Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T05:21:59.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The roles of biological reference points and operational control points in management procedures for the sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) fishery in British Columbia, Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2013

SEAN P. COX ,
ALLEN R. KRONLUND  and
ASHLEEN J. BENSON
SEAN P. COX*
Affiliation:
School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6Canada
ALLEN R. KRONLUND
Affiliation:
Pacific Biological Station, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 3190 Hammond Bay Road, Nanaimo, British Columbia, V9R 6N7Canada
ASHLEEN J. BENSON
Affiliation:
School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6Canada
*
*Correspondence: Dr Sean Cox Tel: +1 778 7825778 e-mail: spcox@sfu.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Biological reference points (BRPs) in fisheries policy are typically sensitive to stock assessment model assumptions, thus increasing uncertainty in harvest decision-making and potentially blocking adoption of precautionary harvest policies. A collaborative management strategy evaluation approach and closed-loop simulation modelling was used to evaluate expected fishery economic and conservation performance of the sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) fishery in British Columbia (Canada), in the presence of uncertainty about BRPs. Comparison of models derived using two precautionary harvest control rules, which each complied with biological conservation objectives and short-term economic objectives given by industry, suggested that both rules were likely to avert biomass decline below limit BRPs, even when stock biomass and production were persistently overestimated by stock assessment models. The slightly less conservative, industry-preferred harvest control rule also avoided short-term economic losses of c. CAN$ 2.7–10 million annually, or 10–50% of current landed value. Distinguishing between the role of BRPs in setting fishery conservation objectives and operational control points that define harvest control rules improved the flexibility of the sablefish management system, and has led to adoption of precautionary management procedures.

Keywords

biological reference pointsclosed-loop simulationfish stock assessmentfisheries managementmanagement strategy evaluationoperational control pointsstructural model uncertainty
Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Politics, Science and Policy of Reference Points for Resource Management
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 318 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beamish, R.J. & McFarlane, C.A. (1988) Resident and dispersal behavior of adult sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) in the slope waters off Canada's west coast. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 152–164Google Scholar
Butterworth, D.S. & Bergh, M.O. (1993) The development of a management procedure for the South African anchovy resource. In: Risk Evaluation and Biological Reference Points for Fisheries Management, ed. Smith, S.J., Hunt, J.J. & Rivard, D., pp. 83–99. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 120. Canada: NRC Research Press [www document]. URL http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/9780660149561#.Ub8AMPkwcqsGoogle Scholar
Caddy, J.F. & Mahon, R. (1995) Reference points for fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 347. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Collie, J.S. & Gislason, H. (2001) Biological reference points for fish stocks in a multispecies context. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 2167–2176.Google Scholar
Cooke, J.G. (1999) Improvement of fishery-management advice through simulation testing of harvest algorithms. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 797–810.Google Scholar
Cordue, P.L. & Francis, R.I.C.C. (1994) Accuracy and choice in risk estimation for fisheries assessment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 817–829.Google Scholar
Cox, S.P. & Kronlund, A.R. (2008) Practical stakeholder-driven policies for groundfish fisheries in British Columbia, Canada. Fisheries Research 94: 224–237.Google Scholar
Cox, S.P., Kronlund, A.R. & Lacko, L. (2011) Management procedures for the multi-gear sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) fishery in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Documents 2011/063. Canada: Fisheries and Oceans Canada [www document]. URL http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2011/2011_063-eng.htmlGoogle Scholar
de la Mare, W.K. (1996) Some recent developments in the management of marine living resources. In: Frontiers of Population Ecology, ed. Floyd, R.B., Sheppard, A.W. & De Barro, P.J., pp. 599–616. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.Google Scholar
de la Mare, W.K. (1998) Tidier fisheries management requires a new MOP (management-oriented paradigm). Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 8: 349–356.Google Scholar
DFO (2009) Sustainable fisheries framework [www document]. URL http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/pechesfisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htmGoogle Scholar
FAO (1995) Precautionary approach to fisheries. Part 1: Guidelines on the precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 10 350, Part 1. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Fournier, D.A., Skaug, H.J., Ancheta, J., Ianelli, J., Magnusson, A., Maunder, M.N., Nielsen, A. & Sibert, J. (2012) AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optimization Methods and Software 27 (2): 233–249.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S. & Rubin, D.B. (2004) Bayesian Data Analysis. London, UK: Chapman & Hall: 696 pp.Google Scholar
Hilborn, R. (2003) The state of the art in stock assessment: where we are and where we are going. Scientia Marina 67 (S1): 15–20.Google Scholar
Hilborn, R. & Peterman, R. (1995) The development of scientific advice with incomplete information in the context of the precautionary approach. In: Precautionary approach to fisheries. Part 2: Scientific papers. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 2350, pp. 77–101. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Hutchings, J.A. (2000) Collapse and recovery of marine fishes. Nature 406: 882–885.Google Scholar
Keith, D.M., Hutchings, J.A. & Hilborn, R.A. (2012) Population dynamics of marine fishes at low abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 69: 1150–1163.Google Scholar
Kimura, D.K., Shimada, A.M. & Lowe, S.A. (1993) Estimating von Bertalanffy growth parameters of sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria and Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus using tag-recapture data. Fishery Bulletin 91: 271–280.Google Scholar
Kimura, D.K., Shimada, A.M. & Shaw, F.R. (1998) Stock structure and movements of tagged sablefish, Anoplopoma fimbria in offshore northeastern Pacific waters and the effects of El Nino-southern oscillation on migration and growth. Fishery Bulletin 96: 462–481.Google Scholar
MSC (2012) Canada sablefish [www document]. URL http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/Canada-sablefishGoogle Scholar
McFarlane, G.A. & Beamish, R.J. (1983) Overview of the fishery and management strategy for sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) in waters off the west coast of Canada. In: Proceedings of the Second Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium, pp. 13–35. Alaska Sea Grant Report 83-3. Anchorage, AK, USA: Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska.Google Scholar
NMFS (2009) NMFS's National Standards Guidelines 50 C.F.R. 600.310 et seq. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, USA.Google Scholar
NRC (1998). Improving Fish Stock Assessments. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press: 177 pp.Google Scholar
MOF, NZ (2008) Harvest strategy standard for New Zealand fisheries. New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries [www document]. URL http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/487988D0-F768-4297-ADDE-B5E1DFA53404/0/harveststrategyfinal.pdfGoogle Scholar
Punt, A.E. (2003) Extending production models to include process error in the population dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 1217–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Punt, A.E. (2006) The FAO precautionary approach after almost 10 years: have we progressed towards implementing simulation-tested feedback-control management systems for fisheries management? Natural Resource Modelling 19: 441–464.Google Scholar
Punt, A.E. & Smith, A.D.M. (1999) Harvest strategy evaluation for the eastern stock of gemfish (Rexea solnadri). ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 860–875.Google Scholar
Punt, A.E., Trinnie, F., Walker, T.I., McGarvey, R., Feenstra, J., Linnane, A. & Hartmann, K. (2013) The performance of a management procedure for rock lobsters, Jasus edwardsi, of western Victoria, Australia in the face of non-stationary dynamics. Fisheries Research 137: 116–128.Google Scholar
Restrepo, V.R. & Powers, J.E. (1999) Precautionary control rules in US fisheries management: specification and performance. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 846–852.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, K.J., Punt, A.E. & Smith, A.D.M. (2000) Design of operational management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 731–741.Google Scholar
Schirripa, M.J. (2007) Status of the sablefish resource off the continental US Pacific coast in 2007. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR, USA [www document]. URL http://www.pcouncil.org/bb/2007/0607/Groundfish_Assessments_E6/SablefishAsessment_07.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schweigert, J.F., Boldt, J.L., Flostrand, L. & Cleary, J.S. (2010) A review of factors limiting recovery of Pacific herring stocks in Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67: 1903–1913.Google Scholar
Shelton, P.A. & Sinclair, A.F. (2008) It's time to sharpen our definition of sustainable fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 2305–2314.Google Scholar
Starr, P.J., Breen, P.A., Hilborn, R.H. & Kendrick, T.H. (1997) Evaluation of a management decision rule for a New Zealand rock lobster substock. Marine and Freshwater Research 48: 1093–1101.Google Scholar
United Nations (1995) United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, July 24–August 4, 1995, Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, UN DOC A/Conf. 164/37 [www document]. URL http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/CONF.164/37Google Scholar
Walters, C. (1998) Evaluation of quota management policies for developing fisheries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 2691–2705Google Scholar
Walters, C. (2004) Simple representation of the dynamics of biomass error propagation for stock assessment models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 1061–1065.Google Scholar
Walters, C.J. (1986) Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. NJ, USA: The Blackburn Press: 374 pp.Google Scholar
Wayte, S.E., ed. (2009) Evaluation of new harvest strategies for SESSF species. Report. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart and Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Australia: 137 pp.Google Scholar