Content uploaded by Jennifer Jacquet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer Jacquet on Dec 24, 2013
Content may be subject to copyright.
Silent water: a brief examination of the marine fisheries
crisis
Jennifer Jacquet
Received: 10 April 2007 / Accepted: 1 June 2007
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract This paper is an attempt to synthesize and briefly examine the causes of the
marine fisheries crisis, and to speculate about future initiatives. Ultimately, the human
appetite is at the root of the marine fisheries crisis. But religion, technology, population
pressure, science and our economic systems have provided vehicles for human appetite and
thus contributed to overfishing. These various topics are further discussed in the context of
the potential restoration of marine fisheries populations.
Keywords History Marine fisheries Overfishing Shifting baselines
1 Introduction
In what is now the Republic of the Congo, a hungry man crouches at the edge of an
ancient, overflowing river. He holds a spear carved from deer antlers and watches for the
gentle movements of the giant river catfish, greater than 2 m in length, that have come to
spawn in this floodplain. This may be the world’s first fisher; the time is the rainy season,
90,000 years ago (Yellen et al. 1995).
This fisher is a hunter-gatherer, the dominant lifestyle until roughly 10,000 years ago,
which Sahlins (1972) describes as the ‘‘Original Affluent Society.’’ Sahlins (1972, p. 25)
excerpts John Eyre’s description of a hunter-gatherer village in remote Australia in 1845:
All titles with gratitude to The Talking Heads.
Readers should send their comments on this paper to: BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication
of this issue.
J. Jacquet (&)
The Sea Around Us Project, The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall,
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
e-mail: j.jacquet@fisheries.ubc.ca
123
Environ Dev Sustain
DOI 10.1007/s10668-007-9108-1
At Moorunde, when the Murray annually inundates the flats, freshwater crayfish
make their way to the surface of the ground… in such vast numbers that I have seen
four hundred natives live upon them for weeks together, whilst the number spoiled or
thrown away would have sustained four hundred more. An unlimited supply of fish is
also procurable at the Murray about the beginning of December… The number [of
fish] procured… in a few hours is incredible….
The hunting-gathering, fishing tradition still exists, especially in the developing world and
in native communities, where small-scale fishers and their families rely heavily on fish for
subsistence (e.g., Johannes 1978; Johannes et al. 2000). Fish is the last major group of wild
animals exploited for food. But marine fisheries and the livelihoods that depend on them
are threatened (Myers and Worm 2003; Pauly et al. 1998; Worm et al. 2006). Accounts of
former abundance, by Eyre and others (e.g., Jackson et al. 2001; Roman and Palumbi 2003;
McClenachan et al. 2006) now seem astounding. What happened to Eyre’s fish? Focusing
on the marine sector, from a Western cultural perspective, this paper briefly explores the
origins, present state, and future of the fisheries crisis.
2 And you may ask yourself: well, how did I get here?
About 1,700 years ago, Christianity replaced pagan animism as the predominant axiom in
Europe. The Judeo-Christian God preemptively responds to the fisheries crisis in the
Bible’s Genesis 1:28: humans ‘‘have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of
the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’’ The Christian-based belief
in domination over nature arguably had great implications for resource use and techno-
logical innovation throughout Europe and, later, North America (White 1967), where the
fishing industry would further expand. (The Judeo-Christian belief system accounts for
early resource use philosophy but does less well explaining the foundations of resource
domination in later years.)
Religion also influenced marine fisheries when, near the beginning of the 11th century,
the Catholic Church made meatless Fridays compulsory for its members (Bell 1968).
Curiously, ‘meat’ did not include fish, for which demand then increased. Freshwater fish
became scarce and coastal fishes such as herring and cod were sent inland (Barrett et al.
2004). In Europe, religion essentially changed marine fishes from ‘‘catch to commodity’’
(Fagan 2006).
But the open ocean remained an avoided frontier (especially as most Europeans con-
sidered the Earth to be flat) and fishing was limited to inshore stocks. Then, a shift occurred
as the Middle Ages ended, and the Age of Discovery began. ‘‘The image of boats hugging
the coast, almost a perfect metaphor for the tight mental horizon of the Middle Ages, was
crumbling’’ (Berman 1984, p. 41).
Europe looked to expand the geographical base of its economic operations, including
the quest for new fishing grounds (Berman 1984). During the 14th century, cod fishing
expanded through the Northwest Atlantic (Barrett et al. 2004). The first circumnavigation
of the Earth, initiated by Magellan in 1519 and completed in 1522, re-established the
ancient knowledge that the Earth was round. With this discovery, the number of overseas
voyages increased, and so did fishing.
After Magellan’s voyage, a scientific revolution took place between the 16th and 18th
centuries and science was defined around Bacon’s reductionism rather than the holism of
the Ancients. This approach would revolutionize science and mathematics and would later
J. Jacquet
123
have profound implications for the whole of the environmental sciences. The culmination
of the era was Newton’s Principia. Incidentally, Newton’s Principia was nearly not
published because of a book about fish. The Royal Society backed out of their agreement
with Newton due to financial disaster after the publication of On the History of Fish
(Willughby 1686). This pricey failure nearly cost timely mathematical explanations of
the orbits of heavenly bodies, three laws of motion, and the universal law of gravitation
(Bryson 2003).
The scientific revolution began a transition from religion-dominated thought to cogni-
tive reasoning. ‘‘Ever since their invention, the highest expression of objectivity in science
has been quantification’’ (Roszak 1973, p. 270). Mathematics would eventually provide the
foundation for the fisheries models (e.g., maximum sustainable yield) used by quota-setting
managers in the 20th century (Smith 1994).
Another element fundamental to modern science emerged at that time: the concept of
nature in which the dominant analogy was a machine that generated regularity, perma-
nence and predictability of the universe (Kearney 1971). When not predictable, nature
became at least intelligible, as documented by Darwin’s (1859) The Origin of Species.In
1883, a year after Darwin’s death, T.H. Huxley, appointed to three British fishing com-
missions, gave a speech at the International Fisheries Exhibition in London. He explained
why overfishing or ‘‘permanent exhaustion’’ was scientifically impossible and proclaimed
that, ‘‘probably all the great sea fisheries are inexhaustible... nothing we do seriously
affects the number of fish.’’ Over the next century, humankind would test Huxley’s
hypothesis.
3 And you may tell yourself: my god, what have I done?
From the engine, to the steel hull, to the trawl, to ice, modern technology is conspicuously
occidental (White 1967) and technological advances in fisheries also originated in the
Western world (though they would eventually spread to and be outdone by the East). The
Industrial Revolution had immediate impacts on fishing. In the North Sea, steam ships
equipped with otter trawls reported catches more than six times greater than those of
sailing ships (Kurlansky 1997).
By the 1850s, after fewer than 20 years of fishing for them, inshore stocks of halibut in
the Western Atlantic had disappeared (Pauly and Maclean 2003). It is now understood that
industrial fisheries require only 10–15 years to reduce fish populations to one-tenth of their
pre-fishing size (Myers and Worm 2003). But in the 1890s, North Atlantic fishers expe-
riencing lower catch rates asked naturalists to determine the cause. The field of fisheries
science was born and so the search for culpability in the fisheries dilemma began (Pauly
1994).
The open-access nature of ocean resources was one of the first characteristics faulted.
‘‘You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to everyone and that the earth
itself belongs to no one,’’ writes Rousseau (1754, p. 109). But others argued the notion of
the earth (and the seas) belonging to no one was the trouble. Hardin (1968), in his essay,
‘‘The Tragedy of the Commons,’’ recognizes the fate of fisheries:
Likewise, the oceans of the world continue to suffer from the survival of the phi-
losophy of the commons. Maritime nations still respond automatically to the shib-
boleth of the ‘freedom of the seas.’ Professing to believe in the ‘inexhaustible
resources of the oceans,’ they bring species after species of fish and whales closer to
extinction.’’
Silent water: a brief examination
123
But while technology and the oceans’ accessibility can be partially blamed, the majority of
the world’s fishers uses low-tech gear and is coast-bound. Yet, this group, the small-scale
fishers, catches roughly the same amount as the industrial sector, which is possible because
the small-scale sector employs nearly 25 times more people (Pauly 2006).
In his 1798 essay on population, the Reverend Malthus outlines the impending doom of
overpopulation outstripping food supply. This idea has since been adapted to developing
world fisheries. Large coastal populations using destructive fishing practices produce a
phenomenon Pauly (1997) describes as ‘‘Malthusian overfishing,’’ which threatens fish
stocks as well as food security. Though Schumacher (1973) contends that ‘‘Small is
Beautiful,’’ the small-scale fishing sector has also contributed to the marine fisheries crisis.
Around the time that Rachel Carson’s (1951) The Sea Around Us won the National
Book Award, the concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) became prevalent in
Europe and North America. Soon after, in the late 1970s, Larkin (1977) wrote the epitaph
for MSY, and managers began to make conservative quota recommendations. But the
effects of the mathematization of fisheries management were still to come. ‘‘An institu-
tional juggernaut had been set in motion’’ (Walters and Maguire 1996, p.129) and the
failure of fisheries science climaxed with the devastating collapse of northern cod in the
early 1990s. Mathematics had a definitive role in the marine fisheries crisis.
Then there is a debate that never really occurred in the ocean realm: in the early 20th
century, John Muir and Gifford Pinchot would come to embody the respective philosophies
of preservation and conservation (Nash 1982). But in terms of fisheries and the oceans, the
preservationist approach was by no means fully considered. Globally, approximately 0.6%
of the oceans are dedicated as marine protected areas (MPAs) (Wood 2007) as compared to
the 12% of terrestrial area that has been designated as protected (Chape et al. 2005).
Furthermore, only 0.01% of the oceans are actually closed to fishing (Pauly et al. 2002).
Five years after Muir’s death, the Smithsonian Institution ran an article in its annual
report entitled, ‘‘The Sea As a Conservator of Wastes and a Reservoir of Food’’ (Moore
1919). By the middle of the 20th century, this strategy was expanded to include the
dumping of radioactive wastes as an ecosystem service (Bryson 2003). In 2004, 65% of the
U.S. coastline (excluding Alaska), most of it on the eastern seaboard, was under fish
advisories (EPA 2004). Modern industrial pollutants have infiltrated the marine food web.
Fisheries that had sustained people for thousands of years are, instead, now poisoning them
(Booth and Zeller 2005).
4 Into the blue again after the money is gone
Pitcher and Hart (1998, p. 218) write, ‘‘Alone among the social sciences (and often dis-
avowed by them) only economics offers an internally consistent and rigorous mechanism
for achieving cooperation.’’ Pitcher and Hart are not alone; many scientists and managers
have turned to the field of economics to understand and perhaps help alleviate the fisheries
crisis. From an economic standpoint, a significant flaw in fisheries management is thought
to stem from the lack of tenure right (Hardin 1968). In the early 1980s, 200-mile exclusive
economic zones (EEZs) were established for coastal nations, but economists argue for
further privatization using mechanisms such as Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) and
the elimination of flags of convenience.
Yet, Clark (1973) demonstrates that the overexploitation of fisheries is possible even
under privatized fishing rights because private firms adopt high rates of discount. Sumaila
and Walters (2005) address high discount rates with ‘‘intergenerational discounting,’’ a
J. Jacquet
123
method to better incorporate future generations in management decisions that will
ultimately affect them. Sumaila (2004) demonstrates that, when considering the benefits to
future generations, marine ecosystem restoration becomes economically viable.
But the biggest improvement in fisheries management could come from the elimination
of perverse subsidies, which is necessary for any constructive environmental change
(Holling 2001; Meyers and Kent 2001). Today’s fisheries are, in part, kept afloat with
public tax money. In total, governments subsidize the global fishing fleet with US$30–
34 billion annually (Sumaila and Pauly 2006), which accounts for 35–40% of the landed
value of fish (Sumaila et al. in press) or an average of about US$0.33 per kg of marine fish.
This over-investment in fisheries in the short-term encourages excess capacity and
overfishing. To compensate and reduce excess capacity, some governments buy back boats
from the fishing industry, which is also a subsidy (Clark et al. 2005). In addition to
subsidization, the industrial fishing sector operates under an economic system that
encourages externalities and corporate policy that, by legal definition, cannot take into
account the public good (Bakan 2004).
Perhaps because corporations have become so powerful, environmental non-govern-
mental organizations (ENGOs) have recently gained influence, in some cases enough to
challenge governments (Buttel 1992). ENGOs now lobby governments for the expansion
of MPAs, the delineation of exclusive fishing zones for small-scale fishers, and the out-
lawing (and enforcement) of destructive fishing practices, such as bottom trawling, dis-
carding fish, and the use of dynamite.
Other ENGOs have forsaken government for grass roots efforts and engagement in
‘‘exemplary action,’’ which emphasizes the presumed power of an individual as an eco-
logical consumer (Eckersley 1988). In terms of fisheries, this movement is best seen through
the attempts to change seafood consumption patterns (e.g., seafood wallet cards, the Marine
Stewardship Council eco-certification). However, consumer awareness attempts, though
perhaps successful in raising awareness of seafood products, have unfortunately made no
demonstrable impacts on the resource itself (Jacquet and Pauly 2007).
5 You may ask yourself: am I right? Am I wrong?
‘‘Shallow ecologists think that reforming human relations toward nature can be done
within the existing structures of society’’ (Naess 1988). The philosophical application of
deep ecology has occurred in the terrestrial realm but, so far, has not been substantially
applied to the oceans. Perhaps this is, in part, due to the physical property of the ocean
itself: it is difficult to see what we have done. But within the last decade or so, we have
seen the 40,000 unemployed fishers after the collapse of the northern cod (Harder 2003).
We have seen jellyfish blooms around the world (Purcell et al. 2001). We have seen
innumerable scientific articles that prophesize a bleak future for marine fisheries–but not a
future without hope (e.g., Pauly et al. 2003). Rebuilding marine ecosystems is possible. But
to do so, is a fundamental change in prevailing basic assumptions required?
A new Sea Ethic, promoted by the Blue Ocean Institute, would help society create a
relationship with the oceans in the manner that A Sand County Almanac (Leopold 1949)
did with the land. In her chapter, ‘‘Save the Whales, Screw the Shrimp,’’ Williams (2002)
challenges that preserving nature is a moral issue (and recognizes the pecking order in
preservation with her title).
Other scientists see the capacity of more practical technical fixes, though they, too,
require fundamental shifts in values. Dayton (1998), for instance, called for a reverse of the
Silent water: a brief examination
123
burden of proof; fishers should be required to demonstrate that their actions do not cause
damage to marine ecosystems rather than requiring that resource managers prove that they
do. Walters (1998) argued that our conceptual view of the seas should change. Currently,
more than 99% of the world’s oceans are open to fishing; this should be reversed, and the
oceans should be considered closed to fishing with small exceptions, i.e. fishery openings,
as is the case with salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Russ and Zeller (2003) and Zeller
(2005) likewise argued that fishing should be considered a privilege, rather than a right,
and call for more marine closures with the aid of international ocean zoning.
Pauly (1995, 2007) identifies the constraints of the human lifetime in terms of fisheries.
Each generation thinks that the ecosystem they were exposed to when they were young was
more or less pristine and this, in part, is why resources are misused. He describes this
phenomenon as ‘‘shifting baselines’’ and emphasizes the need to recognize and overcome
our ‘‘collective amnesia.’’ To address the shifting baseline, many ecologists are incorpo-
rating history in their research to get a sense of former abundance (Schrope 2006).
Lewis (1992) vehemently criticizes radical environmentalism as destructive to the
environmental movement. Yet, whale populations are beginning to rebound largely be-
cause of early efforts by Greenpeace, which simultaneously communicated whale folklore
and gruesome whale hunts. Their media efforts created a public outrage and an eventual
moratorium on whaling. So far, campaigns of this kind have been less successful in terms
of fisheries, though they do exist (e.g., WildAid’s shark campaign; see Watts and Wu
2005).
News of the fisheries crisis has begun to permeate popular culture. For instance, the
recently published novel, The Swarm (Scha
¨
tzing 2006), describes in detail the changes
happening in the world’s oceans (the disappearance of whales and fish, for instance, and
the subsequent takeover by toxic blooms and jellyfish). A terrific, science-fictional threat to
humanity follows, which Worm (2006) calls ‘‘Armageddon in the oceans.’’ Millions of
Scha
¨
tzing’s novels have sold worldwide. In Germany, where it was initially published, Der
Schwarm has led to an increase in marine science funding (Worm 2006).
Roughly 500 years after the dawn of science, religion might also, directly or indirectly,
play a role in marine ecosystem restoration and the protection of fisheries (Dunham and
Coward 2000). Although the Catholic Church and many other religious entities have yet to
exhibit enlightenment in terms of birth control and contraception (Bayes and Tohidi 2001),
there has been progress in fisheries. In 1966, Pope Paul VI, along with U.S. bishops,
terminated obligatory ‘meatless’ Fridays, except during Lent (Bell 1968). Recently, one
religious group initiated a ‘‘What Would Jesus Drive?’’ campaign because ‘‘transportation
is a moral issue.’’ Will religious leaders likewise consider fisheries a moral issue and ask,
‘‘What Would Jesus Fish?’’
6 Same as it ever was
But is a fundamental shift in values possible on a global scale? Moreover, would it
substantially affect market demand? The U.S. now eats almost five times more fish than it
did 100 years ago (NMFS 2006). Worldwide, per capita consumption of marine fishes has
doubled since the 1960s (WHO 2006). So, too, has the global population. How can marine
fisheries feed the global appetite? They cannot.
Humans began farming on a global scale roughly 10,000 years ago and this lifestyle
became predominant over the hunter-gatherer one (Quinn 1992). Now the agricultural
model of production is being applied to seafood. After the Papal decree of meatless
J. Jacquet
123
Fridays, some European monasteries tried to establish artificial fishponds to meet fish
demand. These ponds were unsuccessful as people found fish, instead, in the sea (Fagan
2006). Now, 1,000 years later, the oceans are nearly empty and the artificial ponds (many
of which float at sea) are a reality. In the last decade, aquaculture production has doubled.
In 2004, aquaculture produced nearly 40% of all fish consumed, or nearly 60 million tones
(FAO 2005).
Wilson (2002) writes about aquaculture, ‘‘What was free for the taking must now be
manufactured.’’ Eventually, fish biotechnology might entirely compensate for the decline
in wild fish supply. In the meantime, though, many fish species raised in fish farms require
wild, ocean-born fish for feed (Naylor et al. 2000). In this way, aquaculture puts additional
pressure on ocean fisheries.
Furthermore, aquaculture has many ethical dimensions, which include the loss of tra-
ditions and the ethical concern of domesticating wild fish. In the Sea of Sicily, tonnaras
were complex systems of nets to catch tuna as well as a thousand-year-old right of passage
for the local men, who learned how to set the nets, sing songs about tuna, and speak an
entire tonnara language (Maggio 2000). Italy’s last tonnara has closed and the songs are
silent. Instead, juvenile tuna are captured at sea, slowly towed toward shore, and fattened in
net pens off the Mediterranean coastline until they are sold (Volpe 2005).
White (1967, p. 1203) writes, ‘‘All forms of life modify their contexts.’’ After more than
90,000 years of fishing, will the modification of the oceans include the virtual elimination
of wild marine fisheries? The human appetite, from the first fisher to the six and a half
billion potential seafood consumers alive today, is ultimately the root of the marine fish-
eries crisis. The human mind, equal in number and technically more impressive, is ulti-
mately the decider of how we satiate the collective appetite for seafood and whether we do
so with only ourselves in mind.
Acknowledgments The author thanks J. Robinson, M. Bailey, C. Wilkinson, an anonymous reviewer, and,
most of all, D. Pauly for suggestions on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
References
Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation. Toronto: Viking Canada.
Barrett, J. H., Locker, A. M., & Roberts, C. M. (2004). The origins of intensive marine fishing in medieval
Europe: The English evidence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271, 2417–2421.
Bayes, J., & Tohidi, N. (2001). Globalization, gender, and religion: The politics of women’s rights in
Catholic and Muslim contexts. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Bell, F. W. (1968). The Pope and the price of fish. The American Economic Review, 58(5), 1346–1350.
Berman, M. (1984). The reenchantment of the world. New York: Bantam Books.
Booth, S., & Zeller, D. (2005). Mercury, food webs, and marine mammals: Implications for human health.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(5), 521–526.
Bryson, B. (2003). A short history of nearly everything. Toronto: Doubleday Canada.
Buttel, F. H. (1992). Environmentalization: Origins, processes, and implications for rural social change.
Rural Sociology, 57(1), 1–27.
Carson, R. (1951). The sea around us. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., & Lysenko, I. (2005). Measuring the extent and protectedness of
protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity indicators. The Philosophical Trans-
actions of the Royal Society of Britain, 360, 443–455.
Clark, C. (1973). The economics of overexploitation. Science, 181, 630–634.
Clark, C., Munroe, G., & Sumaila, R. (2005). Subsidies, buybacks, and fisheries. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, 50, 47–58.
Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species. London: John Murray.
Dayton, P. K. (1998). Reversal of the burden of proof in fisheries management. Science, 279, 821–822.
Silent water: a brief examination
123
Dunham, S., & Coward, H. (2000). World religions and ecosystem justice in the marine fishery. In H.
Coward, R. Ommer, & T. Pitcher (Eds.), Just fish: Ethics and Canadian marine fisheries. New-
foundland: Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Eckersley, R. (1988). Green politics—a practice in search of the theory. Alternatives, 15, 52–61.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States. (2004). National List of Fish Advisories for
2004 Press Release. Available online at http://map1.epa.gov/.
Fagan, B. (2006). Fish on friday. New York: Basic Books.
FAO. (2005). FAO FishStat database. Available online at www.fao.org/fi/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.asp.
Harder, B. (2003). Sea burial for Canada’s cod fisheries. Science News, 163(20), 318.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Eco-
systems, 4, 390–405.
Jackson, J., Kirby, M., Berger, W., Bjorndal, K., et al. (2001). Historical overfishing and the recent collapse
of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293, 629–638.
Jacquet, J., & Pauly, D. (2007). The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries.
Marine Policy, 31, 308–313.
Johannes, R. E. (1978). Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their demise. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics, 9, 349–364.
Johannes, R. E., Freeman, M. M. R., & Hamilton, R. J. (2000). Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat.
Fish and Fisheries, 1, 257–271.
Kearney, H. (1971). Science and change 1500–1700. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
Kurlansky, M. (1997). Cod: A biography of the fish that changed the world. Toronto: A.A. Knopf.
Larkin, P. A. (1977). An epitaph for the concept of maximum sustained yield. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society, 106, 1–11.
Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Lewis, M. (1992). Green delusions—an environmentalist critique of radical environmentalism. Durham,
North Carolina: Duke University Press.
Maggio, T. (2000). Mattanza: Love and death in the sea of Sicily. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus
Publishing.
McClenachan, L., Jackson, J., & Newman, M. (2006). Conservation implications of historic sea turtle
nesting beach losses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(6), 290–296.
Meyers, N., & Kent, J. (2001). Perverse subsidies: How tax dollars can undercut the environment and the
economy. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Moore, H. F. (1919). The sea as a conservator of wastes and a reservoir of food. Smithsonian Institution
Annual Report, 72(1), 595–608.
Myers, R. A., & Worm, B. (2003). Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature,
423(6937), 280–283.
Naess, A. (1988). The basis of deep ecology. Resurgence, 126, 5–6.
Nash, R. (1982). Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (2006). Fisheries of the U.S., 2005. Silver Springs, MD. 119 pp.
Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus05/fus_2005.pdf.
Naylor, R., Goldburg, R., Primavera, J., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M., Clay, J., Folke, C., Lubchenco, J.,
Mooney, H., & Troell, M. (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature, 405, 1017–
1024.
Pauly, D. (1994). On the sex of fish and the gender of scientists. London: Chapman and Hall.
Pauly, D. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baselines syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 10, 430.
Pauly, D. (1997). Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: Marginality, marginalization, some implications for
fisheries management. In E. Pikitch, D. Huppert, & M. Sissenwine (Eds.), Global trends: Fisheries
management. American Fisheries Society Symposium 20, Bethesda, Maryland.
Pauly, D. (2006). Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with emphasis on developing countries, and
some implications for the social sciences. Maritime Studies, 4(2), 7–22.
Pauly, D. (2007). Journal club: A marine biologist dives into history of the gulf of California. Nature, 445,
343.
Pauly, D., Alder, J., Bennett, E., Christensen, V., Tyedmyers, P., Watson, R. (2003). The future for fisheries.
Science, 302, 1359–1361.
Pauly, D., Christiensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Freese, R., & Torres, F. (1998). Fishing down marine food webs.
Science, 279, 860–863.
J. Jacquet
123
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Gue
´
nette, S., Pitcher, T. J., Sumaila, U. R., Walters, C. J., Watson, R., & Zeller,
D. (2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature, 418, 689–695.
Pauly, D., & Maclean, J. (2003). In a perfect ocean. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Pitcher, T., & Hart, P. (1998). Conflict, consent and cooperation: An evolutionary perspective on individual
human behaviour in fisheries management. In T. Pitcher, P. Hart, & D. Pauly (Eds.), Reinventing
fisheries management (pp. 215–225). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Purcell, J., Graham, W., & Dumont, H. (2001). Jellyfish blooms: Ecological and societal importance.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Quinn, D. (1992). Ishmael. New York: Bantam/Turner Books.
Roman, J., & Palumbi, S. R. (2003). Whales before whaling in the North Atlantic. Science, 301, 508–510.
Roszak, T. (1973). Where the wasteland ends. New York: Doubleday Publishers.
Rousseau, J. (1754). A discourse on inequality. Republished by (London: Penguin) 1984; translated by
Maurice Cranston.
Russ, G. R., & Zeller, D. (2003). From Mare Liberum to Mare Reservarum. Marine Policy, 27, 75–78.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Scha
¨
tzing, F. (2006). The swarm. New York: Harper Collins.
Schrope, M. (2006). The real sea change. Nature, 443, 622–624.
Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. New York: Haper & Row.
Smith, T. (1994). Scaling fisheries: The science of measuring the effects of fishing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
Sumaila, R. (2004). Intergenerational cost benefit analysis and marine ecosystems restoration. Fish and
Fisheries, 5, 329–343.
Sumaila, R. & Pauly, D. (2006). Executive summary. In R. Sumaila, & D. Pauly (Eds.), Catching more bait:
A bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(6), 2.
Fisheries Centre, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Sumaila, R., Marsden, D. Watson, R. & Pauly, D. (2007). Global ex-vessel fish price database: Construction,
spatial, and temporal applications. Journal of Bioeconomics. doi: 10.1007/s10818-007-9015-4
Sumaila, R., & Walters, C. (2005). Intergenerational discounting: A new intuitive approach. Ecological
Economics, 52, 135–142.
Volpe, J. (2005). Dollars without sense: The bait for big-money tuna ranching around the world. BioScience,
55, 301–302.
Walters, C. (1998). Management without accurate stock assessment. In T. Pitcher, P. Hart, & D. Pauly
(Eds.), Reinventing fisheries management (pp. 279–288). Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Walters, C., & Maguire, J. (1996). Lessons for stock assessment from the northern cod collapse. Reviews in
Fish Biology and Fisheries, 6, 125–137.
Watts, S. & Wu, V. (2005). At rock bottom: The declining sharks of the eastern tropical Pacific. A report
produced for WildAid, San Francisco. Available online at: http://www.wildaid.org/PDF/reports/
AtRockBottom.pdf.
White, L. Jr. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155, 1203–1207.
Williams, J. (2002). Ill Nature: Rant and reflections on humanity and other animals. London: Vintage Press.
Willughby, F. (1686). On the history of fish. London: The Royal Society.
Wilson, E. O. (2002). The future of life. New York: A.A. Knopf.
Wood, L. J. (2007). MPA global: A database of the world’s marine protected areas. Sea Around Us Project,
UNEP-WCMC & WWF. http://www.mpaglobal.org.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2006). Global and regional food consumption patterns and trends:
Availability and consumption of fish. http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/in-
dex5.html (Accessed on December 29, 2006).
Worm, B. (2006). Book review: Armageddon in the oceans. Science, 314, 1546.
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, N., Folke, C., Halpern, B. S., Jackson, J. B. C., Lotze, H. K.,
Micheli, F., Palumbi, S. R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K., Stachowicz, J. J., Watson, R. (2006). Impacts of
biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science, 314, 787–790.
Yellen, J. E., Brooks, A. S., Cornelissen, E., Mehlman, M. J., & Stewart, K. (1995). A middle stone age
worked bone industry from Katanda, Upper Semlike Valley, Zaire. Science, 268, 553–536.
Zeller, D. (2005) From Mare Liberum to Mare Reservarum: Canada’s opportunity for global leadership in
ocean resource governance. In A. Chircop, & M. L. McConnell (Eds.), Ocean yearbook (Vol. 19, pp.
1–18). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Silent water: a brief examination
123
