Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Species Extinction and Cultural Arrogance: The Perils of Ignoring History

  For more than a century, politicians, newspaper editors, tate and federal fisheries managers, and their various constituencies with an interest in salmon have complained,lobbied and petitioned, sought ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Species Extinction and Cultural Arrogance: The Perils of Ignoring History Author: Robbins, William G. Year: 2001 For more than a century, politicians, newspaper editors, tate and federal fisheries managers, and their various constituencies with an interest in salmon have complained,lobbied and petitioned, sought legislative relief, and studied to near extinction the declining runs of the Pacific Northwest’s anadromous fish runs. All to no avail, of course. Management efforts have failed; the attempt to the establish reliable, predictive models has failed; massive federal expenditures to rescue crashing stocks have failed; and endeavors to achieve consensus about future policymaking have failed. And today one can add to the now familiar story of extinct and endangered salmon, similar tales about ocean groundfish, newly impoverished fishing communities, reductions in fleet size, and more federal bailouts. What is fascinating in the unveiling of this most recent story is the sense of history repeating itself as commercial fishers shift from one species to the next. Title: Species Extinction and Cultural Arrogance: The Perils of Ignoring History Author: Robbins, William G. Year: 2001 For more than a century, politicians, newspaper editors, tate and federal fisheries managers, and their various constituencies with an interest in salmon have complained,lobbied and petitioned, sought legislative relief, and studied to near extinction the declining runs of the Pacific Northwest’s anadromous fish runs. All to no avail, of course. Management efforts have failed; the attempt to the establish reliable, predictive models has failed; massive federal expenditures to rescue crashing stocks have failed; and endeavors to achieve consensus about future policymaking have failed. And today one can add to the now familiar story of extinct and endangered salmon, similar tales about ocean groundfish, newly impoverished fishing communities, reductions in fleet size, and more federal bailouts. What is fascinating in the unveiling of this most recent story is the sense of history repeating itself as commercial fishers shift from one species to the next. Close

• 2. [Article] Fisheries Management and Rule of Law

  Fishing is one of the most intensively regulated industries in the U.S. economy. Theoretically, regulating an industry means subjecting it to the rule of law: treating those with an interest in the resource ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Fisheries Management and Rule of Law Author: McEvoy, Arthur F. Year: 2001 Fishing is one of the most intensively regulated industries in the U.S. economy. Theoretically, regulating an industry means subjecting it to the rule of law: treating those with an interest in the resource fairly while preserving the public interest in public order, economic efficiency, and conservation. There are, however, two opposing concepts of “rule of law,” each with deep roots in U.S. legal culture, that conflict with each other and frequently stymie efforts to regulate fisheries successfully. One of these concepts is the classical liberal idea of autonomy, which stresses the individual’s right to pursue his/her self-interest free of state interference. Rule of law here means that the state should guarantee private ordering, treat everyone alike, and promote private enterprise. The other is the Jeffersonian, or republican, idea of participation, which stresses the equal participation of all citizens in self-government. Throughout U.S. history, these two norms have co-existed uncomfortably with each other as sources of legitimacy for regulatory regimes. Liberal thinking predominated in the nineteenth century, although it clearly underlies limited-entry and other property-oriented regimes today. Republican thinking has emerged more recently in co-management regimes that stress the participation of user groups in data-gathering, policymaking, and enforcement. Somewhere in between is the New Deal style of governance, on which the Magnuson Act of 1976 is based. Title: Fisheries Management and Rule of Law Author: McEvoy, Arthur F. Year: 2001 Fishing is one of the most intensively regulated industries in the U.S. economy. Theoretically, regulating an industry means subjecting it to the rule of law: treating those with an interest in the resource fairly while preserving the public interest in public order, economic efficiency, and conservation. There are, however, two opposing concepts of “rule of law,” each with deep roots in U.S. legal culture, that conflict with each other and frequently stymie efforts to regulate fisheries successfully. One of these concepts is the classical liberal idea of autonomy, which stresses the individual’s right to pursue his/her self-interest free of state interference. Rule of law here means that the state should guarantee private ordering, treat everyone alike, and promote private enterprise. The other is the Jeffersonian, or republican, idea of participation, which stresses the equal participation of all citizens in self-government. Throughout U.S. history, these two norms have co-existed uncomfortably with each other as sources of legitimacy for regulatory regimes. Liberal thinking predominated in the nineteenth century, although it clearly underlies limited-entry and other property-oriented regimes today. Republican thinking has emerged more recently in co-management regimes that stress the participation of user groups in data-gathering, policymaking, and enforcement. Somewhere in between is the New Deal style of governance, on which the Magnuson Act of 1976 is based. Close