Forging a new path for multi-cultural fishery management

Abstract

In 2007, the state of Michigan and five tribes entered into a consent decree that provides for collaborative fishery management. The parties desire a productive co-management relationship and realize the need to understand perspectives towards fishery management. State and tribal participants were interviewed, with some tribal agency participants being non-tribal member employees. The findings revealed a lack of understanding between the groups for management priorities and a wide cultural distance between backgrounds in either the Indigenous and/or Western knowledge systems. State employees described their qualifications through Western education and individual learning while tribal member employees identified theirs as community experiences and relations with the natural world. The responsibility to manage was described through the public trust doctrine by state participants, whereas tribal participants described sacred responsibilities, and protecting treaty rights and culture. The purpose of fishery management as described by state participants was through sustainability of the resource and harvest while tribal participants spoke of balance within the Circle of Life concept and suggested the term ‘management’ was inappropriate. The tribal agency employees who were non-tribal members, used both knowledge types expressing scientific concepts while using Indigenous expressions learned partially through their normative presence in tribal communities. Opportunities exist for dismantling cultural distance, forming a collective identity, and sharing power, if state governance structures adapt to include Indigenous knowledge and practices. This may require restructuring governance arrangements to promote power sharing and the normative presence of cross-trained employees within the respective communities where structured learning exist and cultural sharing begins.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.