International Fish Wars:

The Imminent Threat to Apex Predators

by Michelle Stewart

Close your eyes, and think back to the last time you were at the coast or on the ocean. For most people there is a sincere feeling of smallness standing before the essence of enormity. The sea is an element of our planet that is draped in a cloak of mystery. It is its own planet covering two-thirds of this planet.

Fisheries History

Regarded as an untapped and inexhaustable resource, people have long comtemplated the ocean's potential as a resource. But historically, the sea's very enormity and depths its only defense. The capital needed to develop such a unwilling host prevented. Over the centuries, technology developed and the underwater world became approachable. Shore fishing, (dubbed the " poor man's meal"), became in-coast fishing and later became open ocean fishing; an individual's job soon became the job of the village, and later that of a corporation.

Throughout this century, fishing communities improved their ability to harvest more fish; governments stood back and idly monitored; corporations took to the open ocean, and the international fish market soared. With knowledge that seventy percent of the earth is water, governments were assured the ocean's bounty was unlimited. A consistent catch assured coastal fishermen of stability, and an ever-expanding market assured corporations of a future. There was no call for fisheries research because the ocean was seen to be unlimited. While fishing soared, companies have also begun to utilize the ocean in other respects, including, but not limited to: oil/mineral/resource exploration and extraction, waste disposal, and weapons testing.

Early concepts of conservation developed with respect to terrestrial environments, were not considered for the ocean, due partly to the fact that the degradation was not visible, understandable, or conceivable. As science began to explore the depths, corporations began to invest in ocean exploration; government funding was replaced with corporate backing that shifted focus from "pure" science to development research. Meanwhile, more and more people enjoyed the taste of "sea"food. But all was not well...

In the 1970's the mid-Atlantic took one of the first blow. The surf clam industry collapsed after years of exploitation, leaving the people that relied on it scrambling for compensation and answers. Lessons had not been learned by the whaling and Alaska salmon fisheries that had suffered the same fate only one hundred years previous; so long as the global market did not notice a flavor difference, life went on. A similar shellfish was sought out and simply promoted as a replacement. The fishing industry was beginning to bottoming out, yet it still moved blindly forward stuttering the mantra, "There are always other fish in the sea."

In the next 20 years, New England's ground fisheries crashed, shellfish industries collapsed up and down the coast, salmon numbers dwindled as did the populations of sturgeon, tuna, scallops and halibut; fishing seasons began to close the same day they opened and moratoria on harvesting were placed on various species. For the first time, the words "over-fished" and "fully-exploited" were employed, ironically, along with the words"under utilized" and "open season." All the while, technology advanced. Nets(longline, purseseine, driftnet) got larger and more dangerous for all species, trawlers became more efficient (industry perspective), and sonar was developed and perfected to allow pin-point accuracy in tracking the smallest of prey. The fishing industry had created an international fishery managed on a regional scale, with no global or international perspective. As the industry moved forward to meet the market demand, waste quantitatively accelerated at the pace of growth, and little research was being done since few had the foresight to worry about the pace of growth. As fisheries continued to crash, agencies were not implementing recovery projects, and of the entire 30 years (spanning 1960-90) the only recovery story was the striped bass. The failure, however, stories could fill an entire book.1 The following is a categorical look at the industry:

The Exclusive Economic Zone

The purpose of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as established in The Law of the Sea under International Law, was to establish undeniable national jurisdiction of the coastal waters (ranging from 3 to 200 miles). Forty percent of the oceans are divided up into these zones. The United States further divided up its coastal waters as part of the Magnusun Act of 1976 (later revised as the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996), and elected eight regional fisheries councils to oversee the US's EEZ. However, the further creation of management bodies still did not answer the primary question of enforcement capabilities.

More powerful nations sidestepped the EEZ when it was realized that developing countries would sell off their fishing rights to generate capital. The European Economic Community paid $200 million in access fees to fish in the EEZs of other countries, half of which was paid to African nations. So, the financially secure countries' buy into poorer countries waters, and corporations utilizing sophisticated sonar equipment track fish and harvest them utilizing the Free and Open Access (FOA) agreement.

The EEZ was set up to protect national interests and the FOA was established to protect the interests of international fishing companies by assuring access to the larger portion of the ocean. Both of these agreements play crucial roles in both protection and exploitation.

Free and Open Access

To ensure that the entire ocean did not get sectioned off FOA was created, opening all of the oceans not claimed by the EEZ. For example, some countries only claim the first 10 miles off their coast, therefore (off that coast) all waters off the first ten miles allow free and open access to international fleets, so long as they do not violate the EEZ of neighboring countries. However, FOA failed to address enforcement issues. Without enforcement regulations, conflict easily and quickly arose over "stadling" species, those which travel in and out of the EEZs. Many international fleets were tracking fish inside an EEZ and waiting on the border and to catch them as soon as they enter international waters. The FOA system inadvertantly encouraged greedy behavior; many that fished the inner coast began to feel compelled to overstuff their nets as a means of countering those outside the EEZ. Each country had a financial bond with the sea and attempted to set limits on catches, occasionally, to protect their interests. Some would focus on large pelagic species. Controversy surrounds the idealogy of giving these species a "country"; many believe that if these huge fish frequent a country's waters they become a resident of it (an prey of the local fisherman), however, these species have huge hunting regions (some 10' of 100's of miles) and believe that they have "no country", and should be allowed to be caught by anyone. Ultimately, these huge fish were being typically being caught in the outer ocean. The debate was taken to the United Nations, but attempts to find a compromise was not easily found. Only in the past two years has there been steps forward in the form of the International Fisheries Treaty which is in the process of being implemented.

Global Fisheries and Bio-waste

The management of fisheries began as environmental impacts became clear-it has been reactionary rather than proactive. For example, driftnets became a public concern when dolphin mortality was brought to light, or (more recently) the plight of the sea turtle has been brought to foreground in relationship to the practices of the shrimp-trawling industry. These are two references to "by-catch;"the collateral victims brought up with the nets (the non-target species). Primary public focus has been paid to the tuna by-catch, however, the public's concern should directed to the entire industry (not one catch) Shrimp trawling is reported to take up to 35 million red snappers each year and 13 billion Atlantic croakers (both considered over-fished). The annual commercial catch of red snappers is only 3 million for red snappers. The international shrimp industry reports a 35percent by-catch; one pound of shrimp is the work of 5.2 pounds of by-catch. Australia's prawn industry brings in 70,000 discards per night per vessel ; consisting of some 240 species. It has been estimated that globally one-quarter of the annual harvest is discarded as by-catch, amounting to 28.7 million tons.

Import/Export, Demographics-Economics

As the population of this planet rises, the demand for proteins also increases. The population of the world has grown by over one billion in the past 40 years; this rise accounts for two-thirds of the growth in the fishing industry with the catch rising from 40 million tons in the 70's to 72 million tons '93. This increased demand stimulates mass production, the ultimate result of which is depleted stocks and enormous by-catches. Although many countries are fighting diligently to retain control of their fisheries, one thing stays the same: the demand for fish far outweighs the ability of any one country to meet its own need. For example, the United States spends approximately $12 billion annually onfish imports, making it the second largest fish importer in the world, after China. The US imports 60 percent of the tuna it consumes, along with four times the amount of shrimp it catches and twice the amount of scallops. Government aid for the ongoing expansion and crisis now totals nearly $54 billion a year.

The Plight of Apex Predators

As arbitrary species were plugged into the global food chain, very little science followed them into the nets. Only now are marine biologist beginning to understand the role of apex predators in the oceanic environment.

Apex predators are the species at the top of the foodchain. One of the first such species to be commercially-utilized was the tuna. Majestic and enormous, it hit the global market rapidly gaining the popularity that took it out of the backstreet sushi bars and lunch box sandwiches and into the realm of delicacy. The blue fin tuna, known as the Porsche of the ocean, fetches prices of $30 to 60,000 per fish on the Japanese sushi market. It is so lucrative that fishing has taken to the air harpoon-fish; flying close to the surface, firing and using electrity to kill the tuna in the water-a costly means of fishing, with a hefty pay off for those involved.

In the 1980s global demand for shark meat rose. Previously harvested mostly for their liver oil, sharks began to gain notoriety on the delicacy market. Shark fins currently are worth $48/kg for use in shark fin soup selling for upwards of $150 a bowl. However, that premium price is only for the fins-the rest of the shark is worth only $1.30/kg. Fishermen realized that their time would be better spent focusing on the fins and not the whole species; the practice, now, is to cut off the fins of the shark on the boat and dump the rest of the fish in the ocean; mortally wounded (unable to swim) the sharks drown. Other targeted apex predators include swordfish, yellow fin, big eye, skip jack and albacore tuna, various oceanic sharks, blue and white marlin, sailfish, and longbill spearfish. Besides directly targeting predator species, the primary food source of many of these species (such as squid and other smaller fish) are also being harvested. Targeting apex predators devastates entire ecosystems. Sharks and other predators thin out the population of their prey by consuming the diseased, weak and old, leaving only the strong to breed and produce the next generation. The sheer size and power of these apex species also affords them enormous ranges; they do not over-hunt their territory. If the fishing industry upsets that balance when it hunts primary prey, predators are left to catch anything they find. Globally this is a recipe for disaster.

Marine biologists have recently begun to understand how devastating commercial harvesting is on many species. For example, sharks may seem to be at sustainable levels for many years, then suddenly one year the nets will essentially come up empty; sharks do not afford industry the warning of "dwindling numbers". Sharks live very long lives; however, they only reach sexual maturity later in life. As stocks drop, the catch may not necessarily reflect that, because the nets will contain mainly sexually-immature juveniles. When this happens, the following 5 to 15 years will see a small number of breeding sharks since all the adults have been harvested. This applies to other ocean residents. When the surf clam industry collapsed, the Quahogs clam replaced the stock. Quahogs are one of the longest living shellfish, commonly reaching 100 years old, also reaching sexul maturity late in life. Experts anticipate the Quahog will meet the same fate as the surf clam within 30 years.

The marine ecosystem relies on some of its longest living species to keep everything in check. Evolution has made some small-fish eating leviathans, and other fast, sleek hunters. As industry gobbles up an entire food chain, the future holds entire ecosystem crashes, rather than the species by species depletition.

Image of Gloom - The Statistics (IN A BOX MAYBE?)

70 percent of the world's harvestable marine stocks are classified as fully-fished or over-exploited.

80 percent of US stocks are classified as fully-fished or over-exploited.

One third of US shellfish are at harvestable limits.

75 percent of marketable marine fish spend all or part of their lives in coastal estuaries, mangrove forests, wetlands or other inshore waters- habitat that is being destroyed on a large scale.

Half of the world's salt marshes and mangrove forests are destroyed

30 percent of coral reefs are in danger

Fish Wars of the 1990's

This dangerous cpiral has resulted in the current state of global fisheries... absolute chaos. Logic does not prevail when times become desperate. The Alaska halibut season that is 24 hours long (twice a year). In that short time upwards of 4,000 vessels vaccuum the ocean.

In 1992, Canada imposed a five-year moratorium on fishing off its east coast; the provinces went into financial turmoil trying to support the influx of 40,000 unemployed workers. The resounding demand was that the government enforce the ban on foreign vessels continuing to harvest off the Grand Banks. In 1995, to the shock of the international community, Canadian authorities fired upon, forcibly boarded and seized a Spanish vessel and arrested her captain for illegally fishing turbot. When brought to the docks 7,000 locals cheered and threw eggs at the captain and crew of the renegade vessel.

In 1992, fishing communities on George's Bank scrambled as cod and haddock stocks reached record lows; within a few years fishing in some areas was completely shut down. In the wake of the shut-downs fishermen rioted, overturning vehicles and throwing fish from trucks.

Between 1993 and 1995, incidents of high seas battles were often reported. Authorities were cutting the nets of renegade vessels, shots were being exchanged at sea and in port. China, the world's top fish importer, purchased freezer trawlers started to fish in the waters of 15 other countries (attempting to quench it's own thirst and curb its need for imports). Philippine authorities arrested over 60 Chinese fishermen utilizing disputed waters. While in India, traditional fishermen are accused of torching factory trawlers.

Recently, salmon controversy has risen over what is left of the $300-million (direct income) industry. Deeply entrenched in the debate is Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and Alaska. As returns continue to drop and everyone prepares for the imminent crash, fingers point to out-of-state/country companies and management agencies that lacked the skills to maintain the stocks. Those unwilling to take responsibility for overfishing are trying to eradice species that threaten any portion of the possible commercial catch; for example the Stellar sea lions that have the misfortune of being salmon/steelhead predators, now face lethal removal from Ballad Locks (Washington)for preying on returning stocks coming out of the dam gate. Conservationists and biologists point out the effects of logging on critical habitat and the damming of many rivers. Nonetheless, fishing and predator eradication continues, with smaller seasons and fewer fish returning each year.

In the past ten years salmon numbers have dropped below critical levels. In an attempt to bridge the differences between the US and Canada, managers have been working on the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which includes a series of yearly drawbacks in allowable harvesting, essentially portioning off the amount of fish taken. However, the countries have not come to agreement, leaving fishermen in limbosince 1992 when talks broke down. In July 1997, frustrated Canadian fishermen formed a flotilla and blocked an Alaska Ferry, in Canadian waters, in an attempt to air their concerns to a larger audience. Their action was met with little resistance; sympathetic, local authorities refused to take action, eventually the protesters allowed the ferry passage.

Currently, fisheries managers in British Columbia are claiming victory, as their numbers and predictions for the summer sockeye run are more accurate than the overoptimistic US calculations. However, the fact still remains that Canada's estimates of 15.7 million returning summer sockeye is not accurate and that infact that only 12 million did return.

The controversy and confrontation are ultimately not solving any problems. The salmon returns are still sinking, and oceanic fish and shellfish are still suffering from over-exploitation. The answers are not going to be as easy as most had hoped, and will not lie in finding new victims to exploit. Already we face an anchovy crash in the Monterey Bay of California, the listing of the Atlantic sturgeon if (New York and New Jersey both don't end the goosefish catch) as the sturgeon are a substantial by-catch, an East Coast lobster crash (if licenses are not limited), the further loss of orange roughies and the absolute loss of most wild runs of salmon.

Summation

These critical fisheries concerns are rooted in the continued mismanagement of the global fisheries market. There are numerous agency documents related to better management practices, however, until stocks replenish their numbers and fishermen learn to curb their catch, agencies are still damned by a lack of enforcement options. The public's cry for more food is being met and is ultimately responsible for the demise of marine ecosystems. Overfishing coupled with development and loss of habitat are creating a scenario in which weak species are not afforded the chance of recovery. The time has come (and possibly gone) to involve yourself in this critical issue. In the US, there are eight regional fisheries councils that desperately need input and alternatives. Agencies need to realize that the general public, and not just industry-dependent workers, are concerned and angered at the current state of global fisheries. Canada needs to know that he is supported in his hard-line stance against further exploitation of stocks and that there is a need for further moratoria and extensions of current ones. Open your phone books to government section and call every single number that relates to fisheries. Realize the activities that you allow in your bioregion, and think of the further impacts it has on marine ecosystems. Gauge your behavior and modify it accordingly. Take a hard look at your order of popcorn shrimp and realize that for it to get to you, you are responsible for at least 3-5 pounds of marine (by-catch) waste.

Ignorance of the marine ecosystem and the role that apex predators play within that environment will be scribed into the history books as the cause of the global crash of the fisheries industry. A crash of this proportion will lead to extinction on a scale we have not yet witnessed in the modern age.

"Never before has a wake-up call from nature been so clear, never again will there be better opportunity to protect what remains of the ocean's living wealth."-Sylvia Earle, Former Chief Scientist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The information contained in this article can be further researched in: Hook, Line and Sinking The Crisis in Marine Fisheries, 1997, Natural Resources Defense Council, Time magazine, 8/11/97, Michael D. Lemonick, Management of Marine Regions: The North Pacific, 1982, University of California Press, National Geographic, November 1985, Michael Parfit.