東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Analysis and evaluation of the Laure...

Henquinet, Jeffrey W.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Analysis and evaluation of the Laurentian Great Lakes fishery management legal framework.

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Analysis and evaluation of the Laurentian Great Lakes fishery management legal framework./
Author:	Henquinet, Jeffrey W.
Description:	186 p.
Notes:	Adviser: Tracy Dobson.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International68-09A.
Subject:	Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3282115
ISBN:	9780549238522

Analysis and evaluation of the Laurentian Great Lakes fishery management legal framework.
Henquinet, Jeffrey W.

Analysis and evaluation of the Laurentian Great Lakes fishery management legal framework. - 186 p.

Adviser: Tracy Dobson.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2007.

Finally, this research provides policy recommendations to fill some of the gaps, overlaps, and conflicts identified, and gives suggestions for future research directions.

ISBN: 9780549238522Subjects--Topical Terms:

1020913
Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Analysis and evaluation of the Laurentian Great Lakes fishery management legal framework.
LDR:03475nam 2200313 a 45 001 953828
005 20110621
008 110622s2007 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780549238522
035 $a (UMI)AAI3282115
035 $a AAI3282115
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Henquinet, Jeffrey W. $3 1277302
245 1 0 $a Analysis and evaluation of the Laurentian Great Lakes fishery management legal framework.
300 $a 186 p.
500 $a Adviser: Tracy Dobson.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 68-09, Section: A, page: 4043.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2007.
520 $a Finally, this research provides policy recommendations to fill some of the gaps, overlaps, and conflicts identified, and gives suggestions for future research directions.
520 $a The Great Lakes fisheries face numerous threats, from over-harvest to pollution to invasive species. Consequently, a large, complex body of law has arisen from the multiple jurisdictions bordering the Great Lakes, which include two nations, eight states, one province and numerous Native American tribes and First Nations. This research analyzes that legal framework based on a review of constitutions, treaties, agreements, statutory law, and judicial opinions. It found a complex legal framework where, through different sets of legal principles, primary harvest management authority in both the U.S. and Canada lies with sub-national governments. This resulting political division of the Great Lakes Basin and management authority has been accommodated through a formal inter-jurisdictional coordination regime.
520 $a In-depth interviews with Great Lakes fishery managers were used to identify numerous gaps, overlaps, and conflicts in the framework. First, numerous gaps exist concerning the recognition and implementation of rights for Native American tribes and First Nations with respect to fishing, fishery management, fish habitat protection, and implementation of trust responsibilities by the federal governments. Second, it is unclear what constitutes an action that "significantly influences" the interests of other Great Lakes jurisdictions in determining whether agency actions should be submitted to the inter jurisdictional decision-making process. Third, to varying degrees, lake committees, the primary inter-jurisdictional management structure, specifically, lack (1) First Nation involvement, (2) a voting role for federal agencies, and (3) robust public participation. Fourth, the lack of uniformity in fishery regulations signifies an inherent problem with dividing management of a resource amongst multiple jurisdictions, since different people tackling complex problems such as those found in fisheries management will likely arrive at different solutions. Fifth, almost no law guides either intra- or inter-jurisdictional harvest allocation decisions. Sixth, the U.S. recreational fishery legal framework allows an open-access situation that could potentially lead to over-harvest. Seventh, invasive species introductions, global warming, and habitat loss are considered key ecosystem threats, yet large gaps in the law exist in these areas.
590 $a School code: 0128.
650 4 $a Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture. $3 1020913
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
650 4 $a Native American Studies. $3 626633
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0740
690 $a 0792
710 2 $a Michigan State University. $3 676168
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 68-09A.
790 $a 0128
790 1 0 $a Dobson, Tracy, $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2007
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3282115