One Fish, Two Fish, Let’s Just Not Fish: By-Catch in our Seafood Salad
According to the USDA's annual statistics survey, 10 billion animals are killed for human consumption every year in the United States. (Worldwide, I believe it’s 45 billion.) However, it is more accurate to say that “10 billion land animals are killed for human consumption every year"; otherwise, we’re disregarding the billions of aquatic animals killed for the same purpose – to satisfy human appetites. Although the number of aquatic animals killed for consumption in the United States goes unreported, annual estimates are more than 17 billion in the U.S. alone, and sport fishing and angling kills another 245 million animals annually. So, basically, we’re talking about over 27 billion animals – both land and aquatic – being killed every year in the U.S. so humans can eat them. We’re not talking about human survival – we’re talking about appetite. And these numbers don’t count the millions of aquatic animals killed every year as incidental catch.
Incidental catch, or "by-catch," refers to unintended or unwanted animals caught by the fishing industry. It is estimated that by-catch-related mortality is causing population declines in 13 out of the 44 species of marine mammals that are suffering high death rates from human activities. Commercial fishers use a number of techniques for ensnaring animals, from setting miles of line and baited hooks (called longlines) to catch animals such as sharks, swordfish, and tuna, to using large nets to catch schools of fish. These large nets are towed underwater by what are called trawlers. A trawler is a fishing vessel designed for the purpose of operating a trawl, a type of fishing net that is dragged along the bottom of the sea (or sometimes just above the bottom at a specified depth).
UNEARTHING THE OCEAN FLOOR
A single pass of a trawl removes up to 20% of the seafloor fauna and flora - legally. And the fisheries with the highest levels of by-catch are shrimp fisheries: 80%-90% of a catch may consist of marine species other than the shrimp being targeted. 80%-90% of the animals caught in these nets that are targeting shrimp and prawns are actually non-target animals – they’re by-catch.
Shrimp are bottom-dwellers, which is why trawling nets are used to – remove them from the ocean. Since even jumbo shrimp are really small, the nets used to catch the shrimp are very fine, which means these nets scoop up all the animals – all the life – found on the ocean’s floor. According to a 2003 U.S. News and World Report article on fishing and its detrimental affects on the oceans of the world, every pound of shrimp that’s caught results in the killing of ten pounds of other marine life. According to the Worldwide Fund for Nature, in the Gulf of Thailand it can be 14 pounds of by-catch per pound of shrimp.
Now, a lot of the dead by-catch is made up of tiny animals that people don’t have emotional attachments to; that is, they may not be as cute as baby seals or dolphins, but they contribute to the oceans’ biodiversity and they have a right to be there – to live.
The other thing to consider is that the dredging along the ocean floor also breaks up coral and the habitats of bottom-dwellers. And because the same areas are dredged again and again, it’s not like these habitats and inhabitants have time to recover before being destroyed again. Fish populations, communities, and ecosystems are being destroyed so humans can eat shrimp cocktail.
The animals termed as by-catch are often discarded back into the ocean already dead or dying. Many are half-alive and die slow, unnecessary deaths. Trawl nets in general, and shrimp trawls in particular where the discard may be 90% of the catch, have been identified as sources of mortality for many species of concern, including endangered animals and cetaceans, such as whales, dolphins and porpoises. Sea turtles, already endangered, have been killed by the thousands in shrimp trawl nets.
It's hard to get exact number, but another way to put this is that anywhere between 6.8 million and 27 million tons of fish could be being discarded each year. We may be looking at the one fish on our plate or the 5 shrimp in our seafood salad, but countless numbers of animals were dredged up and killed for the individuals we see on our own plates.
CETACEANS (WHALES, DOLPHINS, PORPOISES)
I've been focusing primarily about the by-catch caused by trawling nets and shrimp nets, but there are other commercial fishing methods that also result in by-catch. Nets tend to kill cetaceans (dolphins, porpoises and whales), and longline fishing kills birds, for instance. As for the first group, an estimated 300,000 cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) die as by-catch each year, because they are unable to escape when caught in nets. We may not think cod fish are particularly cute, but most people get pretty emotional about whales, dolphins, and porpoises. If we don’t consider the cod, perhaps we can consider the animals for whom we do have sympathy.
SHARKS - THE TRUE VICTIMS IN THE HUMAN-FISH RELATIONSHIP
In the case of the shark by-catch in the tuna industry, "data for Pacific longline tuna fisheries are limited, but available data indicate that shark catches are often as high as tuna catches and more than 50 species of sharks and fish are captured as by-catch in West Pacific tuna longline fisheries." (Incidentally, in defense of sharks, it has been estimated that a staggering 100 million sharks are caught every year, have their dorsal fins cut off - to serve in soup, and are thrown back into the ocean to die a slow death.
SEABIRDS - MANY ON THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION
As I mentioned earlier, seabirds are also inevitable "by-catch" victims, as they dive for the bait planted on long fishing lines, swallow the bait along with the hook, and are pulled under the water where they drown. Around 100,000 albatrosses are killed by longline fisheries every year, particularly where tuna are fished, and because of this, many species are facing extinction. This is very prevalent in the waters off Chile, where sea bass is aggressively hunted by boats towing fifty-mile longlines.
According to the Pew Oceans Commission, Patagonian toothfish long-liners killed around 265,000 seabirds between 1996 and 1999; in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, where the total breeding population of the black-footed albatross is 120,000 birds, annual fishing-related mortalities of 1,000 and 2,000 birds are significant; and longline fisheries in the U.S., including the Pacific cod fishery kills some 9,400 to 20,200 seabirds every year.
In subsequent posts, I'll address the dolphins, sea turtles, seals, and other marine mammals who are also written off as "collateral damage." Look forward to more on the un-sustainability of farm-raising fish, on the evidence of fish intelligence, and much more related to our pursuit of gustatory pleasure. Check out my previous post for the reasons to obtain Omega-3 fatty acids from plant sources rather than fish (hint: the fish obtain these fats from plant sources, too!)
Humans have no nutritional requirement for the flesh or secretions of other animals. Like the non-human animals we eat, we can go straight to the source - to the plants - for all the nutrients we need to survive and thrive.
Tags: Agriculture, albatross, bass, biodiversity, Biology and Biodiversity, by-catch, bycatch, cod, coral reef, fish, fishing, Food, Food Production, Health and Health Products, longline, nets, ocean, salmon, seafood, shark, shrimp, sustainable, trawl, tuna, vegan, vegetarian


July 9th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I am a long-time friend of Jeff M-Strasburg, and he and I have had several spirited discussions regarding the myriad of groups that work loosely under the left wing’s environmentalism banner. He can attest that I am generally courteous and not looking for a fight, so much as offering a difference of opinion. So, I ask that you not take too much offense to the following comments.
Vegetarianism and veganism are okay with me. I do not practice either, nor do I encourage or discourage such practices. It is your desire to impose a lifestyle upon others (meat eaters) that disturbs me. I find that kind of activism as disturbing as you might find the proselytizing of a Southern Baptist. However, there exists a major difference between the two in our modern times. The activist will lobby the government to enact and to enforce a lifestyle choice on the general public whether or not the public generally agrees with the activist’s views. The Baptist’s goal is without a doubt to grow a congregation; however, he will not lobby the government to enact a state religion.
Yes, there is some collateral damage associated with fishing and shrimping. However, let’s not forget that farming (conventional, organic, etc.) all impact the pristine landscape that many wish to preserve. If your organic garden resided in an area deemed as wetlands or if it were home to snail darters and/or spotted owls, you would have to shut it down. You may be growing it right, but you are still encroaching on a protected species’ territory in the eyes of some people. In my opinion, man is a part of nature and there is nothing un-natural about his desire to lay claim to a piece land and eat whatever diet satisfies his palate. If you can accept a lion killing a spring buck, you should be able to accept a man killing a fish; even if it is not nutritionally necessary. And if mankind is not a true carnivore, why are there so few cave drawings depicting “the farm” as opposed to “the hunt”? Nonetheless, let’s cut to the chase regarding fishing. I will focus primarily on shrimping, since I have done it (years ago) and am somewhat familiar with it.
You failed to mention that the United States is one of the few countries that manages its fisheries; both commercial and recreational. This protects both population and habitat, as well as serving to keep the price of such items elevated. In many cases, over-management has forced many small commercial and non-commercial fisherman out-of-business. For example, TEDs (turtle excluder devices) have almost eliminated small shrimping operations along the Gulf Coast. High licensing fees and an extremely short season keep all but the most devoted recreational shrimpers off the water. You are correct in that trawling for shrimp rakes the seafloor, but you are incorrect regarding the damage to coral. Trawls are used to drag across sand and mud. Dragging across coral would be too costly in terms of lost nets and net repairs. You also failed to mention that a large percentage of shrimp are caught at night by using butterfly nets that skim just below the surface. As far as by-catch, fishermen are not hell-bent on killing and try to return the non-desirables to the sea alive. Those that are returned deceased contribute to the diet of the “clean-up” sea creatures that eat the by-products of the living as well as the dead. These scavengers include crabs, catfish, oysters, aquatic vegetation, and so on. Shark-fin soup is an Asian delicacy and really not an issue in the United States. Sea birds follow the nets, because it makes their prey (which they kill and eat) easier to catch. Most of these birds benefit from our fishing practices, but I guess that a few are not so lucky; although I have never seen a bird caught in a net.
We could go round-and-round forever on this subject, but I will stop here and give you a chance to comment. All the best, B.
October 7th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Real good steve, real good… we were biting this morning, we were biting this morning!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulR422JbFNQ&mode=related&search=
Go fishing and enjoy life because everybody dies, even you-no matter how many vegaterian sites you run
October 11th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
It sounds like you did your research, which I appreciate.
One major point of contention though — “It is your desire to impose a lifestyle upon others (meat eaters) that disturbs me. I find that kind of activism as disturbing as you might find the proselytizing of a Southern Baptist.”
This is a blog, which by its nature will always reflect someone’s opinion. Every post on Green Options is some sort of call to arms for whatever cause the author believes in. If this bothers you, you should stop reading blogs. And all media in general, since no media will present a completely neutral set of facts. Simply the selection of which facts to present will always reflect some hidden agenda. There’s no escape from other people forcing their opinions on you.
Of course it’s not the fact that it’s an opinion that bothers you. It’s the fact that it’s a MORAL opinion, hence “proselytizing” and the comparison to religious groups.
It’s a sad day and age in which morals are no longer a suitable topic of discussion because *gasp* we might not all agree. Instead we should just all do as we please and look the other way when someone does something unethical– who are we to judge their moral code? The only moral topics acceptable for public discussion are the ethics of commerce, those ethics which sell products and sustain the economy. Hence promoting a vegetarian diet due to its destruction of the environment is “prostelytizing” but paying millions to advertise seafood is just another day on the job.