The iconic Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen has taken on a new look this month: anti-whaling advocates vandalized the statue, coating it in red paint in an effort to draw attention to the endangered whales of the Faroe Islands.

Copenhagen’s famous Little Mermaid statue was vandalized…again https://t.co/8Aq7meZiMy pic.twitter.com/odfmW4UiON

— Condé Nast Traveler (@CNTraveler) June 7, 2017

For a thousand years, the people of the Faroe Islands have conducted an annual grindadráp, a drive hunt where a flotilla of small boats drive whales and dolphins into a small bay where they are killed by hand with knives. The organization Sea Shepherd has worked to end these hunts since the 1980s, but the inhabitants of the islands have pushed back, arguing that the “grind” is critical for both food and preserving the islanders’ sense of community. The enmity between environmental advocates and the Danish authorities has grown exponentially since crews of Sea Shepherd boats were detained by the Danish navy when they tried to block the 2014 grind. Whaling is illegal within the EU and Sea Shepherd has declared that Brussels must launch “infringement proceedings” against Denmark for allowing the grind. However, the Faroe Islands have a unique status–as an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, they rely on Denmark for military, judicial, and foreign affairs but have control over their own domestic issues.

Carl Christian Ebbesen, head of Copenhagen’s culture and leisure committee, was outraged by the vandalism, calling it “well out of line” and “as stupid as you can possibly get.” Despite Ebbesen’s dismissal of the red paint, this is not the first time the Little Mermaid statue has been used for political purposes. In 1964, the Situationist avant-garde group sawed off the head of the statue. She has also lost limbs and been painted numerous times by various groups. In 2004, a burqa was draped over the head of the statue as part of protest against Turkey joining the EU and the statue was clothed in a headscarf in 2007 for reasons that are unclear.

Vandalizing the statue may seem like a petty or juvenile act, but it has served its purpose–getting the grinds of the Faroe Island back in the headlines in the wake of Sea Shepherd officially requesting the European Commission punish Denmark for the grinds (Sea Shepherd has claimed no responsibility for the vandalism). Tourists visiting Copenhagen and dozens of media outlets picking up images of the statue have made the red paint stunt go viral, bringing attention to a debate that relatively few outside of Denmark have been following. By next week, the red paint will have been removed from the statue and it will return to its role as a charming backdrop in Instagram snaps for visitors from around the globe–but for the moment, it is a powerful political statement.

In the past, we’ve discussed Greenpeace’s symbolic activism as effective at drumming up sympathy and finding new allies but activism does not always have to take place on such a grandiose scale. The painting of the statue is an effective, albeit temporary, protest–the anonymous painters should consider it a job well done.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Vandalism as Activism: Protesting Whaling on the Faroe Islands appeared first on Law Street.

Seafood is the primary source of protein and nutrition for about three billion people worldwide, especially in small island states and poor coastal areas. Fishing is also an important source of income for about 200 million people, with 97 percent of fishers in the developing world. However, as the global population has risen dramatically over the past century, the quantity of fish caught every year has increased as well. Due to the sheer size of the demand for seafood, and the fact that the market generally revolves around a few select kinds of fish, the growth in fishing has caused considerable damage to ocean fisheries.

Many populations of fish have become threatened, and in some areas, they have died off completely. As fish die out, ocean biodiversity suffers and the fishers’ ability to sustain their livelihood is threatened. There are several varying models of exactly how threatened the fish industry is, and there’s often disagreement between conservationist scientists and market experts. Read on to find out more about what exactly is happening with our fisheries and the different possible solutions.

So How Bad is it Exactly?

It is widely accepted that ocean fisheries are over-exploited, although there’s plenty of disagreement on exactly what that means for the future. One of the first major examples of fish stocks losing their stability happened in the Gulf of Maine, where a massive restriction on cod fishing was placed all along the gulf, from Cape Cod to Nova Scotia. The cod stock in the area had dropped to such low levels due to intensive fishing practices that the federal government was forced to scale back the industry in order to save the species. Unfortunately, this also meant that fishers, in order to leave the cod undisturbed, had to reduce their catch of several other species, including pollock, haddock, and hake, because they share the same feeding ground on the ocean floor. This move caused an uproar within coastal communities, many of which depended on fishing as a major source of employment and income for their citizens. Fishing reductions both cut off a local food supply and disrupt a way of life.

The same problem is happening in countless fisheries across the planet, and if a fishery shuts down, similar consequences will be felt in its surrounding areas. This can be particularly disastrous in coastal or island communities in the developing world where fish provide the central or only source of food and employment.

The first major analysis of global fisheries was conducted in 2006 by the marine research ecologist Boris Worm and a team of Stanford researchers. Worm and his team analyzed 48 different marine protected areas and then combined their findings with global catch data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. As a result, they were able to track the biodiversity of 12 coastal areas over 1,000 years. They found that biodiversity had dropped off rapidly over the last millennium and that the collapse of any given species is likely to disrupt the entire ecosystem, increasing the threat to other species. That pattern has caused the loss of biodiversity to move at a rapid and increasing rate throughout history as we approach the modern day. They predicted that without a massive change in the way we fish and a concerted effort to create more restoration areas for threatened species, all global fisheries would collapse by 2050.

This estimate was almost immediately attacked by fishery scientist Ray Hilborn, who claimed that the projections were widely inaccurate and sensationalist. Two movements, ecologists (who are generally conservationist minded) and fishery scientists (who are generally economically or market-minded) butted heads on their projections for years until remarkably, they decided to work together. Boris Worm, Ray Hilborn, and their teams combined their data sets and evaluation tools to publish a paper together in 2009. The results from their combined efforts show, with some optimism, that several of earth’s ecosystems that were thought to be dying out have been steadily recovering. However, they also calculated that 63 percent of global fish stocks need to be rebuilt, requiring a dramatic reduction in global catch. They advised catch restrictions, modifications, closed off restoration areas, and a reassessment of the fishing methods used by international commercial fleets.

Destructive Fishing Methods

A major reason for our current situation is the way in which we actually fish. As the demand for fish increased over time, innovations in hunting methods progressed rapidly as well. Unfortunately, this led to the widespread use of several highly destructive fishing techniques, such as bottom trawling, purse seining, longline fishing, gillnetting, and a variety of other less commonly used methods.

Longlining involves stringing down weighted lines below fishing ships. Each of these lines is covered with hooks running vertically down the line, which allows for fish to be caught at each point on the line where a hook is attached. These lines can be up to 50 miles long and present the risk of hooking sea turtles, sharks, and aquatic birds because much of the bait is close to the surface. Because of this, experts say that longlines should be sunk at deeper levels to reduce this problem. However, longlining is still in many ways one of the least invasive forms of hunting used by commercial fisheries, whereas the other three methods all make use of giant nets in different ways. Purse seining drags a vertically weighted net in a circle to entrap fish in the center. The circle is eventually drawn smaller and smaller until the fish are trapped. Gillnetting suspends nets underwater with weights on the bottom and buoyed floaters on the top. The nets are made of very thin mesh and are almost invisible, causing many fish to try to swim right through them and get caught. Trawling drags a weighted net along the ocean floor, scooping up anything that it passes over.

The primary problem with these three methods is that they result in high rates of bycatch, which is the catching of fish that are considered to have no commercial value. Fish that are caught but can’t be sold die, which causes huge amounts of unnecessary damage to populations of fish outside of what we actually consume and attempt to hunt for. Trawling, in particular, has come under public scrutiny because the method is uniquely invasive. As the net drags along the ocean floor, not only does it generate huge quantities of bycatch, it also indiscriminately destroys the ecosystem that covers the ocean’s bottom, including ancient animal habitats and coral reefs that have existed for centuries. Trawling is also not to be confused with trolling, a method of fishing with which boats cast lines behind them and tow them forward. This technique primarily attracts a few species of fish–such as salmon, tuna, and mahi-mahi–and follows fast moving targets, resulting in one of the lowest rates of bycatch.

Market Limitations

Problems with bycatch are further compounded by the fact that there are only a few species of fish that are generally hunted and eaten. Actually, as Paul Greenberg notes in his critically acclaimed book, “Four Fish,” the fish market revolves around just four types of fish: salmon, tuna, bass, and cod. (The book also points out that the modern livestock industry has decreased in biodiversity over time and now only revolves around a few major animals as well. The same problem can be seen in agriculture with the increasing prevalence of monocultures that have led many species of vegetables and grains to die out).

Our love of these specific kinds of fish makes them the only species considered commercially viable, and therefore, they are the focus of most fishing. This presents two major problems, the first being that we are exclusively targeting only a few primary species, which is inevitably going to threaten their populations. The second major problem is that countless other fish, which are completely edible but not considered popular, become bycatch during industrial fishing expeditions. As a result, a large amount of marketable fish become waste and their populations can be severely damaged.

This problem is particularly difficult when it comes to animals that are already considered to be threatened are caught in nets, such as certain species of dolphins, sharks, and turtles. There is no specific reason for the exclusive popularity of cod, tuna, salmon, and bass, as plenty of other fish have similar tastes and nutritional values. If humans were to expand their diets and the market responded accordingly, then it would be hypothetically possible to reduce our targeted hunting of threatened species and expand to other, more stable fish stocks.

“Untitled” courtesy of Proscilas Moscas via Flickr

Eating seafood lower down on the food chain, such as clams, anchovies, sardines, and oysters, would generally be a more sustainable method of consumption. Smaller aquatic animals are in much greater numbers and are capable of reproducing at much higher rates than larger fish. This would also lessen the amount of Persistent Organic Pollutants that enter human bodies through fish consumption. POPs, such as methylmercury and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, often used with electrical equipment) enter the ocean ecosystem through pollution and are stored in the fatty tissues of fish. POPs bioaccumulate, meaning that when larger organisms in the ocean eat smaller organisms, they retain all the toxins from their prey. As a result, the largest fish are often the most toxic. POPs can cause serious damage to a person’s organs and nervous system over time. The lower down on the ocean food chain you eat, the more sustainable it is for the biodiversity of the ocean and the lower your risk is of consuming high levels of toxic pollutants.

Aquaculture vs. Open Hunting

Aquaculture has been proposed by many as a solution to some of the current problems with open fishing. Aquaculture is the process of “farming fish” by keeping them in a controlled environment and supplying their diet for them. Currently, aquaculture supplies about 50 percent of the world’s fish and allows fishing companies to both create a high yield of certain stocks and to avoid problems with bycatch. There are a variety of ways to raise fish, both indoors and outdoors, and it’s possible to do so in a way that’s sustainable for the population.

If you raise fish on a vegetarian diet, the cost of input is fairly low. However, in order to gain desirable tastes and the healthy omega-3 fatty acids that customers want out of fish, aquaculture generally raises its animals on a carnivorous diet. This requires fishing for all the food needed to raise these animals to a size large enough to sell. In worst case scenarios, this means that industrial fishing methods are still widely used for aquaculture, but only to collect the food for other fish (although this results in less bycatch and waste since smaller fish are mainly what bigger fish want to eat). Currently, 37 percent of all global seafood isn’t eaten by humans, but is ground into protein feed and fed back to fish or to livestock farm animals.

“Fishing for Tonight’s Dinner..” courtesy of Mark Guadalupe via Flickr

Furthermore, aquaculture often results in the destruction of the ecosystems it is conducted in. The most serious problem with this is the destruction of the mangrove forest, which is a shoreline habitat for many threatened species. Often times, especially in East Asia, mangrove forests will be razed to make way for the construction of an aquaculture farm, causing many threatened species to lose their habitat as a result. These farms also release harmful chemicals into the surrounding environment, including pesticides, veterinary drugs, and untreated waste water.

These problems are at their worst in the areas where aquaculture is the most practiced, such as China, which has environmental regulations that are very lenient. All this is not to say that aquaculture is bad; in fact, aquaculture has great potential to increase the sustainability of the way we utilize our fisheries. However, fish farms have to be created without destroying precious ecosystems, and they have to be run in a way that takes into account the damage that they can inflict on the surrounding areas if their operators aren’t careful.

Conclusion

Fish are not a limitless resource and there are countless things that need to change in the way we fish if humans want to maintain our way of life. Our industrial fishing practices are destructive and cause the large-scale death of fish that we never even eat. Humans are only willing to eat a few select species, and this causes those populations to be severely threatened. The way we currently fish destroys ecosystems and wastes incredible amounts of edible fish as bycatch. We won’t be able to do this forever. After working together, Boris Worm and Ray Hilborn agreed that it’s possible for global fish stocks to survive past 2050–but doing so will require serious changes around the world.

Resources

BBC:  How the World’s Oceans Could be Running out of Fish

CNN: A Fishing Way of Life is Threatened

Encyclopedia Britannica: The Pros and Cons of Fish Farming

Environmental Protection Agency: Persistent Organic Pollutants: A Global Issue, A Global Response

Marine Conservation Institute: Destructive Fishing

Mercury News: Lean Year for New England Cod Ahead, Shutdown Looms

Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch: Fishing and Farming Methods

Nereus Program: Predicting Future Oceans

New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries: Fishing Methods

The New York Times: Study Finds Hope in Saving Saltwater Fish

The New York Times: Where Have all the Cod Gone?

Salem State University: Benefits of Aquaculture

Science Mag: Rebuilding Global Fisheries

Stanford News: Study Predicts Collapse of All Seafood Fisheries by 2050

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: General Situation of World’s Fish Stocks

WDC: Whaling

Paul Greenberg: Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food

Wild Aid: Shark Fin Soup

World Watch Institute: Eating Sustainable Seafood – Three Tips to Steer Clear of Fisheries Collapse

World Wildlife Fund: Infinite Depths: Protecting Oceans and a Global Seafood Pipeline

World Wildlife Fund: Unsustainable Fishing

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Growing Holes in Our Ocean Fisheries appeared first on Law Street.

I initially planned to dedicate this post to the dumb laws of Idaho and Montana exclusively, thinking that each state alone would probably have enough to constitute an entire addition to my series; however, I was shocked to find that both states have very few moronic laws on the books. Therefore, after much internal deliberation, Wyoming has been included in today’s post.

Let’s start with Montana. Not only is prostitution illegal, but  it is also considered a “crime against the family” there. So, don’t try to sell your body unless you plan to bring shame to your kin.

It’s a hard knock life for wives in Montana, too. It is a felony there for them to open their husband’s mail, and illegal for wives to go fishing alone on Sundays; however, that is a privilege considering that unmarried women are banned from fishing alone on any day of the week. And if you’re feeling like trying out something kinky in the bedroom, think again. In Montana, it is illegal for a man and woman to have sex in any position other than missionary.

A far as state laws, Idaho has shockingly few stupid ones, despite there being many illogical laws specific to certain cities. One state law that could qualify as stupid may actually make sense to women. There, it is illegal for men to give their “sweetheart” a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds. Sounds fair to me! Who wants candy if it weighs any less than 50 pounds? That’s right, no one.

Also, you’d better be ready to flash those pearly whites at all times in Pocatello, Idaho, despite whether you feel cheerful or not. There, it is illegal not to smile in public.

I’m not sure how fishing from the backs of various animals, especially those not native to North America, ever became a problem; however, there Idaho specifically prohibits fishing from a camel’s back. Animals surely must have caused a lot of trouble at some point in Boise, as leading an animal on sidewalks is banned as well.

Eagle, Idaho is quite strict. Lawmakers in the city have banned taking bicycles into tennis courts. Additionally, one cannot sweep dirt from his house into the street. Gotta keep those streets clean!

Keep it inside, buddy!

Wyoming has quite the slew of atypical laws related to alcohol. For one, being drunk in a mine could land you in jail, and so can skiing while drunk. I certainly see the validity behind both of these as doing either thing seems dangerous to me. Also, salespeople or corporations that deal with buying or selling junk metal are banned from making business transactions with intoxicated individuals. Makes sense–we wouldn’t want drunk people to sell beloved junk materials and completely regret it once they sober up. That would be tragic.

Women have it rough when going out for drinks in Wyoming, where a law prevents them from standing within five feet of a bar while drinking.

Although many consider the law that prohibits wearing hats that obstruct peoples’ view in theaters or other places of amusement to be stupid, I think it’s downright innovative. I personally can’t stand when I can’t see the stage at a theater because of someone sitting in front of me.

Wyoming lawmakers want their citizens to EARN their fish by using a good ol’ fashioned rod and reel. Using a firearm to fish is strictly forbidden. Speaking of animals, you may not take a photo of a rabbit without a permit from January to April. Perhaps that is when they feel the most camera shy.

My particular favorite? Neglecting to close a fence in Wyoming could earn you a $750 fine.

So there you have it, the dumb laws of Idaho, Montana and, Wyoming. Next up: Utah and Nevada.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming appeared first on Law Street.

I was wrong a couple weeks ago when I said that California laws are crazy. Many of the Golden State’s laws that I mentioned now seem completely sane in comparison to those I’ve discovered in Washington and Oregon.

For example, if you are trying to woo the opposite sex by saying your dad just won the lottery and drives a brand-new Lamborghini when in fact he doesn’t have a dime to his name, you better think again. In Washington state it is illegal to pretend that your parents are rich.

Also, Evergreen State residents better not plan to go mattress  shopping on a Sunday, as purchasing either item on that day is illegal. If lollipops are your candy of choice, you may want to steer clear of Washington–marijuana may be legal, but lollipops are not. Okay, okay: although this law exists, it is not enforced. You can certainly buy lollipops at many shops.

And Washingtonians are much less concerned about Ebola than something much worse: the common cold. If you have the virus, sorry; you are banned from walking around in public.

If you are lucky enough to spot Bigfoot or any other mysterious creature, feel free to take a picture, but not if it in any way insults the being. Harassing Bigfoot, Sasquatch, or any other “undiscovered subspecies” is a felony punishable by law. That begs the question, if Bigfoot is ever considered “discovered,” will it become okay to harass him? Or, can we never have the pleasure of making fun of his big feet?

For some reason, lawmakers in Washington felt the need to create a law specifically banning painting polka dots on American flags. I wonder if painting little smiley faces would be acceptable?

Alright, I’ve had my kicks poking fun at Washington. Now it’s Oregon’s turn.

The first law that I will mention really makes me wonder why there was a need to create it. In Oregon, it is illegal to place a container filled with human fecal matter on the side of a highway. What about on residential roads? Is it okay there?

Drivers are under many restrictions in Oregon as well. They are prohibited from pumping their own gas, cannot leave a car door open “longer than is necessary”–who is the judge of that??–and are banned from testing their physical endurance while driving. Drivers must also be sure to yield to pedestrians who are standing on the sidewalk. I don’t even understand what that means.

Hopefully you weren’t planning to use canned corn as bait on your next fishing trip in Oregon, as doing so is against the law. It’s okay to use other canned vegetables, however.

Thus concludes this week’s installment of the Dumbest Laws in America. Up next, I will explore Montana and Idaho, so don’t miss it!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Pacific Northwest Edition appeared first on Law Street.

While venturing out toward the stars may be the final frontier, the vast depths of the Earth’s oceans remain largely hidden from view and knowledge. The incredible diversity and sheer volume of life in the seas is staggering to the human mind, and consequently we have developed certain egregious impressions about the oceans and what they may provide for the needs of modern civilization. Some seem to feel that the oceans are sources of infinite resources for global fisheries. They are so big and teeming with life; surely there is more than we could possibly consume. This misnomer is compounded by increases in the technological efficiency of fishing, as well as the fact that oceans serve as common pool resources; many nations and parties may share, or compete for, their portion of fish yields.

Global wild fish stocks have been declining for a long time. In his seminal paper The Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin argued that the economic forces that define our approaches to use of common pool resources are not sustainable in the long run. Namely, an individual acting in the logical manner so as to maximize his share of the resources is acting against the better interest of the whole group, because every individual is doing this and ultimately everyone will suffer. This concern has plagued high seas fishing for centuries, and continues to worsen as the efficiency and rate of fishing increases. Perhaps one of the most tangible and unsettling consequences of these dynamics is the collapse of the Northwest Atlantic cod fishery in 1992, after an epic 500-year run that shaped the economic, social, and cultural development of Europe’s early North American colonies.

The cod fishing town of Portugal Cove in Newfoundland, 1908, courtesy of Musee McCord Museum via Flickr

That is to say, there are consequences other than economics and conservation when dealing with unsustainable fishing. After so many hundreds of years, the Newfoundland locals had developed cultural identities around fishing. From fishermen to transporters, to salesmen in the markets, fishing played a substantial role in their ways of life and manners of self identification. How do the residents think of themselves, their place in society, and what do they actually do with themselves now that the fishery has collapsed? These are concerns that can crop up anywhere that natural resources are strained.

Another incorrect assumption about fishing and the oceans is that anything that might go wrong there or, our actions there in general, bear no consequences to ourselves and society. This might stem from the simple fact that we do not live in the oceans, and so we do not often see with our own eyes ecological collapse there. However it is clear, as exemplified by the Newfoundland cod fishery, that the fate of the seas and their biodiversity is tightly tied to our own state of affairs.

In light of these problematic developments, a new practice has been gaining ground. Aquaculture is the process of raising fish or shrimp in tanks on land. The most important result of supplying seafood in this manner is that it takes pressure off wildlife. There are many other advantages too, as Hiroko Tabuchi explains in a New York Times article. Fish farmers tend to already have environmentally and socially conscious motivations for doing what they do, and so it is uncommon that one’s plate of farm-raised fish will contain harmful chemicals. Furthermore, it reduces the need to import certain fish species, which may be caught by way of slave labor on fishing boats in the South Pacific. Finally, it produces local jobs while promoting economic self sufficiency.

A fish farm tank, courtesy of Bytemarks via Flickr

The Atlantic cod fishery is not the only one to have failed. Eighty-five percent of marine fish stocks are considered either fully exploited or overfished, and more than one in five fisheries has collapsed. In addition to the environmental consequences herein, it is becoming more and more difficult for fishermen to make ends meet. As their daily catches go down in volume, they yield declining pay, endangering their jobs and the financial stability of their families. As the national economy and job markets of Chile waver, for example, they have been turning to large-scale aquaculture. Having safeguarded existing jobs, produced over 100,000 more, and served as a major source of exportation, AquaChile is setting an example that is sure to be followed around the world.

How do consumer behaviors and cultural identities figure into this system? Tabuchi suggests that some people might have an aversion to eating fish raised on a farm. Somehow, it does not seem natural; real fish must be wild and from the oceans in order to be fresh and appetizing. This is a simple mental barrier that can be overcome in time. Fishing is one of civilization’s oldest practices; it will require patience and continued exposure to this new system. In addition, fish farming provides new opportunities with regard to cultural development. Just as the Newfoundland fishermen produced an identity and way of life around their jobs, so too can fish farmers. Therefore, a larger embrace of aquaculture would yield more than just the jobs themselves. Even before the days of Westward expansion Americans have taken pride in farmers. This action carries cultural baggage, tying itself to wholesome values, hard work, and individual enterprise. Thus there is something appealing to consumers in purchasing locally farmed products, and supporting the hardworking farmers. This set of relationships can certainly apply to seafood farmers in time as well.

Aquaculture also benefits other marine wildlife. World Wildlife writer Julian Smith explains that “Healthy ocean ecosystems are more resilient to emerging threats such as warming water temperatures and ocean acidification.” In addition, it has a “ripple effect,” benefiting other marine life such as sea birds, sea turtles, dolphins, and seals. This raises another point of interest: salmon populations in Oregon had been declining for years as a result of dam construction on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Recently, they have been rebounding, drawing tens of thousands of birds who intend to feed on them. Local officials feel threatened by the competition for salmon, and have considered shooting the birds. The National Audubon Society cried out in protest, suggesting measures such as shooing the birds or drawing them elsewhere. Felicity Barringer of The New York Times suggested that this situation is different from people’s fights with wolves and coyotes, who raided their chicken farms, for example. While that series of episodes was still shameful, as those predators were endangered by human defensive hunting, this situation involves killing a wild predator that is competing with humans for a wild prey. Aquaculture could alleviate this competition, as humans consume more farm-raised fish, leaving the wild salmon for the birds and removing the presumed necessity of shooting them.

Cormorants of the Pacific Northwest, courtesy of Brocken Inaglory via Wikipedia

If we continue on our current course, the future of fish and the oceans themselves will be further jeopardized. In our ongoing quest for sustainable societies, aquaculture provides a partial answer and opens many new doors.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image couresty of [CAUT via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aquaculture: Farm the Fish to Save the Seas appeared first on Law Street.