Saving Leatherbacks: The Injunction Isn’t Enough
Leatherback sea turtles are awesome. Not in the trite sense in which that term has entered the vernacular, but in the true, full meaning of the word. They inspire awe, reverence, and humility.
Leatherbacks have foraged the seas for millions of years. Despite their long tenure on Earth, they are now facing extinction. Although they adapted to their environment in many remarkable ways, the activities of humans – those who live near their nesting beaches as well as those who fish the distant waters they swim – have pushed these creatures to the edge of the abyss.
In his order banning Hawai’i longline fishing vessels from waters of the Northern Pacific Ocean, federal Judge David A. Ezra has attempted to force the National Marine Fisheries Service to do something to save these and other sea turtles, rather than simply continue to jawbone the problem, as the agency has done for the last dozen years. The closure will almost certainly help the threatened loggerhead sea turtles. Whether it will have a similar – or, indeed, any positive impact on the leatherbacks is not known at this time.
Over and above the direct impacts of the injunction, Judge Ezra’s ruling has achieved something else: It has shaken to the core the two agencies – National Marine Fisheries Service and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council – most responsible for ensuring the sustainable, environmentally sound management of fisheries in U.S. waters of the Western Pacific.
No longer is the economic activity generated by fishing a kind of judicial trump card that cancels out all other interests, although this is exactly the position taken by federal attorneys representing NMFS in the lawsuit over turtle takings. This arrogant attitude is precisely what has put the agency in its present pickle. Studies that yield commercially useful information have been given priority over studies of the unfortunate endangered marine species that Congress commended into NMFS’ care.
And so it is that year after year, proposals for studies on turtles or gear modifications or other measure that could conceivably limit the impact of the longline fishery on turtles’ populations are shelved, as are plans for increasing observer coverage of the fleet to the point where meaningful data might finally be obtained.
What remains to be seen is how NMFS and the Western Pacific council propose to enforce the closed area. The council’s policy on use of computerized vessel monitoring systems, which would appear to be the most cost-effective and efficient way to monitor activities of regulated fishing vessels, is vague enough to suggest the council intended to prohibit use of VMS as an enforcement tool in international waters.
Recently, several environmental organizations have joined forces, often with processors and producers, to bring to consumers’ attention fish that have been caught with techniques having only minimal impact on the environment.
The Marine Stewardship Council, based in London, provides certification to fisheries that manage their stocks responsibly. The certification process, combined with what the council calls “eco-labeling,” lets consumers buy fish confident that they are not supporting unnecessary destruction of marine species or habitat. As of October 1999, the council was poised to issue its first certification to the Western Australian rock lobster fishery. For information, see [url=http://www.msc.org]www.msc.org[/url]
* “Give Swordfish a Break” was a program developed two years ago by a consortium of groups, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, as a means of discouraging consumption of depleted Atlantic swordfish stocks. The campaign enlisted prominent restaurant chefs and supermarket buyers in boycotting Atlantic swordfish and educated many consumers about the problems attending swordfish stocks in the Atlantic Ocean.
* A “Seafood Lover’s Almanac” and accompanying wallet card has been prepared by the Living Oceans Program of the National Audubon Society. The almanac, which costs $7.95, explains why, for example, consumers should not eat Chilean seabass or most shrimp (whether wild or tamed). The wallet card gives a list of commonly sold fish against a background that ranges from green (harvesting is generally environmentally safe) to red (destructive). For information, see [url=http://www.audubon.org/campaign/lo]www.audubon.org/campaign/lo[/url]
* Most recently, “EcoFish” has set up shop as an online fishmonger selling products that its advisors – including Carl Salina of National Audubon and Mike Sutton of the Packard Foundation Sustainable Fisheries Program – have determined to be responsibly grown or harvested. For information, see [url=http://www.ecofish.com]www.ecofish.com[/url]
Consumer action alone is probably not sufficient to instill in fishers and the agencies managing them a strong sense of stewardship not just for the animals they want to keep catching, but also for those they catch unintentionally. Yet when combined with court action and legislation, consumers can be a powerful force for changing irresponsible behavior.
Can Hawai’i’s fisheries stand up to the scrutiny of these organizations? We invite them to have a look.
Volume 10, Number 7 January 2000
Leave a Reply