The fishery resources of the western Atlantic once seemed virtually limitless, with fish supposedly as numerous as grains of sand in the Sahara. And yet the current emergency effort to restore cod populations is simply the latest chapter in a 150-year saga in which fishermen, scientists, industrialists and politicians have consistently confronted emptier nets and fewer fish.
As early as the 1850s, fishermen from Maine and Massachusetts began to pester their governments to do something about declining cod catches. Those men fished with hooks and lines from small wooden sailboats and rowboats. Fearing “the material injury of the codfishing interests of this state” by increased fishing for menhaden, a critical forage fish for cod, fishermen from Gouldsboro, Me., implored the Legislature in 1857 to limit menhaden hauls.
Yet annual cod landings in the Gulf of Maine continued to slide, from about 70,000 metric tons in 1861 to about 54,000 metric tons in 1880, to about 20,000 tons in the 1920s, to just a few thousand metric tons in recent years. There have been a few upticks along the way, such as one bumper year in the mid-1980s when the cod catch reached 25,000 tons (due, in part, to an unnecessarily large expansion of the fishing fleet), but for the most part the trend has been noticeably downward since the era of the Civil War. There have been plenty of warnings along the way. Maine’s fishery commissioner, Edwin W. Gould, spoke out plainly in 1892. “It is the same old story,” he said. “The buffalo is gone; the whale is disappearing; the seal fishery is threatened with destruction.” For Mr. Gould, the path forward was clear: “Fish need protection.”
In July 1914, after more than 40 years of reports on declining fishery resources by the United States Fish Commission and state fish commissions, The New York Times ran an article forecasting disaster. “Extermination Threatens American Sea Fishes — Cost to Consumer Has Risen between 10 and 600 Per Cent Because of Decrease in Supply.”
But that was right before a technological revolution in the fisheries. Sails and oars and hooks and lines were about to be replaced by steam and diesel engines, and massive nets dragged along the bottom that snared every fish in their path. Decades of well-founded concerns about depletion were overwhelmed by an avalanche of cheap fish. The new generation of draggers could fish faster, harder and deeper for the few fish that remained. Fishermen breathed a sigh of relief.
Twentieth-century cod populations, ravaged by draggers’ efficiency, declined further. In 1954 a fisheries economist from Boston charged fishing interests with continuing “to exploit recklessly the limited self-renewing stocks of these species.” That was just before the first factory-equipped freezer-trawler arrived at the prime fishing waters around the Grand Banks off Newfoundland from Europe. The size of an ocean liner, it could scoop up everything in its wake. Those ships made the steam-powered draggers from 1914 look positively quaint. And they caught lots of fish.
Where Have All The Cod Gone?
Overfishing has been the norm for a very long time, but the market has masked the mess in two fundamental ways. At every step fishermen confronting declining catches developed gear that fished more intensively, taking a larger percentage of the fewer fish that remained. Such a strategy was clearly not sustainable. Meanwhile, fishermen continued to earn enough to make fishing worthwhile, even if many encouraged their sons to pursue other careers because there would be little future in fishing. The Gulf of Maine cod stocks today are probably only a fraction of 1 percent of what they were during George Washington’s presidency.
If there is any lesson in this story of large-scale, long-term environmental degradation, it is not that fishermen were (or are) to blame, or that scientists were (or are) to blame, or that politicians were (or are) to blame. The system was (and is) to blame. Our system of exploiting nature’s resources, with its checks and balances, its desire for prosperity and security, its willingness to honor a multiplicity of voices, and its changing sense of “normal” is insufficiently nimble to stop the desecration of commonly held resources on which the long-term good of everyone depends.
(New York Times) Several commenters recommended the book Cod
by Mark Kurlansky. Here's a review: Review of 'Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World'
Darwin's champion, T. H. Huxley, served
on three British fishing commissions, arguing that herring (and by
extension, cod) could never be fished out--nature, in the Victorian
view, being indestructible. Cod do find lots to eat, swimming with their
huge mouths open, ingesting whatever goes in. In 1994 a Dutch fisherman
caught a cod with a set of dentures in its belly.
But the species is stable only if each female, in her lifetime,
produces at least two offspring that survive. And humans grew ever more
efficient at catching cod. With steam engines, Clarence Birdseye's
invention of frozen foods, diesels, invincible trawler nets,
fish-finding sonar gear, giant factory ships--cod never had a chance.
Now former cod fishermen, victims of their own proficiency, forlornly
hope for the fish's return.
Don't worry, I'm sure the "free market" will solve everything. It always does.
This looks familiar. Exploitation of any non-renewable resource, or a renewable resource being exploited too quickly, will go through the same stages.ReplyDelete
I realized after the fact that this is almost the exact same situation with fracking, viz.,Delete
Natural resource overexploited to exhaustion --> dire Warnings of resource depletion --> brief panic --> bold new technology that allows you access previously unexploited resources --> emergency recedes into the background causing complacency --> crisis returns even worse than when you started.
We're on step 5 now thanks to fracking. Of course, step 6 is inevitable.
Fresh water will likely be the Big One, later this century. (But climate change will "unlock" so much more of it from the poles, we'll probably just skip the bold new technology bit and stay mired in complacency. Ugh.)ReplyDelete
It won't work that way. Nearly all the water that melts off the polar ice caps goes directly into the oceans, making it just as inaccessible as ocean water is now. Worse, it will flood coastal zones. About the only way to retrieve it as fresh water is to capture icebergs and haul them to the places that need water. That was proposed in the 1960s, but hasn't been done because it hasn't been cost-effective.Delete
See patent #10
cheap ray ban sunglasses clearance If the cheap ray ban sunglasses clearance money directly to her, to her character will not be cheap ray ban sunglasses clearance accepted. Yeah, this is not the boats you, ray ban sunglasses clearance sale come here, aunt to your kebab. Blue Mother is busy, heard Fei Qi looked up to see the face of cheap, immediately pleased cheap ray ban sunglasses clearance to call him, cheap ray ban sunglasses clearance quickly took a baked chicken placed on the shelf.ReplyDelete