Part IV (B): The Economy of the Abalone Fishery

Hello again!

Hello, science enthusiasts! Hello, animal lovers! Hello, conservationists! Here's part two of your fifth stream of bubbles containing interesting information from this little corner of the California coastline. I'm Shelby, and I'm here to offer some insight on the health and function of some of the most important features of Northern California's coastal ecosystems.

This next part of our abalone history lesson is about the role abalone has played in California's economy. Another dry topic, I know. Maybe hearing about how much money this fishery has pulled in can persuade some of the more anthro-centric readers to care a bit more about having these guys around. This will mostly be formatted, once again, in an abridged timeline for the two aspects of the whole fishery. 

A quick side note, and I will admit I only just found this out: the only part of the abalone that we eat is something called the adductor muscle. It's the tough, circular bunch of tissue that attaches the abalone's shell to the rest of its body. Because its so tough, it takes a lot of prep to make it tender enough to eat.

You see that pale circle marked "muscle attachment"? That is the only part of the animal we can eat! Source: https://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/06future/abintro.htm

I. Commercial Abalone Fishery

• Early 1900s: The commercial industry focuses on selling abalone as either a dried or canned product (after first being boiled). Dried abalone meat sells at about twenty cents a pound, and the shells sell for four dollars a ton.

Hard to believe the shells sold more than the meat, right? Eh, not really. Source: http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt5199n7c0&chunk.id=d0e1694&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text

• 1957: The commercial abalone fishery peaks at a harvest of twenty-five hundred (2,500) tons.
• 1957 to 1969: Two-thousand tons of abalone are harvested every year, and both abalone abundance and successful commercial landings start decreasing after 1969.
• 1992: 260 tons in successful commercial landings
• 1993: 230 tons in successful commercial landings, valued at $3,154,147. This would have been worth $3,601,141 in 2000.
• 1994: 140 tons in successful commercial landings.
• 1995: 118 tons brought in by the commercial fishery, valued at $2,515,467. This would have been worth $2,792,070 in 2000. 73% of this value came from fisheries in Southern California, while 17% came from Central California.

It just kept going down the longer we used it. Source: http://www.reefcheck.org/reef-news/an-in-depth-look-at-abalone-part-ii-a-brief-history-on-abalone-fisheries-and-regulations

While the commercial abalone fishery brought in a large amount of money to the economy, the supply has always been outweighed by the demand. Products made from abalone have always been billed as high-end materials, giving it a pretty substantial place in international markets. At its peak, it was up to a 4 million dollar industry. The commercial fishery had to be permanently closed because the populations of these animals could not handle the incessant large-scale harvesting.

II. Recreational Abalone Fishery

Since the late 80s, recreational abalone fishing efforts have been concentrated in Sonoma and Medocino counties, since these are where red abalone tend to occur in the densest numbers—red abalone are now the only species people can fish for anymore, since the commercial industry and disease nearly wiped out the other four edible species. Fishing in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties make up 96% of the annual recreational fishery efforts, up from 76% in 1989. However, residents of Sonoma and Mendocino only make up 22% of the total fishing trips made for both counties. The remaining 78% is made up of people coming into the areas from outside the local communities. This helps drive up revenue for the local economies.

Here's a breakdown of where recreational abalone fishing takes place. Source: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/marine/red-abalone-fmp/survey

Counting travel, food, lodging, and equipment costs, the average rate for a recreational abalone trip goes for about $49 a trip. Since these two counties saw a combined number of 201,614 diving trips in 2000, the recreational fishery has been estimated to bring in about $9,879,086 annually. Factoring in re-spending by businesses that cater to the needs of incoming abalone fishers, the total output demand for the local economies ends up at $17,187,633.

Even though you have to hold your breath in order to legally dive for abalone, a lot of people do it. Source: http://www.atlanticbb.net/news/read/category/us/article/the_associated_press-californias_2018_abalone_fishing_canceled_by_offic-ap

So, the commercial industry might have been big, but it didn't bring in the same amount of money as the recreational industry. People are willing to pay a pretty fair amount to go abalone fishing, and towns near where the animals are most found thrive from incoming divers. It's a nearly 18 million dollar industry! Now that the recreational fishery is closed, these local economies are missing a chunk of their annual revenue. Northern California's beaches aren't exactly known for their sun; unless you like rocks, cold, murky water, and big surf (no complaints here), the best local businesses can hope for from outside income is from fishermen who are willing to travel. Without the abalone fishery, things slow down. 

People like abalone fishing so much, Fort Bragg even has a festival celebrating it. Source: https://northcoastca.com/blog/mendocino-county-culinary-events/

Next week, I'll pour in a bit more of my feelings into this subject; let you know how I personally feel about the changes that have affected this very Californian fishery.

Stay curious.

Take it "ease-sea"! Oh, that was bad.

Article Source: Abalone Recovery and Management Plan, Chapter 3: History and Socio-economics of the Fishery (pdf)

Picture Sources: https://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/06future/abintro.htm

http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt5199n7c0&chunk.id=d0e1694&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text

http://www.reefcheck.org/reef-news/an-in-depth-look-at-abalone-part-ii-a-brief-history-on-abalone-fisheries-and-regulations

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/marine/red-abalone-fmp/survey

 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/marine/red-abalone-fmp/survey

 http://www.atlanticbb.net/news/read/category/us/article/the_associated_press-californias_2018_abalone_fishing_canceled_by_offic-ap

 https://northcoastca.com/blog/mendocino-county-culinary-events/

Part IV (A): The History of the Abalone Fishery

Hello again! Sorry for the wait!

Hello, science enthusiasts! Hello, animal lovers! Hello, conservationists! Here's part one of your fifth stream of bubbles containing interesting information from this little corner of the California coastline. I'm Shelby, and I'm here to offer some insight on the health and function of some of the most important features of Northern California's coastal ecosystems.

The next topic I want to discuss is a bit of a doozy; in order to bring things into perspective, I'd like to talk about how abalone fit into our ecosystem. I've already gone into how they fit into theirs; now it's important to explain their importance to us, and how we've interacted with them throughout history. Personally, I care about abalone because I think they're cool, and because they're living creatures. But, not everyone feels that way. Sometimes it takes a more selfish approach to convince people to care about something. So, maybe if I can communicate how society has benefited from—and unfortunately mistreated—the abalone fishery, it will motivate some people to care more about something they might have not before.

Looks tasty, right? You'd never know you were eating the foot of a sea snail. Source:https://www.thespruceeats.com/pan-fried-abalone-2217263 

This is kind of a big topic, so I'm going to split it up into three parts. In this first part, I'm going to give you a very, very abridged timeline of the abalone fishery in California. I'm doing it this way because there is a lot of information in this history, and I don't want to straight up cut and paste to fill up a page. This will probably be my driest post, since it's pretty much just straight up facts. I will definitely include sources in case anyone is curious about more details.

Hopefully the pictures will keep you entertained enough to read this history lesson

I. The commercial abalone fishery

• Pre-Colonial California: Many coastal Native American tribes made use of abalone, as both a food source and for their shells (used for decorations and trade). They were limited in their abalone harvesting, most likely having to wait until low tide to take them.
• 1850: Fur hunters have all but decimated the sea otter populations in California, leaving some abalone populations without predators. They then expand their range.
• 1850s: The first commercial abalone fisheries are founded by Chinese Americans.
• 1879: The green and black abalone fisheries reach their landing peak.
• 1900: The first regulations on commercial fisheries are placed
• 1901: The first size limits are placed in the form of a universal minimum of 15 inches in circumference for all abalone harvested.
• 1909: More regulations are put in place, including the need for commercial licenses, gear restrictions, and controlled seasons and areas.
• 1913: The green and black abalone fisheries close. Since these are exclusive to southern California, abalone harvest efforts move north.
• 1916 to 1935: Abalone landings peak at 3.9 million pounds, then decline to 164,000 pounds during the internment of Japanese Americans.
• 1943: The southern Californian fisheries are reopened to help with wartime efforts to stock up on food.
• 1949: The commercial abalone fishery is closed from San Francisco to the Oregon border.
• 1957: A second landing peak is reached at 5.4 million pounds.
• 1969: The fishery starts its rapid decline
• 1996: The commercial fishery sees an all time low of 229,500 pounds in successful landings. This year, the commercial fishery is closed statewide, forever.
• Dates on landing receipts:
  • 1942 to 1951: The fishery sees a dramatic increase in landings
  • 1952 to 1968: The fishery has stable landings
  • 1969 to 1982: The fishery sees a huge drop in successful landings
  • 1983 to 1996: Gradual, steady decline in successful landings

2. 

   Recreational ab divers often use boogie boards or kayaks to carry their bags. Source: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/9058818-181/california-poised-to-extend-abalone

   The recreational abalone fishery 

• 1911: The recreational fishery gets its first regulation in the form of established seasons.
• 1913: A limit of 10 abalone per bag is established
• 1931: The requirement of a recreational license is established for all abalone species.
• 1953: The northern California fishery limits recreational take to breath-hold diving only. This was done in the hope free diving would limit people to the shallows, protecting abalone living in deeper water.
• 1993: The black abalone recreational fishery is closed

• 

  The only one you can eat anymore is on the far right. Source: https://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/06future/abspdiv.htm

  1996: The green, pink, and white abalone recreational fisheries are closed

• 

  This is what you'd have to get if you wanted to fish for abalone. Source: http://spearboard.com/showthread.php?t=75968

  1998: The abalone stamp—a mandatory report card people need to buy and report on when they dive for abalone—is established. This is done to replace the revenue originally brought in by commercial abalone fishing.

• 2005: The Abalone Recovery and Management Plan is adopted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
• 2008: A tagging system is put in place to combat poaching and to monitor populations.
• 2014: A limit of 3 abalone per dive is established, with a yearly limit of 18.
• 2016: The recreational abalone fishery is closed until further notice

Whew! That was a lot of information, I know, but background is important. This context should make it a bit easier to see how we got to where we are with the abalone, besides looking at the “perfect storm” of climate change effects. We've used these animals over, and over, and over again, without much consideration for their health. Kind of goes against the idea of wanting to use a resource, right? But I'll go more into this later.

Next week, I'll go more into the reasons this history happened the way it did, how responsible management was not used, and how that caused the fishery to ultimately fail. I will also go more into the economic contributions abalone made to California while the fisheries were still in place.

Stay curious.

"Tuna" in next week for more!

Sources: http://www.reefcheck.org/reef-news/an-in-depth-look-at-abalone-part-ii-a-brief-history-on-abalone-fisheries-and-regulations

https://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/06future/abhist.htm

Abalone Recovery and Management Plan, Chapter 3: History and Socio-economics of the fishery (pdf download)

Picture Sources: http://spearboard.com/showthread.php?t=75968

https://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/06future/abspdiv.htm

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/9058818-181/california-poised-to-extend-abalone

https://californiaoutdoors.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/how-to-measure-abalone-correctly-to-avoid-a-ticket/

http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt5199n7c0&chunk.id=d0e1694&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text

Part III: The Physiology

Hello again!

Hello, science enthusiasts! Hello, animal lovers! Hello, conservationists! Here's your fourth stream of bubbles containing interesting information from this little corner of the California coastline. I'm Shelby, and I'm here to offer some insight on the health and function of some of the most important features of Northern California's coastal ecosystems.

In the last post I talked about the ecological principles driving the transformation of a kelp forest to an urchin barren. Now, I'd like to focus on the effects these ecological changes have on the physiology of the animals affected, specifically the key players: the purple urchins and the red abalone. Hopefully learning about how these animals are affected will make you a little more compelled to care about them.

The most important thing to remember about these marine invertebrates is that they can, in fact, survive being starved for a pretty long period of time. Its pretty common for scientists to starve invertebrates in the lab for experimental purposes, sometimes for months at a time. Of course, these animals will die if they are starved for too long, but they can definitely last a while. This doesn't mean they aren't under stress during this period; they are, after all, starving. The reason they're able to last so long is that they utilize a physiological process known as energy allocation.

Here's a simple way of looking at energy allocation. Source: https://slideplayer.com/slide/9402406/

Energy allocation is the term for how organisms divide their energy use among their essential bodily demands. The basic energy demands for survival are: maintaining homeostasis (a stable internal environment), growth and repair, movement, and reproduction. These are pretty broad umbrella terms that cover smaller functions and behaviors The amount of energy organisms can devote to meeting these demands depends on the resources available to them—food, water, etc. If there isn't enough food, the organism's metabolism changes to accommodate their metabolic needs. To compensate for the lack of energy coming in to the body, the organism usually has to sacrifice one of their functions to make it easier to cope. That way, what little energy might be coming in can be used for more important functions. The more complex an organism is, the harder it is to compensate for lack of incoming energy. That's why it's dangerous for us to go too long without food or water; too many bodily functions to manage.

Here's a slightly more detailed version of the energy allocation principle. Source: http://www.trunity.net/sam2/view/article/51cbf3867896bb431f6ad368/

Since invertebrates are less complex than vertebrates, they're very capable of coping with the loss of an inessential bodily function. For invertebrates, the first thing to go in starvation conditions is reproduction. Reproduction is considered a luxury by less complex organisms, since its not necessary for the body to function, so it's dropped pretty quickly in starvation conditions. This usually frees up enough energy for the organism to survive...not comfortably but at least efficiently. But the longer they stay in that state, the more functions have to be dropped.

So how does this effect the abalone and the urchins? They share a food source and a habitat, so they make use of the same kind of energy. But there is a distinct difference in their complexities. Purple urchins are echinoderms, making them relatives of sea stars and sea cucumbers. Red abalone are mollusks; they're essentially giant sea snails. They both crawl around on the sea floor and eat whatever smells or tastes right (usually), but their complexities are very different. Urchins are basically spiky balls with guts, tentacles, and a mouth; abalone have a whole body plan and tissues. Because of this, their metabolisms are different.

The left is a healthy urchin; the orange stuff is its intact gonad tissue. That's the stuff uni is made out of. The right is an urchin that's been starving; no gonadal tissue at all. Source: https://research.pbsci.ucsc.edu/eeb/smith/?page_id=234

Urchins are very robust; you can yank one off a rock and detach a ton of its tube feet and it'll be fine. They can harden their tests (shells) and prick up their spines. When an urchin starves, it loses its gonads and can keep functioning pretty much normally. They're not picky eaters; they'll eat whatever they can fit in their mouths: tough coralline algae, sand, rocks, dead stuff, sponges, barnacles. They can pass on this stuff fine. When they finally get their teeth into some appropriate algae, they bounce back really quickly and can grow their gonads back within a few weeks. Therefore, they can still reproduce from time to time despite living in a barren.

Starving urchins can get along pretty well on just a bit of kelp. As soon as they find just enough, they'll eat through it and be fine for a while. 

Abalone, on the other hand, are a lot more delicate. All they have for defense is their shell and the strength of their foot. When something tries to eat them, they hunker down and cling to whatever hard surface they're on. If they're successfully pried off—without care—they can bleed to death very quickly; they're hemophiliacs. They also lose their reproductive functions when starving, but unlike urchins, they also lose muscle mass, just like we would. They grow weak and shriveled, and can't grip the rocky bottom as well as they can when well fed. Abalone don't bounce back nearly as quickly either. During my time at the Bodega Marine Lab, some abalone that had been taken from the wild were kept starved, while others were fed right away, as part of a recovery experiment. When it was time for the starved abalone to be fed again, they weren't able to eat much for a week. Some more abalone someone else at the lab worked on helping some other wild abalone recover. It took them two years to grow their gonads back. 

An abalone needs a lot more kelp than an urchin does. Finding just a bit here and there with long stretches of starvation in between won't be enough to get them out of survival mode. 

This is why the abalone fishery needed to be closed. Not only are they weak from starvation, and therefore don't have enough meat on them, but they're not reproducing either. Fishing for them now would rob the populations of generations they simply can't replace. Meanwhile, any urchins who find a scrap of kelp able to grow seize on it and spawn as soon as they can. The abalone don't stand a chance.

When a red abalone is healthy, their foot covers pretty much the whole underside of the shell. When they starve, they shrivel up. Source: https://cdfwmarine.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/perfect-storm-decimates-kelp/ 

I hope understanding the physical demands these environmental changes have put these animals through can help evoke some sympathy from you, even just a little bit. These are simple animals; urchins don't have brains, abalone's brains are simple. But they still feel stress. They don't feel emotions the same way we do, but the difference being stressed verses being comfortably functioning makes a world of difference for their quality of life. The fact that they're alive and suffering should be enough, right?

Next week, I'll talk about the history and current conditions of the fisheries these animals provide, so you can get a better idea of their importance to us. If their well being as animals doesn't impact you, maybe their place in our economy will.

Stay curious.

Sources: https://slideplayer.com/slide/9402406/

 http://www.trunity.net/sam2/view/article/51cbf3867896bb431f6ad368/

 https://research.pbsci.ucsc.edu/eeb/smith/?page_id=234

 https://cdfwmarine.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/perfect-storm-decimates-kelp/