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