If you’ve spent much time around fisheries management
debates, one thing becomes pretty clear:
All of the folks speaking up at the hearings, along with the folks on
the councils and management boards, are pretty sure that they know the right
answers.
And they “know” that all of the other guys’ answers are wrong.
It’s not hard to think of examples.
Up in New England, we see a never-ending debate between
biologists trying to conserve cod stocks and fishermen trying to catch them.
In the Gulf of Mexico, anglers have spent years fighting commercial
fishermen, and more recently the for-hire fleet, over their share of red
snapper.
And all along the striper coast, we have the current battle
between recreational anglers and the for-fleet, who have different opinions
about striped bass conservation.
Such thinking isn’t limited to fisheries issues. Last week, while I was at work, I received an
e-mail inviting me to read a blog written by someone called Rebel Brown, which
had the absolutely awful title “When
Leaders Wear Rose-colored Business Glasses.”
Despite its title, the blog itself wasn’t awful at all, and
applied to far more than business—such as, for example, marine resources
debates.
The premise of Brown’s essay is that we tend believe what we
want to believe, regardless of whether it’s true. She notes that
“Neuroscience has proven that
when we are presented with information or insights that threaten our feeling
good about ourselves or our situation, we bring out the rose-colored glasses.
Our unconscious mindware proceeds to distort our reality, changing what we see
and even fill in the blanks with evidence designed to reduce the threat and
make us feel good.”
To put that into a fisheries context, New England trawlers
are really convinced that there are plenty of cod on the banks; they believe
that the science is wrong.
If they believed anything else—say, that they’re only
catching a lot of cod on Stellwagen Bank because the fish are bunched up there feeding
on herring, and are scarce elsewhere in the region—they would have to make an
unpleasant choice between cutting back harvest and making less money, or
knowingly overfishing the stock and driving it toward commercial extinction.
Since either of those alternatives could only bring them
discomfort, they have naturally chosen a third opinion—convincing themselves
that the fish are still there and the scientists have to be wrong.
It’s not only commercial fishermen who think in that
manner.
I spent a number of years
listening to very bright and very decent people complaining that federal
regulators were burdening red snapper anglers in the Gulf of Mexico with “unfair”
regulations.
It was interesting to be an “outsider” who knew the people,
understood the management system and had even participated in the fishery from
time to time, but didn’t live on the Gulf and wasn’t emotionally or physically
involved with the fishery on a regular basis.
Although they would never admit it, and would be embarrassed if they ever did, my then-colleagues sounded just like the codfishermen up in
Gloucester; they thought that they were the “good guys,” beset by bad science,
overzealous regulators and a conspiracy led by conservation groups who wanted
to drive them out of the fishery. They
could never understand that, to me, they sounded no different than any other fish
hogs wanting to increase their kill.
Why the difference in perspective? Brown noted
"the human
program that drives us to prove ourselves right. That program is even stronger
when it comes to protecting our beliefs about our businesses and ourselves in
times of threat, or opportunity!
"This instinctual response is aided by another one. In any
situation, our unconscious mind is wired to fill in the details, details that
make the situation more the way we want it to be. Even if those details are
inaccurate. For example, when our self-image is threatened, our unconscious
mind will fill in the data it needs to create the reality we want and need.
"The challenge is this. If we’re filling in what we want to
believe, and tinting reality to our favor – how do we have any hope of seeing
what’s really happening around us?
And isn’t that all often the
problem with fisheries issues? People
denying the truth until a collapsed stock or suddenly oppressive—if necessary—regulations
catch them by seeming surprise?
So folks try to tell us we don’t
have a problem; the striped bass are merely “offshore,” weakfish are just in “a
cycle” and winter flounder are not overfished.
It’s all what they want to
believe.
Brown suggests that anyone
wishing to step out of their personal blind spots in order to better view
reality take three meaningful steps.
They need to make an active effort to prove themselves wrong, they need
to view issues from multiple perspectives and they need to get outside of their
comfort zone and talk to people with opposing views.
Those aren’t easy things to do,
but having done (and failed to do) all of them at various times over the years,
I believe that they are absolutely necessary if we’re to get to the truth that
lies at the core of fisheries debates.
Trying to prove yourself wrong is
probably the easiest approach to master, because in the end, it’s all about
fact, not opinions. Brown suggests that
a person
“take any assumption or belief and go exploring. Look
for evidence that says you’re wrong. Stretch your mind to see beyond
information that agrees with you and find the information that says you are
just plain inaccurate.”
What she describes is really the
essence of science, approaching any situation with a skeptical mind open to the
possibility that our interpretations of what we observe may be wrong.
As an attorney, I learned long
ago that the best way to prepare to make comments before a regulatory body or
present a case in front of a court is to first try to write your opponent’s
comments or brief. Your opponent’s
strongest arguments will be the weakest points in your case, and it you can’t
craft an even stronger counterpoint, it’s time to stop and ask yourself what to
do next.
On the other hand, if you can easily
dismiss the best that the other side can offer, your argument is probably pretty
strong.
Yet science alone doesn’t decide
fisheries issues; the management process is highly politicized, and to succeed
in the management arena, it helps to understand what everyone wants.
Normally, everyone wants more
than they’re likely to get, but the key to a reasonable outcome is to listen to
folks, and figure out what they actually need, and what they can live without.
Striped bass provide a good
example.
For years, many anglers have
wanted to end the commercial fishery, and make striped bass a “gamefish.” In some states they have succeeded; in the
rest, they currently lack the political support needed to get the job
done. Yet they still keep banging their
heads against the same big brick wall.
Instead of doing that, they
should be looking at things from a commercial perspective, seeking shared
concerns.
Here in New York, a
large percentage of the commercial striped bass fishermen use rod and reel rather
than nets of any sort. When they see a
hundred dead striped bass afloat in the wake of the trawler that killed them after
boxing its 21-fish “bycatch” allowance, commercial “pinhookers” are, by and
large, as disgusted as any angler. They’re
also unhappy when gillnetters kill loads of fish at one time, flooding the
markets and driving down prices for everyone.
If anglers looked at this
situation from the pinhookers’ perspective, not only their own, they might work
together to bring both trawls and gill nets under control.
But that doesn’t happen, largely
because the groups do not talk.
Go to a fisheries hearing, and
you’re likely to see factions assembled like street gangs fighting a turf
war. Each side applauds its own
spokesmen, and often hoots in derision at opposing groups’ spokesmen, whom they
view with disdain.
I will never forget a winter
flounder hearing that ASMFC held here in New York, when the perennially
obnoxious captain of a Huntington party boat, as part of his recorded comments,
publicly derided the speaker before him for wearing a suit, which proved that such speaker could not have
a clue about what was happening out on the water…
That’s not atypical in the tribal
world of fisheries management, where each user group shares a faith comprised
of the “facts” that they choose to believe, and zealously defends that faith
against heretics and outsiders.
Because
they talk only to one another, such faith is constantly reinforced, those
with other beliefs are generally shunned, and objective truth is largely
irrelevant.
Once people stop listening to one
another, it gets much harder to get anything done.
And the first step toward
listening is to concede that there’s a chance that you might be wrong.
You can only find answers if you’re willing to question.
And there’s no better place to
start than questioning yourself, and all you believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment