Was Marine Conservation Enough? Will Eating Fish Sustainably Be Enough?

For a longer time my "totem" animal, if I may use such a concept without offending people, and being able to use the spiritual belief "correctly", were and still are the birds. But I am now compelled to write about fish as an animal who is in need of our protection. Birds symbolize freedom and they can be found all over the world, even over the un-traveled seas and icecaps. Birds are a wonder, being light enough to be buoyed up by the air. Birds have many fans and students, but fish, the "birds of the sea" usually have a different and less friendly and appreciative relationship with mankind.

Being "for the birds" is less of a difficult avocation than it has been for some, but being "for the fish" can result in much more potential public approbation.

But the fish are in need of our protection and friendship, even if they are wet and sticky. They are forgotten beings living out of the sight of most people. Most people still just think of them as a food source. A billion people across the world depend upon fish for protein (Helfman, 2007), but we have not always managed our marine fisheries well enough.

I bonded with fish as an Interpretive Naturalist at an aquarium in San Francisco. At Underwater World at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, a diver's experience immersion aquarium, I was surrounded by local fish and sharks. I was there for close to three years to answer the questions of the visitors and point out the wondrous thing they can see at the aquarium. Rather than a marine science approach which is sometimes backed up by the fishing industry, and the nearby restaurants, I tried to share an ecological and evolutionary approach with the visitors. Fish are not solely a food source, they are also other "citizens" of the planet.

Citizens without a voice. The shape of fish are an evolutionary adaptation to their environment. Fish come in all sizes and shapes because they have adapted to different lifestyles; they have different niches. Some rest, others swim continuously, some swim in groups, etc…. Though strange, some are beautiful and amazing in their own right.

I felt a kinship with the Rockfish (at the super market and restaurants as Snapper) who would rest on the rocks and ledges of the exhibit. They reminded me of my grandfather, a marathon runner into his nineties. I could imagine him running down the road with many miles still to go sometimes with the same expression.

The faces of some of the Rockfish, not quite stoic, reminded me of people.

Rockfish especially look like old people who can often be forgotten by the society that they have served for such a long time. Rockfish are out of sight and contact for many. Fish as food, has provided a function for mankind, but we have been too slow to realize that they are being over exploited and we need to change our ways in order to protect them. The same thing could be said many years ago.

Divers encounter live fish, but most of the rest of us forget about or see them as a lost cause. We have recently seen their demise. The Atlantic Cod fishery collapse was widely publicized, but it is far from the only such occurrence.

Cannery Row in Monterey, California, once a thriving cannery town has been closed and has been replaced with a tourist town and an aquarium.

John Steinbeck in Sweet Thursday (1954), though a comedy, eloquently sets the scene. One can see the empty buildings and the watchman:

"When the war came to Monterey and to Cannery Row everybody fought it more or less, in one way or another. When hostilities ceased everyone had his wounds.

The canneries themselves fought the war by getting the limit taken off fish and catching them all. It was done for patriotic reasons, but that didn't bring the fish back. As with the oysters in Alice, "They'd eaten every one." It was the same noble impulse that stripped the forests of the West and right now is pumping water out of California's earth faster than it can rain back in. When the desert comes, people will be sad; just as Cannery Row was sad when all the pilchards were caught and canned and eaten. The pearl-gray canneries of corrugated iron were silent and a pacing watchman was their only life. The street that once roared with trucks was quiet and empty." (Page 3)

People survived, as some did the Dust Bowl and desertification of northern Africa, but one can see the empty buildings which are now all over the world. This ecological disaster has been repeated and is likely to happen again if we are not willing to change our consumption patterns. Fishermen also realize this. In the 2007/2008 fishing season, the salmon fisheries in the San Francisco Bay Area were almost completely suspended due to the how bad the recent salmon fishing seasons have been. Many causes were cited. There was also the major 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill that released 70,000 gallons of toxic Bunker Fuel in the San Francisco Bay. Offshore oil drilling is also to be considered off the coast of California and Florida, even by the Democrats. The fishing boats at Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn, New York, are now mostly charter boats which take passengers out to the nearby waters, rather than earning their keep solely by doing all the fishing themselves.

The point is that we have been too late with the fish who we usually only see at the supermarket or on our plates. People have to eat, and the Native American name for salmon translates to "food" in some tribes in California, but fishery stocks are not as abundant as they once were. The "promise" of Aquaculture, that Aquaculture would feed the world, was also not realized.

Fish are regulated to the category of food, partly because so many people around the world have grown dependent upon them as a food source. Most people of the world live by the Earth's oceans or bodies of water. As wild animals they are also available for the taking.

But in the process we have suffered from The Tragedy of the Commons. What was once common to all, an abundant sea, was over exploited, resulting in the demise of the fishing stock for all in many places.

Ironically, it was the reminder of pollution in the fisheries stocks that restricted the consumption of fish. Pregnant women should not eat fish, because of Mercury poisoning, more than once a week. Pollution through biomagnification accumulates in dangerous amounts as one travels up the oceanic food chain. The pollution runoff that makes into the ocean may wind up on one's dinner plate.

But we knew about this problem for a long time.

With Earth Day more than 30 years ago, one may wonder why we still have these problems?

It is hard to escape the conclusion that The Conservation Movement did not always work. Conservation was a reaction to Preservationism which sought to preserve wild places. John Muir considered such untrammeled places as God's Chapels. Yosemite was not just beautiful; it was also sacred. His former friend and rival, government forester Gifford Pinchot argued that we also need to use the resources available to meet our needs. He believed we could do so in a way in which the resources would renew themselves through natural processes. If we cut down the trees in a certain way they would grow back. There was so much forest at the time that clear cutting was not necessary. Many beautiful places in the American West have since been preserved, but it is only recently that we have started to preserve marine sanctuaries. These protected areas have their champions, but the preservation of these areas is an attempt to make sure that the fish have safe zones to replenish the fishery stocks. That is we need Marine Protected Areas for human centered reasons also. Without the sanctuaries we may no longer have the fish, but though
it is an environmental decision, it is conservation, rather than preservation. We are not protecting these areas solely for their wondrous undersea inhabitants, but rather for the function they serve in maintaining the fisheries stocks. Fish are still seen as a consumable item by many. Marine Protected Area are certainly a step forward and many creatures will be saved in the process, but in contrast is the real preservation of the endangered species protection laws.

But the discontinuation of the consumption of fish may never occur. In Walden Henry David Thoreau wrote that he thought we would all be vegetarians by the Millenium. The efforts to create and protect marine sanctuaries indicate that the crisis has been acknowledged, but it is still old school Conservation. Conservation was the argument that we needed to protect what we had for future generations. We needed to work together and regulate consumption to avoid The Tragedy of the Commons. Conservation did not work for the fish or the fisherman in a number of circumstance, with recent reminders being Salmon in San Francisco Bay, Pilchard in Monterey, and Cod in New England.

The cry for Sustainability is a new attempt at an old problem. Sustainability is a more desperate cry than Conservation. It points out that we need to change our habits again or the Earth will not support us. It also acknowledges that we depend upon the resources of the Earth, pointing out that we have failed to protect them. We need to make changes so we will not lose the ecological systems that we depend upon. We are no longer doing this merely for our own benefit, but in this over crowded world we need to do so for our very survival.

The Dust Bowl and the desertification of certain areas on the globe, remind that we needed to protect the resources we depended upon. The Conservationists pointed that out (if we do not take care we will ruin things that we are better off not losing), the recent drive for Sustainability reminds that it is more desperate of a situation. What we have done to the land has also been happening to the sea. But now we can measure our own ecological footprint, make informed decisions as consumers, and write eletters. We can also change seafood restaurants by following the available sea food guides produced by environmentalists concerned about the diminishing fisheries stocks.

There appears to be good guys and bad guys out there on the ocean waters. There are those who fish sustainably and those who do not. There is fisheries research and regulation. On the job is the Marine Stewardship Council which through a website, marine sustainability groups, and aquariums has produced the West Coast Seafood Guide. One can find out more at http://www.seafoodwatch.org. The seafood guide is small enough to put in someone's wallet or purse. It lists the Best seafood choices for sustainability as well as the Good Alternatives and what to avoid. Pollution is more of a problem for the fishes higher up on the food chain.

The list is comprehensive with over 60 marine fisheries species and classifications listed in the 2008 West Coast Seafood Guide. A lot of science has went into its production. It is also updated on the Internet, again at http://www.seafoodwatch.org. If enough people use the guides the restaurants and supermarkets with have to take notice and make adjustments. One can keep them handy if they decide what they are willing to eat from the lists presented. Hopefully seafood restaurants may react and only cook sustainable seafood.

But the sustainability efforts may not be enough, and many may not pay attention to them. The fishing industry is very entrenched in this society, actually all over the world, and they have historically fished down the fisheries food chain. Fisherman have been bothered by all sorts of regulations, but they are a traditional part of seaside communities. They may feel threatened by recent sustainability efforts and vegetarianism, but many will be willing to change their fishing patterns in the interest of making sure the fisheries stocks that they depend upon do not collapse. Aquariums also do their part by showing children the wonders of ocean life, but they are embattled, like Zoos, by people who think all animals should be free. They also need to keep in business. Those who like eating fish and the fisherman who exploit fish take advantage of the weakness of Aquariums in the area of public opinion and criticize them in a way in which it might be scary to work at one. Aquariums can be a vehicle for social change, but visitors also like to eat at nearby seafood restaurants and they are not there to be preached at.


Just following the sustainability seafood guides will change the world, but it may not be enough. One mayargue that this article should be written by someone who works in the fisheries industries, but is correct to counter that instead the person should be a vegetarian or someone who does not eat fish. I write this from a very progressive and environmental friendly city by the sea. I probably can write this because I am not a vegetarian, instead someone who eats domesticated animals, but not fish. I write this because I have not seen a term for someone who does not eat fish for moral or environmental reasons in any of the Marine Science textbooks I have written about. I find this absurd.

Fish have a presence, but their expressions do not change a lot. It is usually hard to empathize with them because we do not always notice them expressing their pain. There has been debate over whether they experience pain, but they do react like other animals to uncomfortable stimuli and therefore experience pain (Helfman, 2007). Most are still designated to the role of a food source. Divers have a different experience with them. For them they are wondrous creatures to see all over the world, but eating fish is part of our seaside world culture.

It will take someone as intelligent, eloquent, and brave as Rachel Carson to convince the world to change its course with seafood. Thoreau convinced many to be vegetarians, but a billion people all over the world depend upon fish as a protein source (Helfman, 2007).

That person may need to be a sea diver, preferably one who will swim with most sharks.

There are also divers who report back that they swim with sharks, also a fish, who do not bother them. There is much zeal in the marine conservation field for sharks with scores of people pointing out that we are killing over 100 million sharks every year. The sharks were the big bad ugly sea creature, especially the cinematic Great White Sharks who are now an endangered species. Environmentalists are using their sound bites to point out that we need to protect sharks and that people swim with them, but they maybe too zealous, especially since people are also seeing pictures of people who have been attacked by sharks. They act like The Press is being dumb with their coverage of the potential danger. Sharks are not in the waters hunting for human beings, and they also wind up sometimes on our dinner plates. They have evolved to
catch other types of fish. Maybe, as an idea, we should be pointing out that "Almost All Sharks Are Not Dangerous". This statement does not contradict the reports of shark attacks or their documentation. It also makes one want, actually need, to find out more. The reports of shark attacks discredits environmentalists who do not acknowledge that with a few species there is the danger of an attack. The divers may be braver than the rest of us swimming with sharks, but they know what they are doing. The occasional swimmer needs to know more. A few species of sharks also bite people by mistake or because they are curious.

Humankind is far more of a dangerous and hungry creature in the sea.

Even some vegetarians, actually piscavorians, eat fish in order to get the proteins they need. They also prefer wild salmon to farmed salmon. The Seafood Guides point out that wild salmon carry less pollution in their systems than farmed salmon. The farmed salmon also carry more disease, but they are no longer part of the wild ecological systems we seek to preserve. One may argue that domestication is necessary while hunting disturbs the natural processes. One point not often stressed is that the survival of domesticated animals is insured because they serve the role as a food source. The chickens and cows of the world are not likely to disappear, but through breeding they are no longer what they once were. Thankfully there are also Animal Rights activists taking efforts to make sure they are better treated. The sacrificial chickens and cows are also an entrenched part of our Western Society, as is seafood consumption. In this light one can
disagree with the Seafood guides which argue not to eat farmed Salmon. Salmon in some sense has become a domesticated animal as well. We will always be wanting to put more Salmon in the sea and maybe there are ways to grow them so they accumulate less toxins and diseases in their sea pens.

It is a sad state of affairs to be a sacrificial domesticated food source, but at least they will continue to exist.

Environmentalists can also join animals rights activists to try to make their living conditions better.

Hunting should be questioned as well. In many cases it intrudes on natural systems.

But surprisingly there is no well known term for those who would not eat fish for moral or health reasons. Such a person may eat domesticated animals. The idea is hardly original, or mine, but sustainability may not be enough. A niece of mine did not like to eat fish, I knew a women who did not like to eat fish for moral reasons, especially after looking at its face on the plate. Neither of them are writers. I have heard that some members of The Monterey Bay Aquarium do not eat fish. I did not decide to stop eating fish until after I had worked at an immersion aquarium. Being surrounded by fish all day I stopped feeling comfortable considering them as a food source. I also was surprised that many environmentalists and vegetarians eat fish despite that they are usually wild creatures. The vegetarian view of society as well as that of the anarchist is very condemning and not likely to catch on with a wide audience that one would be able to organize or educate.

In a review of a marine conservation textbook in The Electronic Green Journal I put forward the term "non piscavore" as a label for those who do not eat fish for moral and health reasons to better facilitate the dialogue between those who seek to change society to better help protect the marine environment. I have not seen such a term mentioned in all the ocean conservation books I have read. One sure way to help protect the marine environment is to stop consuming its residents, but it is not that simple. Some do not have a choice. The Sustainable Seafood Movement is a reasonable compromise, but many may not pay attentions and it may not be enough. There also needs to be "non piscavores" looking into the situation. Piscavores are fish that eat fish, and they have done all the writing about marine conservation I have read.

The Environmental Movement may also gain from the assistance of the Animal Rights Movement and vegetarians. It is not that animals are more important than people, but they important in their own right as well. There are also many alternatives to eating meat. One may ask what about sushi restaurants. There is a Japanese vegetarian restaurant in my neighborhood called Cha-Ya that also does not serve fish. It is hard to give up fish and I do not claim to be perfect on the matter, but I have not ordered a fish meal for close to half a dozen years. Fish & Chips places usually also serve Chicken Tenders that one can get used to. One can avoid shellfish as well. There are certain things I miss not eating, but I usually can avoid them. Being a "non piscavore" may also be an unsuccessful effort, even in The Environmental Movement because hunters are part of the tradition for some of us. But most people of the world have given up hunting whales. The damage we have caused the ecosystem has been documented and global warming has mobilized the troops again.

Fishermen have made adjustments. One may need to worry about angry fisherman who will be affected. It is almost a gothic experience to be aboard a boat where anyone can think of being thrown overboard, especially considering that "non piscavores" are threatening the fisherman's livelihood. Fisherman are remembered as a vocal and rambunctious bunch.

But one may need to remind that if one is not taking care to sustain the fish populations there may be no fish left. The Sustainability Movement may not be enough. This an acceptable argument especially considering that a lot of these fisherman have invested a lot of money buying the boats from which they make their livelihood. When fisherman are not careful to protect the marine environment they may need to switch to a different line of work. Anglers also feel attached to the food web as do hunters, but there are other ways to feel connected to the natural world.


Some of those wondrous senses of connection with the natural world may be felt by being involved with ecological habitat restoration or going bird watching or for a seaside walk or ocean diving. Most Sharks Are Not Dangerous so ask around before you go diving.


Bibliography:

Caddy, John F. (editor) Marine Habitat and Cover: Their Importance for Productive Coastal Fishery
Resources. (2007) UNESCO Publishing: France.

Clover, Charles. the end of the line, How Overfishing is Changing the World and What We Eat. (2006) The New Press: London.

Haggan, Nigel, Barbara Neis and Ian G. Baird. (editors) Fishers' Knowledge in Fisheries Science and Management. Edited (2007) UNESCO Publishing: France.

Helfman, Gene S. Fish Conservation: A Guide to Understanding and Restoring Global Aquatic
Biodiversity and Fishery Resources. (2007) Island Press: Washington, Covelo, London.

Matthiessen, Peter. (editor) Courage for the Earth (Writers, Scientists, and Activists Celebrate the Life and Writing of Rachel Carson). (2007) Mariner: Houghton Mifflin: Boston, New York.

Steinbeck, John. Cannery Row (1954) Viking Penguin: New York.