Today (which, as happenstance would have it, also happens to be World Ocean Day) the environmental and conservation news site Mongabay.com ran an interview with me on why we should stop eating seafood. I think that if we can get people to feel about fish the way they feel about birds it should be easier to save them...
In some ways, [fish] are not that different from birds and, as anyone who has ever been to England knows, there is no shortage of sentiment for avian species. Fish often travel in flocks and flash beautiful colors. Like the albatross, tunas cover remarkable migratory distances. Like an eagle, an octopus can also build an impressive home. Like many macaws, the Moorish idol, too, chooses a mate for life.
Check out the full interview here.
Environment
Comments
Octopus =/= fish.
But otherwise, good post. I do enjoy nigiri from time to time. I just wish we could have our sushi, and live tuna/yellowtail/salmon too!
Posted by: Uncephalized | June 8, 2009 3:28 PM
Fish need an animated icon akin to the panda bear that will evoke an emotional response and drive conservation efforts. By showcasing the plight of such public-friendly creatures like birds and whales (as you indicated), organizations and conservation efforts can also work to protect lesser known species. With this in mind I completely agree that campaigns must equate fish/invertebrates to wildlife as opposed to mere commodities.
Unfortunately, I have found many individuals to either be unaware of the overfishing crisis, lazy in making a concerted effort to make safe seafood choices, or simply indifferent because seafood continues to fill restaurant menus, grocery store shelves, and fish markets.
Posted by: Mola2mola | June 8, 2009 4:21 PM
It seems odd to ask people to stop eating something you call by the name of ". . .food." It might be easier to persuade people not to eat "fish" or "octopus" than to persuade them not to eat "seafood."
Is the call not to eat seafood the same as a call to be a vegetarian? Otherwise, it seems that reduction in consumption of sea creatures would result in greater consumption of land animals, like cows and pigs.
Posted by: JuliaL | June 8, 2009 5:13 PM
There seems to be some potential in this quote, "we are stealing fish from the poor to give to the rich", to induce some guilty advertising. But you are going to have to provide some convincing evidence for someone like me to buy into such an idea. "Stealing" is a powerful verb that carries much weight for the average person who considers themselves remotely "ethical" but using it carries the burden of substantial proof.
Have any recommended links that provide data and analysis?
Posted by: Phillip | June 8, 2009 7:28 PM
I have not eaten ocean fish in years. We stopped hunting and gathering flora and fauna from the land long ago. It's time to do the same for the oceans before it's too late.
http://www.biodiversivist.com
Posted by: Russ Finley | June 9, 2009 1:40 AM
Sure, overall it's good to question the consumption of oceans. But those of us who live close enough to the water to personally collect a bucket of clams or catch a fish, thereby replacing some other protein source on tomorrow's dinner plate from some far off farm, should continue, within reason of course.
Erik
Posted by: Erik Hoffner | June 9, 2009 12:34 PM
You probably should try to get the attention of politicians through a non-profit environmental group. They often start petitions getting thousands of people to email their representatives in congress. Groups like the NRDC or the Nature Conservancy would probably be glad to help.
Posted by: MattL | June 9, 2009 2:02 PM
As someone who has worked in bird conservation for over a decade, I say: be careful what you wish for. Sure, birders care about birds, but they won't lift a finger for conservation. Not in the U.S. It's long been the bane of bird conservation - the lack of a mass movement for birds. The game bird people - small in number but very loud and very organized - get all the resources and political support. The nongame side - very little in comparison. Because there is no organized public support for bird conservation. The general public sees birds as the animals that poop on their cars and their golf courses.
Posted by: Eleanor | June 9, 2009 6:29 PM
It's a topic that comes up frequently in my Conservation Biology class: charismatic creatures. Organizations can paint mammals and birds as "cute", and the public will always support things that are cute. But people seem to consider fish as slimy. I think it also doesn't help that most people have no concept of what their fish look like while alive. One student told me "all fish look alike" to him. He has obviously never seen a mahi mahi alive and swimming. Maybe not even a salmon. Granted, he is more focused on birds and I on fish. Which leads to an interesting trend I've noticed in biology students: bird and fish people are really at odds. Those who study fish have absolutely zero interest in birds and those who study birds are turned off by the least mention of fish. A broad generalization, to be sure, but one I've noticed a few times.
Posted by: Erin | June 10, 2009 9:19 AM
The disappointing thing in discussions like this is the tendency for people to immediately think in terms of, "As it has been in the past, so it shall be in the future," meaning that just because something has never happened in the past we should conclude it never could happen. Mass communication has unlimited potential. You can't set an upper bound on what is possible. Once upon a time the entire world went crazy over the value of tulip bulbs (look at "tulip mania" on Wikipedia).
Some people might look at that story and say, "Oh, that was back in a time when people were stupid." As if our current Fox News-driven society is somehow so much more rational (did anyone notice the instant insanity that gripped all the TV news channels yesterday in the wake of a single shooting incident at the Holocaust Museum? We were filming three blocks from the museum and ended up in gridlock traffic for two hours as D.C. seemed to go into lockdown after a single, albeit tragic, murder).
It's not a question of whether you could get the general public to value fish enough to stop eating them, only a question of how. When you don't have the answer to a question, the only solution is to engage in experimentation and innovation. And that's where the process stops. There is so little interest and support for innovation in the subject of mass communication of science and environmentalism that this is a pathway that will probably never be properly explored. But it could be. There could very well be a way to completely change the way people look at fish/seafood. To say, "Oh, they're just not charismatic, nobody will ever care about them," is a losing attitude. There just needs to be a willingness to explore the topic, and not feel like we already know all there is to know about it.
Posted by: Randy Olson | June 11, 2009 8:20 AM
See PETA's Sea Kittens campaign... a campaign to make fish more charismatic and brainwash children into not eating them.
Posted by: jimbo | June 15, 2009 1:15 AM
On that note, I was cooking tonight and I was really struck by the visual resembance of sauteed slices of King Oyster Mushroom stalk to small scallops. The texture's not too terribly far off, though they're less fibrous; the taste is less close but quite good. I was struck by the fact that I've observed before that cooked mushrooms and mollusks are somewhat similar from a gastronomic perspective. Encouraging people to replace wild-harvested mollusk meat in general with cultivated mushroom seems like it might be a productive approach...
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 15, 2009 5:56 AM