| “It was a lovely little fish…” | ||
As many UD readers are probably already keenly aware, the prognoses for salmon runs from Alaska to California aren’t pretty. A couple of weeks ago, US federal regulators canceled this year’s commercial and recreational Chinook season, citing appalling statistics of recent and projected returns. The state of Washington is stopping just short of canceling the season, allowing catches of drastically reduced numbers: “This year’s forecast is for a Columbia River coho population of 196,000, which is a terrible number. Last year was a sub-par 462,000. A good year is 800,000 to 1 million.” (linkage). Forecasts for Fraser River sockeye are just as bad, but there is no move to cancel the season just yet.
And that’s just the wild stuff. Under growing pressure from environmentalists, the provincial government is taking some action on fish farming (they’ve just suspended issuing new licenses to farmers), but will likely continue to dither with studies and committees without passing effective legislation that will actually, finally, punctuate the long-standing debate on whether farmed salmon is good for anything other than BC’s economy. The “it depends on who you ask” argument has become a Pythonesque exercise in ridiculousness that has stymied any forward movement in providing consumers an answer. In provincial politics, the issue of farmed salmon has evolved into a third rail (touch it and you die), so perhaps the only real action will come when it is time to assess blame for its consequences. Land-based aquaculture is, of course, too small to make much of a dent in demand (which is growing like crazy), and won’t do anything to help coastal communities that are being hard hit by the bad runs. And nevermind that they’ll be even harder hit if the runs were to cease entirely, whether on the government’s say-so or Mother Nature’s.
By all appearances, then, we’re looking at the probable extinction of a few species of Pacific salmon if the status quo remains in the hands of people who continue to either sit on them or throw them up in frustration. Our government is not doing enough. Our First Nations leaders aren’t doing enough. Our environmentalists aren’t doing enough to communicate the stakes to our communities. Our citizens no longer know who to believe anymore. And our media, well…it’s the media. Faced with this culture of uncertainty, consumers are waiting for somebody to tell them what to do.
History has repeatedly shown that solutions to big problems never come from those who cause them. The collapsed cod fishery in Atlantic Canada tells us which way the road of indecision leads. The same scenario that befell them – one of wait, fret, talk, do nothing and then wait some more – is what we’re seeing in BC today. If we’re counting on a white horsed politician, an enlightened fisheries lobby, or an environmentalist Messiah to sort it out, we’re just putting our heads in the sand, totally complicit in the destruction of one of BC’s most iconic natural resouces by virtue of our inaction.
Up until this point, those that have entered the solutions game have been pigeon-holed by the media into the old logger/treehugger dichotomy. This has only served to make it easier for the general public to shake their heads, tsk tsk, and then turn to the sports section. Nothing gets solved and we inch closer to the day when we have to explain to our kids why there are no longer any salmon.
It is my opinion that all sides that have participated in the salmon debate are now compromised. The anti-science pushback against Global Warming and tobacco has shown that science is as maleable in today’s media marketplace as politics, and just as easily bought. Fish farmers, green gurus, and various other Professors of Salmon have sucked the air right out of the issue’s tires, and so it sits on blocks in our driveway like an old Camaro with gimped cylinder heads.
If it has taken them more than a decade to come to any semblance of a concrete and workable solution to the crisis, then they should surrender their right to the microphone and be mercilessly beaten with it. It’s as if they’ve all been at the wheel of a car that has seen for miles and miles that the bridge ahead is out, but none of them have been able to agree on which foot to use to apply the brake.
So I guess my question is this: what, if anything, can the restaurant industry do where others in positions to effect real change have repeatedly failed?
As we’ve seen, no idea is more ridiculous than inaction, so giv’er.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Let me see if I’ve got this right.. You want to protect the wild fishery, by not fishing, but you don’t want to promote the farmed industry, unless it is land based..but I bet that you will not be willing to pay 20 or 30 dollars a pound for energy sucking,air polluting land based Salmon. Then you will be on your high horse complaining about the waste of energy and the effects of pollutants to produce a pound of fish. Grow up..Let’s find a way to make what we have work..Nothing is perfect and we can certainly make the way we grow farm fish better. So why not put your efforts towards postive change instead of what your doing..sucking and blowing at the same time.
Grow up? Joe, this is exactly what I’m talking about. I don’t want to “protect but…” or “promote but…”, so please don’t obfuscate my position as I don’t have one. As a British Columbian, however, I feel I am entitled to answers that aren’t stained with the reek of special interest.
As a fish farmer, your idea of positive change can only occur on your terms. I get it. We all get it. We’ve all gotten it for too long. It’s a zero sum game for you. Understood.
But you and everyone else who’ve been to bat on this issue have repeatedly swung and missed, and nothing at all has been done. You keep trying, but I hope you’ll see the wisdom in maybe allowing some other people to discuss possible solutions too.
Andrew… it’s about the clip. I swear, those thespians have WAY too much time of their hands.
As for salmon, I for one, am not going to purchase and/or order any until the smoke clears. Unless, I go to a restaurant, where I know the chef does his/her due diligence.
Andrew,,It’s time to get out of the classroom and into the real world. Your writing is very, very good but without opinion and passion it’s just a story. Why don’t you get off that crowded fence and stop throwing stones into both pools, form an opinion and write about it with passion and conviction. Try using your talent to make a change. Doesn’t really matter which you choose wild or farmed just make a choice and defend it with your writting or better yet with your actions. Maybe get out on a limb and offer some suggestions or possible solutions. Might want to use your influence to get some of the major stakeholders in the same room and see what comes of it. But to write what you have and not have an opinion is like complaining about the government but choosing not to vote. And for the record I’m not a fish farmer or a fisherman, just someone in the industry that like you is tried of hearing the same old thing over and over. Time to step and swing the bat yourself..
It’s coming, Joe. If you read the post again you’ll see that it was, in the end at least, framed as a question. To carry the batting metaphor, I’m a little farther down the line-up, taking a few practice swings in the cage.
Both federal and provincial governments prevent honest dialogue from taking place about fisheries. An example is the recent Environment Canada order that departmental scientists must avoid public discussion of issues other than by reading “response lines” provided by the Prime Minister’s Office.
When politicians gag scientists, you know that it is not good news they are hiding.
Apparently joining this debate entails scaling a fence, pitching rocks, tree-climbing and pinch-hitting. Is UD posting an official Olympic event?
if you are asking what we, as culinarians, can do, why not take a page from the Swordfish debate and put on our menus that we refuse to use the product(farmed or wild)until there is a definitive answer as to sustainability.
anything less is just blowing smoke!
If salmon runs in southern waters are at risk but wild salmon from Alaskan waters is abundant, it is appropriate to serve that.
The Marine Stewardship Council certifies a number of Alaskan salmon products as sustainable.
Don’t forget that the Marine Stewardship Council gave Whole Foods (a long-time MSC funder) the green light to put Chilean Sea Bass back on their shelves by ordaining the species’ last viable patch as a sustainable fishery.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t think I’ve eaten salmon (wild or farmed) in the last five years — and sustainability is the reason. I’m abstaining until the wild stocks rebound. It may be as simple as convincing a whole lot of other people to do the same, and nobody’s in a better position to do that than chefs. Go with your gut. If this season’s runs have you worried, don’t sell salmon.
I think the principles of MSC & it’s methodology is pretty sound .The South Georgia fishery is tightly patrolled seemingly[British run territory & it's got a history], there are only 10 vessels (licensed) & accountability seems credible. I think the idea is, if as consumers we are able to believe in such NGO’s as MSC or Monterey Bay Aquarium then we should purchase only their accredited fish. I would imagine that it would be difficult to establish a moratorium on fishing, adequate policing is the preserve of the few. Whales are still hunted(And they are smarter than your average fish) even though a moratorium exists or did. Dont forget with salmon there are enviromental factors contributing to their demise & the genetics over “wild” hatchery fish, it aint just overfishing sadly. I would find it difficult to deny myself wild fresh salmon, equally as many japanese would find it difficult to stop eating Bluefin Tuna. I know it is somewhat dubious that such corps. as Wholefoods contribute to MSC, but corps. have been known to donate to many different groups/organisations/governments/websites & in many cases is vital to keep such efforts going. Andrew ,i’m sure that MSC is not perfect but such things need to be encouraged if you believe in what they say & do.
I agree about the worth of MSC and recognise the amount of respect it deserves, but I still think that opening up CSB to further fishing is a possible invitation to abuse. As far as I know, they don’t police the fishery, and piracy has always been a huge problem for the species. What’s more, it also sends mixed messages to consumers who may end up thinking that CSB is back and OK to consume, regardless of the source. I encourage them completely in their efforts, but believe they shouldn’t have given CSB the green light. If there’s only one “sustainable” fishery of its kind left, you have to wonder how sustainable it must be.
Back to salmon: I wouldn’t suggest calling for an enforced moratorium, because the DFO isn’t going to do that and it would be a waste of energy. Rather, what I see as a possibility is getting a collection of chefs together who are willing to put together a manifesto of their own that says the ambiguity that dominates the debate also clouds it; that it is time for the traditional actors (Oceanwise, DFO, independent researchers, lobbying groups, fisheries) to come to concrete conclusions about the future of salmon in one voice; and that until such conclusions are arrived at these chefs are no longer going to serve any species of salmon, be it from Broughton or the Fraser. Period.
If that’s a dumb idea, please say so. It won’t impact the fisheries or save the salmon, but it would get a lot of people aware of the urgency and the stakes, and it might just nudge us further towards a more sustainable system that address both wild and ocean pen farmed salmon. I know many chefs who are already making the sacrifice and still serving salmon – well, two actually: Bishop’s (land-based farmed salmon) and the Cactus Club (farmed Steelhead), and I’ve spoken to many others who’d be willing to go abstain completely. What do you think?
I think the toothfish example highlights some of the significant issues that need to be addressed with the whole “sustainable” certification. Policing(aswell as measurement of fish numbers) of our oceans is paramount if any credible sense of longevity of fish stocks can be entertained & that is the preserve of governments. Alternatives are a crucial stopgap measure. But international demand for BC salmon will persist whatever the particular consumption habits of the local market(thank globalisation). I would love to believe as a consumer that my choice to stop eating wild salmon would have an impact on salmon runs, but that is too simplistic as environmental concerns also have a dramatic role to play in their conservation. There exists the opportunity for chefs/suppliers to use alternatives to Salmon, surely for example with the fat content of Artic char that it could be a more than adequate replacement for smoked wild salmon. Indeed it seems that the appreciation of seafood of other cultures would suggest that a diverse interest in seafood species would help to offset the dependance on salmon, so the efforts of ‘c’ & Bluewater (among others)who champion diversity could be accepted by a wider audience . I think that salmon will go the way of cod & the govt will be complicit in this process, & consumers who abstain from the pleasure on principle will miss out, tis a shame but not unreasonable to forecast such a scenario…….it has happened b4.