In 2017, the value of the global fish trade was expected to raise more than $150 billion, an all-time high (Terazono 1). The growing demand for seafood has a direct relationship to the increase in human population, and as a result, each year, the “need” for overfishing continues to surpass the last. Overfishing is when the fish stock is depleted so rapidly that natural reproduction cannot replenish the population. Collecting as many fish as possible, in one trip, sounds like an effective way to fish; however, the methods used to do so are catastrophic to marine ecosystems and species around the world. One of these animals being sharks, that are hunted solely for their fins, in fact, “by 2048, to be exact, catches of all the presently fished seafood will have declined on average more than 90 percent since 1950” (Clover 1). This would be devastating to the 3.5 billion people dependent on the ocean for food. Because commercial fishing is such a profitable market, laws made to control overfishing are not enforced as harshly as they should be; the current response to overfishing is intolerable, and regulations must be made and enforced if there is ever going to be a change in fishing practices, bycatch and shark finning.
Some people might argue that overfishing should continue because it provides millions of job opportunities to people around the globe; it’s not only an industry, it’s a livelihood. According to The Statistics Portal, 37.96 million people were working in the fishing industry as of 2014, and that’s excluding those in aquaculture. Not all these fishermen are culprits of overfishing, but putting regulations on the ones who are would decrease their already low salary of $24,000 - $42,000 significantly. The industry of commercial fishing is extremely profitable and stimulates the economy. If overfishing were to be stopped, billions of dollars would be lost. Another argument that might be made is that fish is a healthy alternative because the meat is so lean. Popular fish like salmon and tuna are in such high demand because of this, not to mention, how delicious they are. However, if these fish continue to be exploited like this, those 3.5 billion people dependent on the ocean for food will be forced to find something else to eat. As for the economic benefits, they are only short term because once the fish stock runs out, there will be no more money to be made. So, while these points are valid, the larger issue of global scope merits serious attention and action.
The rapid decline in commercial fish populations poses a threat to fish, and other marine species due to the sudden imbalance of the food chain, which indicates one reason to significantly reduce the amount of fish allowed to be caught. Since 1970, the amount of fish in the ocean has decreased by 50 percent (Doyle 1). However, there are some species being exploited even more than that. Alister Doyle points out in an article about sustainability that populations of tuna, mackerel, and bonito have fallen almost 75 percent. To fully understand how detrimental this is for the food chain, take this into consideration: when a specific species, say, the bluefin tuna, are being targeted and overfished, the decline in the tuna population leads to an incline in the tuna’s prey’s populations – most notably, the jellyfish. In a study conducted in 2012, it was found that 28 of 45 marine ecosystems observed a rapid growth in jellyfish (Brotz 1). This is significant because, in the past, jellyfish blooms have been an indication that something was wrong or unbalanced in the ocean. With the tuna’s numbers rapidly depleting, the jellyfish populations begin to spike. The article Jellyfish Blooms explains that when the absurd amount of jellies feed on plankton, crustaceans, small fish and fish eggs, they deplete the food source of larger mammals such as whales (Ross 1). When main predators are removed from the ocean in such large numbers, the trickle-down effect takes place, and the whole food chain gets thrown off balance, leaving other animals to either adapt or starve. This unfortunate series of events goes to show that overfishing does not just affect the fish that are being caught, but every other species in that food chain; therefore, the government must be proactive in attacking this problem.
Harmful fishing practices the government should ban or impose restrictions on include trawl nets and purse-seines. These nets are used to catch as many fish as possible in one trip. Trawl nets are towed behind a boat at either midwater or bottom of the ocean. In the midwater or pelagic zone, the intended catch is herring, sardines, and mackerel, while the bottom trawl is used to catch cod, flounder, shrimp and octopus (Brown 1). Of the two, bottom trawling is the most destructive. When the nets drag on the ocean floor, corals, seaweed, and other structures are ripped out of the ground or crushed – it’s no wonder why this type of net is known as the ocean bulldozer. Not only are these ocean structures demolished, but sometimes bottom-dwellers such as scallops and crabs are crushed too. In a blog about harmful fishing gear, Elizabeth Brown explains how diverse environments, rich in life, turn into barren deserts after they have been bottom-trawled. This method of fishing is extremely dangerous to marine ecosystems. Currently, there is disk technology that prevents the net from hitting the ocean floor; this method has been proven to reduce destruction to those seafloor habitats. This technology should be required for every fisherman intending to bottom-trawl, but more importantly, the areas where bottom-trawling is allowed should exclude those with corals, seagrass, and other biodiverse structures on the ocean floor, and penalties for violating these restrictions should be extreme.
If seine net fishing is not limited by extremely reduced quotas, and harsh repercussions to those that exceed these quotas, the Bluefin tuna will, in-turn, become extinct. Seine net fishing is especially harmful to the Bluefin tuna, and this method is responsible for the rapid decline in this species’ population. In just the last 30 years, purse-seine haulers have been ruthlessly efficient in the killing of Bluefin with the worldwide population plunging to more than 90 percent (Bluefin 1). A purse-seine is used to catch entire schools of the desired fish by surrounding the perimeter of the school with the seine and enclosing the net from the bottom to capture everything within it. Because this fishing method is so effective, it is easy for fishermen to exceed quotas and limitations put in place to regulate sustainability. According to an article written by The New York Times, published in 2008, the international commission that sets fishing limits for tuna approved an annual quota of 22,000 tons of Bluefin from the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. While this is less than the 30,000 tons previously allowed, it is exceedingly higher than the limit of 8,000 to 15,000 tons that scientists recommended. If these quotas are not lowered significantly, then the Bluefin tuna will soon become extinct, as it is already on the critically-endangered list. Additionally, penalties should be implemented to every fisherman or crew that exceeds the set quota. Currently, in Japan, it is normal for fishermen to exceed quotas by a disturbing amount of 16 tons. As a slap on the wrist, their quotas for next season are merely lowered. “From July, for prefectures [regions] that exceeded their quota this season, Japan's Fisheries Agency will subtract the excess catch from their quota for the year. The region of Kagoshima had a quota of 8 tons but reeled in 24” (undercurrent 1). Quotas need to be enforced severely by taking away the fishing license of anyone who exceeds them, and/or making them serve jail-time. The punishment must fit the crime, so longer jail sentences would be given to those who greatly exceed quotas, while lesser sentences or temporary suspension of their fishing license would be for those who nearly exceed the quota. To enforce these punishments, each boat should have to report the weight of their daily catch, much like weigh stations for trucks, and record of this should be documented by an official or perhaps a volunteer. Without strict laws regarding seine nets and quotas, the Bluefin tuna will be wiped out permanently.
Bycatch is wiping out marine populations, and regulations need to be put into effect in order to prevent species from becoming endangered, as well as the ones who already are, such as the Vaquita dolphin. Bycatch is any unintentionally caught marine animal, and, “because the bycatch animals have little or no economic value, they are usually jettisoned, generally dead, back into the ocean. This non-selectivity of commercial fishing is an especially important problem when trawls and seines are used” (Freedman 1). When trawl nets and seines are used, bycatch becomes more of a problem because of their massive size and ability to catch entire schools of fish at once. However, other animals such as seabirds, endangered sea turtles, rays, whales, and dolphins, only to name a few, can be caught in these nets as well. They can get their wings, fins, or gills caught in these nets causing them to drown, become strangled or be unable to fly. Dead or barely alive, these animals are then thrown back in the water. The Vaquita dolphin found in the Gulf of California and the Maui’s dolphin located near New Zealand are nearly extinct because of bycatch. In 2012, the Vaquita dolphin population was fewer than 200, and the Maui’s dolphin, even fewer, at about 50 (Mccarthy 1). The Vaquita dolphin’s population has since then dropped. Rod Norland of the New York Times describes a 1-year-old Vaquita that was, “found dead in a fishing net and had the imprint of the net in which she died stamped in six-inch squares on the grayish skin on her left side. On her right side, the skin was flayed off, probably as the porpoise struggled while drowning in the net”. These dolphins are on the brink of extinction, and effective policies must be put in place if the Vaquita is ever going to have a fighting chance. Areas where these dolphins inhabit need to be off-limits to fishermen and boats; similar to the manatee, people should not be allowed to embrace or interact with the Vaquita. As a whole, bycatch must be regulated by requiring fishermen to use specific nets that allow the unwanted catch to free itself, as well as creating boundaries around certain areas that home to endangered species.
Shark finning poses a threat to several marine food chains, and the consumption of sharks in shark fin soup can cause humans harm through mercury poisoning; in order to save these sharks from poachers and hunters, campaigns must be made to decrease the demand for shark fin soup. Shark finning is the barbaric practice of slicing off sharks’ fins, tossing them back into the ocean, and then leaving them to drown, as they can no longer swim. This inhumane act is done solely for the Chinese delicacy named Shark Fin Soup. This soup is served at fancy restaurants, banquets, weddings and other important events and is a sign of wealth. Frighteningly enough, the shark fin does not add any flavor to the soup, it is merely used to add texture and décor, meaning, millions of sharks die every year just to make the plate presentation more appealing to the eye. Sadly, movies like Jaws and 40 Meters Below, give the intelligent creature a bad reputation of being cold-blooded-human-killers so when a shark dies, people don’t even blink an eye, but what about when 100 million die each year? Ironically, “each year, commercial and recreational fishing kills more than 100 million sharks globally, and the number of humans killed by sharks in 2008: four (Endangered 1).
It is already difficult to raise awareness for sharks, much less, stop this mass genocide altogether because people have such negative connotations associated with them. Just like with the Bluefin tuna, removing a large predator from the ocean has drastic effects on every other species in that particular food chain. On the contrary, shark finning is not specific to one type of shark. This means that every species of shark hunted, and all the food chains they are a part of, are affected as well. Additionally, Simon Denyer of the Washington Post writes, “the shark's position at the top of the food chain means it can contain dangerous amounts of mercury, cadmium, arsenic and other poisonous metals”. So, while it may be difficult to campaign against the killing of sharks, it is much easier to raise awareness regarding humans’ health, and how the consumption of sharks is potentially dangerous and harmful to one’s body. Although the demand for shark fin soup in China has fallen almost 80 percent since 2011, it still lives on in other Asian countries; luckily, China has proven that with celebrity-endorsed campaigns against the Asian delicacy consumption does decrease significantly (Denyer 1). Campaigns like the one in China need to be broadcast globally to end the genocide of these kings of the ocean, and consumers of shark fin soup must be educated on the potential health risks that come with it.
Although the increase in human population has caused a rise in demand for seafood, it is necessary that the governments of the world take action to prevent catastrophic marine damage. Aside from the government, a few ways the average person can help solve this problem include opting for sustainably caught local fish from small-scale fisheries, buying fish that meet the minimum recommended sizes, and avoid eating overexploited, large predator fish species such as the bluefin. Overfishing is decimating our oceans and action must take place if marine biodiversity is to flourish for many years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment