When Bad Science Understanding Happens To Good People

When environmental problems strike, a natural response is to point to the cause. Sometimes that's easy. But more often, it's a complex process to identify causal relationships. In marine ecosystems, it's often incredibly complicated. In part because it's an open system with many inputs. But it's also because we still don't fully understand how marine ecosystems operate. An example of how our lack of understanding is rubbing up against our human desire to cast blame is playing out right now in Hawaii regarding the ornamental fish collection business.

Reef fish collection for the aquarium trade is big business in Hawaii. I've written about it a few times. But the latest round of public input focusing on this issue has raised some concerns over how scientific data is interpreted and used to "support" a cause. On one side is the State of Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources who have attempted to better manage targeted ornamental reef species through the use of no-take protected areas called fish replenishment areas (or FRAs). The idea being that fish stocks protected within FRA's are able to recover and both adults and juveniles spillover and replenish stocks in non-protected areas.

"But wait," cry some concerned Hawaii residents, that's not happening. Populations of commonly collected ornamental fish such as butterfly fish and some wrasse species are not recovering. Fewer fish are being observed on reefs. And over-collection of grazing species is leading to uncontrolled growth of algae on reefs that can smother healthy coral colonies. Their conclusion? FRA's don't work and ornamental fish collectors are to blame. Their solution? The State of Hawaii needs to ban fish collection or heavily regulate it.

Now let me say right up front that I'm ALL FOR increased regulation around ornamental reef fish collection in Hawaii. But I'm reading the same scientific reports by the State of Hawaii and the rationale being used by local reef fish defenders and I'm coming to a rather different interpretation of the data that leads me to this position.

I certainly agree that some butterfly fish and wrasse species are declining on Hawaiian reefs. But this is a trend almost across the board for both ornamentally collected as well as non-aquarium trade targeted reef fish species. In fact, according to a report released this week, 75 percent of reef fishes are depleted or in critical condition around the main Hawaiian Islands. And while I attended the International Coral Reef Symposium in Florida last week, NOAA released "The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008," which outlined that the nation’s coral reef ecosystems, particularly those adjacent to populated areas, continue to face intense human-derived threats from coastal development, fishing, sedimentation and recreational use. Even the most remote reefs are subject to threats such as marine debris, illegal fishing and climate-related effects of coral bleaching, disease and ocean acidification.

So to single-out the ornamental fish trade alone is disingenuous. In addition, Hawaii reef fish defenders are using selective quote mining from state scientists and officials to bolster their argument.

Let's take a look at the logical problems first. The argument being used to blame the ornamental collectors has an embedded fallacy of reason called Affirming the Consequent. It goes something like this:

If P, then Q;
Q
Therefore, P

Put another way:

If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat;
I have a sore throat;
Therefore, I have the flu.

The logical connections get at the causal relationship. Not all sore throats are caused by the flu. In the same way, not all fish declines in Hawaii are caused by ornamental collectors alone.

The second point about quote mining simply undermines the credibility of the reef fish defenders. Take for example this quote lifted from a report by State of Hawaii scientist Dr. Bill Walsh on the reef defender's website:

“One major challenge in this debate has been gathering sound data on an ecosystem as complex as the reef and an industry as broad-ranging as aquarium collecting. To adequately document the impact of all of these [100] species and their interactions with other members of the reef community, [Bill] Walsh says, would ‘take generations’."

The rhetorical effect of this out-of-context quote is that a State scientist appears to confirm that science is either lacking or cannot provide guidance in a timely manner. But this just isn't the case.

I know Dr. Bill and have interacted with him on a few occasions with our Kailua-Kona projects. His analysis shows a somewhat more complex ecosystem reality. For the top five aquarium species collected in Kona, representing greater than 90% of all collected fishes, three of them have increased pretty dramatically (22%-44%) along the entire coast since the inception of FRA's. The two that didn’t increase are species targeted not only by aquarium collectors but also food fishers. So these fish get pinched from two directions.

He has also indicated that even species which nobody is collecting undergo population changes for reasons we don’t quite understand. Of 50 different species which are in the non-food/non-aquarium collection category, 28 declined and 22 increased. The bottom line seems to be there are variable patterns of abundance in fish population that can occur apart from human influences. Resource managers typically don’t know the cause, but in a healthy ecosystem these changes tend to be relatively minor and likely reverse themselves over time; given, of course, that habitat and water quality don’t degrade.

For dramatic effect, I'll reiterate: Provided HABITAT and WATER QUALITY don't degrade.

So to conclude that regulation is needed because FRA's don't work is not recognizing other reasons for decline and cherry picking the scientific data to suit your agenda. And what agenda might that be? To distance one's own contributions to the problem. Coastal reefs are taking a battering from a variety of local sources. Coastal development and sedimentation, water quality degradation, agricultural inputs to coastal water, unsustainable marine tourism practices, and coastal fishing and collection. We need to be honest with ourselves that coral reef decline is suffering a death by a thousand cuts and we (all of us) are to blame. It's by no means too late to stem this decline. But it will take some tough self-realization of ALL our contributions to reverse this.

It certainly is not helping to constantly look to "the other" for the blame.