The Al Gore Experience: What Would You Do?

The inconvenient truth is that turning down the dish would accomplish nothing -- even less than would Al Gore refusing the same at his daughter's wedding rehearsal dinner. Those who object at undiplomatic moments only undermine the public profile of the cause at issue.

I make it a point to try to avoid being impolite and making a scene in such situations, but always following up with the host at a later date to pursue the matter in private. A politely worded and well-referenced letter, perhaps, might be the best and most effective course of action.

There is a time and place for making a fuss, but I would think a private or even public dinner would not usually qualify.

I think you should have turned it down in any case, for the sake of your conscience. They probably had a vegetarian alternative so you wouldn't starve.

James H. is right that you should politely follow up later with the host, who may not know about the issues.

You don't have to say anything at the table. If the others know you are active in conservation issues, they may ask about whether Chilean Sea Bass is an endangered species. But the last thing you want to do is make them feel guilty for deciding to eat what has been prepared for them.

It seems to me that one of your assumptions is flawed, and that does make the difference.

That the organizers would never again plan a dinner where Chilean Sea Bass would be featured is perhaps too optimistic. If, on the other hand, a notable public figure were to object - in private, perhaps, but strenuously nevertheless - that event might well have a lasting impact on the planning committee.

There are many things in this world worth fighting for. Pick your battles, then dig in and stand your ground.

(On second thought, perhaps "dig in" isn't the best advice here.)
-J the G

There are two reasons to turn it down, if the plight of the fish does hold meaning to you:

1) It's the right thing to do. Sometimes that moral voice in your head is simply right.

2) There is a next time. 199 other people in there will continue to live, go to conferences, maybe even organize conferences, and be faced with choices. Maybe one of them will be able to influence the outcome of the dinner decision next time.

As Fred pointed out, how you do this is important as well. You can make a polite comment, or you can stand on your chair and plead your case. That will influence things too. But how you do something and the fact that you do it are related, but separate, events.

It has to start somewhere. Take the simple example of how easy it is for one twig to be broken, but bundle up the ones and they become strong. Your decision is one twig. You have to start the bundle and find others that bind together in order to make the difference. If everyone says I don't make of difference, then there can be no difference.

And John validly points out the flaw - this is not a one-time event. To you, maybe it is. But every week, every day, the kitchen is cooking the meal and offering it to someone. When no one says yes, then and only then will the menu change.

I agree with Phil and Fred. By requesting a vegetarian option (most places have it) and not making a scene, you are doing what you feel is right. If the topic of "why you don't eat fish" comes up, then you could politely tell them about sustainable fisheries, though it might be hard to avoid the whole "oh, you're eating an endangered species." However, people should learn the truth. That's how conservation begins...

I also agree that the organizers should be notified of the status of the fish. If choosing chilean sea bass as their main entree isn't really such a big deal to them, then it is likely that they would change it the next time. If nothing is said, then they probably would never know what they were doing by choosing the dish.

I agree with and support Arthur's analogy of a single weaker twig as opposed to a stronger united bunch. Having said this, however, I would have had the Sea Bass.

"Do individual choices matter ..."

In the end, individual choices are all that there is.

Sheril,

I had not even heard of Chilean Sea Bass before reading your posts. A Google search turned up the following information at www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2002/8989.htm.

"Is Chilean sea bass an endangered species?

No. But large, unreported catches from illegal fishing of this valuable fish has made effective management difficult. In 2000, more than 16,000 tons of Chilean sea bass were legally harvested in the Antarctic management area. Estimates vary, but there may be up to twice that amount taken illegally. Some Chilean sea bass fisheries are managed in a responsible manner, but there are some areas where the species has been and continues to be overfished.

How is Chilean sea bass currently managed?

A 24-country commission (The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) responsible for conserving fish within Antarctic waters is helping to conserve Chilean sea bass with catch limits and other management measures. As an active member of the commission, the United States participates in these conservation and management decisions for Chilean sea bass in Antarctica. Individual governments regulate the Chilean sea bass fisheries within their own national waters.

Is Chilean sea bass trade regulated?

Yes. In order to address the problem of illegal fishing, the Commission has adopted a measure requiring that all imports of Chilean sea bass be accompanied by a document verifying that the fish were caught legally. U.S. Customs and NOAA Fisheries regulations do not allow Chilean sea bass imports without this document and a valid dealer permit issued by NOAA. In addition, the United States works closely with Chile to ensure that Chilean sea bass imported from there has been legally caught and is properly documented.

Is Chilean sea bass available in the United States?

Yes. U.S. regulations allow imports of Chilean sea bass that are caught within legal limits and that provide for the sustainable use and conservation of the fishery resource. However, some illegally harvested Chilean sea bass does enter the United States. Restaurateurs and consumers should ask questions before buying Chilean sea bass to ensure that the fish being purchased were legally harvested.

What can restaurateurs do to ensure they are buying legal Chilean sea bass?

Restaurateurs should insist that their fish brokers verify the source of their Chilean sea bass and buy the fish only if you are shown the proper documentation.

What can be done to ensure the purchase of legal Chilean sea bass?

Ask the seller to verify that the fish was legally caught, in accordance with management provisions of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Even if the seller does not know, the fact that the question was asked will send a message to distributors that consumers are aware of and concerned about the problem of illegal fishing and imports.

How is Chilean sea bass legally caught and marketed?

Mostly by hooks attached to long-lines, strung behind fishing boats. Some Chilean sea bass is caught in waters off the coast of Chile, then iced and shipped to the United States fresh. However, the majority of Chilean sea bass is harvested in distant waters of Antarctica, frozen onboard factory vessels, and shipped several weeks to several months later. Both fresh and frozen Chilean sea bass are available for consumption in the United States.

Who fishes for Chilean sea bass? Who consumes it?

Argentina, France, Chile, Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea and Uruguay are the primary countries harvesting Chilean sea bass. They fish in the waters of Antarctica and in the national waters of nearby countries. The United States, Japan, and the European Union are the major markets.

How much Chilean sea bass does the United States import?

The U.S. imports about 10,000 tons of fresh and frozen Chilean sea bass, or somewhere between 15 to 20 percent of the worldwide Chilean sea bass catch. "

Additional Information:

U.S. Import Control Program
Office of Public Affairs
NOAA Fisheries
U.S. Department of Commerce
(301-713-2370)

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources
Office of Oceans Affairs
U.S. Department of State (202-647-3262)

Is this information correct? If so it would seem that there is little reason to stop eating the fish, let alone suffer moral anguish about its consumption. Any questions about the party responsible for acquiring the fish should be addressed to the caterer or restaurant manager.

I do not normally post anonymously, but in this case feel it is wise. This would seem to be an example of the situation where I "blow my gasket". I generally storm out of the room or meeting, swearing never to have anything to do with the organization again. Having done that more than once in the past, I know I send two following-up letters: One to the organization involved, and one to relevant press (with a copy to the organization).

Since I really then do not have anything more to do with the organization, I have no idea whether or not anything was ever accomplished. All I can say is I've never gotten any feedback, not even the time the letter-to-the-press was published. (Actually, I write three letters. The first just vents my frustration and is then thrown away.)

However, I suspect this is perhaps not the wisest course of action.

I am a fish proselytizer. I have never had the Chilean Sea Bass. Although I have heard he is a tasty fish, I would have forgone the dish.

Definitely speaking to the organizers or catering managers about the fish would be smart - but give them alternatives. Don't just say something is bad. Offer up ideas to alter their choices. Empower them to change for the sustainable.

"I don't eat Chilean Sea Bass. May I have the veggie alternative?"

At the table, instead of a judgment-laden starter about endangered species and collapsing fish stocks - my intro line to those curious table mates would have been about semantics. I would have told him about the Patagonian toothfish and told them about how ugly he is, how threatened he is and a little bit about sustainable fisheries. Then I would have given them the intelligent fish choice wallet guide I have (and usually have a few extra to share). That is when I would mention that Patagonian toothfish was renamed for the American consumer as Chilean Sea Bass.

The whole conversation can be wrapped up in 6 sentences without any sort of guilt aspersion. And you can empower the six table mates to make better fish consumption decisions with the little guides. Those six people could then tell who knows how many.

It only takes one small stone to make many ripples.

I noted that the document Lance cites is from 2002. The Wikipedia article discusses illegal fishing, so I was curious if poaching has reached such an extreme level that the consumers can't be assured that the fish they are buying was legally caught.

Sheril, you can teach us a lot here. I'd like to know why the poachers can't be stopped other than by closing the market to legitimate fisheries as well.

I would have used it to initiate a conversation about conservation and how individual consumers can help, so that there might at least be some positive ripple effect. The Gore incident could help to make it a lighthearted rather than preachy conversation.

And then I would have eaten the fish. Food is better than garbage, and both alternatives result in one dead fish. It's the same reason I have no hesitation supporting stem cell research - the alternative destination of those embryos is the incineratior, so it's better to salvage some benefit than to just add to the waste heap.

I'm with James.

I would have declined the fish and followed up after dinner with a short conversation and then a letter the next day. Business people likely know little about the issue and therefore making a scene would likely accomplish little.

My job being public policy, I can tell you that the general public doesn't share any of our specialties and usually looks someone ranting as if they were a loon and the message is lost. There is a reason why there are few diplomats and why we respect people who are diplomatic.

Best,

D

Three mistaken assumptions, I think;
> there would be no 'next time.'
-- There always is.
> 5) I did not want to offend anyone.
-- It's necessary. Get used to it.
> 6) The venue had nothing to do with conservation.
-- Everything does.

Try:
"I never eat anything older than I am, and this fish couldn't have been less than 40 or 50 years old to be this big -- they can live to 150 years old."

Then ask for the eggplant.