Why We Tolderate Fisheries Demise

[DonAndersen]

Folks,

 

I've thought about this a lot and there are certainly reasons why fish stocks decrease. In Alberta with the influx of "new" people who neither know or care of what was here once, the fish stocks can and will decrease unabated. Tis a sad commentary on our world.

The below was sent to me my a retired SRD Biologist.

 

The article expresses what I've seen.

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

 

 

The Natural World Vanishes:

How Species Cease To Matter

Once, on both sides of the Atlantic, fish such as salmon, eels, and, shad were abundant and played an important role in society, feeding millions and providing a livelihood for tens of thousands. But as these fish have steadily dwindled, humans have lost sight of their significance, with each generation accepting a diminished environment as the new norm.

by john waldman

 

If you are a resident of the East Coast of the United States or of Western Europe, when did you last attend a shad bake, eat an eel, or watch Atlantic salmon vault a waterfall? Community shad bakes once celebrated the return of American shad to rivers as a marker of spring. Recently though, a dearth of shad led to a “shadless shad bake” on the Hudson — a river that in its glory days supplied more than four million pounds of shad in one season. Eels were widely consumed by Europeans and Americans in the 1800s and were often featured on holiday tables. And salmon once ran inland in countless numbers, providing sport and food; today, only a few hundred wild salmon remain in the eastern U.S., migrating up a handful of rivers in Maine to spawn.

 

Today, most people in the U.S. and Europe are scarcely aware that eels, wild Atlantic salmon, shad, and alewives — once-vital sources of food and employment — are no longer a part of their ordinary experience. This decline in importance is a manifestation of a loss of standing in society for these fishes, part of a larger phenomenon involving a regrettable interplay between ecology and the social order.

 

Every generation takes the natural environment it encounters during childhood as the norm against which it measures environmental decline later in life. With each ensuing generation, environmental degradation generally increases, but each generation takes that degraded condition as the new normal. Scientists call this phenomenon “shifting baselines” or “inter-generational amnesia,” and it is part of a larger and more nebulous reality — the insidious ebbing of the ecological and social relevancy of declining and disappearing species.

 

My colleague, Karin E. Limburg, and I have come up with another term for the broader context of this phenomenon: “eco-social anomie.” Anomie is defined as a state or condition of individuals or society characterized by a breakdown of social priorities and values. Eco-social anomie describes a biological and cultural feedback loop that spirals toward this breakdown: As species disappear, they lose both relevance to a society and the constituency to champion their revival, further hastening their decline. A vivid example of this was highlighted in a recent study in Conservation Biology, in which researchers found that younger residents along China’s Yangtze River knew little or nothing of the river dolphin, the bajii — now believed to be extinct — and the threatened paddlefish.

 

“Our data from the Yangtze shows that, in certain cultural environments at least, local communities will immediately start to forget about the existence of even large, charismatic species as soon as these species stop being encountered on a fairly regular basis,” said Samuel Turvey, lead author of the study.

 

In the case of migratory fish, their once-vital niche in society is often reduced to vestigial place names, such as the Sturgeon Pool in the Hudson watershed in New York and the Salmon Kill on the Housatonic in Connecticut, which today offer local color — but no eponymous fish. Numerous measures show that the two-dozen migratory fishes of both shores of the North Atlantic have seen profound reduction. An historical review that I conducted with Limburg, of the State University of New York — College of Environmental Science and Forestry, on the sturgeons, salmon, shads, eels and other fishes that migrate between fresh and salt waters revealed deeply alarming statistics. Of 35 studies of the long-term fate of migratory fish, relative abundances had dropped below 98 percent from historic highs for 13 species, and below 90 percent for another 11, with most species reaching their lowest levels in recent years.

 

Numerous populations of these fishes persist at sharply reduced levels, but all species had suffered local extirpations and many are now classified as threatened or endangered. A particularly worrisome case is the European sea sturgeon, so highly regarded that in the 1300s it was designated as a “royal fish” by England’s King Edward II. Sea sturgeon once comprised almost 20 populations in rivers between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea; they are now restricted to a vanishingly small stock in France’s Gironde River..

Even such lightly fished species as alewife are now protected from any harvest in several U.S. states because of recent population crashes. Habitat loss (especially damming), overfishing, pollution, and, increasingly, climate change have all contributed to declines in this group. Warming is already altering the geographic ranges and timing of migrations of some fishes, which likely will create “mismatches” to their established ecological relationships.

 

Because of their remarkably high abundances and importance in early Colonial times and the sheer magnitude of their subsequent collapse, North Atlantic diadromous fishes — those that migrate between salt and fresh water — offer a particularly egregious example of eco-social anomie. Here is a generalized history: As industrialization intensified, already overharvested migratory fish populations were sacrificed for the construction of dams for power mills. This blockage of spawning habitat reduced runs further, wiping out upriver fisheries and causing downriver fisheries to dwindle or perish. The fundamental aquatic ecology of these systems also was harmed: With fewer adults entering rivers and fewer juveniles leaving them, the normal energy transfers between fresh and marine waters were reduced, and interdependencies between diadromous fishes and their associated animal and plant communities withered.

 

With catches diminished, local dependencies on this food source declined, and with that, a primary constituency for the welfare of the fish runs. Industrialization led to increased contamination, growing human populations led to greater discharge of sewerage, and rivers began to serve more as power sources and gutters for societal wastes than as productive ecosystems. The disappearing migratory fishes may have granted “permission” for additional ecosystem corruption because there was less cost in further debilitating rivers.

 

Mitigation for the loss of wild runs of these fishes was most often in the form of the easy but nearly always ineffective — if not downright destructive — stocking of hatchery-reared specimens. The exquisitely fine-tuned life histories of natural runs to their home rivers became quashed by mass-produced specimens that were less fit, but that nonetheless competed with any remaining wild individuals, reducing their fitness, too, as they interbred. Responsibility for the continuity of the runs shifted away from maintaining ecological integrity of fish runs and rivers to what amounted to a cosmetic patch via outsourcing. Abundant research has shown that a fish is not a fish is not a fish.

 

As Richard Judd wrote in Common Lands, Common People, “An artificial resource maintained in a habitat no longer capable of spontaneous growth, fish became a property of the state rather than an element of the providential natural landscape.”

 

To put an end to the steady degradation of many ecosystems — marine and otherwise — we need to rewind important historical connections and dependencies. But tools to do so are also necessary: funding, legislation and, finally, education to rebuild societal awareness and the will to effect needed changes.

 

In the U.S., until the importance and legal standing of these fishes and their habitats were elevated with the Clean Water Act of 1972 and other environmental statutes, resource managers lacked the means to do much except to try and maintain existing baselines. Since then, a few victories have been won and critical precedents set. It took a population crash of Chesapeake Bay striped bass in the 1980s to push Congress into enacting laws that forced the necessary draconian changes to those fisheries. But these fish made a celebrated comeback, showing what can be accomplished with a truly determined effort. The striped bass was fortunate because it had a vocal constituency of commercial and recreational fishermen calling for its revival.

 

The lesson from this — one which has been learned the hard way across all kinds of fisheries — is to avoid reaching the crisis stage. This philosophy, known as the “precautionary principle,” is beginning to take hold with the simple wisdom of erring conservatively in setting fish harvests.

 

Maine has shown exemplary leadership in reopening rivers to migratory fishes with the dismantling of the Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River in 1999, an action that allowed sturgeons, shad, and striped bass to swim and spawn in a 17-mile stretch of the river that was blocked for a century. Similar efforts are underway in Maine’s Penobscot River, and these include novel compromises that will maintain hydroelectric power generation levels while eventually reopening hundreds of miles of main-stem river and tributaries.

 

Many smaller dam-removal and fish-passage efforts are also underway on both sides of the Atlantic, including efforts to bring Atlantic salmon back to the Thames, the Rhine, and the Seine. Maine also is home to the newly formed Diadromous Species Restoration Research Network that will help coordinate restoration efforts of academic, government, and watershed activists and residents, both in the Penobscot River and throughout the northeast.

 

Alewives were once so numerous along the eastern coast of the U.S. that they were likened to the passenger pigeons of the sea. Sadly, precipitous decline across much of their range is reminiscent of the passenger pigeon’s demise. A new amendment to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Interstate Management Plan for alewife and its relatives calls for detailed restoration, adapted to the state level.

MORE FROM YALE e360

With Temperatures Rising,

Here Comes ‘Global Weirding’

 

They’re calling it “global weirding” — the way in which rising temperatures are causing species to change their ranges, the timing of their migrations, and the way they interact with other living things. And the implications of all this are only beginning to be understood.

READ MORE

Many grassroots organizations also are fighting for protection and restoration of their alewife spawning creeks on a local level. Reconnecting the public with their neighborhood alewife run has been brought to an advanced plane in the Ipswich River, Massachusetts, with an innovative Adopt-a-Herring Program, where students track radio-tagged individuals as they migrate upriver, learning much about fish and stream biology along the way, as well as regaining a sense of responsibility for securing continuity for this natural phenomenon.

 

Although we are still far from hearing the societal shout on their behalf that is needed, voices are rising as numbers of many North Atlantic diadromous fishes continue to dwindle. But it will require greater concerted action to actually reverse their vicious spiral. Until then, these creatures would be advised to heed the words of Henry David Thoreau, from A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers: “Keep a stiff fin then, and stem all the tides thou mayst meet.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest frypan]

Folks,

 

I've thought about this a lot and there are certainly reasons why fish stocks decrease. In Alberta with the influx of "new" people who neither know or care of what was here once, the fish stocks can and will decrease unabated. Tis a sad commentary on our world.

The below was sent to me my a retired SRD Biologist.

 

The article expresses what I've seen.

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

 

good artical don, however not sure how to take yuor opening comments ?

 

what do you mean by " new " people ?

 

[DonAndersen]

frypan,

 

 

I was stuck on how to describe those folks that have no history in Alberta. "New" people seemed the least offensive - immigrants, transients, guest workers et al all seemed to have connotations that would offend many.

 

Don

 

[Guest frypan]

frypan,

 

 

I was stuck on how to describe those folks that have no history in Alberta. "New" people seemed the least offensive - immigrants, transients, guest workers et al all seemed to have connotations that would offend many.

 

Don

 

bit of a streatch to blame new people to alberta for inept fisheries management, in my opinion anyhow

 

with this asumption we could also lay blame for all the crime , high taxes , and global warming on new albertans as well.

[LastBoyScout]

It rips at my heart to Don but we are laying off teachers in Alberta so what are we going to do?

[DonAndersen]

frypan,

 

As the article points out - people who have no knowledge of what existed before never concern them themselves with what is gone.

 

Many of you likely never fished and never will the mileage that is under the the Three River Damn. The Crow that was buried was some of the best water. The Oldman north of Cowley was where I caught my first stream brown. It's gone. On the Horseshoe Bend there was often 4>10 vehicles. Ever see any there now?

 

Do I miss it - you bet but if you never experienced the river, why would you care.

 

So much of Alberta's waters have been altered or lost due to many reasons. Nearly 30% of Alberta's population arrived within the past 10 years. They have no knowledge is what was once the norm. They start @ what they see and experience now. The history and loss they never experienced.

 

If you arrived in southern Alberta today, the norm is now crowds of random campers riding their quads up and down the Oldman tributaries. Is this the "new" normal. God I hope not.

 

regards,

 

 

Don

 

 

[Guest frypan]

Good point Don., I agree

 

thought provoking

[PeteZahut]

I really do hate this argument. How many times has the statement been made for so many problems being caused by the influx of people. What about the influx of babies? Should we stop having babies to save the fish? Stupid point I know but like I said I hate this argument.

 

Further to this, I have to ask the question of when do you draw the line on the exceptional amount of populattion? Were your parents born in Alberta Don? I was not, but my daughter was, so will she care more because she was born here? Doubt it, in my opinion being born here doesn't mean you would care more. I don't really have a point, just a comment. I can appreciate your longing for days past but essentially blaming me for the impact on fish here in Alberta because I wasn't born here and therefore don't care as much as you is plain wrong.

 

Again, I hate this argument which is never ending and I don't usually comment on them. This one bugged me.

[Harps]

Pete

Whether somebody cares more or not is not the issue.

The issue is that people come here and see something as 'x'.

 

When it was 'y' up until a couple of years before they came. They are happy with 'x' because it is all they know. They may want to improve it or maybe not.

 

The rest of us that were here before, lament on the lost 'y'. Even when 'x' improves to a better state, we will still miss 'y' because it is lost from our childhood.

 

I have very fond memories of fishing the waters under the dam... but I find that I am forgeting what they looked like, and instead only can recall the good times of my dad and uncles helping me down the bank.

 

No fault of "new" Albertan, but they will never have a chance to experience that. Hopefully there are efforts made by "new" Albertans to preserve (and improve in a generic way) what we have.

 

BTW, My Mom's family has been here for 120 years.

[Smitty]

Pete

Whether somebody cares more or not is not the issue.

The issue is that people come here and see something as 'x'.

 

When it was 'y' up until a couple of years before they came. They are happy with 'x' because it is all they know. They may want to improve it or maybe not.

 

The rest of us that were here before, lament on the lost 'y'. Even when 'x' improves to a better state, we will still miss 'y' because it is lost from our childhood.

 

I have very fond memories of fishing the waters under the dam... but I find that I am forgeting what they looked like, and instead only can recall the good times of my dad and uncles helping me down the bank.

 

No fault of "new" Albertan, but they will never have a chance to experience that. Hopefully there are efforts made by "new" Albertans to preserve (and improve in a generic way) what we have.

 

BTW, My Mom's family has been here for 120 years.

 

Very - very - well said Harps.

 

My introduction into trout fishing was a creek north of hwy16. Beautiful, and I really mean this, gorgeous piece of water. Dad and I hiked in through a cutline shown to him by a trapper.

 

It was very unique, because there were a couple of long, flat pool like sections of water, and I remember seeing schools of Athabasca rainbows. I kid you not when I say some of these flat sections had pools of 40+ fish. I have never since seen flat sections of creek holding this many trout, anywhere in the province. It was incredible, and special.

 

And now? Extremely low water, poorly built culverts, a new road punched right through the headwaters. And no fish are left. How is it that I am left with only memories? Never mind, I know the answer to this already...

 

Smitty

(The point is that I'm damn near certain that "new" Albertans weren't responsible for its demise. But, to Harps point, they have no idea what they've missed, and hence, unlikely to be as passionate as I am about small creeks and Athabasca rainbows.)

 

[PeteZahut]

Those are valid points. Perhaps I misread it or misinterpreted the intent of the post. I have read enough times on this forum blaiming a bunch of different things on the influx of "new" people to Alberta. Right or wrong, when I read the first comment that is what I got and it bothered me. I read that only those who were born here truly care about it or could truly care about it. In the short 8 years that I have been here I have come to appreciate and care about the amazing province we have. I consider this province my home and therefore treat it as such. The fact I don't have memories of the way things used to be doesn't affect how I treat the waters I frequent. Seeing our resource affected by the numerous ways (already mentioned in a 1000 different posts) does bother me and I wouldn't even bother comparing it to how it bothers someone born here as to me it doesn't make a difference. Comparing how passionate one is about certain creeks or types of fish is a futile effort in my opinion.

[DonAndersen]

PeteZahut,

 

It would appear that you figure that the folks that arrived within the past few years bother me. Nope you got that wrong.

What new folks don't see is what is gone. They see what is there today and cannot appreciate what was lost. Their experience starts upon exposure.

What they don't see/experience likely will never motivate them to do something/anything about the issues. That does beg the question. The real question is can the clock be turned back.

Sure it can. All it takes is for folks to realize what was here before and work at the restoration. In the copied article are a number of examples of people working hard @ turning back the clock restoring fish populations and habitat.

How that is to be done is a tough one.

Perhaps ownership motivates the driving force effecting change.

What reflects ownership? There you got me. But I often wonder about the owners of quads ripping up the landscape if they feel that they have ownership in the land.

 

Here is but a partial list of what was lost:

 

1] Castle River/Crownsest River/Oldman River under the Three Rivers Dam

2] Waterton River under a dam

3] Red Deer River under a dam

4] Kananaskis River under a dam

5] Water diversions destroying fish - St. Mary's, Bow, Waterton, Oldman

6] Reduction in fishing opportunities through decreased stocking of marginal trout streams - Buster, Cow, Mud Creeks + a host of other

7] Closing of access points along streams - many provinces and states work hard @ keeping them open - Montana for one

8] Decreased SRD fisheries budgets - a political attack.

9] Lets not forget the complete and utter destruction of streams in the Oil Sands area.

10] and on and on

 

See PZ - no new folks listed there anywhere.

 

 

Don

 

 

 

 

 

[PeteZahut]

Don,

 

As I stated, I did seem to misinterpret the original post. Your examples are valid and I don't really have an opinion as you are right that I have never experienced those places. I still don't agree that someone who has never experienced "x" would not be capable of being passionate about "x" or caring enough to particpate in some manner in bringing "x" back. I just don't agree with a sweeping statement like that.

 

Thanks.

Chris

[Guest frypan]

this situatoin is not unique to alberta

 

there are countless through out the world (most places) where there has not been an influx of new poeple and there are the same demand on resorces that create these problem

 

easy to sit back and reminisce about the good ole days ,

 

some time some come across like they are not part of the problem bcause they or they family have been here for a few generatoins

 

 

[DonAndersen]

frypan.

 

I am the problem. I, and people like me, allowed this province's government to short change fisheries/habitat/environment + social issues all over the place.

 

And I'm ashamed of myself. But the real question is "how do we dig this place outta the crapper"?

 

 

Don

 

 

[fisher26]

Well put Don.

 

One can only truly understand the present if they know of the past. Living in ignorance is like looking at the world through tinted lenses.

[McLeod]

After attending Roundtables ect..Seems to me Don the way to get things done that we want for better fisheries is to hijack the ACA. They could do alot to improve fisheries if they were forced in that direction.SRD has no staff to do anything.

[DonAndersen]

McLeod,

 

Couldn't agree with you more on the ACA - they lost their focus if they ever had one. They spend more money from the Grant Eligible fund on moths than fish habitat. No kidding/no BS

 

But mostly the resolution to most of Alberta's fisheries issues is political. Even when the budget surpluses were huge, SRD got low balled.

 

Don

[reevesr1]

The real question is can the clock be turned back.

Sure it can. All it takes is for folks to realize what was here before and work at the restoration. In the copied article are a number of examples of people working hard @ turning back the clock restoring fish populations and habitat.

How that is to be done is a tough one.

 

When I was a kid in Texas, redfish were pretty hard to come by. They had been commercially fished very hard. I would not say to the point of extinction, but populations were way down from historic norms. Today, thanks to work done by fishing organizations there are far more redfish than when I was a kid. The same is true to a lesser extent in Louisiana. So yes, it can be done. And with FAR more fishermen fishing for them. But it tooka lot of political will, and friends with lots of stroke to make it happen.