“[My previous] remarks must suffice to indicate the wide
field of interesting research which fisheries offer to the philosophical historian,
and I pass on to speak of the fisheries from the point of view of our present
practical interests.
“The supply of food is, in the long run, the chief of these
interests. Every nation has its anxiety
on this score, but the question presses most heavily on those who, like
ourselves, are constantly and rapidly adding to the population of a limited
area, and who require more food than that area can possible supply. Unlike these circumstances, it is
satisfactory to reflect that the sea which shuts us in, at the same time opens
up its supplies of food of almost unlimited extent.
“The produce of the sea around our coasts bears a far higher
proportion to that of the land than is generally imagined. The most frequented fishing grounds are much
more prolific of food than the same extent of the richest land. Once in a year, an acre of good land
carefully tilled produces a ton of corn, or two or three hundredweight of meat
or cheese. The same area at the bottom
of the sea in the best fishing grounds yields a greater weight of food to the
persevering fishermen every week of the year.
Five vessels belonging to the same source in a single night’s fishing
brought in 17 tons weight of fish—an amount of wholesome food equal in weight
to that of 50 cattle or 500 sheep. The
ground which these vessels covered during the night’s fishing could not have
exceeded an area of 50 acres…
“Are fisheries exhaustible?
That is to say, can all the fish which naturally inhabit a given area be
extirpated by the agency of man?
“I do not think that this question can be answered
categorically. There are fisheries and
fisheries.
“I have no doubt whatever that some fisheries may be exhausted. Take the case of a salmon river, for
example. It takes no argument to
convince anyone who is familiar with the facts of the case that it is possible
to net the main stream, in such a manner, as to catch every salmon that tries
to go up and every smolt that tries to go down.
Not only is this true, but daily experience in this country
unfortunately proves that pollution may be poured into the upper waters of a
salmon river of such a character and in such quantity as to destroy every fish
in it…
“And now arises the question, Does the same reasoning apply
to the sea fisheries? Are
there any sea fisheries which are exhaustible, and, if so, are the circumstances
of the case such that they can be efficiently protected? I believe that it may be affirmed with confidence
that, in relation to our present modes of fishing, a number of the most
important sea fisheries, such as the cod fishery, the herring fishery, and the
mackerel fishery, are inexhaustible.
And I base this conviction on two grounds, first, that the multitude of
these fishes is so inconceivably great that the number we catch is relatively
insignificant, and secondly, that the magnitude of the destructive agencies at
work upon them is so prodigious, that the destruction effected by the fisherman
cannot sensibly increase the death-rate… [emphasis added]”
The image of the “inexhaustible” ocean has stuck in the public
psyche for a very long time.
In the mid-1960s, when I was an 11- or 12-year-old Boy Scout
working toward my Oceanography merit badge, one of the requirements was to provide
five uses for the oceans and its resources.
Food production was among the forefront of those, with the notion of a
nearly inexhaustible ocean still very much a part of the curriculum (it’s nice
to see that the
old direction to provide five uses for the ocean has since been replaced with “five
reasons why it is important for people to learn about the oceans,” which
hopefully tempers the former purely utilitarian approach with a bit of
knowledge and wisdom).
And just two years ago, when supporters
of the so-called “Modern Fish Act” met to urge Congress to support such
bill, one
speaker, Nick Cicero, a top employee of the fishing tackle companies Bimini
Bay Outfitters and Folsom Companies, said
“These amendments need to not only support the existing
population of recreational anglers and fishing related businesses also allow for
new entrants to come into the fishery and businesses to grow and expand…
“The law needs to recognize the fact that in its current
form, our tradition of fishing cannot be passed onto [sic] our children without
[the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act] taking away
opportunity from the rest of the fishing community. [Magnuson-Stevens], as it applies to the
recreational fishing, is a flawed law, one that stifles growth of our industry
and challenges the very future of our tradition.”
Such statement implicitly embraces the notion of an
inexhaustible ocean, with its promotion of policies that would increase harvest
levels in order to supposedly benefit fishermen and fishing-related businesses,
rather than the
current law, Magnuson-Stevens, which constrains landings to levels likely to
assure the continued health of fish stocks.
The problem is that events which have occurred since Huxley
made his London address prove, beyond doubt, that he was wrong. The three fish stocks that he deemed “inexhaustible,”
Atlantic cod,
Atlantic
herring, and Atlantic
mackerel are, as you read this, all overfished. (It should be noted that Huxley was talking
about European fish stocks, but the three species that he mentioned are also
found off the United States coast where, in the early 1880s, stocks were
arguably healthier than were their European counterparts.)
The decline
in American fish stocks led Congress to pass the Sustainable Fisheries Act of
1996, which favored conservation and the long-term health of fish populations
over the short-term economic benefits that overfishing can bring. Since then, “sustainability” has been federal
fishery managers’ watchword.
However, in more recent years, some scientists are beginning
to question whether the idea of truly sustainable food fisheries is realistic.
Smith argued that
“we must acknowledge that our demand for wild-caught seafood
outstripped the ocean’s sustainable supply decades ago. If we rehabilitate the oceans, to the tune of
$200 billion dollars [sic], we could potentially increase our current harvest a
little and keep it there sustainably.
Even so, we would need more.
“This brings us to the crucial point: there is no such thing as a sustainable type
of seafood, only a sustainable harvest rate.
If we are to demand truly sustainable fisheries, and we admit that
harvests cannot continue to grow, then we conclude that what must change is our
consumption. As long as humans demand ready
access to seafood whenever they want it, there will be pressure to exceed those
rates…
“Ultimately, we should not demand sustainable seafood—we should
demand sustainable consumption.”
Although Smith’s comments were aimed primarily at commercial
fisheries, they are just as applicable to the recreational sector—Nick Cicero’s
statement, quoted above, notwithstanding.
“’We think of fish as free.
Free goods for us to extract. We’re
not thinking about what we take out of the system…
“We should be looking at fish as something that makes the
ocean functional, that makes our lives possible…
“If you consider the cost of the food chain, [fish is] really
a pretty expensive choice.”
According
to the food industry website Food Dive, Dr. Earle argues that it’s time to cut
back on the amount of seafood landed,
because
“She advocated for less commercial fishing and more work on
determining plant-based or possibly lab-grown substitutes for seafood,’
because
“Fishing as it is known today will end by the end of the
century because the supply will not be there.”
One of the points she made is that there just isn’t enough
seafood available to feed everyone, particularly those who reside in inland
communities where seafood is not a historical part of people’s diet. As Food Dive reported,
“while fish have been a necessary part of coastal peoples’
diets for generations, they are not needed in the places and at the scale that
the commercial fishing industry currently serves. People in a place like Chicago, for example,
do not need to subsist on tuna. For
those who have not relied on seafood for generations, eating seafood is a
choice.”
That’s certainly true.
Again, relying on my early
memories, I recall an uncle who lived in Lorain, Ohio (just outside of
Cleveland) back in the ‘60s, who talked about an ambitious young businessman
who, every week, drove out to the coast to pick up a vanload of lobster, then
made the 12-hour trek back to Ohio. Once
back in the heartland, he set up his van at the side of the road and quickly
sold all of his lobster, which were a novelty in the Cleveland area, for a very
good profit.
Today, he would quickly go
broke. Thanks to advances in storage and
transportation technology, consumers across the country expect and can access a
wide variety of seafood, sourced from all over the world, in their local
markets, even if they live a thousand miles from the ocean.
But that just can’t go on,
particularly as the human population continues to expand.
As both the Smith essay and Dr.
Earle’s comments suggest, we’re already
up against the wall. We can no longer
expand landings in order to satisfy consumer demand, whether those consumers
are shoppers in their local markets, restaurant patrons, or recreational
fishermen trying to catch their own meals.
Demand needs to be carved back to
meet supply.
And that’s going to happen.
It’s going to happen if fishery
managers try to make reductions gently, cutting back harvest to sustainable rates
that supply sustainable levels of consumption.
It’s going to happen if commercial
and recreational fishermen, refusing to accept sustainable harvest, don’t set a
prudent stopping point, but instead try to drive right through the wall, and
send everything crashing down.
Which woul crush our fisheries, and
fishermen, along the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment