Seafood: Moral and Scientific Dilemma

[Michael Landrum]

After reading Elizabeth Kolbert's not-too-thorough, but terrifying nonetheless, article in the current New Yorker (on the heels of the even more horrifying article on the destruction of songbird populations in Europe for Nero-like feasts last week) and in the aftermath of the unimaginably grotesque, but oh so easily predictable, human devastation of Nature in the Gulf I am turning to the wisdom and knowledge of the board to help me with a question that I have been grappling with for sometime.

Is there anyway, on any terms, on any grounds, and to any degree, to justify the consumption of, let alone the serving of, fish and seafood at this particular moment in time and history?

Let it be said that I don't buy the arguments of sustainability--depending on your view, they are either palliatives to ease the conscience that do nothing to cure the disease (but do much to inflate reputations and do great as cynical marketing ploys, even when the intentions are well-meaning at some point along the way) or mere instances of the band switching from waltzes to jazz as the Titanic sinks.

Let it also be said that the proliferation and glorification of the sushi culture disgusts me and is morally repugnant to me in the most severe and unequivocal way possible--both due to the practices of the Japanese fleets and markets and, even worse, the disgusting insistence on killing the most exquisitely sentient of creatures, whales.

At the same time, our cruise ships, Red Lobsters (and Arthur Treacher's), Filet o' Fish, and fish sticks in school lunches are hardly any better, and I believe that they all should be outlawed as crimes against Nature and God.

So, oh wise ones, I put it out to you--What say ye on the above?

[Jeff Heineman]

Is this a consumer sentiment poll prior to opening Rays the Catch?

[Dr. Delicious]

I read that article earlier this week and was similarly disturbed. I can't decide between no longer eating fish, and eating all the fish i can find before it's all gone. I guess the shrimp dinner I'm eating tonight indicates to which side i'm leaning toward

[Michael Landrum]

Is this a consumer sentiment poll prior to opening Rays the Catch?

To be honest, it is more of a hope that someone more knowledgeable and informed than I can provide me with a moral argument that makes it possible for me to do so.

[Sthitch]

This very subject has been discussed for quite some time in libertarian circles where a growing body of work points to this as a problem related to the “Tragedy of Commons.” You can agree or disagree with the linked conclusions, but all you have to do is look at the way Asian and Iberian fishing fleets clear cut the "international" regions of the oceans to see what happens when stewardship plays no role.

[DameEdna]

Some species of fish will be permitted to survive because they contain too much mercury to eat. How sick is that.

[Ericandblueboy]

I say limit fishing to territorial waters and give our navy the right to blow fishing fleets caught in international waters out of the such waters.

[zoramargolis]

This subject is on everyone's mind, it seems.

Sam Sifton's article in The New York Times yesterday.

[Michael Landrum]

So, from the arguments, or lack thereof, we should not eat any fish, at all, and certainly not sushi or its diametrical equal, the Filet o'Fish. And maybe stop killing whales. Or hate those who do.

[Barbara]

I say limit fishing to territorial waters and give our navy the right to blow fishing fleets caught in international waters out of the such waters.

Fine, but you can't keep the fish in one place. They own the oceans, after all, and swim wherever they want. This issue has long been acknowledged among international organizations trying to come to grips with overfishing. It will take a universally agreed pact enforced by everybody to work. What are the odds of that? The first time a US ship blows up a foreign ship in international waters, there will be hell to pay.

[zoramargolis]

So, from the arguments, or lack thereof, we should not eat any fish, at all, and certainly not sushi or its diametrical equal, the Filet o'Fish. And maybe stop killing whales. Or hate those who do.

We need to leave the bigger critters alone and focus on eating sardines, anchovies, herring and squid.

[mdt]

We need to leave the bigger critters alone and focus on eating sardines, anchovies, herring and squid.

So what is to prevent those populations from being destroyed? Granted the smaller species do turn over population much faster than the larger ones, but it is still risky business. Those fish are near the beginning of the food chain and wiping those out will have severe consequences too.

[deangold]

Just note that a science based management plan in the Rockfish fishery reestablished that fish to levels that todays "so called and palliative" sustainable catch is now higer than the catches at the worst of the fishery. The local crab population is coming back strongly but that may be more of a cyclical issue than one of a rebuilt fishery. The plan here is as much concentrating on reestablishing sea grass as with catch management {although the latter is far more successful in implementation than the former}. Alaska has a healthy wild salmon fishery using science based catch limits, rigoursly enforced. But throwing up one's hands and name calling will do just as much as... well doing nothing. We ahve some programs that work. If we build on what does work, we can improve the situation.

Of course eating fish prolongs life greatly which then just puts pressures on the environment from over population.

Developing fish farming techniques that are low impact {on shore, using run off for fertilizing other crops etc} are good.

Of course there are many who feel that today's beef production model with its dependence on corn as a feed and its large concentrations of animals on small tracts of land and the resultane "waste issues" are just as pernicious and dangerous to us. One of the big issues in the Chesapeake is nitrogen runoff from 4 sources: lawn care and garden maintenance, cattle farming, chicken farming & pork farming. The first accounts for about 50% of the runoff, the remaining three the other 50%.

I am doing my part for the oceans by not fertilizing or weeding my lawn

[kirite]

Just note that a science based management plan in the Rockfish fishery reestablished that fish to levels that todays "so called and palliative" sustainable catch is now higer than the catches at the worst of the fishery. The local crab population is coming back strongly but that may be more of a cyclical issue than one of a rebuilt fishery. The plan here is as much concentrating on reestablishing sea grass as with catch management {although the latter is far more successful in implementation than the former}. Alaska has a healthy wild salmon fishery using science based catch limits, rigoursly enforced. But throwing up one's hands and name calling will do just as much as... well doing nothing. We ahve some programs that work. If we build on what does work, we can improve the situation.

Of course eating fish prolongs life greatly which then just puts pressures on the environment from over population.

Developing fish farming techniques that are low impact {on shore, using run off for fertilizing other crops etc} are good.

Of course there are many who feel that today's beef production model with its dependence on corn as a feed and its large concentrations of animals on small tracts of land and the resultane "waste issues" are just as pernicious and dangerous to us. One of the big issues in the Chesapeake is nitrogen runoff from 4 sources: lawn care and garden maintenance, cattle farming, chicken farming & pork farming. The first accounts for about 50% of the runoff, the remaining three the other 50%.

I am doing my part for the oceans by not fertilizing or weeding my lawn

Jared Diamond has written two books that might be worth reading--although I'm pretty sure that you all have. "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" and "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed." These issues are extremely complicated and providing some ethnographic context might be useful.

[Michael Landrum]

Just note that a science based management plan in the Rockfish fishery reestablished that fish to levels that todays "so called and palliative" sustainable catch is now higer than the catches at the worst of the fishery. The local crab population is coming back strongly...

Thanks for the help, Dean, but I'm confused--does that mean you advocate a moratorium on mid-Atlantic seafood, as is my instinct? Or the opposite?

Also, if you or anyone else knows, what is the current health of the Chesapeake menhaden population upon which both striped bass (for food) and the local crab industry (as bait) depend?

Having grown up in New England, where lobster "notching" is as much religion as law, I am also a little confused as to why it is so important for us to eat as many soft-shells as possible before they get the chance to reproduce.

Not sure if you got a chance to read the article I referenced, but there's some scary stuff in there.

Really, looking for enlightenment, information and guidance more than anything else...Anyone else able to help with my dilemma too? Honestly, this isn't my forte and I don't think I'll ever really have the time to research it properly. Laniloa?

Oh, and don't worry, with my alcohol and drug abuse, extra thirty pounds, and frequent unprotected sex with multiple partners, there is not much chance that I will be around long enough to contribute to over-population.

[deangold]

Specifically on the Mid Atlantic....

I think that Rockfish is pretty stable right now and on its way to fairly good levels so that a tight fishing limit is sustainable. I think it is way to early to make any adjustments on the blue crab and actually I would like to see tight limits up to a moratorium until is reaches 20% of historic levels at least. At 8 to 10% of historic levels, the fishery is still pretty damned close to dead even if up by 60% from rock bottom.

As to the menhadan population, it is mostly used for fish oils

from Wikipedia:

However, menhaden are the primary source of fishmeal, used as food for poultry and pen-raised fish, such as salmon. Atlantic menhaden are an important link between plankton and upper level predators. Because of their filter feeding abilities, “menhaden consume and redistribute a significant amount of energy within and between Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries, and the coastal ocean.”[5]

So if we really get serious about pen raising of salmon and factory farming of chicken... maybe the population of this fish will be under less pressure.

Chicken farming in Maryland contributes mightily to the problems of the Bay.

[Miami Danny]

Specifically on the Mid Atlantic....

I think that Rockfish is pretty stable right now and on its way to fairly good levels so that a tight fishing limit is sustainable. I think it is way to early to make any adjustments on the blue crab and actually I would like to see tight limits up to a moratorium until is reaches 20% of historic levels at least. At 8 to 10% of historic levels, the fishery is still pretty damned close to dead even if up by 60% from rock bottom.

As to the menhadan population, it is mostly used for fish oils

from Wikipedia:

So if we really get serious about pen raising of salmon and factory farming of chicken... maybe the population of this fish will be under less pressure.

Chicken farming in Maryland contributes mightily to the problems of the Bay.

Thank you Dean for pointing out that chicken farming has been extremely detrimental to the bay. This is hard for people to understand-that chickens kill fish!

[Michael Landrum]

Also, please remember that the trigger to my moral crisis is the Gulf oil-spill tragedy (on top of the desertification of the reef eco-system, and all the other previous gloom and doom)...How do we even predict the level of destruction that will bring to ALL fisheries world-wide?

[leleboo]

Also, please remember that the trigger to my moral crisis is the Gulf oil-spill tragedy (on top of the desertification of the reef eco-system, and all the other previous gloom and doom)...How do we even predict the level of destruction that will bring to ALL fisheries world-wide?

But how can we predict anything? OK, that's an overstatement and an indulgence in hyperbole, to which I am given, but it's the logical extension of the thought taken to an extreme. If we had predicted such a mass extinction of so many of species of fish, perhaps we'd not have done it in the first place -- but then, that would have been a triumph of morality over economics at the time.

What if it's less about, do we predict our failures, and more about, do we strive to work in harmony with the natural forces functioning in our ecosystem?

We've been ignoring our ability to 'predict' the future (possibilities of overfishing) too long. But I'm not sure what that means for predicting the future or absolving the sins of the past.

*NB: the above comment is that of an idealist, and not one of an economist, or even a realist.

[Pat]

I don't know how you're unveiling your various businesses, but I would think that, given economic factors at least, it's best to put the more exotic foods on menus at places you already have up and running. If you want to do an emu burger, put it on the menu at Hell Burger. Steakhouses have long had an affinity for seafood, and this just doesn't seem like a great time to open a separate seafood restaurant.

I'll freely admit that when I think a lot about the issues involved in deciding which fish to eat, I just become paralyzed and can't decide anything. I mostly eat fish because I feel like I should. A whole menu of fish and seafood seems like a lot to put together at this point in time. I'm sure you're up to it, but it seems better (to me) to add seafood and fish to menus you already have.

[serious question] Are you considering any vegetarian or vegan restaurants? Going with that and incorporating gluten free dishes seems like a better bet than focusing on water-based proteins right now. Maybe a pescatarian restaurant? Plenty of veg options, plus some fish. Sorry if this sounds stupid. I very much admire what you have been doing.

[ktmoomau]

This problem has been weighing on my mind a lot lately, as well. But made worse by the fact that I am supposed to be eating a low glutten diet which then leads to eating more vegetables and proteins. And made worse by the fact that sometimes it is so hard to find the origins of the fish you are eating. But I have been reading all the articles above and found them all very useful, if not terrifying. And watching Whale Wars doesn't help, although I don't find the show that entertaining really, I get appauled by the amount of endangered species killed right in front of our eyes on tv. I know it happens with many other endangered species, but it seems to be worse when it is televised and everyone knows about it.

I am enjoying this discussion though.

[Michael Landrum]

[serious question] Are you considering any vegetarian or vegan restaurants? Going with that and incorporating gluten free dishes seems like a better bet than focusing on water-based proteins right now. Maybe a pescatarian restaurant? Plenty of veg options, plus some fish. Sorry if this sounds stupid. I very much admire what you have been doing.

Actually, it's funny you should suggest that, because--if Prince of Petworth hasn't already reported on it--I just signed a lease to do just such a restaurant. It'll be right next to the new Roman Polanski Day Care Center, the Dean Gold Agoraphobia-Therapy Retreat, and the La Donna E Mobile School for Operatic Accounting and Business Ethics.

[Poivrot Farci]

The carbon footprint from fishing is negligible when compared to the staggering environmental toll from this country's overwhelmingly industrial animal husbandry (water pollution from waste, use of fuel -which may come from one of the Gulf's 3,850 oil rigs and water/agriculture resources) not to mention the social/health liabilities incurred from excessive servings of meat (slaughterhouse working conditions, cholesterol, heart disease, 30% national obesity rate, fat kids, fat jokes...)

Norwegian and American fisheries (particularly Alaska and Hawaii) are the world's best managed, respectively (better acquire a taste for pollack), so the hyperventilating is best reserved for fish caught under other flags in other waters. With respect to sardines, anchovies and herring, their numbers alone coupled with unpopularity will ensure healthy populations. Whales are noble and all but provide more calories per animal than any other wild or domesticated creature, though the humdrum taste will likewise keep their stocks up. Anything you cosume will have moral and environmental consequences, more so in gluttonous portions.

[Poivrot Farci]

Paul Greenberg (angler, author of Tuna’s End and The Catch) is having a reception, book reading, clam bake, discussion and such at the Pew Thursday, Aug 12 for his latest book “Four Fishes: The Future of the Last Wild Food” which deals with the history and future of 4 fundamental fish: bass, cod, salmon and tuna. Its release is topical what with BP being nailed to the cross for soiling the Gulf (one of 2 known spawning grounds for bluefin tuna) but the Gulf was hardly pristine before the spill.

Though only a ¼ the size of the BP mess, the Gulf of Mexico’s dead zone is over 8,000 square miles (imagine Glover Park the size of Massachusetts, under water) and a direct result of agribusiness’s chemical fertilizer run-off spewing out from the Mississippi river and they sure as shit aren’t growing corn in the Midwest to meet popcorn, ethanol or cob-pipe demands.

There is no reason to doubt Mr. Landrum’s and others’ genuine concern for the state of fisheries and mermaids, but for those who otherwise maintain a hefty regimen of pork, chicken or beef while overlooking the consequences of livestock farming, the dilemma is kind of like a serial rapist struggling with the morality of shoplifting.

[DonRocks]

There is no reason to doubt Mr. Landrum’s and others’ genuine concern for the state of fisheries and mermaids, but for those who otherwise maintain a hefty regimen of pork, chicken or beef while overlooking the consequences of livestock farming, the dilemma is kind of like a serial rapist struggling with the morality of shoplifting.

http://www.peoplejam.com/files/u1811/brass_balls.jpg'> ... "click me"

[ktmoomau]

In some defense... Ray's uses locally raised beef for their meat as I recall. And generally on the East Coast, especially in this area, that means that the cows are not raised in large stockyards, but on farms in pastures, they generally eat grass, hay and some grain in the winter when there isn't adequate grass. Now if all beef was raised that way we couldn't meet the current demand for beef and prices would sky rocket, but I don't think you can blame Ray's for stockyards as they support local farmers that tend to have much much better practices. And although farm waste does pollute the rivers, streams and oceans around us, in this area it is more from chicken farms and dairy farms, whose cows tend to do a lot more damage to streams. And unfortunately a lot of groups like Trout Unlimited have offered to help cattle and dairy farmers and set up ways to protect the stream while allowing cattle access to water, some won't let them help, and there is not near enough education or help like this available to small farmers who would like those services.

[ghostrider]

I wonder what % of the catch winds up as pet food. Another element of insanity in my book. It is hard to find a cat food w/o some fish in it, even when it's advertised as "Chicken & Giblets Pate!". Every mfr wants theirs to taste better to the cat so that the owner will buy that brand, of course. Some cats like the taste of fish, but they don't eat it in the wild, & it's potentially unhealthy & even lethal for them.

Maybe this is a small part of the problem, statistically, but from any rational perspective, it's just plain nuts.

[Poivrot Farci]

I wonder what % of the catch winds up as pet food.

Cat got your fish?

The pet food industry now uses about 10 percent of the global supply of forage fish. The swine industry consumes 24 percent of fish meal and oil — fish oil being considered the best way to wean piglets. Poultry meanwhile takes as much as 22 percent, which means that even when Coco ate chicken, indirectly he was still eating fish.

Constable Cuddlesworth (and the late Manservant Heccubus) is fed canned wild pink salmon or mackerel “people food” which eliminates late night crapulous guesswork and bypasses the farmed fish/livestock pollution quandary. A copy of Four Fish was enthusiastically dedicated to them by Mr. Greenberg with approval of their conscientious diet.

[Salmon & Sable]

So, oh wise ones, I put it out to you--What say ye on the above?

I am not wise, but I am a commercial fisherman in Alaska. I winter here in the DC area. I am also a lifelong environmental activist. I count myself among the small but increasingly well known group of "environmental commercial fisherman"––an oxymoron to some.

Again, I am not wise, but I can speak to my own long experience of reconciling the impacts of people on nature with commercial fishing. I have been thinking about this for more than half my life. Before i go on, it must be said that there is no answer to this question. All one can do is learn as much as they can about the issues, try to be filled with empathy for people and the natural world at all times and above all, never allow yourself to be debilitated by fear or sorrow. It also must be remembered that, like all creatures (plants and fungi included), people need to eat. The backbone and the beauty of the synergistic green force we call nature is life feeding on life. Various orthodoxies and other influences have corrupted our innate appreciateion for this fact. Edward O. Wilson calls it "Biophilia"––the natural bond and affinity all living things have for one another. I recommend everyone read his book entitled Biophilia. The word "feeding" itself has a violent connotation for many of us because it can mean killing. Killing, as a general principle, has become so horrifying to many of us because, some think, of its association with war and all the dehumanizing things we do to each other. Both hunting (which conceptually includes fishing and gathering) can involve guns and many people find guns terrifying and emblematic of all that is wrong with humanity. Author Paul Shepard writes that only hunters (I would expend this to all omnivorious human eaters) "confronts this question with full human dignity, beginning with an affirmation of his ecology rather than its denial." Spanish philosopher José Ortega Y Gasset wrote that the best way to honor some animals in certain circumstances is to eat them. But of course, you can also honor an animal in another situation by not eating it. For me, part of being human is making these choices and never excluding any options.

Earlier, I said that one needs to be well informed about the issues. This is true, but our intake of media must also be mitigated and balanced with time actually in nature. I have always found that I learn the most when I in nature rather than simply reading about it. To me, "in nature" means appreciating it by existing in it, eating it, and ultimately, allowing it to eat me. This raises another point that is getting a little closer to the original topic of this thread. I am happy in nature. I believe this is because I am able to express my human distinctiveness there. I am only truly "human" in that context. My "humanness" and "happiness" are one and the same. This brings me to the argument of animal rights as a reason to be vegetarian. I do not regard my own happiness any differently than I regard the happiness of a creature. Whether I intent to eat it or no, a creature is happy when it was able to spend its life doing that which nature supremely equipped it to do, to paraphrase author Michael Pollan. If any animal was able to live this way, then I would consider it a "happy" creature and to use it to fuel my own life is not at all objectionable. José Ortega Y Gasset would probably say that we are both honored in that archetypal and sacred transaction of energy.

Obviously I object to the industrialized food system because we, as consumers, are lacking nearly every piece of information about our food when we eat from the trough of that system. We do not know what we can eat in good conscience and the system fights tooth and nail against the culture of food I think our country desperately needs. For me, "sustainability" is a holistic approach that encompasses the ability of the land to perpetually produce food and remain in good health FOREVER, but also an intimate relationship between eater and producer. Aldo Leopold’s ‘land ethic’ is probably the best model yet for living harmoniously with the natural world. Leopold’s land ethic enlarges our ethical sphere to include “soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land." "This sounds simple: do we not already sing our love for and obligation to the land of the free and the home of the brave? Yes, but just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending helter-skelter down river. Certainly not the waters, which we assume have no function except to turn turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage. Certainly not the plants, of which we exterminate whole communities without batting an eye. Certainly not the animals, of which we have already extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful species. A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of these ‘resources,’ but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state. In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such."

In my own life, I have seen commercial fishing embody the evil environmental reactionaries believe it to be. But I have also seen commercial fisherman and those who make their living off the sea, behave with more honor and integrity than I have seen nearly anywhere else. The best of us fishermen realize the obvious fact that without fish, there is not fishing, which means there is no food and there is no money. These fishermen protect their fisheries with all the love of a parent concerned for the welfare of their children. In fact, fishermen are often looking out for their children when they fish responsibly and insure the longevity of their fishery. In Alaska anyway, fisherman mostly work hand in hand with the Alaska Dep. of Fish and Game to monitor fisheries and manage them with science. Laws are carefully put in place and enforced vigorously. With proper management and without the polluting influence of money, all fisheries could be managed for perpetual sustainability. Most governments lack the will and foresight.

I fish in Bristol Bay which today is considered one of the best managed fisheries on earth (although this was not always the case). In order to catch so many fish from a wild run, biologists have done some work to "organize" the natural system and make it more efficient. In nature everything is cyclical––populations grow and crash, over and over add infinitum. In some salmon runs there is some "waste" due to a huge number of fish flooding into a river and uncovering the egg nests (called redds) of other salmon. This is the result of too many salmon in the river. Although this is the natural order of things and obviously results in a healthy population over a long period of time, another technique that also results in a healthy population of salmon and provides a few extras for people is to allow fishermen to catch those extra salmon that are uncovering the redds and "wasting" the eggs of other salmon. I use the word "waste" in quotation marks because there is no true waste in nature. By catching a few salmon here and there through the course of the summer's run, fisherman "skim" some off the top that were nature's extras anyway.

But of course there are no free meals in nature and fishing does have some impact, just as ALL eating by ANY living thing ANYWHERE has some impact. The goal in any fishery is to minimize this impact as much as possible just as an animal's instincts direct it to no take too much and if it does, its species pays the price. I am confident that the method employed in my fishery in Alaska honors both the needs of salmon, the broader ecosystem as well as fisherman and people around the world who enjoy salmon. I have no doubt that my fishery is truly sustainable. For me, there is balance in this system. But many fisheries do not have this balance and the long term viability of the fishery is far from certain. Some fishermen fish with money signs in their eye and nothing more, it is a job and not a lifestyle, it is right and not a privilege. So, back to the original 64,000 dollar question: should we be eating fish? Yes, but only if you are getting it from the right place. Empower yourself by learning everything you can about the seafood you like and be willing to give up seafood that does not meet your personal definition of "sustainable." I stopped eating scallops except those collected by free divers not because I necessarily believe scallop trawling to be inherently evil, but because I have questions about it and I am unsure of the bycatch and sustainability of the fishery. I am also unsure of the sustainability of the Alaskan halibut fishery but this does not mean it is, in fact, unsustainable. I just need to learn more about it. Of all the commercial fisheries I have been involved in, when I went to become my own boss, I chose the Ugashik River in Bristol Bay because the salmon are entirely wild (no hatcheries), I trust the run is healthy and super-sustainable and I have almost no bycatch and essentially zero mortality within that extremely small amount of bycatch. I feel really good about the salmon I catch and I want people who eat my salmon to know all about the process so they can feel good about their meal too.

I am not a fisheries biologist so if anyone more knowledgeable than myself would like to correct me on salmon sustainability, I would welcome the information.