National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
It is appropriate to preface this discussion with some general comments on the objectives of, or justifications for, fishery or ecosystem research. Probably the most generally accepted justification for research is the prospect of improved management, whether it be for increased yield or value, or p...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.560.1497 http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/cr/1986/8661.pdf |
| Summary: | It is appropriate to preface this discussion with some general comments on the objectives of, or justifications for, fishery or ecosystem research. Probably the most generally accepted justification for research is the prospect of improved management, whether it be for increased yield or value, or perhaps for a predictive capability which decreases risk. The assumption is the more we know, the more closely we can approach our management objectives. Unfortunately, this argument is at times perverted in order to postpone difficult decisions, or to rationalize poor management performance: As we move from consumable resources to those which traditionally are not consumed (for simplicity, I call these “nonconsumable”), such as seabirds and marine mammals, research is often justified by legislative mandate. Several U S legislative acts, such as the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (h4MPA) and the Endangered Species Act @SA) require an ecosystem understanding of interactions among species and impacts of man’s activities. This category also includes progressive international treaties such as the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), which specifically calls for an integrated ecosystem approach to management. To some extent, these mandates include an accounting for indirect effects on consumable resources. For example, contaminants and habitat destruction addressed by NEPA affect both consumable and nonconsumable resources. On the other hand, the MMPA includes fishery impacts on the food supplies and mortality of marine mammals, but in its intent of protection rather than management, excludes consideration of those mammals ’ impacts on fishery values. Importantly, these legislative mandates for management and protection of non-consumable resources have mostly focused on “We don’t know enough about the resource to.” 179 180 Research Needs large, visible high-level predators (at least in the marine realm), and that is where most of the ... |
|---|