We focused on the shellfish fisheries in Maine. My project group wrote up profiles for 4 different clamming projects happening on the Maine coast in partnership with the Maine Shellfish Learning Networks. These profiles were going to be used on The Mudflat website and as pamphlets that are handed out at meetings.
To aid with moving the pdf versions of the profiles to the website we also made our own webpage version that can be viewed here (currently under editing)
The pamphlets themselves can be downloaded here:
Sipayik (in editing)
This was our final report on the project:
Below are my journals from the fisheries course. I have added images (taken by myself or classmates) that relate to the places and topics being discussed
ENVS 40.01
Professor Michael Cox
September 27, 2021
Socio-Ecological Log Part One
To precede the observations for this log, I wished to standardize my perspective with a realization from our talk with Nick Record. His point on how we need to really be aware of the changes that are happening now and not rely heavily on climate change change projections for the far future, usually 2100. Knowing how rapidly the Gulf of Maine has been changing, 99.9% faster than the rest of the world’s oceans makes this extremely relevant to any work being done in this location concerning socio-ecology. This really connected to Berke’s explanation of the paradigm shift from positivistic science that expects predictability and controls to a science where there is work within the uncertainties and accounting for assumptions, focusing a lot on system resiliency. This then is supplemented by the shift from the idea of ecosystems as having equilibrium states to one of fluctuating and complex adaptive systems. Models that only work with one species need to evolve to start accounting for complex overlapping interactive species models. Even then projections will always have uncertainties and inaccuracies. Taking in all this for the observations, I will look a lot at how resilience and adaptive learning co-management comes into play or where there is lack thereof.
Over my time here in the state of Maine, I have come to learn that it is most known for its lobster, blueberries, and wreaths but lobster really is royalty especially on the coast. The history I have gleaned comes from Corson’s book The Secret Life of Lobsters combined with sessions and conversations on this trip. The assumed source of thriving lobster populations is the Cod fishery collapse, since they were a top tier predator in the Gulf often referred to as a considerably simple system with not too many species players higher on the trophic scale. Rightfully there is worry over the Maine fisheries becoming monoculture. Especially since there has been a lot of speculation of lobstering evolving into a pseudo aquaculture on a very large scale it would be extremely detrimental to the system’s resilience as biodiversity is key.
I was first introduced to the idea of the lobster fishery as an aquaculture with David Fields. He explained that Herring, a fish often used as bait for lobsters, can give specific isotopic signatures based on its source location. So, when the guts of lobster were analyzed to see what and where they eat, many of the findings were pointing to Herring from Canada, where lobstermen were shipping their bait from and when lobstermen switched to bait from California the isotopes reflected this. Showing that the lobster population was really being sustained and thriving off the bait in lobstermen’s traps, since the traps were designed that lobster could come and go, the harvest depended a lot on timing. Doug and Maddy lobstermen from Monhegan also talked about how their traps fueled their population, but also explained that since their season is one that is uncommonly closed only occurring during winter, they still had no fear of depriving lobsters since they are known for being filter feeders surviving in floating storage crates for days on end. With this revelation it makes me wonder about just how input intensive this evolving lobster aquaculture like system really needs to be. Although, I have also heard an alternate perspective from Dennis at DMR who stated that one of the drivers of the intensification of the fishery is that prices are skyrocketing as the resource is in decline. It really is a source of fast immediate money for the work. Industrialization has also meant the lobstermen are catching per boat exponentially more than they have in the past. All these points tied together are not encouraging in the face of adaptive management, despite all the input restrictions we have heard about they do not seem enough to increase socio-ecosystem resilience.
Sticking with inputs in the lobster industry, I wanted to think about some different perspectives on it. In Doug’s lectures we found out that fishing in general is highly subsidized while being unprofitable. However, Maddy, a long-time lobsterman and ground fisherman on Monhegan mentioned that fishing is underfunded. I wonder if this is reflective of scales of impact and how much that subsidy is felt depending on how commercialized that fisher is. Maddy, a small boat owner in an unprofitable generally common pool industry that suffers from issues with excludability and subtractability probably benefits a lot less from such subsidization than the larger commercialized boats since trickle down is probably minimal. Socially the smaller fishermen, who the majority in Maine tend to be because of its strong values of individualism, seem to be suffering more from the failing resilience of the socio-ecological system.
Many fishermen under ITQs like that of the National Sectors have had to become businessmen on top of everything, adding to this gap. Interestingly, they must choose between this ITQ system and one that is a common pool. Those who opt into ITQs risk falling prey to the neoliberal problem of consolidation, commercialization and having to move to wage-based labor hire instead of catch share since the quota belongs to the owner alone. Such polarization is going to keep competing against the historically individualistic values of Maine small scale fishermen. Alternatively, lobster’s high returns could lead to individuals continuing to thrive especially under Maine regulations and comparative industrialization. This difference between fisheries probably feeds more into accelerating trophic cascades like that of the cod and urchins that essentially collapse resilience as the different pulls remove core functions and destabilize feedbacks.
While I have been increasingly pessimistic about assessing the resilience of Maine’s ocean socio-ecological system there are more complexities to observe. Regarding management, the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) has increasingly been moving towards a model of co-management and decentralizing fishery governance by giving a more bottom-up approach. Berke discussed that this has its significant advantages in comparison to top-down. Dennis highlighted his own thoughts of how much more effective Maine’s system is compared to Canada where the management is federally centralized and quite imposing. These same thoughts were evident in Maddy’s comment on how the state governance is much more amiable in comparison to the federal government. He felt that they were easier to work with and were more flexible. Noting this, reveals both pros and cons of co-management as it can be significantly collaborative and responsive although similarly since the community has sway there is the change of power imbalances and potentially corruption. In terms of resilience, it is important that the community perspective is highly respected in adaptive learning management.
Scale still needs to be accounted for though as Maddy’s current discord with federal management are regulations on traps concerning Right Whales, which with their small numbers and wide geographical range may not be much of a priority for localized communities. Then the factor of vertical assimilation of local knowledge needs to be thought about as Maddy commented he hasn’t ever seen a Right Whale stuck in a trap and that there have been problems with policy implementation. All the states were assigned purple rope initially, so sources of Whale injury were not able to be identified increasing Maine’s already more strict regulations. This has since been changed, and while Maddy’s perspective is valid, an individual’s thoughts cannot always be so easily extrapolated to that of a community then even more so regionally. Eric, another lobsterman, talked more on this, explaining it is frustrating to have lines cut with disturbance that may not even be whales, often the fault of a boat, but he also explained there are historically exempt zones that are assumed to be not in the whale migration path. Recognizing uncertainty and Maine’s rapid changes that have been shifting the gulf stream, these zones likely need constant reassessment as whale migration paths are notably changing, going further and further north to feed.
It has become clear that one of the main concerns between top-down and bottom-up governance is that often top-down is taken to be the expert opinion. However, I would challenge that this is losing its hold gradually with the help of citizen science. Theoretically citizen science, such as Doug and Maddy’s survey work or the clammers that Heather collaborates with, gives the opportunity to close this assumed information and even education gap. This idea may feed into the narrative that local communities are ignorant and in need of top-down help, alternatively it may empower local knowledge that has long been ignored by top-down governance with something they may recognize as more factual instead of opinion. Still umbrella organizations that initiate this citizen scientific participation may feed into power imbalances disrupting any community empowerment. It is important to note that while such community empowerment may be the case it does not erase the fact that scientific knowledge has been and is being used in colonial governance to justify the erasure and distribution of indigenous knowledge which is a huge justice issue. Yet if there is more local acknowledgement then that is going to feed socio-ecological system resilience with improved adaptive management by factoring in more perspectives.
The Passamaquody of Sipiyak tribe’s conflict with neighboring towns over access to fishing and clamming sites is yet another example of governance ignoring indigenous sovereignty and rights. In terms of land rights principles, they would fit the fact that they were the first there, social justice, beneficial use as well as having proximity and attachment rights. The regulations cutting them off from neighboring town fishing zones are recent, whereas they have historically been using this space for centuries. Chris Johnson explained how clammers have only 2 legal options for mudflats, one of which is considerably more productive. Then there is the fact that the second less productive flat is adjacent to a highly productive mudflat in the town of Perry’s zone, this means that tribal members often ignore these zoning regulations, resulting in fining from the towns and increasing tensions between the indigenous community and the towns. An even bigger tragedy regarding their sovereignty relates to an acclaimed co-management fishery system that allocates the tribe a fishing quota that they are told they need to distribute themselves, but the state will manage the intake. However, they do not follow through with the management, instead they leave it to the tribe unofficially resulting in the quota being exceeded. This then results in a penalty on the following year’s assigned quota, and this has been occurring for years, repeatedly diminishing indigenous access. The whole community is paying for this mismanagement, and little is being done to adjust. This completely ignores how social and ecological systems are interdependent and need to be jointly considered in management. Human rights cannot be put on the back burner in any situation.
Moving on to different shellfish industries, work in mussels and scallops are particularly relevant when thinking about adaptive learning . It has become very clear in the recent years that wild harvest of mussels and scallops are no longer going to be sustainable, as a result there is a need for innovative hatchery work to be done. Evan, a mussel aquaculture man is no longer getting as much wild mussel seed as he was when he started 30 years ago, so he has turned to the DownEast Institute (DEI) for hatchery seed that is sustainably sourced and affordable, which they have successfully been able to do and more. Kyle at DEI has collaborated with Evan and been able to selectively breed his mussels for the gold shell phenotype. Not only is this ensuring the continuation of the mussel industry it is allowing wild populations to rebound while there is now increased genetic diversity in the market that may become very lucrative for Evan. DEI is also working on figuring out closing the circle of scallop hatcheries using recently developed technology of flow tanks that have not been tried on scallops, whose main difficulty is keeping alive as larvae that take a very long 40 days to settle. Such adaptive work is really going to add to the resilience of the socio-ecological system.
ENVS 40.01
Professor Michael Cox
October 5, 2021
Socio-Ecological Log Part Two
The question of how resilient a system is still something that intrigues me. After further discussions on the topic my understanding of resiliency has broadened from the ability of a system to maintain core functionality even after a series of states of change to now include the idea that certain states are innately more effective in maintaining their specific characteristics of functioning. This could be relatively a good or bad thing depending on perspective and what is the most beneficial state for certain stakeholders. It was a level of scale that I was missing in my analysis as I was thinking of the resiliency in terms of all states and core functions, but not as much about the details. For instance, a lot of my thoughts on the lobster industry’s indications of being a self-feeding aquaculture were that it was diminishing system resiliency as it bolstered only lobsters and did not aid any other features of the ecosystem. This would thereby decrease the chance of maintaining ecosystem diversity which often strengthens resiliency as it casts the net wide allowing for less impacts when there are population shifts. The opposite would be true of a system with few species where any shifts have high impacts on all the parts of the system. However, with this change in my understanding of resiliency, I would say that the pseudo aquacultural lobster industry is reinforcing resiliency of the state of a lobster dominated ecosystem in the gulf. So, it is resilient in the fact that there is a lot less fear of lobster decline. Although, such large populations combined with rising water temperatures exposes the lobster to more risk of devastating diseases like the one that wiped out the Rhode Island Fishery.
It is still important to look at the broader ecosystem dynamics, which Burkes really reflects on when discussing ecosystem management. There is so much complexity that needs to be accounted for. While we can’t wait for the “perfect” answer because the data would be never ending, we also cannot just keep making decisions that are completely uninformed. Management strategies still need to be laid out. My interpretation of ecosystem management is learning to be flexible, creative, and inclusive in adaptive planning and learning. This means adjusting based on observations, thinking outside of historical prescriptive boxes, and considering all the perspectives at the table; scientific, local, traditional, and even externally linked knowledge.
Over this program, there was a project that particularly struck me in both its creativity and comprehensive considerations. The greener cattle with algae project presented to us at Bigelow by Ben Twining essentially combined sustainable scientific theory with an ecologically and economically marketable application. They are actively working to find a local sustainable option of seaweed as a feed source for cattle that will reduce the amount of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, that the cattle burp out. The project has considered that the main seaweed asparagopsis taxiformus which has been studied and proven effective at reducing methane emission, is likely not a sustainable source as it is an invasive species that is difficult to cultivate. The research has been looking into more scalable, local, and nutritional alternatives. Really the benefits of seaweed aquaculture would not only help meet demands, reduce methane emissions, and be profitable but such farms would also help improve water quality. Ben put it aptly that it is heartening to be a part of a project where you can see the benefits and applicability so directly.
I value inclusivity highly when learning about management strategies but throughout these visits along the coast of Maine I have been witness to just how many stakeholders there are in each decision. It astounds me how anything ever gets done with so many tensions. On our very first day visiting the fish ladder and aquaculture set up at the University of Southern Maine with Karen, Theo and Michael we were told about the complexity in getting dams removed or even just adapted to allow for diadromous fish to migrate up and down river. There were the dam owner institutions, town residents, lake associations and scientists. The dams themselves tend to not be very profitable but as a point of pride the institutions that own them often put up a lot of resistance to removal or fish access improvement requests. The town residents may also contribute to resistance out of financial need or even due to a sense of identity with the dam feature. This was something observed in Camden when we visited the dam there that was scheduled for removal because of its importance for the Alewife run. Yet residents have become so attached to the aesthetically pleasing falls that the dam creates resulting in a lot of vehement resistance to its removal. Scientists and ecologists must battle on multiple fronts looking at societal and ecological health effects of dam removal based on flow of pollution, allowance for fish passage, possibilities of algal blooms in lakes, and so on. The lake associations were particularly interesting hear about. First, they resisted allowing fish passage because of fear of algal blooms that happened in the Great Lakes due to increased alewife juveniles that consumed and depleted the zooplankton. However, intensive research has shown that this is highly unlikely to happen in Maine as it has historically supported such large runs of diadromous fish and therefore has more checks and balances. Second, the lake associations were very concerned with water level, whether it was dock owners wanting the water high enough for their docks or beach goers wanting it low enough for beach access, and the list goes on and on.
Other projects that attracted a lot of debate from different stakeholders turned out to be installment of wind turbines. Monhegan Island residents have been trying to work with a state program to input an offshore wind turbine on a floating platform which has stirred up trouble with nearby lobstermen. In protest, the lobstermen in their boats holding guns circled the island threateningly. There are fears that the turbine will be connected to the floor, will drive lobster further from shore and potentially block lobstermen from prime fishing locations. A lot of the fears are based on a lot of misinformation, but it is interesting that a consensus that was made locally at Monhegan would have such strong external reactions from indirect stakeholders. The protests try to stop it early before the project succeeds and moves on to a new location. It was interesting to contrast this with the onshore wind turbines at Vinyl Haven that we heard about from Eric the lobsterman. Initial reactions were that they were going to be beneficial and supposedly silent, but neighbors who live near them have found differently. The project had local collaboration to the extent that the land was donated by a local who does not even live near to the site, but very little was done in collaboration with actual neighbors. From the sounds of it, this is common for energy projects to put little to no effort into local collaboration and it sounds like it would have been a similar case in Monhegan had island leaders not stepped up to advocate for benefits like local island facility employment. I think the fears of strong local resistance to projects is why there is often this lack of communication, but it really is important despite those initial struggles to ensure that bigger problems do not come up later.
In looking at socio-ecological systems the social side to resilience is a component that needs to be acknowledged. Burkes addressed this by looking at livelihood resilience and specifically the diversification of income dependence, reflecting on how often fishers are not just fishers. They often have multiple jobs, which we have seen often on our trip through Maine. There is talk of side hustles whether that be an hourly wage job at DEI that lobsterman Casey had or cab driving or having a small mussel aquaculture set up. Fishers also normally fish more than just one thing allowing for them to shift between different stocks depending on market demand. This can be beneficial in allowing for flexibility and rebound time if stocks are depleted but could also exacerbate depletions as is often the case with roving bandits as market price drives up when stock populations are low. It is understood that overall, more options are better for community livelihoods as multiple income sources allow for the community to be more adaptable to changes and expects them to steward their resources.
Going deeper into social resiliency, I have been very aware of gender dynamics in fisheries throughout the program. Burkes also brought this up in talking about how generally fishing is gendered as a male activity and women are often undervalued and underacknowledged for their contributions to the industry. Burkes highlighted that women have often been drivers of the processing side of fisheries. This was reflected in our talk with Wendell from AC Inc. where we heard that the clams are mostly processed by women or “girls” because apparently, they can stand for longer times and have quicker hands than men. It has become clear that a majority view is that the more feminine position in the fishing industry is in processing. However, we have observed exceptions to this as we have heard of increasing numbers of female lobster fishers. Even in Corson’s book The Secret Life of Lobster Barb pushed these gender boundaries and was the best stern man Bruce Fernald ever had before she became his wife and stayed home with their boys. Maine culturally seems to value the nuclear family especially when looking at how much nepotism there is in fishing permits, as often fathers hand down their lobster permit to their son. This seems like a vulnerability to me as it does not encourage shifts in fisher gender demographics to make up for possible labor shortages or other issues. The gender norms cast restrictions on what is appropriate work. It would be interesting to learn more about how gendered fisheries really are and the social stability implications. For instance, I wonder if in towns where fishing is the main source of income flow, what are the alternatives for resident women who are mostly kept out of fishing? How might this effect gender-based violence if women have significant dependence on men bringing in capitol through fishing? Then what would it look like asking these same questions knowing the issues of substance abuse and culture of risk that are prominent in most fishing communities.