Oceanic
Conservation
Change
We Can Believe In
Wildlife conservation is not a new concept
to Americans. The United States’ first national park was established in 1872,
and many other national parks and monuments followed. In 1916 President Woodrow
Wilson established the National Park Service to protect the new parks.
Throughout several generations, a lot of dedication and sacrifice has been put
into creating and maintaining our system of national parks, state parks, and
nature preserves. These wildlife sanctuaries are the reason why many species of
animals such as wolves and buffalo still exist today. Oregonians have realized
the importance of creating hunting, logging, and mining free zones, but have
not yet seemed to realize the importance of ocean conservations. There are
arrays of regulations that have been implemented to protect specific species,
but they often are not completely successful because they do not take into
account pronounced interdependence of wildlife. The only way to revive and
protect an entire ecosystem is the creation of nature preserves. With the
ongoing depletion of many species and harm to ecosystems, Oregon must not wait
to construct marine preserves and conservation zones.
We are dependent on healthy ecosystems and
the many functions they play. They provide us with many fundamental things
including nourishing food, clean water, raw materials for factories, and
opportunities for outdoor recreation. People influence the health of
almost every ecosystem in the world, including those of the ocean. Proper
management is essential to protect ecosystems, so that we can continue to rely
on them for generations to come. To do this well, the impacts of human activity
must be fully understood so that the best ways to relieve it can be discovered.
Bottom fish are valuable commodities on the
marketplace. They represent approximately 23% of Oregon’s commercial seafood
profit, only behind that of crab (US Department of Agriculture, 2011). They
have tasty white flesh that is very desirable, and thus there has been a large
demand for fishermen to catch as many as possible. The technology to catch
these fish has advanced faster than the knowledge of how to protect them has
(Green Fire Productions). This has lead to the unforeseen and rapid decline of
their population. The rockfish populations in Oregon’s ocean have been
recognized to be at depleted levels (Green Fire Productions). Depleted level is
defined as 25% or less than the level before human impact. The amount of money
commercial fishermen made on bottom fish topped out in 1994 at $81,297,000, in
2002 it bottomed out at $21,109,000, and in 2010 made a slight recovery to an
estimate of $38,066,000 (US Department of Agriculture, 2011). The depletion of
these fish has negative impacts on the fishing industry, people who eat fish,
and the ocean’s ecosystem. Bottom fish are not alone either, many other
types of aquatic life are undergoing great stresses. These problems will only
become more prominent, unless dramatic changes are made to reverse species
depletion.
There are many destructive things humans do
to marine habitat and ecosystems. Bottom trawling is among the worst of them.
When nets are dragged over the bottom of the ocean they destroy coral reefs,
rock formations, other habitat, and stirs-up the silt on the ocean floor.
Bottom trawling also catches many fish that the fishermen do not have permits
for or even any commercial use. Most of this bycatch does not survive the
quick assent from the bottom of the ocean, and of what does survive, most is
not thrown back into the water quickly enough to recover. Another factor that
adds to aquatic population declines is the fisherman’s focus to catch large
fish. Large female fish produce an exponentially larger amount of eggs than
smaller fish. The offspring that they produce are also stronger, grow faster,
and are more resilient to the dangers of their environment. Some fish species
such as rockfish and halibut do not reach reproductive maturity until they are
several years old, and produce more significant numbers of offspring as they
age. To maintain a healthy population, the protection of large female fish is
essential. There are many other human factors that cause the decline of a
population. The problem with most solutions has been that they only stop one
factor while others continue.
Oregon takes unique approaches to managing
its oceanic ecosystems. The most popular and effective approach that the state
takes is the regulation of fishing. Petitions regarding fishing regulations are
frequently implemented by politicians or voted on by the public.. This approach
has had some successes, but is not a perfect solution. Much of the public does
not know about the harms and benefits of different types of fishing or
understand how certain laws will affect people’s lives or the ecosystems. Often
the most important and beneficial laws are not passed, and less important laws
are passed. Petitions do sometime make changes for the good, but are typically
not powerful or efficient enough to completely change aquatic management
systems. They generally represent the special interests of a group or industry.
One petition that is currently active is for the banning of commercial gill
netting. Gill netting is not a sustainable practice and it may be beneficial
for this law to be passed, but there are other options that would be more
beneficial to aquatic ecosystems. Another way regulations are put into place is
through the government. Fish and Wildlife Departments, so long as they do not
have pressure from political or popular interest groups, can create more
complete and scientifically studied solutions. The government is also in charge
of creating the seasonal fishing regulations of how much fishermen can catch,
what size they can keep, when they can fish, and how long they can fish for.
Although the government’s solutions may be better for the ecosystems, they do
not always represent the people’s needs. With the decline of fish numbers,
these regulations have created hardship for many fishermen.
As fish numbers have declined, fishermen
have struggled to make a stable income. Not only has it become more difficult
to catch fish, but there have also been an array of regulations added that
limits the fishermen’s capability to catch fish. Commercial fishermen must obey
the regulations that are given in an approximately 50 page long yearly report
written by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. This report gives
details on what type of boats and gear can be used, how much each species of
fish should be sold for, what types of fish can be caught, which permits need
to be purchased and how much they cost, where the seafood can be harvested, the
possibility of permits being suspended or revoked if ecological standards are
not being met, and an array of other regulations. There are several other
regulatory reports about specific fisheries that include when they can fish and
how much can be caught. These reports had an increasing number of regulations
over the years, making it more difficult for fishermen to make a living.
In compliance with these regulations, many
fishermen have had their permits suspended or revoked because of declining fish
populations. Permits can be suspended for days, seasons, or years, depending on
the severity of the problem. This causes the fishermen to be out of work and
have to find other ways of making money. Some go on unemployment, some find
jobs, and some alter their business strategy. One way that fishermen have
learned to make a profit during this period is to give guided fishing trips. A
commercial fishing fleet in Newport, Oregon has adapted this method. Most of
the captains would rather be out fishing than guiding, but have found that to
not be an option with the constricting regulations and suspension of permits.
They do not get a large number of customers to guide due to the economic
contraction, but have gotten enough to sustain the company and feed their
families. Fishing is an important industry in Oregon that helps feed our entire
nation. It should not be so difficult for fishermen to make a living.
It is however true that many
of the laws set in the last decade have been lifted, mostly due to
ineffectiveness. One law that has been eased is the catching of yellow-eye
rockfish. Yellow-eye are considered overfished, and were banned from harvest.
It is common that these fish are accidentally caught when fishermen are trying
to catch other fish, and usually do not survive the accent from the bottom of
the ocean. The law has changed so that yellow-eye caught by halibut fishermen
can be kept, instead of being thrown back into the ocean already dead. I think
that the easing of this law will be good for everyone, as long as it is not
abused. With the creation of more effective marine management including marine
conservation sites, many other ineffective laws will be softened or removed.
This could make the fishermen’s work much easier.
Unfortunately, declining fish
populations sometimes occur because of factors outside our sphere of influence.
Foreign long-range fleets of long-line fishermen and trawlers are difficult to
control. Pollution and habitat degradation elsewhere can affect our local fish
populations. A recent example is that of elevated radiation levels in bluefin
tuna. These tuna had migrated from the area of last year’s Japanese reactor
disaster. This shows how even events outside the local ecosystem can affect the
fish here.
Although there are many
regulations in place and there are constantly more being created to help
protect fish, they have not been sufficient. It is difficult to change and
create new regulations, because someone always thinks it will be unfair to
them. Marine preserves are no exception to this dilemma. Conservational preserves
are most effective when they are established in places that fish naturally
thrive, which are often fishermen’s favorite fishing spots. Upon hearing about
Oregon’s proposition to set up preserves, many fishermen became very upset.
Officials had to explain to the fishing societies how conservation is actually
the best option available to them. Many conservation sites have been
established in California and Washington, where many of the same species live
as in Oregon. These preserves have been extremely successful, with the fish
significantly gaining in numbers and health. Even though fishermen may not be
able to fish in all of their favorite spots, the amount that they catch has
actually increased. The big fat females protected within the preserves continue
to produce an immense amount of healthy offspring throughout their lifetime,
much of which drift to other areas. There are an immense amount of benefits
that marine preserves provide other than an increase in the number of fish. To
name a few, they act as good sources for scientific data on how human activity
affect the ocean, they are a sort of insurance against unperfected management
in other areas, and are easier to enforce than the regulations in other areas.
Marine conservation sites have the potential to replenish the diminished
species such as rockfish, and would overall make Oregon’s ocean a more thriving
ecosystem. Because of this, marine preserves could help Oregon’s coast become
economically prosperous again.
In 2008 Governor Kulongoski
directed the Ocean Policy Advisory Council to begin the process of building of
marine preserves and conservation areas. So far OPAC has established two pilot
sites to evaluate management plans and prepare for the creation of the larger
conservation areas. Four other sights are under consideration, and “scientists
and the community teams are working in coordination to examine the general
ecology and oceanography of the proposed sites” (Oregon Legislative Assembly,
2010). With the scientists, government, and community working together,
everyone will be more pleased and compliant of the project. The locations and
regulations of each site must be carefully and scientifically chosen, and
monitored to determine if they are sustainable. Four sights are not enough
to fully replenish the depleted species throughout Oregon’s coast, but at least
it would make a start at protecting them and their ecosystems. Oregon is far
behind in the process of building the preserves, in comparison to California
and Washington who already have many marine preserves. There is little
information available on how the process has been going in Oregon since 2010.
This is most likely because it is going through a slow legislation process. The
general economic recession has likely contributed to this. Political backbone
is easier in good times. There has been several council planning meetings that
have discussed the project’s strategy and have gained feedback from local
community members. This feedback includes the location, the regulations within
and around the sites, and an array of other details. City council has been
considering the feedback as they move through the phases of legalities.
Hopefully the legislature will pass soon and everyone will be ready to
implement the plan.
If the process does not go
through, many consequences may occur. Without conservation sites it is likely
that many species will become depleted or extinct. This will have effects on
other species in the ecosystem. Through trophic cascades many species will
become over or under abundant, and the natural balances of the ocean will be
thrown off. There will be less biodiversity and species genetics will be
altered by the stresses humans are putting on them. The ocean will continue to
be altered by humans, and there will not be any natural areas remaining within
Oregon’s unique terrestrial ocean. Without these natural areas, scientists will
not be able to properly evaluate human impact, and following generations will
not be able to experience the same ocean that we do. The livelihood of
fishermen would continue to worsen, and many would leave the business. The
availability and selection of fish on the market will go down while the prices
go up. Recreational fishing will also become more difficult and regulated.
Recreational fishing, which is pastime in many families, would be lost to many
and Oregon will lose an important part of its culture and heritage. All of
these potential problems can be prevented if appropriate and scientifically
sound changes are made to our fish management system.
Marine
conservation zones and preserves are the best route Oregon can take to improve
the fisheries management system. They have an array of benefits that will make
positive changes to not only the marine wildlife, but also to the Ocean at large,
to fishermen, fish consumers, and coastal communities. Oregon is on it’s way to
creating this superior method of marine management, but has a long way to go.
It is important that change is implemented quickly, but it also must be done
properly. Ocean ecosystems are complex and not fully understood. Because of
this, the best way to protect them is by creating zones where human impact is
minimal, and let nature manage itself.
Bibliography
1. Common Ground: Oregon's Ocean.
Green Fire Productions, 2005. Film.
2.
http://oceansonline.org/cg/common_ground.html
3. National Park Service History.
National Park Service, 2008. http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/history.htm
4. Berg, Neal: Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Telephone Interview. 01/06/2012.
5. Lackner, Bill. Oregon’s Coastal
Fish Species: Oregon’s Rockfish.
6. Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW). Native Fish Conservation and Recovery: Oregon Marine Reserves.
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/marinereserves.asp
7. Biological Monitoring and
Research Documents. Oregon Ocean Information.
http://www.oregonocean.info/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&Itemid=0&gid=129&orderby=dmdate_published&ascdesc=DESC
8. Oregon Legislative Assembly. Marine
reserves. Salem, Or. : Legislative Committee Services, 2010.
9. United States Department of
Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service Oregon Field Office. 2010-2011
Oregon Agriculture & Fisheries Statistics. 2011.
10. Anthoni, Dr J
Floor. "Marine Conservation." Sea Friends. 2001.
