Future anti fishery fishery managers

speedbird

speedbird

Life of the Party
As some of you may know, I am currently studying Marine Biology at the University of Washington. I’ve had opportunities to connect with really great people doing incredible research, and put faces behind the names on so many papers that I have read. I’ve also made a lot of great friends with similar passions to my own. At the same time, the majority of the people I meet in the major seem to either be disinterested in the field of study, or have idealistic “save the dolphins” ideas of what the field is like. Worryingly for me is that a huge numbers of students interested in or majoring in fisheries management specifically, seem to be ideologically opposed to the existence of some or all fisheries. While discussing different fisheries, we were shown a video of an indigenous harvest of a pregnant Bowhead whale, and a catch and release fly fishing video of a taimen. Many of my classmates characterized the Bowhead whale harvest as “sustainable and respectful“ while the fly fisherman was characterized as a “trophy hunter glorifying the harm of fish”. I oppose neither of those fisheries assuming they are both sustainably managed and see no reason one should be viewed as more sustainable than the other based off of two one minute long video clips. I’ve seen lots students including upperclassmen cite “Seaspiracy”, a documentary loaded with untruths about the fishing industry as if it deserved to be held at the standard of scientific literature.

I am aware that most of us will never become full time fisheries managers. However, it is inevitable that some of us will. With attitudes like these being prevalent in the schools producing the next generation of managers, could we see sound scientific management of fisheries be hindered by ideological activists?

I have no citations to back up anything I just said. All of my observations were anecdotal, from listening to opinions expressed in fisheries management classes I am currently enrolled in.
 
Interesting to hear this, but maybe not so surprising. Just a thought, but perhaps because of the decline of many fisheries in WA, for many of the students there, there is less connection to a healthy history of recreational fishing. I guess my initial gut reaction to this is to urge you to connect with your classmates and invite them to go fishing with you. A great example of a recovered fishery in your own backyard is SRCs in Puget Sound. No stocking, CnR - makes a case for what can be achieved via smart management that allows people to continue to enjoy pursuing recreational fishing. Many of those folks are passionate about protecting the resource (not just the fish, but the Sound itself) and their advocacy/stewardship is important to the health of the Sound in general. You can demonstrate this to them in a concrete way that may really register, more so than what they might get from their classwork. Best of luck in your studies and in trying to help shape the future.
 
East Coaster said:
Interesting to hear this, but maybe not so surprising. Just a thought, but perhaps because of the decline of many fisheries in WA, for many of the students there, there is less connection to a healthy history of recreational fishing. I guess my initial gut reaction to this is to urge you to connect with your classmates and invite them to go fishing with you. A great example of a recovered fishery in your own backyard is SRCs in Puget Sound. No stocking, CnR - makes a case for what can be achieved via smart management that allows people to continue to enjoy pursuing recreational fishing. Many of those folks are passionate about protecting the resource (not just the fish, but the Sound itself) and their advocacy/stewardship is important to the health of the Sound in general. You can demonstrate this to them in a concrete way that may really register, more so than what they might get from their classwork. Best of luck in your studies and in trying to help shape the future.
Click to expand...
I used to invite anyone who showed an inkling of interest, but I slowed down when I realized I could be turning into Washingtons most dangerous hot spotter.
 
Kashf,

Thanks for sharing. That sure doesn't seem like the UW College of Fisheries that I attended. However, even then I was surprised to meet students who had no personal connection with either commercial or recreational fishing since most did have a connection to one or both. Over the years I've known managers at both old WDF and WDG who, one could say, were ideologically oriented toward harvesting fish. And since the merger, it's not hard to feel that WDFW could legitimately be titled "The Washington Department of Salmon" given where the lion's share of the budget is spent (salmon hatcheries and salmon management). The poor wildlife people sometimes seem to have only token representation. The upshot is that ideological activists are ever present everywhere.

What it comes down to is the adopted management objective. MSY is an easy default with commercial fishing in mind even though it invariably results in declining stock abundance. If altruism is the management objective, then we should not have CNR fishing, trophy hunting notwithstanding. I think society so far has decided that we value fishing, and that CNK fishing is just fine for stocks that can withstand the harvest. Most CNR advocates came to that management paradigm by realizing that when we have lots of anglers and not lots of fish, then it's either CNR or nothing. I can foresee society in the future adopting the paradigm that if fish stocks cannot withstand directed harvest, then there should be no fishing, the social and economic benefits of CNR fishing be damned.
 
I would remind them that they are getting a world class scientific education and so they should forget about good guys and bad guys and actually see some nuance in why the world is the way it is. CnR exists to make fisheries sustainable… Plus, If you weighed the impacts to fish that a CnR fly guy would have compared to other impacts, there is no comparison. The impact would be scientifically immeasurable for CnR compared to commercial fishing. Imagine the slice on that pie chart for CnR fishing and the slice for impacts from commercial fishing. If they believe CnR is unethical, then all fishing is, and they are thinking ideologically and are not getting a good scientific education. They sound afraid to question what the institution is telling them so they aren’t true scientists yet. They are towing the line, it is what young people usually do, they just need a few more years to get there, at least twenty more years.
 
HauntedByWaters said:
I would remind them that they are getting a world class scientific education and so they should forget about good guys and bad guys and actually see some nuance in why the world is the way it is. CnR exists to make fisheries sustainable… Plus, If you weighed the impacts to fish that a CnR fly guy would have compared to other impacts, there is no comparison. The impact would be scientifically immeasurable for CnR compared to commercial fishing. Imagine the slice on that pie chart for CnR fishing and the slice for impacts from commercial fishing. If they believe CnR is unethical, then all fishing is, and they are thinking ideologically and are not getting a good scientific education. They sound afraid to question what the institution is telling them so they aren’t true scientists yet. They are towing the line, it is what young people usually do, they just need a few more years to get there.
Click to expand...
The instructor was friends with the guide, and made a half hearted effort to defend his practice explaining that he values conservation of Taimen immensely. She did not pushback as instructors do not want to make an effort to influence the personal values a student has. The problem in my mind, is that a field like Fisheries Management shouldn’t be open to this much interpretation. The students personal opinion on sports fishing shouldn’t be changed, but the goal of the program shouldn’t be to create opinionated activists who shape society into a way that they prefer, it should be to educate us on the current science behind how to most effectively manage marine ecosystems. If graduates feel the scientific knowledge they absorbed justifies their activism, only then should they use it to affect change.
Salmo_g said:
Kashf,

Thanks for sharing. That sure doesn't seem like the UW College of Fisheries that I attended. However, even then I was surprised to meet students who had no personal connection with either commercial or recreational fishing since most did have a connection to one or both. Over the years I've known managers at both old WDF and WDG who, one could say, were ideologically oriented toward harvesting fish. And since the merger, it's not hard to feel that WDFW could legitimately be titled "The Washington Department of Salmon" given where the lion's share of the budget is spent (salmon hatcheries and salmon management). The poor wildlife people sometimes seem to have only token representation. The upshot is that ideological activists are ever present everywhere.

What it comes down to is the adopted management objective. MSY is an easy default with commercial fishing in mind even though it invariably results in declining stock abundance. If altruism is the management objective, then we should not have CNR fishing, trophy hunting notwithstanding. I think society so far has decided that we value fishing, and that CNK fishing is just fine for stocks that can withstand the harvest. Most CNR advocates came to that management paradigm by realizing that when we have lots of anglers and not lots of fish, then it's either CNR or nothing. I can foresee society in the future adopting the paradigm that if fish stocks cannot withstand directed harvest, then there should be no fishing, the social and economic benefits of CNR fishing be damned.
Click to expand...
I only recently discovered the value of CNR fishing, and knowing how it pushed me to become more educated about our ecosystems, pursue this field, and become more educated about our fisheries stocks, it would be a sad future. I am concerned even retention oppertunity will disappear, seeing how few retainable wild stocks remain in the Puget Sound, and how the consensus behind hatcheries is shifting
 
Just my cheap .02 - people will bring their bias to any field of study. For example, there are some that study criminology to learn how to better commit a crime. Or those studying psychology to gain a better understanding of their own warped psyche.

I would only hope that the Fisheries education and experiences they have in the would moderate their views by the time they graduate. If not, maybe they can be the fisheries advisors for PETA or some other activist org.

It's also true that sociey's views on hunting and fishing change will change over time. Take a Millenial fishing - they'll be the ones deciding on our fishing rights in the years to come. ;)
 
Kashf -
I agree with Salmo g that doesn't sound like the UW's College of Fisheries (Graduated in 1969) that I knew. I sometimes think about how naive many of us were at that time with poor understanding of the issues/concerns that would shape much of the thinking of my generation of fisheries management (my own career lasted to 2005). The fact that Salmo g and I went to what was called the College of Fisheries and now is called the "School of aquatic and fisheries Science" might illustrate how the focus of the science has changed. In my time at the school much of the focus of the "fisheries management" was man's pursue of technical "fixes" to problems". The emphasis was one of hatcheries, fish ladders, etc. as fixes. Today it seems that the SAFS focus is more on an ecosystem basis.

High lights a reality that many of us often ignore, the science and society's interest are constantly evolving and as a result successful management has to be adaptive. Have long thought that one of the major challenges of a manager is recognizing that different folks have different priorities on a variety of issues; just ne example how to use a resource. The challenge that a manager faces is how to get those diverging interesting agreeing on the basic "facts" upon which to have those discussions have to be based. Without that agreement no meaningful result can be achieved. Not easy but not necessarily disqualifying.

Best luck on your studies.

Curt
 
I’m curious the average age of your classmates?
 
In my personal experience, most non-fisherpeople I talk to about fishing have a tough time understanding the point CNR, but they totally understand catch n' keep. I think CNK is actually the way to get more people into fishing, unfortunately. Haven't most of us come to CNR by CNK?
 
Kashf said:
As some of you may know, I am currently studying Marine Biology at the University of Washington. I’ve had opportunities to connect with really great people doing incredible research, and put faces behind the names on so many papers that I have read. I’ve also made a lot of great friends with similar passions to my own. At the same time, the majority of the people I meet in the major seem to either be disinterested in the field of study, or have idealistic “save the dolphins” ideas of what the field is like. Worryingly for me is that a huge numbers of students interested in or majoring in fisheries management specifically, seem to be ideologically opposed to the existence of some or all fisheries. While discussing different fisheries, we were shown a video of an indigenous harvest of a pregnant Bowhead whale, and a catch and release fly fishing video of a taimen. Many of my classmates characterized the Bowhead whale harvest as “sustainable and respectful“ while the fly fisherman was characterized as a “trophy hunter glorifying the harm of fish”. I oppose neither of those fisheries assuming they are both sustainably managed and see no reason one should be viewed as more sustainable than the other based off of two one minute long video clips. I’ve seen lots students including upperclassmen cite “Seaspiracy”, a documentary loaded with untruths about the fishing industry as if it deserved to be held at the standard of scientific literature.

I am aware that most of us will never become full time fisheries managers. However, it is inevitable that some of us will. With attitudes like these being prevalent in the schools producing the next generation of managers, could we see sound scientific management of fisheries be hindered by ideological activists?

I have no citations to back up anything I just said. All of my observations were anecdotal, from listening to opinions expressed in fisheries management classes I am currently enrolled in.
Click to expand...
What you are seeing as anecdotal is the truth, we are seeing the results of it all around the country with all kinds of species fish and wildlife. It has to do with worldview in education.
If your interested in steelhead the man in WDFW. is Thomas Buehrens...
 
Smalma said:
Kashf -
I agree with Salmo g that doesn't sound like the UW's College of Fisheries (Graduated in 1969) that I knew. I sometimes think about how naive many of us were at that time with poor understanding of the issues/concerns that would shape much of the thinking of my generation of fisheries management (my own career lasted to 2005). The fact that Salmo g and I went to what was called the College of Fisheries and now is called the "School of aquatic and fisheries Science" might illustrate how the focus of the science has changed. In my time at the school much of the focus of the "fisheries management" was man's pursue of technical "fixes" to problems". The emphasis was one of hatcheries, fish ladders, etc. as fixes. Today it seems that the SAFS focus is more on an ecosystem basis.

High lights a reality that many of us often ignore, the science and society's interest are constantly evolving and as a result successful management has to be adaptive. Have long thought that one of the major challenges of a manager is recognizing that different folks have different priorities on a variety of issues; just ne example how to use a resource. The challenge that a manager faces is how to get those diverging interesting agreeing on the basic "facts" upon which to have those discussions have to be based. Without that agreement no meaningful result can be achieved. Not easy but not necessarily disqualifying.

Best luck on your studies.

Curt
Click to expand...
When I was at SAFS (class of '05) it was very ecology heavy. Which I was OK with because I found it fascinating.
 
Kashf said:
As some of you may know, I am currently studying Marine Biology at the University of Washington. I’ve had opportunities to connect with really great people doing incredible research, and put faces behind the names on so many papers that I have read. I’ve also made a lot of great friends with similar passions to my own. At the same time, the majority of the people I meet in the major seem to either be disinterested in the field of study, or have idealistic “save the dolphins” ideas of what the field is like. Worryingly for me is that a huge numbers of students interested in or majoring in fisheries management specifically, seem to be ideologically opposed to the existence of some or all fisheries. While discussing different fisheries, we were shown a video of an indigenous harvest of a pregnant Bowhead whale, and a catch and release fly fishing video of a taimen. Many of my classmates characterized the Bowhead whale harvest as “sustainable and respectful“ while the fly fisherman was characterized as a “trophy hunter glorifying the harm of fish”. I oppose neither of those fisheries assuming they are both sustainably managed and see no reason one should be viewed as more sustainable than the other based off of two one minute long video clips. I’ve seen lots students including upperclassmen cite “Seaspiracy”, a documentary loaded with untruths about the fishing industry as if it deserved to be held at the standard of scientific literature.

I am aware that most of us will never become full time fisheries managers. However, it is inevitable that some of us will. With attitudes like these being prevalent in the schools producing the next generation of managers, could we see sound scientific management of fisheries be hindered by ideological activists?

I have no citations to back up anything I just said. All of my observations were anecdotal, from listening to opinions expressed in fisheries management classes I am currently enrolled in.
Click to expand...
Given that this IS Washington State, I'm not the least bit surprised.
 
DoesItFloat said:
You are attending classes with human beings, correct? Then expect them to act like it. It's nothing new.
Click to expand...
People are definitely allowed to have different opinions than us, it’s just that this is the equivalent to someone who thinks space exploration is a waste of money studying to become a rocket scientist. The goal of fisheries management is to maximize human exploitation of resources while sustaining the resource. It’s concerning if the next crop of managers are going to be biased against this very job. I only thought to post it because it would be interesting to look back at this thread in the next 10-20 years and see if the attitudes in the classroom translated to attitudes in the field.
Roper said:
I’m curious the average age of your classmates?
Click to expand...
20-22
Rob Allen said:
What you are seeing as anecdotal is the truth, we are seeing the results of it all around the country with all kinds of species fish and wildlife. It has to do with worldview in education.
If your interested in steelhead the man in WDFW. is Thomas Buehrens...
Click to expand...
I’ll send him an email sometime.
 
Kashf said:
The goal of fisheries management is to maximize human exploitation of resources while sustaining the resource.
Click to expand...
Says who? This statement seems incredibly naive.

This "goal" has been proven to fail countless times in countless fisheries. Some of the "management" I've seen in my career* has been embarrassing at best, and potentially criminal at worst. Lots of politics and lobbyists getting in the way of the best available science, and the "maximize human exploitation" part of your statement taking precedent over the "sustaining the resource" part.

I'm not saying that employing ideological activists as managers is the way forward, but I'm also not saying that the current state of management is all that great either.

*working in marine science/fisheries since 1996, with MRes in Applied Marine and Fisheries Ecology 2009 from a "prestigious" UK university because SAFS didn't have funding for projects that weren't their idea.
 
A few comments from a SAFS ‘99 graduate (first year in the “new” building!)…I work adjacent to fishery managers as a technical representative for my organization. Our regional salmon fishery managers work within some tight boundaries set by the ESA, US v. Oregon agreement and other processes that divvy up harvest allotments. There’s not a lot of room for creativity in the job. I doubt anyone gets into a fishery management job these days without an advanced degree…and there’s a natural sorting that happens in that process. People mature and hopefully confront their own biases a bit on the road to MS and PhD land.

The SAFS has always been a high minded institution. It’s the first place I heard the term “hook and bullet” biologists referring to professionals who work in the realm of harvest. It wasn’t used as a compliment. I did my graduate work at U of Wyoming…there were lots of hook and bullet types in my department who have gone on to do good things for our natural resources. SAFS isn’t the only place to study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top