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 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.

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.

Story Source:
Materials provided by University of California — Davis. Original written by Kat Kerlin. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.