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!)