Defining and Implementing Best Available Science for Fisheries and Environmental Science, Policy, and Management P

REPORT: BEST SCIENCE COMMITTEE

Defining and Implementing Best Available Science for Fisheries and Environmental Science, Policy, and Management P. J. Sullivan, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY In the United States, many of the laws J. M. Acheson, University of Maine, Orono governing environmental conservation and P. L. Angermeier, U.S. Geological Survey, Blacksburg, VA management stipulate that the best avail- T. Faast, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR able science be used as the basis for policy J. Flemma, Prairie Rivers Network, Champaign, IL and decision making. The Endangered C. M. Jones, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA Species Act, for example, requires that deci- E. E. Knudsen, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK sions on listing a species as threatened or T. J. Minello, NOAA Fisheries, Galveston, TX endangered be made on the basis of the D. H. Secor, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons “best scientific and commercial data avail- R. Wunderlich, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA able.” Similarly, National Standard 2 of the B. A. Zanetell, U.S. State Department, Washington, DC Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act states that conserva- The findings and conclusions of this report are those of the committee, and do tion and management measures shall be not necessarily represent those of any agency or organization. based on “the best scientific information available.” Further, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has emphasized the role as a body of organized knowledge or as a tested, value-free, universally applicable of best available science in implementing rigorous, standardized way of collecting knowledge that is accessible to everyone, the Clean Water Act (USEPA 1997). information. Science may be more broadly scientist and nonscientist alike (Salter 1988; Determining what constitutes the best available science, however, is not viewed as a way of knowing things or creat- Pouyat 1999). Although the scientific pro- straightforward, and scientists, policymakers, ing knowledge, where what is defined as cess is designed to minimize the influence of and stakeholders often have disparate ideas knowledge is based on a mix of observa- values, that influence can never be entirely on how the concept should be defined and tion, intuition, experimentation, hypothesis eliminated. Nevertheless, adherence to a interpreted. testing, analysis, and prediction. Each of methodology that minimizes subjectivity The American Fisheries Society and the these views of science is valid. Each recog- throughout the process of knowledge devel- Estuarine Research Federation established a nizes implicitly that multiple conceptions of opment is perhaps the greatest distinction committee to consider what determines the science exist. Each is crucial to understand- between the scientific and nonscientific best available science and how it might be ing the controversy associated with defining arguments employed in support of policy used to formulate natural resource policies best available science. However, these subtle decisions (Rykiel 2001). and procedures. This synopsis examines how differences in how science is perceived can Science provides a basis for measuring scientists and nonscientists perceive science, lead to major differences in how it is used to changes in the environment, for under- what factors affect the quality and use of develop policies and implement manage- standing how ecosystems operate, and for science, and how changing technology and ment decisions. predicting how a change in environmental societal preferences influence the availability Although most nonscientists recognize conditions might affect ecosystem opera- and application of science. Because the science as a source of information, many do tion. However, science cannot provide a issues surrounding the definition of best not appreciate the range of scientific basis for choosing human goals with respect available science surface when managers approaches or the importance of debate, to the management of these systems. Goal and policymakers interpret and use science, dissent, skepticism, and personal opinion setting, an integral part of policymaking, is a we also discuss the interface between science and policy and explore ways in which involved in the process of producing scien- value-based process. A common misconcep- scientists, policymakers, and managers can tific knowledge. Interpretations of scientific tion of nonscientists is that science can more effectively apply science to environ- findings by nonscientists range widely provide objective answers to the thorny mental policy. The full report is available at because of the many personal contexts and question, “How should we manage this www.fisheries.org. frames of reference that nonscientists have ecosystem or resource?” Such questions can in relation to their understanding of science be answered only by reconciling the socially DEFINING BEST AVAILABLE (Weber and Word 2001). Unfortunately, constructed values and expectations of the SCIENCE many policymakers, regulators, and judges stakeholders at the policymaking table. Science means different things to differ- have unrealistic expectations of science. Scientists may, of course, participate in goal ent people. Science may be viewed simply They expect science to produce uncon- setting, but they should neither be expected

460 Fisheries • VOL 31 NO 9 • SEPTEMBER 2006 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG nor claim to be completely objective under assumptions, and risks of falsely interpreting and values. Scientists attempt to deal with those circumstances. In contrast, science can scientific results. Frank communication of these limitations and influences by being inform society about the consequences of the limitations of knowledge can promote open about them. Unfortunately, all knowl- its management goals and actions, which respectful relations between scientists and edge is embedded in uncertainty. There are may lead to revised goals and actions, but policymakers (Bolin 1994). The failure of sci- many sources of uncertainty and many goal setting itself is outside the realm of scientists to consistently articulate the limits of frameworks in which to categorize that ence. science has contributed to a recent erosion uncertainty (see Hilborn 1987; Suter et al. of public trust in scientific experts (Ludwig 1987; Wynne 1992; and Elith et al. 2002 WHAT IS BEST SCIENCE? 2001). Sound science is characterized not so for several frameworks germane to the much by the reliability of the particular bits aquatic sciences). Common sources of eco- Science and the Scientific Process of knowledge produced as by the reliability logical uncertainty include: of a transparent, repeatable scientific pro- To achieve high-quality science, scientists 1. Lack of basic biological information, conduct their studies using what is known cess. exemplified through natural history or as the scientific process, which typically A basic precept of science is that it must demographics; includes the following elements: be verifiable. This is what separates science 2. Lack of information on functional rela- from other methods of understanding. tionships between populations and • A clear statement of objectives; However, direct verification is not always environmental factors; • A conceptual model, which is a frame- possible. In lieu of this, scientists review the 3. Unpredictable events, such as the timing work for characterizing systems, making results of scientific inquiry as a community of floods and hurricanes; and predictions, and testing hypotheses; to assess its validity. This is the process of 4. High variability associated with key • A good experimental design and a stan- peer review. The rigor of the peer review is parameter estimates (Mangel et al. dardized method for collecting data; one way to categorize the degree to which 1996). • Statistical rigor and sound logic for analy- a scientific study is adequate for informing sis and interpretation; management decisions. To scientists, peer Scientists often deal explicitly with some • Clear documentation of methods, review is a formal process conducted by types of uncertainty but largely ignore other results, and conclusions; and active, knowledgeable experts in the general types (Wynne 1992; Costanza 1993). • Peer review. field of the study of interest. The peer Discussion of risk, that is, the expected loss The first step in developing a research review covers: associated with decisions made under uncertainty, is common in scientific dis- plan and ensuring the quality of the scien- 1. The validity of the methods used, course. New approaches that more openly tific process lies in a clear statement of 2. Whether the methods and study design acknowledge uncertainty are needed to objectives. Without such a statement, it is all adequately address the objectives, implement socially acceptable safeguards too easy for procedures to be applied hap- 3. Whether the results that are reported are against adverse effects. A key challenge is to hazardly and for results to be ambiguous. adequate for interpretation, develop scientific methods that estimate the Once clear and relevant objectives have 4. Whether the results support the conclu- social costs of uncertainty so that those been posed, the next step is to develop a sions, and costs can be distributed equitably across framework for prediction and testing 5. Whether the findings represent a signifi- society (Costanza 1993). hypotheses. In the context of management, cant advance in scientific knowledge. formulating conceptual frameworks (mod- There is renewed interest in the scientific els) should facilitate decision making. Typically, several knowledgeable scientists community about ethics in conducting sci- Conceptual models allow predictions to be conduct the review independently and ence (NRC 1995; Macrina 2000). The public made under alternative scenarios, while the anonymously. perception that science is objective should possible consequences and risks are objec- While the scientific community is primar- be tempered by the fact that scientists are tively explored. ily interested in the validity of the research, human and not immune to human imper- Scientists recognize that the information the public and policymakers are more inter- fections. Although it is not always apparent, coming out of an analysis is only as good as ested in the impact of science on societal personal values are inseparable from the the information going into it. That is why decisions. Thus the basis for judging science practice of science (Roebuck and Phifer the scientific community has set up stan- differs, as does the meaning of valid evi- 1999). Constitutive values shape all scien- dards for collecting information and dence (Clark and Majone 1985). The policy tists’ choices of what warrants studying, ensuring data quality. Once the data are implications of science are judged not only how to frame hypotheses, and which meth- obtained, they are usually analyzed and on the basis of its quality but also regarding ods to apply (Shrader-Frechette and McCoy interpreted in the context of some hypothe- how it influences the public. Science, as well 1993; Franz 2001). Fisheries science has tra- sis being tested or some estimate or as discussions of “best” science, becomes ditionally focused on stewardship and prediction being formulated. Models and controversial to nonscientists only when it sustainability as principal underlying values hypotheses, however, are subject to a num- has the potential to change societal policy. (Smith 1994). Increasingly however, fisheries ber of assumptions. Scientists should SCIENCE AND HUMAN and environmental issues have attracted interest within the discipline of biological present results under alternative models or UNDERSTANDING assumptions so that the range of reasonable conservation, which is inescapably norma- interpretations is clearly stated. Scientists Science is a human endeavor. tive (Barry and Oelschlaeger 1996). and policymakers together should identify Consequently, it is limited by human abilities Advocacy for preserving biological diversity relevant ecological or social processes, and influenced by human principles, beliefs, is central to this and is based on the belief

Fisheries • VOL 31 NO 9 • SEPTEMBER 2006 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 461 that biodiversity is intrinsically good (Soule makers, and the public should seek to have alternative hypotheses, suppressing or 1985) and that naturally evolved elements good science made more available so that denouncing scientific dissent, downplaying of diversity such as genomes, communities, the available science is of higher quality. selected uncertainties, and manipulating and landscapes are more valuable than arti- POLITICAL FACTORS conclusions. Finally, scientific discourse is ficial elements (Angermeier 2000). Moral commonly influenced by controlling the pro- INFLUENCING BEST AVAILABLE obligations also come into play. The major ductivity or use of science. For example, SCIENCE revelations of ecology include the depen- political interference can impair the ability of dence of humans on other biota and the Many nonscientists and scientists believe scientists to understand the problems and connectivity of the biosphere (Costanza et that science is being increasingly politicized. formulate solutions associated with fishery al. 1997). Thus, the ethics of environmental Articles in newspapers (e.g., Broad and collapses (Hutchings et al. 1997). science encompass rules for considering the Glanz 2003) and professional newsletters needs of non-human biota and future document frequent instances in which the IMPLEMENTING BEST humans. process and products of science are inter- AVAILABLE SCIENCE The unavoidable link between science fered with for political or ideological The preceding sections provide a practi- and values presents two consequences for reasons. In these cases, the soundness of cal framework for recognizing and scientific recommendations regarding envi- science, as judged by those interfering, turns developing the best available science while ronmental policy. First, sound science must on the extent to which the evidence sup- avoiding the politicization of science. How include explicit expression of underlying val- ports a particular policy stance or goal. science gets implemented, however, ulti- ues, especially those values that may cause What was previously an objective scientific mately rests on how well it is interpreted serious conflict (Barry and Oelschlaeger debate then becomes centered on values in and conveyed through policy. Although sci- 1996; Allen et al. 2001). Second, stakehold- a public forum. Some environmental sociol- entists play an important role in ers—and the scientists who support ogists refer to such a debate as a implementing science, they rarely control them—should participate in the debate “tournament of values” (Hull and Robertson the process. Furthermore, unpopular man- leading to policy decisions (Dietz and Stern 2000). While public debate about science- agement decisions often lead to claims of 1998; Ludwig 2001). Legitimate sources of informed issues is important, for we must “poor science” and calls for additional sci- technical disagreement among scientists identify values of concern and risks associ- entific review, which can obscure the sometimes adds confusion to the public ated with alternative management actions, debate. However, the debate itself often political intervention itself can be a major substantial social conflicts at issue. We clarifies issues and determines many of the barrier to the sound practice and application emphasize several points regarding the key questions that need to be addressed in of science. social complexity of incorporating science the future. Forums should be sought for Politicization comes from many sources, into policy: such public debate. each influencing the process and results of • Science can be used to formulate clearer, WHAT IS BEST AVAILABLE science through a variety of strategies and less ambiguous laws and regulations; SCIENCE? ranges from adapting the evidence to sup- • Natural resource and conservation issues port a specific policy position to are expanding beyond a single-species Information is now available to scientists manipulating the broader issues in ways focus to include multispecies and ecosys- and the public through a wide variety of that determine their priority in political tem-level trade-offs. Scientific principles sources, including the World Wide Web and agendas. Several recent publications (e.g., can be applied to ecosystem manage- popular media. The conventionally accepted Hutchings et al. 1997; Wilkinson 1998; ment to make it more effective with sources for scientific information are the Trachtman and Perrucci 2000; Restani and fewer surprises; peer-reviewed literature, the gray literature, Marzluff 2001) document a variety of politi- • Science and policy involve responsibility. expert opinion, and anecdotal experience. cizing strategies that affect three major Effective policymaking requires partici- These sources are commonly viewed as components of the science-policy interface, pants to recognize who is responsible for reflecting different levels of innovation, qual- namely: acquiring knowledge, communicat- what and to apply precautionary (i.e., ity, respectability, and accessibility depending ing information, and incorporating on the source and the uses to which they knowledge into policy. risk-averse) approaches when uncertainty have been put. However, it may not be pos- The acquisition of knowledge often is great and/or risks are onerous. This sible to conclude that a single source of appears to be less politicized than the other includes discussion of how risks are to be information—conventional or new—is the components of the science-policy interface. allocated among present and future best under all circumstances. However, scientists can be inhibited from stakeholders; Recognizing what knowledge is available acquiring new knowledge through restric- • Information relevant to policy comes per se is not especially contentious. It is the tions on data collection and funding from multiple sources and varies in its quality of that information that must be crit- opportunities (Boesch 1995), or by establish- objectivity. Both scientific and value- ically addressed. This concern should cause ing unachievable standards for risk or based information are valuable, but they us to recall the criteria for best science: that certainty. The communication of scientific tend to inform different parts of policy is, that the questions be clearly stated, the knowledge and the uncertainty attending it development. As more stakeholders par- investigation well designed, and the results is often highly politicized. Common politiciz- ticipate in the process of developing analyzed logically, documented clearly, and ing tactics include delaying or suppressing science-based policy, scientists will be subjected to peer review. Therefore, to have releases of reports, misrepresenting the sci- increasingly challenged to influence man- the best available science, scientists, policy- entific basis of findings, misrepresenting agement decisions and outcomes; and

462 Fisheries • VOL 31 NO 9 • SEPTEMBER 2006 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG • Science is only one part of a complex political process. The prevalence of over-harvested aquifers, forests, and fish Need a stocks, and of imperiled species, is testimony to the failure of policymakers to apply best available science. To enhance the likelihood reliable that their science is properly implemented, scientists will need to reliable become more familiar with and more engaged in the nonscientific aspects of policy development. method to Scientists committed to the sustainable management of ecosystems are developing new strategies to buffer science from political track and interference, while keeping open the possibility for a democratic debate. These strategies fall into four main categories: monitor 1. Invoke independent review by experts with little vested interest in your fish? outcomes of the review or the associated policy; 2. Develop standard procedures and criteria for decision making, before reaching decision points; 3. Revise bureaucracies to broadly integrate information but keep Choose VEMCOs sophisticated separate the scientific and policymaking functions; and 4. Promote scientific literacy among policymakers and the public, coded tags and receivers to where literacy means not only being familiar with facts and tech- provide the best results. nologies but also being able to think critically to reach an informed opinion on public issues. or more than 25 years, scientists have relied We expect these strategies to become increasingly important to Fon VEMCO to provide the latest innovations in incorporating best available science into environmental policy. acoustic telemetry. Our line of coded acoustic trans- Furthermore, we believe that scientific societies (e.g, AFS) are more mitters and receivers have revolutionized the way capable than individual scientists of advancing these strategies. scientists conduct field telemetry research. Micro to CONCLUSIONS large transmitters encoded with unique digital iden- tification codes permit scientists to keep track of The best available science can be defined and acquired for any individuals to populations of many trophic levels. resource or environmental issue, including the most controversial ones, so that fully informed decisions are possible. However, for this VEMCOs affordable VR2 to take place it is essential that scientists, policymakers, and the pub- underwater coded receiver lic be aware of the factors affecting the development and limitations records up to 300,000 tag of science and its implementation. detections during each de- The results of a sound scientific process need not be infallible to ployment and can run for more be the best available. Scientific information and the conclusions it than a year on one D-cell supports will always be subject to multiple interpretations, but battery! Many researchers greater transparency in the process will go far in addressing skepti- around the world are collabo- cism and averting controversy. High-quality science adheres to the rating and sharing data from well-established scientific process. The soundness of any science is a global network of VR2 re- enhanced if associated values, assumptions, and uncertainties are ceivers. Applications include: clearly explained. Science is a human endeavor. As such it is limited by human 4 Survival studies understanding of the systems we interact with and implicitly or 4 Hydro Dam passage explicitly is influenced by underlying human principles, values, and 4 Fish population movements (smolt migration) beliefs. Maintaining transparency and openness in the scientific pro- 4 Marine Protected Area (MPA) analysis cess when communicating methods, assumptions, and findings may 4 Spawning timing and effort be difficult, but it should promote better science. Limits to human 4 Studies of endangered populations understanding are a primary source of uncertainty in scientific knowledge and of risks associated with management actions. VEMCO (a division of AMIRIX Systems Inc.) Scientific debate is an important mechanism by which scientists can Tel: 902-852-3047 Fax: 902-852-4000 explore the consequences of uncertainty and risk for environmental decision making. www.vemco.com Unfortunately, even science that has been developed through an open, transparent, and well-communicated process may not be fully adequate for addressing management issues. Scientists must often Making Waves in rely on incomplete information in offering their best expert advice. That is why scientists are obligated to articulate the limits of science Acoustic Telemetry and develop means for overcoming problems in communicating

Fisheries • VOL 31 NO 9 • SEPTEMBER 2006 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 463 scientific information, assessing uncertainty in scientific approaches, namely, hypothesis broadly accepted criteria to distin- predictions, and evaluating risk in deci- testing and statistical interpretation of guish sound science, to assess the sion making. results. Because management decisions quality of scientific information, to Scientific information and informa- continue to be made with whatever distinguish types and uses of "peer tion about science-related subjects are information is available, scientists need review," to define scientific debate, available in different forms. The peer- to become more involved in identifying and to ensure that science is properly reviewed literature is what scientists information quality and providing guid- incorporated into policy. have traditionally considered the best ance on how the available information • Resource management agencies scientific information, and until recently might best be used. should organize themselves so that this form of information was also the To adequately implement the best scientific and regulatory arms are most accessible. Changes in communica- available science, it is essential that poli- administratively independent, for- tion technology have increased the cymakers clearly articulate the purpose mally engage recognized advocates availability of other forms of informa- of regulations and laws, clearly specify of best available science, and proac- tion, such as gray literature and who is responsible for interpreting and tively guide democratization of the professional and public opinion. As enforcing them, endeavor to identify science relevant to agency missions. these other forms of information and reduce conflicts of interest, and rec- become more available, it will be harder ognize differences in the knowledge ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS for nonscientists to distinguish high- base and values of scientists, managers, quality information from low-quality and other stakeholders. The committee wishes to thank Gus information. Scientists will have to play The public is becoming increasingly Rassam and the AFS Governing Board, a greater role in assisting the public and involved in the scientific process, thus and Dennis Allen and the Estuarine policymakers with sorting out objective leading to the democratization of sci- Research Federation for their support. information from highly biased opinion. ence. Similarly, scientists are becoming We thank Jessica Geubtner of AFS for Published scientific debate may be one more involved in the public arena, some- her technical assistance. We also thank means of doing this, but such forums times having greater influence on public Howard Browman, Margaret Dochoda, may be misconstrued as being equiva- policy but also becoming more suscepti- Mary Frabrizio, and Robert Hughes for lent to independently peer-reviewed ble to political influence. The greater insightful reviews of this manuscript. science. Clearly, scientists and publishers level of information exchange among LITERATURE CITED will have to be more attentive to how scientists, policymakers, and the public controversial and emerging science is means that scientists need to improve Allen, T. H. F., J. A. Tainter, J. C. Pires, and T. W. Hoekstra. 2001. Dragnet communicated. their means of communication, both in Because government agencies act ecology—‘‘Just the facts, ma’am’’: The terms of providing information to more privilege of science in a post-modern both as representatives of the public nonscientists and in terms of obtaining world. BioScience 51:475-485. interest and as scientific bodies, conflicts and interpreting information from a Angermeier, P. L. 2000. The natural can arise as to how information is col- broader array of sources. imperative for biological conservation. lected and utilized and how it is We offer the following general rec- Conservation Biology 14:373-381. communicated. Agencies should ommendations to promote the use of Barry, D., and M. Oelschlaeger. 1996. A science for survival: values and acknowledge potential conflicts and best available science in fisheries and conservation biology. Conservation move to ameliorate them whenever pos- environmental management. sible. Providing forums for public Biology 10:905-911. Broad, W. J., and J. Glanz. 2003. Does observation of the scientific process and • Scientists, policymakers, and the pub- science matter? New York Times 11 lic should become more familiar with public participation in scientific debates November. is one means of accomplishing this. the range of spatial and temporal Boesch, D. F. 1995. Unpopular science. Administrative separation of agency divi- scales, the types and levels of uncer- Bay Journal, March 1995. Available at: sions tasked to conduct science and tainty, and the necessary suite of www.bayjournal.com/newsite/article.c develop policy may also be an effective scientific disciplines associated with fm-article=271&print=yes. way to avoid clouding issues and to science-based solutions to today’s Bolin, B. 1994. Science and policy reduce conflicts of interest. However, environmental problems, and ensure making. Ambio 23:25-29. Clark, W. C., and G. Majone. 1985. The that the most pressing information policy and science groups should com- critical appraisal of scientific inquiries municate closely to ensure that needs for decision making are met. with policy implications. Science, management decisions are informed by • Scientific professionals should do Technology, and Human Values 10:6- the best available science. more to make good science widely 19. Resolution of many of today’s envi- recognized and available, invest more Costanza, R. 1993. Developing ronmental issues, such as the influence in establishing scientific literacy ecological research that is relevant for of human activities on ecosystems, is among nonscientists, and develop achieving sustainability. Ecological Applications 3:579-581. hampered not only by rudimentary sci- ways to more clearly communicate Costanza, R., R. dArge, R. deGroot, S. entific understanding available but also technical information to policymakers Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. by a weakly developed scientific process. and the public. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. ONeill, J. Most scientists have been reluctant to • Scientific professionals should Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and go beyond the safety zone of traditional become more active in establishing M. vandenBelt. 1997. The value of

464 Fisheries • VOL 31 NO 9 • SEPTEMBER 2006 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (6630):253-260 Dietz, T., and P. C. Stern. 1998. Science, values and TrackTrack your your fishfish withwith biodiversity. BioScience 48:441–4. Elith, J., M. A. Burgman, and H. M. Regan. 2002. Mapping the newest, most epistemic uncertainties and value concepts in predictions of the newest, most species distribution. Ecological Modelling 157:313-329. Franz, E. H. 2001. Ecology, values, and policy. BioScience advancedadvanced acousticacoustic 51(6):469-474. Hilborn, R. 1987. Living with uncertainty in resource trackingtracking receiverreceiver management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:1-5. availableavailable today.today. Hull, R., and D. Robertson. 2000. The language of nature matters: we need a more public ecology. Pages 97-118 in P. Gobster and R. Hull, eds. Restoring nature: perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Hutchings, J.A., C. Walters, and R.L. Haedrich. 1997. Is scientific inquiry incompatible with government information control? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 54:1198-1210. Ludwig, D. 2001. The era of management is over. Ecosystems 4:758-764. Macrina, F. L. 2000. Scientific integrity: an introductory text with cases. ASM Press, Washington, DC. Mangel, M., and 41 co-authors. 1996. Principles for the conservation of wild living resources. Ecological Applications 6(2):338-362. NRC (National Research Council). 1995. On being a scientist: responsible conduct in research. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Pouyat, R. V. 1999. Ecology and policy: are they compatible? BioScience 49:281–86. Restani, M., and J. M. Marzluff. 2001. Avian conservation under the endangered species act: do expenditures match VEMCOs VR100 Acoustic recovery priorities? Conservation Biology 15:1292-1299. Roebuck, P., and P. Phifer. 1999. The persistence of positivism Tracking Receiver: the ultimate in conservation biology Conservation Biology 13:444-446. Rykiel, E. J., Jr. 2001. Scientific objectivity, value systems, and fish tracking solution. policymaking. BioScience 51:433–36. Salter, L. 1988. Mandated science: science and scientists in the hether you are actively tracking large pelagic fish making of standards. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, Wor conducting presence/absence studies, the Holland. VR100 will get the job done. The VR100 has a flexible Shrader-Frechette, K. S., and E. D. McCoy. 1993. Method in ecology: strategies for conservation. Cambridge University systems architecture with 8MB of non-volatile internal Press, Cambridge, UK. memory, GPS positioning and precise timing, USB link Smith, T. D. 1994. Scaling fisheries, the science of measuring to PC or laptop, and field installable software upgrades. the effects of fishing, 1855 1955. Cambridge University Other features include: Press, Cambridge, UK. Soulé, M. E. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 4 Simultaneous, multi-frequency reception and 35:727-734. detection tracking algorithms Suter, G., L. Barnthouse, and R. O’Neill. 1987. Treatment of 4 Wide dynamic range allowing multi-tag reception risk in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Management 11:295–303. without gain adjustment Trachtman, L. E., and R. Perrucci. 2000. Science under 4 Splash proof case with marine grade connectors siege—interest groups and the science wars. Rowman and 4 Coded and continuous tags Littlefield Publishers, Boulder, Colorado. 4 Operation frequency 10-100kHz USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Update to ORD’s strategic plan. USEPA, VEMCO (a division of AMIRIX Systems Inc.) Washington, DC. Available at: www.epa.gov/ord/WebPubs/ Tel: 902-852-3047 Fax: 902-852-4000 stratplan/. Weber, J. R., and C. S. Word. 2001. The communication www.vemco.com process as evaluative context: what do nonscientists hear when scientists speak? BioScience 51(6):487-495. Wilkinson T. 1998. Science under siege: the politicians’ war on nature and truth. Johnson Books, Boulder, Colorado. Making Waves in Wynne, B. 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventative Acoustic Telemetry paradigm. Global Environmental Change 2:111–127.

Fisheries • VOL 31 NO 9 • SEPTEMBER 2006 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 465