The Chatham Fish Pier was one of the few tourist spots on Cape Cod that my children and I would frequent in the early and mid 1980's. Late afternoons, we loved to watch the fishing boats come in. With great anticipation, the children watched from the observation level as the fishermen loaded the huge metal basket that would be hoisted high above the fish slide and then opened to disgorge its cargo on the metal slide with a resounding, slurpy thwack . Mouths agape, heaps of shimmering fish tumbled down the slide in cascades of silvery scales and bloody guts. There might be a summer flounder or two or even a shark, some haddock, but most of the catch was cod. Then the basket would swing back to the boat to be filled again. And again. And again. Five or six baskets brimming with fish would hit the slide before the holds were emptied.
Meanwhile, other boats would be waiting to unload as the laughing gulls, herring gulls, and terns keened and cried overhead. Although two boats could unload simultaneously, there was only one fish slide, so the second boat held neither the children's nor the tourists' interest. Many days, though, we could count on seeing 2 or 3 boats unload at the fish slide.
By 1989 after the famous "Chatham break" when the sea permanently breached the thin barrier beach, we could no longer go to the Fish Pier on a whim and expect to find boats. I'd look at the tide chart first. Chances were pretty good to see a fishing boat come in on an afternoon high tide. We had to wait longer for boats to arrive, so we'd scan the horizon looking for the telltale cloud of gulls that signalled a fishing boat was coming. Often, we were rewarded for our patience when the boat unloaded a decent catch down the fish slide.
Even the high tide was no guarantee of action at the Fish Pier in the early 90's. We'd call the harbormaster before heading to Chatham:"was a fishing boat due in today? what time?" If we were lucky, our arrival would coincide with that of the boat: a small catch of small fish, a couple of slidefuls, no more. Hardly worth the wait. To paraphrase Bob Dylan: you don't need to be a fisherman -- or marine biologist -- to see which way the fish go. [To see which way the fish went, click on http://www.clf.org/advocacy/index1.htm]
Or do you? The general public makes no hue and cry over the collapse of marine fisheries. Under the sea is out of sight. And out of sight is out of mind. Fisheries are in trouble due to a combination of reasons (see book review of Song for a Blue Ocean) that range from overfishing to the pollution of coastal waters to the destruction of the sea floor by fishing gear. This issue of "Conservation Perspectives" focuses on aspects of fisheries management and conservation that are, literally, hidden beneath the ocean.
Because marine ecosystems are mainly invisible, a couple of questions come to mind:
A recent lawsuit about harvesting of horseshoe crabs on Cape Cod illustrates the complex interactions among industry, fishery, and conservation interests -- and the "out of sight out of mind" mentality of policy-makers. Horseshoe crabs are collected for both the bait industry and the biomedical industry. Crabs are collected for their blue blood which is made into lysate and used to detect impurities in medical tests and products. Although bled crabs are returned to the ocean, the mortality rate is approximately 10% (The Boston Globe, May19, 2000).
Concerned about dwindling horseshoe crab populations, regional regulators along the East Coast ordered a 25% reduction in the horseshoe crab harvest for the year 2000. In support, the Cape Cod National Seashore and the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge banned all collecting of horseshoe crabs from their waters. Associates of Cape Cod (the company that processes the blood) and local horseshoe crab collectors get over 60% of their harvest within the refuges, so they sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Interior Dept. (The Boston Globe, May19, 2000; The Cape Codder, May 23,2000).
Issuing a temporary injunction lifting the ban, U.S. District Judge Rya W. Zobel ruled in favor of Associates of Cape Cod and the crab collectors, noting that their livelihoods would suffer from the ban. According to The Globe, "Zobel said officials at both preserves had failed to show reasonable grounds for the crackdown."
While one can sympathize with Zobel's attempts to balance economic needs with conservation, the judge's dismissal of the Seashore's and Monomoy's efforts to preserve horseshoe crab populations as "arbitrary and capricious" (The Cape Codder, May 23, 2000) is troubling. Yet again, the burden falls on scientists to prove harm rather than have a policymaker err on the side of conservation.
Dayton (1998) explains how statistical analysis could be used to protect the marine environment by reversing the burden of proof so that those wishing to utilize a marine resource must demonstrate that there will be no long-term environmental damage. He writes:
"In this analysis, the consequences of making errors of two types (type I and type II) when testing the null hypothesis of no effect are clearly determined and stated. If the conclusion is that there is an effect when in fact none exists, a type I error results. However, if the null hypothesis is not rejected when in fact an impact does exist, a type II error results.
Consider a proposal to restrict trawling from some areas of the Gulf of Maine to protect benthic habitat. If the proposal is accepted and fishing is restricted, when in fact it has no serious impact, it would be a type I error; however, if the proposal is rejected and trawling results in habitat destruction, a type II error is made. Current management focuses on reducing the type I error because this kind of error results in catching fewer than the maximum number of fish and is therefore highly visible to politicians and the fishing industry; management virtually ignores the type II error, principally because the deleterious effects are not immediately obvious. But ignoring the type II error results in failure to recognize and avoid serious long-term damage such as the collapse of the fisheries or environmental destruction. Scientific advice should be explicit about both types of errors, and most importantly, it must articulate the consequences to the ecosystem of making each type of error. The environmental consequences from type II errors are much more serious because of the great time lags in the recovery of ecosystems or animal populations. Type I errors usually result only in short-term economic costs."
Even when laws have been passed for the long-term protection of marine ecosystems and fisheries, enforcement may be difficult or lacking. Just this month, on May 19, 2000, four environmentalist groups filed a lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for violating the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) of 1996. The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the National Audubon Society (NAS) charge that NMFS has failed both to stop overfishing in New England and to reduce "bycatch." [Get the complete news release at http://www.clf.org/hot/index1.htm].
The lawsuit summarizes, "Notwithstanding the persistent state of overfishing and chronic low levels of fish populations in many of the regulated groundfish populations, defendants have again failed, in their most recently issued management measures, to take the strong conservation measures required by law, the long-term interests of New England marine resources, fishing communities, and common sense."
Environmental groups can't protect fisheries by lawsuits alone. Additional scientific knowledge about life histories of fishes, management practices that reduce type II errors, and increased pressure from the general public to protect marine ecosystems are all necessary to keep our fisheries from sliding into oblivion.
Literature cited
The Boston Globe. May 19, 2000. "Judge temporarily lifts crab harvest ban."
The Cape Codder. May 23, 2000. "Judge lifts ban on horseshoe crab harvest."
Dayton, Paul K. 1998. Reversal of the burden of proof in fisheries management. Science 1998 279: 821-822.
Last updated on