Author: kellan.woo

Ocean conservation was once a far out term. As if it was an unreachable, intangible, unrealistic, dream that no one could achieve. In many ways this can be true, especially when we see the issues that surround us on a daily basis. Big impending problems like sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and climate change (to name a few) dominate the news cycles. And these issues are not ones that can be solved alone by one person sitting on zoom in a class for BIOL 420. However, we can think of these huge problems as an amalgam of little bite-size issues. Ones that are small enough for someone like you or me to handle on our own or in a group. What really resonated from taking BIOL 420 was the idea that conservation doesn’t always need to be big progressive exclamations. Just as how multiple little negative things can add up to ruin an ecosystem (years of taking too many fish from a population), a build up of little positive actions can lead to a change for the better. 

Building upon my previous thought, I also can interpret it as a warning also not to bite off more you can chew. Anyone can come up with these amazingly large and unfeasible policies/laws, but theory and practise are different. You have to tailor everything to make sense in your particular context. Policies which mean well can end up having no impact without community adoption.

For example, in lecture we spoke about the turtle doors in shrimp trawling nets and how some fishers purposely sew them shut. Fishers said that although the captain makes money off the shrimp haul, the crew makes profit off of the bycatch. Therefore when the turtle door is functioning, large fish also can escape and lead to these fishers losing income. A noble attempt to prevent sea turtles from being caught in fishing nets was not adopted by the community and in the end it failed to serve its purpose.

I don’t really do a lot of introspection. Nor do I really like taking the time to slow down and reflect on my ideas. But I feel like the process of this course helped me take a step back and really delve into my thoughts. Life, especially during the pandemic, can feel pretty hectic. Deadlines are constantly popping up everywhere and assignments always lingering in the back of your mind. But having the chance to go on these field trips or even some “mental excursions” gave me chances to reflect. When writing these reflections I was able to translate my ideas to “paper”. In a sense, it helps organize your ideas and feelings. But, I think the most beneficial part to writing reflections was reading it over and over. For example the Indigenous issues lecture series, which we had to write reflections for, encouraged me to introspect and really have a good hard look at my own biases and prejudices. It’s difficult to change when you don’t even know your feelings in the first place, so this definitely was an excellent opportunity. 

I feel as though, over the duration of this course I have matured and developed my skills as an ocean advocate and critical thinker. I believe if you read my initial work you can see how limited in scope my ideas were. Most focussed on individual characteristics or aspects and often forgot the interconnection of people and places. For example in lecture, we always alluded to the “onion world” where there are many interconnected layers which build upon one another. So now when I dive into a topic, I try not to skim the surface and instead I try to dig deeper. Obviously, I still fall into the same pitfalls of analysis as before, but my increased awareness is helping buck the trend.

Throughout the course, BIOL 420, I really enjoyed the lecture style. Being given days to digest and understand lectures allowed me to join the discussion and engage with the speaker. Furthermore, in typical classes I am too shy to ask questions in class. However, because we were “forced” to pose questions before the session, it helped me organize and develop my understanding. This really was the only class where I engaged this much with speakers! In regards to time and effort, I put a great deal of effort into my assignments and the course in general. (That comic I drew about Harry the Herring took maybe even 100 hours of solid work over the span of a week from start to finish.) The amount of care I put into every assignment, also rivalled that assignment. If you go through my assignments, you can see that I also annotated and added supplementary photos to every presentation I made. Furthermore, I included my “speeches” with the associated slides within my portfolio. I did find it difficult to traverse website building and online formatting. However, I hope that my Portfolio reflects my efforts. As of right now, I am very happy with the way my portfolio came out. However,  next time I might change my website hosting platform from WordPress to Wix, because the WordPress UI is a bit confusing to customize.

All in all, I really appreciated having the opportunity to learn and engage with this class. Everything I learned, whether I had no previous exposure, seen it before, or disagreed with, was valuable to me. It’s such a cliché to say that they helped me become a better person, but I genuinely believe so. Thank you so much for everything!

(Ps: this class also taught me to speak out more in class and ask questions! Because without questions, how do you expect to find any answers?)

Word Count: 952

It was pretty humbling to learn about the pain, struggling, and growth that Steveston had gone through. My group started at the Fisherman’s memorial. Nestled in a park off the coast, stood a fish net mending needle to remember the deaths of fishermen who had lost their lives at sea due to their profession. On a granite wall which encircled the needle we noticed engraved names. Upon closer inspection every name had various nationalities, the sea did not discriminate. Laying upon one of the walls was a bouquet of white flowers, to commemorate the lives of the fishermen. Contrasting with the memorial needle was the backdrop of the ocean and sandy sloped beaches. Littered across the beach were various large pieces of fishing related paraphernalia, which served to emphasize the impact that the ocean has on people and the impact that people have on the ocean. 

We later travelled to the docks where we spoke with Eric Wickham. The ocean is a vast and diverse resource that can provide bountiful sustenance for centuries. However, it totally depends on how well we manage our reliance and harvesting. Decades of abuse and belligerent fishing have ravaged wild fish stocks. With fortunes to be made in the fishing industry, Eric recounted the stories of how herring fishers have historically been able to make 1 million dollars in a single harvest.

With those funds, some fishermen were able to invest in larger, more invasive fishing boats. The ocean gives and we take; and while we push the boundaries further and farther, fish stocks wither and suffer. The amount of effort required to catch the same amount of biomass is ever increasing. This ties in to how government subsidies are required to make fishing profitable for fishermen; but even so, smaller family owned boats are often unable to make ends meet and are still forced to find ways out of the industry. The only ones able to survive are large commercial vessels owned by ‘big money’. Steveston’s fleet of thousands has been reduced to a commercially viable few. 

When I think of harmful fishing I instantly think of overfishing. What else can ruin a fishery than to reduce its wild population into nothing? Eric reflected on the productivity of Goose Island bank where over a billion pounds of halibut were caught off the coast of Haida Gwaii. Not only were they fished to oblivion in the 70’s, but the advance of bottom trawling led to an unprecedented shift in the ecosystem. Bottom trawling is a relatively new development in fishing and its ability to scour the bottom for fish was unparalleled.

By the 80’s Goose Island bank had been overfished and the fated billion pounds of halibut which were once caught was never seen again. What people might argue is the ability for the ocean to recover. And this is true, if we were to leave everything alone; the ocean can often heal. However, permanent damage is permanent and once we have tipped past the threshold, no amount of time can fix it. This was the case with Goose Island. Not only did we decimate halibut stocks in the region but the physical environment had changed as well. Intense bottom trawling had removed all the gravel bottoms which halibut had previously loved. In their wake was a swath of muddy flats which tended towards skate dominated ecosystems. No degree of time would bring back the halibut, and no amount of human intervention would significantly fix the seafloor. Essentially this area was ruined. Stories like these are harrowing tales of human impacts and examples as to how our choices can lead to permanent changes in the ocean.

Eric made a powerful statement, “garbage in; garbage out”. Owing to the isolation of fishery decision makers in Ottawa, Eric referred to the fact that the DFO relies too heavily on virtual data and automated analysis. How could we possibly adequately manage a resource when the regulations are based on incorrect data in the first place? This reminds me of how the previous Atlantic cod fishery used poor data and fished the stocks into a crash.  A staggering point he made was how poorly fishery observers are paid and protected. These observers are meant to represent the government and collect data for analysis. However, without safety measures, these individuals are at mercy to the fishing crews. Amanda mentioned that observers are known to have high mortality at sea in other countries, so it is no wonder that the data they collect could be skewed. Furthermore, Eric mentioned that fishermen can request the same observer, supplement the observer with crew bonuses, and even override the validity of the observer’s documentation. Eric exclaimed that BC’s observer program merely acts as a political farce to placate those who call for greater fishery management and scrutiny. In Alaska, their program is not only more effective but safer! Eric mentioned that not only are there two observers per vessel, there are satellite phones and gps coordinates to ensure their safety. 

The visit to the cannery also highlighted the otherwise hidden oppression I had not previously seen. I had already known about the large Japanese population, but I hadn’t considered the Chinese or Indigenous peoples. Not only was hearing about the wage inequality between Indigenous women and Japanese women infuriating, but also was learning of how generations of Japanese people had their belongings seized and were either sent to internment camps or deported to Japan. I recall Dr. Reid’s sentiment that it was difficult when the “community does not want you”. Although her statement was in regards to Indigenous issues, I still believe that it remains relevant for this particular example. People of Japanese descent, who potentially were 2nd generation Canadians having never set foot in Japan, were forcibly removed from their homes in Canada and deported to Japan! To be punished and prosecuted for your heritage, whether it be Indigenous or Japanese, is devastatingly atrocious.

Being someone who had been born in Vancouver, the ocean had always been an important part of my childhood. I can still remember my days as a preschooler where my parents would bring me to the aquarium everyday after class. I feel that my appreciation of our native marine environments stem from these early experiences. Having watched documentaries outlining oceanic pressures, I can remember thinking to myself “Why don’t we just stop and listen to the scientists?”. As I grew and came to study at UBC, my views on conservation had cemented in what some might argue as a science exclusive view. However, as my education at UBC continued, I realized that conservation cannot always be so cut and dry. Our field trip to False Creek just furthered the awareness of my initially misguided views. When we think of a commercially fished species and we see that their population is decreasing, the knee-jerk reaction is to “Just shut it down!”. But, speaking with Fraser Macdonald revealed just how misguided that idea can sometimes be. As an academic it becomes incredibly easy to dissociate yourself from the human side of conservation. I feel that we can often forget that some fisheries can be a person’s livelihood, passion, or even heritage. So when someone disconnected says to a person truly integrated in fishing that a fishery must be closed completely it can feel political or even disingenuous.

To bring a real life example, we can speak of the Georgia straight herring fishery. Fraser spoke about perceived activism and politics which are debating the closure of the herring fishery. However to a fisherman whose primary income source had been herring fishing for over 40 years, what can they say when politicians threaten to take away your livelihood? Just as how ecosystems can be considered a delicate balance of interacting forces, we should take a multifaceted approach to conservation which takes into account not only the science but the human interactions.

Fraser also spoke about the exorbitant prices of commercial fishing licenses. Who would know that a single license could cost north of 2 million dollars! From my limited knowledge of economics, it appears that this could reflect the same issue found with taxi “licenses” in New York. In New York, an artificial scarcity of licenses made prices climb as demand rose. Similarly with fishing licenses, Fraser mentioned a 250 million dollar injection into the industry to allow for some First Nations to acquire licenses, which indirectly drove prices upwards. Once again my first thought was “Why didn’t the government just make more licenses and give them to the First Nations?”. But with more careful thought I came upon the conclusion that it was definitely more nuanced than that. Not only did the DFO probably want to restrict the amount of commercial fishing vessels but also the introduction of more licenses would devalue the already existing ones. Fraser mentioned that some fishermen were relying on their licenses as a retirement fund. Therefore through devaluing the licenses’ value, a fisherman’s retirement safety net could evaporate into thin air! Once again, this was a reminder that there are many intricacies surrounding policy and action.

During our walk around False Creek, Roshni had a very interesting point to do with the onset of European colonialism/industrialization. When I think about the impacts of colonialism on First Nations traditions, I immediately think of direct impacts; like the outlawing of the Potlatch ceremony. However, what some might not think of could be indirect impacts. Roshni spoke about western industrialization and the uncontrolled industrial effluent into False Creek.

Important food species like mussels and clams filter out food from the water column. Thus, they can uptake chemicals and they can bioaccumulate within their tissue. This effectively makes eating mussels from contaminated regions incredibly detrimental for health. Roshni said that because of False Creek’s development, First Nations which may have traditionally harvested mussels and clams in the region can no longer do so safely! This example furthers the idea that when identifying issues or solutions there can always be secondary indirect effects that we didn’t originally expect.

Lastly I would like to touch a bit on Habitat Island. Mark Adams spoke about his planning process for the development of the island and its 2 smaller ‘cousins’. He wanted to emulate natural islands found closer to the mouth of False Creek. I appreciate the understanding that nature almost always is the best blueprint.

Also hearing of his specific considerations regarding benthic organism settlement and even human interactions was refreshing. However, what really stood out to me was the bureaucracy which he needed to deal with. The Habitat Island project had to be proven to improve fish stocks, whereas in this region Mark spoke about the great importance of benthic invertebrates. It seemed as if policy was misguided in this application! His reflection on the Parks Board and their alterations to his plan was also intriguing. Some of their decisions seemed to be rooted without science or his consultation. However, I also recognize that in many cases the human “consumption of green spaces” can take priority over ecological restoration.

All in all, this was an excellent field trip. Not only did it expose me to new ideas and perspectives, but it also allowed me to reflect on my own views. I was given the chance to critically analyze my own thought processes and I believe this experience helped transform my opinions. (Hopefully for the better!)