How colonialist attitudes toward native fishes were rooted in elements of racism and sexism; the term “rough fish” is pejorative and degrading to native fish

Goodbye to “Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes. Andrew L. Rypel et al. Fisheries, July 21 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10660

Abstract: Perspectives of white males have overwhelmingly dominated fisheries science and management in the USA. This dynamic is exemplified by bias against “rough fish”—a pejorative ascribing low-to-zero value for countless native fishes. One product of this bias is that biologists have ironically worked against conservation of diverse fishes for over a century, and these problems persist today. Nearly all U.S. states retain bag limits and other policies that are regressive and encourage overfishing and decline of native species. Multiple lines of evidence point towards the need for a paradigm shift. These include: (1) native species deliver critical ecosystem services; (2) little demonstration that native fish removals deliver intended benefits; (3) many native fishes are long-lived and vulnerable to overfishing and decline; and (4) fisher values and demographics shifting towards native fish conservation. Overall, existing native fish policies are unacceptable and run counter to the public trust doctrine where government agencies manage natural resources for public use. We encourage agencies to revisit their policies regarding native fishes and provide suggestions for developing more holistic, protective, and inclusive conservation policy.

---

Popular version: Cultural Biases Impact Native Fish, Too | UC Davis

From art to religion to land use, much of what is deemed valuable in the United States was shaped centuries ago by the white male perspective. Fish, it turns out, are no exception.

A study published in Fisheries Magazine, a journal of the American Fisheries Society, explores how colonialist attitudes toward native fishes were rooted in elements of racism and sexism. It describes how those attitudes continue to shape fisheries management today, often to the detriment of native fishes.

The study, led by the University of California, Davis, with Nicholls State University and a national team of fisheries researchers, found that nearly all states have policies that encourage overfishing native species. The study maintains that the term “rough fish” is pejorative and degrading to native fish.

“That has bothered me for a long time,” said lead author Andrew Rypel, co-director of the Center for Watershed Sciences and the Peter B. Moyle and California Trout Chair in Coldwater Fish Ecology at UC Davis. He and others have been disturbed by images of “glory killings” of native fish that periodically pop up on the internet, as well as the lump categorization of less preferred species as “rough” or “trash” fish.

“When you trace the history of the problem, you quickly realize it’s because the field was shaped by white men, excluding other points of view,” Rypel said. “Sometimes you have to look at that history honestly to figure out what to do.”

The study offers several recommendations for how anglers and fisheries managers can shift to a new paradigm that’s more inclusive and beneficial to all fish and people.