Month: July 2025

To Serve or Not to Serve

Does serving wild-caught seafood on Oregon State University’s campus align with their sustainability values and should they start? When seeking an answer to this question it can be very easy to suggest that it should not be served as there are worries about overfishing and the damage it may cause to the environment. I believe that OSU should serve wild-caught seafood under specific conditions that will help monitor sustainability.

How to Serve

Overfishing is when too many fish or a stock are caught, leaving short the number of adult fish need to sustain healthy populations. The MSC international (2025) reports that this year’s report estimates nearly 36% of fish stock are fished unsustainably.

Image 1: Fishery stocks from 2021 showing the sustainable and unsustainable percentage status, Sharma et al. (2025).

If managed properly, serving wild-caught seafood would not only benefit students but would look to help create sustainability amongst fishers. According to Giron-Nava et al. (2021), even if fisheries achieved Maximum Sustainable Yield most fishers would make less than the minimum living wages. It is important to maintain sustainability amongst fish, but those who fish for our food also need to be looked at in this light.  OSU can help by sourcing fisheries that support their fishers while also meeting sustainability standards. It is said that in regions where fisheries are exceptionally managed, stock abundance is improving Hilborn et al. (2020). Oremus et al. explains that a report from 2014 showed 77% of the fish stock was underfished or under-utilized. Oregon state can do its part by looking at which underfished stock and determining which stock could be utilized and served at their dining halls. The sustainable serving of seafood at OSU would also bring awareness to the fact of how important seafood is to global food security. Stated by Stetkiewicz et al. (2022), an estimated 60 million people are dependent fisheries and aquaculture for food and nutrition. Seafood is important for low-income regions of the world, and while Corvallis is not a low-income region, they can still stand to be an example for providing sustainable seafood to their community.

Served

The idea of serving wild-caught seafood in Oregon State University’s dining halls is not only possible but would be a great opportunity to show others responsible consumption. OSU can take specific measures to ensure they serve sustainable fish, sourced from sustainable fisheries, to serve an eco-friendly community.

References:

Giron‐Nava, A., Lam, V. W., Aburto‐Oropeza, O., Cheung, W. W., Halpern, B. S., Sumaila, U. R., and Cisneros‐Montemayor, A. M. (2021). “Sustainable fisheries are essential but not enough to ensure well‐being for the world’s fishers.” Fish and Fisheries, 22(4), 812–821.

Hilborn, R., Amoroso, R. O., Anderson, C. M., Baum, J. K., Branch, T. A., Costello, C., de Moor, C. L., Faraj, A., Hively, D., Jensen, O. P., Kurota, H., Little, L. R., Mace, P., McClanahan, T., Melnychuk, M. C., Minto, C., Osio, G. C., Parma, A. M., Pons, M., Segurado, S., Szuwalski, C. S., Wilson, J. R., and Ye, Y. (2020). “Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(4), 2218–2224.

Oremus, K. L., Frank, E. G., Adelman, J. J., Cruz, S., Herndon, J., Sewell, B., and Suatoni, L. (2023). “Underfished or unwanted?” Science, 380(6645), 585–588.

Sharma, R., Barange, M., Agostini, V., Barros, P., Gutierrez, N.L., Vasconcellos, M., Fernandez Reguera, D., Tiffay, C., & Levontin, P.,
eds. 2025. Review of the state of world marine fishery resources – 2025. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 721.
Rome. FAO.

Stetkiewicz, S., Norman, R. A., Allison, E. H., Andrew, N. L., Ara, G., Banner-Stevens, G., Belton, B., Beveridge, M., Bogard, J. R., Bush, S. R., Coffee, P., Crumlish, M., Edwards, P., Eltholth, M., Falconer, L., Ferreira, J. G., Garrett, A., Gatward, I., Islam, F. U., Kaminski, A. M., Kjellevold, M., Kruijssen, F., Leschen, W., Mamun, A.-A., McAdam, B., Newton, R., Krogh-Poulsen, B., Pounds, A., Richardson, B., Roos, N., Röös, E., Schapper, A., Spence-McConnell, T., Suri, S. K., Thilsted, S. H., Thompson, K. D., Tlusty, M. F., Troell, M. F., Vignola, R., Young, J. A., Zhang, W., and Little, D. C. (2022). “Seafood in food security: A call for bridging the terrestrial-aquatic divide.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5.

“What is overfishing.” (n.d.). MSC International, <https://www.msc.org/what-we-are-doing/oceans-at-risk/overfishing> (Jul. 20, 2025).

To: Grant County Council

From: Chief of Watershed Restoration

Re: 150 Million Dollar Salmon Restoration Offer

Adress

Dear Council,

I, Chief of Watershed Restoration, reach out to you today to offer my personal recommendation of the proposed offer of $150 million to restore the salmon population. Although this offer comes with a catch, I believe we should accept this offer as it is more than just a large amount of money, it is an opportunity to reverse ecological decline, bring forth hope to restoration communities, while also helping our economy.

Key Reasons

By accepting this money, Watershed can begin the task of bringing back an ecological that is currently in decline. Compton et al. (2006) speaks on how the reduced inputs or organic matter and nutrients need by salmon has limited freshwater production in the Pacific Northwest for generation to come. By applying a priority threat management framework, much like Chalifour et al. (2022), we can identify strategies that may not have been within our budgets prior to this offer while also reducing risks. Another way to help mitigate risk would be implementing panel regression models and assess the return on quarterly investment much like Jaeger (2023). Not only does this offer help the decline of salmon population in Grant County, but it will help to bring forth a thriving economy while doing so. Restoration investments have proven to have localized benefits which have helped to employ local labor and materials according to BenDor et al. (2014). A restoration plan that would help bring local jobs to the county not only brings forth money driven incentives but also gives residents incentives to support the community they love and live in. When successfully completed this project would then in turn help to bring awareness and hope to the restoration community.

Ecological Impacts

According to Timothy et al. (2023), studies have shown that mechanisms such as improving habitat capacity and productivity may improve salmon resilience. The acceptance of this offer can help this county restore spawning ground, improve water quality and biodiversity, and much more.

Conclusion

I leave the council with this; this offer may be a once and a lifetime kind of offer that is bigger than imaginable. If we act appropriately, we can end up not only restoring the salmon community, but restoring pride, resilience, and help the economy of Grant County.

Best Regards,

Anthony Barkley

References:

Beechie, T. J., Fogel, C., Nicol, C., Jorgensen, J., Timpane‐Padgham, B., and Kiffney, P. (2023). “How does habitat restoration influence resilience of salmon populations to climate change?” Ecosphere, 14(2).

BenDor, T. K., Lester, T. W., and Livengood, A. (2014). Exploring and understanding the restoration economy, <https://www.endangered.org/assets/uploads/2020/06/BenDor-and-Lester-Exploring-and-Understanding-the-Restoration-Economy.pdf> (Jul. 14, 2025).

Chalifour, L., Holt, C., Camaclang, A. E., Bradford, M. J., Dixon, R., Finn, R. J., Hemming, V., Hinch, S. G., Levings, C. D., MacDuffee, M., Nishimura, D. J., Pearson, M., Reynolds, J. D., Scott, D. C., Spremberg, U., Stark, S., Stevens, J., Baum, J. K., and Martin, T. G. (2022). “Identifying a pathway towards recovery for depleted Wild Pacific salmon populations in a large watershed under multiple stressors.” Journal of Applied Ecology, 59(9), 2212–2226.

Compton, J. E., Andersen, C. P., Phillips, D. L., Brooks, J. R., Johnson, M. G., Church, M. R., Hogsett, W. E., Cairns, M. A., Rygiewicz, P. T., McComb, B. C., and Shaff, C. D. (2006). “Ecological and water quality consequences of nutrient addition for salmon restoration in the Pacific Northwest.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(1), 18–26.

Jaeger, W. K., and Scheuerell, M. D. (2023). “Return(s) on investment: Restoration spending in the Columbia River basin and increased abundance of salmon and steelhead.” PLOS ONE, 18(7).

Introduction: Advocacy Both In and Out of the High Seas

The high seas are home to hundreds of thousands of different species that can be found 200 nautical miles off the shore. By looking at different mediums of science-based articles and videos, we can begin to look at the effects of science advocacy. It is important for those who look to create scientific change within this world to communicate findings effectively.

Discussion

Sala’s Scientific Ted Talk

Sala’s Ted Talk on turning the high seas into the world’s largest nature reserve is a perfect example of good communication in the field of science. He compiles scientific data, using imagery and comparison to advocate for economic and ecological change. With reference to both Sala’s Ted Talk and his paper “The economics of fishing in the high seas, Sala’s does a good job in constituting normative science (science advocacy this is free of policy bias) as described by Lackey. Although Sala may bring up policy within his findings, he does not push the audience towards specific policies, instead giving them information from his findings to make their own considerations.

Advocacy and Objectivity

Presented by Scott et al. (2007) scientists have found it tough as through the presentation of science they risk either being labeled as policy advocates or they are seen as failing to contribute. Cardou and Vellend (2023) identify how scientists can end up presenting information and data in a way that leads to unintentional stealth advocacy. Stealth advocacy is when scientists vocalize objective science findings but, in reality, are pushing biased policy promotion. In an article titled “Inadvertent Advocacy”, Wilhere (2012) describes ways scientists inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. One being a scientist expresses what they believe to be a scientific judgment but is truly an ethical judgement or personal policy preference. I do believe that objective researchers can be science advocates so long as they do their best to express themselves free of bias or vocalize their bias to their audience. My recommendations for oceans, coasts, and people have very little consequence when it comes to the scientific field and my field of expertise revolves around science and engineering in construction.

Conclusion: Bias or Not

To continue protecting our oceans, coasts, and the people around them, scientists must embrace science advocacy. Scientists should continue to share and educate others on their findings as objectively as possible, and if unable to do some objectively, then focus on being open to what it is they are advocating for.

References

Cardou, F., and Vellend, M. (2023). “Stealth advocacy in ecology and Conservation Biology.” Biological Conservation, 280, 109968.

Lackey, R., and Lackey, R. (2022). “Darwin was right: A scientist needs a heart of stone.” Robert T. Lackey, <https://blogs.oregonstate.edu/lackey/2020/03/23/darwin-was-right-a-scientist-needs-a-heart-of-stone/> (Jul. 13, 2025).

Sala, E., Mayoraga, J., Costello, C., Kroodsma, D., Palomares, M. L. D., Pauly, D., Sumaila, U. R., and Zeller, D. (2018). The economics of fishing the high seas | science advances, <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aat2504> (Jul. 14, 2025).

Sala, E. (n.d.). “Let’s turn the high seas into the world’s largest nature reserve.” TED, <https://www.ted.com/talks/enric_sala_let_s_turn_the_high_seas_into_the_world_s_largest_nature_reserve> (Jul. 13, 2025).

SCOTT, J. M., RACHLOW, J. L., LACKEY, R. T., PIDGORNA, A. B., AYCRIGG, J. L., FELDMAN, G. R., SVANCARA, L. K., RUPP, D. A., STANISH, D. I., and STEINHORST, R. K. (2007). “Policy advocacy in science: Prevalence, Perspectives, and implications for conservation biologists.” Conservation Biology, 21(1), 29–35.

WILHERE, G. F. (2012). “Inadvertent advocacy.” Conservation Biology, 26(1), 39–46.