Next time you’re told that a certain species is destructive and should be eliminated, please think about the big picture and understand who’s the real threat to the planet. To help in a big way, the answer is not killing more animals, but the opposite. Go vegan, today, please.
Nine Fish with One Eye Each -
©
2010 Sue Coe, Graphic Witness
PBS NewsHour is a TV program I rarely miss. I consider their reporting
reliable and non-sensational. However, recently they’ve reported obsessively
about the Asian carp as an “invasive” species in the Great Lakes, and
suggested that eating the fish is a good solution. A few friends asked for
my opinion on the topic. Should we eat carp to help save the Great Lakes?
Here’s a spoiler alert: no.
Let me tell you from the get-go, this blog post isn’t about Asian carp. It’s
about any species that the government and media tell us is invasive and
harmful to the environment. And, oh yes, the animals should be killed and we
ought to feel good about using them for food, fur, and whatnot.
The carp is a fish, and fishes, like birds and mammals, are sentient. Fish
can feel and think, they have self awareness and like to be petted. And yet
we treat them as if they were inanimate objects. Each year humans kill an
estimated 0.97-2.74 trillion fish. They die a painful and lengthy death by
asphyxiation and/or live gutting. The purpose of this large scale carnage is
one, satisfying human taste buds. If you think that eating fish in a
restaurant in Italy sounds romantic, read The Guardian article titled:
“’Horrific’ footage reveals fish suffocating to death on industrial farms in
Italy”.
Killing and causing suffering to sentient beings have moral implications. I
view fish and all nonhuman animals as equal in their right to live. They’re
entitled to be free from cruelty, exploitation and manipulation. Hence, I
don’t eat them, not even when the media and federal agencies promote the
notion that they’re destructive to the environment.
Interestingly enough, in its reports, PBS did not explain how the Asian carp
arrived to the Great Lakes in the first place. Nor did the reports dive deep
into what makes the fish “invasive”, and a “menace”. And, why governmental
agencies, which nowadays aren’t known to support environmental causes, are
spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this issue.
To answer some of the above questions I did some research. Like many other
“invasive” animals, a few carp species were imported to the U.S. They were
introduced to catfish fisheries in the South to clear the weeds and
parasites so catfish were healthier and “tastier”. From there, they escaped
and through rivers and manmade tunnels, entered the Great Lakes.
What makes the carp a problem? One issue according to PBS is that the fish
“are infamous for their wild jumping when startled by loud sounds, making
boating in infested waters dangerous.” (I can’t help but intervene here and
say how inappropriate it is to use the words “infamous” and “infested” when
referring to sentient creatures who want to live). According to the
University of Minnesota website: “While searching for food, carp burrow into
lake sediments and in the process they uproot aquatic vegetation, increasing
water turbidity and releasing large quantities of sediment-bound nutrients.“
And the impact is, according to the same website: “This disruption affects
native fish and waterfowl and could result in diminished recreational and
commercial fishing opportunities in the region.” Notice the word
“opportunities”.
In the Great Lakes, recreational boating is a $16 billion a year industry
and recreational and commercial fishing is $7 billion. The federal
government and states don’t use hundreds of millions of dollars to protect
plants and wildlife that may be harmed by the carp’s eating habits. They
spend that kind of money when there is a financial impact to commerce.
Ironically, the two industries that blame fish for upsetting the Great Lakes
ecosystem, use high speed fossil fuel powered boats which cause major damage
to the aquatic environment. They disturb fish and other wildlife, generate
water pollution and turbidity, destroy aquatic plants, cause shoreline
erosion which lowers water quality, and literally cut some animals to
shreds.
Marketing consumption of fish as a solution to preserve ecosystems is adding
insult to injury. Humans are fishing the oceans and lakes to extinction,
killing not only fish, but other marine animals as well. Hundreds of sea
lions are killed legally, and illegally. Sea birds such as gulls and
cormorants aren’t spared either. All in the name of “protecting” fish so
people can catch and eat them. And that’s not all, each year hundreds of
thousands of dolphins, whales, seals, sea turtles and other animals,
referred to as bycatch, are caught and killed in fishing gear. Humans
interfering with nature, eradicating trillions of sentient and intelligent
beings, and damaging marine habitats, while calling other animals
destructive and invasive, is a pathetic joke.
The Asian carp is only one example of changing ecosystems by importing
non-native species for humans’ benefit. Nutrias were imported to the U.S. in
the late 19th century for their fur. They were bred and caged in farms, and
when the fur industry collapsed, they were released into the wild. They’ve
been deemed “invasive” ever since and the public was encouraged to kill
them. The fashion industry with the help of the media tried to convince us
that, as the New York Times (NYT) phrased it, it’s “socially acceptable and
environmentally friendly” to wear their fur. I find it fascinating that the
NYT, fashion designers and hunters, support a common cause – ending the
lives of sentient beings for money.
On my recent few visits to Israel I noticed a new beautiful emerald colored
bird. There seemed to be more and more of them every year. Those, I’ve
learned, are called rose-ringed parakeets. They were captured in the wild
and imported to Europe and Israel to be used as caged birds mostly in
people’s homes. Some escaped or were released and have been multiplying ever
since, and are considered an economic problem because they eat crops.
All non-native animals who’re thought of as a threat to wildlife were
removed from their native habitats, for pleasure and profit. When
circumstances changed and their usefulness had ended, they’ve become a
problem for humans and sometimes to other living beings. However, those
non-native animals are blameless, after all they did not chose to be
snatched from their families and societies and move into a new surrounding
to become fur, food or entertainment. In their new habitat they do what they
know best, live.
Let’s not forget that we’ve wiped out more animals and plants than any other
nonhuman animal. Humanity represents 0.01% of all living beings, yet it has
caused the loss of 83% of all wild mammals, 15% of all fish and half of
plants. The invasiveness and aggressiveness of any other species are
minuscule in contrast with those of humanity. The harm that any nonhuman
animal may cause to their environment is dwarfed in comparison to ours.
The greatest threat to biodiversity is habitat loss, caused by humans. Much
of the damage to our planet is brought on by animal agriculture. It is the
leading cause of biodiversity loss, deforestation, water shortage and land
pollution, and it uses more than 70% of agricultural land. Raising animals
(“humane”, “free-range”, “grass fed”, or not) for meat, eggs and milk is a
major source of emissions, greater than all transportation combined. On the
other hand, eating a vegan diet is the “single biggest way” to reduce your
environmental impact on earth, according to a recent study published in the
journal Science.
Next time you’re told that a certain species is destructive and should be
eliminated, please think about the big picture and understand who’s the real
threat to the planet. To help in a big way, the answer is not killing more
animals, but the opposite. Go vegan, today, please!
Return to Environmental Articles
Read more at Fishes