooses to add this fine pair of greaves to an epic armour set.


text:
Brett Gardner may miss the rest of the season
By Aaron GleemanSep 13, 2013, 5:02 PM EDT
Yankees center fielder Brett Gardner, who left yesterday's game with a ribcage/oblique injury, has been diagnosed with a Grade 1 strain and could miss the rest of the season.
Yankees manager Joe Girardi told reporters that Gardner will be out "a while" and, if he does return before the end of the regular season, it may be strictly as a pinch-runner.
Gardner has been one of the few healthy, productive Yankees this season, playing in 145 of the first 147 games while hitting .273 with a career-high eight homers, a league-leading 10 triples, and a .759 OPS.
Curtis Granderson has shifted back to center field with Gardner out, leaving Alfonso Soriano and Ichiro Suzuki in the outfield corners.
Follow @AaronGleeman


text:
Auturo Free article
Thread starter stump5454
stump5454
Veteran safety 'leads by example'
Arturo Freeman By Matt Tevsh
Date: Jun 7, 2005
With the Packers
Eden Prairie MN
That's exactly what i wanted to hear from and about this guy.
Check out today's Milwaukee Sentinel article on Safeties as well. All is going well.
leopardmech
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Freeman also speaks like he wants to assume a leadership role in the secondary, something the unit has lacked since the departure of LeRoy Butler.
This is something I like to hear a locker-room can never have too many leaders, I just hope his experience in this defence pays off.
ArizonaPackerFan
I just hope they can find 2 safties that can tackle. Last year Roman had 72 tackles, and 18 missed tackles. That's a missed tackle for every 4 he made. That's terrible.
These guyskept trying to tackle guys that were bigger than them up high and the bigger guy would just brush them off. I really hope Bates spends some time teaching the guys to tackle low. Wrap Grady Jacksons ankles up and even he will fall.
NDPackerFan
Arturo Freeman sounds good, just hope his play matches the quotes he puts in the media. Yes, that is a direct shot at Darren "Nobody is Mouthier" Sharper!
OK, on one level, Freeman (a scary name in Packer history, by the way) seems to sound good. But lets look at this from another angle. Right now, it seems like Freeman is expecting to earn the FS spot. So far, so good. What if he doesn't- and remains on the team as a backup? If you've ever been in a situation where someone else gets a position you thought belonged to you- you know what I mean. It can cause problems in the locker room and on the field. It can lead to splits in the defense (in this case). My point: I'm glad Freeman feels he could be a leader on the defense (my goodness, the Packers defense has needed a leader since Butler left!). However, I don't want Freeman to get the job just because he worked with Bates before. I want the best players available on the field, not "legacies" from another team.
There are two ways to read this article:
1. Freeman believes he has earned a spot on the Packers because he has worked in Bates' system in Miami, and can therefore be a leader on the defense.
2. Freeman believes has earned a spot on the Packers because he has worked in Bates' system in Miami, and can therefore he can tell the other Packer players what to do. In effect, he has supplanted Bates as a coach, and has made himself the arbiter of right and wrong.
Admittedly, this may seem extreme, but think of your reaction to "new kids on the block" in your workplace. The last thing you wanted was a "know-it-all". Is this any different in pro-football?
Personally, I hope Freeman works excellently in the system, that Roman returns to the form (I believe) he showed early in the season, where he tackled well and covered decently, then deteriorated as the season progressed; that Carroll stops grabbing receivers, and that Harris isn't forced to be on an island with the opponent's best receivers every play, every game.
Nice post, ricky! You're right on with it and I agree 100%.
There is room on this defense for a new leader and Freeman may be it; however, I'm looking to Nick Barnett to step up and be THE MAN in the NFC at linebacker this year, fer sure. :bang:
PWT36
De pere, Wi.
Ted Thompson has said :No player will be given a position, they will have earn it. Same goes for Aurto Freeman.
What worries me is this:
YEAR G GS TOT SOLO INT
2001 16 4 32 26 1
2002 16 16 72 62 0
2b. Freeman believes he has earned a spot on the Packers because there are no viable alternatives.
PackerTraxx
Freeman may not have much competition to start training camp. But by the middle of season, one of the rooks may be ready step up. At least we have some hope(possibilities) this year unlike last year. One wonders what Marques Anderson may have become with good coaching. Anyone know how he did with the Raiders?
I don't think in any way Freeman thinks he's supplanted Bates. I think he knows that he benefits from being in the system but that he is hungry and in his prime. It's very interesting he started all 2002 and then again as soon as Bates took over. Wanny sucks. He got 4 picks last year. We need turnovers.
Predict the final record competition - 2021 version
PackAttack12
RepStar15
Ranking The Top 10 Best And Worst Packers Of All Time
PackerfaninCarolina
Free Agent Targets
Poppa San
Free Agency Around the NFCN