Mainly a weed, Mainely a fish?
June 4, 2018 4:29 AM   Subscribe

A peculiar conflict in Maine over whether rockweed is more like a plant (and therefore belonging to those who own the foreshore) or more like a fish or oyster (and therefore harvestable as a common public resource).
posted by Dim Siawns (24 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite
 
Super interesting. Thanks for posting. I'm wondering if the Court will say, since it is algae, it's not being fished or fowled, so it doesn't fall under the exception.
posted by Shebear at 5:25 AM on June 4, 2018 [1 favorite]


The Rockweed Coalition enrolled more than 500 properties in its “no-cut rockweed registry,” a list of parcels owned by people who disapproved of the harvest, though they had no legal power to stop it
Rich people's sense of entitlement is just astounding.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:31 AM on June 4, 2018 [5 favorites]


When I first moved to New England I was horrified that anyone would dare pretend that they have the right to own the beach. In many states (including where I grew up), the beach and access to the sea is a common right for every person for any purpose, not only limited to economic activity but including leisure and sport, as close as we get to Sweden's allemansrätten. One of the common law's many, many defects is its ability to perceive ecological or range rights as "property" rights only. No one "owns" wild-growing seaweed, the idea is ridiculous, and equally ridiculous is the notion that just because something grows wild, the only conceivable importance one could attach to it is the right of economic exploitation. Gross.
posted by 1adam12 at 5:40 AM on June 4, 2018 [10 favorites]


What a great piece. Also, a great introduction to Hakai Magazine, which looks terrific.

Rich people's sense of entitlement is just astounding.

Having lived in Maine, I see no reason to think that this would be an initiative that only rich people care about. In Maine, even owning land is not a sure indication that you are well off. Certainly there are serious class issues here, as there are a few places harder to make a living in than the vast stretches of non-touristed coastal Maine and the value of a working waterfront is deeply held, but I suspect that not all people who want to conserve rockweed are "rich" by any meaningful definition of the word. One of the problems of the commons is the devastation caused by the desperate need to make a living and exploit any resource to near extinction, shifting other ecosystems as well. A lot of people care about that.
posted by Miko at 5:42 AM on June 4, 2018 [21 favorites]


I came into this expecting to side with the harvesters, but it quickly became apparent to me that an unregulated commercial rockweed boom would utterly destroy the base of the intertidal food chain and literally uproot entire ecosystems. It's easy to get, it's conducive to being harvested en masse, and existing regulations are lax and difficult to enforce. That is a recipe for ecological disaster. Also, rockweed is not a fish.

That said, using property law to handle this is insane. I guess when the only tool you have is capitalism everything looks like private property, but leaving sustainable harvesting up to individual property owners is a fool's gambit. The proper solution here would be to increase regulation by setting aside marine intertidal reserves, limiting licensure and catch sizes (I'd prefer to see lots of licenses but small catch limits, to create an industry focused on supplemental income for individual operators, rather than big industrial-scale concerns) and upping enforcement.

It should be managed as a natural resource and a public good. Neither of the current proposals seem like they would accomplish that.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:48 AM on June 4, 2018 [13 favorites]


I see no reason to think that this would be an initiative that only rich people care about.

Miko has (as always) said what I came to say more eloquently than I ever could.

I know many people here in Maine who are "land rich" - living on coastal land their family has held for generations, but who are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "rich people". They hold on to their family land by the skin of their teeth, as their birthright, even though they could likely sell for development and actually then enter the ranks of the financially well off.
posted by anastasiav at 5:49 AM on June 4, 2018 [4 favorites]


Example of what I was talking about - a couple of commercial clammers concerned about the harvesting. The Portland Press Herald has several pieces and letters to the editor covering this (findable in search). Here's one with some interesting comments and links, where I ran across this video.

One more note: though the sympathies we feel might center on the individual hard-scrabble harvester, they are selling to, and represented by, large and well-funded companies who are the ones bringing and funding the lawsuits. This kind of consolidation and economic bullying are familiar enough in the fishing industry, and are not benign forces in any wild-harvesting industry. Acadian Seaplants is one named in the state case - a company with revenues of $80 million CA. This isn't little guy vs. rich landowner, it's big corporation using little guy as a beard to erode the resource protection abilities of landowners - including nonprofits/conservation lands, and the state.
posted by Miko at 5:57 AM on June 4, 2018 [10 favorites]


Fisherman's Voice:
The Canadian harvester boats first came to Cobscook Bay in 2000. But in 2008 a large number of them came, which caused fishermen to ask how Canadians could get the right to take their rockweed. The fishermen organized a petition stating the reasons for their opposition to the rockweed harvests. Robin Hadlock Seeley, a marine biologist, 8th generation Mainer and Washington County resident, said, “This should not be about jobs versus the environment. The rockweed forests are the foundation of the fisheries in Maine. They are critical habitat for 150 species, from periwinkles to lobster to cod, including 21 commercially fished species. NOAA has written a letter of concern regarding this critical habitat. In 2009, fishermen, towns, the Passamaquoddys, landowners and scientists all supported a petition opposing the rockweed harvests.”
.
posted by Miko at 6:07 AM on June 4, 2018 [7 favorites]


Thanks for this great article, and I agree with @Miko that Hakai Magazine looks awesome. In case others are interested, their longform articles (including this one) are available as a podcast: https://www.hakaimagazine.com/audio-edition/
posted by OrangeDisk at 6:15 AM on June 4, 2018


The rockweed forests are the foundation of the fisheries in Maine. They are critical habitat for 150 species, from periwinkles to lobster to cod, including 21 commercially fished species.

Sounds like the rockweed conservationists need to get the lobstermen on-side, if they aren't already. Do not fuck with lobstermen.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:20 AM on June 4, 2018 [5 favorites]


There are a few memorable previouslies from Hakai magazine, as well.
posted by ambrosen at 6:47 AM on June 4, 2018 [2 favorites]


Also, I would note that Maine's land use laws are a bit odd, at least for the US. Almost everything is privately held, but at the same time the public has more rights for what they can do on private land (including just being there in the first place) compared to most states. That somewhat idiosycratic legal context is an important part of the background to this debate.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:49 AM on June 4, 2018 [8 favorites]


The proper solution here would be to increase regulation by setting aside marine intertidal reserves, limiting licensure and catch sizes (I'd prefer to see lots of licenses but small catch limits, to create an industry focused on supplemental income for individual operators, rather than big industrial-scale concerns) and upping enforcement.

Notably, there are parallel fights about this related to scalloping and other shellfishing. A lot of the scallop fishery in recent years has consisted of non-Maine commercial fleets, and they don't really care about stewardship of the resource in any particular area because their fleets can just sail to a different part of the coast that's recovered since their last visit. The existing laws and regulations weren't written with this in mind, but rather they were intended to ensure that local fishermen would always have access to the scallop fishery in their region.

It seems to me like the "rockweed is a fish" side of this argument is trying to play up the rockweed harvest's similarity to clamming, which is something that is not done on an industrial scale in Maine but rather the province of small-scale clammers operating on their own, when actually the danger is that rockweed harvesting could turn into the new scalloping. (But with even more disastrous downstream environmental consequences.)
posted by tobascodagama at 7:00 AM on June 4, 2018 [5 favorites]


Tangentially, I'd like to add that, having traveled to Casco Bay most summers since the 60s, there used to be lots of sea urchins and sea anemones in the tidal pools. They're gone now. Even the ubiquitous starfish are hard to find. Rockweed is everywhere; I had no idea it was worth money. Now, dulse: that's some tasty stuff.
posted by kozad at 7:26 AM on June 4, 2018 [1 favorite]


"All we know is that (a) it's definitely not a monkey and (b) we're pretty SURE it's not a floor wax."
posted by delfin at 7:30 AM on June 4, 2018 [1 favorite]


Also, I would note that Maine's land use laws are a bit odd, at least for the US.

Especially as it relates to coastal issues, that stems from the fact that Maine started as a part of Massachusetts, which sees the coast differently than most states.

In my professional life, I have reason to at least glance at every single decision by the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. I just love decisions that involve seashore issues, because they always wind up as little history lessons that involve citations of things like the Colonial Ordinance of 1641-1647. In 2010, the court ruled a guy named Sam Adams (of course) could moor his boat in a particular spot on a tidal flat in Manchester-by-the-Sea because of a land-grant document from 1640.
posted by adamg at 7:45 AM on June 4, 2018 [12 favorites]


The "down to the low water mark" thing is, I imagine, a big part of why the issue is so contentious in the Cobscook Bay area in particular. As an offshoot of the Bay of Fundy, tides around there are routinely in the 30-40 foot range, so the "low tide mark" could be hundreds of yards from the coast in many places.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:03 AM on June 4, 2018 [6 favorites]


Sounds like the rockweed conservationists need to get the lobstermen on-side, if they aren't already. Do not fuck with lobstermen.

Yeah. I hear that Down East lobsterers have a, uh, particularly local and direct action-oriented approach to maintaining the sustainability of the lobster fishery. Still based on property rights in a way, just not state-sponsored or -enforced ones.
posted by eviemath at 10:26 AM on June 4, 2018 [4 favorites]


The vast majority of people would agree that natural resources should be regulated to prevent their total destruction, and yet the weird coastal property laws of MA and ME lead to this odd quandary. Like so many arguments, for now this comes down to lumping or splitting - here whether it's an animal or vegetable, which isn't the point. I haven't finished the article, but why can't the legislature regulate it like oyster picking or other marine resources?
posted by ldthomps at 1:42 PM on June 4, 2018


Because, as stated in the FPP (not to be That Guy but it's right there) oysters are classed as fish for regulatory purposes.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:03 PM on June 4, 2018 [2 favorites]


That was a fascinating article. As an inland Mainer, I had no idea about rockweed, even tho' I've lived on the coast and eaten of its bounties. Lots of things to think about here. Thanks for an eye-opening post, and I'll be fascinated to read about it further as time goes on. Well done.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 7:03 PM on June 4, 2018


Humans are always trying to lay claim to other lifeforms. I hope one day we become a society where that concept is as acknowledged to be as abhorrent as it is.
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:38 AM on June 5, 2018


I don't think it's abhorrent for people to be foraging for plants. On the sustainability front, I guess it might be considered questionable whether wild rockweed is an appropriate habitat for us to extract from at all, but humans have to make some wild habitat unusable in order to get their food, even if it's extracted in the most space-efficient way.
posted by ambrosen at 10:37 AM on June 5, 2018 [1 favorite]


There's a new piece in the Bangor Daily News about this topic. Not much new info, but it does present the perspective of property owners and local conservationists pretty well. (And makes clear that we're talking about commercial harvesting, as I've mentioned above.)
posted by tobascodagama at 8:09 AM on June 26, 2018


« Older Ah, so that's why there's free wifi on the subway   |   Book Cover Concentration Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments