|
- Daniel W.
MacInnes
- Department of
Sociology and Anthropology
- St. Francis
Xavier University
- Antigonish,
Nova Scotia
Notes on the imperfect
knowledge of lobsters and their predators. 1
In 1928 the Marine and Fisheries
Department (Fisheries branch) released a Map of the Atlantic
Coast of Canada showing lobster seasons.2
By order in council, the season for district 7 had been
established two years before. The map indicates that the
season for District 7 is from April 26 to June 25, and the
footnotes specify that in this district there will be no
size limit but possession in close season is prohibited.
Since then, ice patterns occasioned by the causeway at the
Strait of Canso, increased agricultural runoff,
sedimentation and industrial pollution have changed the
character of District 7 but we do not know how these things
have affected lobster. The imposition of limits in the
numbers of traps and limited entry licensing (1968) have
occurred as well in District 7.
When the lobster fishery collapsed
in the mid 1940s carapace size limits were imposed on
district 7. About the same time trap limits were imposed.
Last summer I interviewed several fishermen whose fishing
careers began after the war and shortly after the stock
collapse. Perhaps because they fished through a crisis into
present day plenty, they have a interesting perspective on
they dynamics of the lobster fishery. Similar to the
generation who endured the effects of the economic
depression, these fishermen knew a great deal about poor
catches and sustained hard times. This has tended to make
them somewhat conservative in their approach. They complain
that they have no way of communicating with DFO -- "nobody
listens".
In this thought piece I should like
to use the wisdom of several conservative fishers to address
some concerns with the knowledge we share about the lobster
fishery. I want to insist that the real problem we face is
how to evaluate and use "traditional knowledge" . By using
the word we I include three groups: the intellectuals
who want to find out how to mix and match scientific
knowledge with "local" or "traditional" knowledge; the
present managers and would be managers who must make
decisions; and finally those affected by the creation of
more "lobster" knowledge. Here I mean both fishers and the
general public.
There is no time in this
presentation to discuss the "literature" of the lobster
fishery generally or in district 7 and it would not be
helpful to spend a great deal of time on the respective
claims of social science, biological science and traditional
or local knowledge. What we do know and agree upon can be
summarized in a few short sentences. District 7 in
comparison to other places has been a very good to great
lobster area for more than 100 years, it is currently
undergoing higher than usual fishing pressure. In
contemporary society, scientific knowledge dominates in
public decision making almost to the point of it being a
cultural "fetish". However, as compared with other stocks,
the scientists know very little about lobster. This may have
to do with those sources of power which govern what
scientists actually study. Lobsters have great economic
value but their human predators are not organized in the
same way that groundfish predators are organized. Fishery
science is largely organized around the human organization
of the predators and the intensity of research reflects the
respective ability and inability of predators to have their
needs addressed.
There is sufficient literature to
suggest that the political economy of the fishery is a
determinant in deciding what impartial science will
investigate. This is a problem that not all scientists
recognize. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. There is
no profession that escapes this dictum. It is obvious that
the same dilemma holds for the partiality of social science,
our problems arise from the political economy of everyday
life. In social science we have an additional problem. The
objects of our investigation, human beings, as subject
behave as if there were no natural laws for humanity. Unlike
lobster whose behaviour we assume to be predictable within
certain limits, lobster fishermen keep changing, especially
when the environment imposes limits. 3
We know but are not value free. The
way we know reflect values and what we know does as well.
Some would have no trouble accepting the latter but would
balk at accepting the former since they value the scientific
way of knowing over all others. Again I do not want to enter
into another discussion about degrees of certitude. Science
surely beats common sense (and common nonsense), beats
revelation from on high and is an improvement on intuition
in disproving most things. At the same time the scientific
method has never proved useful in establishing inter
personal relationships or in providing a meaning for
existence. Our biggest mistake as intellectuals it to think
that our categories are real.4
They are (as ideas and social constructs) and are not
(empirical reality) . If they are any good then they point
to reality. The reason for our attachment to categories is
often as a defense against contending realities which
ordinary people can perceive. We point to the same thing
sand say different things. The perception of the same things
in everyday life may be "real" (accurate) or "apparent"
(inaccurate).5
The biggest mistake that ordinary people make is to think
that what they see is the only reality. Intuition, tradition
and common sense are brutal in the way they can twist what
we see.
As a social scientist with no
conviction that there are immutable human behaviors, I have
an answer to this question. We are foolish to think that the
certitude that science offers can be had so easily. It might
be that the current stage of fishery science is analogous to
early studies of microbiology. Something happened in the
glass slide and something is happening out in the ocean,
there were measures then of some things that early science
could see (at least they had data on them) but then as now,
we are nowhere near understanding how the things we do not
see are related to the little that we do see. It may sound
as if I am moving toward a relativist position. This is not
the case. Just because there is a great deal of uncertainty
there is no need to damn all forms of knowledge. At the same
time, there is no moral imperative that arises from the
scientific method which urges us to embrace the faintest
outline of what might be visible. The single embrace of
science over all other forms of knowledge has made fools of
the groundfishery -- it now threatens other
fisheries.
Many fishermen do think that
scientist are educated fools. In this conference, we know
better. Listen to the implied words of Myers and Hutchings.
We know our limitations, it is just everyday politics
that compromise us and subject our work to the forces of the
market. If fishermen heard this defense they would no
longer have to speculate on the wisdom of academic science.
Can people so well trained (educated?) be so far removed
from the fruits of their labours? Our job in this seminar is
to see what constitutes a working agreement between ways of
knowing. Working means cognizant of the politics of knowing.
We start with the acknowledgement that in the here and now,
every way of knowing is imperfect.6
What we know, we know imperfectly.
My imperfect knowledge of lobster
is rather great. There are some forms of ignorance that can
be resolved very easily, for instance, I really do not know
if lobsters occupy a territory or as Lawrence Durell would
say, if (biologically) they have a sense of place. I have
heard that in District 7 lobsters "move in shore" from
deeper waters as the weather improves. Once in Moncton at
the MFU meetings I heard a DFO scientist with an Eastern
European accent tell a roomful of fishermen that tagging had
indicated that a few lobster tagged near Grand Manan had
"walked" (sic) to Virginia. Excepting interception along the
way I do not know if this is a regular occurrence or if they
were visiting relations. I have heard it said by a
biologists at another meeting that there are no sub species
of lobster; all, this side of Virginia, are related. Being a
biological ignoramus it is then plausible that a few or
maybe all lobsters "walk" (if that is the correct scientific
term and not an unfortunate translation) back and forth on
the ocean floor while maintaining a home. Salmon do this, so
why not?
This is not flippancy. DFO issues
licenses to offshore lobster and makes public statements
that the offshore lobster are not related to the inshore
lobster fifty miles away. Therefore they must think it
exceptional for lobster to move. If so, then the traditional
practice in District 7 of lobster berths poses a tremendous
opportunity for science. Berths are not universal in the
District. They are not legal entities but a number continue
to exist They are part of folk management. Enforced
sometimes by lobster wars, battles and feuds the practice of
individual holdings provides us with some interesting
questions about the relation between the practices of
individuals and catch variations.
In the first instance it can be
assumed that given open access, then the holding of a berth
might well indicate some advantage. Poor berths would be
given up so all berths might be "good places". It is
possible to first determine if the existing berths are
better spots and if some berths have been abandoned over the
past number of years. As to those berths still being fished,
there is an opportunity to make comparisons of fishing
practices as they are related to catch over a period of
time. Again, since our emphasis is on methods, it is
important to point out the need to establish the question of
lobster mobility. If lobster resembles Ivan Illich's
traditional Mexican peasant (who reputedly never ventured
more than seven miles from where he or she was born) then we
have a study. If not then the human influence on lobster
ecology as a consequence of berths has no greater impact
other than their means of political defense and differing
economic return. If berths can represent different ecologies
based upon some diversity fishing practice then we move
towards a science that is informed by traditional
practice.
Now supposing this social construct
of the berth which operates outside DFO has some explanatory
value how do we explain its presence in one area, it erosion
in other places, and its absence in most places. If culture
is the answer then we raise more questions about the
influences of culture in the predation of lobsters. To
illustrate the problematic involved in this I should like to
address several scenarios presented by my aged informants.
All of these illustrate points where science, social science
and common sense come together.
The three scenarios are: 1) the
demise of the wooden trap; 2) the rise of drug store
fishermen, 3) and invention of the drop trap for catching
mother lode lobsters. These three points can be related and
in the interviews the narratives suggest that the
relationship is an ominous one for the future of the
fishery. In this methodological exercise my concern is with
the implications of their narrative. Let us take each
point.
- For the first one
hundred years all traps were wooden and made at home by
the fishermen from locally produced materials. Interviews
indicate that it took one day's work to produce the
equivalent of a single trap. They were valued since the
work involved trips to the tree lot for different types
of wood, to the shore for flat stones, in the outhouse
making hoops, "fixing" old tires for the hinges and bait
pin, and many hours in the kitchen knitting the ends
("headings'), entries and "parlours". The replacement
wire traps are purchased from a dealer for about
$40.
- In school a child with a
permissive note is not one in charge of their own
destiny. Their fate is negotiated by adults. In the same
way, a sick lay person in a drug store with a script is
subject to the doctor's intentions. Drug store fishermen
have technological scripts like GPS, Sonar and VHF which
tell them how to fish with new boats and wire traps.
Older fishermen built their traps, learned their
navigational and fishing skills along with other
mechanical skills to adapt and repair their boat engines
and effect boat maintenance. (jack of all trades). In
Harry Braverman's terms fishing is becoming more
sophisticated which also means it is becoming capital
intensive and some would say "dumbed-down".
- Most early fishing was done
"off the person's land" in strings of a few dozen traps
on a line and then since the war on slugs of four to six
on a line. This reflected:
- the practice of
"locality" or the tendency to fish the shore,
- the size and speed of the
early boats
- the presence and type of
trap hauler
Today the fishery (mostly the
younger fishers) is moving toward a single trap "drop"
fishery. In particular, drop traps are frequently
shifted, are specific to fishing "holes" and in the
latter part of the season equipped with large hoops and
moved very close to shore in the dying days of the season
to catch the very large females.
There is no single narrative that
specifically brings all this together. What is explicit in
all stories is the recognition that it is not good to go
after the very large mother lobsters (the "mother lode").
This is an intuition or common sense notion. It is not
backed up by science or management and it is not shared by
all fishing since obviously some go out specifically to
catch these lobsters. They do this by fishing "holes" in the
early season (so easy to find with sonar and then relocate
with GPS) and they then move gear in as close as possible to
shore during the last week of the season. Under these
conditions the experience has been that those who fish this
way end up with a larger number of large female lobsters
than those who do not. There are several questions for
science here. Do the large lobsters "hide" in deep holes, do
they move close to shore. Is hoop size important when
fishing late season as opposed to early season (large hoops
in the first few weeks would be a counter productive
strategy for keeping canners).
What is suggested in this narrative
is two things. First, there is a understanding of lobster
behaviour and second, there is a concern for specific
practices which use this understanding for catching
particular types of lobster. GPS and sonar make it possible
to effectively fish "holes" through drop traps. Fishing
close to shore invites significant gear damage but this is
minimized by accurate forecasting and most importantly the
loss of gear is psychologically a far more acceptable
risk when one does not have to replace each trap with a
day's work.7
Finally, no one under seventy remembers the reputed "law"
which forbade fishermen from fishing in too shallow water.
Was this a local law respecting large females? If shared
within a group did it have the effect of reducing effort on
large females? This "mother lode" concept is beginning to
sound as if the "buzz" has been around for years.
The argument is often made that
when capital requirements exceed catch capacity fishermen
become more demanding of themselves and the stock. They take
chances, and pressure the stock. This can be exacerbated
when fishermen are not certain what the specific
consequences of their actions might be. The dominance of
science as the final authority in the fishery has had one
important side affect. Local knowledge or intuition need not
be taken seriously. In District 7 almost all the recent
attention is directed at increasing carapace size and this
is entirely a DFO driven venture. The wisdom that there is a
motherlode hidden deep in protected holes is not on the
agenda. It is something that men over seventy talk about,
people who inherited a depleted stock fifty years past
&endash; a stock that appears to be surviving.
There, I've shown my hand for the
last time. I'm with the old guys. I know their knowledge is
imperfect and their tale is cautionary but they are less
likely to be inspired to look for silver bullet solutions.
NOTES
1. This paper is a draft
position. There are no further notes nor references since it
is intended to provoke discussion and not demonstrate
academic prowess. The first three pages contain the
background fluff needed to interpret the strategy proposed
herein. That strategy is to use certain aspects of local
knowledge in the lobster fishery to question a range of
conservation managerial
possibilities.
2. I lied. If this were a
regular paper I would cite the MacLean Royal Commission of
1928 where the map came from and actually use the correct
title rather than the name most people have used in making
reference to this investigation.
3. There are pretensions
within social science that assume that human behaviour is
made constant by assuming self interest as a sole motivator
(some forms of economics), or combinations of chemical based
psychological and biological forces (social biology and some
forms of psychology) but I should like to distance myself
from these ideologies. The reductionism associated with
these pursuits suspends both common sense and empirical
observation.
4. For instance, some
scientists think that since quantification is the best
method of handling empirical data then knowledge can be
limited to those things which can be counted and nothing
else. This might be better than imposing numbers on a
reality which is supranumerial, e.g.,
intelligence.
5. It matters not if they be
real or apparent in their power to affect
behaviour.
6. It so happens that that
particular truth is part of revealed knowledge (old
testament). This is ironic but since it is also based upon
experience it could be also considered common sensical and
under the right empirical conditions could be argued to be a
scientific "fact".
7. Psychologically. Wow, now
put that into a time series frame. I know that if my
computer crashed every few months I would use only floppies
and perhaps -- no more footnotes. Too hard to
recover.
|