Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News
Archive
Over the past two decades there has been an increasing interest among zoos and aquariums in conservation education. This trend is hardly surprising. With the number of animals in the wild now regarded as endangered, there is a greater desire than ever before among the public to do something to prevent the utter extinction of wildlife and marine life, and to protect the remaining populations and their habitats. The public is looking for sources of information on what it can do. And, quite naturally, naturalists and other staff, as well as docents and volunteers in zoos and aquariums, want to share information with their visitors – conveying to them the plight of the animals and what steps individuals can take to help save wildlife and marine life.
From the standpoint of commercial fishing men and women – those whose livelihoods depend on the harvest of fish and shellfish from the wild and whose long term economic well-being depends upon healthy and abundant populations of these critters – programs to increase public knowledge about the marine environment are exceedingly important. Education programs -- that is, those that are objective and based on sound research -- can help mobilize a public to better understand and support efforts of fishermen to protect fish stocks and critical habitats. Such education programs can also help the public discern between good and bad practices and good and bad players within our fisheries.
Now some may ask, why would fishermen support conservation education, programs to inform the public about fisheries and the fish they buy? Aren’t fishermen overfishing stocks? Isn’t fishing gear “clear cutting” the ocean bottom and destroying critical marine habitats? Doesn’t commercial fishing kill or waste much of what it catches, dumping it overboard as bycatch? The answer is yes and no. Certainly there are fisheries that - knowingly or unknowingly - are overfishing stocks. There is fishing gear that causes destruction of marine habitats, either by design (such as dynamiting of reefs) or current use such as heavy trawl gear towed over pinnacles, corals and other hard rocky substrates. There are also fisheries or gear that are currently taking and killing - and usually discarding - fish or other marine life that is not the target of the fishing. This is generally referred to as bycatch. However, overfishing, the destruction of critical fisheries habitats and excessive bycatches are not sustainable practices.
While much has been written and televised in recent years about some of the more egregious fishing activities, there is also, you should know, a strong conservation element within our nation’s fisheries among both commercial fishermen and recreational anglers. These are the fishing men and women who are, or at least are making every effort to, fish responsibly. They recognize that they can take only what nature can replenish and no more, and that they must restrict their fishing accordingly. They recognize the habitat requirements of fish: no habitat equals no fish. And, they know they must do their part to protect those habitats from both fishing and non-fishing activities alike. Moreover they recognize that wasting fish will harm their own fisheries or those of others, and that in the harvest of public resources the public will not tolerate the endangering of marine mammals, sea birds or sea turtles.
Our conservation motivation is not altruistically driven but, rather, driven by economic necessity. Members of my organization are what might be termed “family fishermen.” They are principally owner-operators, and some crew, of small to mid-sized fishing vessels belonging to their port-based marketing associations. Most came to fishing not because it was the only thing they could do, but because it is what they love to do. It is a diverse fleet that ranges from Native Americans to immigrants from Sicily and Southeast Asia. Some are fifth or sixth generation fishermen and some came to fishing from other professions – education, law and law enforcement, civil service, medicine, even a nuclear physicist. They have long recognized that their own economic well being, their livelihoods, depend on a healthy marine environment. Members of my organization are not alone in that belief. There are other fishing groups, too, that share this ethic, this creed – along the Pacific Coast, in Alaska, New England, the Maryland shores of the Chesapeake and Florida.
On the West Coast, fishermen have seen the benefits of conservation, of well-managed fisheries, from Pacific halibut to Alaska salmon. The collapse of the California sardine fishery in the early 1950’s was a lesson to many fishermen that the oceans’ fish stocks are not infinite. Although fishing effort may not have been the cause of the sardine decline, it probably exacerbated it, and whatever the cause it was a warning that care needed to be taken in managing fisheries. The lesson of the sardine collapse was not lost on commercial fishermen years later in developing conservation measures for the herring, sea urchin and squid fisheries.
In California, where the modern fishery began on the West Coast in the late 1840’s with salmon fishing on San Francisco Bay and the Delta, fishermen witnessed the near destruction of the great salmon resource as inland habitat was obliterated, beginning with the hydraulic mining for gold in the 19th century. The Central Valley River system – the Sacramento and San Joaquin and their tributaries that connect the Sierra streams with San Francisco Bay and the Pacific - is second only to the Columbia-Snake system in salmon production in the lower 48. However, by the early 1970’s over 90 percent of the 6,000 miles of Central Valley salmon spawning habitat had been lost – mostly behind dams or dried up by diversions. Indeed, it was state policy at the time that “the protection of the salmon resource is not in the public interest.”
Shortly after the Bay-Delta salmon fishery was closed in 1956 – the great fishery that Jack London had written about – fishermen, both ocean trollers and recreational anglers, realized they could not rely on government to protect their fish and their livelihoods; they had to fight back. They went out in the streams with hatch boxes. They worked to repair riparian habitats and protect those habitats from rapacious land use practices. They demanded full mitigation from dam-caused habitat losses and have worked to assure hatcheries fulfilled their promises but did not destroy natural stocks. They worked to get adequate water flows back into rivers and are now working to remove obsolete dams. They taxed themselves and put forward bond acts to voters to fund restoration programs. They went to the legislatures and the courts to protect these fish. They changed state and federal attitudes by making it public policy to double natural salmon production.
To put it bluntly there would not be any salmon left today in California if it were not for the efforts of the fishermen and my organization. Urban water districts, irrigation districts, logging companies, and a lot of agencies may not like California’s salmon fishermen, but they sure as hell respect them.
Fishermen also learned that it was not enough just to ensure that there were abundant stocks of fish to harvest. They also had to be sensitive to the markets. That meant a top quality fish coming off the boat. It meant fish that were free of pollutants and toxics. And it meant fish that were harvested in such a way that the fishing did not endanger other wildlife. The canned tuna industry learned that lesson the hard way, when consumer boycotts were threatened because of the take of porpoise in the purse seine fishery for yellow fin in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Fishermen in other fisheries have been anxious not to repeat the tuna experience.
In the battle to conserve salmon and other fish and the way of life they represented, fishing groups in California and the rest of the west formed alliances with other interests - most notably, with certain conservation organizations. In the early 1960’s fishermen in the port of Bodega Bay – about the time Alfred Hitchcock was there filming “The Birds” – joined with the Sierra Club, and a local waitress, to stop a nuclear power plant proposed for that fishing port that would have been right on top of the San Andreas Fault. In the 1970’s fishermen and conservation groups coalesced behind efforts to reform logging practices and stop the spraying of dioxin-laden pesticides on salmon watersheds. In the 1980’s, commercial fishing groups allied with enviros, local governments and coastal dependent businesses to stop the spread of offshore oil drilling. In the 1990’s fishermen and conservation groups collaborated in efforts to reform western water law and policy – “fish gotta swim” – and the removal of dams.
In this decade, some of the leading fishing organizations are allied with conservation groups as part of the Marine Fish Conservation Network in efforts to shore-up and strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act governing our federally-regulated fisheries. And fishing groups currently are working with conservation, consumer and food safety organizations, much of it through Seafood Choices Alliance, to put in place precautionary regulations and identification measures in the event the Food & Drug Administration approves the use of genetically-modified or “transgenic” fish in commercial aquaculture operations.
All of this is to say there has been a long history of many commercial fishermen and their organizations working for fish conservation, often in alliances with environmental organizations, recreational anglers, tribes, local governments and coastal tourist-related businesses. The strengths, or weaknesses, of the actions of fishermen, by themselves or in concert with others, often depended on the degree of public support they could muster. That support, in turn, depended on communication and outreach to inform the public about an issue and why it was important to them, to the fish and to the environment.
It has been said that more people nationally visit zoos and aquariums each year than the total of all people annually attending sporting events in this country. Zoos and aquariums not only have the opportunity to put on a public display of wildlife and marine life, but to educate vast numbers of the public about the animals, including the threats they face in the wild. And, as noted earlier, increasingly zoos and aquariums have taken on an advocacy role, urging the public to take specific actions the institution believes essential for the protection of wildlife or marine life.
I am not here to urge you to stay away from marine education and advocacy. Many aquariums are already involved and I’m sure I would not be able to convince them to do otherwise. The fact is, even if a zoo or aquarium does not have an education component, and is not involved in any formal advocacy, the public still asks questions. Visitors to zoos and aquariums are going to ask naturalists and other staff, they are going to ask docents and volunteers what is happening to the animals, why it is happening and what they can do as individuals.
Even if an institution were to instruct their naturalists and other staff, their docents and volunteers, not to discuss conservation issues, people are still going to offer up their own opinions. From the standpoint of an organization with a long history in fish conservation and whose members depend upon the harvest of fish and shellfish for their livelihoods, we would much prefer that the opinions offered by those who work for you be informed and based on solid data. The only way for this to happen is for zoos and aquariums to have available for their personnel and the public educational materials that convey a clear message, are easy to understand and, most importantly, are objective and science-based.
Because zoos are more likely to focus on educational and advocacy programs around terrestrial wildlife conservation, I want to make a special request here to the aquariums. To the extent that you have, or are planning to develop, marine education, conservation and advocacy programs and materials, please take the time to elicit the comments and suggestions from a myriad of marine scientists, experts from government and academia, and those of us within the fishing industry with a track record of fighting for fish conservation and habitat protection. Rather than saying nothing, I believe aquariums can be a great asset to commercial fishing groups and their allies who are working to assure that our fisheries are sustainable and our marine life and environments are protected for ourselves and our children’s children. To what extent aquariums will be a positive force, however, will depend on the quality of your programs and materials.
This brings me now to the issue of what do you tell your visitors when they ask, should I eat fish? What fish should I eat? The answer to the first question is emphatically yes. Whether you’ve read any number of health books lately or just put down Fast Food Nation, fish, along with organic produce and dairy products, and with free-range chicken and grass-fed beef, is one of the few foods that is good to eat both from a nutrition standpoint and an environmental standpoint – that is, if its sustainably harvested. As far as what fish to eat, I could certainly give you a list, but it would seem a little self-serving since most would be those caught and landed by members of my organization.
About five years ago, my organization was working with the Sierra Club, which had a grant at the time from a sake manufacturer to work on salmon watershed issues in Northern California. The Club was publishing a monthly newsletter about its watershed work and were getting questions from members about whether it was okay to eat salmon and whether people should eat farmed salmon to protect the wild ones. To respond to these questions, I was asked to write a piece for their newsletter explaining that the wild salmon in their markets were harvested subject to strict regulations to assure the sustainability of the runs, as well as to protect weak or listed salmon runs. I explained the environmental problems with current salmon farming practices and said that if people were concerned about their health and the environment they should eat more wild salmon – specifically, troll caught California kings harvested by my members (Sorry, Alaska, but I couldn’t help plugging the people who pay my bills). I further explained that a portion of the price the public paid for these fish went back into salmon restoration programs, through the salmon stamp and other fees paid by fishermen.
Following that article, a friend with the Club, intrigued by the article, suggested a jointly-produced guide to sustainable seafood. Such a guide could economically reward those fishermen and fisheries that were sustainable and responsible; and the bad actors or bad fisheries……well, they would be identified too. While I thought such a guide would be a good idea, I said it would have to involve a lot more organizations, lest it be seen as self-serving propaganda on the part of my organization. The recommendations would also have to be based on objective criteria, not just our gut reaction of what was good and what wasn’t. The Sierra Club agreed.
The other problem, of course, was that even with such a guide, there were still no labeling requirements for seafood accurately stating the type of fish, where it was from, how it was caught, or whether it was wild or farmed. In 1981, PCFFA had sponsored legislation in California to require truth-in-labeling for seafood, but fish distributors and importers as well as the restaurant and grocery associations worked to nix that bill. Fortunately, earlier this year, 21 years later, thanks to Alaska’s two Senators, such language was included in the federal Farm Bill requiring labeling of fish as to country of origin and whether its commercially harvested or farmed. We’re making progress. The Administration, however, opposes any form of truth-in-labeling law so we don’t know whether this seafood labeling law will be implemented, much less enforced. Fortunately, a number of the top restaurants and chefs in the nation have taken up the cause of sustainable seafood so, perhaps, on menus anyway, we may begin to see our fish correctly identified.
Shortly, after the discussions with the Sierra Club about a sustainable fisheries guide and the early development of the Institute for Fisheries Resources’ “Good Fish – Seasonal, Healthful, Sustainable” program, a number of individual organizations began offering up their own versions of seafood guides. What we found is that the guides were often conflicting and some were just plain wrong in their recommendations. The Seafood Choices Alliance, in a national meeting in December 2000, provided PCFFA, as well as IFR, the opportunity to voice our concerns that the conflicting messages in the guides were confusing to consumers and a number of the recommendations could not be justified; they were, in fact, harming fishermen fishing sustainably and responsibly.
Following that meeting, the Packard Foundation, which has championed market or consumer driven conservation initiatives, provided a grant to the Monterey Bay Aquarium to bring the various parties together to develop objective criteria on which to base the recommendations as well as involve scientists and experts within the fisheries in establishing criteria and making recommendations. The Monterey Bay Aquarium has done this. While some of my members or myself may quibble regarding some of the recommendations, their Seafood Watch card, and its accompanying materials and website, meet and surpass the objectives my organization spelled out in its 1998 discussions with the Sierra Club. The recommendations are based on objective criteria, experts are consulted on a regular basis and the recommendations are updated every six months to reflect changes in the fisheries. The Seafood Watch card is being used not only by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, but variations of it – the recommendations are the same – are being used now by the Aquarium of the Pacific, California Academy of Sciences’ Steinhart Aquarium, the Seattle Aquarium and the Vancouver Aquarium. This is simply the best guide that’s out there.
Now there are some that argue that all fish in the market is sustainable because it is subject to regulation. In the case of many of our federally-managed fish stocks that is certainly true, but unfortunately not for all of them. Many of the state-managed fish that are in our fish markets are also sustainably managed, but again not all of them. The biggest problem is that a lot of fish in our markets - the vast majority - is imported, and a growing share of the seafood is farmed. Much of the imported fish is not harvested sustainably and a lot of the aquaculture products are produced in ways that are downright damaging to the environment and actually result in a net loss of protein. Simply because a fish is in the market doesn’t mean it was caught or farmed sustainably or responsibly. That’s where a seafood guide can help consumers make the right choice.
Some have asked about the Marine Stewardship Council’s label certifying sustainably-caught fish. The MSC is relatively new, and its certification process can be lengthy and expensive. That is for a good reason: a through and exhaustive study is done of the fishery before determining if it meets the criteria MSC has set out for a sustainable certification. A few major fisheries have been certified, such as Australian rock lobster and Alaska salmon, but the vast majority have not gone through the process. An MSC label can be a helpful guide to consumers, but for the next decade at least, until more fisheries have a chance to get certified – from California, Oregon and Washington salmon, to Dungeness crab, to Pacific halibut, to albacore tuna and a host of other sustainably and responsibly caught fish – a MSC label is not the final word. Again, that is why an objective and science based seafood guide is needed.
My concluding comments to aquariums is that you can play a vital role in helping to educate the public about fish, other marine life and the oceans – much the same as zoos can do for wildlife conservation. But with this opportunity, comes a responsibility. When you prepare your programs and materials, consult knowledgeable scientists and other experts, and please don’t forget to talk to the fishing organizations that have been at the forefront of fish conservation. From the standpoint of a fisheries organization, we welcome your participation. An informed public, I believe, will help those whose livelihoods depend on the harvest of fish do a better job in conserving the stocks and protecting their habitats. An informed public will eat more fish and do a better job in selecting their fish – rewarding those fishermen and fisheries that are sustainable and responsible, and helping to sustain our communities.
The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) is the west coast's largest organization of commercial fishing families. Zeke Grader is its Executive Director. PCFFA can be reached at its San Francisco office at: PO Box 29370, SF, CA USA 94129-0370, (415)561-5080; its Northwest Office, PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR USA 97440-3370, (541)689-2000; or by email at: fish1ifr@aol.com. PCFFA's web site is at: www.pcffa.org.