ABSTRACT
Ambiguous definitions of the resource unit that constitutes a “stock” of fish and of what is meant by “conservation for sustainable fisheries” create confusion about the specific aims and objectives of fisheries management. Examination of two recent definitions of conservation, proposed for use in fisheries management, reveals how subtle differences in terminology may result in highly divergent operational objectives (e.g., management to sustain either harvest biomass or regional biodiversity) and procedures that have important consequences at levels from local fish populations to entire ecosystems. In recent years, fisheries “stakeholders” on Canada’s west coast have been faced with accommodating a potent combination of events involving legal decisions, institutional policy changes, new agreements forged in response to interagency conflicts, and increasing public pressure for “sustainable” resource management within an ecosystem context. These events have facilitated rapid movement by resource agencies away from traditional definitions of fisheries conservation that embodied a single species management focus for maximum sustained yield, and toward new definitions that reflect a greater interest in maintenance of biodiversity at multispecies and biological population levels for fish. However, there is substantial uncertainty about the magnitude and rate of future changes we can expect in fisheries management regimes to accommodate broader conservation objectives for the maintenance of ecosystem linkages, the productive capacity of habitats, and general regional biodiversity.
