DOCSLIB.ORG

WF4133-Fisheries Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WF4133-Fisheries Science WF4133-Fisheries Science Introduction to class, fisheries profession, & fisheries science Class 3 Housekeeping • Will be today @ 1pm – TH132 – Everybody attend Where have we been 1. Jobs 2. Understand what a fishery is conceptually 3. Identify different types of fisheries Where are we going Class objectives 1. Understand science 2. Understand science approaches 3. Exposure to some fisheries icons 4. How we start to make scientific inference & make estimates WHAT IS FISHERIES SCIENCE? CONTINUED FROM CLASS 2 Commercial fisheries type is related to technological investment ) tonnes Boat size ( size Boat Technological investment/ man-on-board Industrial fisheries Capital-intensive fisheries using relatively large vessels with a high degree of mechanization and that normally have advanced fish finding and navigational equipment. Such fisheries have a high production capacity and the catch per unit effort is normally relatively high. Modern artisanal & Semi industrial Labor-intensive fisheries using relatively small crafts (if any) and little capital and equipment per person-on-board. Most often family-owned. May be commercial or for subsistence (see below). Usually low fuel consumption. Often equated with artisanal fisheries. Artisanal Typically traditional fisheries involving fishing households (as opposed to commercial companies), using relatively small amount of capital, relatively small fishing vessels, making short fishing trips, close to shore, mainly for local consumption. Commercial fish species in MS Fresh Water • Buffalo • Carp • Paddlefish • Gar • Catfish Commercial fish species in MS Salt Water • Flounder • Red drum • Spotted seatrout • Shrimp • Oysters https://coastal.msstate.edu/oyster-bonnet-carre https://coastal.msstate.edu/oyster-bonnet-carre https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/8738/lake-pontchartrain-and-the- bonnet-carre-spillway-louisiana The muscle that keeps the oyster sealed weakens when oysters live in a threatened environment, said Justin Gremillion, the chief sanitarian for the Louisiana Department of Health's Food and Drug Program. That causes the oysters to gape and die, allowing bacteria to enter in any number of ways as they are transported from the seabed to restaurant tables. WHAT IS SCIENCE? “Science is the acquisition of reliable but not infallible knowledge of the real word, including explanations of the phenomena.” Science is not without error, but the scientific method allows us to learn from our mistakes. Science is based on empirical evidence, NOT value judgments. Supported by evidence! Science should be objective, not subjective. Peer-review process helps maintain scientific integrity. Therefore, fisheries science is the process of obtaining reliable knowledge about fisheries through scientific inquiry. SCIENCE APPROACHES ENCOUNTERED IN FISHERIES There are three approaches to scientific inference: inductive, deductive, strong Inductive Deductive Strong Observation or experiment Generalizations Predictions Multiple Predictions Paradigm or Theory Additive and compensatory mortality are two hypotheses describing how harvest effects population dynamics Compensatory: Harvest will not effect Additive: Harvest will decrease the the population—increased survival will population—harvest is adding to the compensate naturally occurring mortality The inductive approach allows us to collect data, analyze data, draw conclusions 1. Estimate annual survival 2. Harvest the population 3. Estimate post-harvest annual survival 4. Find that annual harvest survival was the same 5. Conclude harvest mortality was compensatory The deductive approach allows us to start with a theory, make predictions, collect data to evaluate predictions 1. Make predictions from harvest theory 1. If mortality is compensatory, annual mortality will remain the same, even with harvest 2. If mortality is additive, annual survival will decrease with increasing harvest 2. Estimate annual survival 3. Harvest the population 4. Estimate post-harvest survival 5. Determine which hypothesis is best supported, do predictions match the data/experiment? Strong inference emphasizes multiple working hypotheses rather than a single hypothesis How do we remain objective? Data Science is implemented by people and they are the most important part of the scientific process. We already had a view of Dr. Ray Hilborn. AN INCOMPLETE GROUP OF FAMOUS FISHERIES SCIENTISTS Ray Beverton (1922-1995) was one of the most influential and respected fish population dynamicist of the century! Pedigree • Forest School • Snaresbrook • Downing College • Joined operations research as part of the war effort • Professor at Bristol, Southampton, University of Wales Beverton is famous for the seminal book Famous for Dynamics of exploited fish populations, yield-per-recruit model, stock recruit function Rn n = 0 t t+1 n 1+ t M Fisheries icon: Dr. John Gulland. Gulland is famous for … Scientific contributions • Virtual population analysis (VPA) • Introduce the F0.1 concept • Developed a number of short cut methods for assessing tropical fish stocks Fisheries icon: Dr. Carl Walters Carl Walters • Retired from University of British Columbia • Ground floor of the IBP program • Colorado State University • Humboldt State University BSc Scientific contributions • Foraging arena theory • Ecopath with Ecosim • Adaptive management! • Just to name a few! Fisheries icon: Bill Ricker Dr. W.E. Ricker • Started out as an entomologist-stoneflies • Published over 400 items! • 1950 Ricker became editor of the Journal of the Fisheries Research Board Scientific contributions • The Ricker Model – Relates stock size to recruitment a r−(1t ) k att+1 =a e Fisheries icon: Dr. Ken Carlander • B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees at the University of Minnesota in 1936, 1938, and 1943 • In 1946, Dr. Carlander began a long career as a member of the faculty of Iowa State University. • Served as leader of the Iowa Cooperative Fishery Research Unit from 1946 to 1965 Claims to fame • Carlander, Kenneth D. 1953. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, with the first supplement. Wm. C. Brown Company, Dubuque, Iowa, USA. • Carlander, Kenneth D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, Volume 1. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA. • Carlander, Kenneth D. 1977. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, Volume 2. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA. Fisheries icon: • Don W. Gabelhouse Jr. • University of Nebraska, Lincoln • University of Missouri, Columbia • Kansas Fish and Game Commission • Chief, Nebraska Games and Parks Commission Claims to fame • Structural indices of population – 5 cell PSD system • Slot limits for largemouth bass • Pond management, balanced systems HOW WE START TO MAKE SCIENTIFIC INFERENCE & MAKE ESTIMATES Thinking inside the box Fish Value Habitat Stock aka state variable Something measureable & can stored or lost over time: – Abundance – Biomass Thinking inside the box Fish Value Habitat 10 Fish or 28 Kilograms Quantifying a fish population (aka a state variable) is fundamental to fisheries science How do we figure this nubmer out? 10 Fish or 28 Kilograms “The trouble with fish is that you never get to see the whole population. They’re not like trees, whose numbers can be estimated by flying over a forest. Mostly you see fish only when they’re caught…” Schnute 1987 How many bass? Our “view” of fish populations comes from a variety of sources: anglers, commercial fisheries, and sampling gears. Each has inherent biases, and we rarely have complete information about the fishery of concern. Sampling is designed to provide an unbiased estimate of the sampling frame. Yi ~ Normal (ˆ == 10, 1) 0.4 0.3 0.2 Density 0.1 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 Values Example: A population has 625 individuals and the true mean is 10 and variance is 1 Yi ~ Normal (ˆ == 10, 1) A simple random sample assumes each sampling unit has an equal probability of being selected We know that the mean of the population is 10. 11.0 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 If we sample the population many times, again, taking 15 observations, the estimated means should be centered ~10 …. Right? Histogram of y 30 25 20 15 Frequency 10 5 0 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 y Yes, they are centered around 10, the mean using a random sample is unbiased 11.011.0 10.510.5 10.010.0 9.59.5 9.09.0 Yes, they are centered above or below 10, the mean using a random sample is biased 11.0 Over 10.5 Estimate 10.0 Under 9.5 Estimate 9.0 In some cases we want to know something about the total population, like total weight Mean Weight = = 9.68 TotalWeight = N TotalWeight =625 9.68 TotalWei g ht = 6050 Yes, they are centered around 10, the mean using a random sample is unbiased 11.011.0 10.510.5 10.010.0 9.59.5 9.09.0 In some cases we want to know something about the total population, like total weight Mean Weight = = 9.68 TotalWeight = N TotalWeight =625 9.68 TotalWei g ht = 6050 But the estimate of total weight is an estimate, it is not absolutely certain. var(TotalWeight )= N22 / n var(TotalWeight )= 625220.98 /15 var(TotalWeight ) = 3906250.96 /15 var(TotalWeight ) = 25000 From the estimated variance for the total weight estimate we can calculate 95% confidence intervals 2 Estimate 1.96 estimate For the weight example the upper and lower 95% confidence interval can be calculated Upper95% C . I .=+ 6050 1.96 25000 Upper95% C . I .= 6359.9 Lower95% C . I .=− 6050 1.96 25000 Lower95% C . I .= 5740.1 Let’s explore confidence intervals https://mcolvin.shinyapps.io/confidence-intervals/.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cumulated Bibliography of Biographies of Ocean Scientists Deborah Day, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Archives Revised December 3, 2001
    Cumulated Bibliography of Biographies of Ocean Scientists Deborah Day, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Archives Revised December 3, 2001. Preface This bibliography attempts to list all substantial autobiographies, biographies, festschrifts and obituaries of prominent oceanographers, marine biologists, fisheries scientists, and other scientists who worked in the marine environment published in journals and books after 1922, the publication date of Herdman’s Founders of Oceanography. The bibliography does not include newspaper obituaries, government documents, or citations to brief entries in general biographical sources. Items are listed alphabetically by author, and then chronologically by date of publication under a legend that includes the full name of the individual, his/her date of birth in European style(day, month in roman numeral, year), followed by his/her place of birth, then his date of death and place of death. Entries are in author-editor style following the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 14th ed., 1993). Citations are annotated to list the language if it is not obvious from the text. Annotations will also indicate if the citation includes a list of the scientist’s papers, if there is a relationship between the author of the citation and the scientist, or if the citation is written for a particular audience. This bibliography of biographies of scientists of the sea is based on Jacqueline Carpine-Lancre’s bibliography of biographies first published annually beginning with issue 4 of the History of Oceanography Newsletter (September 1992). It was supplemented by a bibliography maintained by Eric L. Mills and citations in the biographical files of the Archives of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD.
    [Show full text]
  • CBD Technical Series No. 87 Assessing Progress Towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 6 on Sustainable Marine Fisheries
    Secretariat of the CBD Technical Series No. 87 Convention on Biological Diversity ASSESSING PROGRESS87 TOWARDS AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGET 6 ON SUSTAINABLE MARINE FISHERIES CBD Technical Series No. 87 Assessing Progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 6 on Sustainable Marine Fisheries Serge M. Garcia and Jake Rice Fisheries Expert Group of the IUCN Commission of Ecosystem Management Published by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity ISBN: 9789292256616 Copyright © 2020, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views reported in this publication do not necessarily represent those of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This publication may be reproduced for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holders, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The Secretariat of the Convention would appreciate receiving a copy of any publications that use this document as a source. Citation Garcia, S.M. and Rice, J. 2020. Assessing Progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 6 on Sustainable Marine Fisheries. Technical Series No. 87. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 103 pages For further information, please contact: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity World Trade Centre 413 St. Jacques Street, Suite 800 Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9 Phone: 1(514) 288 2220 Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.cbd.int This publication was made possible thanks to financial assistance from the Government of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Document View
    Document View http://proquest.umi.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/pqdlink?index=1&s... Databases selected: Multiple databases... Salmon farms destroying wild salmon populations in Canada, Europe: study ALISON AULD . Canadian Press NewsWire . Toronto: Feb 11, 2008. Abstract (Summary) The authors, including the late Halifax biologist Ransom Myers, claim the study is the first of its kind to take an international view of stock sizes in countries that have significant salmon aquaculture industries. The paper didn't look to the causes of the declines, which have been discussed in a series of studies over the last decade that have linked disease, interbreeding of escaped salmon and lice from farmed fish with reductions. Full Text (618 words) Copyright Canadian Press Feb 11, 2008 HALIFAX _ Salmon farming operations have reduced wild salmon populations by up to 70 per cent in several areas around the world and are threatening the future of the endangered stocks, according a new scientific study. The research by two Canadian marine biologists showed dramatic declines in the abundance of wild salmon populations whose migration takes them past salmon farms in Canada, Ireland and Scotland. ``Our estimates are that they reduced the survival of wild populations by more than half,'' Jennifer Ford, lead author of the study published Monday in the Public Library of Science journal, said in Halifax. ``Less than half of the juvenile salmon from those populations that would have survived to come back and reproduce actually come back because they're killed by some mechanism that has to do with salmon farming.'' The authors, including the late Halifax biologist Ransom Myers, claim the study is the first of its kind to take an international view of stock sizes in countries that have significant salmon aquaculture industries.
    [Show full text]
  • California Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan and Proposed Regulatory Amendments
    Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration California Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan and Proposed Regulatory Amendments PREPARED FOR: California Fish and Game Commission 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1320 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Tom Mason California Department of Fish and Wildlife Senior Environmental Scientist PREPARED BY: Ascent Environmental, Inc. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Curtis E. Alling, AICP Michael Eng March 2016 Cover Photo: Courtesy of California Department of Fish and Wildlife 15010103.01 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS This chapter of the Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration (Final IS/ND) contains the comment letters received during the 45-day public review period for the Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration (Draft IS/ND), which commenced on January 21, 2016 and closed on March 7, 2016. The Notice of Completion was provided to the State Clearinghouse on January 21, 2016 and the IS/ND was circulated to the appropriate state agencies. COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT IS/ND Table 1 below indicates the numerical designation for the comment letters received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter. Comment letters have been numbered in the order they were received by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Table 1 List of Commenters Letter Agency/Organization/Name Date 1 Native American Heritage Commission February 8, 2016 2 William Barnett January 29, 2016 3 Ken Kurtis, Reef Seekers Dive Co. January 31, 2016 4 A. Talib Wahab, Avicena Network, Inc. March 6, 2016 5 Center for Biological Diversity March 7, 2016 6 Christopher Miller March 7, 2016 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT IS/ND The written comments received on the Draft IS/ND and the responses to those comments are provided in this chapter of the Final IS/ND.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of Fisheries in Canada
    AFS 150TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION A Brief History of Fisheries in Canada Rowshyra A. Castañeda | University of Toronto, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Toronto, ON M5S 3B2, Canada | University of Toronto Scarborough, Department of Biological Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] Colleen M. M. Burliuk | Queen’s University, Department of Biology, Kingston, ON, Canada John M. Casselman | Queen’s University, Department of Biology, Kingston, ON, Canada Steven J. Cooke | Carleton University, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Ottawa, ON, Canada Karen M. Dunmall | Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada L. Scott Forbes | The University of Winnipeg, Department of Biology, Winnipeg, MB, Canada Caleb T. Hasler | The University of Winnipeg, Department of Biology, Winnipeg, MB, Canada Kimberly L. Howland | Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada Jeffrey A. Hutchings | Dalhousie University, Department of Biology, Halifax, NS, Canada | Institute of Marine Research, Flødevigen Marine Research Station, His, Norway | University of Agder, Department of Natural Sciences, Kristiansand, Norway Geoff M. Klein | Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development, Winnipeg, MB, Canada Vivian M. Nguyen | Carleton University, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Ottawa, ON, Canada Michael H. H. Price | Simon Fraser University, Department of Biological Sciences, Earth to Ocean Research Group, Burnaby, BC, Canada Andrea J. Reid | Carleton University, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Ottawa, ON, Canada James D. Reist | Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada John D. Reynolds | Simon Fraser University, Department of Biological Sciences, Earth to Ocean Research Group, Burnaby, BC, Canada Alexander Van Nynatten | University of Toronto Scarborough, Department of Biological Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada Nicholas E.
    [Show full text]
  • Let Us Eat Fish
    Let Us Eat Fish By RAY HILBORN Published: April 14, 2011 Yuko Shimizu THIS Lent, many ecologically conscious Americans might feel a twinge of guilt as they dig into the fish on their Friday dinner plates. They shouldn’t. Over the last decade the public has been bombarded by apocalyptic predictions about the future of fish stocks — in 2006, for instance, an article in the journal Science projected that all fish stocks could be gone by 2048. Subsequent research, including a paper I co-wrote in Science in 2009 with Boris Worm, the lead author of the 2006 paper, has shown that such warnings were exaggerated. Much of the earlier research pointed to declines in catches and concluded that therefore fish stocks must be in trouble. But there is little correlation between how many fish are caught and how many actually exist; over the past decade, for example, fish catches in the United States have dropped because regulators have lowered the allowable catch. On average, fish stocks worldwide appear to be stable, and in the United States they are rebuilding, in many cases at a rapid rate. The overall record of American fisheries management since the mid-1990s is one of improvement, not of decline. Perhaps the most spectacular recovery is that of bottom fish in New England, especially haddock and redfish; their abundance has grown sixfold from 1994 to 2007 . Few if any fish species in the United States are now being harvested at too high a rate, and only 24 percent remain below their desired abundance . Much of the success is a result of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act , which was signed into law 35 years ago this week.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Consequences of Fishing and Their Implications For
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Evolutionary Applications ISSN 1752-4571 SYNTHESIS Evolutionary consequences of fishing and their implications for salmon Jeffrey J. Hard,1 Mart R. Gross,2 Mikko Heino,3,4,5 Ray Hilborn,6 Robert G. Kope,1 Richard Law7 and John D. Reynolds8 1 Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA, USA 2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 3 Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 4 Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway 5 Evolution and Ecology Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria 6 School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA 7 Department of Biology, University of York, York, UK 8 Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada Keywords Abstract adaptation, fitness, heritability, life history, reaction norm, selection, size-selective We review the evidence for fisheries-induced evolution in anadromous salmo- mortality, sustainable fisheries. nids. Salmon are exposed to a variety of fishing gears and intensities as imma- ture or maturing individuals. We evaluate the evidence that fishing is causing Correspondence evolutionary changes to traits including body size, migration timing and age of Jeffrey J. Hard, Conservation Biology Division, maturation, and we discuss the implications for fisheries and conservation. Few Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 studies have fully evaluated the ingredients of fisheries-induced evolution: selec- Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112, USA. Tel.: (206) 860 3275; fax: (206) 860 tion intensity, genetic variability, correlation among traits under selection, and 3335; e-mail: [email protected] response to selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Fisheries Science
    Foundations of Fisheries Science Foundations of Fisheries Science Edited by Greg G. Sass Northern Unit Fisheries Research Team Leader Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Escanaba Lake Research Station 3110 Trout Lake Station Drive, Boulder Junction, Wisconsin 54512, USA Micheal S. Allen Professor, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences University of Florida 7922 NW 71st Street, PO Box 110600, Gainesville, Florida 32653, USA Section Edited by Robert Arlinghaus Professor, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes Müggelseedamm 310, 12587 Berlin, Germany James F. Kitchell A.D. Hasler Professor (Emeritus), Center for Limnology University of Wisconsin-Madison 680 North Park Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA Kai Lorenzen Professor, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences University of Florida 7922 NW 71st Street, P.O. Box 110600, Gainesville, Florida 32653, USA Daniel E. Schindler Professor, Aquatic and Fishery Science/Department of Biology Harriett Bullitt Chair in Conservation University of Washington Box 355020, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA Carl J. Walters Professor, Fisheries Centre University of British Columbia 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY BETHESDA, MARYLAND 2014 A suggested citation format for this book follows. Sass, G. G., and M. S. Allen, editors. 2014. Foundations of Fisheries Science. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. © Copyright 2014 by the American Fisheries Society All rights reserved. Photocopying for internal or personal use, or for the internal or personal use of specific clients, is permitted by AFS provided that the appropriate fee is paid directly to Copy- right Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, USA; phone 978-750-8400.
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Green Journal Volume 1, Issue 43
    Electronic Green Journal Volume 1, Issue 43 Review: Ocean Recovery: A Sustainable Future for Global Fisheries? By R. Hilborn and U. Hilborn Reviewed by Byron Anderson DeKalb, Illinois, USA Hilborn, Ray and Hilborn, Ulrike. Ocean Recovery: A Sustainable Future for Global Fisheries? New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 2019; xii, 196pp. ISBN: 9780198839767, hardcover, US $37.95. Managed ocean fisheries provide about half of global fish production. Fish stocks are largely dependent on fisheries management, and fish are important to global food security. While many individuals and organizations lament the decline of fish, the truth is that oceans still contain a lot of fish and fish stocks are not declining. Ocean Recovery: A Sustainable Future for Global Fisheries? by Ray Hilborn and Ulrike Hilborn presents an overview of how fisheries are managed and counters misconceptions about fisheries management, the status and sustainability of fish stocks, and the relative cost of catching fish in the ocean when compared with producing food from the land. A common misunderstanding, for example, is that overfishing causes a termination of the bounty of fish. While fish stocks can experience a temporary decline, fishing pressure subsides and stocks rebuild, though some can take years to do so. Environmental impacts of fishing are considered. For example, if a person stops eating fish, they may be likely to turn to beef, chicken, or pork, sources of food that are significantly more damaging on the environment. However, vegetarian and vegan diets are not discussed as potential alternatives to eating fish. Other topics covered include fisheries sustainability and management, recreational and fresh water fisheries, seafood certification, ecosystem-based management, and allocating fishing boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • When Monopoly Harvester Co-Ops Are Preferred to a Rent Dissipated Resource Sector
    Are Two Rents Better than None? When Monopoly Harvester Co-ops are Preferred to a Rent Dissipated Resource Sector Dale T. Manning1 Colorado State University [email protected] Hirotsugu Uchida2 University of Rhode Island [email protected] Draft May 10, 2014 Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2014 AAEA Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, July 27-29, 2014. Copyright 2014 by D.T. Manning and H. Uchida. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. 1 Assistant professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, [email protected]. 2 Assistant professor, Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, [email protected]. Abstract This paper evaluates the conditions under which a fish-harvester cooperative (co-op) with monopoly power represents a preferable outcome when compared to a rent dissipated fishery. Currently, United States anti-trust law prevents harvesters from coordinating to restrict output. In a fishery, this coordination can represent an improvement, despite the creation of market power because a monopolist builds the resource stock. We show, analytically, how a monopolist harvester co-op generates both resource and monopoly rent. While the monopolist generates monopoly rent by restricting production to generate higher prices, it also manages the fish stock to lower stock dependent harvesting costs. We demonstrate the conditions under which a monopoly is likely to be favored over rent dissipation. Given that a monopoly can be efficiency- improving in a common property resource sector, policymakers should consider both the costs and benefits of co-op formation in the case of a rent dissipated fishery.
    [Show full text]
  • Pauly D (2009) Beyond Duplicity and Ignorance in Global Fisheries. Scient
    FEATURE ARTICLE SCIENTIA MARINA 73(2) June 2009, 215-224, Barcelona (Spain) ISSN: 0214-8358 doi: 10.3989/scimar.2009.73n2215 Beyond duplicity and ignorance in global fisheries* DANIEL PAULY Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada. SUMMARY: The three decades following World War II were a period of rapidly increasing fishing effort and landings, but also of spectacular collapses, particularly in small pelagic fish stocks. This is also the period in which a toxic triad of catch underreporting, ignoring scientific advice and blaming the environment emerged as standard response to ongoing fisheries collapses, which became increasingly more frequent, finally engulfing major North Atlantic fisheries. The response to the depletion of traditional fishing grounds was an expansion of North Atlantic (and generally of northern hemisphere) fisher- ies in three dimensions: southward, into deeper waters and into new taxa, i.e. catching and marketing species of fish and invertebrates previously spurned, and usually lower in the food web. This expansion provided many opportunities for mis- chief, as illustrated by the European Union’s negotiated ‘agreements’ for access to the fish resources of Northwest Africa, China’s agreement-fee exploitation of the same, and Japan blaming the resulting resource declines on the whales. Also, this expansion provided new opportunities for mislabelling seafood unfamiliar to North Americans and Europeans, and mislead- ing consumers, thus reducing the impact of seafood guides and similar effort toward sustainability. With fisheries catches declining, aquaculture—despite all public relation efforts—not being able to pick up the slack, and rapidly increasing fuel prices, structural changes are to be expected in both the fishing industry and the scientific disciplines that study it and in- fluence its governance.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Centre Report 1993-2000
    19931993 -- 20002000 ReportReport TheThe FFisheriesisheries CentrCentree UnivUniversityersity ofof BritishBritish ColumbiaColumbia Forewords want to congratulate all the members of the Fisheries Centre whose Iachievements are recorded in this excellent report. Over a very short time period, the Centre has contributed many exciting new initiatives in the areas of sustainable development and the planned growth of our fisheries. British Columbia is a vast treas- ure-house of natural resources, but we must exercise responsible stewardship over the complex ecosystems that surround us if we hope to preserve that treasure for future generations. The Fisheries Centre brings together government agencies, First Nations, and the University in a vital collaboration, offering an excellent model of how to ad- dress an issue of both regional and global importance through multidisciplinary research and teaching. Many problems lie ahead, but this report gives us reason to be optimistic about our ability to find solutions. DR MARTHA PIPER PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA am delighted that, in its first eight years, the Fisheries Centre is successfully Ifulfilling its mandate as one of 26 interdisciplinary research units within the Faculty of Graduate Studies. The output reviewed in this report not only underlines the Centres influential global role in its field, but also reflects the remarkable drive and enthusiasm of its members. An internal report in 1996 identified poor accommodation as one of the main weaknesses and so we are pleased to see reported here the success in attracting Canada Foundation for Innovation funding that will provide a new home for Fisheries Centre members. The Faculty of Graduate Studies is proud to provide con- tinuing support for the Fisheries Centre in its activities.
    [Show full text]