Role of parameter uncertainty in assessing harvest strategies

North American Journal of Fisheries Management

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 459-474

  Fieberg, John ^a,b  

^a Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission   (United States)

^b MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXPLOITATION; FISHERY MANAGEMENT; FISHERY SURVEY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; RELATIVE ABUNDANCE; SALMONID; STOCK ASSESSMENT;

ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA; SALMONIDAE;

EID: 2942653424     PISSN: 02755947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1577/M03-021.1     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Clark, C. W., and P. Kirkwood. 1986. On uncertain renewable resource stocks: Optimal harvest policies and the value of stock surveys. Journal of Environmental and Economic Management 13:235-244.
2. Ellner, S. P., J. Fieberg, D. Ludwig, and C. Wilcox. 2002. Precision of population viability analysis. Conservation Biology 16:258-261.
3. Endangered Species Act. 1973. U.S. Code, volume 16, section 1531 et seq.
4. Engen, S., R. Lande, and B.-E. Saether. 1997. Harvesting strategies for fluctuating populations based on uncertain population estimates. Journal of Theoretical Biology 186:201-212.
5. Fieberg, J., and S. P. Ellner. 2000. When is it meaningful to estimate an extinction probability? Ecology 81:2040-2047.
6. Hilborn, R., and C. J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: choice, dynamics, and uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New York.
7. Lande, R., S. Engen, and B.-E. Saether. 1995. Optimal harvesting of fluctuating populations with a risk of extinction. American Naturalist 145:728-745.
8. Lande, R., B.-E. Saether, and S. Engen. 1997. Threshold harvesting for sustainability of fluctuating resources. Ecology 78:1341-1350.
9. McCarthy, M. A., and C. Thompson. 2001. Expected minimum population size as a measure of threat. Animal Conservation 4:351-355.
10. Milner-Gulland, E. J., K. Shea, H. Possingham, T. Coulson, and C. Wilcox. 2001. Competing harvesting strategies in a simulated population under uncertainty. Animal Conservation 4:157-167.
11. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Factors contributing to the decline of Chinook salmon: an addendum to the 1996 West Coast steelhead factors for decline report. NMFS, Protected Species Branch, Portland, Oregon.
12. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. A risk assessment procedure for evaluating harvest mortality on Pacific salmonids. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Seattle.
13. Quinn, T. J. II, and R. B. Deriso. 1999. Quantitative fish dynamics. Oxford University Press, New York.
14. Prager, M. H., E. P. Clarence, K. W. Shertzer, and J. F. Caddy. 2003. Targets and limits for management of fisheries: a simple probability-based approach. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:349-361.
15. Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Puget Sound comprehensive Chinook management plan: harvest management component. Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.
16. Tufto, J., B.-E. Saether, S. Engen, J. E. Swenson, and F. Sandergren. 1999. Harvesting strategies for conserving minimum viable populations based on World Conservation Union criteria: brown bears in Norway. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 266:961-967.
17. Walters, C. J. 1989. Value of short-term forecasts of recruitment variation for harvest management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1969-1976.
18. Walters, C. J., and A. M. Parma. 1996. Fixed exploitation rate strategies for coping with effects of climate change. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:148-158.