BechtelEndOfTheLine

** Director: **Rupert Murray  ** Release year: **2009   The central argument of the film is that our current fishing practices are unsustainable. Roughly 1.2 billion people rely upon fish as a staple part of their diet. This is a massive amount of people and a significant percentage of the global population which requires an enormous amount of fish. Over the past few decades we have simply been taking too much out of the planet’s Oceans to be sustainable. Many fish populations are being depleted to such low levels that they are unable to recover. Scientists are now beginning to see that the global catch has decreased dramatically. It is nearly impossible to determine the actual size of fish populations left in the ocean, but what we can tell is that they are far below what they used to be. Fishermen all across the globe have seen declining catch rates. Scientists predict that, on average, global fish populations have decreased by up to 90% of what they were before large scale fishing began. It is estimated that, if we continue our current fishing rates, the ocean’s populations will be entirely depleted by 2040. We are causing massive destruction in the world’s oceans at an alarming rate. Still, we are not reducing our fishing practices to match the decreased populations, but, in fact, many fishing operations are stepping up their efforts with newer and better technologies to catch fish. We need to change our actions soon; otherwise we will find ourselves in the midst of a global catastrophe.
 * Title: **__The End of the Line __
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

** What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **  This film draws out the matrix of sustainability problems surrounding the World’s Oceans and the resources they provide. The most apparent problem from the film is our need to fish for food. Traditionally, fishing boomed because the fish were so numerous that they provided a quick and easy way to make money. This quickly became a problem when cod populations near Canada seemed to nearly disappear in the 1990s. The population here was fished so heavily that they were unable to recover. People need to fish for their livelihood, but by fishing they are destroying the source of their livelihood. This problem has been exacerbated by the development of new technologies for fishing. Now the fishing market is nearly controlled exclusively by wealthy corporations and the over fishing and destruction still continues. The worst part is that many populations which rely solely upon fish for food and livelihood, such as costal Africa, have no control over the problem. There is a very small population that is getting extremely wealthy from all of this destruction, but everyone will have to suffer the consequences.  Another major problem brought up by the film is the government’s attempt to resolve the problem. First, while scientists may be able to estimate the size of fish populations in the ocean, there are no exact numbers and many politicians regard warnings as mere suggestions of what should be done. Many governments, such as those in Europe, set fishing limitations well above what the science suggests they should be. Alaska is currently the best exception, which the film points out as having the healthiest ocean areas. Furthermore, oceans are a common global resource and are not regulated very well in the first place. Global regulations are posed by the European Union (EU), but the EU has very little enforcement power. For this reason local regulation seems to be the best option, but with something as vast and shared as the oceans this is not viable either. We simply need to develop better means of regulation on the global scale. While there are laws in place to limit the amount of destruction caused by fishing, most fishermen don’t follow them. Nearly 50% of all fishing done is illegal, simply because no one gets caught. Some companies still use airplanes to locate fish populations in off seasons even though it has been banned for over 10 years! This is why little is being done to keep the Blue Fin Tuna and other fish from going extinct.  <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The worst problem brought out by the movie, from a consumer’s standpoint, is that the problem of over fishing is very elusive. Most people have no idea that the fish in our oceans are beginning to go extinct while they can still order a fish sandwich at a fast food joint for less than five bucks. It is this ignorance which has lead to our gluttony for fish. Nearly all of the tons of fish which are taken out of the ocean end up in the same place; on our dinner tables. As long as they are so abundant why should we not eat as much of the rarest and fancy delicacies as we please? This mindset is exactly the reason some people think that fish farms can be a solution too. The truth is that fish aren’t an abundant resource and we should be extremely careful about what we take out of the ocean. Also, when the government sees that there isn’t much public concern over ocean species, it in turn shows little concern. As the movie suggests, people would be outraged to learn that they were eating the last of the cheetah population into extinction, but when someone mentions the Blue Fin Tuna there is generally much less concern.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">I found that the best part of the film was that it clearly alluded to a problem that is not normally very clear. Before watching this movie I was not seriously concerned about the condition of our oceans or the amount of fish that we eat, but I definitely am now. I found the pathos, fisherman testimonies, and scientific findings to be the most persuasive parts of the film. The serious concern shown by fishermen about the problem was the most convincing. These people are actively connected to the source of the problem and could clearly see something was wrong. The images of mass amounts of fish being killed, in conjunction with the scientific findings and extrapolations were also believable. Neither just images or extrapolations could have stood alone, however, because most of the facts were speculative and the images of fish being killed were not enough to show that it was a real sustainability problem.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The part of the film that I was least compelled or convinced by was the solutions to the problem. The film tried to present that there were simple things that we could do to solve the problems addressed, but this wasn’t believable. They took the approach that there were solutions out there and that we need to “Just do it”. The matrix of sustainability problems that the film alluded to seems to have no simple, grand solution like this. I also believe that the director should have interviewed more experts on the subject to get show credibility. Several professionals were addressed in the film, but only a few of them were actually scientists.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What audiences does the film best address? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">This film can be shown to a very general audience, but seems more directed toward adult viewers. The grotesque images of fish being killed would clearly not be acceptable for a young viewer. It is the parents and other independent adults that this film reaches out to. This population is the one who purchases fish without knowing that their actions are responsible for the destruction of the Earth’s Oceans. This audience is also the one that can vote and affect political decisions related Ocean Management Regulation.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">This film had excellent environmental educational value, but the best thing that could be added to enhance this value is more science about ecosystems. The first apparent problem caused by overfishing is an unnatural restructuring of ocean ecosystems. This problem is addressed multiple times throughout the film, but there is very little mention of the ecosystem dynamics that takes place. This is something an introductory level college biology course and many high school biology courses contain and is essential to understanding how ecosystems work. The most prominent work done in this field was by Charles Darwin, who is barely even mentioned in the film. An understanding of this would certainly help the movie’s central argument. This is information that the film’s general audience likely doesn’t know about.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">This film does an excellent job of clearly articulating the possible solutions that could solve the problem. The suggested points of action and intervention are threefold: individual, industry, and government. The suggested action taken by individuals to help solve the problem is to only support sustainable fishing. This requires individuals to be educated about the problems of most contemporary fishing methods and aware of what fish they buy in their personal lives. The film emphasizes the fact by buying fish you are directly supporting an unsustainable industry and if no one bought from these companies anymore they would go out of business. The next point of action suggested is on the part of the fishing industry. It is obviously not responsible or (in most cases) beneficial for the fishing industry to continue fishing at their current rate when the oceans may be depleted of fish in the near future. Without fish there won’t be any more industry. The truth is that companies will have to suffer an economic blow either now or in the future when fish populations run out. The government intervention suggested by the film is to enforce stricter regulations for fishing rates allowed by companies. There is some legislation in place for this now, but it is hardly even enforced. Because it is so easy for companies to get away with breaking the law, they do it on a regular basis. Action taken by the Alaskan government is what the film suggests be implemented on a global scale. Furthermore, if current fishing subsidies were channeled to support this it would be economically feasible. Although each of these solutions has its complications, they definitely would solve the problem if implemented properly. As one would expect, the very first step that needs to happen is public education of the problem. Only when the problem is understood and accepted can action be taken to solve it. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">This film compelled me to seek out whether or not the fish I eat on a regular basis is sustainable. As a consumer I am a part of the matrix of sustainability problems surrounding overfishing, but now that I understand and accept the problem I would like to do my best to help solve it. The fish I eat most often is canned Bumble Bee brand tuna. I know this is a large corporation, so I was skeptical of what kind of fishing practices they support, but the first thing I found was information on []. This website was obviously created to convince the public that the company is sustainable. The stated mission of the company is: “Improving our consumers’ quality of life by providing sustainable, nutritious, convenient and affordable seafood products.” From here the website goes on to analyze the sustainability of various aspects of the production process in which the company is involved. The sustainable fisheries section contains a huge amount of information on the company’s fishing process. You can even find figures for how much by-catch there is in different locations and what the company is doing about it. One paragraph mentions that Bumble Bee tuna was recognized by the Marine Stewardship Foundation, which is an organization mentioned in the film (the one which labels McDonald’s fish patties as sustainable). You can also find that, “Bumble Bee is also proud to be a founder of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF)” and the” __ISSF mission:__ Undertake science-based initiatives for the long term sustainability of tuna stocks, reduction of by-catch and promotion of ecosystem health, largely by supporting the conservation recommendations of tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO) scientific committees.” After seeing all of this it is rather convincing that eating fish from this company is not part the problems addressed in the film, but as a skeptic I decided to do some more research and get a third opinion. After looking harder I came across the following article released by Greenpeace: []. In this article it says, “ISSF member companies… are either large producers or processors of tuna caught using FADs ( Fish Aggregation Devices) <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> and contribute to the decline of tuna, sharks, turtles and other vulnerable marine life. Greenpeace is urging the ISSF to stop sourcing purse seine FAD-caught tuna. Greenpeace is also calling upon retailers to not buy tuna from the companies that refuse to move away from FAD’s, including ISSF companies such as Princes, Bumble Bee/Clover Leaf and others.” This information sheds light on a very different point of view than what the company would like you to believe. After doing this research I have concluded that eating Bubble Bee Tuna is not sustainable and I should find a new source of fish.