Addressing gaps in marine fisheries science: Part II

Canada’s fisheries history is deeply woven into our coastal communities, cultures, and ecosystems. That legacy of both abundance and collapse shapes how we approach fisheries science. We’ve learned hard lessons from events like the cod collapse, which have pushed Canadian science to become more precautionary and to consider environmental variables and species interactions. We now recognize that species and fisheries don’t exist in isolation; they’re part of complex ecosystems. Canada’s vast and diverse marine environments, from the Arctic to the Atlantic to the Pacific, mean we’re studying a wide range of ecosystems and species.

In my own work, I’ve been especially interested in species like lobster and snow crab, which have increased in abundance while groundfish have declined. I am interested in why those shifts happened and how we can prepare for potential changes in the future.

The history really defines much of what we do. For example, in the Atlantic region, the status of groundfish fisheries remains a touchstone within the region, and a great deal of resources go into managing groundfish stocks. This is despite the relative importance of groundfish fisheries, from a strictly economic viewpoint, being much smaller than they were historically. Moreover, I think the groundfish collapse and the general slow recovery since have also had a deep impact on our psyche and our research agendas, at least in eastern Canada. I often sense a foreboding simmering underneath the surface, worrying about when the next big stock collapse will happen, the negative impact it will have on rural economies, and how this will give Canadian fisheries science another black eye. On my hopeful days, I believe we have learned from the past and will not repeat past mistakes; on my less hopeful days, I share that sense of foreboding. 

As a recent immigrant to Canada, I entered the halibut assessment project knowing essentially nothing about Nova Scotian history and the relationship between the fishery and governmental oversight. Through working with both industry and governmental stakeholders for the project, I heard a lot about how past mistakes and harms have created huge barriers between the groups, and how people have been trying to repair those relationships to varying degrees of success. These issues are all much larger than any single person, but because of that, pretty much everyone I met was willing to chat with me as a person, as long as we stayed focused on our shared goal of maintaining a long-term, healthy halibut fishery. I don’t think these barriers are unique to Canada, but the nuance of the history is not just specific to Canada, but to Nova Scotia itself, and learning the details is key to making connections with people who would normally lean away from working with researchers.

Marine ecosystems are dynamic and increasingly impacted by climate change, but policy development and change take time. One way to help decision-makers respond more quickly is to build stronger connections between science and management from the start. That means involving scientists in the decision-making process early and often and making sure research questions are aligned with management needs.

We also need flexible frameworks that can adapt to new information. For example, ecosystem-based management and precautionary approaches allow for decisions that account for uncertainty and change. Real-time data tools can provide timely insights into species movements and habitat use, which can be especially useful in rapidly changing environments.

Translating complex science into clear, actionable information helps bridge the gap between research and policy. Outreach, collaboration, and trust between scientists, managers, and communities all play a role in making that happen.

The ability of scientists working on emerging issues to directly discuss these issues with decision-makers would be beneficial. Many times, there are numerous layers between the scientists working on an issue and the decision-makers. This leads to a dilution of and delays in the messaging to decision-makers. Reducing the number of layers and enabling direct lines of communication between scientists and decision-makers would help. 

I’ve done a few genetic assessment projects with the end goal of implementing the methods we developed within adaptive management plans for a species. But even when the project is government-directed, the policy change is glacial compared to the development time. I think some of that comes from decision-makers being very loath to change anything about their assessment, especially if it is perceived to be working ‘well enough.’ Additionally, this tends to be accompanied by layers of decisions that need to be made to change anything in an assessment policy, rather than one room of managers deciding to do something different. So I think a more straightforward system, with a more diverse group of experts in a single room, would help the implementation of new solutions faster, rather than having each group of experts discussing on their own.

Data gaps are a reality in marine science, especially in remote or changing environments or when scientific research and monitoring funding is limited. But they’re also an opportunity to be creative. I think young scientists could explore integrative approaches, combining different types of data, such as fisheries catch records, oceanographic data, and community knowledge, to build a fuller picture of ecosystems.

Electronic tagging and acoustic telemetry have been powerful tools for learning more about behaviours and habitats for all sorts of critters, from invertebrates to marine mammals, and it’s something I’m still learning. These methods are still somewhat tricky for certain species, especially for invertebrates, which tend to moult and lose tags attached to their shells. There’s also a lot of potential in community-based monitoring, where fishers and local observers contribute valuable data that might otherwise be missed.

One thing we often forget about is that other scientific fields have probably run into the same problem you are having with analyzing your data. Looking at the literature outside your field or talking to people in other fields can be a very fruitful way to come up with a ‘novel’ approach to undertaking an analysis.

I think, in general, a move towards more interdisciplinary projects, both in terms of more community and Indigenous integrated research projects and bringing multiple types of scientific data sources together around a question, is going to become more common. So I think there is a lot of unexplored territory in these grey areas between fields that can be bridged through creativity and collaboration. Within my own subfield, an easy place for fisheries geneticists to find new methods and approaches is by looking at human genetics research. Often techniques are first published in humans due to the fact that there are many more people (and many more funding options) studying human genetics compared to people and funders focused on fish genetics. There are also innovations to be made in testing these emerging technologies from human research in a fisheries context and in a research field that is very focused on costs compared to medical research.

I’d want the program to reflect the complexity and interconnectedness of modern fisheries science. That means going beyond traditional biology and stock assessment to include skills in ecosystem science, climate change impacts, data integration, and working with different types of data and knowledge.

We need scientists who can work across disciplines, who understand oceanography, ecology, and social science, and can connect those dots to support sustainable fisheries. I’d also emphasize communication and outreach. Being able to translate science for decision-makers, communities, and the public is just as important as doing the research itself.

Technical skills like stock assessment, statistical modelling, and data visualization are important. I would also highlight the value of hands-on experience with fisheries, fishers, and data collection. And finally, I’d build in opportunities for collaboration with Indigenous knowledge holders, fishers, and managers, because the best science happens when we learn from each other.

Well, funny you should ask, as I am part of the steering committee developing a Fisheries Science program at Dalhousie University, which is set to start in September of 2026. What I think we need is a program that hits four pillars:

• It must provide students with experience in collecting data at sea.

• A foundation in data visualization, ecology, oceanography, and statistics. Then, to use this foundation to develop and understand simple fisheries assessment models.

• Opportunities to interact with stakeholders and understand the different perspectives of the people who are impacted by fisheries.

• Knowledge of the management of fisheries in Canada.

What I feel we are missing is the outreach to young students (and teachers) about what fisheries science and management really is. Lots of students get exposed to marine sciences in primary and secondary school, but how many kids come home excited about fisheries science? While it may never be as exciting as whales and sharks, if we are going to recruit people to a Fisheries Science program, having students understand that fisheries science is actually a viable career option would be a good place to start.

I know that I’m a geneticist, so this answer will sound rather self-serving, but the lack of population genetics knowledge that most biologists and ecologists have has caused substantial communication barriers between geneticists and other types of ecology experts. I think genetics tends to be broadly perceived as almost ‘magical arts’ that are done over in a corner, rather than an integral part of how we can understand an environmental system. And this is very evident in the lack of genetics and molecular training in most biology and ecology degrees, and this lack of emphasis is rather short-sighted. As sequencing gets cheaper and research continues to advance, genetics is only going to become more important for understanding fisheries, endangered species, and our environment as a whole, and the training for new ecologists needs to start reflecting that.

As a natural add-on to this, communication and media training is also going to become more important. Science is increasingly becoming a field where consistent communication with a broad set of different audiences is essential for a project to be successful. However, we are not trained communicators, because that is a skill unto itself, even though it is often not seen that way. So I think some training on speaking and writing in different contexts for different audiences would be useful to start to overcome the gaps between scientists and other groups, and to help ease the anxiety that comes with doing outreach when you have no or minimal communication training.