546 



Is the ocean too large to disrupt? I think not. 

 According to the Task Force on Environmental 

 Health and Related Problems (1967), the American 

 people and their environment are being exposed to 

 half-a-million different alien substances with 20,000 

 new ones being added each year. Some of these go to 

 sea. For instance, pesticides have been distributed 

 throughout the world's oceans through the vectors of 

 air and precipitation (Frost, 1969). Polikarpov (1966) 

 suggests that radionuclide pollution of the seas may 

 already be at a dangerous level for some organisms. 

 Hedgpeth (in press) remarks than our standards for 

 waste disposal are anthropocentric and that laboratory 

 tests on pollutants are 'interesting, but possibly 

 academic as far as the real world is concerned' — in 

 other words, waste-level standards set for Man are 

 not necessarily those which ecosystems wall tolerate. 



MAN S USE OF THE SEA 



Only recently has Man begun to explore the sea 

 throughout its three dimensions. The first extensive 

 exploration of the deep sea was in 1873-76 by H.M.S. 

 Challenger. Not quite a century later, Man has 

 visited the ocean's deepest place in a research sub- 

 marine and knows that all marine waters are capable 

 of supporting life. 



The Marine Revolution consists of five major 

 aspects, which are related to, but by no means coinci- 

 dental with, its dominating challenges mentioned 

 in the Introduction. These aspects are: fisheries, 

 minerals and mining, military interests, science and 

 technology, and conservation and recreation. Emery 

 (1966) gives world values of marine resources in 1964 

 as follows: biological — US $6-4 x 10^; geological — 

 US$3-6x 10^ and chemical— US $1-3 x 10^ Biologi- 

 cal resources will always be the most valuable, even 

 if surpassed economically, for Man cannot exist with- 

 out them, and they are largely renewable. 



Fisheries. Fisheries remain the most diificult aspect 

 of international law of the sea. This is due mainly to 

 the fact that most commercially important marine 

 animals move and cannot be claimed. It is ludicrous 

 to discover that certain benthic organisms are, in fact, 

 classified as 'minerals' under the Convention of the 

 Continental Shelf. In some cases it is of advantage to 

 the exploiter that they should be so classified, an 

 instance being the Alaska King. Crab (Oda, 1968); in 

 other cases the reverse is true, instances including some 

 shrimps (Neblett, 1966). Fisheries resources include 

 various Algae, plankton, shellfish, fishes, turtles, and 

 mammals (Walford, 1958); but, as has been pointed 



out above, Man's utilization represents only a fraction 

 of total marine productivity. 



Over-utilization continues to dominate fisheries, 

 especially, off-shore ones. Clark (1967) states that 

 Japanese long-lining accounted for aknost a million 

 billfishes in 1965. Even larger quantities of tunny were 

 taken. Evidence is accumulating that such utihzation 

 cannot be sustained. Perhaps even more serious than 

 overfishing is inshore habitat destruction. Over two- 

 thirds of all commercial and sport fishes of the eastern 

 United States depend upon inshore environments at 

 some critical time of their life-cycle. The most effective 

 way to extirpate a species is by environmental disrup- 

 tion, and this is being done inshore at a rapid pace. 



Consideration of energetics lead many to propose 

 exploitation at lower trophic levels. Complex size/ 

 metabolic factors and fishing efficiency strongly indi- 

 cate, however, that higher-order consumers are more 

 effective fishermen and converters of energy than Man 

 is. A total 'plankton' fishery should be considered as a 

 last, and none too satisfactory, resort. Those who have 

 taste-tested swordfish and plankton might agree ! The 

 choice, however, should not be between swordfish and 

 plankton; given proper management, we could have 

 both. 



biologically and 

 emphasized the 

 biomass through 

 may or may not 

 to local market 

 'optimum' over 



The concept of 'yield' is vital 

 legally. Fisheries biologists have 

 asymptotic attainment of maximum 

 controlled utihzation. Such a yield 

 conform to economic efficiency or 

 value — hence the preference of 

 .maximum' yield (Crutchfield, 1968). 



W. M. Chapman (1966) states an exploitive point 

 of view : 'When the fishing effort has increased beyond 

 the point of maximum sustainable yield, the fishing 

 can ordinarily be permitted to expand without serious 

 damage to the resource'. He ignores AUee's principle 

 (Odum, 1959), which is that density is in itself a 

 limiting factor for population growth and survival. 

 Relative abundance of the species in a community is a 

 contributor to homeostasis. Thus, it is biologically 

 most sound to change population size as little as 

 possible in natural systems. 



Christy (1966) considers broader aspects of utiliza- 

 tion: '. . . somehow or other it will be necessary to 

 limit the number of fishermen that can participate in a 

 fishery. Such limitations can be achieved only by 

 further restricting the "freedom of the seas"; and this 

 clearly raises questions about the meaning of this free- 

 dom and about the distribution of wealth.' This 

 approach appears to me more susceptible to ecological 

 application than Chapman's more narrowly-stated 

 views. 



