|
|
Comparative Local Knowledge in the Lobster Industry 1Daniel W. MacInnes Department
of Sociology and Anthropology Executive summary Ecological knowledge is a knowledge about natural systems. Its growing prominence in contemporary science is not a cause for joy since the search for this type of knowledge is often prompted by a system that fails or is about to fail.2 This paper goes beyond natural systems to include human agency. It assumes that the ecological knowledge we are interested in may be defined as a synthetic understanding of how fishing, considered as a social act, is related to the properties of biological species considered in terms of their life histories and interaction with each other and their physical environment, i.e., habitat. The term synthetic understanding is meant to convey both the way of knowing and the content of what is known. It is postulated that a type of understanding occurs when insights gained from a significant number of random observations are used on their own or correlated with either existing cultural beliefs / practices or with truths gathered from more systematic observations. The content of this understanding is synthetic in so far as it permits the user to draw preliminary conclusions and make inferences about relationships between fishing, species and habitat. Ecological knowledge combines certitude about some matters with hypotheses about others not known and tests itself by everyday practice. This everyday practice is at the core of synthetic understanding. An example of a fragment of "ecological knowledge" would be; "You'll not catch much lobster in an east wind.". The "conclusion" may be widely held but considerable differences may exist between fishermen in their respective understanding of the relationship between scarcity and wind direction. Because synthesis is rare in the physical sciences, scientists are the least likely persons to possess ecological knowledge. The reason for this is the relation between the drive for scientific certitude and the concomitant reduced scope of any problem that science can tackle. In their work, scientists usually bracket the human element and in an enterprise like fishing, invariably move away from synthetic understanding. Social scientists do focus on humans. Due to their concern with human agency which embraces a complexity of consciousness not found in the physical world, social scientists have been forced to be less scientific and more tolerant in their acceptance of synthetic understandings. Their pitfall is that they know so little about species and habitat interactions that they can seldom claim to possess any ecological understanding. At this point in our history, to be concerned with ecological knowledge is to be concerned with what fishermen know. In terms of knowing the ecology, they may be the only real players. Accepting this may involve a paradigm shift in what type of knowledge is most relevant for fisheries management. Does the character of ecological knowledge change if one's goal is to sustain lobster populations at a certain level or if one's goal is to maximize each year's catch? The manager and the fisherman are alike; both want to understanding a system in terms of its being defined as an "economic good" . This is not something this seminar might wish to talk about but it does have implications for shaping the entire discourse on "ecological systems" with lobster positioned at the centre.3 The three major research objectives suggested in this proposal are: 1) determine the
character and range of variation in local ecological knowledge among lobster
fishermen in one area (St. Georges Bay); The theoretical and political context Fisheries are exploitative human relations with aquatic systems and its life forms. Most fisheries science is dedicated fundamentally to the understanding of aquatic systems and life forms for the explicit purpose of assisting and augmenting human exploitation. It is an avowedly applied endeavor limited to the natural sciences and almost exclusively focused on stock assessment.4 The failure to account for the human element in fisheries science along with the failure of the stock assessment model in management has led to many calls for a correction to the imbalance in fisheries science/management. This is noted in the calls for greater interdisciplinary efforts in fishery science / management. (Andersen: 1976, Maguire et al :1995, Felt and Neis: 1996, MacInnes and Davis: 1997, Jentoft: 1998)5 Fisheries management systems looked to fisheries science as its cornerstone in the creation of 'rational' fisheries management regimes. As a field of scientific inquiry, fisheries science no doubt seemed to be the only 'knowledge' base upon which to build effective management policies, i.e., policies attuned to the biological qualities and dynamics of aquatic settings. By the 1980s, faced with aboriginal claims and largely in reaction to the singularity of the science based management system, "common property" analyses emphasized cultural process and co-operation within fisheries (Mathews and Phyne: 1988, Berkes:1989, Pinkerton:1989). Still others pointed out how the management of the fishery entailed social control over both fishermen ( Davis and MacInnes:1995, McCay and Jentoft, 1996) and science (Finlayson:1994, Hutchings et al: 1997). The study of local knowledge is therefore another step in a long process. It represents an investigation of alternatives to the present system and takes place within a discourse variously shared by social scientists, fishermen, fishery scientists and managers. Fishermen also try to understand aquatic systems. By virtue of tradition, they inherit local knowledge through socialization processes. What is learned combines local lore, established practice and personal experience in a unique mix. There are few methods available for interpreting the validity of this knowledge as a predictor for events in the ecosystem. There are many assumptions made, both positive and negative, about the quality and scope of the understandings said to be part of this knowledge. No matter what opinions exist, it has become clear is that the use of local knowledge or traditional ecological knowledge in fisheries management is becoming seen as a solution to extractive problems both outside Canada (Ruddle:1994, Maurstad and Sundet: 1994, Connolly: 1997, Bourgese: 1998) and within Atlantic Canada (Felt: 1994, Neis: 1997, Davis et al: 1999). The research goal is not to understand what fishermen know about the same dynamics the fisheries' scientists study. Rather, the context of knowledge must first be developed. When fishermen conceptualize entities such as species or stock, that is but part of a wider social, political and economic problem. How these conceptions are understood in the context of the knowledge and technology they employ in catching fish, and how their ideas and behaviours are constructed by communal traditions about effort, grounds, bio-diversity, juvenile recruitment, is the suggested focus of this investigation into ecological knowledge . If cultural values inform the activity of fishing, then how might there be cultural "conservation" or "enforcement mechanisms" inherent in these domains? Methodology and Analyses The centrality of the catch Ultimately, if lobster be the focus of an entry into ecology, then the place to start is in the act of catching the lobster. The catch is the end product of the "hunt". During the season (seasons being a construction of management knowledge reflecting a synthesis of economics, ecology and bureaucratic reasoning) each fisherman uses what he knows to set and retrieve his traps. Unlike any other event in the lobster fishery that could be observed, everything comes together in this one action. Initially, any research methodology must be based on the this point of predation, the catch. Questionnaires about fishing without field work are a poor substitute for acquiring knowledge. "Catch characteristics" are useful only in so far as they are seen as parts of a decision making process which might hint at the fishermen's ecological understanding. Not everything a fishermen does on the water derives from "ecological insight", but some practices do hint at tentative hypotheses. Three major factors affecting the catch are boat/trap characteristics, location of pots, and fishing environment. Boat and trap characteristics taken together indicate how aggressive the fisherman might be: these may be scaled according to agressivity using a range from strings to drop traps, extent of depth and use of advanced navigational equipment, type and size of trap and size of hoops, baiting practices and adapting traps for certain bottom types. Locational catch factors include geographic co-ordinates, berths, water temperature and positioning during the various weeks of the season, exploring varying depths including shoreline, and manner of deriving setting co-ordinates. Finally, the time of day, tide, wind and weather should be noted as part of the catch. Catches vary with the above practices and the effects of these practices should be co-ordinated with the numbers, sex, rejects, other species and size of the catch. The major question to ask is the fisherman is : "Was the catch here what was expected?". "Why?". Conservation In recent conferences on themes of local knowledge held at Memorial University and at St. Francis Xavier University participants indicated that the investigation of local knowledge systems is problematic. Some knowledge may guide a socially useful function for local events but, when considered as "truth", these verities can be easily refuted by science. For instance conservation 'truth' today is bound up in trap characteristics, seasons, carapace size and berried lobster. One way to deal with the complexity outside the official regulatory frame is to restrict inquiry to a specific important set of problems. In a paper prepared for the latter conference I used six interviews I had conducted on the lobster fishery to raise questions on conservation techniques. The following activities, while not explicitly acts of conservation, had (unintended?) conservation consequences: the time invested in making wooden traps, the positioning of traps in shallow near-shore water, the size of the opening hoop, setting drop traps in holes discovered by GPS technology, targeting large females as they move inshore at the end of the season, and the use of slugs or strings as opposed to drop traps. In contrast, minimum carapace size and female v notching are explicit conservation measures. In this study the issue of conservation knowledge becomes the selected a priori category for imposing some order into this investigation of local knowledge. Questions should be formulated to look for variation in fishermen's acceptance of official versus other conservation protocols. Fishermen Fishermen will demonstrate a range of social characteristics. Years fished may be the most important since time affects the range and number of observations. However, time may be mediated by formal education (learning how to make observations), by sociability (learning from significant others) or by intelligence. Anyone starting fishing in St. Georges Bay in the past twenty years has experienced the top twenty years of the lobster fishery over the entire one hundred and twenty five year history of the fishery, so even apart from considerations affecting differing levels of understanding the fact that fishermen with thirty and forty years experience fished when lobster were not plentiful makes the latter's range of experience considerably deeper. The same holds true for the their experience with a wider range of management practices. Some fishermen only know what happened yesterday. Since most management regulations imply inter alia some grasp of ecological knowledge; e.g., prohibitions on berried lobster, seasons, lath spacing, minimum carapace size, escape holes, number of traps, it is important to ask about fishermen's perception of the ecological assumptions that management makes and the assumptions they might have made (in the history of the fishery) to sustain the lobster fishery. This is related directly to establishing a conservation protocol. Random survey sample and research instruments A random survey conducted during the summer of 1998 interviewed 174 fishermen selected from 304 current lobster license holders. Respondents identified local experts in nine communities along St. Georges Bay. This current research program accepts these results and further divides those nominated as experts and secondly as those not mentioned as expert by their peers. This research was predicated on the hypothesis that not all fishermen were equal in possessing "local knowledge". In this research design, identified "experts" are the primary group for this investigation and the residual category of "non experts" are the control group. Fishermen feel that some of their number are more knowledgeable about local grounds than others. Comparisons with fishermen outside St. Georges Bay and with other players (scientists) will be achieved by a different methodology than that used within the primary study area but they will share the use of two research instruments (the video and "typical sites" as described below). To contrast the perceptions of the St. Georges Bay group with those of DFO physical scientists, social scientists involved in eco-knowledge work, and fishermen in other locations, can be asked to respond to specific conservation protocols generated by this research. This research design reflects the need to conduct an investigation of local knowledge without prematurely outlining the form and content of that knowledge by the very questions asked. The methodology is both qualitative and quantitative. The initial task will be in the design of two instruments which are somewhat non-directive. The first instrument is a procedure for using nautical charts to mark areas where fishing takes place. Often, nautical charts can be a means to provoke discussion. In a cumulative way, the completed charts depict the study group's collective knowledge about "grounds". This type of information might be useful to DFO or to conflicting users such as oil/gas drilling companies but the scale is such that it has limited use in provoking information about most lobster dynamics. What is really needed is a description of a series of "typical" bottoms as related to catch. For example; a typical site might be a "drop large trap zone", described as rocky strip near fast tidal water, great for markets in the latter part of the season when the lobster moves in". The objective would be to create a set of visuals that best describe a range of "typical sites". A graphic artist would be employed to work up this data. The outcome would be a series of scale diagrams depicting depth, bottom, trap spacing, time of season. Some field work is necessary to develop the next stage of research. Through comparison of commonalties and differences in fishing practices specific research questions can emerge for conducting later interviews and for the construction of the second research instrument. This would be a video depicting aspects of lobstering which will be used later within focus group interviews to gather fishermen's responses to conservation practices. (It could display two fishermen one with traditional expertise and the other employing modern expertise.) Elements of conservation will be the video theme and this will be displayed indirectly in a fifteen to twenty minute sequence showing navigating to the lobster grounds, hauling, baiting and repositioning traps. This would be a innovation and might fail completely as a research tool. Obviously the scripting and planning would entail sufficient field research to find the best contrasts which would provoke discussion, and then a series of questions that might explore these contrasts. Under direction of the field worker, professional cinema persons would shoot and edit the video. The research phases St. Georges Bay field work. Maps of fish habitat in St. Georges Bay, derived from "local knowledge" interviews with fishermen were published by DFO (1998b). Following immediately from what was said above, using a GPS device, this project should first attempt to spend six weeks in field work collecting a range of "typical" bottoms locations along with catch information. As noted, gear type, abundance, and location, and the benthic characteristics, dates, tidal action and weather should be recorded as correlation with site and catch. Using the sample already provided, a significant portion of the lobster ground in St. Georges Bay could be covered in creating these typical charts. The video shoot would take place at the end of the season. At the conclusion of the season focus groups would begin. Only fishermen identified as "experts" and an equal number from a control group of fishermen not identified as "expert" by peers will form part of the focus groups. The discussion of the video will be treated as a form of data. What is said at these meetings (focus group, seminar, multi-person interview) becomes the data for subsequent comparisons with the reactions of other groups. After analysis of the taped "screenings" and the focus group work, there will follow a series of structured interviews to probe the social variability on conservation issues with those deemed expert and those not identified as expert fishermen. At the same time the completed "typical sites" diagrams will be used to advance questions on "site characteristics and catch". What is critical here is what information is advanced not relevant to catch but which constitutes hypotheses about ecological relationships leading to abundance.6 During and after the completion of the St. Georges Bay phases of the research program, field work, instrument design and testing, focus group and structured interviews analysis there should be sufficient data to determine a body and ranges of ecological knowledge. Central tendencies should provide a protocol for referencing this knowledge. These tendencies can be derived statistically from the data base. That portion of local knowledge related to conservation issues will be developed further in questionnaire format for subsequent comparisons (if possible) with the perceptions held by those responsible for the interpretation and management of lobster in St. Georges Bay (DFO), with social scientists, and finally with other lobster fishermen. a) DFO Management and Science A seminar intended to gather comparable interpretations of the two sets of visual stimuli (as shown to fishermen) will be convened and a questionnaire based on comparisons between official conservation practices and imputed conservation practices will be administered. This questionnaire should explore the "ecological assumptions and grounds" for various practices. Besides the material circulated for this seminar, citations in the attached reference list indicate that there have been a number of benthic, environmental and lobster studies completed within the study area. b) Social Science It has been observed that the social scientist sometimes acts as the ultimate observer and interpreter of all knowledge systems including those of fishermen, scientists, managers, and all social participants while exempting themselves from similar scrutiny. A seminar similar to the above will be held with social scientists. c) Comparative jurisdictions A retrospective look afforded by two different sets of fishing eyes could be part of this project. Since conservation has been already a focus for travel exchanges between fisher organizations from place like Maine and Scotland (Acheson: 1997) and since Maine has identified and established v notching as its best conservation tool there is a strong possibility that Maine would be an effective contrast to Atlantic Canada. The latter has taken a much different route with only some recent v notching. Maine might be the most useful site to place into context the "locality" of knowledge by these geographic and social comparisons. References Acheson, J.M. (1987) The Lobster Fiefs Revisited: Economic and Ecological Effects of Territoriality in the Maine Lobster Industry. In McCay, B. and J.M. Acheson, eds, 1987, Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Acheson, J.M. (1988) The Lobster Gangs of Maine. Hanover NH: University Press of New England. Acheson, James M. (1997). The Politics of Managing the Maine Lobster Industry: 1860 to the Present, Human Ecology, Vol.25, No.1,1997 Andersen, Raoul (1976) The Need for Human Science Research in Atlantic Coast Fisheries. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 35: 1031 -1049. Apostle, R., Barrett, G., Holm, P., Jentoft, S.,Mazany, L., McCay, B., Mikalsen, L. (1998) Community, State, and Market on the North Atlantic Rim: Challenges to Modernity in the Fisheries. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Berkes, Fikret (ed.). (1989) Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable Development. London, Belhaven Press. Bourgese, Elisabeth Mann (1998) The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as A Global Resource. New York: United Nations University Press Charles, Anthony T. (1997) Fisheries Management in Atlantic Canada. Oceans and Coastal Management. 35, 2-3: 101-19. Connolly, B. (1997) Traditional Fishery Knowledge and Practice for Sustainable Marine Resources Management in Northwestern Europe: A Comparative Study of Fisheries in Ireland and The Netherlands. Institute of Cultural and Social Sciences, Leiden University, The Netherlands. 1-176. Davis et al (1999) Issues Position Papers: Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar, Antigonish, Nova Scotia: St. Francis Xavier University. 1-186 Davis, A. and C. Bailey. (1996) Common in Custom, Uncommon in Advantage: Common Property, Local Elites, and Alternative Approaches to Fisheries Management. Society and Natural Resources. 9:251-265 Davis, Anthony and MacInnes, Daniel W. (1995) "Representational Management or the Management of Representation: The Place of Fishermen in Atlantic Canadian Fisheries Management." Fisheries Resource Utilization and Policy: Theme II, Proceedings of the World Fisheries Congress. eds. R.M. Meyer et al. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing. Pp.317-333 DFO (1995) A conservation framework for Atlantic lobster: Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. FRCC95R.l. DFO (1998a) Traditional fisheries knowledge for the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence - a provisional atlas. Resource mapping series. Cat#FS23-350/1998. DFO (1998b) Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence lobster. (LFAs 23, 24, 25, 26A and 26B). DFO Science Stock Status report C3-12(1998) (revised). Felt, Lawrence F., and Barbara Neis (1996) A Bridge over Troubling Waters: Social Science and Interdisciplinarity in Sustainable Fisheries Management. Prepared for the Symposium, "Reinventing Fisheries Management," University of British Columbia, February 20-24, 1996. Felt, Lawrence F. (1994) "Two Tales of a Fish: The Social Construction of Indigenous Knowledge Among Atlantic Canadian Salmon Fishermen" in Folk Management in the World's Fisheries. eds. Christopher L Dyer and James R. McGoodwin. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. 251-285. Finlayson, A.C. (1994) Fishing for truth: A sociological analysis on of northern cod stock assessments from 1977 to 1990. St. John's: ISER Press. Hamilton, George (1996) Lobster Fishery Management Initiative Fishery Visit - Atlantic Canada. Report of the Policy and Resources Committee, Inverness: Highland Council. Hamilton, George (1998) Lobster Fishery Management Proposals. Report of the Land and Environment Select Committee, Inverness: Highland Council. Holm, Petter (1996) Fisheries Management and the Domestication of Nature. Sociologica Ruralis. 36(2):177-88. Hutchings, Jeffrey A., Walters, Carl, and Haedrich, Richard L. (1997) Is Scientific Inquiry Incompatible with Government Information Control? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 54: 1198-1210. Jentoft, S. (1998) Social science in fisheries management: a risk assessment. In T.J. Pitcher, P.J.B. Hart and D.Pauly (eds.) Reinventing Fisheries Management, 177-184. London: Chapman & Hall. MacInnes, Daniel (1999) "Notes on the imperfect knowledge of lobster and their predators" in Davis et al (1999) Issues Position Papers: Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar, Antigonish, Nova Scotia: St. Francis Xavier University. MacInnes, Daniel W. and Davis, Anthony (1997) "Changing grounds for social and physical science paradigms: shifts neither fishermen nor fish can follow." Paper to the Rural Sociological Society Meetings. Toronto. Maguire, J.J., Neis, B., and Sinclair, P.R. (1995) What are we Managing Anyway? The Need for an Interdisciplinary Approach to Managing Fisheries Ecosystems. Dalhousie Law Journal 18(1):141-153. Matthews, D.R. and Phyne, J. (1988) Regulating the Newfoundland Inshore Fishery: Traditional Values Versus State Control in the Regulation of a Common Property Resource. Journal of Canadian Studies 23(1/2): 158-176. Maurstad, A. and J.H. Sundet. (1994) Improving the link between science and management: Drawing upon local fishermen' experience. Paper prepared for the 82nd International Council for Exploration of the Sea, 1994 Annual Science Conference, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, 22-30 September. McCay, Bonnie J. and Acheson, James M. Eds. (1987). The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources, Tucson, University of Arizona Press McCay, B. and S. Jentoft. (1996) From the Bottom Up: Participatory Issues in Fisheries Management. Society and Natural Resources. 9:237-250. Neis, Barbara (1997) "Fisher's Ecological Knowledge and Stock Assessment in Newfoundland" in How Deep is the Ocean? eds. Candow, James and Corbis, Carol. Sydney: University College of Cape Breton Press. Neis, Barbara, Jeffrey Hutchings, Richard Haedrich, David Schneider, and Lawrence Felt (1995) Combining Fishery Workers' Ecological Knowledge and Fisheries Science: Lumpy Lumpfish, Sticky Nets and Adaptive Management. Paper presented to the American Fisheries Society Annual Meetings, Tampa Florida. Pinkerton, E. ed. (1989) Co-operative Management of Local-Fisheries: New Directions for Improved Management and Community Development. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Ramer, H. (AP). (1997) Maine Lobstermen Feeling the Pinch of Competition. Chicago Tribune. December 19, 1997. Ruddle, Kenneth. (1994) Local Knowledge in the Folk Management of Fisheries and Coastal Marine Environments in Folk Management in the World's Fisheries eds.Christopher L. Dyer and James R. McGoodwin. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. 161-206. Sinclair, Peter R. (1985) From Traps to Draggers: Domestic Commodity Production in Northwest Newfoundland, 1850-1982. Social and Economic Papers No. 31, Institute of Social and Economic Research. St. John's: Memorial University of Newfoundland. Physical Science References Caddy, J.F., T. Amaratunga, M.J. Dadswell, T. Edelstein, L.E. Linkletter, BR. McMullin, A.B. Stasko, and H.W. van de Poll. (1977) 1975 Northumberland Strait project, part I: benthic fauna, flora, demersal fish, and sedimentary data. Fish. Mar. Serv. Man. Rep. 1431 Campbell, A. (1980) A review of mortality estimates of lobster populations in the Canadian Maritimes. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 932: 28-35. Chopin, T., J.D. Pringle, and R.E. Semple. (1988) Reproductive capacity of dragraked and non-dragraked Irish moss (Chondrus crispus Stackhouse) beds in southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45:758-766. Drinkwater, K.F. (1979) Flow in the Strait of Canso and St. Georges Bay, Nova Scotia. In: McCracken, F.D. [ed.] Canso marine environmental workshop Part 4 of 4 parts: physical oceanography and environmental effects. Fish. Mar. Serv. Tech. Rep. 834:11-18. Griffin, W. (1997) King signs Monhegan law: Creation of lobster conservation zone within state's power, legal expert says. Bangor Daily News. February 28, 1998. Harding, G.C.H., P.G. Wells, and K.F. Drinkwater. (1979) The distribution and abundance of lobster larvae (Homarus americanus) in St. Georges Bay, Nova Scotia, in 1975 and 1976 and the possible effect that the Canso Causeway has had on the Chedabucto, Bay lobster fishery. In. McCracken, F.D. [ed.] Canso marine environmental workshop Part 3 of 4 parts: fishery impacts. Fish. Mar. Serv. Tech. Rep. 834: 101-111. Harding, G.C., W.P. Vass, and K.F. Drinkwater. (1982) Aspects of larval lobster (Homarus americanus) ecology in St. Georges Bay, Nova Scotia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39:1117-1129. Harding, G.C., K.F. Drinkwater, and W.P. Vass. (1983) Factors influencing the size of American lobster (Homarus americanus) stocks along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Gulf of Maine: a new synthesis. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 168-184. Hargrave, B.T., and G.A. Phillips. (1986) Dynamics of the benthic food web in St. Georges Bay, southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 31:277-294 Kenchington, T.J. (1980) The fishes of St. Georges Bay, Nova Scotia. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 955. Lanteigne, M., M. Comeau, M. Mallet, G. Robichaud, and F. Savoie. (1998) The American lobster, Homarus americanus, in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (Lobster Fishing Areas 23, 24, 25, 26A and 26B). Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document. 98n2. Scarratt, D.J. (1968) Distribution of lobster larvae (Homarus americanus) off Pictou, Nova Scotia. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 25(2):427-430. Waite, L.E., J.C. Smith, P. Cormier, and K. Pauley. (1997) Biological, chemical and physical oceanographic conditions in the Southern Gulf of Saint Lawrence, 1994. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1027.
1. This paper is a revised version of a SSHRCC Research grant application. The application was approved but the ranking was not high enough to permit funding. 2. The search for ecological knowledge arises out of a crisis in the fishery and a crisis in DFO's way of knowing (time-series stock assessment). The task that social scientists such as Barbara Neis grasped was : how does one make local knowledge of a fishery intelligible in the sense that it becomes a compelling basis for policy / action. If physical scientists (time series models of stock assessment) "abuse" local knowledge by demanding that it be expressed only in categories useful to science to what degree can social science make a useful intervention? 3. When fisheries science does consider human agency it takes as given that agency may be addressed from the perspective of human economic interests. Relations with aquatic life forms and systems are addressed in terms of limiting investigation to species of value. While practical, this characterization has significant implications for the 'shape' of the research enterprise and any resulting knowledge. The conceptual approach to aquatic life forms, predominant research methodologies, data sources, and raison d'tre for research embody exploitative economic use as the central feature of human relations with aquatic environments. it can be hypothesized that fishing is not as highly focused, but in everyday life, is embedded in alternatives which are selectively employed to suit changing conditions. We know that cultural beliefs affect decision making among fishermen (Davis and Bailey 1996) but we have little appreciation of how local practices of stock assessment, or local knowledge of benthic structures, or awareness of intra species and inter species relationships can have an impact on effort 4. Holm (1996) argues that the application of the notion of 'stock' was a conceptual necessity essential to the development of industrial and capitalist exploitation of marine life forms. The very idea defines marine life and environmental dynamics in a particular way, as a universe comprised of discrete life forms. Holm suggests that the metaphor of a cattle stock was appropriated to depict cod, lobster, haddock, crab and other aquatic life forms as stand alone 'stocks'. This imparts a definitive meaning to the life forms as well as to human relations with them. Considered as stock, the life form's meaning to humans becomes understood in terms of the profit that can be extracted. This, Holm argues, is a critical conceptual positioning essential to fostering industrial scale extractive relations. Fisheries science has played a central legitimating role in this process which has assisted in the development of industrial-capitalist systems of extraction, legal-political understandings of proprietorship, and state management authority (McCay and Acheson :1987). 5. Part of the reason for "ecological" derives from global perspectives on the state of the world's fisheries but also First Nation entry and several experiments with local knowledge demonstrate reformulation of previously taken for granted work. The sentinel fishery, approved by DFO as a means of collecting data on cod stocks, was intended to conform to the classic time series models for predicting biomass , but, by serendipity, its very collection patterns has alerted fishery management to the possibility that the supposed unitary Northern cod may include several "local bay stocks"(from 1999 attendance at Memorial ecological knowledge meetings and DFO stock assessment meetings in Rimoski). For most fisheries science, stocks are populations of marine animals which are initially defined by the historic and spatial patterns of human interests, relations and exploitation. 6. Since fishermen judge their success by seasons (the amount of lobster caught is not the only factor, for example a good price but low catch can be a good season) it is important that abundance be considered in a wider context. Abundance can be affected by cold water on larvae, sedimentation and other land based pollution, destruction of lobster year classes by significant storms, other predators, and loss of sea grass habitat. These are factors that escape the "catch" rubric employed in this design. This is a weak point in this proposal that needs to be further addressed.
|