.In accordance with the Commission on Life Sciences (1996, 80) ‘a substantial number of salmon populations are in some jeopardy’. Other wild fish stocks are also in danger. The use of aquaculture as a supportive tool towards the protection of wild fish stocks cannot be denied. On the other hand, in accordance with the study of Nolan et al. (2000, 1017) ‘many people believe that the growth of aquaculture relieves pressure on ocean fisheries, but the opposite is true for some types of aquaculture. farming carnivorous species requires large inputs of wild fish for feed. some aquaculture systems also reduce wild fish supplies through habitat modification, wild feedstock collection, and other ecological impacts’.
The above views are supported by the fact that ‘one of the most disturbing trends in aquaculture is the rapid expansion and intensification of shrimp and salmon farming and culture of other high-value carnivorous marine fish such as cod, seabass, and tuna. production of a single kilogram of these species typically uses two to five kilograms of wild-caught fish processed into fish meal and fish oil for feed’ (Nolan et al., 2000, 1019). In accordance with the above aquaculture can also have a negative impact on wild fish stocks.
The development of aquaculture in order to protect the wild fish stocks is proved to be a solution with limited effectiveness. More specifically, it is proved above that aquaculture can have both positive and negative effects on existing wild fish stocks. The effectiveness of aquaculture towards the limitation of pressure against the existing wild fish stocks depends on the policies applied by each state and the measures taken for the protection of wild fish stocks.One of the most significant issues that should be taken into account when referring to aquaculture is the fact that aquaculture can have a series of effects on the genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity of aquatic systems.