The Problem with Problem Definition: Mapping the Discursive Terrain of Conservation in Two Pacific Salmon Management Regimes

Abstract

Natural resource-based conflicts arise not only from divergent ideas regarding appropriate uses of the environment and resources but also from different conceptualizations of the environment and the human–environment relationship. These conflicts, defined as problems, frame understandings of both causation and potential solutions. The problem with problem definition emerges when no consensus exists regarding what constitutes management's problem definition. This article focuses on the “salmon problem,” a problem that has embodied manifold and shifting conceptions of management, conservation, and control. Co-management institutions have provided greater access to previously marginalized groups to the management table. Diverse stakeholders bring with them a multiplicity of perspectives, worldviews, and discourses. This article examines these diverging views, calling attention to deep-rooted disagreements and highlighting the need for both recognition and debate on the core values and objectives of management, as well as cultural mediators, interpreters who can traverse and translate the varied discursive terrain of stakeholders.

Keywords:

• conservation
• discourse analysis
• fisheries management
• Pacific salmon
• problem definition

I thank the many individuals who generously allowed me to interview them, invited me into their homes and offices, and graciously extended their hospitality to me. I also thank the three anonymous peer reviewers who provided insightful comments and critiques. The U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program, Connecticut Sea Grant College Program, Yale University Agrarian Studies Program, Sussman Foundation, and the Switzer Foundation provided funding to support research and writing. A version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the International Association for the Study of Common Property.

Notes

Note. Summary of most frequently identified reasons for declines in salmon abundance. Some respondents cited more than one reason for the declines. The results of statistical tests, significant at the p = .05 level, are indicated by the superscripts a, b, and c, where “a” tested differences between the aggregate responses in Alaska and Washington; “b” and “c” tested differences between fishermen and co-managers in Alaska and Washington, respectively. Other tests were not significant, likely due to low sample sizes.

Note. Summary of the most frequently cited management actions that respondents felt should be undertaken to increase the abundance of salmon. Respondents often listed more than one management action in response to the query.

In the United States, conservation is securely ensconced in the principle piece of federal fisheries legislation enacted in 1976, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265) (FCMA). Amended several times, most recently in 2006, the FCMA, also known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act, states as its primary purpose “to take immediate action to conserve and manage the fishery resources found off the coasts of the United States” (Section 2: b(1)) and goes on to define “conservation and management” to be all “rules, regulations, conditions, methods, and other measures” that are “required to” and “useful in rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining, any fishery resource and the marine environment” (Section 3: (5)).

Habitat problems were further characterized as affecting either the freshwater or marine habitats of salmon. These included logging, urbanization, agricultural practices, and pollution. Contrasting with these results, a minority in Alaska noted habitat impacts as a concern, although four specifically identified oil pollution in marine waters, citing the Exxon Valdez oil spill.