Answer:
The answer is C
Explanation:
Although there is a monarch there is a set of rules they must follow.
Answer:
a. how would an economist explain the decline of the alaska king crab fishery?
According to economist, the decline of the Alaska king crab fishery could be compared to Law of diminshing returns. This simply means that, the optimal fishing point was reached before the fishes available started declining leading to the fishing bust that happened in 1980s.
b. explain two programs you could institute to protect the fishery and still allow some crabbing again.
Fishing Time policy: This program would involve the restriction of the fishing activities carried out in the alaska to a given time frame. For example, from september to december. Rather than fishing always as was done.
Fishing Quantity Policy: This program would in involve the restriction of the quantity of fishes to be gotten in the cook inlet and bristol bay by the fishing companies. For example, each company is expected to take only 50kg worth of fish once a week rather than fishing unlimitedly each day.
c. canadians have been very successful in farming salmon in coastal fiords along the coast of british columbia. why have they been successful with salmon when the crab fishery crashed?
This is because, their are series of policies that tends to guide the farming of salmon in the coastal fiords by the Canadians. And, also, salmon is not as demanding as the King Crab fishes.
Explanation:
They were being taxed unfairly with out any input.
Answer:
Explanation:
If you just talk about the 1960s there really was only one effective way and that was non violent civil disobedience. And the most effective gender were women. Rosa Parks became a leader because "the time was right." By that time, many of the colored "were part of the family." The most effective blows were cast against the middle class and the lower middle class who needed or wanted the colored as servants, as paid companions, as laborers such as gardeners. So when the "uprising" came, the whites were not threatened; they were inconvenienced more than anything. Rosa Parks didn't really disobey her orders nor her place in life. She just bent the rules a bit. She walked to work for one thing. Many of the colored choose that way. Just boycott the buses. It meant that the city of Birmingham, for example, lost a lot of money because they had to run empty buses.
Voting didn't show itself to be as effective as civil disobedience. Yes the colored had the vote. They even had guarantees that came with the vote. In 100 years the vote had really done them no good. There were laws that were created that got them nothing with the vote.
Violence was met with violence. Violence was there for people that had no patience. See anything to do with the Klan. The KKK was not easily intimidated.
So if non violence was so effective, why was it not tried before? I don't know about you, but I can just imagine what would have happened had the slaves tried it before the civil war. They would have had the skin whipped off their backs. After the civil war was no better -- in fact a lot worse. There were many ex-slaves and too few jobs. The "gentry" could pay what they liked for the jobs they needed doing by untrained uneducated labor.
