Societal Preference. Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment
EPA/600/A-97/004
Robert T. Lackey	December 12. 1996	1
Fisheries Management: Integrating Societal Preference,
Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment1
Robert T. Lackey2
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
'Modified from a presentation given at the Second Annual Conference on Population-Level Effects of
Marine Contamination, Bodega Bay. California, November 8-9, 1996, The views and opinions expressed do not
necessarily represent those of the Environmental Protection Agency or any other organization.
2Dr. Lackey is Associate Director for Science at the Western Ecology Division and courtesy professor of
fisheries and adjunct professor of political science at Oregon State University.

-------
Societal Preference, Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T. Lackey	December 12. 1996	2
Abstract
Fisheries management is the practice of analyzing and selecting options to maintain or
alter the structure, dynamics, and interaction of habitat, aquatic biota, and man to achieve human
goals and objectives. The theory of fisheries management is: managers or decision makers
attempt to maximize renewable "output" from an aquatic resource by choosing from among a set
of decision options and applying a set of actions that generate an array of outputs. Outputs may
be defined as a tangible catch, a fishing experience, an existence value, or anything else
produced or supported by an aquatic resource. Overall output is always a mix of tangible and
intangible elements. However defined, management goals and objectives are essential
components of fisheries management or any other field of renewable natural resource
management. Reaching consensus on management goals and objectives is not, nor has it ever
been, a simple task. Beyond the broad and often conflicting goals of an agency, managers must
decide on who should set specific management objectives -- agency personnel, the public, or a
combination of the two. Historically, rhetoric aside, fisheries managers in North America nearly
always have used consultation between professionals in governmental roles to set management
objectives. In a strongly pluralistic society this has not proven effective and has resulted in
protracted political and legal conflict. Increasingly, there are calls for use of risk assessment to
solve such ecological policy and management pio'Dicms commonly encountered in fisheries
management. The basic concepts of ecological risk assessment may be simple, but the jargon
and details are not. Risk assessment (and similar analytical tools) is a concept that has evoked
strong reactions whenever it has been used. In spite of the difficulties of defining problems and
setting management objectives for complex ecological policy questions, use of risk assessment to
help solve ecological problems is widely supported. Ecological risk assessment will be most
useful in political deliberations when the policy debate revolves around largely technical
concerns. To the extent that risk assessment forces policy debate and disagreement toward
fundamental differences rather than superficial ones, it will be useful in decision making.
Otherwise, it is merely the latest in a long procession of analytical tools, each of which has a role,
albeit limited, in fisheries management.

-------
Societal Preference. Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T Lackey	December 12. 1996	3
Introduction
Fisheries are complex systems: there is the intricacy of interaction between fish
populations, other biota, and the geochemical environment, as well as the often pervasive human
component. Fishermen may be sportsmen, capital-intensive high seas operators, or those fishing
for mere subsistence. Other "users" may not even fish, but realize real "benefit" from the
outdoor experience. To many humans merely knowing that certain aquatic resources exist is a
benefit, perhaps more important than fish in the creel or crabs in the pot.
On the marine side of fisheries management, system complexity is exacerbated due to the
interstate and/or international nature of the human component. Fleets may pursue a multitude of
species over broad geographic regions; more importantly, commercial fishing may serve larger
national objectives far beyond the size or value of the catch.
Most of the management problems now faced in fisheries management are not new
(Pinchot, 1947; Callicot, 1990), nor are they dramatically different from the challenges facing
other disciplines (Castle, 1993). In short, current fisheries management problems are complex
and challenging, but our predecessors also faced difficult problems — different for sure, perhaps
even simple in light of current knowledge or management options, but they were just as
challenging.
Most of us learned early that fisheries management is usually defined as something like
"the practice of analyzing and selecting options to maintain or alter the structure, dynamics, and
interaction of habitat, aquatic biota, and man to achieve human goals and objectives" (Lackey,
1979). When we consider the number and diversity of the components that form fisheries (i.e., a
plethora of flora and fauna, chemical and physical water parameters, various types of fishermen,
and the related commercial and recreation activities), the breadth of fisheries management
becomes apparent.
Freshwater fisheries managers, at least in North America, have nearly always been more
concerned with aquatic habitats and the whole array of aquatic animal populations than their
marine counterparts. The reason is quite understandable; marine fisheries managers can rarely
exert much influence on a habitat or nonexploited biota. Freshwater habitats and ecosystems, in
contrast, may often be manipulated as part of a management strategy. Freshwater habitats are
also are routinely altered for many reasons, farming, housing construction, mining, road
construction, to name a few. Both groups of fisheries managers historically have been focused
on target fish populations, but have been less interested (except for controlling harvest) in the
human component. It is easier to manipulate habitat, monitor the status of biota, and try to
control harvest than work with the diversity of societal preferences. I'll come back to societal
preference later, but let me spend a few minutes laying out a basic theory of fisheries
management.

-------
Societal Preference, Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T. Lackey	December 12. 1996 "	4'
Theory of Fisheries Management
If we make the assumption in fisheries management that all benefits derivable from
aquatic renewable natural resources are aecruable to man, then we have a philosophic basis for
management theory. This initial assumption is not as difficult to accept as it may appear if we
can avoid the quicksand of semantics. For example, even though most people never see a gray
whale, the existence of gray whales still has value to them. The important point is that we may
choose to protect some or all species, maintain biological diversity at certain levels, or protect
areas that no one visits because these decisions produce benefits to people - not tangible
benefits but benefits nonetheless. Consumptive use of resources (i.e., harvesting fish) is only one
of the benefits derivable from fisheries. Other, nontangible benefits may be of equal or greater
importance in terms of total societal benefits (Roedel, 1975).
If you are of a more mathematical leaning, a shorthand statement of the basic theory of
fisheries management is:
0max=/(^2.;
where
Q = some measure of societal benefit
X = a management decision variable (the vertical line reads "given")
Y- a management or ecological constraint variable
The theory might look impressive, but it is not conceptually complicated. It reads "the
greatest (maximum) societal benefit (0 from a fishery can be realized by manipulating a series
of decision variables (X's), given a set of constraints (Y's)" Controlled or partially controlled
decision variables (X's) are those regarded as management techniques (regulations, habitat
improvement, environmental protection or manipulation, pollution control, etc.). Noncontrolled
decision variables (F's) are random or dependent on other factors (weather, economic changes,
recreation attitudes, oil spills, etc.). Variables, however, may overlap both categories. Within
constraint variables the manager tries to select a series of decision variables and to maximize Q.
Everything in management, whether it is biologic, economic, or social, fits into this theory
(Lackey, 1979).
This theory of fisheries management is the basis upon which we are trying to maximize
(within constraints) some measure of "output" from a fishery. Controversy over sustainability,
protecting biological diversity, and protecting certain species is largely an issue of how society
weights various constraint and decision variables. Q is the nebulous societal endpoint for which
we only have surrogates, whether they are pounds of fish, number of angler days provided,
species preserved, ecosystems maintained in some desired state, or any of a number of economic
indices. Further complicating achieving consensus on Q is the time dimension: short term time
frames lead to very different management strategies than do longer term times. In fact,
identifying O is "where it's at" in fisheries management or any field of natural resource
management. It is here we need to identify how we define and measure Q through a process of
setting goals and objectives.

-------
Societal Preference. Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T Lackey	December 12. 1996	5
Societal Preferences
Setting management objectives is not a simple task (Sylvia, 1992), Because of the
divisiveness of setting goals and objectives in natural resources systems, establishment of
management objectives may tend to be ignored. It is easy to scoff at this intentional oversight,
but it does not occur without reason. Managers may be, in reality, unwilling to formulate goals
and objectives for fear that some of the real objectives may be disapproved under public scrutiny
and will not be approved by all interested parties (Fitzsimmons. 1996). Managers may be unable
to formulate objectives because of a number of other difficulties: incomplete problem
awareness; incomplete knowledge of the intricacies of the problem; and inability because of
time, money, and/or manpower constraints to devote sufficient thought to the effort.
Furthermore, objective-setting methodology is not sufficiently defined and succinct to be of use
to most fisheries managers. Although v irtually everyone stresses the importance of management
goals and objectives, there are few sound techniques available to development them and these
techniques are extremely complex to use (Lackey, 1996).
Who should set objectives — agency personnel or the general public, or a combination of
the two? Historically, fisheries managers have used consultation between professionals in
institutional roles (usually governmental) to set objectives. After all, we are the experts. Don't
we know what's best for the resource? Critics term this an "elitist" planning process, but it does
have the advantage of allowing those who are "best qualified" and most knowledgeable to
determine objectives and make decisions to achieve those objectives. However, in these days of
a pluralistic society, most professionals now advocate, at least publicly, use of systematic public
input in setting goals and objectives. One of the most urgent social needs in natural resource
management is determining public needs and preferences (Smith and Steel, 1996), but providing
the public with understandable and credible assessments of the consequences of various choices
is equally important. Many of the failures of management are attributable to the inability of
planners and managers, folks like us, to consider the needs and desires of certain key segments of
the public, or the fail to clearly state that some goals and objectives are not achievable. People
may at one time have deferred to the experts, clearly no longer the case.
Let me return to societal preferences for a moment. An informed and concerned public is
essential for natural resource decision making in the current political climate. Theoretically, a
planning or management process involving the public is more nearly democratic, and as such
probably should have a higher probability of success because it provides representation for those
affected. Management personnel cannot rely solely on public opinion in formulating decisions.
Public opinion is valuable input because light may be shed on the public response to potential
management actions. Interactions between managers and the public may bring greater
appreciation for both sides' viewpoints and problems. Greater understanding should ultimately
improve natural resource management. Therefore, providing clear, accurate assessments of the
ecological consequences of various management options is an essential role of fisheries

-------
Societal Preference. Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T Lackey	December 12. 1996	6'
professionals.
Although this sounds fine in theory, in practice it may lead to a rather traumatic way of
doing business for professionals. There are also practical problems, not the least of which is
figuring out how to do it. Societal preference is important, but how is it translated into
something a manager can use? This brings us back to Q.
Decision Analysis
Q, whatever it is we are trying to manage for, is not simply a measure of pounds of fish
or numbers of fish harvested but may involve additional components. In the parlance of
management by objectives, Q is a statement of the desired result of a decision or set of decisions.
The X's (decision variables) previously outlined could be viewed as "operational" objectives.
Such statements as "to produce 200 pounds of fish per acre per year" or "to produce 2,000 angler
visitor-days per year" are management objectives, at least as the words are typically applied in
fisheries management.
We can sink into a swamp of semantics here, but I am not equating an objective with a
goal; a goal is defined as an end toward which a management strategy is directed. It is an ideal
state, which is usually expressed in general or abstract terms. The few goals we commonly use in
fisheries management usually deal with "best" or "wise" use of resources (Sylvia, 1992).
"Conservation," "protection," and "enhancement" of resources are terms commonly associated
with goals. Although a goal is extremely useful for a number of reasons, it does not supplant the
role of objectives in management (Barber and Taylor, 1990).
Objectives have important properties that affect their use in renewable natural resource
management. Objectives should be: (1) clearly stated; (2) specific, or as specific as possible,
and not filled with broad, sweeping generalizations; (3) quantifiable by some means; if not
empirically, then at least subjectively; (4) have a performance measure so that management
progress can be evaluated; and (5) dynamic and reflect changing societal preferences and
evolving ecological conditions or constraints.
Virtually all natural resource managers have recognized the inherent difficulties of
operating without functional objectives, and this is certainly true in fisheries management. Many
managers have tried to substitute more measurable objectives, but with less than exemplary
success. Historically, the most common objective has been to maximize pounds or numbers of
fish on a sustained basis. This is usually referred to as MSY (maximum sustained yield) or,
possibly, equilibrium sustained yield. In the last few decades, this approach has come under
increasing criticism primarily from those who do not agree with the basic concept that protein or
biomass output from a fishery is the prime societal benefit from that resource (Roedel, 1975;
Bottom, 1996; Malvestuto and Hudgins, 1996). There are many variants of the MSY approach;
these usually revolve around maximizing yield of certain species or maximizing catches of
certain sizes of a species.

-------
Societal Preference, Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T. Lackey	December 12, 1996	7
Desirable properties of MSY are that it is conceptually simple and that it is an objective-
oriented approach to management. However, MSY has some inherent disadvantages, the main
one being that many recreational fisheries managers, and some commercial fisheries managers as
well, regard catch as only one of several measures of output from a fishery. Catch is important,
but fishing is also important. Numerous surveys have shown that many recreational anglers
enjoy the fishing experience even though "fishing success" is less than what may be considered
ideal (Hudgins, 1984). Other important aspects of angling "benefit" are the perceived quality of
the outdoor experience, the environment, and the sporting challenge. Additional interrelated
elements are species caught, fish size, and the angling method.
Even in commercial fisheries management, it is important to recognize that economic
output, accruable to fisherman or society, is more important than the pounds of fish the
individual fisherman catches (Larkin, 1977). Among many, perhaps most, groups of commercial
fishermen, psychological benefits (lifestyle preferences and personal satisfaction) are a major
factor in working as a commercial fishermen. It may appear to many that commercial fishing is a
rough, dangerous, demanding, undesirable vocation, but such types of work creates a strong,
enduring bond amongst the participants.
There is no question in recreational" fisheries management that the public receives benefits
of a psychological nature that may total more than the tangible benefits received from harvesting
fish. However, there is no functional pricing system to value various recreational factors (and
commercial factors), nor can benefits be easily determined by market survey (Repetto and
Dower, 1992). Aesthetics can probably never be accurately measured, but by identifying the
variables associated with the angling experience and angler's perceptions of them, a reasonable
assessment of aesthetics can be obtained.
Another approach to management is maximizing aesthetics or environmental quality.
Whereas this sounds laudable and desirable, it is extremely difficult to apply in practice. Often
referred to as optimum sustained yield (OSY), it has some of the characteristics of MSY but the
concept OSY means many different things to different people and has tended to be regarded as a
philosophical position rather than a practical one (Roedel, 1975). More recently there have been
some procedures developed to incorporate biological, economic, and social values into goal
setting for fisheries management (Malvestuto and Hudgins, 1996).
A management goal intermediate between MSY and OSY is to focus on maximizing
some measure of angler use or the quality of the angling experience. Of course, fishing quality
is a vague and variable parameter, but certain factors that contribute to the fishing experience can
be delineated and sometimes measured. The number of potential variables is great, but if the key
ones could be identified, the analytical challenge would be much reduced. Maximizing the
diversity of angling opportunity, commonly used in agency management programs, is a
permutation of this approach.
One practical feature of fisheries management that I have overlooked is that decision
analysis and active management do not typically start until a management problem is apparent.

-------
Societal Preference. Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T. Lackey	December 12. 1996
8
The problem may be a decline in catch, the abundance of preferred species, or a decline biotic
diversity. In practice, most aquatic ecosystems are already significantly altered (and not
produced the desired level of societal benefits) by the time fisheries managers become involved
and a manager usually ends up adopting a strategy to allocate a scarce resource.
This discussion about management objectives does not solve any problems, but it points
out some of the practical problems we face, especially: what are we attempting to achieve and
how do we measure success? Faced with such tough decision making problems, perhaps there
are other approaches or tools that would be suitable for fisheries management: ecological risk
assessment is often suggested as a candidate.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Risk assessment has been applied in fisheries management to some relatively
straightforward policy and management questions (Francis, 1992; Fogarty, Rosenberg, and
Sissenwine, 1992; Peterson and Smith, 1982), but increasingly, there are calls for its use to help
solve complex ecological problems (examples are declines in Pacific salmon and the purported
drastic decrease in biological diversity). Ecological risk assessment is usually defined as "the
process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects are occurring, or may occur,
as a result of exposure to one or more stressors." (Patton, 1995). The basic concept underlying
risk assessment is relatively straightforward. Risk is something that can be estimated (e.g., risk
assessment). In turn, that estimate can be used to manage the risk (e.g., risk management)
(National Research Council, 1983; 1993).
The basic common sense view of risk assessment may be intuitive, but the jargon and
details are not. Risk assessment (as with similar analytical tools) is a concept that has evoked
strong reactions (Regens, 1995). At one extreme, some have even concluded that use of risk
assessment in human health decision-making is "premeditated murder" (Merrell and Van Strum,
1990; Merrell, 1995). A number of philosophical and moral reasons for such strong negative
reactions exist but they are usually based on either: (1) concerns that the analysis (risk
assessment) and decisions (risk management) accept the premise that people will die prematurely
to achieve the desired net benefits; or (2) a belief that the process of risk assessment places too
much power with technocrats. The other extreme position would mandate ecological risk
assessment as the tool of choice for all ecological policy questions. Do you split the difference to
determine which position is true? What happens if some scientific experts contend that the
measures of ecological risk are often so imprecise that we might make irrevocable decisions
based on primitive information, while other experts have much more confidence in current
knowledge? Let me explore the arguments of the critics and supporters.
Reaction to ecological risk assessment may be less skeptical than reaction to risk
assessment applied to human health problems, but even with ecological issues, both strong
positive and negative responses occur (Pagel, 1995). Several bills (e.g., Environmental Risk
Reduction Act) have been introduced in the United States Congress that would mandate that
federal agencies use risk assessment to set priorities and budgets. Several panels of scientists

-------
Societal Preference, Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T. Lackey	December 12, 1996	9
have made similar recommendations (National Research Council, 1983; 1993). Articles in
popular and influential publications advocate use of a risk assessment approach. On the other
hand, some conclude that risk assessment is a disastrous approach, one that is "scientifically
indefensible, ethically repugnant, and practically inefficient" (O'Brien, 1995; Pagel and O'Brien,
1996).
Critics aside, risk assessment has been used extensively to link environmental stressors
and their ecological consequences (Suter, 1993; National Research Council, 1993), The risks
associated with chemical exposure are the typical concern. Quantifying the risk of various
chemicals to human health is a logical outgrowth of risk assessment as applied in the insurance
industry and other fields. Over the past 20 years, a body of procedures and tools has been used
for environmental risk assessment for human health. Risk assessment applied to ecological
problems is more recent, but has also focused primarily on chemicals, with animals used as
surrogates for "ecological health" (Friant, et al. 1995). There have been relatively few-
applications in fisheries management except to help assess the ecological consequences of
various chemicals on fish.
There is, however, a vocal group of critics of the use of risk assessment for ecological
problems (O'Brien, 1995). They argue thai risk assessment (and risk management) is essentially
triage ~ deciding which ecological components will be "saved" and which will be "destroyed."
The theme of "biospheric egaiitarianism" is a mind set that makes risk assessment a real
anathema. Many risk assessment critics appear to have a strong sense of technophobia, and often
view mainstream environmental organizations as co-opted by industrial or technocratic interests
(Lackey. 1994).
Risk assessment is also challenged from a different, more utilitarian perspective (Merrell,
1995; Pagel. 1995). The assertion is that, while the concept of risk assessment is sound, the
process of risk assessment is often controlled by scientists and others who have political agendas
different from the majority. Critics contend that "risk assessors" use science to support their
position under the guise of formal, value-free risk analysis. Risk assessment as thus viewed has
the trappings of impartiality, but is really nothing more than thinly disguised environmentalism
(or utilitarianism). The apparent lack of credibility and impartiality of the science (and risk
assessment) underlying the policy debates over acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, global
climate change, and loss of biological diversity are often offered as examples of how science has
allegedly been misused by scientists and others to advocate political positions. Reliance on
scientific peer review and a "weight of evidence" approach are usually not convincing arguments
to skeptics.
Risk assessment is usually separated from risk management in an attempt to reduce the
likelihood that the personal values of scientists or analysts will corrupt the process. Such
separation requires that scientists play clearly defined roles as technical experts, not policy
advocates; these distinctions are blurred when scientists advocate political positions. Further,
some critics charge that scientists who use their positions to advocate personal views are abusing
their public trust. The counter-argument is that scientists, and all individuals for that matter,

-------
Societal Preference. Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T. Lackey	December 12, 1996	10
have a right to argue for their views and, as technical experts, should not be excluded simply
because of their expertise. Some would further argue that scientists have not only a right, but a
moral responsibility to participate in ecological policy debates. Others conclude that the
execution of the scientific enterprise is value-laden and therefore already partially a political
activity; that rather than attempting to be solely "scientifically objective," a scientist should also
be an advocate. Either way, the role of the analyst must be clear to everyone using the results.
Like all analytical techniques used in support of decision making, ecological risk
assessment has strengths and weaknesses. It does appear that ecological risk assessment will be
useful for a certain set of policy questions: those dealing with chemical effects, especially where
there is a legislative or policy basis for defining what is "adverse" ecologically. However, the
vast majority of fisheries management "decision" problems are simply too complicated to be
addressed by risk assessment methods.
Conclusion
Where does this leave us? I have covered a lot of ground — the theory of fisheries
management, societal preference, decision analysis, and ecological risk assessment. Let me wrap
up with a few conclusions.
Biological and social science must be better linked if public decision making is going to
effectively use what fisheries scientists and others have to offer. Certainly this is not a new
refrain, but one that becomes increasingly clear as society becomes more pluralistic. Too often,
fisheries, forestry, and wildlife management problems are viewed solely in a biological or
technical context. It is society that should define problems and set priorities; however, the public
speaks with not one, but many voices. And let's accept the obvious fact that many of the stated
public demands are mutually exclusive — there will be winners and losers.
At least in an idealized world, scientists would maintain a real and perceived position of
providing credible ecological information ~ information that is not slanted by personal value
judgements. Those involved in risk assessment cannot become advocates for any political
position or choice, lest their credibility suffer. Such a position may be painful at times because
no one can completely separate personal views from professional opinions. Risk assessors must
be clear to the public (and political officials) on what scientific and technical information can and
cannot do in resolving public choice issues. Let me be clear here: I'm saying that the work
should be highly policy-relevant, but should not be colored with the policy preferences of
scientists or analysts. The threat to our profession is too great. An example of the currently
perceived credibility of some types of scientists was captured in a headline in our local paper:
"Ecologists Convinced that Climate is Warming; Scientists Not Sure."
Nor should we assume that complex ecological problems, such as the decline of the
Pacific salmon or the collapse of important marine stocks, have only technological solutions.
Tools such as risk assessment might help at the margins of the political process to answer certain
narrowly defined questions, but they are not going to resolve the important elements of most

-------
Societal Preference. Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment
Robert T. Lackey
December 12. 1996
fisheries management debates.
To the extent that risk assessment forces policy debate and disagreement toward
fundamental differences rather than superficial ones, it will be useful in decision making.
Otherwise, it is just the latest in a long procession of analytical tools, each of which has a role,
albeit limited, in fisheries management.

-------
Societal Preference. Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T Lackey	December 12. 1996	12.
Literature Cited
Barber, Willard E., and John N. Taylor. 1990. The importance of goals, objectives, and values
in the fisheries management process and organization: a review. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management. 10(4): 365-373.
Bottom, Daniel L. 1996. To till the water: a history of ideas in fisheries conservation. In:
Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options. Deanna J. Stouder, Peter A.
Bisson, and Robert N. Naiman (editors), Chapman and Hall, New York. pp. 569 - 597.
Callicott, J. Baird. 1990. Standards of conservation: then and now. Conservation Biology.
4(3): 229 - 232.
Castle, Emery N. 1993. A pluralistic, pragmatic, and evolutionary approach to natural resource
management. Forest Ecology and Management. 56:279-295.
Fitzsimmons, Allan K. 1996. Sound policy or smoke and mirrors: does ecosystem management
make sense? Water Resources Bulletin. 32(2): 217 - 227.
Fogartv, Michael J., Andrew A. Rosenberg, and Michael P. Sissenwine. 1992. Fisheries risk
assessment; sources of uncertainty. Environmental Science and Technology. 26(3): 440 - 447.
Francis, R. I. C. C. 1992. Use of risk analysis to assess fishery management strategies: a case
study using orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 49: 922 - 930.
Friant, Stephen L.. Gordon R. Bilyard, and Kathleen M. Probasco. 1995. Ecological risk
assessment ~ is it time to shift the paradigm? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 1(5):
464 - 466.
Hudgins, Michael D. 1984. Structure of the angling experience. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society. 113: 750 - 759.
Lackey, Robert T. 1979. Options and limitations in fisheries management. Environmental
Management. 3(2): 109-112.
Lackey, Robert T. 1994. Ecological risk assessment. Fisheries. 19(9): 14-18.
Lackey, Robert T. [1996], Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban
Planning. [Accepted],
Larkin, Peter A. 1977. An epitaph for the concept of maximum sustained yield. Transactions
American Fisheries Society. 106(1): 1-11.

-------
Societal Preference. Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T. Lackey	December 12, 1996	13
Malvestuto, Stephen P., and Michael D. Hudgins. 1996. Optimum yield for recreational
fisheries management. Fisheries. 21(6): 6-17.
Merrell, Paul. 1995. Legal issues of ecological risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment. 1(4): 454 - 458.
Merrell, Paul, and Carol Van Strum. 1990. Negligible risk: premeditated murder? Journal of
Pesticide Reform. 10(1): 20-22.
National Research Council. 1983. Risk assessment in the Federal Government: managing the
process. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 191 p.
National Research Council. 1993. Issues in risk assessment. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 356 p.
O'Brien, Mary H. 1995. Ecological alternatives assessment rather than ecological risk
assessment: considering options, benefits, and dangers. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment. 1(4): 357 - 366.
Pagel. Joel E. 1995. Quandaries and complexities of ecological risk assessment: viable options
to reduce humanistic arrogance. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 1 (4): 376 - 391.
Pagel, Joel E., and Mary O'Brien. 1996. The use of ecological risk assessment to undermine
implementation of good public policy. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 2(2): 238 - 242.
Patton. Dorothy E. 1995. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's framework for ecological
risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 1(4): 348 - 356.
Peterson. Susan, and Leah J. Smith. 1982. Risk reduction in fisheries management. Ocean
Management. 8: 65 - 79.
Pinchot, Gifford. 1947. Breaking new ground. Harcourt, Brace, and Company, New York, New
York, 522 pp.
Regens, James L. 1995. Ecological risk assessment: issues underlying the paradigm. Human
and Ecological Risk Assessment. 1 (4): 344 - 347.
Repetto, Robert, and Roger C. Dower. 1992. Reconciling economic and environmental goals.
Issues in Science and Technology. Winter: 28 - 32.
Roedel, Philip M. 1975. A summary and critique of the symposium on optimum sustainable
yield. In: Optimum Sustainable Yield as a Concept in Fisheries Management Philip M. Roedel
(editor), American Fisheries Society, Special Publication No. 9, pp. 79-89.

-------
Societal Preference. Decision Analysis, and Ecological Risk Assessment	Robert T. Lackey	December 12. 1996	14
Smith, Courtland L., and Bruce S. Steel, 1996. Values in the valuing of salmon. In: Pacific
Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options, Deanna J. Stouder, Peter A. Bisson,
and Robert J. Naiman (editors), Chapman and Hall, Publishers, New York, pp 599 - 616.
Suter, Glenn W. (editor) 1993. Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
Louisiana, 496 p.
Sylvia, Gilbert. 1992. Concepts in fisheries management: interdisciplinary gestalts and
socioeconomic policy models. Society and Natural Resources. 5: 115 -133.
bodega.ms

-------
NHEERL-COR-2082A
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read instructions on the reverse before c
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/600/A-37/004
2.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Fisheries Management: integrating societal preference, decision analysis,
and ecological risk factor.
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
CODE
7. AUTHOR(S) Robert T. Lackey
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory
Western Ecology Division
200 Sw 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97220
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD
COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/02
15, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: Special Publication, American Chemical Society. Book Chapter.
16. ABSTRACT
Fisheries management is the practice of analyzing and selecting options to maintain or alter the structure, dynamics and interaction
of habitat, aquatic biota, and man to achieve human goals and objectives. The theory of fisheries management is: managers or
decision makers attempt to maximize renewal "output" from an aquatic resource by choosing from among a set of decision options
and applying a set of actions that generate an array of outputs. Outputs may be defined as tangible catch, a fishing experience, an
existence value, or anything else produced or supported by an aquatic resource. Overall output is always a mix of tangible and
intangible elements. However defined, management goals and objectives are essential components of fisheries management or any
other field of renewable natural resource management. Reaching consus on management goals and objectives is not, nor has it ever
been, a simple task. Beyond the broad and often conflicting goals of an agency, managers must decide on who should set specific
management objectives-agency personnel, the public, or a combination of the two. Historically, rhetoric aside, fisheries managers in
North America nearly always have used consultation between professionals in governmental roles to set management objectives. In
a strongly pluralistic society this has not proved effective and has resulted in protracted political and legal conflict. Increasingly,
there are calls for use of risk assessment to help solve such ecological policy and management problems commonly encountered in
fisheries management. The basic concepts of ecological risk assessment may be simple, but the jargon and details are not. Risk
assessment (and similar analytical tools) is a concept that has evoked strong reactions whenever it has been used. In spite of the
difficulties of defining problems and setting management objectives for complex ecological policy questions, use of risk assessment
to help solve ecological problems is widely supported. Ecological risk assessment weill be most useful in political deliberations when
the policy debate revolves around largely technical concerns. To the extent that risk assessment forces policy debate and
disagreement toward fundamental differences rather than superficial ones, it will be useful in decision making. Otherwise, it is
merely the latest in a long procession of analytical tools, each of which has a role, albeit limited, in fishery management.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c, COSATI Field/Group
Fisheries management, ecological risk
assessment, aquatic ecology, objectives,
goals.


18, DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES 14
20. SECURITY CLASS {This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77} PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

-------