Disney's Smarmy Ways

The Magic Kingdom

The Walt Disney Company is in the image creation business. Americans of all ages relate wholesomeness, innocence and American virtue to its brand, and the company has successfully packaged good feelings and the perception of safety in its theme parks— parks we’d like to believe are the happiest places on earth. Disney’s history is full of unforgettable imagery such as Mickey Mouse, Bambi, Fantasia and The Mickey Mouse Club of 1950s TV fame. The Magic Kingdom, as it is often called, is a carefully designed reality that bears little resemblance to the real world or to the fables and historic events its creators depict. Daniel Boone would not recognize Disney’s version of Davy Crockett.

Disney has become a multi-billion dollar corporation much the same as any other communications giant. The Disney Corporation, like Nike and countless apparel manufacturers, has been exposed for paying pitiful wages to employees in the Third World— through sweatshops in China and Bangladesh.

Like most multinational corporations, Disney has acquired a labyrinth of subsidiaries, including some whose activities (such as producing Hollywood films with lots of sex and violence) do not fit Disney’s carefully cultivated squeaky-clean image. The Walt Disney Company engages in aggressive marketing just like any other corporation, shredding the notion that it is part of a distinctive world of magic and innocence.

For over 80 years Disney has disseminated an unequivocal set of family values and world views. In Disney’s safe and sterile world, good always prevails over evil; and hardship exists

Snow White

only to dramatize how people live happily ever after. Its corporate acquisitions, mergers, subsidiaries and new start–up ventures have permitted Disney to disseminate its world view across the world of entertainment: film, television and cable broadcast networks, books and music, newspaper and magazine publishing, theater productions, amusement parks, home video, consumer merchandise-- and, of course, the internet.

Greenwash by Imagineers

Walt Disney Imagineering is the unique, creative force behind Walt Disney Parks and Resorts that dreams up, designs and builds all Disney theme parks, resorts, attractions, cruise ships, real estate developments, and regional entertainment venues worldwide. Imagineering’s unique strength comes from the dynamic global team of creative and technical professionals building on the Disney legacy of storytelling to pioneer new forms of entertainment through technical innovation and creativity.

The name “Imagineering” combines imagination with engineering. Building upon the legacy of Walt Disney, Imagineers bring art and science together to turn fantasy into reality and dreams into magic. From a Disney website

The Walt Disney Company has crafted an Environmental Policy Statement that defines its commitment to “sustain a positive environmental legacy for Disney and for future generations.” The company’s policy is very well written and hits most of the targets large corporations list as conservation goals. And, in keeping with recent corporate best practices, the policy states that Disney will regularly communicate its progress— presumably as part of its corporate citizenship report.

While Disney is cutting emissions and switching to more efficient energy technologies to shrink its footprint (and to improve their bottom line), the company has not changed its business model. It remains tied to global promotion of travel to its resorts – perhaps the

Do more than
change the bulbs

most environmentally damaging leisure activity on the planet. Disney’s marketers could alter their message and target audiences to reduce the distances traveled and energy burned by its customers. Disney aggressively markets theme parks as international attractions – luring kids and their parents to travel halfway around the globe to commune with Mickey Mouse and leave reality behind for a day or two.

Disney has acknowledged that action on climate change is urgent and requires "fundamental changes in the way society, including businesses, use natural resources, and Disney is no exception." Therefore, the company is greening some of its activities, but not its business model. This is the classic definition of greenwash.

Sustaining the Magic Kingdom and its Throw-Away Culture

Supporting the notion that good triumphs over evil and people live happily ever after, it is imperative that nothing die in the Magic Kingdom— except bugs and other vermin. Aging and diseased plants are summarily removed when the park closes, and cauldrons of chemicals curtail weeds and unwanted or unsightly pests. Growth retardants

Disney's Flowers

keep plants within their designated footprint. Hormones and other treatment chemicals are relied upon to entice flowering out of season so the parks are always vibrant with “natural” color no matter the season.

When Disney’s Imagineers create a world, they go all out. Bay Lake sits to the east of Magic Kingdom Park at Disney World. Since the lake’s natural look was not picture perfect, the lake was drained, most of the cypress trees were yanked and cypress bark was scraped from the lake bottom to prevent the reappearance of its unsightly brown tea. Then the white sand beneath the bark was removed to cover the “beaches” along the lake and on Discovery Island and River Country— two theme parks abandoned to rot like ghost towns in the swamp.

Castaway Cay and Treasure Island

Formerly Gorda Cay, Castaway Cay was once a drug runners’port. Disney is said to have spent $25 million to develop the island as a port exclusively for Disney Cruise Line Ships— Disney Wonder, Disney Magic, Disney Dream and Disney Fantasy. Construction took 18 months and included dredging 50,000 truckloads of sand from the depths of the Atlantic

Abandoned in 1999, but the lights are still lit.

Ocean. The pier and its approaches were constructed to allow Disney ships to dock alongside without the need for tenders to transport passengers ashore. To create the mooring site for the ships, workers dredged sand and blasted through the coral. Not only was the sea bottom altered, but endangered coral was destroyed to create the Disney experience.

Even worse, Disney had already partially developed and then abandoned a 90 acre tract of land in the Abaco Islands in Bahamas which was to have been a cruise ship resort called Treasure Island. A report, by the University of Miami and the College of the Bahamas blames Disney for leaving hazardous materials, electrical transformers and fuel tanks behind. Disney is also blamed for introducing invasive alien plants and insects that threaten the natural flora and fauna of the island. Perhaps that’s what the company considers being green.

The Reedy Creek Improvement District

The Reedy Creek Improvement District is a 40 square mile tract of central Florida land that Walt Disney secretly bought during the early 1960's. Twice the size of Manhattan in area, the district was inhabited by less than fifty people and they were almost entirely Disney executives and their families. And, of course, the governing board of the District is elected solely by these inhabitants, which ensures that Disney retains complete control of this area.

The state of Florida gave the company the right to function as a government. Its rights include the right to levy and collect taxes, to control the planning and zoning of anything built on the property-- with its own building codes and inspectors, the right to run its own

Reedy Creek Fire & Rescue

utilities and fire department and the right to control the infrastructure. The district fields its own security force, and has the right, not yet exercised, to build its own airport, schools, cemeteries, police department and nuclear power plant.

Alexander Wilson, landscape designer and community activist, describes how Reedy Creek sanctioned Walt Disney's willingness to sacrifice reality for the appearance of it. In his book, The Culture of Nature, Wilson wrote of the damage done by Disney to Reedy Creek’s natural environment.

"The park itself is built on a recharge area for the Floridan Aquifer, and the regional development it has encouraged has done irreparable damage to the fragile ecosystem of most of the central and southern part of the state. The wetlands now slated for development are home to many rare and endangered species, among them the bald eagle. The EPA has fined Disney for contaminating these wetlands with toxic waste. The park's sewage effluent exceeds state guidelines, and has been found as far away as the Everglades. Disney had found it cheaper to pay fines than redesign its 'state of the art' engineering systems, much of them funded with public money."

Walt Disney, Control Freak or Profiteer?

So Walt Disney was even willing to throw America’s icon of strength and freedom, the bald eagle, under the bus? This was the man who extolled the American story in almost everything he did— at least his version of the story. In order to make his vision of Disney World and the district a reality, however, it was necessary for him to control everything touching it— the environment, the topography, whatever he wanted to build on it— even the lives of its inhabitants to a certain extent.

Perhaps it was simply Walt Disney’s insatiable hunger for profit at play. It was widely known that he disdained the cheap hotels and restaurants that clustered around Disneyland in Anaheim. They did not fit in the clean and well ordered world he created within the park’s

Walt Disney

gates, and they detracted from the experience he wanted to deliver to the American public. Even more offensive to him was the profits generated by others who capitalized on his vision. In its first 10 years, Disneyland was reported to gross $273 million, but the businesses outside the gate grossed $555 million during the same period. He wanted that profit.

In central Florida, Walt set out to avoid repeating this Anaheim disappointment. He bought up all the land surrounding his planned theme park to achieve total control. The Walt Disney Company set up a roster of dummy corporations in order to buy the land cheaply— and secretly. If the Disney name had been involved with the original purchases, the selling price would have been greatly inflated. It has been estimated that the land is worth more than 10,000 times what Disney paid for it in the early 1960’s.

The Enchanted Shopping Mall

Disney is all about commerce. Visitors are given every opportunity to purchase Disney goods and services. Its theme parks are designed as enchanted shopping malls through the expert use of architecture and decor. The objective is to promote sales and consumption. The layout and structure of Disney theme parks is similar to the typical shopping mall with its external parking lots, kiosks, food courts and hidden infrastructure such as power lines and

Main Street of the Mall

other utilities. The Disney experience is incomplete without meals consumed in Disney restaurants, one’s friends and family outfitted with Disney paraphernalia, and a Disney hotel stay— if one can afford it. Once caught up in the entire experience, visitors behave as consumers with little restraint in spending their money.

Choice within the park is limited— by design. All products and all services in the park are controlled, so that the visitor can only buy what the park offers. Multinational corporations and strategic partners (such as Kodak, Coke, etc.) are featured throughout the Disney mall. Many exhibits in EPCOT, Disney World’s futuristic theme park, are not only sponsored by corporations, but celebrate the aptitude and contribution of these corporations to modern life. Disney’s theme parks showcase thriving corporate wealth, and the consumer paradise that merchants seek-- with advertising and promotion throughout the premises.

Disney, Corporate Citizen

Corporate responsibility is more than issuing a citizenship report and sending press releases touting lofty achievements.  If The Walt Disney Company is sincere in its efforts to act responsibly, there are many things the company could do. Among them: stop selling junk— particularly cheap plastic throw-away junk, curtail the use of chemicals, sell only recyclable packaging, put solar banks in the parking lot of theme parks to provide shade for cars, serve organic food, offer reduced price admission to visitors who ride mass transit, stop violating human rights in factories that produce goods off-shore…  I’m sure Disney’s Imagineers could come up with a better list, but this could get the ball rolling.

On the other hand, here are some of the good things Disney has done:

http://www.environment.ucla.edu/newsroom/making-the-magic-more-sustainable-at-disney-parks-and-resorts/

The Fish That Got Away-- Improving Aquaculture

Open Ocean Fish Farm

Did you ever hear the one about the fish that got away? Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing food production sectors in the world, and has been heralded as perhaps the most promising solution for a planet whose population is outgrowing its ability to feed itself. Between offshore open ocean fish farming and land-based containment tanks, aquaculture has the potential to provide consistent, year-round nutrient-rich protein, relieve pressure on depleted natural fisheries and play a significant role in the economy by providing jobs and valuable export trade in a sustainable manner.

Despite its promise, aquaculture could be the one that gets away unless its problems are solved. Poorly managed aquaculture harms both humans and wildlife, but well managed fish farms are doable once the problems are identified and solved.

Challenges to be overcome…

Pollution from wastes and excessive use of chemicals. Aquaculture facilities are like giant aquariums that must flush out their dirty water. They can discharge significant amounts of waste water containing feces, antibiotics, bacteria, excess feed— even anti-foulants and pesticides used to keep pens and cages clean. Excess food and feces increase nutrient levels in the water leading to algae blooms which remove oxygen from the surrounding water. This, in turn, can cause fish kills in waterways and dead zones offshore. Antibiotics effect

Water filter for wastewater treatment

those who eat the fish and contribute to the development of super strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, making it more difficult to treat diseases, which perpetuates the ever increasing use of antibiotics. Studies indicate that farm-raised fish contain higher levels of chemical pollutants such as carcinogenic PCBs than wild fish. To avoid polluting the surrounding environment, aquaculture systems should be contained and/or its wastewater should be treated prior to discharge.

Atlantic Salmon commonly cultured
in offshore fish farms invades
the Columbia River

Escaped farmed fish endanger the health and genetic diversity of local natural fish. Offshore fish farming uses cages or pens which although well engineered, still allow escapes during storms or episodes of equipment failure or human error. Net pens in the open ocean are vulnerable to tears by attacking predators like sharks. Whether escapes occur on purpose or accidentally, aquaculture is the primary source of non-native invasive species that damage the environment and threaten native species with predation, and the transmission of viruses and parasites. They can jeopardize the recovery of depleted or endangered species as they compete for food and habitat. In the end, these invasive species can dilute the native gene pool and threaten the long-term survival and evolution of native fish. Solutions to this problem are limited at this writing.

The source of feed stocks for farmed fish undermines our natural fisheries. In an inefficient turn of insanity in a topsy-turvy world, farmed species are fed wild species. Fish caught to make fishmeal and fish oil, a primary ingredient in fishmeal, represent one-third of the global fish harvest. Increasingly, aquaculture depends upon natural food sources such as krill, squid and other small coastal pelagic fish like anchovy and herring which are the

Anchovies

primary food sources for many who inhabit the ecosystem— everything from birds, marine mammals like seals, sea lions and whales to larger depleted or threatened pelagic fish like mackerel, swordfish, tuna and sharks. Most farmed fish are carnivorous, but some freshwater species like tilapia can be raised and fed more sustainable fare like algae and other vegetable matter— a promising solution to a small part of the problem as long as they don't escape.

The profit motive leads to frankenfish. Since farm raised fish are bred for profit, it is inevitable that wise marketers will select for the most desirable, the most marketable traits. Selecting and breeding only fish with the most advantageous attributes like size and growth

AquaBounty GMO salmon in rear

rate, will alter genetic composition over time. A more direct path to that outcome is altering the genetic makeup of species in the lab— the creation of GMO fish which serves to heighten the dangers of escaped fish.

Aquaculture appears to be in its infancy and requires maturity-- fast. Adequate funds must be available to deal with emergencies, and emergency planning should be assured before any facility earns its permits. Since a number of threats to wildlife and the environment emanate from aquaculture, facilities should be protected from severe weather, unexpected disease outbreaks, human error-- and even terrorism. Damage caused by unplanned events can cause major escapes and chemical pollution.

What can be done?

A robust commitment to responsible, enlightened aquaculture by producers, investors, government and consumers would not only prevent many of the problems discussed above, but it would greatly improve faith in the system and its products. Here are a few nuggets toward that goal.

• Improved research and education about potential ecological impacts and/or negative social and economic side-effects of developing aquaculture.
• Localized and regional oversight, scrutiny and management of all facilities since they impact local communities and supports special consideration for sensitive habitats such as estuaries, mangrove forests, wetlands, riparian fauna and vegetation— and breeding grounds for natural fish and fauna.
• Along with localized oversight mentioned above comes smaller aquaculture facilities with more intensive use of fewer resources. Covers less area affording more manageable resource application, accident prevention and remediation.
• Environmental impact assessments at the outset and centralized collection of environmental data, farm performance and event response— along with regular environment monitoring. This would improve farm performance as well as prevent unplanned events.
• Deeper study leading to improved husbandry practices regarding selection and application of feeds and fertilizers, antibiotics, drugs and other chemicals-- or substitutes for them.
• Last but not least, development of self-regulatory codes of practice or guidelines for best practices for the entire global aquaculture industry.

One Measure of Global Warming

Melting Glacial Ice

One story that has gained a lot of traction over the last 20 years is the one about the power of man-made global warming to change the planet. Is the story true or not? Scientists have wrestled for years with the problem of measuring climate change in the oceans since they cover 70% of the planet’s surface. The logic says that with that kind of coverage, it should be easier to spot the evidence there. Skeptics, therefore, crow that scientists’ limited success proves there is no such thing as global warming. Now a Canadian team has found a way to measure climate change by documenting what temperatures suit different fish species and following their migration to more comfortable venues.

As the world warms, fish that find the sea temperatures too hot for comfort tend to move north or south, away from the tropics-- or to deeper and therefore cooler waters. Dan Pauly of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Washington and his colleagues have found that the mix of fish in the world’s major fisheries has changed since 1970. For example, sea bass and the historic Mediterranean delicacy, red mullet, have moved north into British waters, Pacific salmon are now found in the frigid Beaufort Sea north of Prudhoe Bay and Atlantic cod are leaving the Grand Banks off Newfoundland devastating a historic North American fishing economy.

Red Mullet

Scientists say the average surface water temperature of major fisheries has increased 1° Celsius; and that confirmed fish migrations in or out of fisheries corresponds with water temperature change, not with fishing pressures or with oceanic features like ocean currents. Pauly’s colleague, William Cheung of University of British Columbia notes that it has been difficult to detect evidence of change because of the “over-exploitation of traditional fishing grounds” and greater pressure on more distant and deeper water fisheries. (More on this later as we discuss the history of the Grand Banks.)

Fish Thermometer 

Evidence of climate change has been well hidden by the more evident flux in species’ temperature preferences and over-fishing, so the researchers invented a “fish thermometer”. This is nothing more than meticulously tracking changes in the patterns and makeup of fish catches over time. As the mix of species changes, they were able to examine the temperature preferences of the species caught in the fishery and compare the mix of species to historical catches. The study spanned the years 1970 to 2006. This new scale of measurement recorded an overall warming rate of 0.17°C per decade. Non-tropical ocean waters, specifically, are warming at an even faster rate— 0.22°C per decade.

To further annoy skeptics, the measured rate of change was much faster in some regions. The north-east Atlantic, for instance, has been warming at 0.49°C a decade as measured by the fish thermometer, even though sea surface temperatures showed only a 0.26°C rise as measured by other instruments. Warm water species are on the move, to what were once considered cooler seas.

If such a change is inconvenient for global warming skeptics, it’s very bad news for fishermen in the tropics where many of the world’s poorer people subsist on local seafood. The more temperate zones will see a migration of species from the equatorial zones, but fish are not likely to migrate towards the tropics. So as global warming makes the equatorial seas too hot for comfort, fish catches are likely to fall, and yet another source of nutrition will dwindle.

Pretty Fish, Voracious Eaters

The migration of tropical fish, in particular, can be devastating to more temperate marine ecosystems. Invading tropical species are stripping kelp forests in Japan, Australia, and the eastern Mediterranean and mowing down sea grass in the northern Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic seaboard. Sea grass beds and kelp forests are known as the sea's nurseries because they have nooks and crannies filled with nutrients that feed and protect fish larvae and juveniles from marauding predators. The kelp and sea grass, however, are being replaced with other warm-water species such as coral that follow the arrival of tropical fish.

Parrot Fish

Many tropical fish species are "browsers" that clean coral of algae and plants that could otherwise choke the reefs. But when these herbivorous fish move toward more temperate waters, they eagerly unleash their voracious appetites on a bountiful harvest of kelp or sea grass. Once a tropical fish species arrives in a new area, it can quickly mow down vegetation and the lush habitat that protects other species. For instance, shrimp, crab, and other species that typically spend the first year of their lives hidden from predators in the protection of the grasses disappear without cover, leaving a void for the creatures that depend on them for food.

Kelp Forest

Loss of a kelp forest or sea grass bed can have devastating effects not only on native plants and animals, but also on commercial fisheries. In southern Japan, for example, the arrival of parrot fish destroyed as much as 40 percent of the kelp forests there. These lush areas were once thick with abalone and spiny lobster, which supported a famed fishery. When the kelp vanished, so did abalone and spiny lobster.

Over-fishing or Global Warming— Expediency at any cost?

U.S. and Canadian fishermen have harvested Atlantic cod since the 17th century. Cod was said to be so abundant then that you could almost walk across the ocean on their backs, and it was one of the most lucrative products traded during colonial times. During the 1950s and 60s, technological advances in trawler design and power modeled on the factory whaling ships that had devastated the last remaining whale populations began to lay waste to cod populations.

Map Showing the Grand Banks

These huge factory trawlers came from distant countries, attracted by a seemingly endless supply of cod. Their huge nets hoisted up massive quantities of fish; they rapidly processed and deep-froze the catch, working around the clock in all but the worst weather conditions. They could haul up as much as 200 tons of fish an hour, twice as much as a typical 16th century ship could catch in an entire season. This unbearable fishing pressure throughout the latter part of the 20th century led to commercial collapse of the cod fishery in the mid-1990s.  A concerted effort to rebuild these stocks began soon after. By 1992 the levels of northern cod were the lowest ever measured, forcing the Canadian government to close the fishery, throwing 30,000 people out of work and devastating many fishing communities.

So, says the global warming skeptic, the cod vanished because of over-fishing-- not because of climate change. While true, the over-fishing and ecosystem plundering is hiding the measurable fact that what few cod survive are migrating to colder water— to avoid warming seas. Despite a lengthy ban on cod fishing near the Grand Banks, the cod does not appear to be in recovery.

There is an interesting parallel to be drawn between global warming skeptics (oil companies and allied interests) and vanishing cod skeptics (commercial fishing industry and allied interests). Both subscribe to short-term expediency rather than the long-term health of the planet. Indeed, prior to the actual collapse of the fishery in the early 1990s, the Canadian government preferred to listen to the industrial fishing companies which claimed there was no problem with the declining catches— just like burning fossil fuels has little to do with global warming.

Scientific warnings in the late 1980s  went unheeded because any cut in catches or oil consumption would cause politically unacceptable job losses and cut oil company profits. It seems science is only as good as the money behind it.

Oceans without Fish

Bluefin Tuna on the High Seas

When I was in college in the 1970s, it was unthinkable that the oceans could be defeated by mankind—polluted and emptied of fish within our lifetimes. The oceans are massive, covering over 70% of the planet’s surface and containing 97% of its water. They are so powerful they sit atop all the factors that influence climate and weather patterns, and its coastal surf manifests such awesome power that it is both feared and loved as a summer playground.

More than half of the world’s oceans are over 9800’ deep. The Mariana Trench is over 6 miles deep. Although less than 10% of the ocean has been explored, over 230,000 marine species are known to inhabit it. Whether we live on a beach in Provincetown, Rhode Island or on a mountainside near Denver, Colorado, the health of the oceans affects the quality of our lives—whether we eat seafood or not.

Earth’s oceans are in rapid decline. Oceans still have plenty of water, because the amount of water contained in the planet’s ecosystem is constant; it just moves from place to place; from liquid state to gaseous state or solid ice and back again. The decline is measured in the negative effects of pollution that make it uninhabitable to marine life, and the loss of that marine life—particularly fish, which is the primary source of animal protein for over a billion people.  

Scientists have established that the planet’s fish catch peaked in 1988; and each year since the catch has declined. Fully one-third of the ocean’s fisheries are in various stages of collapse. Is it possible that 90% of the

Atlantic cod

“big fish” (bluefin tuna, king mackerel, marlin, swordfish, and sharks) are gone as the Census on Marine Life http://www.coml.org/ says?  Studies show they are being fished or killed much faster than they can reproduce.

How can this happen?

Due to the amount of money to be made selling certain types of fish as seafood and sushi globally, many companies who fund and hire fleets of fishing boats are primarily concerned with making money and beating their competition without regard for the environment or future fish populations. After all but destroying near-shore fisheries that helped sustain the first 10,000 years of human civilization, industrial trawlers have moved into deep ocean waters where regulation is sketchy and difficult to enforce.

• Many governments give their fleets large subsidies that allow them to fish longer, harder and farther away than would be otherwise possible. The impact of these subsidies is so great that eliminating them is perhaps the single greatest action that can be taken to protect the world’s oceans.

• Governments regulate how many fish fisherman may catch in some areas of the world, but not everywhere. Fishermen simply move to unregulated areas where they can use methods that net huge quantities of fish, but destroy the ecosystem. Even worse, fishing methods like blast fishing, gill nets and certain other fish traps destroy other organisms that larger species feed on.

• Industrial fishing technology has been revolutionized, allowing fisherman to know the migrating patterns of fish, track them underwater by radar and create nets and traps sometimes large enough to hold a dozen jumbo jets. The “fishing boats” are mammoth floating factories that are not only trawlers but have on-board processing plants and frozen storage facilities. Restricting abuse of the technology and

  

  Super trawler Atlantic Dawn

  enforcing laws on the open ocean is nearly impossible in many areas of the globe. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there are about 45,000 industrial trawlers on the high seas. Although only one per cent of the world’s fishing fleet, employing two per cent of the world’s commercial fishermen, they land 50% of the world’s fish. Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute told the Washington Post “What they’re doing out there is more like mining than fishing.”

• Bycatch from technology run amok escalates depletion of the fisheries exponentially. Bycatch is a fish or other marine species that is caught unintentionally while catching certain target species and target sizes of fish, crabs etc.  Bycatch of non-target species leads to loss of biological diversity and changes in ecosystem stability. Bycatch especially in mixed fisheries that target several stocks is perhaps one of the greatest fisheries management challenges because non-target species are often decimated, but are discarded. Catching undersized fish can also be a tragic and senseless problem. For example, even when the depleted North Sea cod stock manages to produce abundant offspring, the majority is discarded at a very early age and only a small percentage of the cod manage to reach maturity to produce more offspring. Bycatch problems extend to marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds and sharks.

• Ocean acidification caused by climate change takes a significant toll on marine species. Massive amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted into the air by the burning of fossil fuels. When absorbed by water, CO2 forms carbonic acid, and the accumulation of this acid is lowering the pH of the world’s oceans from 8.2 before the Industrial Age to 8.1 now. While that doesn’t sound like much of a drop, this lower alkalinity of seawater has already made it more difficult for certain shellfish and coral reefs to build and maintain their shells and structures.

• Algae thrive in warmer, more acidic water. Fed by nitrates from fertilizer washed off farm fields, city lawns and poorly treated sewage, algae populations explode. First they form a thick green slimy mass on top of the water that blocks light from reaching any plants below. Then when it decomposes it sucks all the oxygen out of the water, and sometimes releases toxins into it. That results in enormous dead zones, where nothing lives, at the mouths of most of the world’s rivers. There are more than 400 known dead zones currently-- the largest, off the mouth of the Mississippi, is as big as Connecticut. 

What can be done?

It is difficult to imagine how we as individuals can address the issues that deplete our fisheries, but one truth stands above all others.  Every contribution, every action, every example helps the cause as more and more people embrace healthy practices and demand the same from their fish vendors, restaurants, politicians. We also possess the knowledge and the means to turn the tide if we have the will to do so.

 Mediterranean Tuna almost extinct

There is no need, nor would it be practical to stop eating fish as a first step. Many of the solutions listed below are lifted shamelessly from Oceana, a leader in ocean conservation. http://oceana.org/en

Buy only sustainably-caught fish from responsibly managed fisheries. Do not be shy. Ask your waiter and your fishmonger where their fish was caught.

Moderate your serving size of fish. Five ounces of protein served with a bounty of fruit and vegetable is a far healthier way to eat.

Eliminate fisheries subsidies. According to Oceana, an ocean conservation group, eliminating fishing subsidies is “one of the greatest actions that can be taken to protect the world’s oceans.” These government subsidies make it not only affordable to undertake industrial fishing farther and farther from land, but make it lucrative to fishing industrialists at the expense of almost everyone else.

Canned to extinction?

Set science-based catch limits on commercial fishing fleets. Unsustainable quotas that satisfy the fishing industry do not take the pressure off fisheries so they can recover.

Reduce the size of the world’s fishing fleet. Between eliminating subsidies and limiting the size of the catch, those who own the fleet would be forced to rationalize their operations.

Penalize discarded bycatch with “cap, count and control laws.” Each fishing boat should be required to count bycatch as part of its total catch. Quotas on the catch’s total weight and species should be implemented providing a cap which would be the basis for charging for the size of the bycatch.

Eliminate destructive fishing practices. Ban drift nets, bottom trawling across the ocean floor and fishing in spawning and migration zones. Require the use of devices designed to exclude bycatch such as the turtle

Small boat, large net!

excluder device used by American shrimp trawlers in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.

Create and maintain marine reserves. Marine reserves provide zones for species recovery, a safe haven protected from industrial and commercial exploitation.

Protect specific species and enforce the laws. We regulate or outlaw trade in ivory and furs so we should be able to protect endangered fish and marine species in the same way. A federal law prohibits trade in krill which is a critical food source for blue whales and other marine life. Protections should be extended for the big fish whose numbers are 90% lower than they were in the 1950s— bluefin tuna, swordfish, marlin, king mackerel and sharks.

Prohibit the use of fish as a feed for farm animals. According to Oceana, “a recent study showed that the world’s farmed pigs and chicken consume twice the amount of seafood in one year that the Japanese people consume as a nation and six times the amount we Americans eat.” Fish is not a natural food for either pigs or chickens.

Reform aquaculture. Build smarter fish farms that are well managed, built on a smaller scale, raising only highly efficient fish in terms of reproduction and feed. Consider tilapia or other fresh water fish who feed on algae, plankton or animal waste instead of other fish.

It is time to act. Choose the solutions with which you are most comfortable and sally forth. You can and must participate in this story of survival.

Good Reading

For Cod and Country by Barton Seaver, Sterling Epicure publisher. Learn and be inspired by simple, delicious sustainable cooking.

Hooked—Pirates, Poaching and the Perfect Fish by G. Bruce Knecht, Rodale Press. Learn how marketing transformed the Patagonian toothfish into Chilean Sea Bass reshaping the specie’s destiny.

Oceana by Ted Danson, Rodale Press. Yes, the Ted Danson from Cheers has devoted himself to ocean conservation for almost three decades.

Tuna by Richard Ellis, Alfred A. Knopf publisher. Learn about “tuna ranches” and how this fish has become a commodity and an endangered species.

Hitchcock's "The Birds" Revisited: Mystery Deaths Plague West Coast

Alfred Hitchcock and feathered friends

On August 18, 1961 the Santa Cruz Sentinel reported:

A massive flight of sooty shearwaters, fresh from a feast of anchovies, collided with shore side structures from Pleasure Point to Rio del Mar during the night. Residents, especially in the Pleasure Point and Capitola area were awakened about 3 a.m. today by the rain of birds, slamming against their homes. Dead and stunned seabirds littered the streets and roads in the foggy, early dawn. Startled by the invasion, residents rushed out on their lawns with flashlights, and then rushed back inside, as the birds flew toward their light. . . . When the light of day made the area visible, residents found the streets covered with birds. The birds disgorged bits of fish and fish skeletons over the streets and lawns and housetops, leaving an overpowering fishy stench.

A sooty shearwater in flight

News reports from that period described the sooty shearwater as a normally non-aggressive species that feeds on small fish and comes ashore only to breed far south of the Northern California coast. Those early reports speculated that domoic acid poisoning caused the massive suicidal bombing of the Capitola area.

The Santa Cruz Sentinel also reported that film-maker Alfred Hitchcock requested news copy of the mysterious event to use as research in developing his latest thriller. Within a month he had hired screenwriter Evan Hunter (better known as Ed McBain for his crime novels) to adapt Daphne du Maurier’s 1952 novelette, The Birds, to film. Set in du Maurier’s native Cornwall after World War ll, it is the story of a farm community that is attacked by flocks of seabirds in kamikaze fashion.

The Mystery Deepens

In late 1987, a serious outbreak of food poisoning in eastern Canada linked to cultured mussels harvested in Prince Edward Island made front-page newspaper headlines when three elderly patients died. All the victims, including the deceased, suffered long-term neurological damage including memory loss so the malady was named amnesiac shellfish poisoning. The mystery deepened as Prince Edward Island had never before been afflicted with toxic algae and the unusual neurotoxin symptoms were very different from those caused by paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins or other known toxins.

California Sea Lions

In 1991, dead and dying seabirds, including brown pelicans, began washing up on the beaches near Santa Cruz and Monterey Bay, CA. It was discovered the birds had been eating anchovy contaminated with domoic acid. In May and June of 1998, 400 California sea lions died of domoic acid toxicosis. By 2002, it became obvious that thousands of birds and mammals, including dolphins, sea lions, seabirds, and endangered brown pelicans have succumbed to domoic acid poisoning.

Why is this happening?

Since then, the mysterious poisonings have lost a good deal of their mystery. They occur with almost predictable regularity now, and the science behind them is becoming widely understood. When conditions are right, the marine phytoplankton, Pseudo-nitzschia australis, blooms and the tiny algae bloom, creating what is called “red tide”. The algae produce domoic acid. As the toxin accumulates up the food chain, fish become contaminated with the poison, and then the birds and marine mammals who feed on them. The toxin enters the bloodstream, then the brain, causing convulsions, coma, vomiting, seizures and finally, death.

Wildlife centers like The Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito and the International Bird Rescue Research Center in San Pedro are often overwhelmed with dead and dying animals and desperately try to save them. Experience has shown that animals quickly rescued have a chance to survive if they receive massive fluid therapy, orally and intravenously, to flush the toxin from their bloodstreams.

What causes red tides?

Scientists prefer to call red tides Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB), and they have been reported along every US coastal state. Their frequency appears to be on the rise. They are a concern because they affect the health of people, wildlife and ecosystems—as well as the health of local economies. Not all algal blooms are harmful, however. Most blooms, in fact, are beneficial because they provide food for marine life. In fact, they are the major source of energy that fuels the ocean food web. So what causes the profusion of harmful red tides?

Red tide algal bloom

The short answer is fertilizer over-use. See this blog’s post titled The Problem with Fertilizer, December 30, 2014.

Natural upwelling from the ocean’s depths of nitrogen rich nutrients are of limited duration. They feed the algae and dissipate with minimal effect on other marine life since their presence is not constant. Over-use of fertilizer provides a constant stream of nutrients to algae and tips the balance from beneficial to harmful.

Back to The Birds

It wasn’t until 2011 that the 1961 “bird attack” in Capitola was positively identified as a domoic acid event. Researchers at Louisiana State University examined samples from plankton and marine animals collected in 1961 and identified an unhealthy accumulation of domoic acid which was found in 79 per cent of the plankton ingested by anchovies and squid.

Over a short period, that would become potent enough to cause fatal consequences for predators that ingested the creatures. "Here we show that plankton samples from the 1961 poisoning contained toxin-producing Pseudo-nitzschia, supporting the contention that these toxic diatoms were responsible for the bird frenzy that motivated Hitchcock's thriller," says Sibel Bargu, lead researcher.  

Although the usual suspect would be pesticides from farmland, the researchers note that there was a house-building boom in the area at the time, and posit that leaky domestic septic tanks were instead to blame.

Life imitates art once again. The picture-perfect California coast attracts millions who are inspired by its beauty and the movie culture that springs up around it. In the movie, havoc ensues as birds attack to punish human excesses, but the reality turns out to be that excess is punished by Mother Nature in less theatrical but more devastating ways.

More reading

NOAA at      http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/redtide.html

The Marine Mammal Center at http://www.marinemammalcenter.org/science/#.VKdVbCvF98E

The Poison Review at http://www.thepoisonreview.com/2011/12/30/angry-birds-or-domoic-acid-toxicity/

The International Bird Rescue Research Center at http://bird-rescue.org/