A Review of Perspectives from 'Issues Position Papers' BACK TO REVIEW OF PERSPECTIVES' TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ecological Knowledge of Commercial Marine Harvesters Jim Williams RDI co-investigator Associate Proffessor Department of Biology St. Francis Xavier Universtiy I'm going to enthusiastically avoid any attempt at definition of the first half of the title, however I think we should reflect on the second part, and consider who we mean by the term "commercial marine harvesters". I would take this to mean anyone who derives some portion of income from harvesting marine fish and/or invertebrates, thereby including everyone from people raking rockweed to offshore trawler owner-operators. There are a number of different ways to divide and classify this large, diverse group, based on where they fish, degree of reliance on fishing for income, species, gear type, size of vessel, and so on. Several authors did allude to the fact that representatives from these various divisions, particularly fishers using different gear types, would have quite different sets of ecological knowledge. Curiously, no-one seems intent on documenting and extracting ecological knowledge from the large-boat, non-selective fishers. Characteristics of ecological knowledge of commercial harvesters (henceforth referred to as EK). Localized. Obviously, within the context we are discussing in this seminar, the knowledge will be tied to specific fishing areas, which also ties back to boat size, gear, etc. Interestingly, this characteristic is both discussed as a drawback of EK, and as a positive aspect, the value depending primarily on the management scheme the information is directed towards. This characteristic also results in the nature of much of the reported EK as being spatially recorded, and many researchers discuss the usefulness of maps and charts in translating EK. Often anecdotal, not quantitative. To a large extent, this appears to be the nature of the beast, and represents many challenges, both by the researchers attempting to extract the information, and by those who may wish to use the information in existing numerically based management systems. The exception is often with respect to catch data, as many fishers keep detailed catch data, whether legislated or not. Usually orally transmitted, thereby subject to losses in memory. Species-specific. Again, this aspect depends on the fishery, and the gear type, but most papers indicated that the bulk of the information was with respect to a targetted, commercial species. This was seen as a limitation by some authors, with this type of EK having little to contribute to true ecosystem management, a goal often invoked when providing justification for collecting EK in the first place. Other authors point out that despite decades of commercial exploitation, we have very little information about the basic ecology of many commercial species, and EK can help to address this problem. Practically oriented at catching fish/shellfish. This aspect should come as no surprise, given the obvious economic and social rewards associated with success at harvesting the resource. The point made by many authors was that so much of EK is tied up in the subtle nuances and minutia of construction and deployment of fishing gear, and much of this is only of use to the commercial harvester. Despite the previous two points, some authors also view the EK of commercial harvesters as having a holistic outlook, which would lend itself to the understanding and presumably management of marine ecosystems. Incredible resolution on a temporal scale. While DFO is hard pressed to survey most areas once per year, harvesters can be on the water daily for a good portion of the year. Curiously, this information overload can sometimes lead to difficulty in assessing year-to-year variation. Has some limited potential for assessing bycatch. Personally, I would add here that the degree of EK devoted to bycatch is directly proportional to the PITA factor in dealing with the bycatch, in terms of legality, gear damage, time, and so on. Much of EK is abiotic, dealing with wind, currents, tides, moon, weather, seasons, bottom type, temperature (to a lesser degree), etc. EK shaped by social and cultural factors, necessitating the collection of this type of data as part of the study. Necessary to understand where the fisher is coming from in order to evaluate degree of objectivity, and potential for bias. Much of EK is in form of catch/effort data. This was a common contention by many authors, across disciplines. There was also a recurring theme that long term changes in total effort directed at a species was something many fishers had a clear feeling for. Both sides of the pond provided examples wherein EK identified separate fish stocks previously unknown by management. Examples were provided of EK motivated independent conservation efforts, either by informal groups of harvesters, or by individuals. At the same time, many authors pointed out that harvesters are not necessarily motivated by the desire for long-term sustainable use of the resource. Interesting observations were made about how new technlogy is quickly incorporated in EK. Harvesters recounting of EK will increasingly become tied to GPSs, and color sounders, and other technological advances. Related to this, some authors talked about the erosion and loss of EK, in that the older harvesters were forced to be more observant and in touch with the marine environment, whereas modern boats, gear, and instruments allow anyone with money to successfully fish. EK is shaped to a great degree by the management scheme, as the scheme will determine, in effect, the extent and frequency of sampling of the environment by the harvester. For example, consider the many fisheries in which we have so much capacity that the fishery is only open for a matter of hours before the TAC is captured. Imagine how the EK requisite to success in a four hour fishery compares to that in a three week fishery a decade ago.