![]() |
| Kids gleaning. Photo: Danika Kleiber/Project Seahorse |
I watched the boy comb the stubbly seaweed with his fingers. Absurdly I thought of a gold prospector sifting sand for nuggets. He was crouched in the intertidal flats at low tide, where the water was just high enough to cover his toes. I then noticed that there were others crouched next to him and they were all using the same careful sweeping and sifting motions. I knew they were gleaning but this wasn’t a type of gleaning I’d see before. I had just put a GPS unit on a volunteer and she was walking around the tidal flat with slow hunched purpose. This boy, and what I assumed to be his family, were motionless apart from their arms and hands. Sifting, sifting, searching.
I walked over slowly and peeked into the small plastic container the boy was using to put his catch in. I was expecting shells, but instead I saw stars. What seemed like hundreds of tiny little sea stars. It was strangely beautiful to see them clumped up like that but also a little alarming. I turned to Jay and asked what they were going to do with them. My mind ran with visions of sea star stew, which didn’t seem likely or appetizing. Jay explained that they would be dried and made into earrings. That made a lot more sense. Not food then, instead they were gleaning for curios.
Curio is that strange ‘other’ category in the trade of marine animals. I remember learning about it when I was editing seahorse trade papers. Most seahorses are used for traditional Chinese medicine, but a significant amount are also used to lend a bit of interest to a yo-yo or a keychain or even a toilet seat. Like seahorses, these sea stars are a beautiful shape and I could imagine how they would appeal as a pair of earrings. But it made me reflect how as a western consumer I am so often cut off from the chain of production. Next time I see a curio in a shop I’m sure I will imagine this little boy and his family sifting the seashore.
As a new Ph.D student starting in January, it’s been a challenging first few months learning about (and remembering) the various graduate students, professors and their research here at UBC. As someone new to Vancouver and even Canada, I was completely unaware of what other universities were close by, let alone who and what was being studied in my own (new) backyard. However, an opportunity arose to go to the Pacific Ecology & Evolution Conference (PEEC) hosted by the University of British Columbia at the Bamfield Marine Science Center and little did I know this experience would change just that.
The view of Vancouver Island from the ferry.
PEEC is held each year at Bamfield, located on Vancouver Island and run by a consortium of universities in Western Canada (Simon Fraser University, University of Alberta, University of British Columbia, University of Calgary and University of Victoria). The aim of PEEC is to bring together graduate and advanced undergraduate students from Western Canadian and American universities to share their research in the fields of ecology and evolution. I’m used to attending international marine science conferences where big names in marine conservation are in attendance and I’m the lowly person on the totem pole. However, the nice thing about PEEC was that with only university students in attendance – we were the people to meet.

View from 2nd ferry to the Bamfield Marine Science Center.
My first surprise was the actual trip to get to the research station. Yes I knew Bamfield was on Vancouver Island and the only way to get to the island was by ferry. Little did I know that after the first ferry, the voyage would involve a 90-minute car-ride, followed by another 3-hour ferry! Most of the main cities on Vancouver Island are accessible by car; however outside of these areas the only roads are those from commercial logging activities, with half of those in disrepair. The village of Bamfield is in a remote area, located in a protected inlet on the west side of Vancouver Island. The second 3-hour ferry was organized specifically for PEEC and provided the first opportunity to meet my peers attending the conference.

Participants at PEEC on the ferry to Bamfield.
The laid back atmosphere of the Bamfield Marine Science Center provided the right forum for students to get to know one another and the ongoing research at the different universities. I learned about some interesting work on lionfish at SFU, coral reef fish at University of Victoria, and even work of peers, now friends, at UBC on marine spatial planning, salmon fisheries, and diversity in seagrass meadows.
Saturday afternoon I attended an optional workshop on Science Communication hosted by Laurel Johnson of the Vancouver Aquarium. The goal of the workshop was to focus on the content of our research and how we communicate to a broad audience. The best part of the workshop was becoming a kid again to perform some experiments in the name of learning by doing.

My team at the communication workshop.
Here’s my team trying to figure out why the red dye is sitting on the surface in one cup and spreading throughout in the other. (Answer it’s because one is salt water and the other is tap water. The different densities of the water cause the dye to react differently.)

The mysterious red dye that sits at the surface in one cup and spread throughout in the other.
After a day of presentations, networking and working on communication skills, a relaxing evening was to follow with the annual PEEC dance and costume contest. Similar to the TV show America’s Next Top Model, the theme of the costume contest was “Next Top Model Organism”, where people dressed in their most creative and interpretive meanings of their favorite organism. I’m proud to say the “Seahorse” was dubbed the next Top Model Organism after an epic dance- off between the flatworm, jellyfish and myself.

And the next top model organism is…the seahorse!
PEEC was a fantastic way for me to get to know my peers both at UBC and at other universities in the Vancouver area. I would recommend it to any grad student – it’ll be the most relaxing and enjoyable conference you ever go to!
I’m really excited about this:

I know what you’re thinking. It’s just a freaking pie chart, what’s the big deal? Well, my friends, this pie chart represents 600 interviews of people in 12 communities in Danajon Bank, Philippines.
But of course in the end it’s not the amount of effort I’ve put into the data gathering that matters, it’s what this pie chart means that really counts. And to get to that I need to first explain where the numbers come from.
Methods:
My intrepid research assistants interviewed 300 women and 300 men about their fishing habits. We asked them to tell us things like their typical catch volume, how often they went out per week, and how much time they spent fishing during each trip. From this I can calculate a number of things, but in this case I calculated weekly catch volume. I then add up everything women catch, and then everything men catch, pop it into a pie chart and VOILA! I should mention for the die hard methods people out there that the respondents were randomly selected, and we found the proportion of women and men participating in fishing activities were very similar (83% of women and 85% of men) so using equal number of interviews was appropriate.
This pie shows that women, who according to most people in the Philippines, don’t fish, still magically manage to be responsible for 1 out of every 3 kilograms of marine life that gets extracted from the ocean. Now, I realize that I’m biased, and that my judgement is only further blinkered by several weeks worth of data entry (I’ve been dreaming in numbers), but please believe me when I tell you that this is kind of a big deal. Women fish. And it makes up one third of the catch volume. Booya!
The next thing you should do is doubt my data. How could women possibly be catching all that if they don’t fish? The answer has to do with semantics. (Aside: about a decade ago I had a long conversation with my college math professor about why feminist researchers make such a big deal about semantics. So, Christopher, 10 years later, here is my example:)
It has to do with how we define the words “fishing” and “fisher.” Most of the time when people quantify community fishing activities they only talk to people who self-identify as fishers. In many ways this seems to make sense, but in reality can wreak havoc with the data because there is a big difference between the number of people who call themselves fishers (and define their activities as fishing), and the number of people who extract animals from the ocean. And the difference is largely made up of women.
(Note: this argument is based on the scale of data collection. If you are focused on only one fisheries then it makes sense to focus on only those that participate. I’m talking about research that scales up to the community, region, or international level.)
Women, for a variety of cultural and social reasons, rarely describe themselves as fishers. And furthermore the extractive activity that women predominately participate in — gleaning — is rarely considered a form of fishing. So a woman in a boat lifting a net? She’s not really fishing, she’s just helping her husband. A woman walking around the intertidal area with a huge bucket and a machete? She’s just gleaning.
You can see why I wouldn’t take this assessment at face value. So for the purposes of my research I defined fishing as what people did, rather than how they defined that activity. Gleaning extracts animals from the ocean and is therefore fishing. “I’m just helping my husband” shares all the characteristics of fishing, so it too is counted as fishing.
And what do you get? A delicious data pie.
![]() |
| A weedy seadragon feeding. Photo: Keith Martin-Smith/Project Seahorse |
As part of our "Year of the Water Dragon" feature, I sat down with Dr. Keith Martin-Smith, a former research fellow and honorary research associate with Project Seahorse, to talk about his work on the beautiful and elusive seadragon. His scholarly articles and photographs have been published in Oryx, Fish Biology, and on BBC Nature, among other places. See also our gallery of seadragon images, fun facts page, and a recent scholarly article.
First of all, what makes seadragons unique?
Seadragons are arguably the most charismatic members of the seahorse family, primarily because of their outrageous colour patterns in the weedy seadragon and their amazing camouflage for the leafy seadragon. They have extremely brightly coloured eggs that they carry underneath the tail and which gradually become covered in algae over the course of their development.
Weedy seadragons gather in large groups of 20 or more individuals to breed, akin to ‘lekking’ behaviour in some land animals. They also have a fascinating ‘mirroring’ behaviour during courtship where the male and female hold their bodies in identical postures but in mirror image of each other. I have also occasionally seen female-female pairs performing the same display. Whether this is competitive behaviour or mistaken identity I’m not sure!
What is the connection between seahorses and seadragons?
Seahorses and seadragons are all in the same family of fishes, the Syngnathidae, and share a number of common features such as the long, tubular snout, reduced fins, male pregnancy and hard, external body plates. They live in similar, shallow coastal habitats and are similar ecologically, feeding on small crustaceans and with restricted home range.
How many species of seadragon are there and what differentiates them?
There are two species of true seadragon – the weedy or common seadragon, Phyllopteryx taeniolatus, and the leafy seadragon, Phycodurus eques. The weedy seadragon has a complex pattern of purple stripes on the ‘neck’ region and hundreds of yellow spots on the side of the abdomen, the head, the snout and the tail while the leafy seadragon is mostly brown and green with white stripes on the abdomen when living in shallow water or reddish in deeper water. The leafy has many frondose appendages while the leafy has simpler appendages. A third species, the ribboned pipefish, Haliichthys taeniophorus, is sometimes called the ribboned seadragon or tropical seadragon. Confusingly, the pipehorses, Solegnathus spp., are known as hai long or sea dragons in traditional Chinese medicine.
![]() |
| Click the image to watch weedy seadragons disappear into their habitat. Video: Keith Martin-Smith/Project Seahorse |
How did you come to study these animals?
I’ve been working with seadragons since 2001 at sites in southern Tasmania. Initially, with some students, we developed techniques for tagging seadragons with visible implant fluorescent elastomer (VIFE), a coloured substance injected under the skin in a variety of body locations to uniquely identify individuals. We also used surface-towed GPS units in waterproof housings to establish the home range of individuals. Then, in 2004-05, I collaborated with Jaime Sanchez-Camara, a seadragon researcher from Spain who had been working on weedy seadragons around Sydney.
We used our combined data to show that seadragons in colder waters grow more slowly, breed later in the year and live longer than individuals in warmer waters. In 2009, on a recreational dive, I noticed that one of the seadragons that I’d seen still had VIFE tags from 2004. This re-stimulated my interest in seadragons and I began a study to see if we could use the spot patterns on the abdomen to uniquely identify individuals — something that I have since confirmed over a period of three years.
In fact, I’m still regularly seeing the first individuals that I photographed and I can identify all of the seadragons at my regular dive sites. Some of these individuals still have their VIFE tags from 2004-05 in 2012, seven or eight years later, which suggests that they can live a long time. My data predicts that they can live more than 12 years in the wild. I’ve also found that the males carry two broods a year here in Tasmania and all of them start the first pregnancy at the same time.
![]() |
| A pair of male seadragons. Eggs are visible on their brood patch on their tails. Photo: Keith Martin-Smith/Project Seahorse |
Where are they found, geographically, and in what kinds of habitats?
Leafy seadragons have a very restricted distribution, only found on the southern coast of Australia in the states of Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria while the weedy seadragon has a wider distribution extending from Perth in Western Australia to Sydney in New South Wales and around Tasmania. They both live in similar habitats - namely shallow, algae-covered rocky reefs down to perhaps 30 m.
What threats do they face and what is their IUCN Red List status?
The major threat to both species of seadragon is habitat loss from activities such as coastal development, pollution, dredging etc. An unknown, but potentially serious threat, is related to climate change where warmer ocean conditions are allowing the spread of barren-forming sea urchins which graze large seaweeds and inhibit regeneration of kelp forests. Both species are listed as Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List.
What can seadragons tell us about evolutionary biology? What other scientific insights can they yield?
The reproductive biology of seadragons may provide insight into the evolution of male pregnancy as they have the simplest form of reproduction in the family with eggs just embedded in spongy tissue on the tail. Other reproductive aspects of seadragons remain enigmatic such as sex roles and whether they are monogamous within and between pregnancies. The extreme camouflage of the leafy seadragon is also a fascinating evolutionary development.
Finally, the growth of algae on the eggs during development but not on the body of the seadragon is a promising area for investigation – how do the seadragons remain free of fouling growth and which genes are switched on/off in the eggs?
Why do we rarely see them in aquariums? Can they be bred in captivity?
We rarely see them in aquariums for a number of reasons – they are difficult to maintain, requiring live food; the export trade from Australia is tightly controlled and they are very expensive to purchase costing many hundreds or even thousands of dollars. There is only a single individual in Australia who captures a few brooding male seadragons each year and raises the offspring for sale soley to public aquariums. Captive breeding has proved difficult but I think that there has been some recent success at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, CA.
How can we protect seadragons?
Seadragons are protected by strong federal and state laws in all locations in Australia where they occur so the major contribution to protection that is needed is to ensure that habitat loss is minimised through sensitive coastal development. Marine protected areas where intact habitat is preserved and protected can obviously help.
![]() |
| A pair of leafy seadragons swimming together. The leaf-like appendages help the animals to blend in with their surroundings. They are not used for locomotion. Photo: Dave Harasti/daveharasti.com |
![]() |
| A vibrantly coloured weedy seadragon swimming. Seadragons can change colour to blend in with their surroundings. Photo: Dave Harasti/daveharasti.com |
|
| A weedy seadragon swimming above a kelp bed. Seadragons inhabit seagrasses, kelp beds, and rocky coral reefs. Photo: Keith Martin-Smith/Project Seahorse |
![]() |
| Weedy seadragons gather in large groups of 20 or more individuals to breed, akin to ‘lekking’ behaviour in some land animals. Photo: Keith Martin-Smith/Project Seahorse |
|
| A close-up view of markings on a weedy seadragon. Photo: Keith Martin-Smith/Project Seahorse |
![]() |
| As in the case of seahorses, male seadragons carry the fertilized eggs. Instead of carrying them in pouches, seadragons carry them on brood patches, a specialized area of skin on the underside of their tails. Here a male carries eggs that have become covered in algae as they develop. Photo: Keith Martin-Smith/Project Seahorse |
![]() |
| A weedy seadragon feeding. Seadragons depend on mysid shrimp, sea lice, and other tiny marine creatures for sustenance. Their fused jaw allows them to suck their pray from the surrounding water with great efficiency. Photo: Keith Martin-Smith/Project Seahorse |
![]() |
| Like seahorses, seadragons belong to the family Syngnathidae. 'Syn' means fused and 'gnathus' means jaw. All syngnathids have fused jaws. |
![]() |
| A leafy seadragon in profile. Photo: Dave Harasti/daveharasti.com |
Project Seahorse friend and colleague Adam Cormier recalls a recent excursion with spearfishers in Danajon Bank, Philippines, where our researchers work with local communities to make fishing sustainable. We’ve helped establish 34 marine protected areas in the region so far.
Mangrove trees press in thick on both sides of our little outrigger canoe as we ride out into the open ocean. As the sun begins to set and the motor coughs to life the world becomes a palette of red, orange, blue and black.
The sun sets quickly in this part of the world and the sky soon turns grey and then black. The only light comes from Gerry’s flashlight as he sits on the prow of the boat, scanning the water for coral. From time to time he points one way or the other and his brother Edward, seated behind me, steers us accordingly. Gerry and Edward have agreed to bring me spearfishing with them. They’re friends of Project Seahorse.
After about 20 minutes Gerry makes a signal and Edward cuts the motor. I’m handed a homemade spear gun and a flashlight that I strap to my head. Gerry takes a minute to add socks and tattered ski-mask to his outfit of jogging pants and sweatshirt. He looks like Spiderman after a battle with The Lizard (if Spiderman was Filipino and always smiling). I guess when you spearfish for a living you get pretty serious about protecting yourself from jellyfish and sea urchins and such.
Jerry asks me if I’m ready. I try to act all macho and say, Of course. Truth be told I’m pretty nervous. I can’t see land or what’s under the water I’m sliding into. I’m a good swimmer, and comfortable in the ocean, but a five-hour swim in the dark is a bit of a stretch.
As soon as we’re in I can see that the bottom is only about ten feet away. Every shape and size of coral imaginable is illuminated by the circle of light from my headlight. Gerry quickly calls me to his side. Right there he says, pointing to a cluster of coral, a rabbit fish. I don’t see anything. Right there, he says again. I dive down, still only seeing layer after layer of coral. Finally Gerry fires his spear into the exact place he pointing, coming up with a wiggling rabbitfish. He deposits this into the mesh bag at his waist.
Over the next while this same scenario plays itself out again and again, Gerry pointing out fishes I can’t see for the coral. Finally he leaves me to it and he gets down to his night’s work. After losing and finding the boat a couple of times in the dark I quickly learn to always keep it in sight as Gerry tows it behind him.
I fall into a rhythm, deep breath, dive, see nothing but beautiful coral, come up, find the boat, repeat. It really is an incredible experience. The night is quiet and the sea is calm, the only sounds are splashes and snorkels being cleared. We travel along a ridge back towards land. On one side the coral falls away into inky blackness, on the other there is a forest of it. Hundreds of tiny wiggling fish seem drawn to the gleam of my flashlight and they spend the night dancing around my head.
Finally, on one dive I see a fish! It’s round and yellow, the exact same color as the round and yellow coral it’s perched on. I fight the current and twist towards him, aiming my spear gun and pulling back on the thick elastics. My spear shoots out wide. I realign myself for a second shot as my lungs begin to remind me that I am not a fish. Miss again. I come up for air and when I return the fish is gone.
Spearfishing is really, really hard. It’s like playing darts underwater while holding your breath, only the dart board moves quickly and blends into the multi-coloured background as needed. Gerry and Edward and many of the communities living on the Danajon Bank — a rare and biodiverse double-barrier reef off the coast of Bohol Province, Philippines — make their living this way. It’s not easy. In recent years, dwindling resources has meant that fishers must travel further out to sea to find enough to catch. The challenge is striking a balance so that the fishing they do is sustainable for generations to come. Which is why Project Seahorse has teamed up with the communities to establish marine protected areas (no-take zones where fish stocks can replenish) around the Danajon Bank.
After my yellow friend gets away I decide to stop trying so hard and just enjoy myself. The sky is clear and holds more stars then I’ve ever seen. I also begin to lose all track of time and start to get tired. Gerry and his brother continue to dive, coming up with fish more often than not. I try to ignore the aches in my back and arms and continue to paddle along behind the canoe. Any fish I do see seems too beautiful and too quick to try and catch.
Finally Gerry calls out to me and says it’s time to go home. I haul myself into the boat, bone-tired and actually cold for the first time since I stepped off the plane in Cebu. Both Gerry and his brother have a mesh bag full of fish. I guess they were there, hiding in plain sight for someone who knows how and where to look. As we putter back to Batasan and slide back trough the mangroves I have a new appreciation for the people who provide me with my breakfast every day. I can’t imagine a harder way to make a living then as a spearfisher. Gerry and Edward wishes me a good night and I head back through the village to the guest house where we’re staying. I’ll never look at my breakfast squid the same way.
I couldn’t possibly recall the number of times I’ve attempted to explain to my friends and family, for the most part patiently and calmly, but sometimes, I confess, angry and frustrated, why it is important that they choose the fish they eat carefully and use the various fish guides when making their choices, only to come for dinner another day and be proudly presented with tuna sushi or baked cod, or even a prawn cocktail.
When I ask them where this came from and whether they checked it was sustainable, I inevitably get a blank stare back. I repeat the arguments again, to which I always get sympathetic groans and understanding nods — but it obviously doesn’t stick for long. This battle to get people engaged in issues of marine conservation is shared by many marine conservationists across the world in a wide variety of contexts. If we can’t convince our own friends and family, how can we expect to reach the rest of the public?
This is exactly the question taken up at “Shallow Seas: The Future of Marine Conservation,” a recent talk at the Zoological Society of London in the UK. The talk looked at how scientists try and often fail to connect with the public about conservation issues. I thought which readers of this blog might find interesting.
Dr. Amanda Vincent, Project Seahorse’s Executive Director, put forward the case that we should focus marine conservation efforts at the ocean’s coastal areas: the world’s “shallow seas.” Not only is this the area of greatest collision between humans and the oceans, and where a huge variety of species live and important ecosystems that provide invaluable services to humanity are found (think seagrasses, coral reefs, mangroves, salt marshes, estuaries), but this is also where millions of people work, rest, play, and explore. By focusing on areas that the vast majority of people have experienced in some way, Dr. Vincent argued we stand a much better chance of engaging people in marine conservation. However, we need to improve the tools that we use to engage people in the shallow seas, and we need to tap into emerging support for marine conservation. You can read more about her ideas in a recent editorial published in Aquatic Conservation.
Dr. Sarah Coulthard, from the University of Ulster, focused on the developing world, where many of the world’s poorest and most numerous fishers depend on the ocean fringes for their very survival. Sarah highlighted the importance of understanding people’s well-being when designing marine conservation strategies for these shallow zones. Conflicts can exist between the use and value that people obtain from these areas and potential conservation policies and strategies. Without understanding the wishes and needs of these people, any conservation efforts are likely to fail. You can read more about these ideas in the following papers:
Coulthard, S., Johnson, D. and McGregor, J.A. (2011). Poverty, sustainability and human wellbeing: A social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis. Global Environmental Change 21: 453–463.
McGregor, J.A. (2004). Researching wellbeing: Communicating between the needs of policy makers and the needs of people. Global Social Policy 4(3): 337–358.
Vivekanandan, V. (2010). Trawl Brawl India — Sri Lanka trans-border fishing. Samudra report 57.
Dr. Richard Harrington, from the Marine Conservation Society, highlighted the importance of public engagement in driving forward the UK’s marine conservation agenda. He argued that the vast majority of the public’s reason for engaging in consultation comes from their personal experiences with the ocean fringes. However, despite widespread public pressure and engagement from a wide range of stakeholders from businesses to recreational yachters and holidaymakers, even now the UK government is stalling in their delivery of conservation plans.
Dr. Rebecca Jefferson, from Plymouth University, provided a fascinating insight into the UK public’s perception of the oceans and opportunities for connecting people to the sea — to increase the public’s “ocean citizenship.” Few people even know what lies beyond the coast. For example, 44% of the English public believe coastal shallows to be generally, mostly or totally barren. This illustrates one of the many barriers to developing the society-sea connection.
But there is reason for hope. Dr. Jefferson has found many people are at least interested and open to new information and ideas about our oceans. Her research has discovered that different people have different interests and motivations, and that we need to understand these differences and how to work with them. For example, women were generally more interested in pretty species, while men were more likely to be interested in species they could eat. Promisingly, however, she found that, yes, people relate to dolphins and similarly cute or anthropomorphic species, but they also relate to non-charismatic species that are nevertheless important — seagrasses for example. The challenge is in the storytelling. How do we give people the information they need to become invested in the conservation of these species? Her message was that we should not underestimate or patronise the public, but we do need to find ways to get more interesting stories out there.

Project Seahorse PhD student Danika Kleiber is studying the intersection of gender, fisheries, and food security in Bohol Province, Philippines. For an introduction to her work, read her first post from the field. You can also visit an archive of her posts.
“Can you lift it any higher, Jay?”
Jay was struggling to lift a very large ray out of the water so that I could take a picture. It was very beautiful, very heavy, and very dead. A wife and husband spearfishing team had come back with the GPS they had obligingly taken out with them, and my research assistants Jay and Aileen were there to measure the catch. As part of my research, I’ve been weighing and cataloguing the catches of local small-scale fishers to determine what they catch, who catches what, and what they eat versus what they sell. It’s part of a larger project that looks at gender roles in small-scale fisheries and their impact on food security and conservation.
One look at the ray and we all knew the 4000g electronic weighing scale, which usually does a fantastic job on small shells of all descriptions, would be woefully insufficient for this behemoth catch. Jay had first estimated the ray at 50 kg. When we finally did manage to weigh the fish, it was 37 kg and change. At 65 pesos a kilo this catch was still worth just under 2500 pesos — about US $55-60.
The fishers’ excitement about their catch was understated yet discernable. There was a brouhaha trying to find a big enough scale, and people were gathering around to take a look. One small boy even climbed on the ray’s back. I sat in the corner while the fisher woman recounted the story of pulling the ray into the boat.
The animal was what is known around here as a jackpot catch. Although 2500 may not seem like much, the other catches we measured in this community ranged in worth from 16-350 pesos ($0.40–$8).
I find the concept of ‘jackpot’ to be an interesting one, especially when it comes to fishing practices. I talked to my colleague Bernie about this after the ray had been measured and sold, and confirmed something that had been floating around in my brain: there is no jackpot in gleaning, only in offshore fishing.
Most studies detailing how people decide what fishing methods to use outline the risks and rewards, and like many things in life there is a tendency for those two things to be positively correlated, and (surprise, surprise) it also often plays into the gendering of particular fishing methods.
Dr. Rebecca Bleige Bird’s new research from fishing communities in Torres Strait, between Papua New Guinea and Australia, highlights this point. She discovered that offshore fishing was riskier, both in terms of the possibility of drowning and the chances of catching nothing, but people, mostly men, were drawn to it because there was always the chance of a big catch. And with a big catch comes big prestige.
On the other hand, Bleige Bird found that gleaning — which is done primarily by women and children and involves collecting shells, sea cucumber, octopus, and sometimes fish as they walk the shoreline — is the choice of people who need first and foremost to get food on the table. When food is scarce, you can’t take the risks associated with chasing the big catch.
Blige Bird detailed how, in Torres Strait, women are expected to put food on the table every day, and that leads them to choose gleaning. In my own research, we ask women why they don’t fish off shore in boat, and the answers we get usually mention the physical risks —drowning, exposure to the elements, seasickness, and so on.
As with most gendered activities (that is, activities that are associated with men or women but not both) there is a tension between expectations (men fish, women glean) and reality (men also glean, women also fish). It is this tension between the gender ideal and actual practice that I think presents the possibility of understanding how social change might occur.
So to recap I’ve somehow managed to connect a 37 kg spotted ray with social change and gender equality. I wonder what I’d do if someone caught one of these.