Students: Christine Anderson, Lesley Blankenship, Alex Curtis, Joel Fodrie, Catherine Johnson, Lisa Munger

Meeting #1 - 7 Jan 02 - Checkley - Introduction

No notes

Meeting #2 - 14 Jan 02 - Checkley - Various papers (NY Times Editorial, Watson and Pauly (2002), Roberts et al. 2002, Browman (2000))

2.1 -

Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends:

-general problem of having to rely on catch data from many sources to get
good idea of what is going on globally
-china has been over-reporting their fishing catches and since they are so
big makes it look like overall fish catches still increasing when actually
declining
-therefore situation is actually worse than indicated by fishing data
-managing fisheries is difficult when accurate fish population data is
available, fishing data gives some indication of fish pop but when this is
intentionally misreported there is really no way to have good numbers to
make decisions with
-with such uncertainty it is critical to use a very conservative approach
to fisheries management to avoid collapses ----but this is nearly
impossible if the numbers tell you world catch is still increasing
-good thing : this article does show that possible to roughly check
reported catches
-fisheries influenced by many things - the over-reporting by china is
unexpected - usually catches are under-reported - but looking into their
political situation gives some explanation

2.2 -

Watson and Pauly (Chinese overreporting of catch):
1)importance of fisheries-independent data in estimating population parameters
2) importance of including effort in calculations (catch per effort)

Roberts et al. (marine reserves):
1) how can we establish reserves for pelagic species?
2) combine reserves with seasonal/size restrictions?
3) old vs. young fishermen attidudes, social and cultural factors--> sociological aspect to fisheries science

Browman et al. (evolution series of papers)
1) "slot fishing" idea--allow catch of intermediate size individuals
2) how to incorporate evolutionary/life history/trophic interaction/etc. data into models?
3) importance of reserves in maintaining genetic diversity

2.3 -

1) There is a need to be somewhat critical of fishery-dependent data, and it currently seems best to incorporate both fishery-dependent data and fishery-independent data into any attempt to estimate stock sizes.

2) Management of fisheries has focused on a limited set of goals, while not giving proper consideration to various other issues (such as the evolutionary implications of harvesting in this case).

Meeting #3 - 23 Jan 02 - Christine Anderson - History (Botsford et al. (1997), Jackson et al. (2001), Lackey (2000), NOAA (2001))

3.1 -

Lackey et al: emphasis on freshwater aquaculture (not discussed in other articles).
Definition of stakeholders evolving; care must be taken in deciding who gets to be a stakeholder (vested interests?).
Can the value of preservation outweigh the value of commodity? (example: Belize, where diving and tourism bring in more revenue than fishing).
Is education possible? Most of us were pessimistic--fish still tastes good, and even if public educated about overfishing, would not necessarily translate into politics. Also, public awareness depends on location (coastal vs. inland communities). But, education of public has brought about some positive changes, i.e. "dolphin-safe" tuna (dolphins still caught up to 8 times/year, stressed!)
Even "safe" fish, like Pacific swordfish, may still have bycatch issues (albatross, leatherbacks).
Global bycatch= 60 billion pounds= 1/3 total catch. Does not include fishmeal.
Historic examples of fisheries mgmt: Hanseatic league in 1200's concerned w/ herring stocks, pre-European Hawaiian fish farms.

Jackson et al.:
Stable states and shifting equilibrium. How to reach pre-fishing equilibrium? It's possible.
Reserves, success stories mostly single-species. Some are ecosystem recovery: Georges Bank.

Thoughts from Paul, others:
Ocean basin management?
IWC--minke whales actually abundant enough to resume whaling in S. Ocean?

Only in fisheries is the burden of proof on preservationists, and not on the exploiters.
Is burden of proof the real issue? maybe the standards or level/ uncertainty of proof.

IFQ's--displace small operators. CDQ's give back $ from precautionary margin to native communities to build fisheries.

Final question from Dave: Why not just take out the top of the food chain and eat anchovies and sardines?
Does altering ecosystem reduce production, pave way for disease, invasion of exotic species?
Why is pristine ecosystem more valuable?

3.2 -

Changing Public Attitudes:
- the definition of a stakeholder is still evolving
- relative economic value (or potential) of ecotourism vs. fishing is very
different in different countries, and it is easier to communicate value of
biodiversity to artisanal fishermen than large industrial fleets
- can educate public about overfishing problems, but can't force them to
give up eating fish ("can lead a horse to water...")
- even scientific community is still awakening to importance of fishing
issues, and to the idea that there is a carrying capacity in the ocean -
how can change public attitudes if people don't care enough about something
to have an attitude? we must translate science better into economics so it
is more important to people, otherwise fishermen are only ones with
economic stake and will always be more vociferous and win
- the need to sell optimism - a faculty member would preferably have a
focus on contributing positively towards progress

Management:
- importance of release of pressure on management
- Paul: issue isn't burden of proof, but standard of proof - where do we
draw the line for fishing?
- it's always easier to show obvious economic damage to fishermen than to
prove that ecosystem is being damaged
- bring humans into the ecosystem for ecosystem management
- balancing drawing maximum benefit from oceans for humans vs ecosystem
"virginity":
- If overfishing is original source of our problems (Jackson et al), we
must restore ecosystems to original state.
- Heritage to our grandchildren
- Maximizing take would continue to promote the greedy attitude that takes
out other fish populations and in end would pressure management until low
trophic level fisheries were depleted as well.

3.3 -

The history of management has always seemed to be a step behind for what ever reason (bad data, the wrong focus, political and/or social issues, etc.), and to ensure the quality/stability/intrinsic value (whatever term you prefer), some drastic changes are needed. This may include the following:

Major Restoration Ecology Programs:

I personally am a fan of restoration ecology, and I also do think that it reasonable that we make value judgments about what is "best for us" to restore (based on ecological data concerning species interactions, geochemical cycling, water quality issues). As we learn about "ghosts" and sliding baselines, it seems to me that returning the system to a pristine state is not likely as we really won't ever have a true grasp of what was pristine. Therefore, I think we will always fail if this is our main goal.

Manage the water like we do the land:

I was glad to here you suggest this possibility as I have considered it myself for a while. This certainly gives us the framework and rational for setting up large reserves and aquaculture farms. However, I realize the numerous problems that are attached; just a couple of which are: cantankerous seascape ownership issues (as many lawsuits as can be imagined will undoubtedly occur), and the "frontier" heritage associated with getting out on the water.

3.4 -

Lackey
Main point: History of fisheries management with an emphasis on freshwater systems.

Topics of discussion:
Involvement of stakeholders in fisheries management. Who are the stakeholders -- fishers, ecotourism operators, the public? Do stakeholders adequately represent the best interest of the fishery (foxes/henhouse)? What is the value of preservation, and how is the best way to communicate this?
Historical perpective on management examples: Bureau of Commercial Fisheries created to augment fisheries; salmon stocking in NW; precontact aquaculture in Hawaii.
To what extent and when did people realize that fisheries were not inexhaustible? NMFS formed in 1871. 1883 Huxley v. Lankester. Hanseatic League herring quotas 1200's.
Why aren't fisheries problems widely recognized in the US?

Jackson et al.

Main points: Ecological extinction caused by overfishing precedes other human disturbance. Populations of large consumers were historically much larger than today. Removal of these species by overfishing has dramatically changed communities.

Questions:
Is recovery possible? Scientific effort/insight v. political will.
What are positive examples of fishery management / recovery? Single species: sardine, Alaskan salmon, Pacific halibut, yellowfin tuna, Georges Bank reserves?, Minke whales.

Botsford et al.

Main point: As global marine fish catch reaches its upper limit, management is not achieving sustainability. Decreasing fishing pressure is more likely to achieve this goal than reducing uncertainty in model predictions.

Topics of discussion:
Ratchet effect -- increase in fishing pressure.
Burden of proof rests with scientists to show that damage is being done. THe real issue is the standard or level of proof where you draw the line on uncertainty in stock assessment, using the precautionary principle.
Individual Fishing Quota or Community Development Quotas as a means to involve fishers in sustainable management.
How do you equate ecosystems' and species' health with the need for food and jobs?
Moral/ethical argument for preservation: preserving environment for future generations.
Agricultural argument for habitat destruction by fishing: fishers as farmers. But fishers don't own the environment, so damage is done to a common resource.

Meeting # 4 - Lisa Munger - Population Dynamics (Kareiva (2002), Fujiwara and Caswell (2002), Myers (2001), Myers et al. (1995))

4.1 -

Myers et al. (1995) and Myers (2001)
Main points and discussion:
Myers (2001) reviews studies, including Myers et al.(1995) using meta-analysis on 700 studies to examine stock-recruitment relationships.
Maximum annual reproductive rate (slope at origin of Ricker or Beverton-Holt model) is central to estimating limits of overfishing. Limiting fishing mortality is sensitive to lowest age of selection.
Meta-analysis allowed estimation of carrying capacity, and reveals variability in carrying capacity for different cod populations.
Depensation not shown for species examined here, which implies that species can recover if released from overfishing and are unlikely to have been shifted to a lower stable state. However, species examined may be less prone to depensation. Others, such as abalone or ?sheephead? may be more prone. In addition, population bottlenecks could be a related problem, for example exposing 'recovered' populations to greater risk from disease or environmental variability.
Evidence for inter-cohort density dependence was found for sockeye salmon and cod.
Variability in survival from egg to recruit was more variable at low adult abundance.
A slightly positive relationship between recruitment variability and log-fecundity exists when all taxa are combined, but the relationship is probably not strong enough to be important.
Spatial scale of recruitment variability is larger for marine taxa than for freshwater taxa.
Recruitment variability and oceanographic stability co-varied in several studies.
Recruitment was more variable at the edges of a species' range.
Temperature and recruitment are correlated at the edge of species' ranges, but this relationship hasn't been used in management.

Fujiwara and Caswell (2001)
Main point:
Matrix modeling reveals that the most vulnerable stage of endangered Northern Right whales in NW Atlantic is mothers. Mortality on mothers has increased since 19XX, and consequently number of offspring has decreased. Saving a few could greatly increase the population; conversely, death of a few could greatly impact the population.

Discussion:
New data from a recent good year with 23 births (v. ca. 4 / y in study) is not included. Why the good year? High copepod population, and immigration counteracts previous emigration?
Why has mortality increased? Increase in cargo ship speed? Increase in number of lobster pots?
Other cetacean population bottlenecks: microsatellites revealed gray whales descend from a few males.
Another LTRE example: Caswell & Crowder, on olive ridleys and loggerheads, found that adult parameters were most important (not habitat for egg laying); however, now beach protection has been shown to be very important.

4.2 -

On the population dynamics front:

I tend to believe that the Allee effect is more prevalent than the Myers paper indicated. I think the points made about more sessile critters were dead on, and I also think that the cases of simultaneous hermaphrodism in groupers and deep sea fishes would likely demonstrate the Allee effect- as the stategy there appears to be albe to reproduce anytime you run into a conspecific. While I do think that the allee effect creates a "separatrix" (and therefore a thresholod in the population dynamics which has to be overcome somehow before population numbers will rebound), this is much more easily overcome (the data indicates to me it occurs in some cases) than reversing changes related to ecosystem multiple stable states.

Regarding who should be hired at Scripps in the Fisheries Science system:

My strongest notion being that what I think and $1.25 should get you a drink from the machine on 2nd floor, Sverdrup.

BUT SECONDLY, to sum my curent view- I agree with what (I thought at least) I heard from Catherine. Unfortunately, Alan Hastings don't grow on trees, and leaving that possibility aside, I would prefer not to see a theoretical ecologist at Scripps who exploits certain fishereis data to suit the "math" they are interested in. I'd think I could get more out of someone interested in using knowledge of the life histories of fishery items, and incorporating that with whatever type of model is most applicable to the circumstances, to produce new information.

4.3 -

· Debate about Allee affect. Does it exist? If so, is it prominent? Seemed to be dogma answer for unrecovering stocks but Myers et al (1995) showed surprisingly little support for it. However, it was noted that evidence supporting allee affect may be confounded by other factors and for immobile or marine organisms that move very little, this situation could be real.
· These papers all mention that the lack of long-term data (<30 years in most cases) for fisheries as making it difficult to detect (amongst stochiatic data) or determine the important forces behind the population dynamics of fish stocks. Thus, clever approaches, such as meta-analytical techniques are employed.
· The idea that knowledge of life-history patterns and differing mortality rates between age/sex classes are indispensable for conservation efforts is highlighted in the case of the Atlantic northern right whale.

4.4 -

Depensation
- Myer's study did not look at those species most likely to show
depensation - all the fish populations he examined are fairly mobile.
- One of the biggest risks of the reduction in genetic diversity caused by
a population bottleneck is vulnerability of the population to disease -
there is some evidence that disease resistance can be associated with an
allele.

Population forecasting:
- Even if we can successfully correlate fish population behavior with
environmental variables, the environment is also very difficult to predict.
However, it would still be a step above only knowing population size in
hindsight.

What would right whale population analysis look like if last 5 years were
included?

Meeting #5 - 4 Feb 02 - Lesley Blankenship - Models (Pauly et al. (2000), Shannon et al. (2000), Schnute and Richards (2001))

5.1 -

Pauly et al. paper: ecosim: differential equation gives better convergence; equilibrium model
ecopath: mass balance using discrete time intervals (not differentiated)

Models build on existing models; must understand what model is capable of. There's a difference in designing models for fisheries management and to use in forming hypotheses. Multiple ways to make inferences from data.

Marine mammals--use simpler models, reduce # of parameters to something we can measure (i.e. population size, growth rate).

Goal of some models just describing how systems behave-may not be good tool in actually making management predictions..

Question of matching objectives to approaches. Team-taught course, or single person with integrative/eclectic approach?

Other management issues-- effort quotas instead of catch quotas? Advantages--maybe limit bycatch, disturbance to environment. Disadvantages--catch as catch can.

Role of intuition/conceptual thinking in modelling, managemnt.

What-if/worst-case scenario models useful mainly in generating hypotheses.

Meeting #6 - Mon 11Feb 02 - Joel Fodrie - Multispecies Issues (Pauly et al. (1998), Caddy et al. (1998), Hollowed et al. (2000), Steneck (1998), Leffler (1995))

6.1 -

Multispecies Concerns in Fisheries Science

Fishing Down the Food Web
- are we really fishing down or fishing simulatneously across all trophic
levels?
- how do prey species interactions with humans differ from their
interactions with the predators we have replaced (e.g. sharks)?
- where are scavengers in the Ecopath trophic level system?
- increasing signal of trophic level reduction with time with increasing
taxonomic accuracy may be artifact of better taxonomic resolution at higher
trophic levels?
- a good attention-getting article that affects the way managers and public
think about overfishing, but is Pauly pushing the idea harder than the data
really supports?

Indirect effects of fishing:
Bycatch
- bycatch is equivalent to 1/4 - 1/3 of total world catch
- classification of bycatch:
- kept, discarded, unobserved (including destroyed sessile benthics)
- spatial, temporal, "value", etc.
- bycatch reduction
- BPUE has most promise for being accepted by fishermen
- effort reduction
- force fishermen to keep all bycatch and regulate fishery by tonnage of
total landings (example in Norway?)
-changing behaviour/abundance of scavengers that utilize discarded bycatch

Provision of more explicit risk analyses to fisheries managers by
scientists might make them take management limits more seriously and
subscribe to precautionary approach.

6.2 -

Questions raised: what is temporal framework for species interactions? Sequential or all-at-once?
How do human interactions with "prey" contrast with natural predator-prey interactions? (services performed by predators usually absent when humans are removing prey species, also different selective pressures, plus bycatch and incidental degradation of habitat when humans fish).

Joel gave statistic: 1/3 of management plans in effect in U.S. are multispecies. Question: what constitutes "multispecies" management? Two or more species? Both commercial species, or are non-fished species taken into account?

Are trophic cascades really there? easy to see in kelp forest, reefs, some other instances (i.e. release of krill from whale predation in S. Ocean led to increase in fur seals, penguins). But hard to see in pelagic habitat. Also, trophic cascades may be masked by disease, advection.

Unstructured food webs (Isaacs early 70's). Larval feeding, also may confound interpretation as "trophic cascades".

Pauly paper: not sure if results are reproducible! Localized examples, region-specific. Still an important paper for the attention/publicity it drummed up.

Why not fish down food webs? Take percentage of PP required for humans directly out of most abundant trophic level (maybe not as low as plankton--eewww). Good argument for vegetarians when discussing how much grass/resources it takes to raise a cow--just eat the grass, uses up less resource, better for environment. Sadly, fishing down food web would be out of necessity and not choice.

Need for baseline data! closest thing we have is fisheries-independent data. Good argument for maintaining time-series data like CalCOFI. S. Africa also has excellent fisheries-independent research program.

Fishing up food web-- aquaculture raises fishmeal species/ bycatch fishmeal, fed to big fish, we eat the big fish.

Norway has a keep-everything rule-- no bycatch.

Use marine reserves for baseline data? Does spillover fishing confound?

Hollowed paper: do we test hypotheses using models, or use models to generate hypotheses? Multi-species models = what MIGHT happen, not what is most likely.

Removal of 60% (or 30%) of pollock in n. pacific--never asked what effect might have on other species. Now, perhaps Steller's sea lion problem linked?

Why not use "forecast skill" concept in fisheries to evaluate accuracy of models/predictions? Because models usually not followed by managers--often just choose arbitrary value somewhere between economic best-case-scenario and biological worst-case-scenario.

Scientists--need more emphasis on probability of error and consequences of error..

Chesapeake Bay paper: interesting--menhaden export nitrogen? But still can't do the same job oysters/filter feeders used to. Plus, now have dinoflagellate disease in menhaden, so even if eutrophication has increased their food supply and abundance, that does not translate into increased economic good/protein supply for humans.

6.3 -

First, I echo Bob Olsen's (was that who sent the email) comments about the use of models to generate hypotheses rather than as major tools for managing stocks.

Second, The falling in love with one's creation has reared its ugly head once again. We first encountered it in the models talk, and again discussed it regarding Pauly. I'm sure there are countless examples of this , but the one that really comes to my mind is the pre- vs post recruitment limitation debate that has really been hot for the last twenty years. Doherty, and Sale always seem to find coral reef systems that are recruitment limited, while the Hixon type camp are always observing post-settlement density depent mortality. It just goes to make the point about the humna factor in managing, as well as in science.

Third, Multispecies management definity seems to be in fashion (at least talk of it is) but I'm not completely satisfied that the extent of trophic cascades is sufficiently understood to abandon some single species concepts. Nor am I satisfied that all the datat that is required to effectively impliment multispecies management is in place.

Meeting #7 - Wed 20 Feb 02 Alex Curtis - Management, Cod (Momatiuk and Eastcott (1994) [Alex will provide], Holmes (1994), Hutchings et al. (1997), Kunzig (1995), Healey (1997), Doubleday et al. (1997), Hutchings et al. (1997))

7.1 -

Background: In Canada, 2 ways to estimate cod collapse: 1) fishery-independent (high variability, sensitive arithmetic mean, no spatial info) and 2) VPA fishery-dependent (overestimate biomass early in lifespan, fishing effort not accounted for, bycatch inaccurately reported).
Why the collapse? Some theories
1) Environment-evidence for: colder waters? But in the late 1800's, sustainable catches even though water was colder; in 1980's, unsustainable catches. Evidence for: plaice population decreased also. Evidence for: weight-at-age lower, but this not necessarily indicative of environment-could be removal of larger fish driving selection).
2) Seal predation-evidence against: fish year classes did not decrease with increasing seal abundance. But, seals may be hindering recovery.
3) Overfishing.
4) Southward shift of population (more likely, just plain reduction in population from north to south).
5) Allee effect? Could hinder recovery.
Trends in statistical methods: arithmetic mean was constant until the collapse. Geometric mean showed more overall decline. Rank-based showed decline 4 years earlier than arithmetic.

The northeast groundfish collapse illustrates that the revisions to the Magnuson Act were not as sweeping as had been hoped.
Point: what constitutes overfishing, as well as steps for recovery, must be well-defined AHEAD of time.

Hutchings article: research incompatible with government? We disagreed somewhat, noting the danger of privatizing research. Government does need to mandate research in response to management concerns.

Problem: how to convey scientific variability to public? Public wants clear-cut results/advice. Is science biased? The outcome actually is a consensus, hopefully a "central tendency" agreed upon by many.
Need: risk analysis. Just reporting confidence intervals is not enough.

Healy article: fisheries science needs to look at complete systems, not just "discipline bits" (i.e. studying physiology separate from physical oceanography separate from population dynamics separate from behavioral ecology etc etc).

What is the gov't cost of bailing out fishermen? We came up with $1 billion/yr in Canada, $2 billion/yr in U.S. ??
Notice that fisheries investments and returns (annual) do not occur on same time scale as the fish (decadal or other). If hiring at SIO, consider knowledge of time scales, economy, multiple species…

Mono Lake: example of public trust. Model for fisheries, regions?

An interesting idea: What is definition of efficiency? Antiquated vs. "Progress". What if people were restricted to fishing the old-fashioned way? Less automation=more people working, more time spent at sea, =maintain the romantic fishing lifestyle?

Lawsuits seem to be an effective way of enforcing rules (NGO's marine mammals, birds, turtles), refining legislation.

Education- maybe more effective if everything expressed in a common metric: $$. The "true" costs and profits from fishing, including environmental damage, taxes, subsidies, etc. The whole enchilada.

Back to fisheries science within government: should vested interests be removed from councils? Magnuson act still lets them make decisions. All sides must be represented on council, including green/environmental.

And back to an important point: Make management guidelines beforehand; agree on rules/models before implementing strategies.

NMFS-independent from Fisheries Council. Don't do retrospective analysis/adaptive management-maybe they should.

7.2 -

Management of Cod in the Northwest Atlantic

Given that both US and Canadian management systems allowed the stocks to
collapse, what must be done differently? The independent scientific body
recommended by Hutchings is unlikely to solve the problem in itself (hasn't
done so in the US).
recommendations:
1) Integration of uncertainty in scientific estimates into economic risk
analysis would translate the recommendations into language that may be
better understood and heeded by managers and the public.
2) Removal of people with direct economic interest in the fisheries from
the management councils (as was again not accomplished in the revised
Magnuson Act).
3) Formalize input to management process from industry and
environmentalists to take the shape of another report akin to the
recommendation from the scientists.
4) Apply the possible teeth provided by the revised Magnuson Act's
requirement for formal definition of overfishing by suing government for
mismanagement of stocks that continue to be overfished by their own
definition.
5) Realize that growth of fisheries is NOT unlimited and can't be
approached using same capitalist management techniques as other aspects of
the economy. Adjust perception of 'efficiency' accordingly - overfishing is
inefficient, instead we may consider maximizing number of jobs, number of
fish (probably would support higher catch than today's overfished stocks),
and preservation of habitat and culture through controls on fishing
technology. Traditional fishermen may also be more likely to embrace
precautionary approach since they have much more at stake.
6) Conduct thorough retrospective economic analysis to bolster the argument
that the precautionary approach saves money in the long run.

comments on/lessons from Hutchings
- Completely ignoring the influence of environment in stock size and
recruitment is not advisable - fluctuations of population with environment
must be understood for effective precautionary management if the stock ever
recovers.
- The sparse data on which scientists must base their stock asessments
should be examined from every possible angle (e.g. arithmetic and geometric
means).

Unaddressed questions:
- Should a baseline fishery be maintained to preserve the fishing culture
even after a stock has been declared severely overfished or collapsed?

7.3 -

2/20/02

Canadian cod collapse
Overview: Foreign fishers greatly increase cod exploitation off maritime Canada from the late 1950's until institution of the 200 mile limit in 1977. Post-1977, Canadian cod fisheries were built up inshore and offshore, driving cod populations down until the moratorium on cod fishing in 1992. Cod populations appeared to recover after 1977, but has not recovered after 1972.

Hutchings et al. 1997

Main points: Bureaucratic interference, failure to transmit scientific uncertainty, suppression of information, selective use and dissemination of data, and political considerations by DFO in developing policy have resulted in the collapse of the cod fishery in Atlantic Canada and the salmon fishery on the Nechako River in B.C. Suggested solutions include stock assessment and fisheries science conducted by an independent institution; inclusion of scientific disagreements and variability in parameter estimate in assessment documents, and release of scientific information to the public at the same time as to DFO.

Questions / Discussion: NMFS is organized similarly to the way Hutchings et al. recommend, and yet, cod populations also collapsed in the US. The system lacks analysis of effects of past policy and an adaptive management strategy.
Magnuson changes include more neutral parties; formal definition of overfishing before it happens and pre-agreed steps when overfishing occurs; but no disclosure of conflicts of interest (but changes haven't been implemented yet?).
Fish & Wildlife spun off an independent research division, but it is not responsive to gov't management needs, so it isn't useful.

Doubleday et al.
Main points: Hutchings et al.'s claim that non-science influences can interfere with the dissemination of scientific information and the conduct of science in DFO is refuted by describing DFO's open-system of peer review and by identifying H. et al's misinterpretation and selective quotations.

Healey
Main points: Hutchings et al.'s suggestion that an arm's-length scientific agency would improve fisheries management is flawed. Science and stock conservation is not the only consideration in setting fisheries policy, and the minister must make value judgments in setting policy, because (1) an independent science agency wouldn't necessarily do the appropriate science that the gov't needs, (2) science is unbiased, (3) the public is unaware of uncertainty and desires / needs more detailed information, (4) the minister would feel bound to accept the pronouncements of an independent science agency, and (5) better data and analysis would lead to better policy. Rather, the relationship between fishery science and fishery policy could be more effective if (1) both policy makes and scientists better understood one another's needs and limitations and (2) DFO treated policy initiatives as experiments in a program of adaptive assessment and management.

Discussion: Public doesn't want detailed info about variability / uncertainty (analogy of Nat'l Acad. of Science - consensus papers) - perhaps a better way to represent variability is by use of risk analysis.
Value and management - non-science considerations: It would be valuable to study whole ecosystems, not just single species. It would be valuable to include analysis of long-term economic consequences of policy decisions, e.g. what is the ecosystem cost; what is the subsidy cost?
Management and inefficiency: Given that growth of exploitation is not unlimited in marine ecosystems, does technological 'progress' in fisheries make sense (i.e. if it leads to taking the quota in one day by one fisher at high cost to the ecosystem, in the most extreme case). The key consideration, though, is not enforced inefficiency but hard quotas.
More solutions: CA constitution includes preservation of the public trust; are lawsuits by NGOs necessary to enforce responsible management, as with marine mammals? Should people with a direct financial interest in fishing be removed from policy decision-making - model of neutral decision-makers advised by science, fishers, environmentalists. Punt: the decision process should be pre-agreed on, before the data come in.

Meeting #8 - 24 Feb 02 Andre Punt (UW) - (Punt and Butterworth (1995), Cochrane et al. (1998), Butterworth and Punt (2002))

8.1 -

· For fisheries, ecosystem models include biological and technological interactions. His model framework consists of "stocks", "fisheries", and "environment" with environment being anything exclusive of stocks and fisheries.
· This framework is elaborated to create a variety of different "operating models" for one system. Stocks, flows, and parameters are varied for one system to create different models describing the same system.
· One key uncertainty in the model is the "feeding functional relationship" which is usually a poorly defined non-linear parameter dependant on both predator and prey stocks. Defining this parameter usually requires large scale "experimentation" which is really difficult to implement in the ocean.
· A case study for how different operating models generate different results is the hake-seal case. If you group together all hake as one stock, then seal culls lead to increase fisheries. If you separated the two species of hake, then seal culls lead to decreased fisheries.
· This illustrates an important point. How the user constructs the model influences outcomes (sometimes drastically as the case study illustrates). An over simplified model will produce an incorrect result but modeling the "entire ecosystem" is not possible either. So the resulting question is "How complete do fisheries models need to be if they are to successfully predict the consequences in management changes?" (Punt's personal note is that most models are a complete waste of time for this application)

8.2 -

Fisheries management problems are approached using the Operational Management Procedure (OMP). The OMP approach includes
1: advance agreement about management objectives and decision rules,
2. selection of harvest control laws based on Monte Carlo simulation of how different strategies will affect fish stocks in the long term (e.g. projected 20 years into the future),
3. use of multiple models and explicit treatment of uncertainty in order to make assessments that are robust to model and data error, and
4. choice of performance measures that are meaningful to decision-makers (e.g. statements of risk, quantified using Bayesian methods).

Extension of this method to multiple species or ecosystems is possible, but is not yet common due to a great increase in complexity and lack of knowledge. Problems with extending the OMP to ecosystems include difficulties in defining ecosystems objectives; difficulty measuring species interactions; and current limitations in multi-species modeling leading to counter-intuitive and thus unuseful results and qualitatively different results of different multi-species models.

Examples of application of the OMP include management of anchovy and sardine in South Africa, in which directed catch of sardine and anchovy and bycatch of sardine are traded off, and management of hake and fur seals, also off South Africa. Culls of seals are not recommended for increasing catch of deep hake, Merluccius paradoxus, since seals feed on the coastal hake, M. capensis, a predator (as adults) on juvenile M. paradoxus.

The OMP approach provides measures of risk for various decision rules and allows decision-makers to trade off risk for higher catch or other objectives. Advance agreement on objectives and a transparent process encourage cooperation among fishers, scientists, and decision-makers.

Meeting #9 - 4 Mar 02 - Daniel Pauly (UBC) - (Pauly et al. (1998), Pauly et al. (2000), Watson and Pauly (2002))

9.1

need 'weathermap' of global fisheries status - something public can grasp
- gave maps of biomass and fishing mortality in 1900 vs present
- using expanded scale in space and time to demonstrate trends
-combat industry getting away with depleting stocks because of 'shifting
baseline'

- argued that increasing the number of parameters going into a model
constrains it more rather than allowing error to balloon
- argued opposite of Punt that only stocks with any hope are those of
*developed* countries (is there a magic combination of political stability
and importance of fishing to economy that optimizes chance for stocks to be
well-managed?)
- fisheries management and conservation of biodiversity are intimately
linked, especially when redefine biodiversity to include ecosystem structure
- isofish.org - expose the unromantic, corrupt, corporate aspects of
fishing so politicians are less likely to support industry
- Pauly stressed importance of data synthesis and retrospective analysis

- trophic pyramid of 1881 vs. 1981 - shorter and smaller. (What does it
look like if we add in humans as predators?)
- fishing no longer profitable if internalize costs of pollution, energy,
unemployment
- aquaculture only useful if non-impacting, low-trophic level types pursued
- disconnect of public comprehension of total devastation between
terrestrial and marine (but in terrestrial we have caused massive
widespread devastation too)

other thoughts:
what is global MSY? Could we ever reach it if all fisheries were
well-managed? The serial depletion of stocks means we never saw what the
global max might have been. Would biological/technical interactions in
fisheries make reaching a 'global MSY' impossible?

Meeting #10 - 11 Mar 02 - Catherine Johnson - Marine Protected Areas - (Agardy (2000), Dayton et al. (2000), Hastings and Botsford (1999), Sala et al. (2001))

10.1

Setting objectives for MPA - can't make unrealistic promises to fishermen
or existence of MPA will be endangered when expectations aren't met. Is
'heritage' argument the safest then? But will people care as much about a
heritage they will never see? How can we connect them to it?

How test success of MPA? Manage for top predators as proxy of the system as
a whole?

MPAs can't be exclusive management tool because the political will to make
them large enough is lacking, and need to protect fish outside the MPA in
case it turns out not to be adequate.

Importance of MPAs to buffer against management uncertainty

Sanctuary - even if initially useless, can still get us started down the
right road

Paul: fishermen are too many and too politically aggressive - caused their
own demise. We shouldn't be responsible for bailing them out again.

Economics can be used to argue in any direction, and are useless for
persuading sports fishermen because they can fish long beyond end of
economic viability