Understanding Place in Fisheries Management
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNDERSTANDING PLACE IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT: AN EXAMINATION OF ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL COMMUNITIES IN THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS, ALASKA By Courtney Lyons RECOMMENDED: Dr. Advisory C. __________ Dr. Courtney Carothers Advisory Committee Co-Chair Dr. Shannon Atkinson Chair, Graduate Program in Fisheries APPROVED: Dr. }j0an Braddock UNDERSTANDING PLACE IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT: AN EXAMINATION OF ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL COMMUNITIES IN THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS, ALASKA A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By Courtney Lyons, B.S., M.S. Fairbanks, Alaska August 2015 Abstract Holistic approaches toward fisheries management are widely considered a more sustainable option than standard single-species frameworks. This project uses the holistic frameworks of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) and place-making to examine the ecological and social systems of the Pribilof Islands and the ways in which fisheries management decisions have structured these systems. In Chapter 1, we sought to understand potential ecological constraints of temperature, fish predation, and interactions with a congener (red king crab; Paralithodes camtschaticus) on blue king crab (Paralithodesplatypus) recovery. These examinations suggest that blue king crab juveniles switch strategies from predator avoidance to a strategy of predator deterrence in situations where predation is more likely. In addition, this research suggests that predatory interactions between crab congeners may be more likely than fish predation to inhibit blue king crab recovery. In Chapter 2, we sought to understand local place-making efforts and how they differed between the two Pribilof Island villages, as well as, how these place-making efforts articulated with development programs. We found that place-making efforts in both communities were based on maintaining residence in the islands and an appreciation of the way- of-life that residence provided. The way place-making efforts articulated with development programs, however, differed between the communities. In St. George, Alaska, residents selectively embraced development, only supporting initiatives that would help realize the goal of maintaining residence in the community, as opposed to integrating into a regional economy. Residents of St. Paul, Alaska, in contrast, had more autonomy and were able to control development projects in their community to support local place-making efforts. In Chapter 3 we used these data to develop a framework for assessing the vulnerability of fishing communities based on holistic, ethnographic understandings of local social systems. This framework showed v St. George to be a highly vulnerable community, while St. Paul was only moderately vulnerable. These assessments challenged previously published, quantitative vulnerability assessments. The results of our investigations into the social and ecological systems of the Pribilof Islands support the idea that holistic perspectives provide important information that can drastically alter management understandings of both fish resources and the people who depend upon them. vi Table of Contents Page Signature Page........................................................................................................................................i Title Page.............................................................................................................................................. iii Abstract.................................................................................................................................................. v Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures.................................................................................................................................... xiii List of Tables......................................................................................................................................xiii List of Appendices ...............................................................................................................................xv Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... xvii General Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1 Influence of temperature and congener presence on blue ( Paralithodes platypus) and red (Paralithodes camtschaticus) king crab habitat preference and fish predation ..........................5 Abstract...................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Materials and methods ......................................................................................................10 1.2.1 Animals ............................................................................................................ 10 1.2.2 Habitat preferences for single-species assemblages of blue and red king crabs................................................................................................................ 11 1.2.3 Habitat preferences for congener-present assemblages of blue and red king crabs................................................................................................................ 12 1.2.4 Fish predation ...................................................................................................13 1.3 Results ................................................................................................................................ 16 vii!! Page 1.3.1 Habitat preferences ........................................................................................ 16 1.3.2 Fish predation trials ........................................................................................ 17 1.4 Discussion ..........................................................................................................................18 1.5 Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................23 1.6 Figures...............................................................................................................................24 1.7 References ........................................................................................................................ 29 Chapter 2 Community development versus economic development: Place-making as a framework for understanding development in fishing communities ...............................................37 Abstract....................................................................................................................................37 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 38 2.2 Place-making..................................................................................................................... 39 2.3 Pribilof Island history ...................................................................................................... 41 2.4 Alaskan development programs relevant to the Pribilof Islands ..................................45 2.5 Vignette: Struggle in St. George......................................................................................48 2.5.1 The harbor in St. George: An example of development conflicting with place-making...............................................................................................................50 2.5.2 “The reincarnation of government control” ....................................................53 2.5.2.1 Concern A: Fishing opportunities don’t allow locals to fish in the way they desire to fish ...................................................................................55 2.5.2.2 Concern B: APICDA would rather lease out quota than help locals catch it.............................................................................................................55 2.6 Vignette: The contrast of St. Paul ....................................................................................57 viii! Page 2.6.1 CDQ in St. Paul: An example of development supporting place-making efforts...........................................................................................................................57 2.7 Local and extra-local politics ...........................................................................................60 2.7.1 St. George: “Who do you represent... the communities or the large fishing fleet?” ...........................................................................................................................61 2.7.2 St. Paul: “They’re not seeing how much struggling the shareholders do here” .............................................................................................................................63 2.8 Lessons for fisheries: Articulation of place-making and development .........................66 2.9 Conclusion: The importance of place ............................................................................. 73 2.10 Acknowledgements