Entry Number Two: Fish, fish, everywhere?

The fish are in danger, once again.

While discussing the fish quotas with a fellow colleague of mine who had a background in Fish Biology and setting quotes, immediately what came to mind was how we (the general public and some policy makers) can feel like we have the upperhand in deciding what is to become of these animals.

By no means am I an animal rights activist, and I do not condone how extreme they can be, but where do we get the approval to allow ourselves to push a certain species into endangerment or extinction.

(Now we all know that us human beings have a long history of pushing animals into extinction so I will accept that as common knowledge and move on to arguement.)

In the example of the Fishing Industry, having a background in a very fish-oriented culture of St. John's, I know first hand the difference it can make when quotes are messed with, and what can become of it. Face it, there are family and people who live solely for this little creatures. Whether it be for commercial fishing, or for that much-needed getawway fishing trip, much is to be weighted on these little guys.

Ah, but some may say, "Zak, there are thousands of other types of fish that someone can just substitute into their lives." Excellent point, but we have to look at it this way: the yellow perch most commonly found in Lake Ontario, has the highest quota, and is the most commonly fished fish for a reason - because it's most common! Very few people are willing to sit on the dock for hours waiting for a catch a Lumpfish.

Overfishing has been an issue since the near endangerment of the Atlantic Codfish, introducing a cod moratorium in 1992. Upon being introduced, the East Coast was influenced greatly both economically and culturally. Economically, thousands of people lost jobs, and since that day, Newfoundland and the region, lost something that was seen a being a cultural activity that brought together both Father and Son (Or Father and daughter/Mother and Son, etc). The following findings illustrate, for example, the economic impact of the Cod Moratorium as we see a sharp decline in revenue:

Am I getting off topic? Unfortunately not. If that were the case then we would have noting to worry about. But on the contrary, we must learn from our past, and from the sharp decline in cod populations, and apply it to other populations at hand, i.e. yellow perch and other endangered or soon to be specicies. We must learn from their habits and some commonalities noticeable between all endangering species, and apply it to species that need to be protected, so this does not happen again.

Although a lot of the science cannot be immediately transferred from one species and applied to the living habits/breeding habits of another, the basics can. What I mean by basics is the downright basic advice of the scientists and experts in this field of biology and conservation.

This brings me back to the conversation (debate?) that sparked my interest. As stated by my fellow colleague, she would spend months calculating an absolute threshold that this specific species at hand (Yellow perch) could sustain, in the form of a quota. These months of hardwork and many overtime unpaid hours, would go to waste under the pressure of minutes of politics.

So my question is: If politicians are given a set quota for a species (whether yellow perch, codfish. or american bald eagle), where does rational thought allow politics the right to push a species into endangerment, extinction or even at risk?