“It is a curious situation that the sea, from which life first arose, should now be threatened by the activities of one form of that life. But the sea, though changed in a sinister way, will continue to exist; the threat is rather to life itself.”
--Rachel Carson, The Sea Around Us
Humans have devised a fiendishly clever plan to destroy the oceans. First, we dump trash, biological wastes, and toxic chemicals in the waters to create the world's largest cesspool. Next, we dump ridiculous amounts of carbon dioxide into the air causing the oceans to acidify as the waters absorb some of that excess carbon dioxide. And just for good measure, we empty the oceans of fish. More evidence of our destructive harvesting of the oceans appeared this week in a study published in the scientific journal Nature Communications. It documents the collapse of fish populations around the United Kingdom over the past 120 years.
From bounty to empty
Marine biologists estimate that over a third of the ocean's fish populations have collapsed or on the verge of collapse, particularly in the northern hemisphere. There is no question fish populations are under assault. The question is not how far have we come but rather how fast did we get here?
Ruth Thurstan and her colleagues from the University of York and the Marine Conservation Society examined records for fish landings by commercial fisherman in the United Kingdom from 1889 to 2007. The time scale is unique and important. Biologists typically only have population data for individual species that cover the past 50-60 years and little more than anecdotal evidence of the previous abundance of the oceans.
The authors describe the advantages of plowing through dusty archives related to the commercial fishing industry in the UK as follows:
UK Government data enable us to trace the extent and pattern of decline, in unprecedented detail, for an entire, mixed species fishery covering a wide range of bottom-living species. The northeast Atlantic fishing grounds exploited by the UK fleet represent one of the most productive and intensively exploited in the world, and to our knowledge, the data represent the longest continuous national-scale fisheries statistics. These empirical data offer the opportunity to explore the validity and generality of inferences from theoretical, modelling and single species studies.
Since technology has advanced greatly since 1889, they computed the amount of fish harvested relative to the size and technical prowess of the fleet. Think of it as "bang for the buck." Here is how they computed "fishing power:"
To determine the underlying trends in fish availability, we indexed landings against the changing fishing power of the fleet. 'Fishing power' is a measure of how fishers increase their catching power over time, for example, by improvements in gear, or ability to detect fish (for example, larger boats and engines, tougher, lighter nets and electronic fishing gear). This technological creep, as it is called, has to be factored out if one is to produce a reliable, long-term index of change in the productivity of fishery.
Their findings are disturbing, but hardly surprising.
Landings per unit power figures suggest that the availability of bottom-living fish for the fleet fell by 94% from 1889 to 2007. This implies a massive loss of biomass of commercially fished bottom-living fish from seas exploited by the UK fleet. The loss is particularly serious as it encompasses an entire component of the marine ecosystem rather than a single species.
The follow graph (Figure 3 in the article) depicts the ironic relationship between technological advances and yield. The highest yields were recorded while fishing vessels were still powered by sails. The introduction of steam powered vessels after the turn of the century produced a drop in yield relative to size of the fleet and hours on the seas. Yields increased with introduction of diesel power after 1940 but the increase was short-lived. By 1980, yields plummeted and show little signs of recovery.
Figure: Landings of bottom-living fish per unit of fishing power of all British bottom-gear vessels.
When we were constrained by technology to shorter distances, labor intensive netting practices, and limited storage and refrigeration, yields were high because the harvest was unintentionally more sustainable. As soon as steam engines replaced sails, extending the range and length of fishing season, yields began to plummet. The introduction of diesel engines for power and netting allowed a short-term increase in yields but lead to the collapse of fish populations across the region within the range of the fishing fleet.
Thurstan found the same pattern mirrored in the data for individual species. Likewise, parallel findings were evident for the individual fleets of Britain, Scotland, and Ireland. Evidence of the recent collapse of fish populations can be found across the European Union, North America, and Asia. There is no question of how far we have come in depleting fish populations. Thurstan shows us how fast we got here and gives us a glimpse of the ocean's former bounty.
: : : : : : : : : : : :
How the media framed the story
The media focused on the narrow implications of the study for the fishing industry. Here is the lede for a BBC article by Richard Black covering the Thurstan study:
Over-fishing means UK trawlers have to work 17 times as hard for the same fish catch as 120 years ago, a study shows.
The response of the fishing industry to the study findings was predictably dismissive.
Philip MacMullen, head of environmental responsibility at the UK's industry-funded sustainability organisation Seafish, suggested that accenting the historical picture could obscure more recent improvements.
"It could be correct but I don't know, and I don't think the data support the findings," he said.
"But it's old news. Fifteen years ago we started understanding how badly management was working, and 10 years ago we started doing something about it."
Any self-regulation by the fishing industry is largely meaningless because it will always be too little and too late. That is evident from the lack of discernible recovery in yields despite 10 years of supposed improvements in practices.
Callum Roberts, one of the study authors, framed the situation this way:
"If you get a 50% increase from 2% of a species' former abundance, you get to 3% of its former abundance, so you shouldn't celebrate too hard."
: : : : : : : : : : : :
Why quotas have never worked
Scientists, government agencies, and the fishing industry have been aware of collapsing wild fish populations since the 1950s. In fact, Rachel Carson, iconic author of Silent Spring, was instrumental in pushing for better management practices and devoted three of her books to the ocean environment.
National and international regulatory agencies have long set legal harvest quotas intended to prevent overfishing. The real problem is that thesel regulatory bodies set catch quotas at least 25% higher than what marine biologists recommend to sustain a population at current levels, much less allow it to recover to historic levels. Pressure from the fishing industry is the reason quotas are set too high.
Callum Roberts explained the failure of quotas in this BBC commentary in 2007:
Ministers claim their decisions generally exceed scientific recommendations because they must take into account the best interests of the fishing industry. In reality, disregarding science (paid for by taxpayers, it should be added) condemns the industry to slow death. You can't cut more grass than a lawn grows no matter how many times you mow it.
But under the Common Fisheries Policy, ministers have tried to cheat nature by taking more fish than are produced each year, leading to plummeting populations in the wild. Their habitual disregard for advice puts them more in the role of doctors assisting the suicide of a patient; because with this decision-making record, stock collapse becomes a certainty.
Roberts goes on to describe what biologically defensible quotas should look like for the near future in his discussion of the Nature Communications article.
"It is vital that governments recognise the changes that have taken place (and) set stock protection and recovery targets that are reflective of the historical productivity of the sea."
BBC article by Richard Black
To allow recovery of the historical productivity of the sea would require essentially a moratorium on commercial exploitation in the northern hemisphere for a decade or more.
Other factors conspire against wild fish populations beyond quotas being set too high. Once vessels reach their quota, overage is discarded dead into the sea rather than risk penalties. Many privately-owned vessels simply ignore the quotas by not reporting their catch, selling in poorly regulated markets. For example, nearly half of the critically endangered bluefin tuna reaching markets since 1995 has been unreported and above international quotas. The effects of pollution and climate change further stack the decks against fish populations.
: : : : : : : : : : : :
Unnatural selection
Another factor conspiring against survival of wild populations is our deviously clever eugenics experiment. The phenomenon has been called "unnatural selection," "survival of the unfittest," and the "Darwin Debt." The idea is that our harvesting of wild populations, including fish, tend to remove the most fit from the gene pool. Natural selection favors members of a species that escape predators, find food, and resist disease. Our genocidal sweeps tend to limit gene diversity to optimally adapt to environment and disease. The end result is that wild populations require decades to allow breeding stocks to return to more optimal genetic composition. A detailed discussion of unnatural selection can be found here.
Even Darwin recognized the unfortunate effects of human predation in Origin of the Species, noting the difference between sustainable practices by indigenous peoples versus unsustainable western practices.
So that the Incas followed exactly the reverse system of that which our Scottish sportsman are accused of following, namely, of steadily killing the finest stags, thus causing the whole race to degenerate.
It is ironic that indigenous peoples had a much better understanding of sustainable harvesting practices than our more technologically advanced western civilization. Our greed and genocidal actions against these people deprived us of the benefits of their wisdom as we struggle with an increasingly inhospitable environment of our own making.
: : : : : : : : : : : :
>>>>>Take Action
There are a number of ways you can contribute to better management of ocean resources.
- Reduce or eliminate ocean fish consumption from your diet
Meat and fish consumption supports unsustainable land use, agriculture, aquaculture, and harvesting practices. For me personally, fish is my preferred source of protein, so cutting down rather than eliminating consumption has been the choice.
- Shop responsibly
Patronize stores that sell more sustainable harvesting practices and avoid stores that sell threatened or endangered species.
Here is a list of supermarket chains rated by Greenpeace as supporting minimum sustainable practices.
- Target
- Wegmans
- Whole Foods
- Safeway (Dominick’s, Genuardi’s, Pavilions, Randall’s, Vons)
- Ahold USA (Stop & Shop, Giant)
- Harris Teeter
- A&P (The Food Emporium, Pathmark, Super Fresh, Waldbaum’s)
- Delhaize America (Bloom, Food Lion, Hannaford Bros., Sweetbay)
- Walmart
- Trader Joe’s
Note that Trader Joe's was criticized last year by Greenpeace for its poor sustainability standards for fish sold in their stores. Trader Joe's has responded productively to the pressure and has made a commitment to sustainable sources and species in their supply chain. Please thank their management if you shop at their stores.
3. Dine out responsibly
One valuable resource is Fish2Fork, which rates restaurants in the US and UK. Beyond using their ratings, help by providing positive or negative feedback on restaurants you frequent.
Also see the Monterey Bay Aquarium guide for recommendations of most sustainable species on the market.
- Discourage the use of ocean fish in pet food
Even when species not currently threatened are included, the use of ocean fish in pet food increases pressure on supply. I urge you to boycott the Whiskas brand, which hopes to transition to sustainable supplies over the next 20 years and includes threatened and endangered species in their product line.
- Help eliminate marine mammals from the "bycatch" of commercial fishing operations
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is attempting to improve standards for fish imports. Since marine mammals such as sea turtles and dolphins are killed accidently by commercial fishing practices, our government is exploring regulations to prevent importation of fish from countries that refuse to abide by appropriate standards and practices.
“A large portion of the fish Americans consume is imported,” said Eric Schwaab, NOAA assistant administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “With this notice, we are looking for ways to lessen the effects of fishing on marine mammals worldwide, and to level the playing field for our own fishermen, who take many protective measures when fishing to ensure the survival of marine mammal species.”
Commercial fishermen in the United States must comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other laws and regulations that often specify what kind of fishing gear they can use, as well as how, when, and where fishing can take place in order to reduce the number of marine mammals killed or injured by fishing gear. However marine mammals are found around the world and interact with a wide variety of fisheries. International collaboration through exchange of technology and information may help control and minimize effects on marine mammals.
NMFS press release, April 30, 2010
The Federal Register notice for input on the regulations can be found here. The docket number is 0907301201–91203–01.
The NMFS is considering a wide range of options but is clearly leaning toward using the standards and practices required for American commercial fisheries as the minimum. Countries that do not abide by these standards would be prohibited from exporting fish to the United States.
Please support the NMFS adopting rigorous standards for imported fish to better protect marine mammals.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 5 p.m. on June 29, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
(1) Electronic Submissions:
Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
Here is a direct link to docket item with submit comment link at the top of the page.
(2) Mail:
Director, Office of International Affairs, Attn: MMPA Fish
Import Provisions, NMFS, F/IA, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910
(3) Fax: (301) 713–2313
Here is my submission;
Dear Policy Maker
I strongly support your efforts to protect marine mammals through improved standards for importing fish from countries that follow appropriate practices. Ideally, those standards should be for zero or near zero mortality of marine mammals for domestic and foreign fisheries.
I support the adoption of a bycatch standards for import-supplying fisheries comparable to those required for U.S. fisheries (Option 3). Please develop a well-specified narrative for minimum compliance standards to eliminate ambiguity in implementation. Please reject pressure from domestic importers and foreign commercial interests to adopt standards weaker than those required for U.S. fisheries.
Thanks for reading and taking action.