It recently occurred to me, what with all the writing I've been doing about bykill or bycatch - the fish discarded by bottom trawlers - I've not said much about the target species of these boats - orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus). After encountering so many doleful stares from bulging eyes - either through bottom trawl nets or, from disembodied heads, expunged via bycatch chutes, I thought it was high time to tell their story.
Looking like some weird prehistoric goldfish, orange roughy look orangey-red when its hauled out of the ocean, they're actually designed to appear black. Down where they live - between 500 and 1700m below the surface - oranges and reds are the first colours to be leached out of the colour spectrum, leaving the fish difficult for predators to see. Even the inside of their mouths appears black - probably a method of fooling their prey - crustaceans, squid and fish.
Orange roughy are part of an order of fish called Beryciformes, which have a system of sensory canals in their heads, known as Jakubowski's organs. These mucus-filled areas, which surround the eyes, are what give the roughy family its less marketing-friendly name: slimeheads. The more pleasant 'orange roughy' came about when a New Zealand scientist came across them, following a trawl by a Japanese boat that he was on board. Unable its describe it any more positively than a member of the roughy family, he wrote down 'orange roughy'. Which made sense, I suppose, as the fish were orange.
Until the late 1970s, roughy were regarded as little more than museum curiosities. However, Russian and Japanese trawlers discovered huge stocks - and dumped their catches as 'worthless'. Despite their subsequent popularity, this isn't such a surprise. Early attempts to determine the edibility of orange roughy achieved some unsavoury results - which resulted in yet another unappealing moniker: 'diarrhoea fish'. To counter this, a filleting technique was introduced that removed a fatty layer from beneath the skin. The offending substance in the fat - known as wax ender - has been delicately described by author Peter Batson as having a 'strong purgative effect'. Once rendered safe, the orange's flaky white flesh proved popular - especially as a replacement for the increasingly rare cod.
But even apart from suffering blame for dietary discomfort or occasional crisis of identity, the orange roughy is still an enigmatic fish. Growing to maximum size of only 50cm, orange roughy are thought to live an age of up to an incredible 150 years old - spanning several human generations. Many of us humans have problems tracing our family back past 100 years, never mind the lifetime of an orange roughy.
Slow growing, and long lived - not great characteristics for a commercially exploited species. Some New Zealand populations of orange roughy are now estimated to be only three percent of their original size. But there's still demand for their white flesh - so the bottom trawlers keep fishing for them, dragging up heavens knows what else along the way, like Sunday's huge piece of coral!
- Dave
Comments
yeah yeah I USED TO WORK AT SEALORDS IN nELSON AND EVENTUALLY QUIT AFTER SEEING STOCK ASSESMENTS ANd PLEARNY RESULTS OF o RANGE Roughy after hassling ministry of fisheries for ages...it made me sick me mateys its a sad story and it made me feel like a dick for being employed by these goofy manimals...all power kia kaha kia manawa nui kohatu koe
Hi MariAN and thanks for your reply.
In terms of the New Zealand Fishing industry, you cannot apply statistics from a world wide basis and assume it's ALL happining in our waters. I refur to of course the Cod Fishing you mention in the English fishery.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that the fishery is not infinate?
The Quota Management system is designed to help preserve our fishery so let it be that way. Why would I want to fish out a species for short term gain.
Take snapper for example, since the introduction of the QMS the North Island Snapper and Gurnard stocks have increaced conciderably.
You ask any commercial fisherman what their biggest problem is. I bet you dollar for dollar that it's because there is too much snapper about. They cannot catch other commercial species without catching snapper, which they haven't obtained quota for. The same can be said for the Tarakihi and Gurnard fisherys also.
Im not to sure what you mean by " that a lot of the fishing industry is not able to see what Green Peace and enviromentalists are trying to do"
Are you refuring to me, or was it just some operators.
Im not trying to get at you mate, remember i'll only speak on my experience, so i'll welcome your thoughts.
Cheers.
PS I don't bite.
Posted by: Marlin Spike at June 25, 2005 10:37 PM
It is such a pity that a lot of the fishing industry is not able to see that what Greenpeace and environmentalists are trying to do is preserve the fisheries so that fishermen will be able to make a living. We are probably very close to if not already at the point where if a number of fisheries are not shut down to let the fish recover - there will be no fishery.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that the fishery is not infinite - it is a finite resource that needs to be very carefully conserved. For those fishing people looking at this website - read up about the Englsih cod fishing industry and the fishing industries off the coast of northeast US that have been totally wrecked by overfishing.
Posted by: MariAN at June 25, 2005 06:18 PM
Unbelievable - what we are doing to this earth and the oceans. I agree with Eckhart Tolle - the destuction that we are wreaking is an outward manifestation of how we feel about ourselves. Greenpeace is doing a fantastic job - and we need to work hard on getting peple to value themselves - because only then will they truly value our environment.
Posted by: Marian at June 25, 2005 06:02 PM
Well, as it seems you're not going to be posting my previous post. What have you got to hide? I for one, are open to debate, so why would there be anything to worry about. It doesn't worry me if you're against me, or any other partisipants on this forum for that matter. Hell, im also open to ideas also.
Marlin Spike.
Posted by: Marlin Spike at June 25, 2005 11:26 AM
I'm often asked if Green Peace will ever congradulate this industry for the techniques and mitigation techniques it develops. Well, if you're the type of person who thinks so, well you better think again my friend. You see, it's not what they publish, but it's what they don't publish that continues to worry me.
Take this case for example.
Widely reported last month that " Green Peace" were planning to hold another protest outside another reputable fishing vessel, i hear that even a previous protest got to the point where they were accusing one particular vessel of damaging the bethnic habitat of the seafloor. Unbeknown to "Green Peace", this vessel was specificly set up as a mid water trawler for Roughy, so you can just imagine how funny the situation must have been when the crew docked at the wharf.
For an organisation which claims to be scientific, Green Peace often lack the knowledge of New Zealand fishing operations which clearly shows. If you think this organisation will credit this industry for any good doing, than you'd better think again. They are truely out there to get fisherman, there i have no doubt. The New Zealand fishing industry is a world leader in terms of the best mitigation techniques, so the more the public become aware of this the better. I know of three vessels in Nelson which have been accused of damaging the bottom of the seafloor, and yet those three vessels were midwater trawling also. You have to realise that this isn't a one off, infact it's happened on many ocassions. Maybe Green Peace can inform me on this one.
Finally, i must congradulate you on this great site, it's very informative and i'd love to contribute. Yes, im a Fisherman ( Free Lance journalist also) so i'd Love to hear from you all.
Whos turn next.
Posted by: Marlin Spike at June 25, 2005 12:05 AM
Orange Roughy.. its simple. Don't buy it and don't order it in a restaurant.
Posted by: Jon at June 24, 2005 08:46 AM
I protest against bottom fishingi
Posted by: Reiner Boltersdorf at June 18, 2005 10:50 AM
At the end of the day, killing a species and destrying our oceans is not making a living.
Posted by: Sophie at June 18, 2005 02:44 AM
Orange roughy, I feel sorry for the poor things getting discovered in the first place. Perhaps it would have been better if the filleting process had never been developed and the OR would have been forgotten as a useless fish. Humans will eat anything as is proven by the current fashion for sushi. We cannot accept that there are some things that need to be left alone. Annie
Posted by: ann rudd at June 17, 2005 09:42 PM
Please, do not be so short sighted as to believe that Greenpeace simply wants to take potshots at the fishing industry and its right to pursue profits. Every man has the right to make a living, and every man has the responsibility of safeguarding common assets for future generations.
Sustaibale fisheries would be more profitable fisheries (long term) which part of this are we not getting?
Posted by: Chris at June 17, 2005 07:14 PM
We are worried about your living. Read the piece again. Some populations are 97% gone. Every year the global price of fish goes up and the catch goes down because there are less fish left.
Bottom trawling is an expensive and inefficient way of fishing. If the top of the sea hadn't been competely fished out no-one would use it. When the bottom of the sea has gone too what will you fish then?
What Greenpeace wants is not an end to fishing but sustainable fishing. If populations were allowed to recover and then fished sensibly there would be more fish, biodiversity would be protected and here's the killer, the fishermen could take *more fish* *more cheaply*.
Right now you're not 'farming' the fish, you're mining them, and while farms last forever if they're managed right mines go deeper - then run out.
Posted by: Martin at June 15, 2005 11:04 PM
whyt do you think that you have a right to condem another mans right to make a living
Posted by: Anonymous at June 15, 2005 11:03 AM
Talk about fool's logic- to suggest that Greenpeace should 'start worrying abouth things that you can see' is a misinformed and willfully ignorant statement. Did you not see the footage on the news of the fishermen pulling up endangered coral? We can see that. DId you see the fisherman smugly holding up a giant crab? We can see that. If you have been ecologically responsible in your fishing practices, then thats great for you. Maybe instead of being so defensive and attacking Greenpeace you should use your energy to spread the word throughout the industry that you work in, and become part of the solution yourself.
Posted by: Meghan at June 15, 2005 10:21 AM
Why don't you people start worrying about things you can see like the seals being shot at down south by what was described as a fishing boat that was actually a recreational fisherman, or go save the whales that you and your families can and will see in the future. You don't realise that we, along with probably plenty of other fishing vessels, have never actually pulled coral aboard i think the fishing industry as a whole is not really being given a fair say. Nobody has ever really asked us what we see out there.
