They say a picture is worth a thousand words and in the case of Loren McClenachan’s June 2009 publication in The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology there is evidence of a major decline in the size of fish caught in the Florida Keys.  McClenachan used a unique method for quantitating the changes of reef fish size over the last 50 years by turning to photographic evidence and documented data of harvested trophy fish.

Photo credit: USCD

With an annual global shark harvest estimated at 100 million it should be no surprise that the lengths of sharks have dropped by 50% in the Florida Keys and around the world, but interestingly enough results show that larger sharks had been lost by 1965 in this study area. Long before the current plight of overfishing had taken root, large reef sharks were under threat from recreational and commercial fisheries in the 1930s and 40s. As such, the population of larger individuals began their decline before the mid-1960s. Unfortunately, continued and added fishing pressure have prevented their re-emergence (along with other reef fish species)in the Key’s waters, and continues to force a major shift in species composition.

Reference:
McCLENACHAN, L. (2009). Documenting Loss of Large Trophy Fish from the Florida Keys with Historical Photographs Conservation Biology, 23 (3), 636-643 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01152.x

Overfishing is rearing its ugly head once again and I am quite certain the repercussions of depleting our world’s fish stocks will continue to directly (and indirectly) strangle a multitude of species. Taking center stage are 7 tuxedo-clad species threatened by commercial fisheries, increased competition for prey, habitat loss and degradation, disease, predation, and climate change.

The technological boom over the last 60 years has catapulted the fishing industry into a commercial titan, enabling ships to continue fishing ocean waters for weeks before returning home with bursting hulls. Now fast forward to the 21st century and it should be no surprise that the annual global fish catch is in excess of 100 million tons (as of 2004) and at least 33% of the world’s fish stocks are overfished.

Apparently this means more than an empty slot in the seafood counter and mere inconveniences for shoppers as penguins and other wildlife do not have the luxury of skimming through grocery stores for their next meals.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has found the African penguin (Spheniscus demersus) is in danger of extinction due to a dramatic decline in numbers caused by oil pollution and overfishing. Besides the decrease in available prey, reduced fisheries are increasing the pressure on penguin predation as predators are expanding their diets and/or focusing efforts on species that are readily accessible.

This is a classic example of what is touted in environmental circles regarding interdependence amongst species and ecosystems, and thanks to the landmark “March of the Penguins”, listing some of the now famous emperor penguin’s brethren may be the spark required to initiate the cute factor and gain society’s attention to the plight of our dwindling fisheries.

Besides the African penguin’s proposal for an endangered listing, the FWS recommends 6 penguin species for threatened status:

• the yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes)
• the white-flippered penguin (Eudyptula minor albosignata)
• the Fiordland crested penguin (Eudyptes pachyrhynchus),
• the erect-crested penguin (Eudyptes sclateri)
• the Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldti)
• the Southern Rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome) in part of its homerange

The classic battle being fought around the country between Big Box Stores and Mom & Pop Shops has transcended our coastlines and sailed into the global fisheries industry. Whether we have a predisposition for supporting underdogs, or strive to preserve tradition, we seem to harbor a connection to small local businesses and feel dismayed by their impending decline.

Unfortunately cheap prices and a wide variety ultimately sway consumers with misplaced priorities towards corporate giants… which in our oceans translate to overfishing, unprecedented bycatch, and environmental impacts. Instead of stepping aside as large-scale fisheries continue to dominate the waters, perhaps a trend reversal is in order. Could phasing out “Big Box” fisheries be a solution that ultimately reduces global bycatch, capitol costs and fuel consumption while simultaneously increasing social benefits such as jobs?

According to Dr. Pauly, “Indeed, I argue that the best path toward sustainable fisheries worldwide would be to phase out industrial fisheries in favor of artisanal fisheries, which have a much better track record of sustainability (Conservation Magazine: July-September 2007. Vol. 8, No. 3).”

The recent discovery of endangered coho salmon in California’s Garcia River watershed is a testament to the importance of preserving and restoring habitat. The twice clear-cut Garcia River Forest resulted in the diminishment of its coho population to a mere 1 percent of historical numbers. I guess we should not be surprised that responsible land and resource management is essential for sustaining wildlife populations and rehabilitating endangered species.

However, this “revelation” does not seem to resonate when politics and monetary streams are involved. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy declared in 2004, “Of our nation’s 259 major fish stocks—representing 99 percent of total commercial landings—roughly 25 percent are either already overfished or experiencing overfishing.” Yet, before leaving office the Bush Administration is working to deregulate certain fisheries management decisions and put power in the hands of the same commercial operations responsible for the current state of our fish stocks.

Thus, the inherent problem of this whole situation is cost-benefit analysis. Using salmon as an example, I believe we are not asking the right questions: What mode of action provides the best odds of salmon recovery (as opposed to the notion of what is the minimum we need to do to just slide by), ensures salmon restoration, or is it simply a need to ask what is the morally right thing to do?

In the context of environmental law, cost-benefit analysis tries to breakdown both the positives and negatives of regulatory alternatives to a dollar figure. Thus, there becomes a need to quantify the monetary value of human life, endangered species, aesthetics, and habitats. Generally speaking, the positives and negatives are calculated by what people are willing to pay to either prevent or retrieve an outcome. With this in mind, the regulators and legislators must choose a point at which to end; the point at which the benefits of pursuing salmon recovery are not worth the achievable costs. Estimating the costs for salmon recovery when it comes to removing dams, loss of hydroelectric power, or even other technologies like salmon ladders/passages can easily be measured. And hence we are often provided a cost of salmon restoration that is in the billions of dollars. However, it is when benefits, such as environmental health, habitat protection, species conservation and natural resource sustainability, need to be monetized that things are not quite as easily discernable.

In an effort to wrap this up, Environmental Law and Policy provides the following reasons why cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection fails:

• The standard economic approaches to valuation are inaccurate and implausible- The establishment of artificial (estimated) prices for the prevention of endangered species, protecting a habitat, or saving a human life are not based on precise calculations, but rather done through a variety of indirect techniques that result in the loss of accuracy and common sense.

• The value-laden and complex cost-benefit process is neither objective nor transparent- It is less likely to deliver objectivity because, as opposed to theory, it actually introduces opinions and judgment calls often influenced by personal beliefs and partisanship.