One of the most fascinating aspects of researching early Lake Erie history is that the early legal cases are closely linked to effects of technology and changes in the natural environment. Typically, one reference leads to another in a never-ending chain of cause and effect. It also sometimes leads to fascinating “if only” questions.
For example, one of the key cases to reach the Ohio Supreme Court in the 19th century was Sloan v. Biemiller (1878) 34 Ohio St. 492. It involved fishing rights off of Cedar Point. (Probably near the location of the present amusement park) The Court’s opinion was based on innovations in fishing technology when the use of seines was replaced by the use of pound fishing. Until the introduction of pound fishing, the owners of the shore claimed the right to control all fishing near the shore without argument.
In a desire to understand what the Sloan Court was talking about, I chased down a report made by the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries to The 50th Congress, Second Session (1891), Congressional Report Misc. 133. That report summarized the state of commercial fishing at the time of Sloan. The report included an extensive discussion of commercial fishing on the Great Lakes, including the technologies used, the harvest size by year, and a prediction of the future of commercial Great Lakes fishing.
The Commission correctly predicted that the future was grim. After the Sloan decision, fishing in Lake Erie was largely unregulated and growing at a rampant pace. It represented a prime example of “The Tragedy of the Commons.” This theoretical concept is a key focus of what modern law schools teach in introductory environmental law classes. See, for example, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html for a concise and easy to read explanation.
With much hand wringing about the future of the commercial fishing industry, the Commission recommended a novel solution – the introduction and propagation of European carp. The carp were described in glowing terms as follows:
“Sufficient attention has not been paid in the United States to the introduction of the European carp as a food fish, and yet it is quite safe to say that there is no other species that promises so great a return in limited waters.” (at page lxxvi)
History showed the Commission to be wrong. A great book on the history of Great Lakes fishing is Margaret Beattie Bogue’s Fishing the Great Lakes – An Environmental History (2000). Ms. Bogue notes how changes in transportation and food preservation had permitted entrepreneurs engaged in commercial fishing to expand by shipping the “deer of the lakes” (whitefish) as far as Liverpool. (p34.)
Bogue provides an excellent and easy to read summary of the expansion of commercial exploitation of the “infinite resources” of the lakes and their collapse less than half a century later. She provides a detailed look at how the state and national governments of the Great Lakes blew it.
With the benefit of an extra century of perspective, Ms. Bogue has a slightly different take on the Good Carp – Bad Carp Issue, as follows:
“In the 1870’s, fish culturists experimenting with ways to increase species suitable for
commercial use released two (intruded species) into the Great Lakes waters: the alewife and the carp.”
For a time, enthusiasm for carp ran high. In 1888, Seth Green wrote a small book in which he advocated that farmers raise carp and provided instructions on the construction of carp ponds. ...... Introduced into Sandusky Bay in 1888, carp soon became numerous in the shallow waters of Western Lake Ere. In 1893, 631,000 pounds went to market; six years later, 3.6 million pounds.” (pp.164-165)
Today, the only experts who seem to like the Asian carp are Chicago politicians, people dependant on them, or people who already have the carp in their waters like Kentucky. Some Kentuckians are now extolling the virtues of the Asian carp in their rivers. The folks at University of Kentucky say Asian carp tastes like tuna and have developed some yummy recipes fit for the finest kitchens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SNtJo958BM
Here’s my humble opinion:
· First, as an engineer, I’m very impressed with the Asian Carp’s “eyes on the bottom” design – obviously designed for sucking algae off the surface – possibly a useful characteristic in Western Lake Erie – but not worth the risk.
· Second, based on past experience with those wonderful European carp that the governments loved for a while, I’m sure they’ll thrive in Sandusky Bay.
· Third, based on the large population of European carp that were trapped in East Sandusky Bay and died while spawning when levels temporarily dropped a few years ago, I can imagine the stink we will have from the new, improved and larger Asian version if water levels continue to drop as I expect they will.
In summary, I’ll make a swag (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess) that the new carp are bad news – despite their excellent mechanical design as algae skimmers. Unfortunately, the ability to make swags seems to been bred out of government scientists of the past decades. In essence, swag skills have disappeared decades ago along with the demise of slide rules and punch cards. We now have to study such problems for five years with alphabet soup programs like the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS) before coming up with a plan. http://glmris.anl.gov/
Your comments are welcome. I promise to post any that aren’t nasty rants. Finally, please remember to buy books and support your local libraries and historical societies. That’s the only way we can learn from the past, understand past mistakes, avoid future ones and keep our government on the right track.
