THE ROLE AND PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL MANAGEMENT OF GREAT LAKES FISHERIES By Molly Jane Good A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Fisheries and Wildlife—Doctor of Philosophy 2020 ABSTRACT THE ROLE AND PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL MANAGEMENT OF GREAT LAKES FISHERIES By Molly Jane Good Fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources have ecological, social, economic, and cultural value, and they provide a multitude of ecosystem service benefits for people. Thus, ensuring the sustainability of these resources is important. Ecological (e.g., erosion) and anthropogenic (e.g. climate change, human population growth) issues threaten the resilience of these resources, especially in times of great, often damaging and destructive, changes. In addition to good governance and holistic management of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources, effective regulation of fishing behavior and related activities is critical in ensuring these resources remain available, and plentiful, for society’s future use and enjoyment. However, the role of regulatory entities, and effectiveness of their approaches, in detecting fish crime, obtaining voluntary compliance with laws that serve to protect, enhance, and conserve fish and fish habitat, and deterring unlawful fishing behavior is poorly understood, overlooked, and undervalued. Using the Laurentian Great Lakes as a case study, the primary objectives of this dissertation were to: • Review the roles of various fisheries law enforcement entities and officers involved in the regulation of Great Lakes fisheries; • Investigate the key environmental and anthropogenic issues posing threats to, and opportunities for, fisheries law enforcement officers; • Survey members of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Law Enforcement Committee to examine the effectiveness of a joint or multi-agency approach to fisheries law enforcement; and; • Survey fisheries law enforcement officers representing multiple jurisdictions (federal, non-federal, and binational) in the Great Lakes Basin to document perceptions of their roles and effectiveness in carrying out their duties and activities. Uncertainty surrounding the impacts of looming threats on fish and fish habitat will continue to influence fisheries law enforcement entities in strategizing improved, more proactive ways to detect and deter fish crime in the Great Lakes Basin. Given the high number and diversity of regulatory entities throughout the area, Committee members confirmed a joint approach is most effective in addressing cross-border fisheries crime. Surveying fisheries law enforcement officers also showed that these individuals—across multiple jurisdictions—value their role and proudly fulfill their duties with the mutually-shared goals of enforcing fish laws, protecting and enhancing fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources, and educating the general public. While the majority of those officers surveyed shared their satisfaction with their entities’, and their own, effectiveness, they also helped identify ways in which to improve, or at least measure improvements in, both organizational and individual effectiveness. To Mom and Dad, for always instilling in me the confidence to achieve my dreams. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As I reflect on my academic and professional journey, I feel richly blessed to have interacted with, and learned from, many special people. These people—my family, mentors, and friends—have guided and supported me in all of my endeavors, and they continue to inspire and empower me to set high goals for myself. I am sincerely grateful for my graduate advisor, Dr. Bill Taylor, who showed me that you can get much more out of an informal meeting at Buffalo Wild Wings than a boneless wing special, “Asian Zing” style. Thank you for believing in me; for opening up your relationships with family, friends, and colleagues to me; and for reminding me that “God really does sort them out.” You have changed my life and have prepared me to be a leader, capable of real change, in the world. I am also grateful for my graduate committee members, Drs. Ed McGarrell, Norm Graham, and Adam Zwickle. I thank Ed for his patience and thoughtful insight on how to bridge the conservation and criminology disciplines; Norm, for his humor and depth of knowledge about global systems of governance; and Adam, for his positive attitude and social science perspective on my approach to data collection and methods. I am hugely indebted to Drs. Bill Taylor, Henry Regier, and Karen Klomparens for the opportunity to have served as the first Taylor and Regier Great Lakes Fishery Fellow at Michigan State University (MSU). I am also indebted to Drs. Bill Taylor and Bill Porter, and Bill Demmer, Morrie Stevens, Mark and Francesca Rey, Jordan Burroughs, Becky Humphries, Hannibal Bolton, and Tim Brady for the opportunity to have served as a Boone and Crockett Fellow, and for their nomination of me as a Professional Member of the Boone and Crockett Club. I know that my values about wildlife management and conservation, hunting and fishing, and fair chase ethics v have become stronger because of my involvement in the Club. I thank Bob Lambe, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Secretariat (Jill Wingfield, Julie Hinderer, Dr. Marc Gaden, and Leah Gerweck), the Law Enforcement Committee (Kevin Ramsey, Terry Short, Dr. Brenda Koenig, and Bob Stroess), and Commissioners (Drs. Bill Taylor and Don Pereira, Doug Stang, Dave Ullrich, Charlie Wooley; Dr. Bob Hecky, Jim McKane, and Tracey Mill) for finding ways for me to immerse myself in real-world research initiatives, strategic planning sessions, policy decisions, and regulatory processes. Through these experiences, I learned how to develop an applied research study, with great potential to positively impact fisheries resource users. Reflecting on one of the more meaningful experiences of my graduate career, I want to express my thanks to Dr. Bill Taylor, Bill Demmer and the members of Big Creek Lodge, Bear Andrews, Tom Sadler, and Judy Fuller for their steadfast commitment to the MSU Fly Gals Program. As both an alumnae and past coordinator of the program, I have appreciated the unique opportunity to retreat annually to the North Branch of the Au Sable River with my friends; bond over whiskey, cigars, and Jenny’s home cooking; tell stories and sing songs; and pass on the tradition and legacy of fly fishing with eager learners. I have been building my Spartan family since 2007, when I first moved into Snyder Hall as a freshman at MSU. I think the completion of this dissertation is truly a celebration for all of us, as this “family” is responsible for shaping me into the professional (and person!) I am today. I thank Jim Schneider and Drs. Kelly Millenbah, Dan Hayes, and Rique Campa for your mentoring, especially during difficult times of significant transition. I also thank Drs. Amber Peters, Mike Jones, Shawn Riley, Dana Infante, Heather Triezenberg, Jack Liu, and Scott vi Winterstein for your unwavering support. I have gratitude for my MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife cohort and Center for System Integration and Sustainability friends and staff for providing stress relief: So-Jung Youn, Marissa Hammond, Kelsey Schlee, Abigail Lynch, Tomena Scholze, Amanda Guthrie, Joe Nohner, Andrew Carlson, Janet Hsiao, Lisa Peterson, Kathryn Frens, Jim Martin, Dr. Devin Bartley, Jennifer Carducci, Sue Nichols, Jill Cruth, Marcia Baar, and James Vatter. I thank my dear friends, near and far, for always cheering me on: Madeleine and Alex McMall, Blair Selakovich, Alex Jentzen, Kathleen Boeve, Kelley Hodges, Ryan and Lauren VanderWagen, Julie Broderick-Gomez, Meredith and Cam Charaba, Ana and Zach Meyer, Hilary Browning, and Gabrielle Robinson; and for encouraging me to participate in “relief” yoga classes, bike rides, and hiking trips as I wrote this dissertation: Ann Froschauer, Erica Bramlet, and Liz Register. And, I thank two special Spartan role models, Drs. John Kocik and Brad Thompson, for hiring me and providing me with an abundance of professional and personal development opportunities. I am indebted to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Dan Eichinger, Dr. Jim Dexter, and Chief Gary Hagler) and the survey participants who were critical in contributing to this research study. This study was funded by the following organizations: MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, MSU Environmental Science and Public Policy Program, American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, Red Cedar Fly Fishers, MSU Graduate School, Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gamma Phi Beta International Sorority, and others. Lastly, to my family—what a ride! Joe, thank you for always lifting my spirits with your quick wit and late-night ping pong scrambles (when we were both still close to home). Mom vii and Dad, the completion of this dissertation is illustrative of your success as parents; thank you for giving up your lives to make so many opportunities possible to me and my brother. I hope I have made you proud. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... xii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ xiii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 The Persistence of Law in Society ............................................................................................. 2 Peoples’ Relationship with, and Opinions of, the Law ........................................................ 3 Compliance, and the Deterrence Theory of Punishment .................................................... 5 Law Enforcement, Defined .................................................................................................. 7 Thinking Beyond Traditional Law .............................................................................................. 8 Environmental Law, Criminology, and Crime ...................................................................... 9 Jurisprudence in the Great Lakes Basin: A Case Study ........................................................... 11 Dissertation Format ................................................................................................................ 13 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................................ 16 CHAPTER 1: LAW ENFORCEMENT—A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION OF GREAT LAKES FISHERIES ........................................... 22 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 23 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 24 Orientation to the Great Lakes Basin...................................................................................... 25 Great Lakes Fisheries .............................................................................................................. 27 Status of the Fisheries ....................................................................................................... 28 Management of Great Lakes Fisheries ................................................................................... 30 Federal Government Authorities and Entities ................................................................... 30 Non-Federal Government Authorities and Entities ........................................................... 32 Binational Government Entity and Authority ................................................................... 34 Regulation Within Great Lakes Fisheries ................................................................................ 36 Coordination and Basin-Wide Representation ....................................................................... 42 The Law Enforcement Committee ..................................................................................... 43 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 45 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................................ 48 CHAPTER 2: CHALLENGES OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LAW ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 54 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 55 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 56 Identification and Evaluation Process..................................................................................... 57 Participant Observation .................................................................................................... 58 Summary of Challenges and Opportunities for Law Enforcement ......................................... 60 Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 62 Opportunities .................................................................................................................... 70 ix Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 72 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 74 APPENDIX A. MEETING TIMELINE AND LOCATIONS ............................................................... 75 APPENDIX B. ORAL PRESENTATIONS ...................................................................................... 76 APPENDIX C. SYMPOSIUM ABSTRACT..................................................................................... 77 APPENDIX D. ORAL PRESENTATION SCHEDULE, AUTHORS, AND AFFILIATION ...................... 78 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................................ 81 CHAPTER 3: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A JOINT APPROACH TO GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LAW ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 87 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 88 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 90 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 91 Target Sample and Participants ........................................................................................ 91 Research Design ................................................................................................................ 93 Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 95 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 96 Purpose of Committee and Motivations for Participation .............................................. 100 Identification of Threats to, or Challenges for, Fisheries Law Enforcement ................... 103 Perceptions of Law Enforcement Committee Effectiveness ............................................ 105 Impact(s) of the Law Enforcement Committee ............................................................... 109 Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 110 Purpose of Committee and Motivations for Participation .............................................. 110 Identification of Threats to, or Challenges for, Fisheries Law Enforcement ................... 113 Perceptions of Law Enforcement Committee Effectiveness ............................................ 116 Impact(s) of the Law Enforcement Committee ............................................................... 118 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 120 Acknowledgements............................................................................................................... 121 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................ 122 APPENDIX A. INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORM ............................................................. 123 APPENDIX B. AGENDA ........................................................................................................... 125 APPENDIX C. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ..................................................................................... 126 APPENDIX D. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .................................................. 128 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................... 131 CHAPTER 4: THE PERCEIVED ROLE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN PROTECTING FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESOURCES THROUGHOUT THE GREAT LAKES .......................................................................................................................................... 132 Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 133 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 135 Methods ................................................................................................................................ 136 Target Sample and Participants ...................................................................................... 136 Research Design .............................................................................................................. 137 Results ................................................................................................................................... 139 x Roles, Activities, and Duties ............................................................................................ 141 Perceptions of Fish Crimes and Impacts ......................................................................... 145 Perceptions of Consequences, and Ensuring Compliance ............................................... 146 Coordination In, and Among, Jurisdictions ..................................................................... 148 Organizational and Individual Effectiveness ................................................................... 150 Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 151 Roles, Activities, and Duties ............................................................................................ 151 Perceptions of Fish Crimes and Impacts ......................................................................... 153 Perceptions of Consequences, and Ensuring Compliance ............................................... 155 Coordination In, and Among, Jurisdictions ..................................................................... 158 Organizational and Individual Effectiveness ................................................................... 159 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 161 Acknowledgements............................................................................................................... 162 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................ 163 APPENDIX A. BREAKDOWN OF TARGET SAMPLE AND PARTICIPANTS ................................. 164 APPENDIX B. LETTER OF SUPPORT ........................................................................................ 168 APPENDIX C. INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORM ............................................................. 170 APPENDIX D. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ..................................................................................... 173 APPENDIX E. APPROXIMATE RESPONSE RATES .................................................................... 185 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................... 187 SYNTHESIS ................................................................................................................................... 190 Law enforcement is a critical component of Great Lakes fisheries management and conservation ......................................................................................................................... 191 Fisheries law enforcement is overlooked and undervalued................................................. 192 Currently, commercial overharvest is likely the most negatively impactful fish crime ....... 192 Aquatic invasive species are the primary biological threat to today’s Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources ......................................................................................... 193 Law enforcement is not wholly effective in protecting Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources, and improvements are necessary ..................................................... 194 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................... 197 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1. Government levels, authorities and entities (law enforcement and natural resource management), roles and responsibilities, and primary laws (listed by original enactment date) and treaties or deals in Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement. ................................................. 37 Table 1.2. Federal, non-federal, and binational government (i.e., natural resource management) entities represented in the Law Enforcement Committee. .......................................................... 44 Table 2.1. Mission statements of fisheries law enforcement agencies in the Great Lakes basin.68 Table 2.2 (Appendix A). Meeting times, names, and locations. ................................................... 75 Table 2.3 (Appendix B). Oral presentation titles. ......................................................................... 76 Table 2.4 (Appendix D). Oral presentations, authors, and author affiliations. ............................ 78 Table 3.1. Natural resource management entities with law enforcement representation in the Law Enforcement Committee in March 2017. .............................................................................. 92 Table 3.2. Number of respondents organized by level of government. ....................................... 96 Table 3.3. Number of respondents organized by their self-identified role in fisheries law enforcement. ................................................................................................................................ 97 Table 3.4. Roles and general descriptions presented in the survey. ............................................ 97 Table 4.1. Number of respondents organized by level of government. ..................................... 140 Table 4.2. Number of respondents organized by their self-identified role in fisheries law enforcement. .............................................................................................................................. 140 Table 4.3. Primary roles of fisheries law enforcement officers in the Great Lakes basin, as perceived by respondents. ......................................................................................................... 143 Table 4.4. Traditional regulatory approaches presented in the survey. .................................... 148 Table 4.5. Typical ways in which respondents coordinate in the Great Lakes basin. ................ 149 Table 4.6 (Appendix A). Breakdown of target sample and participants..................................... 164 Table 4.7 (Appendix E). Approximate response rates for the survey. ........................................ 185 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 0.1. A depiction of the conservation criminology framework, which integrates the risk and decision analysis, natural resource conservation and management, and criminal justice and criminology disciplines in attempt to improve human livelihood, security, environmental resilience, and biodiversity. Adapted by M. J. Good from Gore (2017). ...................................... 12 Figure 1.1. The Great Lakes basin (Campbell et al. 2015). ........................................................... 26 Figure 1.2. The three levels of government with overlapping authorities in managing and conserving fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources in the Great Lakes basin. Adapted by M. J. Good from M. Gaden (2007; 2008). ............................................................................................. 31 Figure 1.3. Organizational structure of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC 2014). ........ 35 Figure 2.1. Mark Robbins (retired), Provincial Enforcement Specialist with the Enforcement Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, gives a presentation as part of the 145th American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. ........................................................... 61 Figure 2.2. A diagram of the threats facing Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, and the challenges of, and opportunities for, fisheries law enforcement, perceived by law enforcement personnel. ............................................................................................................... 63 Figure 3.1. Age distribution of respondents, organized by government level. ............................ 98 Figure 3.2. Time spent by respondents in their current position, organized by frequency of participation in committee meetings. .......................................................................................... 99 Figure 3.3. Primary functions of the Law Enforcement Committee, as perceived by respondents and organized by government level. .......................................................................................... 101 Figure 3.4. Primary structural elements of the Law Enforcement Committee, as perceived by respondents and organized by government level. ..................................................................... 102 Figure 3.5. Primary threats to, and challenges for, fisheries law enforcement as perceived by respondents. “Big” problems refer to problems that are large in geographic size and scope (e.g., urbanization). .............................................................................................................................. 104 Figure 3.6. Level of satisfaction among respondents with the Law Enforcement Committee’s effectiveness, organized by government level. .......................................................................... 106 Figure 3.7. Most effective aspects of the Law Enforcement Committee, as perceived by respondents and organized by government level. ..................................................................... 107 xiii Figure 3.8. Least effective aspects of the Law Enforcement Committee, as perceived by respondents and organized by government level. ..................................................................... 108 Figure 4.1. Age distribution of respondents, organized by government level. .......................... 142 Figure 4.2. Frequency of compliance among Great Lakes commercial and recreational anglers, perceived by respondents. ......................................................................................................... 147 Figure 4.3. Range of position titles held by respondents. .......................................................... 154 Figure 4.4. Motivations for why violators commit fish crimes, as perceived by respondents. .. 157 xiv INTRODUCTION 1 The Persistence of Law in Society Since the beginning of civilization, from the establishment of the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi in the 18th century BC to the approval of the Constitution of the Roman Republic in the 6th century AD, law, in one form or another, has existed (Urch 1929; Posner 2010). Law has endured and evolved over time, guiding the development of social and cultural norms and impacting human behavior. In today’s world, various forms of law exist in almost all countries. For example, in the United States (U.S.), common law—a body of laws or rules based on legal precedents established by the courts—is the basis of its multi-layered legal system, characterized further by a division between federal and state law (Stone 1936). The 1787 U.S. Constitution is the supreme federal law of the country and outlines a framework for good governance1, while the states retain their own legal authorities through state constitutions (Agere 2000; Weiss 2000; UN 2009). In the U.S., law exists even at the county and local governance levels and, outside of the U.S., at the international and provincial levels. Though legal systems (i.e., institutions, processes and procedures, and laws) vary among countries, customary or traditional law is generally upheld as a system of statutes, rules, and regulations that have been created to help regulate the social conduct of agencies and organizations, other groups, and people (Clark and Gibbs 1965; Fuller 1971). In accordance with these rules, law has served, and continues to serve, many roles in society including: exercising social control (Black 2010) and maintaining order (Chambliss and Seidman 1971); shaping and 1Good governance is achieved when institutions (e.g., government) and processes produce results that meet the needs of society, while making the best use of available resources. Good governance is considered to be participatory, consensus-oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and follows the rule of law (UN 2009). Good governance is conceptualized in the context of fisheries and freshwater aquatic ecosystem resources in Bartley et al. (2016). 2 establishing norms or standards of human behavior (Kandori 1992; Ellickson 1994; Nielsen and Mathiesen 2000; Ellickson 2001; Posner 2009; Acemoglu and Jackson 2017); distributing authority and power among government, states, and citizens (Entin 1990); preserving individual rights and liberties (e.g., the right to keep and bear Arms (Shelton 2002); and offering procedural tools that help ensure organizational or individual accountability (World Bank Group 2017). Without the law—without a system that regulates human behavior or conduct—there would be chaos. Peoples’ Relationship with, and Opinions of, the Law Many people generally believe in, and abide by, the law (Tyler 1990). Even when presented with an option, people generally choose to obey the law. For example, in the U.S., people generally wait to take their driver’s test before they drive a car for the first time, and they generally refrain from becoming physical with a stranger in a heated argument. Not all people comply, or act in accordance, however, with the law (Tyler 1990). Some people violate the law: they speed and drive through stop signs; they burglarize homes and steal others’ possessions; and they harm others and take lives. Ultimately, there are people who violate the law unintentionally and intentionally, and some of these people—for various reasons (e.g., because there is an opportunity to do so)—violate the law more frequently than others (Tyler 1990). In multiple areas or jurisdictions, violating the law is considered a crime or an illegal offense. According to criminal law theory—regardless of legality—a crime is characterized by some wrongful conduct (e.g., speeding). Crimes are often public in nature and, further, they can negatively impact not only the individual who is behaving wrongfully (i.e., the actor), but also 3 the immediate individual wronged (i.e., the victim) and potentially the society or community at large (Melissaris 2014). In this context and throughout this dissertation, wrongful conduct or criminal wrongfulness signifies what has been declared illegal under the law and more; it is meant to be interpreted in such a way as that which inflicts or causes harm (i.e., leaving someone or something “worse off”) (Melissaris 2014), or even poses the risk of harm, to someone or something else (Mill 1892; Harcourt 1999). Peoples’ opinions of the law, and their conceptions of what is harmful and what is not harmful, differ and, thus, it is not always guaranteed, acting individually and freely, they will choose to behave legally and in ways that avoid all harms. For example, a person in a position of authority (i.e., the actor) may feel entitled to hold contempt for an individual of a different race, gender, or religion and make poor decisions regarding that individual (i.e., the victim) based on those reasons alone, thereby discriminating against, or causing harm to, that individual. Other people may be more accepting and considerate in their treatment of others, and thus choose not to be so judgmental. As another example, a person might participate in drug use and sell drugs and related paraphernalia, thereby negatively affecting their own health in the long-term and posing harm to their clientele and, potentially, to society as a whole. Other people might be more aware of, or take more seriously, the consequences of drug use and abuse, and thus choose to avoid drugs entirely. In these examples and beyond, law provides the general guidelines of human behavior that society and individuals should follow—whether they agree with them or not—to maintain order and avoid harm (Mill 1892; Harcourt 1999). 4 Compliance, and the Deterrence Theory of Punishment Even so, peoples’ reasons, or motivations, for compliance with the law differ (Winter and May 2001). As stated, many people voluntarily comply with the law. Following a normative perspective grounded in traditional criminological theory, people may comply because they see it as the right thing to do; a moral obligation and commitment. They may be more encouraged to voluntarily comply with the law if they also feel confident in, and respect, the legitimacy of (i.e., fairness exemplified by, and peoples’ trust in and respect for) the legal authorities in dictating behavior (Tyler 1990; 1997; Herian et al. 2012). Other people may comply with the law simply because they fall in line with social and cultural norms that collectively encourage people to follow the law. For example, Amir N. Licht, Doctor of Juridical Science, highlights the use of campaigns against littering in public places (e.g., “Don’t Be a Litter-Bug!”) as a common way of establishing social norms that influence people to behave according to the rule of law (2008). While there will always be people who act in self-interest and, thus, disregard the law, many people comply with the law in response to both incentives and penalties associated with the law, and the legitimacy of agencies, organizations, and individuals in implementing them. For example, drivers may be more willing to comply with speed laws given certain financial incentives, such as reduced car insurance rates. Thus, following an instrumental perspective grounded in criminological theory, people may comply not necessarily because they see it as the right thing to do, but perhaps because they have judged the personal gains and losses (i.e., including economic benefits and costs) a certain way as a result of different behavior scenarios (Becker 1968; Tyler 1990; Furlong 1991; Nielsen and Mathiesen 2000; Nielsen 2003; UN Environment Programme 2018). 5 At the end of the 16th century, classical philosophers formulated the deterrence theory of punishment, which postulates that rational-choice people choose to comply with, or violate, the law based on three primary factors: the certainty, severity, and celerity (i.e., swiftness) of punishment (Hobbes 1651; Bentham 1781; Chambliss 1962; Tyler 1997; Mendes 2004; Beccaria 2016; Hobbes n.d.). This theory suggests that punishing or sanctioning violators or offenders is enough to prevent or deter an individual from violating the law (e.g., general deterrence) (Apel and Nagin 2011; Nagin 2013) or offenders from committing crimes again in the future (e.g., specific deterrence) (Gunningham 2017; Hobbes n.d.). This theory also assumes that, inherent in an individual’s decision to violate the law, is an analysis of perceived risk of the certainty and celerity of getting caught, and the severity of the potential punishment, sanction, or penalty granted (Paternoster et al. 1982). Thus, some people may be more inclined to commit a crime if they perceive a low risk associated with the crime being detected (e.g., trespassing on private property) or a weak punishment (e.g., small monetary fine). In both scenarios, and individual’s perception that the personal gains are potentially greater than the personal losses might be the only motivation he or she needs to violate the law. Conversely, others may be more inclined to comply with the law if they perceive a higher risk associated with the crime being detected (e.g., manslaughter) or a more severe punishment (i.e., life imprisonment). While voluntary compliance (Apel and Nagin 2011) should be the ultimate goal of any authoritative or regulatory entity that imposes the law, the use of punishments has proven to be an effective strategy in reducing harms (Paternoster and Iovanni 1986; Paternoster 1987; Mendes 2004; Gunningham 2017). However, it is not a perfect solution. And, factors other than risk perception surrounding punishments (e.g., peoples’ morality or lack thereof, their 6 disposition, their prior behavior) can still affect an individual’s level of compliance with the law. Thus, a mix of compliance (e.g., advise and persuade) or deterrence strategies, which addresses the range of motivations felt by violators, will likely be most effective in deterring people from violating the law (Gunningham 2017). Law Enforcement, Defined In a traditional sense, law enforcement describes those entities2 that possess authority, and are responsible, for enforcing, or obtaining compliance with, the law. Primary duties of law enforcement include the: 1) deterrence or prevention, detection, and investigation of crime; 2) apprehension and detention of violators; and sometimes, 3) coordination or facilitation of law enforcement efforts among multiple entities (i.e., related to cross-border crimes) (Passas 2003). Collectively, through these activities, law enforcement upholds the law, maintains social control and order, and protects society from harms. In these ways, the enforcement of law is as important as, if not more than, the law itself (Andrews 1909). There are many different types of law enforcement entities, ranging from international or intergovernmental (e.g., International Criminal Police Organization [INTERPOL]) to local or single-system entities (e.g., Lansing Township Police Department in the State of Michigan) (O’Connor Shelley and Crow 2009). There are also tribal law enforcement agencies, which receive support from the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and have criminal jurisdiction in federally-recognized reservations, tribal communities, and identified trust lands (Perry 2019). In the U.S., more than 18,000 federal, state, county, and local law 2Entities include any government agency, organization, or group of individuals that performs the administration of government-, management-, or law enforcement-related processes and activities. 7 enforcement agencies exist (Banks et al. 2016). Each of these agencies is composed of law enforcement professionals—agents, specialists, rangers, officers, wardens, sheriffs, and more— with various job duties, which often differ by entity and location. As of 2016, the U.S. employed approximately 132,000 full-time federal law enforcement officers and 1,050,000 general- purpose3 sworn officers4 at state, county, or local government levels (Brooks 2019a; b; Hyland and Davis 2019). As of 2000, tribally-operated law enforcement agencies employed approximately 3,500 full-time personnel (Hickman 2003). Thinking Beyond Traditional Law Thus far, this dissertation has established key themes, theories, and considerations regarding societal and individual behavior that have long been discussed, and even debated, in the traditional or customary legal and other social science disciplines. While such discourse has resulted in an abundance of new knowledge and learning, it has also led to novel realizations about how to approach similar questions about the law, human behavior and social conduct, compliance and deterrence, and law enforcement in other contexts—namely, in the context of the natural world or environment (Moreto 2017). Just as people regularly interact with each other, they also regularly interact with, and impact (i.e., depend on, adapt, and modify), the environment. Scholars have studied and discussed such interactions as occurring in coupled human and natural systems (CHANS), in 3General-purpose officers include those officers employed by regional, county, and municipal police departments; most sheriffs’ offices; and, primary state and highway patrol agencies. They are distinct from federal law enforcement agencies, sheriffs’ offices with only jail and court duties, and special-purpose agencies (e.g., those agencies with jurisdiction on tribal lands; and, in parks, schools, airports, subways, hospitals, housing authorities, and government buildings). 4Sworn law enforcement officers are those officers who have taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and the laws of their state and/or entity’s jurisdiction. 8 which connections and adaptive feedback structures are identified within and among systems to further characterize human and natural system components and better understand how they function together (Liu et al. 2007a; Liu et al. 2007b). Because human and natural systems are connected, this dissertation argues that a multi- and interdisciplinary approach—one that draws upon natural, social, economic, cultural, and political sciences—is essential to enhance awareness of, and understanding about, human impacts to environmental conditions throughout the world (Clifford and Edwards 2011; Gore 2011). Consequently, such an approach is also critical in determining how to best offer protection from negative human impacts (e.g., overpopulation, pollution, climate change) that risk or pose harm to the environment (Boratto and Gibbs 2019). Drawing on lessons learned in traditional criminological theory thus far, this dissertation seeks to highlight one particular type of law—environmental law—and its legal aspects in place to protect, enhance, and conserve the environment. Environmental Law, Criminology, and Crime Environmental law describes the range of international treaty, provincial, federal, and state laws that protect the environment and preserve natural resources (e.g., air, water, land, minerals). In the U.S., the 1960s environmental movement birthed a number of the first environmental laws and regulations related to emissions and pollutants, threatened and endangered species, coal and natural gas resources, and, more recently, climate change. Examples of some of today’s important environmental laws include: the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1997 (37 I.L.M. 22 [1998]; 2303 U.N.T.S. 148); the Canada Environmental Protection Act of 1997 (S.C. 1999, c. 33); the Clean Air 9 Act of 1963 (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.), Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) (Act); and the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (California Public Resources Code § 2100 et seq.). These and other environmental laws aim to lesson negative human impacts to the environment. While criminologists have observed the emergence and growing interest of negative human impacts to the environment, questions about the drivers and consequences of these impacts remain (Keane et al. 2008). To address these and similar questions, environmental or “green” criminology has “emerged from a multidisciplinary body of work,” namely as a sub-field of, or “distinct area of inquiry within,” traditional law, though it has not been fully established as its own discipline (Lynch 1990; Potter 2010; Wolf 2011). Even less understood is the conceptualization of, or what constitutes, environmental crime. The criminal justice literature is laden with a number of different, often competing, versions of definitions of environmental crime (Shover and Routhe 2005; Finster 2007; Gibbs et al. 2010; Wolf 2011; White 2013; White and Heckenberg 2014; Di Vita 2015; Brisman 2016), which poses challenges for the systematic identification and investigation of crimes against the environment. This dissertation relies on the following definition of environmental crime: “An act committed with the intent to harm or with the potential to cause harm to ecological and/or biological systems, for the purpose of securing business or personal advantage, and in violation of [Federal or state] statutes for which criminal sanctions apply” (Clifford 1998; Clifford and Edwards 2011). This particular definition is inclusive and clarifies intent and lack of compliance as 10 determining factors for assigning culpability (Clifford 1998). While environmental crimes can be diverse in size and scope (e.g., poaching, illegal logging, the disposal of hazardous materials or pollution, overfishing), and can result in a range of environmental and, likely, socio-economic costs, not all environmental crimes are considered violations under existing criminal sanctions (Finster 2007). More work is needed to broaden the scope of, and formally define, environmental law to properly address the full suite of environmental crimes that occur on a daily basis, throughout the world. Conservation Criminology To address the impacts of environmental crime on global and local scales, the field of conservation criminology—the “cousin” of green criminology—has recently emerged as one multi- and interdisciplinary framework that can be used to solve CHANS problems (Gibbs et al. 2010; Gore 2017; Kahler and Gore 2017). Incorporating key themes, theories, and considerations from three primary disciplines (risk and decision analysis, natural resources conservation and management, and criminal justice and criminology) (Gore 2011), the field of conservation criminology has been, and can be, applied to garner an improved understanding of the intersection of 1) human behavior and social conduct; and, 2) global and local environmental risks as it relates to both the preservation and exploitation of the environment and its natural resources (Figure 0.1) (Gibbs et al. 2010). Jurisprudence in the Great Lakes Basin: A Case Study This dissertation raises novel questions about, and tests the effectiveness of, multi- and interdisciplinary approaches and frameworks discussed in this introduction. The overarching 11 Figure 0.1. A depiction of the conservation criminology framework, which integrates the risk and decision analysis, natural resource conservation and management, and criminal justice and criminology disciplines in attempt to improve human livelihood security, environmental resilience, and biodiversity. Adapted by M.J. Good from Gore (2017). 12 goal of this dissertation is to increase awareness of, and understanding about, the law and law enforcement in the context of CHANS or social-ecological systems throughout the world. This dissertation focuses such questions on a particularly complex social-ecological system—the Great Lakes basin (Basin), a system of five freshwater lakes (Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Superior) that spans two nations, two provinces, eight Midwestern states, and many tribal communities. The inherent connectivity among the people who live and recreate in the Basin and the abundant natural resources (e.g., drinking water, minerals, fish and wildlife) and ecosystem services5 (e.g., recreational fishing, beach use, boating, swimming, wildlife viewing, transportation, industrial and municipal water resources) made available to them make the Basin an ideal case study for exploring further analysis of: 1) human behavior and its impacts to the environment or, in the context of this dissertation, to fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources; and, 2) governing, managing, and regulatory authorities and entities that dictate and monitor such behavior (Steinman et al. 2017). Thus, supported by data collected through a combination of natural and social science methods and tools, this dissertation serves as a record of jurisprudence, or the science of law, as it relates to fisheries resources in the Basin related to fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resource sustainability. Dissertation Format This dissertation includes four primary chapters, bound by this Introduction and a Synthesis. In this dissertation, I first introduce, and orient the reader to, the Great Lakes basin and present the status of its fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources as protected by the 5For the purposes of this dissertation, ecosystem services, including both use and non-use services, are the many and diverse benefits society receives from the environment (e.g., recreational fishing) (Steinman et al. 2017). 13 current management regime and regulatory structure (Chapter 1). I also discuss the challenges of, and opportunities for, fisheries law enforcement6, identified by fisheries law enforcement officers working in the Basin and beyond (Chapter 2). I surveyed and interviewed fisheries law enforcement officers throughout multiple jurisdictions, representing various law enforcement entities, in the Basin to better understand their perceptions of a joint or multi-agency (i.e., versus single-agency) approach to fisheries law enforcement—one that is already facilitated by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Law Enforcement Committee (Chapter 3). Lastly, I surveyed additional fisheries law enforcement officers affiliated with 16 natural resource management and law enforcement entities (federal, non-federal, and binational) throughout the Basin to compare and contrast perceptions of the role and effectiveness of fisheries law enforcement in conserving fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources (Chapter 4). The final synthesis highlights the conclusions and key measures of fisheries law enforcement effectiveness resulting from this investigation and associated data collection. In the Basin, fisheries law enforcement is a critical component of the multi-jurisdictional management of Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. As environmental and anthropogenic issues have, and will continue, to threaten the resilience of these resources— especially in times of further exploitation and change—regulatory entities will have to find ways to maintain their relevancy and demonstrate their value in protecting fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources for sustainable, future use. 6Collectively, fisheries law enforcement includes those entities and individuals (i.e., fisheries law enforcement officers) responsible for enforcing fish laws, orders, statutes, rules, and regulations, which aim to protect, enhance, and conserve fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. 14 LITERATURE CITED 15 LITERATURE CITED Acemoglu, D. and M. O. Jackson (2017). "Social norms and the enforcement of laws." Journal of the European Economic Association 15(2): 245-295. Agere, S. (2000). Promoting Good Governance: Principles, Practices, and Perspectives (11). London, United Kingdom, Commonwealth Secretariat. Andrews, C. S. (1909). "The importance of the enforcement of law." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 34(1): 85-89. Apel, R. and D. S. Nagin (2011). "General deterrence: A review of recent evidence." Crime and Public Policy 4: 411-436. Banks, D., J. Hendrix, et al. (2016). National sources of law enforcement employment data, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: 17. Bartley, D. M., N. J. Leonard, et al. (2016). Moving towards effective governance of fisheries and freshwater resources. Freshwater, Fish, and the Future: Proceedings of the Global Cross- Sectoral Conference. W. W. Taylor, D. M. Bartley, N. J. Leonard and R. L. Welcomme. Bethesda, Maryland, The American Fisheries Society: 285-291. Beccaria, C. (2016). On Crimes and Punishments, Transaction Publishers. Becker, G. S. (1968). "Crime and punishment: An economic approach." Journal of Political Economy 76(2): 169-217. Bentham, J. (1781). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought. Black, D. (2010). The Behavior of Law. Bingley, United Kingdom, Emerald Group Publishing. Boratto, R. and C. Gibbs (2019). "Advancing interdisciplinary research on illegal wildlife trade using a conservation criminology framework." European Journal of Criminology: 108810. Brisman, A. (2016). Environmental harm as deviance and crime. The Handbook of Deviance. E. Goode. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 471-487. Brooks, C. (2019a). Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2016—Statistical Tables. Federal Law Enforcement Officers Series, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: 12. 16 Brooks, C. (2019b). Sheriffs’ Offices, 2016: Personnel. Sheriffs’ Office Series, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: 18. Chambliss, W. J. (1962). "The deterrent influence of punishment." Crime and Delinquency 12(1): 70-75. Chambliss, W. J. and R. B. Seidman (1971). Law, Order, and Power. Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley. Clark, A. L. and J. P. Gibbs (1965). "Social control: A reformulation." Social Problems 12(4): 398- 415. Clifford, M. (1998). Environmental Crime: Enforcement, Policy, and Social Responsibility. Burlington, Massachusetts, Jones & Bartlett Learning. Clifford, M. and T. Edwards (2011). Environmental Crime. Burlington, Massachusetts, Jones & Bartlett Learning. Di Vita, G. (2015). Environmental crime. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. J. Backhaus. New York City, New York, Springer Publishing: 1-8. Ellickson, R. C. (1994). Order WIthout Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. Ellickson, R. C. (2001). "The market for social norms." American Law and Economics Review 3(1): 1-49. Entin, J. L. (1990). "Separation of powers, the political branches, and the limits of judicial review." Ohio State Law Journal (1): 175-228. Finster, J. L. (2007). Investigating injurious species introductions as environmental crimes. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University: 78. Fuller, L. L. (1971). "Human interaction and the law." The American Journal of Jurisprudence 14(1): 1-36. Furlong, W. J. (1991). "The deterrent effect of regulatory enforcement in the fishery." Land Economics 67(1): 116-129. Gibbs, C., M. Gore, et al. (2010). "Introducing conservation criminology: Towards interdisciplinary scholarship on environmental crimes and risk." British Journal of Criminology 50. Gore, M. (2011). "The science of conservation crime." Conservation Biology 25: 659-661. 17 Gore, M. (2017). Global risks, conservation, and criminology. Conservation Criminology. M. Gore. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: 1-23. Gunningham, N. (2017). Compliance, deterrence and beyond. Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law. Cheltenham, United Kingdom, Edward Elgar Publishing: 63-73. Harcourt, B. E. (1999). "The collapse of the harm principle." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1): 109-194. Herian, M. N., J. A. Hamm, et al. (2012). "Public participation, procedural fairness, and evaluation of local governance: The moderating role of uncertainty." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(4): 815-840. Hickman, M. J. (2003). Tribal Law Enforcement, 2000, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: 4. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civil. London, England, Simon and Schuster. Hobbes, T. (n.d.). "Deterrence theory." Criminology 41(1): 99-130. Hyland, S. S. and E. Davis (2019). Local Police Departments, 2016: Personnel. Local Police Depatments Series, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: 21. Kahler, J. and M. Gore (2017). Conservation crime science. Conservation Criminology. M. Gore. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: 25-43. Kandori, M. (1992). "Social norms and community enforcement." The Review of Economic Studies 59(1): 63-80. Keane, A., J. P. G. Jones, et al. (2008). "The sleeping policeman: Understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation." Animal Conservation 11(2): 75-82. Licht, A. N. (2008). "Social norms and the law: Why peoples obey the law." Review of Law and Economics 4(3): 715-750. Liu, J., T. Dietz, et al. (2007a). "Complexity of coupled human and natural systems." Science 317(5844): 1513-1516. Liu, J., T. Dietz, et al. (2007b). "Coupled human and natural systems." Ambio 36(8): 639-649, 611. 18 Lynch, M. (1990). "The greening of criminology: A perspective for the 1990s. ." Green Criminology. Melissaris, E. (2014). Theories of crime and punishment. Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law. Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press: 355-378. Mendes, S. M. (2004). "Certainty, severity, and their relative deterrent effects: Questioning the implications of the role of risk in criminal deterrence policy." Policy Studies Journal 32(1): 59-74. Mill, J. S. (1892). On Liberty. Harlow, United Kingdom, Longman, Green and Co. Moreto, W. D. (2017). "Avoiding the tragedy of (un)common knowledge: Reflections on conducting qualitative criminological research in conservation science." Qualitative Research 17(4): 440-456. Nagin, D. S. (2013). "Deterrence in the twenty-first century." Crime and Justice 42(1): 199-263. Nielsen, J. R. (2003). "An analytical framework for studying: Compliance and legitimacy in fisheries management." Marine Policy 27(5): 425-432. Nielsen, J. R. and C. Mathiesen (2000). "Important factors influencing rule compliance in fisheries lessons from Denmark." Marine Policy 27(5): 409-416. O’Connor Shelley, T. and M. S. Crow (2009). "The nature and extent of conservation policing: Law enforcement generalists or conservation specialists?" American Journal of Criminal Justice 34(1-2): 9-27. Passas, N. (2003). "Cross-border crime and the interface between legal and illegal actors." Security Journal 16. Paternoster, R. (1987). "The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues." Justice Quarterly (2): 173-218. Paternoster, R. and L. Iovanni (1986). "The deterrent effect of perceived severity: A reexamination." Social Forces 64(3): 751-777. Paternoster, R., L. E. Saltzman, et al. (1982). "Perceived risk and deterrence: Methodological artifacts in perceptual deterrence research." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 73: 1238. Perry, S. W. (2019). Tribal Crime Data-Collection Activities, 2019. Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities Series, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: 7. 19 Posner, E. A. (2009). Law and Social Norms. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. Posner, E. A. (2010). "The constitution of the Roman Republic: A political economy perspective." John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper Chicago, Illinois 540: 35. Potter, G. (2010). "What is green criminology." Sociology Review 20(2): 8-12. Shelton, D. (2002). "Protecting human rights in a globalized world symposium: Globalization and the erosion of sovereignty in honor of Professor Lichtenstein." Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (2): 273-322. Shover, N. and A. S. Routhe (2005). "Environmental crime." Crime and Justice 32: 321-371. Steinman, A. D., B. J. Cardinale, et al. (2017). "Ecosystem services in the Great Lakes." Journal of Great Lakes Research 43(3): 161-168. Stone, H. F. (1936). "The common law in the United States." Harvard Law Review (1): 4-26. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University. Tyler, T. R. (1997). "Procedural fairness and compliance with the law." Revue Suisse D Economie Politique et de Statistique 133: 219-240. UN (2009). "What is good governance?" Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: 3. UN Environment Programme (2018). The State of Knowledge of Crimes that have Serious Impacts on the Environment. Nairobi, Kenya, United Nations Environment Programme: 110. Urch, E. J. (1929). "The law code of Hammurabi." American Bar Association Journal (7): 437-441. Weiss, T. G. (2000). "Governance, good governance, and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges." Third World Quarterly 21(5): 795-814. White, R. (2013). Crimes Against Nature: Environmental Criminology and Ecological Justice. London, United Kingdom, Routledge. White, R. and D. Heckenberg (2014). Green Criminology: An Introduction to the Study of Environmental Harm. London, United Kingfom, Routledge. 20 Winter, S. C. and P. J. May (2001). "Motivation for compliance with environmental regulations." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management 20(4): 675-698. Wolf, B. (2011). "‘Green-collar crime’: Environmental crime and justice in the sociological perspective." Sociology Compass 5(7): 499-511. World Bank Group (2017). The role of law. World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law, World Bank Publications: 304. 21 CHAPTER 1: LAW ENFORCEMENT—A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION OF GREAT LAKES FISHERIES 22 Abstract The Laurentian Great Lakes is an interconnected freshwater system that supports diverse fisheries and other aquatic ecosystem resources, and is highly-valued by people who use and depend on such resources for their livelihoods. Due to its size, geographic setting, and susceptibility to ecological and anthropogenic threats, the Great Lakes basin provides for an ideal case study to evaluate the status, role, and importance of various entities and individuals charged with the responsibility of sustaining these resources into the future. Along with natural resource management entities, law enforcement entities are major players in basin-wide, multi- jurisdictional efforts to protect and conserve Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. However, in the Basin, fisheries law enforcement is poorly understood, overlooked, and undervalued by fisheries professionals and the general public in comparison to its governing and managing entity-counterparts. This chapter provides a thorough examination of today’s fisheries regulatory regime in the Great Lakes, which includes three distinct governments levels (federal, non-federal, and binational) spread across multiple jurisdictional authorities. While each government entity has its own unique role in fisheries law enforcement, all entities are well-poised to take more action to raise the profile of fisheries law enforcement as a major factor—along with governance, management, and research—in ensuring a sustainable future for Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. KEYWORDS: fisheries; aquatic ecosystem resources; law; enforcement; Great Lakes; management 23 Introduction The Laurentian Great Lakes is a massive, interconnected freshwater system, where agencies, organizations, and individuals must work together across jurisdictions to ensure the conservation of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. The expansive geography and sheer size of the Great Lakes basin (Basin); the importance and nature (i.e., features) of the resources themselves; the number of entities involved in managing these resources; and the number and diversity of values held by fisheries resource users in the area further complicate efforts to effectively maintain, preserve, and enhance fisheries and the environments that support them. While ecological (e.g., erosion) and anthropogenic (e.g., climate change, human population growth) issues have threatened, and continue to threaten, the Basin and its inhabitants, illegal fishing behavior and fish crime (e.g., overharvesting, fishing out of season, false reporting) can further exacerbate these issues, thereby threatening biodiversity, ecological integrity, and overall productivity (Musgrave et al. 1993; Gavin et al. 2010; Filteau 2013). As illegal behavior and crime are present in nearly all of today’s fisheries (Randall 2004), resulting negative impacts to fisheries and aquatic ecosystems—though difficult to measure, quantitatively—are not negligible (Gavin et al. 2010). In the Basin, entities that govern and manage fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources can only do so much to ensure their sustainability (Taylor et al. 1995; O’Connor Shelley and Crow 2009; Arnason 2013). Through the development and implementation of regulatory actions and interventions, law enforcement entities that monitor and enforce human behavior provide additional protection for these resources. By working together, these entities can enhance their capacity to more effectively address ecological and anthropogenic threats that may negatively impact fisheries and aquatic 24 ecosystem resources in the long-term (Morse 1973). Among fisheries professionals (e.g., managers and decision-makers) and the general public, the role of law enforcement in protecting today’s fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources is poorly understood, overlooked, and undervalued (Beattie et al. 1977; Beattie and Giles 1979; Forsyth 1994; Eliason 2003; Randall 2004; Eliason 2006; Nie 2008; O’Connor Shelley and Crow 2009; Eilason 2011; Crow et al. 2013; Eliason 2013; McGarrell et al. 2013). Even less understood are the capacity and effectiveness of law enforcement (i.e., entities and individuals) in obtaining compliance among fisheries resource users with existing statutes, rules, and regulations, and deterring or preventing illegal fishing behavior that poses harm to the Basin’s aquatic resources and ecosystems. Without such information, these resources may be further exploited or eventually lost. With an emphasis on the importance of the many ecologically-, socially-, economically-, and culturally-valuable fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources in the Basin, this chapter sets the stage for defining and exploring the critical, yet under-researched and underappreciated, regulatory role of law enforcement in the basin-wide management and conservation of these resources. Orientation to the Great Lakes Basin Due to its size and scope, the Basin is a world-famous natural landmark that connects fish and aquatic ecosystems; landscapes and habitats; people; and governing, managing, and regulatory actions intended to protect and conserve this coupled, social-ecological system into the future (Goddard 2013). The Basin consists of the five Laurentian Great Lakes: Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Superior; the neighboring lands of the provinces of Ontario and 25 Quebec in Canada; and Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in the United States (U.S.) (Figure 1.1) (Beeton et al. 1999; Gaden et al. 2013). Water flows (from Lake Superior, to Michigan and Huron, to Erie, and finally to Ontario) through the St. Lawrence River and drains into the Atlantic Ocean. The lakes also drain into many other connecting waterways (e.g., St. Mary’s River, St. Clair River, Detroit River, Welland Canal), major rivers, and inland lakes. Figure 1.1. The Great Lakes basin (Campbell et al. 2015). The Basin, which consists of 20% of the world’s surface freshwater, is home to more than approximately 3,500 plant and animal species, and it is characterized by various terrestrial 26 St. Lawrence River (e.g., forests, grasslands, dunes) and aquatic (e.g., wetlands, coastline, rivers and streams, lakes) landscapes (GLC n.d.). As a result of the diversity of ecosystems and number of natural resources occurring in the Basin, this region offers to society many ecosystem services. While quantifying the current or potential economic value of these ecosystem services is subjective and remains a challenge, estimates show that the Basin supports an economy with a gross regional product or GRP of approximately $6 trillion U.S. dollars (USD). In the Basin, recreation alone, including boating, fishing, swimming, and hunting opportunities, generates more than $52 billion USD annually (Campbell et al. 2015; Lynch et al. 2016; Steinman et al. 2017; GLC n.d.) Great Lakes Fisheries The Basin supports more than 250 cold-, cool-, and warmwater fishes, of which approximately 150 are native to the region (Craig 2016). Forage species include ciscoes, sculpins, and shiners, while top predators include brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), lake trout (S. namaycush), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (M. dolomieu), walleye (Sander vitreus), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). The Basin is also home to a number of non-native fishes, which have infiltrated the region through multiple vectors (e.g., ship-ballast, accidental release, deliberate release) and pathways (Ruiz and Carlton 2003; Kelly 2007). Asian carp (bighead carp [Hypophthalmichthys nobilis], black carp [Mylopharyngodon piceus], grass carp [Ctenopharyngodon idella], and silver carp [H. molitrix]), Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), goldfish (Carassius auratus), sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), and zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) are examples of non-native, aquatic invasive species (AIS) that have established in the Basin and 27 negatively impacted aquatic ecosystems and native fish populations and communities. In general, a fishery involves the capture and harvest of fishes, and it is comprised of not just a species or type of fish, but also people, the area of water or seabed targeted, and method of fishing involved (UNFAO 2020). Together, the Basin’s commercial (i.e., operated for commercial profit), recreational (i.e., for sport and pleasure), tribal fisheries, and artisanal fisheries are valued at more than $7 billion USD annually, and they support more than 75,000 jobs (GLFC 2019a). The annual net value of recreational fishing and associated activities in this region alone is estimated as high as $1.47 billion USD (Poe et al. 2013; Lynch et al. 2016; USFWS 2016). Ciscoes, lake whitefish, walleye, and yellow perch are primary target species in commercial fisheries, while muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), salmon, trout, and walleye are popular target species that comprise the world-class recreational fishery (Brenden et al. 2013; Thayer and Loftus 2013). Status of the Fisheries Since the formation of the Great Lakes thousands of years ago, major environmental changes (i.e., in water levels, size of waterbody) have occurred in the region. More recently, the Basin and its fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources have also experienced social, economic, and cultural (i.e., anthropogenic) changes due to human population growth, urban expansion, transportation, water resource development, extractive activities (e.g., mining, forestry), agriculture, and increased natural resource use (Beeton et al. 1999; Coon 1999). Though the breadth and depth of impacts resulting from these changes differ depending on the waterbody or system in question, overall, they have led to declines in fish population abundance, diminished critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, degraded coastal habitat, 28 higher levels of industrial waste and toxic substances, additional AIS introductions and establishments, and overexploitation of fisheries resources (Taylor et al. 2019). In some cases, these changes (e.g., increased fishing pressure, interspecies competition, predation) have resulted in the loss and extinction of fishes (e.g., deepwater cisco [Coregonus johannae], shortnose cisco [C. reighardi]) in the Basin. While some international organizations have established ranking systems (e.g. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, NatureServe) to assess the status of fishes and propose recommendations to conserve them, in the U.S., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has classified some fishes (e.g., lake sturgeon [Acipenser fulvescens]) with listing statuses under the Act (Mandrak and Cudmore 2013). Similarly, the Government of Canada, influenced by the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, has classified other species as extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of special concern under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29) (Coon 1999). Species with such listing statuses are highly protected under the law, and they are the subject of many conservation and recovery strategies and activities. All changes in the Basin—coupled with an overall warmer regional climate, increased precipitation, and less ice cover as a result of climate change—have, and will continue to, threaten the sustainability of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources and the resiliency of habitat and landscapes that support them (Lynch et al. 2010). While environment is dynamic by nature, so too should be the governing, managing, and regulatory entities that monitor, and respond to, these changes. 29 Management of Great Lakes Fisheries The Basin has a complex governance structure, where no one government or level of government possesses exclusive authority for managing fish and aquatic ecosystem resources (Gaden et al. 2013). Instead, management is split among the governments acting collectively and individually within the Basin, including those of: the U.S. and Canada, two provinces, eight states, numerous Indian Tribal Nations and Aboriginal First Nations, and even some local governments (Dochoda 1999; Bogue 2001; Gaden 2007; Gaden et al. 2013). As each government maintains its own jurisdiction—meaning that it has authority to make its own decisions and judgements—current management of Great Lakes fisheries is multi-jurisdictional (i.e., of or relating to more than one jurisdiction). The U.S.-Canada international border runs through four of the five Great Lakes and, thus, at the highest level, both countries maintain a responsibility to manage resources within their respective boundaries (Piper 1967). Between these countries, three levels of government—federal, non-federal, and binational—are involved, and have overlapping authorities, in the multi-jurisdictional management of Great Lakes fisheries (Figure 1.2) (Bogue 2001). Federal Government Authorities and Entities United States The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly identify fisheries management as a federal power. Rather, through a series of court cases, the U.S. federal government has retained its authority to involve itself in, and can even supersede, fisheries management decisions at other government levels (e.g., state) and make treaties with tribes (Gaden et al. 2013). 30 Figure 1.2. The three levels of government with overlapping authorities in managing and conserving fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources in the Great Lakes basin. Adapted by M. J. Good from M. Gaden (2007; 2008). 31 Canadian The Canadian Constitution (via the Constitution Act of 1867, also known as the British North America Act of 1867 [30-31 Vict., c. VI § 91]) (BNA Act) designates inland fisheries management as a federal power. The Canadian federal government exercises its authority to protect all fishes and fish habitat through the Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14). Non-Federal Government Authorities and Entities State Supported by a history of court cases and legal decisions, the states have retained their ownership of fish, game, and lakebeds. Thus, they are the primary authority in managing Great Lakes fisheries within their waters, which extend to the international border but are not considered international (Piper 1967; Dochoda 1999; Bogue 2001; Gaden 2007). Though the U.S. Constitution does not directly grant the federal government authority to manage fisheries, the federal government can insert itself in state fisheries management affairs, as needed, to influence, enhance, or even restrict state management actions (Gaden et al. 2013). Provincial While there is jurisdictional overlap among all three government levels in Canada, the Canadian provinces own the natural resources within their respective boundaries. According to the BNA Act and the subsequent rulings of a series of court cases, the Canadian provinces have also affirmed their ownership of lakebeds and the surrounding waters (Piper 1967; Bogue 2001; Gaden et al. 2013). Thus, the Canadian provinces—like the states—retain the primary authority in managing Great Lakes fisheries in their respective waters. 32 Tribal Tribes are sovereign and, thus, possess supreme authority to self-govern and manage fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources on their reservations (Hand 2007; Gaden et al. 2013). Off-reservation, in ceded lands and adjacent waters, tribal fishing rights have been stipulated by the tribes and the U.S. federal government working together through treaties (e.g., Treaty of Washington of 1836, a “Consent Decree”) (Busiahn 1985; Keller 1986; COTFMA 1999; United States vs. Michigan 2000). There are 35 federally-recognized tribes whose reservation or treaty- guaranteed rights to fish in ceded waters are valid within the Basin (GLRC 2005). Many of these tribes work closely with other non-federal governments (e.g., states) to co-manage the resource, with some tribes even forming inter-tribal organizations (e.g., Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority [CORA], Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission) (Hand 2007). First Nation In contrast to the U.S., there are more than 120 federally-recognized First Nations communities or reserves with their own governments spread throughout the Ontario and Quebec Provinces in Canada (Cassidy 2003). Historically, treaties or agreements among Canadian federal governments and the First Nations established rights of Aboriginal people (i.e., North American Indian, Métis, and Inuit) to harvest fish and wildlife resources in the Great Lakes, though these rights could be subject to federal and provincial management decisions and regulations (Gaden 2007; Gaden et al. 2013). In 1990, the R. vs. Sparrow court case confirmed a federal managing and regulatory authority, but also recognized and affirmed treaty fishing rights of First Nations (R. vs. Sparrow 1990). The Canadian federal government ensures these rights are maintained through the “Sparrow Justificatory Test,” which includes criteria to 33 determine whether or not management decisions and regulations are unimposing and reasonable, according to the First Nations (Rotman 1997). Binational Government Entity and Authority Great Lakes Fishery Commission The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (Commission) was birthed out of a widely- recognized and urgent need to address a basin-wide problem for native fisheries and aquatic ecosystems—the introduction and subsequent establishment of the invasive sea lamprey (Crowe 1975; Gaden 2007; Gaden et al. 2013). In response, the U.S. and Canadian federal governments cooperated to develop and sign a treaty, the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, on September 10, 1954 (Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries n.d.). This treaty established the Commission in 1955 and effectively limited the Commission’s authority so as not to supersede the rights of other federal and non-federal government authorities and entities (Dochoda 1999; Gaden 2007). Today, the Commission, comprised of four members from each country plus one alternate member from the U.S., is responsible for developing management programs (e.g., Sea Lamprey Research Program), conducting scientific studies, and facilitating (rather than leading or supervising) fisheries management among all government authorities and entities in the Basin. With so many governments carrying out their own authorities in the same place (the Basin) regarding the same resources (fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources), there became a need for better coordination and information-sharing across borders and jurisdictions. (Dochoda 1999). To improve coordination and communication; limit federal authority in fisheries management affairs; and enhance strategic planning for future governance and 34 management actions in the Basin, these governments came together to develop and approve a Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (JSP) in 1981 (as revised, June 1997) (Dochoda and Koonce 1994; Gaden 2007; GLFC 2007). Through the plan, all three government levels (federal, non-federal, and binational) are represented by senior staff from 15 signatory agencies who serve on Lake Committees—the “action arms” of the plan—and the Council of Lake Committees, technical subcommittees, and other committees (e.g., Law Enforcement Committee) (GLFC 2000; 2007). Since the inception of the plan, the Commission has more effectively facilitated fisheries management in the Basin by prioritizing consensus, accountability, information-sharing, and the use of ecosystem-based management processes (Figure 1.3) (Slocombe 1998; Guthrie et al. 2019a; Guthrie et al. 2019b) among all signatories (Gaden et al. 2008; Gaden et al. 2013). Figure 1.3. Organizational structure of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC 2014). 35 Regulation Within Great Lakes Fisheries Regulation of human behavior and crime that impacts Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources is supported through the traditional criminal justice system, which is comprised of four main units: the courts or judiciary, corrections, the private sector, and law enforcement (Hart 1958; Neubauer and Fradella 2018). These units, acting both independently and interdependently, function to uphold laws and crime that affects Basin ecosystems and resources (Gross 1979). As many of the aforementioned governing and managing authorities and entities (e.g., state) have a law enforcement bureau- or division- component, regulatory actions also span multiple jurisdictions in the Basin (Piper 1967; Bogue 2001; Kirshman and Leonard 2003; Gaden 2007). The fisheries regulatory regime in the Basin, for instance, involves more than 650 federal, non-federal, and binational (and some local) government agencies, each with their own unique (and often conflicting) missions (Caldwell 1994; McGarrell et al. 2013). Table 1.1 includes a broad listing of the government agencies and organizations of particular focus in this chapter and dissertation, their roles and responsibilities, and the primary laws that guide Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement. Each of the law enforcement or regulatory entities listed in Table 1.1 include associated law enforcement personnel. While law enforcement personnel differ in regard to their titles (e.g., law enforcement officer, peace officers, game warden, special agent) and regular duties, they—and the entities they represent—are primarily responsible for protecting fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources in the Basin (Eliason 2003; 2006). In doing so, these carefully selected and well-trained law enforcement officers, execute a range of duties including, but 36 Table 1.1. Government levels, authorities and entities (law enforcement and natural resource management), roles and responsibilities, and primary laws (listed by original enactment date) and treaties or deals in Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement. Level of Government Federal Jurisdictional Authority United States Office of Law Enforcement • Lead federal fisheries law enforcement Entities General Roles and Responsibilities NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Branch U.S. Coast Guard • Support international treaty requirements (NOAA Fisheries n.d.) • Ensure compliance with fish regulations • Inspect and monitor fishing vessels • Conduct long-term investigations • Support mutually-desirable fisheries management outcomes (Randall 2004) • Lead at-sea or maritime law enforcement • Deter (Randall 2004) and monitor illegal activity along the international border (Kirshman and Leonard 2003) • Ensure compliance with fisheries regulations • Inspect and monitor fishing vessels • Patrol offshore fishing grounds and nearshore areas Primary Laws, Treaties, and Deals Lacey Act (1900) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) Clean Water Act (1972) Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972) Endangered Species Act (1973) Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1976) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1975)7 National Invasive 7While the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora or CITES is an international treaty, the United States and Canada are contracting Parties to the treaty and, through federal government entities like the USFWS, prevent fish and aquatic species from becoming extinct, endangered, and threatened as a result of international trade. 37 Primary Laws, Treaties, and Deals Species Act (1996) Plant Protection Act (2000) Smart Border Declaration (2001) Clean Boating Act (2008) Constitution Act (1867, 1982, as amended) Fisheries Act (1985) Table 1.1 (cont’d). Level of Government Jurisdictional Authority Canadian Entities General Roles and Responsibilities Office of Law Enforcement U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation and Protection Fisheries and Oceans • Address domestic and international organized crime (e.g., trafficking) • Protect fish and safeguard fish habitat • Enforce federal regulations • Prevent introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species • Use forensic science to analyze evidence and solve crimes (USFWS 2019) • Educate and conduct outreach to promote voluntary compliance (USFWS 2015; 2017) • Train law enforcement personnel • Collaborate with other government entities to carry out law enforcement activities • Protect fish and fish habitat from physical damage • Develop and implement fish regulations • Assist with investigations • Issue or authorize fishing licenses (Kirshman and Leonard 2003) • Implement increased use of modernized technology to solve crimes (DFO 2020) • Educate the general public to promote voluntary compliance 38 Table 1.1 (cont’d). Level of Government Jurisdictional Authority Non-Federal United States State Primary Laws, Treaties, and Deals Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (1994) State codes (Fish and Aquatic Life Code [n.d.]), orders, statutes, rules, and regulations Entities General Roles and Responsibilities Bureaus, Divisions, and offices of Law Enforcement Departments and commissions of natural resources and environmental equality for the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin • Collaborate with other government entities to carry out law enforcement activities • Protect fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources • Establish harvest regulations • Enforce fish laws and regulations within respective jurisdictions • Patrol within, and monitor, respective jurisdictions • Issue fishing licenses (Gaden et al. 2013) • Arrest offenders • Respond to general public requests for law enforcement information (Chapman and Hartman 1962) • Participate in multi-agency patrols, operations and investigations, and training • Collaborate with, and assist, other government entities to carry out law enforcement activities • Serve as first responders to natural disasters and emergencies • Research and write case briefings • Provide testimonies in court 39 Table 1.1 (cont’d). Level of Government Jurisdictional Authority Tribal Canada Provincial First Nations Entities General Roles and Responsibilities Law Enforcement Individual tribes and those tribes operating through inter-tribal agencies (e.g. Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission) Enforcement Branch Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Law Enforcement Individual tribes • Establish, apply, and enforce regulations in treaty-ceded waters (Kirshman and Leonard 2003) • Patrol in, and investigate, ceded waters • Issue fines, citations, or other sanctions for civil and criminal infractions • Summon offenders to tribal court • Participate in annual training exercises • Collaborate and cooperate with other government entities to carry out law enforcement activities • Enforce fish regulations • Conduct routine inspections • Investigate, arrest, search and seize, and prosecute offenders • Educate the general public on conservation and safety (MNRF 2019) • Develop and enforce regulations on reservation lands and adjacent waters (Gaden et al. 2013) • Conduct surveillance to investigate and report offenders • Facilitate cooperation among Aboriginal Primary Laws, Treaties, and Deals Treaty of Washington (1836) Consent Decree (2000) Inland Consent Decree (2007) Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (1997) Fisheries Act (1985) Constitution Act (1867, as amended 1982) Indian Act (1876) Various treaties (e.g., Robinson 40 Table 1.1. (cont’d). Jurisdictional Authority United States- Canada Level of Government Binational Entities General Roles and Responsibilities Law Enforcement Committee Great Lakes Fishery Commission • Facilitate cooperation among Aboriginal communities and government entities • Prevent exploitation of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources by unlawful means (GLFC n.d.) • Support the Law Enforcement Committee • Provide annual updates • Share law enforcement information with fisheries managers, decision-makers, and researchers • Facilitate collaboration among jurisdictions Primary Laws, Treaties, and Deals Huron- and Robinson-Superior Treaties [1850]) signed between the Canadian federal government and First Nations Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries (1954) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1972) Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (1981) 41 not limited to: routine patrolling and monitoring for illegal activities; identifying current or potential threats to fish and fish habitat; ensuring compliance with the law by issuing sanctions (e.g., ticket, summons, appearance notices); conducting special operations or investigative, undercover work to detect larger-scale criminal operations; educating fisheries resource users about existing regulations; and collaborating with, and assisting, other entities in law enforcement activities, as necessary (Chapman and Hartman 1962; Eliason 2003; Kirshman and Leonard 2003). Coordination and Basin-Wide Representation The variety and number of governments involved in conserving Great Lakes fisheries makes it impossible to manage these resources and develop, let alone enforce, statutes, rules, and regulations to ensure their future sustainability with a uniform, one-size-fits-all approach. Each system (e.g., a river, stream, or freshwater lake) is different, in that it is characterized by multiple ecological and physical processes; diverse landscapes and habitats; and distinct fish and wildlife species assemblages, which often occupy unique niches. What might be a fisheries issue worthy of regular intervention by law enforcement personnel in one jurisdiction (e.g., presence of Asian carp in Illinois) may not appear as urgent, or be an issue at all, in another jurisdiction (e.g., in Michigan, where self-sustaining populations of Asian carp have not yet established). Additionally, the values and interests held among the people—society—that live adjacent to, and interact with, each system differ. As a result, fisheries law enforcement decisions may not have the same impacts across jurisdictions as they would if they were tailored specifically to a subset of society with similar values and interests. Such is the case for tribal-licensed and state-licensed commercial fishing in the Great Lakes, for 42 instance. While commercial fishing occurs in the same waters, it is regulated by different groups of people (Natives and non-Natives) who exercise their own value systems and judgments in developing polices that govern decisions about law enforcement (Hudson and Ziegler 2014). Undoubtedly, acknowledgement of the ecological and social nuances associated with Great Lakes fisheries is critical in developing targeted regulatory approaches—specific to each system and the people supported by it—to ensure fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resource sustainability. Without such targeted approaches, issues such as overharvesting or the accidental release of AIS, might be missed or left unaddressed and become exacerbated on a larger, basin-wide level later. Much like what the Commission addressed through the JSP, facilitation of these targeted approaches and improved coordination among authorities and entities are necessary in addressing issues that span multiple jurisdictions and could threaten the entire Basin. The Law Enforcement Committee The Law Enforcement Committee (Committee), supported by the Commission, is the result of the Commission’s forward-thinking attempt to represent all government levels in coordinating law enforcement activities, as they relate to fisheries, throughout the Basin (McGarrell et al. 2013). The Committee is unique in its mission, structure, and function, and while other multi-agency enforcement groups do exist (e.g., CORA Law Enforcement Committee), they are not as inclusive in terms of representation and do not necessarily embrace the same basin-wide perspectives when it comes to discussing current fisheries law enforcement issues. Overall, the Committee serves to “protect, enhance, and promote the safe and wise use 43 of natural resources” in the Great Lakes (GLFC n.d.). Importantly, the Committee also: • Acknowledges and promotes law enforcement as a critical element of overall Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resource sustainability; • Facilitates cooperation and information-sharing among all Great Lakes law enforcement entities; • Ensures alignment among management and policy decisions that affect Great Lakes fisheries; • Participates in fisheries management initiatives; and, • Provides regular updates to the Commission, as necessary (Kirshman and Leonard 2003; GLFC 2019b). As of 2020, the Committee is led by a Chair and Vice-Chair, who each serve two-year terms, and it includes law enforcement representation from 16 natural resource management entities throughout the Basin ( Table 1.2). The Committee holds meetings twice per year, alternating meeting locations between the U.S. and Canada each time (GLFC n.d.). Table 1.2. Federal, non-federal, and binational government (i.e., natural resource management) entities represented in the Law Enforcement Committee. Level of Government Federal Natural Resource Management Entity National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Coast Guard (District 9) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Midwest Region) Fisheries and Oceans Canada 44 Table 1.2 (cont’d). Level of Government Non-Federal Natural Resource Management Entity Illinois Department of Natural Resources Indiana Department of Natural Resources Michigan Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources New York Department of Environmental Conservation Ohio Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority* Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission* Binational Great Lakes Fishery Commission Asterisk indicates the inter-tribal organizations, which represent the interests of individual tribes. The Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority represents all 1936 Treaty fishing tribes (i.e., Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians). The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission or GLIFWC represents eleven Ojibwe tribes throughout Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Conclusion The Basin presents a number of challenges for managing and governing authorities and entities to overcome in ensuring Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resource sustainability. Even if these groups are able to work across borders and coordinate approaches to conserve these resources, the approaches must be implemented and behavior among fisheries resource users, according to whatever is implemented, should be enforced. In the Basin, regulatory authorities and law enforcement entities, such as those described in this chapter, are the backbone of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resource sustainability. They are the only group of authorities, entities, and personnel that serve as intermediaries between those that create and implement fisheries-related policies and 45 management decisions (e.g., policy-makers and managers) and those that benefit in some way from the resource (e.g., fisheries resource users). Many of these law enforcement personnel serve as the boots on the ground—actively patrolling and monitoring areas and ensuring compliance among fisheries resource users with statutes, rules, and regulations that offer protection for valuable resources and ecosystems (Wilson 2017). They also serve as educators or extension agents—sharing information with the fisheries resource users they encounter, as necessary. In the Basin, a greater awareness and appreciation of the role of law enforcement in protecting fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources and the effectiveness of law enforcement in obtaining compliance among fisheries resource users is necessary. Only then will it be possible to increase understanding about how to more successfully leverage regulatory authorities and enhance law enforcement capacity and effectiveness across jurisdictions, perhaps with assistance from the Commission and the Committee. If this occurs, then it is likely that Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources will be more resilient as new ecological and anthropogenic threats emerge. 46 LITERATURE CITED 47 LITERATURE CITED (1990). R. vs. Sparrow, Supreme Court of Canada. (2000). United States vs. Michigan, U.S. District Court. Arnason, R. (2013). "On optimal dynamic fisheries enforcement." Marine Resource Economics 28(4): 361-377. Beattie, K. H. and R. H. Giles (1979). "A survey of wildlife law enforcement research needs and current research." Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 7(3): 185-188. Beattie, K. H., R. H. Giles, et al. (1977). "Lack of research in wildlife law enforcement." Wildlife Society Bulletin 5(4): 170-174. Beeton, A. M., C. E. Sellinger, et al. (1999). An introduction to the Laurentian Great Lakes ecosystem. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 3- 54. Bogue, M. B. (2001). Fishing the Great Lakes: An Environmental History, 1783–1933. Madison, Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press. Brenden, T. O., R. W. Brown, et al. (2013). Great lakes commercial fisheries: Historical overview and prognoses for the future. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 339-398. Busiahn, T. R. (1985). "An introduction to native peoples’ fisheries issues in North America." Fisheries 9(5): 3. Caldwell, L. K. (1994). "Disharmony in the Great Lakes basin: Institutional jurisdictions frustrate the ecosystem approach." Alternatives Journal 20(3): 26. Campbell, M., M. Cooper, et al. (2015). "The economy as a driver of change in the Great Lakes– St. Lawrence River basin." Journal of Great Lakes Research 41. Cassidy, F. (2003). "The First Nations Governance Act: A legacy of loss." Policy Options 24(4): 46-50. Chapman, S. G. and J. Hartman (1962). "Conservation law enforcement in Michigan." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 53(3): 384-390. 48 Coon, T. G. (1999). Ichthyofauna of the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 55-71. COTFMA (1999). Michigan’s 1836 Treaty Fishery Guide. Public Information and Education Committee. Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. Craig, J. F. (2016). Freshwater Fisheries Ecology. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons. Crow, M. S., T. O. C. Shelley, et al. (2013). "Camouflage-collar crime: An examination of wildlife crime and characteristics of offenders in Florida." Deviant Behavior 34(8): 635-652. Crowe, W. R. (1975). Great Lakes Fishery Commission: History, Program, and Progress. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission. DFO (2020). "Fisheries Enforcement." Retrieved April 27, 2020, from https://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-peches/enf-loi/index-eng.html. Dochoda, M. R. (1999). Authorities, responsibilities, and arrangements for managing fish and fisheries in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 93-110. Dochoda, M. R. and J. F. Koonce (1994). "A perspective on progress and challenges under a Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries." University of Toledo Law Review (2): 425-442. Eilason, S. L. (2011). "Policing natural resources: Issues in a conservation law enforcement agency." Professional Issues in Criminal Justice 6(3 and 4): 43-58. Eliason, S. L. (2003). "Throwing the book versus cutting some slack: Factors influencing the use of discretion by game wardens in Kentucky." Deviant Behavior 24(2): 129-152. Eliason, S. L. (2006). "Factors influencing job satisfaction among state conservation officers." Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 29(1): 6-18. Eliason, S. L. (2013). "Policing the poachers in the United States: A qualitative analysis of game wardens and profiling." International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences 8(2): 235-247. Filteau, M. R. (2013). "Deterring defiance: 'Don’t give a poacher a reason to poach'." International Journal of Rural Criminology 1(2): 236-255. Forsyth, C. J. (1994). "Bookers and peacemakers: Types of game wardens." Sociological Spectrum 14(1): 47-63. 49 Gaden, M. (2007). Bridging jurisdictional divides: Collective action through a Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan: 296. Gaden, M., C. Goddard, et al. (2013). Multi-jurisdictional management of the shared Great Lakes fishery: Transcending conflict and diffuse political authority. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 305-338. Gaden, M., C. Krueger, et al. (2008). "A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries: A cooperative regime in a multi-jurisdictional setting." Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 11(1): 50-60. Gavin, M. C., J. N. Solomon, et al. (2010). "Measuring and monitoring illegal use of natural resources." Conservation Biology 24(1): 89-100. GLC (n.d.). "About the Lakes." Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://www.glc.org/lakes/. GLFC (2000). A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission. GLFC (2007). A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: 29. GLFC (2014). Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: 2. GLFC (2019a). "The Fishery." Retrieved April 18, 2020, from http://www.glfc.org/the- fishery.php. GLFC (2019b). "Law Enforcement Committee." Retrieved April 25, 2020, from http://www.glfc.org/law-enforcement-committee.php. GLFC (n.d.). Terms of Reference. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: 3. GLIFWC (n.d.). "Mission Statement." Retrieved July 2, 2020, from http://www.glifwc.org/About/. GLRC (2005). Tribal Nations Issues and Perspectives, Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers. 1: 18. Goddard, C. (2013). Foreword. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press. 2: ix-xi. 50 Gross, H. (1979). A Theory of Criminal Justice. New York City, New York, Oxford Press University. Guthrie, A. G., W. W. Taylor, et al. (2019a). "The role of a multi-jurisdictional organization in developing ecosystem-based management for fisheries in the Great Lakes basin." Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 22(3): 329-341. Guthrie, A. G., W. W. Taylor, et al. (2019b). "Linking water quality and fishery management facilitated the development of ecosystem-based management in the Great Lakes basin." Fisheries 44(6): 288-292. Hand, J. P. (2007). "Protecting the world's largest body of fresh water: The often overlooked role of Indian tribes' co-management of the Great Lakes." Natural Resources Journal: 815-847. Hart, H. M. (1958). "The aims of the criminal law." Law and Contemporary Problems 23(3): 401- 441. Hudson, J. C. and S. S. Ziegler (2014). "Environment, culture, and the Great Lakes fisheries." Geographical Review 104(4): 391-413. Keller, R. H. (1986). "The Chippewa treaties of 1826 and 1836." American Indian Journal (3): 27- 32. Kelly, D. W. (2007). Vectors and Pathways for Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in the Great Lakes. Transportation Research Board Special Report. 291: 27. Kirshman, H. and N. J. Leonard (2003). Protecting the Fishery through Law Enforcement. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: 8. Lynch, A. J., S. J. Cooke, et al. (2016). "The social, economic, and environmental importance of inland fish and fisheries." Environmental Reviews 24(2): 115-121. Lynch, A. J., W. T. Taylor, et al. (2010). "The influence of changing climate on the ecology and management of selected Laurentian Great Lakes fisheries." Journal of Fish Biology 77(8): 1764-1782. Mandrak, N. E. and B. Cudmore (2013). Fish species at risk and non-native fishes in the Great Lakes Basin: Past, present, and future. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard, Michigan State University Press: 167-202. McGarrell, E. F., M. Suttmoeller, et al. (2013). Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 455- 472. 51 MNRF (2019). "Conservation Officer Powers and Authorities." Retrieved April 27, 2020. Morse, W. B. (1973). "Law enforcement: One third of the triangle." Wildlife Society Bulletin 1(1): 39-44. Musgrave, R. S., S. Parker, et al. (1993). "The status of poaching in the United States—Are we protecting our wildlife?" Natural Resources Journal: 977-1014. Neubauer, D. W. and H. F. Fradella (2018). America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Boston, Massachusetts, Cengage Learning. Nie, M. (2008). "The underappreciated role of regulatory enforcement in natural resource conservation." Policy Sciences 41(2): 139-164. NOAA Fisheries (n.d.). "Enforcement." Retrieved April 27, 2020, from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/enforcement. O’Connor Shelley, T. and M. S. Crow (2009). "The nature and extent of conservation policing: Law enforcement generalists or conservation specialists?" American Journal of Criminal Justice 34(1-2): 9-27. Piper, D. C. (1967). The International Law of the Great Lakes: A Study of Canadian-United States Co-operation. Durham, North Carolina, Duke University Press. Poe, G., T. B. Lauber, et al. (2013). Net Benefits of Recreational Fishing in the Great Lakes Basin: A review of the Literature. Human Dimensions Research Unit Publication Series. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University. Randall, J. K. (2004). "Improving compliance in U.S. federal fisheries: An enforcement agency perspective." Ocean Development and International Law 35(4): 287-317. Rotman, L. I. (1997). "Defining parameters: Aboriginal rights, treaty rights, and the Sparrow Justificatory Test." Alberta Law Review 36(1): 149-179. Ruiz, G. M. and J. T. Carlton (2003). Invasion vectors: A conceptual framework for management. Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies. G. M. Ruiz and J. T. Carlton. Washington, D.C., Island Press: 459-504. Slocombe, D. S. (1998). "Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management." Environmental Management 22(4): 483-493. Steinman, A. D., B. J. Cardinale, et al. (2017). "Ecosystem services in the Great Lakes." Journal of Great Lakes Research 43(3): 161-168. 52 Taylor, W. W., C. P. Ferreri, et al. (1995). "Essay-teaching ecosystem management: Educating fisheries professionals using a watershed approach to emphasize the ecosystem paradigm." Fisheries 20(9): 6-8. Taylor, W. W., M. J. Good, et al. (2019). "The changing face of Great Lakes fisheries." Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 22(3): 355-367. Thayer, S. A. and A. J. Loftus (2013). Great Lakes recreational fisheries and their role in fisheries management and policy. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 399-440. UNFAO (2020). "Fisheries." Retrieved April 18, 2020, from http://www.fao.org/fisheries/en/. USFWS (2015). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, Strategic Plan 2016- 2020. Falls Church, Virginia, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 29. USFWS (2016). 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WIldlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C., U.S. FIsh and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau: 132. USFWS (2017). Office of Law Enforcement, Accomplishments 2016: Protecting the Nation’s Wildlife and Plant Resources. Falls Church, Virginia, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 56. USFWS (2019). "Forensics Laboratory." Retrieved April 27, 2020, from https://www.fws.gov/lab/index.php. Wilson, E. O. (2017). "Biodiversity research requires more boots on the ground." Nature Ecology and Evolution 1(11): 1590-1591. 53 CHAPTER 2: CHALLENGES OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LAW ENFORCEMENT 54 Abstract Ecological and anthropogenic threats (e.g., climate change) pose risks to the health and sustainability of Great Lakes fish and fish habitat. While Great Lakes regulatory authorities and entities should be poised, well-equipped, and well-informed to adequately prepare for, and be able to address, existing and emerging threats, they face numerous issues (e.g., geographic size and scope of the Basin). This chapter provides a summary of key issues that present challenges of, and opportunities, for fisheries law enforcement officers related to threats to fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resource sustainability in the Great Lakes basin. From 2015 to 2020, I used a participant observation approach to engage with fisheries law enforcement officers at multiple meetings (e.g., Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Law Enforcement Committee Meetings, American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting) to gather their perspectives in identification of these key issues. Regardless of the government level, authority, or entity, many of the key issues presenting challenges of, and opportunities for, fisheries law enforcement are similarly shared among jurisdictions throughout the Great Lakes basin and beyond (e.g., Pacific Northwest). This chapter provides insight for regulatory entities that are interested in increasing their effectiveness in working across borders to better protect Great Lakes fisheries and enhance the resiliency of aquatic ecosystem resources. KEYWORDS: threats; challenges; opportunities; fisheries; law enforcement; Great Lakes 55 Introduction As ecological and anthropogenic threats facing Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resource sustainability are complex and ever-evolving, so too should be the regulatory strategies used to anticipate them. Some of these threats (e.g., aquatic invasive species) have already come to fruition while others (e.g., climate change)—with new knowledge and improved, more targeted regulatory strategies—may be better addressed. Future threats, however, may present entirely new challenges that decision- and policy-makers, managers, researchers, and regulators could neither have predicted nor imagined. In any case, such threats have resulted, and will likely continue to result, in significant changes (e.g., increasing water temperatures, habitat loss, increasing competition and predation) for Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources (Taylor et al. 2019). Reflecting on historical events (e.g., opening of new canals, signing of international treaties and agreements, stocking of non-native species) that have shaped the Great Lakes basin (Basin) into the place it is today, and the values of the people that live there, shows that change in any sphere—ecological, social, economic, cultural, and political—can be fast-paced and result in both positive and negative impacts to people, fish, and wildlife (Bogue 2001; Taylor et al. 2019; Mayfield n.d.). Given increasing trends in human population growth (Gold et al. 2018), transportation and trade (CGLR 2017a), and tourism (CGLR 2017b) especially related to aquatic activities (USFWS 2016), future impacts to Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources are inevitable. Threats to these resources and the resulting impacts can negatively affect human behavior, potentially leading to higher levels of illegal fishing behavior and fish crime. Thus, 56 regulatory authorities and law enforcement entities should be poised and well-positioned to address such threats. They should also be well-equipped with the support (e.g., funding, staff resources), training, and tools and technologies to adjust their responses to the resulting impacts appropriately and quickly. Otherwise, Great Lakes fisheries and the ecosystem services they provide could be further degraded or lost entirely. Before it is possible to assess and enhance the current preparedness of Great Lakes regulatory authorities and law enforcement entities, however, an understanding of their challenges and opportunities, in the scope of their dynamic working environment, is necessary. The goal of this research study was to identify and evaluate the key issues presenting shared challenges and opportunities among Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement entities in anticipating and addressing threats to fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. The outcomes of this research study will offer valuable insight regarding the potential effectiveness8 of regulatory authorities in working across borders to better protect Great Lakes fisheries and enhance the resiliency of aquatic ecosystem resources. Identification and Evaluation Process I focused on identifying the key issues by participating in regular meetings of, and observing, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s (Commission’s) Law Enforcement Committee (Committee). The Committee includes diverse representation among supervisory and staff law 8Traditional law scholars have defined and conceptualized police effectiveness in different ways (Cordner 1989; Sherman et al. 1997; Worrall 1999; National Research Council 2004b; a; Skogan and Frydl 2004; Bowling 2007). Based on their work, this term can be described in the context of fisheries law enforcement. In this dissertation, effectiveness refers to the extent to which fisheries law enforcement (e.g., agencies, organizations, and individuals) protects fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources, reduces or eliminates crime, and maintains or enhances legitimacy (e.g., fairness) in carrying out its regular duties. 57 enforcement personnel affiliated with multiple natural resource management entities throughout the Basin. The Committee holds annual and mid-annual meetings during the year, in September and March, respectively. These invitation-only meetings provide a forum for fisheries law enforcement officers to learn about, and openly discuss, pressing issues facing Great Lakes fisheries, and collaborate in the planning of future law enforcement activities. For comparative purposes, I also focused on obtaining perspectives of these key issues by targeting and bringing together select fisheries law enforcement personnel working in the Basin and in other geographic areas (e.g., Pacific Northwest). I selected these individuals based on their jurisdictional authority (e.g., tribal), position and status (e.g., supervisory), and expertise (e.g., forensic science). In 2015, these individuals came together for a full-day symposium (i.e., “Fisheries Sustainability, Crime, and Enforcement: Whodunnit, and How Do We Manage It”) held during the 145h American Fisheries Society (AFS) Annual Meeting in Portland, Oregon. In general, the annual meeting promotes sustainable fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resource management, research opportunities, collaborative learning, professional development, and science communication among more than 8,000 members around the world (AFS 2020). Participant Observation I used a participant observation approach—a qualitative data collection strategy—to gain familiarity, establish good rapport, and build trust with the Committee’s members over a five-year period and elicit support for my doctoral research (Jorgensen 1989; DeWalt and DeWalt 2011). Following this same approach, and informed by my long-time involvement with the Commission, I targeted additional fisheries law enforcement personnel who demonstrated 58 (i.e., through their authority, role and status, and expertise) deep knowledge of, and insight on, key issues facing fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources in the Basin and beyond. I invited these individuals to, and observed them during, a full-day symposium at the AFS Annual Meeting. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Law Enforcement Committee From 2014 to 2019, I participated in nine, multi-day Committee meetings, during which I was provided a close-up, detailed view into members’ regular law enforcement duties and activities (Spradley 2016) (Appendix A. Meeting Timeline and Locations, Table 2.2). During that time, I was also invited by the Committee’s Chair and Vice-Chair to give five oral presentations with status updates regarding my doctoral research (Appendix B. Oral Presentations, Table 2.3). The participant observation approach allowed me to gain a more holistic understanding of fisheries law enforcement in the Basin—the entities, individuals, key issues they face, and practices and activities they engage in—thereby increasing the validity of this study and my ability to develop and test additional research questions (DeWalt and DeWalt 2011). In addition to attending and participating in these Committee meetings and regularly interacting (i.e., in person, through e-mail, and over the phone) with Committee members, I maintained detailed notes with descriptions of my observations. These notes included information about the Committee members (e.g., entity affiliation), meeting agendas, presentation summaries, main topics of discussion (e.g., undercover investigations), and informal conversations. Ultimately, these notes enabled me to build a five-year long record of what conversations and activities I observed occurring within the Committee (DeWalt et al. 1998). 59 American Fisheries Society Symposium In February 2015, I submitted an abstract for the full-day symposium, “Fisheries Sustainability, Crime, and Enforcement: Whodunnit, and How Do We Manage It?” (Appendix C. Symposium Abstract). In March, I worked with Committee members to identify fisheries law enforcement personnel as potential presenters for the symposium. I targeted individuals from multiple jurisdictional authorities to obtain a range of expertise, training, and perspectives— related to Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement—among the presenters. I asked them to focus their oral presentation on a list of topics suggested by the Committee members and me (e.g., fish crime, technology and surveillance) and highlight key issues along with challenges for, and opportunities of, fisheries law enforcement (Figure 2.1). In August 2015, I moderated and participated in the symposium. Appendix D. Oral Presentation Schedule, Authors, and Affiliation (Table 2.4) lists the presentation titles and those individuals who accepted my invitation and their affiliations. Though the symposium was a one-time event, the participant observation approach helped me make new comparisons and acknowledge contrasts regarding key issues facing natural resource management and law enforcement entities in the Basin and other regions. Thus, I maintained additional notes with these realizations. Summary of Challenges and Opportunities for Law Enforcement Threats to Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources have been well- documented in the primary literature (Beeton et al. 1999; Bogue 2001; Lynch et al. 2010; Hayes 2013; Mandrak and Cudmore 2013; Hudson and Ziegler 2014; Campbell et al. 2015; Taylor et al. 2019). Building upon the primary literature, and based on my observations during Committee 60 Figure 2.1. Mark Robbins (retired), Provincial Enforcement Specialist with the Enforcement Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, gives a presentation as part of the 145th American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. 61 meetings and the AFS Annual Meeting, I identified the following key issues presenting challenges of, and opportunities for, fisheries law enforcement in the Basin. A diagram of these threats, challenges, and opportunities is included in Figure 2.2. Challenges The following subsections describe the key issues presenting primary challenges to effective implementation of fisheries law enforcement in the Basin, perceived by law enforcement personnel. Geography, Size, and Scope Situated in the upper Mideast portion of the United States (U.S.) on the U.S.-Canada border, the Basin includes the five Laurentian Great Lakes—Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Superior—the St. Lawrence River, and all other connecting waterways, rivers, streams, tributaries, and inland lakes (Chapter 1, “Orientation to the Great Lakes Basin”). The five lakes comprise the largest surface freshwater system on Earth, where their total water area equals more than 94,000 square miles (mi2) (243,459 square kilometers [km2]) (roughly the size of Oregon) and total volume exceeds 5,400 cubic miles (22,508 cubic kilometers) (EPA 2020a; b). With over 10,000 mi2 (25,899.9 km2) of shoreline, the five lakes spread far and wide throughout the Basin, crossing diverse aquatic and terrestrial natural landscapes and human environments (EPA 2020a). The unique geography, massive size, and extensive scope of the Basin present an incredible challenge for entities that monitor human behavior and establish and enforce statutes, rules, and regulations that protect these resources. Due to the number and range of 62 Figure 2.2. A diagram of the threats facing Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, and the challenges of, and opportunities for, fisheries law enforcement, perceived by law enforcement personnel. 63 Opportunities•Improved fisheries law enforcement effectiveness•More cross-border collaboration and coordination•Added education of natural resource users•Enhanced conservation of the resourceChallenges•Geography, size, and scope of the Great Lakes basin•Nature of the resource•Diversity of values held by natural resource users•Number of entities involved and their missionsThreatspopulation growthhabitat degradationillegal activitiesaquatic invasive species climate changedevelopmentwater diversionsborder controlurbanizationoverharvestingpollutionexploitation threats, and where they occur in the Basin, regulatory policies that aim to address these threats holistically are difficult, if not impossible, to develop (McGarrell et al. 2013). Successful development of such policies would likely require a coordinated or joint approach, inclusive of representation from all jurisdictional authorities and government levels throughout the Basin (GLFC 2019). On-the-ground enforcement of these policies is difficult, too, for there are simply not enough fisheries law enforcement officers to provide coverage of the Basin, let alone detect all illegal fishing behavior and fish crime. While many law enforcement personnel indicated their affiliated entities lack adequate staff capacity, recent publications suggest this capacity continues to dwindle as a result of shrinking conservation budgets, long hours and low wages, and limited hiring and training opportunities (Eilason 2011; Helmer 2020). Nature of Fisheries Resources Held in Common In the U.S. and Canada, fisheries, fish, and fish habitat are considered common property or common-pool resources (CPR). They are available to everyone and, because of their economic value, they are usually in high demand (Ostrom 1990). As a result of the availability, accessibility, and value of these resources, conflict among people who want to use or enjoy these resources is inevitable (Berkes 1985a; b). Conflict can be avoided if fisheries resource users work together and cooperate, or act collectively, to manage CPRs with the goal of sustaining them for the future. However, if each individual pursues his or her own self-interest regarding use, CPRs provide diminished benefits and are likely to experience degradation and collapse (Ostrom 1990; Gaden 2007). The choice of some resource users to act according to their self-interest by competing for and exploiting (i.e., overusing, overharvesting, or depleting) 64 CPRs was interpreted by Hardin as the “tragedy of the commons” (1968). Hardin supports that, without coercion or incentives (e.g., monetary, social), perhaps implemented or developed, respectively, by a regulatory entity, collective action is unlikely to occur (Olson 1965; 1968). Since then, other scholars have offered a different perspective, claiming that “communication, trust, and the anticipation of future interactions, and the ability to build agreements and rules sometimes control behavior well enough to prevent tragedy” (Dietz et al. 2002; Giordano 2003; Gaden 2007). In the Basin, governing, managing, and regulatory entities grapple with challenges in ensuring the sustainability of CPRs as they continue to be at risk from certain threats (i.e., exploitation) (Dietz et al. 2003). In response to these threats, innovative governance, management (e.g., co-management), and regulatory strategies (e.g., community engagement, community-oriented policing) (Patten 2010; Roe et al. 2015) have proven to be effective in obtaining voluntary compliance (Apel and Nagin 2011) among fisheries resource users and maintaining sustainable resource levels in some communities (Ostrom 1990; 2000; Acheson 2013; Lawrence 2015). Even some fisheries resource users have been able to self-organize through collective action without external institutional authorities, coercion, or incentives (Ostrom et al. 1992; Ostrom 2009; Lawrence 2015). In the Basin, however, institutions of all types—organized and disorganized, formal and informal—will be challenged in devising strategies to reduce competition for already-dwindling fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Widely Distributed Further, unlike humans, fisheries and other aquatic ecosystem resources do not observe 65 jurisdictional borders or political boundaries (McGarrell et al. 2013). In the Basin, they can swim, move, and migrate freely. Many species (e.g., salmon and steelhead [Oncorhynchus mykiss]) naturally overlap two or more geographic areas based on their life history strategies and general requirements (i.e., related to spawning, rearing, foraging, migration, and overwintering). The transboundary-nature of fish as frequent travelers and migrants poses challenges for fisheries law enforcement (McGarrell et al. 2013). Since these resources can move, so too can people who choose to target and exploit them and, in the process, may also destroy habitat. In the Basin, law enforcement entities are likely to experience difficulties monitoring and investigating fish crime that spans multiple jurisdictional authorities and government levels, and enforcing illegal fishing behavior and activities that negatively impact fish and fish habitat. To circumvent this challenge, law enforcement entities should be encouraged to look past border and boundary lines and cooperate or work collaboratively to identify crimes; enforce statutes, rules, and regulations; and deter illegal fishing behavior that could negatively impact fisheries. aquatic ecosystem resources, and the habitats they require (Kirshman and Leonard 2003). Diversity of Values More than 30 million people live in the Basin (EPA 2020a). Each person is distinct in their ethnicities and cultural identities; opinions and preferences; attitudes; and their personal and professional life experiences. They also have formed their own values, which guide their thinking and decision-making (Sharp and Lach 2003). Tensions can arise when values or belief systems conflict. For example, based on my observations, recreational and commercial anglers 66 in the Basin can be at odds with each other as they both advocate for their share of relative take or harvest of fisheries resources. While both user groups are likely to desire the bigger share, or more take or harvest opportunities, they may do so as a result of differing values. Recreational anglers may value the feelings of relaxation and satisfaction they get from fishing, while commercial anglers may value the financial security that is dependent upon a successful harvest. Given the number and diversity of people living in the Basin, fisheries law enforcement is, and will continue to be, challenged in developing and enforcing statutes, rules, and regulations that address the breadth and depth of values held by fisheries resource users. Rather than focusing on identifying a “one size fits all” approach to, or panacea for, all illegal fishing behavior and fish crime, law enforcement entities and individuals (i.e., officers) should be cognizant and respectful of the values held by people within their jurisdictional authorities (Ostrom 2007). They should also be prepared to embrace conflict, rather than avoid it, and exercise flexibility (e.g., issue warnings instead of more severe sanctions) in handling tense situations among frequently-volatile fisheries resource users. Number of Entities Many law enforcement entities exist throughout the U.S. (more than 18,000) and Ontario, Canada (more than 60) (Banks et al. 2016; 2019). Of these, as stated in Chapter 1, “Regulation Within Great Lakes Fisheries,” the fisheries regulatory regime in the Basin involves more than 650 federal, non-federal, and binational (and some local) government agencies (McGarrell et al. 2013). While these agencies might share a mutual goal to protect fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources, differences in their geographic location, size (i.e., in terms of staff 67 capacity), leadership composition, and resources or issues of interest may dictate variances in the mission, vision, objectives, and activities of each law enforcement entity. Table 2.1 includes examples of mission statements from four law enforcement agencies, representing the three levels of government specified in Chapter 1, “Management of Great Lakes Fisheries.” Each mission statement calls for the “protection” and “preservation” of natural resources and also includes other details specific to the agency’s unique scope (e.g., endangered species) and the resource users it serves (e.g., Tribal members). Table 2.1. Mission statements of fisheries law enforcement agencies in the Great Lakes basin. Level of Government Federal Law Enforcement Entity Natural Resource Management Entity Office of Law Enforcement U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Non-Federal Law Enforcement Division Michigan Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Division Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission 68 Mission Statement To protect wildlife and plant resources. Through the effective enforcement of Federal laws, we contribute to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service efforts to recover endangered species, conserve migratory birds, preserve wildlife habitat, safeguard fisheries, combat invasive species, and promote international wildlife conservation (2020). To protect Michigan's natural resources and the environment, and the health and safety of the public through effective law enforcement and education (Gervasi 2020). To implement its members’ off- reservation treaty rights to fish, hunt, and gather in ceded territories; preserve and enhance natural resources so harvest opportunities Table 2.1. (cont’d). Level of Government Binational Law Enforcement Entity Natural Resource Management Entity Law Enforcement Committee Great Lakes Fishery Commission Mission Statement will be available for generations come; and infuse Ojibwe culture and values into all aspects of its work (GLIFWC n.d.). To protect, enhance, and promote the safe and wise use of the natural resources in the Great Lakes for present and future generations (GLFC n.d.). The sheer number of entities and their different, often conflicting, missions present major challenges for fisheries law enforcement in the Basin, especially when faced with opportunities (e.g., investigations that overlap multiple states) to work together (Kirshman and Leonard 2003). In an environment where cooperation across jurisdictional borders is essential in protecting, enhancing, and conserving fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources, law enforcement entities should be in agreement when it comes to developing and/or prioritizing approaches to identify illegal fishing behavior and fish crime, and ensure compliance. Based on my observations, to avoid potential limitations in effectiveness, fisheries law enforcement entities should take more time to consider their mutually-shared goals and objectives and brainstorm new ways to combine and use their resources. As a result, over time, the mission statements might evolve to be more reflective of a basin-wide, versus a single-agency, focus or approach to fisheries law enforcement. 69 Opportunities The following subsections describe the key issues presenting primary opportunities for effective implementation of fisheries law enforcement in the Basin, perceived by law enforcement personnel. Improved Effectiveness In the Basin, fisheries law enforcement is critical in identifying, deterring, and monitoring unlawful fishing activities, however it is not perfectly effective; it has neither reduced nor eliminated all illegal fishing behavior and fish crime (Randall 2004). In general, the probability a fisheries violation will be detected, let alone considered further for a punishment or penalty, is very low, approximately less than 1% (Sutinen and Kuperan 1999). Additionally, over time, non-compliance rates may increase as people discover new ways to bypass the law undetected (Randall 2004; Hilborn et al. 2006). Thus, opportunities to improve fisheries law enforcement effectiveness should be prioritized and strongly considered by supervisory law enforcement personnel. Such opportunities could include eliminating, revising, or developing new statutes, rules, and regulations; evaluating entity size (Cordner 1989); providing more support (i.e., funding, staff resources) (Eilason 2011) and training for law enforcement (Brereton 1961); refining primary duties and responsibilities (Chapman and Hartman 1962; Falcone 2004; Eliason 2007; O’Connor Shelley and Crow 2009); developing or leveraging new technology (Randall 2004); managing discretion (Forsyth 1993; Eliason 2003; Carter 2006; Forsyth and Forsyth 2012); and increasing transparency (Randall 2004), legitimacy, and trust (Nielsen and Mathiesen 2000; Nielsen 2003). 70 More Cross-Border Collaboration and Coordination Increasing human population growth, development, urbanization, and transportation in the Basin could lead to more illegal fishing behavior and fish crime. Additionally, these threats could open up new vectors and pathways for species to invade and potentially establish in Great Lakes waters, thereby increasing the possibility that more threats to fisheries (e.g., increasing predation and competition) and aquatic ecosystem resources (e.g., habitat degradation) will emerge (Ruiz and Carlton 2003; Kelly 2007). Law enforcement entities retain an opportunity to cooperate in their jurisdiction and among other jurisdictional authorities to address negative impacts resulting from these threats (Kirshman and Leonard 2003). Further, law enforcement personnel (i.e., officers) should be encouraged to explore opportunities to coordinate with fisheries managers and researchers, and other law enforcement personnel to discuss, or develop their own, collaborative approaches to more effective regulation of human behavior that affects fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Additional Education of Resource Users In the Basin, increasing illegal behavior and fish crime is likely to lead to more interactions among law enforcement personnel and the general public. With each interaction, law enforcement personnel have an opportunity to not only enforce the law, but also educate fisheries resource users on a variety of topics including, but not limited to: fishing statutes, rules and regulations (Benoit 1973; Kirshman and Leonard 2003); ethical fishing behavior and activities; appropriate locations to fish; significance of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources; and importance of fisheries management and conservation efforts (Forsyth and 71 Forsyth 2012). As more interactions and teaching moments occur, the general public may become more informed users of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources and, perhaps, more likely to behave according to the law in future situations. Enhanced Conservation of the Resource In the Basin, the greatest opportunity for fisheries law enforcement is to offer greater protection for fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. While illegal fishing behavior and fish crime will continue to threaten the sustainability of these resources, fisheries law enforcement can, through improved effectiveness, increase compliance among fisheries resource users and the general public with existing statutes, rules, and regulations that serve to protect fish and aquatic ecosystems (Randall 2004). Higher rates of compliance will likely lead to reduced stress and pressure on fish and fish habitat, thereby offering greater protection for, and respect of, these resources. Conclusion Based on my participation in, and observations of, Committee meetings and a full-day symposium with law enforcement personnel, numerous issues in the Basin will continue to present challenges in addressing emerging threats to fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Along with these challenges, however, are opportunities to improve law enforcement effectiveness and enhance overall protection for, and conservation of, these resources. Supervisory staff affiliated with Great Lakes law enforcement entities should possess a deep understanding of these issues and the people they encounter in the field, and a heightened awareness of potential threats. With enhanced understanding and awareness, law 72 enforcement entities will be in a position to better organize, educate, and train their staff for fisheries law enforcement success. In the Basin and elsewhere, the future is, however, uncertain, and this issue of uncertainty itself presents both challenges of, and opportunities for, fisheries law enforcement. As much as leaders (i.e., supervisors) in fisheries law enforcement can do to adequately prepare their staff to address emerging threats, it may not be enough, or the right kind of preparation, for what is to come. Thus, law enforcement entities should continue to practice flexibility in its enforcement styles and approaches, knowing that they will surely have to adapt in some or many ways to maintain their effectiveness in protecting and conserving fisheries and aquatic resources in the uncertain future. 73 APPENDICES 74 Appendix A. Meeting Timeline and Locations Table 2.2. Meeting times, names, and locations. Year Date 2014 March 25-26 September 4-5 2015 March 24-25 September 15-16 2016 March 22-23 September 13-14 2017 March 21-22 2018 March 28-29 2019 March 26-27 2020 March 17-18 Meeting Name Mid-Annual Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee Meeting 28th Annual Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee Meeting Mid-Annual Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee Meeting 29th Annual Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee Meeting Mid-Annual Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee Meeting 30th Annual Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee Meeting Mid-Annual Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee Meeting Mid-Annual Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee Meeting Mid-Annual Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee Meeting Mid-Annual Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee Meeting* Asterisk indicates meeting cancellation due to COVID-19. Location Windsor, Ontario Huron, Ohio Ypsilanti, Michigan Windsor, Ontario Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bolingbrook, Chicago Ypsilanti, Michigan Toronto, Ontario Ypsilanti, Michigan Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario 75 Appendix B. Oral Presentations Table 2.3. Oral presentation titles. Year Date 2014 September 4 2016 March 22 September 13 2018 March 29 2019 March 27 Title Fenske Fellowship: Enforcement and inland fisheries sustainability The role and perceived effectiveness of law enforcement in the multi-jurisdictional management of Great Lakes fisheries Understanding role, perceived efficacy, and impacts on fisheries: A questionnaire for Great Lakes law enforcement officers The efficacy of a joint approach to fisheries law enforcement in the Great Lakes basin A study of fisheries law enforcement in the Great Lakes basin: Status update 76 Appendix C. Symposium Abstract Fisheries Sustainability, Crime, and Enforcement: Whodunnit, and How Do We Manage It? Law enforcement is a critical yet often under-appreciated and under-represented component of fish crime and fish management. Law enforcement personnel and fisheries management professionals must work together to achieve the common goals of protecting and sustaining fisheries resources. Law enforcement must understand the scientific basic of fisheries management decisions in order to be effective in enforcing regulations, reducing fish crime, and educating and protecting citizens. Fisheries professionals must be aware of the limitations and concerns of law enforcement when developing scientifically-based management regulations. Fisheries law enforcement professionals have largely been under-represented in the American Fisheries Society despite the common goal of perpetuating fisheries resources and the continued contribution of law enforcement to the many successful fisheries management programs. The goal of this symposium is to create a forum where law enforcement personnel and fisheries professionals can cooperatively discuss the role of law enforcement and conservation criminology in shaping the future of fisheries science and the fisheries profession. This symposium will feature presentations from law enforcement, fisheries professionals, and conservation criminologists detailing specific case studies involving fisheries enforcement including advances in criminal and fisheries science and technology. The ultimate outcome of this symposium will be continued closer cooperation and communication between law enforcement and fisheries professionals. 77 Appendix D. Oral Presentation Schedule, Authors, and Affiliation Table 2.4. Oral presentations, authors, and author affiliations. Time Title 1320 Law enforcement: A critical management tool for ensuring fisheries sustainability Author(s) Molly J. Good* William W. Taylor Edmund McGarrell 1340 Collaborating across Marc Gaden* Affiliation Michigan State University Great Lakes Fishery Commission borders: Fishery conservation in the Great Lakes through a Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes fisheries 1400 Strengthening the weakest link: The role of law enforcement in protecting multi-jurisdictional waters from aquatic invasions 1420 Tribal fisheries enforcement 1440 Marine fisheries enforcement: Salty tales of fraud, forensics, and justice Jill Wingfield* Kevin Ramsey Great Lakes Fishery Commission Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission NOAA Fisheries Mitchell G. Hicks* Piper Schwenke* Trey Knott Kathy Moore Linda Park 1520 Forensic science and Mary K. Burnham-Curtis* 1540 fisheries crimes: Beyond CSI Illegal harvest of marine resources on Andros Island and the legacy of colonialism 1600 Assessing recreational fishing compliance before, during, and after implementation of a Elizabeth Silvy* Emma Johnson Casey Story M. Nills Peterson Justa Heinen-Kay R. Brian Langerhans Dana Haggarty* Steve Martell Jon Shurin U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Texas A&M University North Carolina State University Biodiversity Research Centre 78 Table 2.4 (cont’d). Time Title network of conservation areas: Rockfish conservation areas in British Columbia Author(s) Affiliation 1620 Fisheries for the future: How can law enforcement help us get there? Mark Robbins* Brad Gerrie Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Asterisk indicates those individuals who gave the oral presentation during the symposium. 79 LITERATURE CITED 80 LITERATURE CITED (2019). "Policing in Ontario." Retrieved July 1, 2020, from https://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/police_serv/about.html#:~:text=There%20are %2050%20municipal%20police,Nations%20police%20services%20in%20Ontario. (2020). "News Around the Service." Retrieved July 2, 2020, from https://www.fws.gov/le/. Acheson, J. (2013). "Co-management in the Maine lobster industry: A study in factional politics." Conservation and Society 11(1): 60-71. AFS (2020). "American Fisheries Society." Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://fisheries.org/about/. Apel, R. and D. S. Nagin (2011). "General deterrence: A review of recent evidence." Crime and Public Policy 4: 411-436. Banks, D., J. Hendrix, et al. (2016). National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: 17. Beeton, A. M., C. E. Sellinger, et al. (1999). An introduction to the Laurentian Great Lakes ecosystem. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 3- 54. Benoit, P. J. (1973). "From fish and wildlife officer to environmental conservation officer." Wildlife Society Bulletin 1(3): 128-130. Berkes, F. (1985a). "The common property resource problem and the creation of limited property rights." Human Ecology 13(2): 187-208. Berkes, F. (1985b). "Fishermen and ‘the tragedy of the commons”." Environmental Conservation 12(3): 199-206. Bogue, M. B. (2001). Fishing the Great Lakes: An Environmental History, 1783–1933. Madison, Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press. Bowling, B. (2007). "Fair and effective policing methods: Towards ‘good enough’policing." Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 8(S1): 17-32. Brereton, G. H. (1961). "The importance of training and education in the professionalization of law enforcement." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 52(1): 111-121. 81 Campbell, M., M. Cooper, et al. (2015). "The economy as a driver of change in the Great Lakes– St. Lawrence River basin." Journal of Great Lakes Research 41. Carter, T. J. (2006). "Police use of discretion: A participant observation study of game wardens." Deviant Behavior 27(6): 591-627. CGLR (2017a). Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Region Transportation Trends, Issues, and Opportunities. Toronto, Ontario, Council of the Great Lakes Region: 26. CGLR (2017b). Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region Tourism Trends and Statistics. Toronto, Ontario, Council of the Great Lakes Region: 34. Chapman, S. G. and J. Hartman (1962). "Conservation law enforcement in Michigan." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 53(3): 384-390. Cordner, G. W. (1989). "Police agency size and investigative effectiveness." Journal of Criminal Justice 17(3): 145-155. DeWalt, K. and B. R. DeWalt (2011). Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Lanham, Maryland, AltaMira Press. DeWalt, K. M., B. R. DeWalt, et al. (1998). Participant observation. Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. H. R. Bernard. Lanham, Maryland, AltaMira Press: 259-300. Dietz, T., N. Dolsak, et al. (2002). The drama of the commons. E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak et al. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press: 3-35. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, et al. (2003). "The struggle to govern the commons." Science 302: 1907- 1912. Eilason, S. L. (2011). "Policing natural resources: Issues in a conservation law enforcement agency." Professional issues in Criminal Justice 6(3 and 4): 43-58. Eliason, S. L. (2003). "Throwing the book versus cutting some slack: Factors influencing the use of discretion by game wardens in Kentucky." Deviant Behavior 24(2): 129-152. Eliason, S. L. (2007). "From wildlife specialist to police generalist? The scope of non-wildlife violations encountered by conservation officers." Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice 4(2): 120-132. EPA (2020a). "Basic Information, Physical Facts." Retrieved June 28, 2020, from https://web.archive.org/web/20120529233616/http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/physfacts.h tml. 82 EPA (2020b). "The Great Lakes." Retrieved June 28, 2020, from https://www.epa.gov/greatlakes. Falcone, D. (2004). "America's coservation police: Agencies in transition." Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 27(1): 56-66. Forsyth, C. J. (1993). "Factors influencing game wardens in their Interaction with poachers: The use of discretion." Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology 21(1): 51-56. Forsyth, C. J. and Y. A. Forsyth (2012). "Examining the responses of game wardens to types of poachers." Kentucky Journal of Anthropology and Sociology 2(1): 27-36. Gaden, M. (2007). Bridging jurisdictional divides: Collective action through a Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan: 296. Gervasi, K. (2020). Mission of conservation officers has expanded. Holland Sentinel. Holland, Michigan. Giordano, M. (2003). "The geography of the commons: The role of scale and space." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(2): 365-375. GLFC (2019). "Law Enforcement." Retrieved April 25, 2020, from http://www.glfc.org/law- enforcement.php. GLFC (n.d.). Terms of Reference. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: 3. GLIFWC (n.d.). "Mission Statement." Retrieved July 2, 2020, from http://www.glifwc.org/About/. Gold, A., R. Pendall, et al. (2018). Demographic Change in the Great Lakes Region: Recent Population Trends and Possible Futures. Washington, D.C., Urban Institute: 53. Hardin, G. (1968). "The tragedy of the commons." Science 162(3859): 1243-1248. The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Hayes, D. B. (2013). Issues affecting fish habitat in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 51-80. Helmer, J. (2020). Hunting for Game Wardens: A Shortage of Conservation Officers Threatens Wildlife. The Revelator. 83 Hilborn, R., P. Arcese, et al. (2006). "Effective enforcement in a conservation area." Science (New York, N.Y.) 314: 1266. Hudson, J. C. and S. S. Ziegler (2014). "Environment, culture, and the Great Lakes fisheries." Geographical Review 104(4): 391-413. Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies. Newbury Park, California, SAGE Publications, Inc. Kelly, D. W. (2007). Vectors and Pathways for Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in the Great Lakes. Transportation Research Board Special Report. 291: 27. Kirshman, H. and N. J. Leonard (2003). Protecting the Fishery through Law Enforcement. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: 8. Lawrence, T. J. (2015). Investigating the Challenges and Successes of Community Participation in the Fishery Co-management Program on Lake Victoria, East Africa. Lynch, A. J., W. T. Taylor, et al. (2010). "The influence of changing climate on the ecology and management of selected Laurentian Great Lakes fisheries." Journal of Fish Biology 77(8): 1764-1782. Mandrak, N. E. and B. Cudmore (2013). Fish species at risk and non-native fishes in the Great Lakes Basin: Past, present, and future. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 105-136. Mayfield, C. (n.d.). "Timeline for the Great Lakes." Retrieved June 8, 2020, from http://www.colinmayfield.com/biology447/modules/module1/GREATLAKESTIMELINE.ht m. McGarrell, E. F., M. Suttmoeller, et al. (2013). Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 455- 472. National Research Council (2004a). The effectiveness of police activities in reducing crime, disorder, and fear. Fairness and Effectivess in Policing: The Evidence. W. G. Skogan and K. Frydl. Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press: 217-251. National Research Council (2004b). Police fairness: legitimacy as the consent of the public. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. W. G. Skogan and K. Frydl. Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press: 291-326. 84 Nielsen, J. R. (2003). "An analytical framework for studying: Compliance and legitimacy in fisheries management." Marine Policy 27(5): 425-432. Nielsen, J. R. and C. Mathiesen (2000). "Important factors influencing rule compliance in fisheries lessons from Denmark." Marine Policy 27(5): 409-416. O’Connor Shelley, T. and M. S. Crow (2009). "The nature and extent of conservation policing: Law enforcement generalists or conservation specialists?" American Journal of Criminal Justice 34(1-2): 9-27. Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2000). "Collective action and the evolution of social norms." Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(3): 137-158. Ostrom, E. (2007). "A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 15181-15187. Ostrom, E. (2009). "A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems." Science 325(5939): 419-422. Ostrom, E., J. Walker, et al. (1992). "Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible." American Political Science Review 86(2): 404-417. Patten, R. (2010). "Policing in the wild: the game wardens' perspective." Policing 33(1): 132- 151. Randall, J. K. (2004). "Improving compliance in U.S. federal fisheries: An enforcement agency perspective." Ocean Development and International Law 35(4): 287-317. Roe, D., R. Cooney, et al. (2015). Beyond Enforcement: Engaging Communities in Tackling Wildlife Crime, International Institute for Environment and Development. Ruiz, G. M. and J. T. Carlton (2003). Invasion vectors: A conceptual framework for management. Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies. G. M. Ruiz and J. T. Carlton. Washington, D.C., Island Press: 459-504. Sharp, S. B. and D. Lach (2003). "Integrating social values into fisheries management: A Pacific Northwest study." Fisheries 28(4): 10-15. 85 Sherman, L. W., D. Gottfredson, et al. (1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. College Park, Maryland, University of Maryland: 528. Skogan, W. G. and K. Frydl (2004). Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press. Sutinen, J. G. and K. Kuperan (1999). "A socio‐economic theory of regulatory compliance." International Journal of Social Economics. Taylor, W. W., M. J. Good, et al. (2019). "The changing face of Great Lakes fisheries." Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 22(3): 355-367. USFWS (2016). 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WIldlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C., U.S. FIsh and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau: 132. Worrall, J. L. (1999). "Public perceptions of police efficacy and image: The “fuzziness” of support for the police." American Journal of Criminal Justice 24(1): 47. 86 CHAPTER 3: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A JOINT APPROACH TO GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LAW ENFORCEMENT 87 Abstract Fisheries law enforcement offers protection for fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources in the Great Lakes basin. Due to various characteristics of the Great Lakes basin (e.g., geography and size, nature of fisheries resources), some regulatory approaches are more effective than others in ensuring the long-term sustainability of Great Lakes fish and fish habitat. This chapter examines perceptions of law enforcement personnel who comprise the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Law Enforcement Committee Membership in facilitating basin-wide regulation of illegal fishing behavior and fish crime. As part of this research study, I surveyed and interviewed 22 committee members to document their understanding of the Law Enforcement Committee’s role and effectiveness in working across borders to protect and conserve fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Respondents identified the Law Enforcement Committee’s distinct role in bringing people together to collaboratively discuss, and share information about, issues (e.g., training and staff resource needs) that are likely to impact regulation of these resources. However, respondents also highlighted ways (e.g., taking more law enforcement action, fostering relationships with fisheries managers and researchers) in which the Law Enforcement Committee could be more effective in offering protection for Great Lakes fisheries aquatic ecosystem resources. Respondents’ perceptions will provide meaningful insight to the Law Enforcement Committee and other law enforcement entities that are interested in, and willing to, increase their organizational effectiveness in anticipating, and responding to, unlawful fishing activities (e.g., overharvesting) that may negatively affect these resources. 88 KEYWORDS: law enforcement; effectiveness; fisheries; aquatic ecosystem resources; Law Enforcement Committee; Great Lakes Fishery Commission 89 Introduction The Great Lakes basin (Basin) is home to many valuable fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources (Taylor et al. 2019). Natural resource management entities, representing multiple jurisdictions at various governmental levels (e.g., federal, non-federal, and binational), are charged with studying, managing, and offering protection for these resources (Kirshman and Leonard 2003; Gaden 2007; McGarrell et al. 2013). However, due to the nature of these resources (Chapter 2, “Nature of Fisheries Resources”), operating individually as entities within their own jurisdictions may hinder natural resource management from reaching its full conservation potential on a basin-wide scale. The binational Great Lakes Fishery Commission (Commission) supports the Law Enforcement Committee (Committee), which does not operate individually as a committee Rather, the committee includes representation from, and fosters collaboration among, 21 natural resource management entities, and their associated law enforcement entities, throughout the Basin (GLFC 2019b). Similar to how the Commission supports a holistic, ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in the Basin, the Committee also strives to facilitate cooperation and information-sharing among all Great Lakes jurisdictional authorities to ensure alignment among regulatory approaches that affect Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources (Gaden 2007; Guthrie et al. 2019a; GLFC n.d.). Increased cooperation, information-sharing, and alignment in regulatory directives—encouraged by the Committee’s Chair and Vice-Chair—could help rectify some of the challenges to effective implementation of fisheries law enforcement presented in Chapter 2, “Challenges” (Kirshman and Leonard 2003; McGarrell et al. 2013) 90 The goal of this research study was to learn more from committee members about: their understanding of the Committee and its function and structure; their perceptions of the Committee in facilitating a joint (i.e., multi-agency) approach to fisheries law enforcement; and their perceptions of the Committee’s overall effectiveness in protecting, enhancing, and conserving fisheries resources and their habitat. The outcomes of this research study will provide meaningful insight to the Committee as they evolve to meet the regulatory demands of a changing environment and fisheries user base. Methods The Basin includes many law enforcement entities that often have to work across jurisdictional borders to protect and conserve a diverse suite of ecologically-, socially-, economically-, and culturally-valuable fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Thus, the Basin presents an opportune study area in which to pose questions about the status of these resources and make comparisons among law enforcement entities and their approaches to taking regulatory action. Target Sample and Participants The target sample in this research study was composed of the Committee’s Membership. The participants represented a subset of the membership; supervisory and staff law enforcement personnel from multiple natural resource management (Table 3.1), and their associated law enforcement, entities. In general, these individuals either choose, or are assigned, to spend their time engaging in the Committee’s regular annual and mid-annual meetings, organized by the Chair and Vice-Chair. 91 Table 3.1. Natural resource management entities with law enforcement representation in the Law Enforcement Committee in March 2017. Natural Resource Management Entity NOAA Fisheries U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries and Oceans Canada Illinois Department of Natural Resources Indiana Department of Natural Resources Michigan Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources New York Department of Environmental Conservation Ohio Department of Natural Resources Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority Bay Mills Indian Community Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Bad River Band Bay Mills Indian Community Fond du Lac Band Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Lac Courte Oreilles Band Lac du Flambeau Band Lac Vieux Desert Band Mille Lacs Band Red Cliff Band Sokaogon Mole Lake Band St. Croix Band Great Lakes Fishery Commission 92 Leadership Role in Law Enforcement Committee Chair Vice-Chair Law Enforcement Specialist Liaison Research Design I designed a survey and a series of semi-structured interview questions to engage with participants, learn about their reasons for participating in the Committee, and examine their perceptions regarding the Committee’s effectiveness in protecting and conserving fisheries and aquatic resources in the Basin. These data collection methods were approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (IRB # x17-370e; i053719). While the participants were comfortable with the research design, they did not wish to identify themselves according to the natural resource management and/or law enforcement entity(ies) they represented in the case that sensitive information was revealed. I used a detailed information and consent form (Appendix A. Information and Consent Form) to describe the purpose of this research study and remind the participants that their involvement in this data collection would be voluntary and remain anonymous. The Committee’s Chair and Vice-Chair, and a few committee members, formed a focus group to help me design, review, and offer suggestions to improve the survey and interview questions before I posed them to the participants. I disseminated the survey to, and conducted the interview with, participants who were present during the Mid-Annual Great Lakes Law Enforcement Committee Meeting, which took place in March 2017, in Ypsilanti, Michigan (Appendix B. Agenda). The participants represented a subset of the Committee’s Membership, including only those committee members who participated in this meeting. Respondents provided either written consent (i.e., for the survey) or verbal consent (i.e., for the interviews) prior to any approved data collection. 93 Survey I designed ten, multiple-choice survey questions (Appendix C. Survey Instrument) to obtain demographic information about the participants. In total, 23 of 31 committee members responded to the survey, however one response was excluded from the analysis due to logistical reasons (i.e., for a response rate of 71%). Respondents completed the survey during the meeting and, to ensure anonymity, submitted their responses first to the Law Enforcement Specialist Liaison, who returned them to me at the end of the meeting. Committee members affiliated with only one natural resource management and law enforcement entity (i.e., Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Enforcement Branch) declined to respond to the survey. Semi-Structured Interview I also developed eleven semi-structured interview questions (Appendix D. Semi- Structured Interview Questions) to further probe the participants about their perceptions of the Committee’s role and effectiveness. The purpose of the interview was to have a one-on-one conversation with the participants, recognizing that each participant would likely bring a unique perspective to the data collection process. I chose to use a semi-structured interview rather than a structured or fixed form interview to allow each participant an opportunity to answer the questions based on his or her own interests and experiences, and within his or her area of expertise (Adams 2015). I organized the questions within two themes regarding participants’: 1) reasons for engagement in, and understanding of the function and structure of, the Committee; and, 2) perceptions of the Committee and its effectiveness in shaping the regulation of human behavior that affects Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Ten questions 94 were open-ended, and one question was a modified Likert-scale question that inquired about participants’ perceived level of satisfaction with the Committee’s effectiveness in protecting and conserving fish and fish habitat in the Basin (Likert 1932). Twenty-six of the 31 committee members volunteered to participate in the interview, however time permitted only 22 interviews (i.e., for a response rate of 85%). The average interview length was approximately 18 minutes. I recorded all interviews over a two-day period at the hotel where the meeting occurred. During each interview, I asked all of the questions, though occasionally in a different order or context. I asked additional or probing questions based on the nature of the conversation and the respondents’ interests and experiences. One hundred percent of the participants who responded to the survey also participated in the interview. Committee members affiliated with only one natural resource management and law enforcement entity (i.e., Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Enforcement Branch) declined to participate in the interview. Thus, perceptions of Committee members associated with the provincial government level were not represented in the collected data. Analysis To summarize the survey responses, I complied and evaluated the quantitative data from the multiple-choice survey questions using descriptive statistics (e.g., count [percentage], mean, mode). The quantitative data complimented the qualitative data resulting from the interview responses, providing necessary context and helping identify patterns. I transcribed each interview response verbatim, and I used the computer software package, MAXQDA, to code, re-code, and analyze the qualitative data resulting from the interview transcripts (VERBI Software 2019). Following a process outlined in Miles and 95 Huberman, I read my notes and interview transcripts, and I looked for general patterns and relationships evident in the data (1984). Through open-coding, I reviewed the interview transcripts, line-by-line, and sorted and organized the data into broad themes (e.g. types of threats and challenges) and various sub-themes (e.g. biological, non-biological). Results Twenty-two committee members responded to the survey and participated in the interview between March 21 and 22, 2017. One hundred percent of respondents were affiliated with United States (U.S.) government entities (i.e., natural resource management and law enforcement entities). Seventeen respondents (77%) identified as White or Caucasian; 2 (10%) identified as American Indian; 1 (14%) identified as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, and Multiracial, respectively. Table 3.2includes a breakdown of the number of respondents organized by government level. Table 3.3 includes a breakdown of the number of respondents, organized by their self-identified role in fisheries law enforcement. Table 3.4 includes general descriptions of these roles. I presented these descriptions in the survey as options for the participants to select from. Table 3.2. Number of respondents organized by level of government. Federal State Tribal Binational Number 3 12 6 1 96 Percent 14 55 27 5 Table 3.3. Number of respondents organized by their self-identified role in fisheries law enforcement. Supervisory Field Investigative Administrative Number 7 7 6 2 Percent 32 32 27 9 Table 3.4. Roles and general descriptions presented in the survey. Role Administrative Officer Field Officer Investigative Officer Supervisory Officer Description You primarily write, process, and analyze case reports and do not spend a majority of your time in the field or in an investigative capacity. You spend most of your time patrolling and monitoring in the field. You spend most of your time investigating crimes, conducting surveillance, and interviewing suspects. You primarily supervise staff and do not spend a majority of your time in the field or in an investigative capacity. At the time of this research study, the average respondent was 45 years old. The mean and standard deviation (i.e., 45±9.62 standard deviation) of the age distribution (Figure 3.1) of respondents indicate a normal range. The time spent by respondents in their current positions ranged from less than 1 year (minimum) to 22 years (maximum). Respondents differed in their level of participation in committee meetings. To capture these differences, I coded their frequency of participation according to the following categories: always (two meetings per year); very often (one meeting per year); sometimes (one to two meetings every two years, on and off); rarely (one meeting every few years); never; or first time (indicating a first-time participant) (Figure 3.2). The majority of respondents were well-educated; 15 (68%) had Bachelor’s degrees, 97 Age Distribution of Respondents Federal State Tribal Binational s t n e d n o p s e R f o r e b m u N 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Age Range (Years) Figure 3.1. Age distribution of respondents, organized by government level. 98 Time in Current Position and Frequency of Participation Always Very Often Sometimes Rarely Never First Time s t n e d n o p s e R f o r e b m u N 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0-5 6-10 11-15 Time (Years) 16-20 21-25 Figure 3.2. Time spent by respondents in their current position, organized by frequency of participation in committee meetings. 99 and 1 (5%) had a Master’s degree. Of the 16 respondents with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree, 13 (81%) had obtained their degrees in either a criminal justice, natural resource management, or public policy discipline, at minimum. Twenty-one respondents (95%) were male and 1 (5%) was female. Purpose of Committee and Motivations for Participation Respondents demonstrated their understanding of the purpose or goals of the Committee by commenting on the Committee’s function and structure. Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4 show the primary functions and structural elements of the Committee, respectively, as perceived by the respondents. Thirteen respondents (59%) most frequently indicated they are motivated to participate in committee meetings to make connections, network, and build relationships with other committee members. Respondents also indicated they are motivated to participate to share information and elicit expertise from each other (41%); gain better insight across law enforcement entities and programs (23%); and meet, or find opportunities to meet, their training needs (14%). Other respondents were more pragmatic in reflecting on their motivations for participation in committee meetings. For instance, these respondents indicated they participate to simply represent their law enforcement entity (27%); because they were directed by their supervisor(s) to participate (14%); or because there were available resources (e.g., funds) to support their participation (5%). At least 2 respondents (10%) indicated they are motivated to participate because they want to; they enjoy “getting together” with other committee members and find it to be a “beneficial” experience overall. 100 Primary Functions of the Law Enforcement Committee Federal State Tribal Binational 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 s t n e d n o p s e R f o r e b m u N Figure 3.3. Primary functions of the Law Enforcement Committee, as perceived by respondents and organized by government level. 101 Primary Structural Elements of the Law Enforcement Committee Federal State Tribal Binational s t n e d n o p s e R f o r e b m u N 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 3.4. Primary structural elements of the Law Enforcement Committee, as perceived by respondents and organized by government level. 102 Identification of Threats to, or Challenges for, Fisheries Law Enforcement Relying on their expertise and experience, respondents shared their opinions of current threats to, or challenges for, fisheries law enforcement in protecting and conserving Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. I coded the threats or challenges as either biological (e.g., aquatic invasive species [AIS]) or non-biological (e.g., lack of funds). As Figure 3.5, shows there was some overlap between these categories in regard to threats or challenges that have both biological and non-biological components (e.g., pollution). An overwhelming 15 respondents (68%) identified AIS as the primary biological threat to, and challenge for, effective fisheries law enforcement in the Basin. Seven respondents (32%) indicated they believe the Committee is better equipped (i.e., in terms of staff resources) than the law enforcement entities they represent in addressing emerging threats to, and challenges for, fisheries law enforcement in the Basin (Figure 2.2). In addition, respondents highlighted the diverse Committee Membership (36%) and established network (5%) of, and expert knowledge within (14%), the Committee as reasons for why they perceived the Committee to be well-equipped. In contrast, 4 respondents (18%) indicated they did not perceive the Committee to be better equipped than the law enforcement entities they represent in addressing current threats and challenges. These respondents highlighted the Committee’s inability to take regulatory or law enforcement action (e.g., issue sanctions) (23%); broad representation (10%); stagnant growth (i.e., in terms of status, impact, and value) (5%); and informal member representation and structure (5%) as reasons for why they perceived the Committee to be less than well- equipped. An overwhelming 19 respondents (86%) underscored the need for the Committee 103 Figure 3.5. Primary threats to, and challenges for, fisheries law enforcement as perceived by respondents. “Big” problems refer to problems that are large in geographic size and scope (e.g., urbanization). 104 aquatic invasive speciespollutionillegal stockingunregulated commercial harvestcommercialization of fisheries resourcesoverfishingcomplex politicslack of fundinginadequate technologylimited enforcement“big” problemsuncertaintyBiologicalNon-Biological to evolve in the future, especially as it seeks ways to adapt to address emerging threats and challenges. Perceptions of Law Enforcement Committee Effectiveness Respondents (82%) were predominately satisfied with the effectiveness of the Law Enforcement Committee in protecting and conserving Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources (Figure 3.6). Respondents were satisfied with the Committee in remaining transparent and sharing information (14%); fostering the establishment of relationships among committee members (10%); building trust and promoting understanding among law enforcement entities (5%); and elevating its status, impact, and value (5%). However, respondents also voiced their frustration with the Committee, highlighting its inability to take regulatory or law enforcement action (18%) and infrequent meeting schedule (5%) in slowing momentum within the Committee in achieving its mission. Six respondents (27%) indicated there is room for improvement in regard their current level of satisfaction with the Committee’s effectiveness. Respondents shared their understanding of the Committee’s effectiveness in protecting and conserving fish and fish habitat by commenting on the aspects of the Committee they perceive to be the most (Figure 3.7) and least (Figure 3.8) effective. Respondents most frequently highlighted the ability of the Committee to foster cooperation, collaboration, and communication among jurisdictional authorities and entities (45%) to be most effective. In contrast, respondents most frequently highlighted the potential misrepresentation of some authorities and entities (18%) in the Basin—especially if they are not well-represented at 105 Level of Satisfaction with the Law Enforcement Committee's Effectiveness Federal State Tribal Binational s t n e d n o p s e R f o r e b m u N 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Dissatisfied Less than Satisfied Figure 3.6. Level of satisfaction among respondents with the Law Enforcement Committee’s effectiveness, organized by government level. Satisfied/Neutral More than Satisfied Very Satisfied 106 Most Effective Aspects of the Law Enforcement Committee Federal State Tribal Binational s t n e d n o p s e R f o r e b m u N 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 3.7. Most effective aspects of the Law Enforcement Committee, as perceived by respondents and organized by government level. 107 Least Effective Aspects of the Law Enforcement Committee Federal State Tribal Binational s t n e d n o p s e R f o r e b m u N 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 3.8. Least effective aspects of the Law Enforcement Committee, as perceived by respondents and organized by government level. 108 regular committee meetings—to be least effective. An overwhelming 18 respondents (82%) perceived a coordinated or joint approach to be most effective regulatory approach to fisheries law enforcement in the Great Lakes basin. Many respondents recognized that, in the Basin, two or more law enforcement entities are often necessary in addressing shared-border, unlawful fishing activities (32%). Respondents also highlighted the significance of unified approaches to fisheries law enforcement (36%); established relationships and partnerships (36%); diversity (i.e., of knowledge, skills, and experience) within the Committee’s Membership (10%); anonymity, especially while working undercover investigations and operations (5%); and shared control in taking regulatory action and making decisions (5%)—all of which the Committee currently supports—in bolstering the Committee’s effectiveness in protecting and conserving Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Only 1 respondent (5%) blatantly disagreed that a joint approach is the most effective regulatory approach to fisheries law enforcement in the Basin. This respondent, and a few others, indicated that, sometimes, law enforcement entities and their associated personnel are so different (i.e., in their conservation priorities, laws, regulatory training and practices) that it is not always feasible or productive to come together and attempt to jointly enforce fish laws (14%) while, other times, it can just be too difficult to implement a joint approach at all (10%). Impact(s) of the Law Enforcement Committee When questioned about the ways in which the Committee has impacted, either professionally or personally, the members, the 19 respondents (86%) provided positive answers. These respondents shared their praise of the Committee for impacting them by: fostering relationship-building (46%); facilitating mutual learning among different jurisdictional 109 authorities and law enforcement entities (32%); providing educational experiences (e.g., forensic lab tours) (23%); determining new regulatory issues, and those in common, among authorities and entities (18%); offering a broader perspective of regulatory issues (14%); offering critical trainings (10%); expanding their awareness of different cultures, histories, and traditions (5%); and instilling in them a greater sense of value or purpose in the regulatory work they accomplish (5%). Discussion The survey and semi-structured interview responses were representative of 4 government levels (federal, state, tribal, and binational) and 15 of the 16 natural resource management, and their associated law enforcement, entities included in the target sample (Table 3.1). However, these responses were not wholly representative of basin-wide law enforcement, which is inclusive of additional law enforcement entities that have different workload priorities (e.g. U.S. Marshals Service). Nevertheless, the responses were representative of a typical group that would participate during the annual and mid-annual committee meetings. While the Committee’s Membership is generally well-distributed in terms of age and role in fisheries law enforcement, 21 of 22 committee members (95%) who participated in this research study self-identified as male. The underrepresentation of female committee members may be a significant barrier to gathering an accurate portrayal of the full diversity of perspectives regarding fisheries law enforcement effectiveness in the Basin. Purpose of Committee and Motivations for Participation As of March 2017, the average time spent by respondents in their current positions was 110 9 years, and most of the respondents indicated they regularly participate in committee meetings. For example, 20 respondents (91%) indicated they had participated in committee meetings at least once before March 2017, while 2 (10%) identified themselves as first-time meeting participants. As a result of this evidence, I made the assumption that most respondents shared a high level of understanding of the purpose of the Committee and its function and structure. I found that respondents were more easily able to identify the Committee’s function than elaborate on its structure. For example, only 2 respondents (10%) acknowledged the Committee and its connection to, or association with, the Commission. And, only 2 respondents (10%) indicated they were aware of the Committee’s Terms of Reference document, which outlines the Committee’s mission and organizational structure (GLFC n.d.). Without such knowledge, some participants may not understand the Committee’s role in fisheries law enforcement, which could distract from meaningful discussions that, otherwise, would likely take place. In the future, the Committee’s Chair and Vice-Chair may wish to consider implementing a new- member orientation, or setting some time aside at the beginning of each committee meeting, to ensure that participants are aligned in their understanding of the Committee; what it is, what it does, and how it fits into broader Great Lakes fisheries management and policy goals. Respondents shared many reasons for why they are motivated to participate in committee meetings. While some respondents indicated they are motivated to participate because it is expected of them (usually by their supervisors), most respondents indicated they are motivated to participate to build relationships and share or ask other committee members for information that could be helpful to their regulatory efforts. The face-to-face interactions 111 and sub-conversations (which often take place at the social hour), facilitated by the Committee, are especially critical, for they make it easier for committee members to call on, and learn from, each other when regulatory issues arise. For instance, one respondent said: “If I can pick up the phone and call somebody that I’ve had a face-to-face conversation [with]…I don’t care if it’s about their favorite football team, but if I can pick up the phone and call them—it’s that whole rapport-building thing. Hey, we know each other, we trust each other. And, that’s a big thing, especially if you’re working an investigation and you’ve been working [it] three or four years. I have to know that when I pick up the phone and call you, that we’re on the same page. It’s kind of like a gift, coming into this scenario, because it’s instant introductions and then reinforcement, you know, every six months. I’ve picked up the phone and called people in this room because I met them here. And, otherwise, I wouldn’t have known who to call.” Another respondent said: “I’ve been involved in a number of cases where the information or what made or broke the case actually [was shared] outside the meeting; those conversations and those connections [occurred] because the trust has been established.” Each of these respondents identified the act of building trust among multiple jurisdictional authorities and law enforcement entities to be an important factor in coordinating more effectively in the Basin. 112 Identification of Threats to, or Challenges for, Fisheries Law Enforcement Based on the average time spent by respondents in their current position (9 years) and their educational backgrounds, the majority of respondents expressed confidence in identifying biological and non-biological threats to, and challenges for Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement. The majority of respondents indicated AIS as the primary biological threat to native fish populations and fish habitat, and a challenge for, fisheries law enforcement. For example, one respondent said: “The Great Lakes is actually ground zero for invasives coming in—when you look at everything we’re talking about, we’re talking about trying to do stuff to prevent invasives from going out. So, tell me, what proactive [strategies] are [we] doing in the Great Lakes basin so we’re not ground zero? And that, that has not been addressed. That’s hard.” These respondents conceptualized the establishment of AIS in the Basin as an ongoing problem that negatively affects fisheries resources (i.e., increasing competition and predation) and aquatic landscapes (i.e., habitat loss) throughout the Basin. As a result, some respondents argued that AIS is an appropriate threat or challenge best for the committee members to discuss together rather than separately, as individual law enforcement entities. Some respondents also expressed their frustrations with the Committee for taking ample time during committee meetings to address certain threats and challenges that were not perceived as serious as AIS. For instance, one respondent said: “We’re worrying about fish being stocked in ponds and bait buckets and, I’m sorry; that’s [like] giving a speeding ticket to a fast speeder, thinking you’re 113 going to change all the other speeders on the interstate.” Respondents indicated, within their own jurisdictions, fisheries law enforcement entities have to consider the impacts of these threats to fish and fish habitat, and whether or not the impacts warrant a full investment or prioritization of their time and resources. At least 13 respondents (59%) indicated that non-biological threats and challenges (e.g., lack of funds, inadequate technology, uncertainty) often require them to consider tradeoffs in determination of how, and where, they dedicate their time and staff resources. Respondents indicated that the Committee’s diverse membership and knowledge base, established network, educational and training opportunities, and consistent overall growth (i.e., regarding number of members) have helped ensure the Committee is well-equipped with the appropriate leadership staff, resources, and tools to address current, and emerging, threats and challenges. However, at least 5 respondents (23%) acknowledged the Committee’s inability to take actual regulatory action or develop and implement fisheries management or policy decisions as major obstacles to being able to fully address threats to, and challenges for, Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement. One respondent said: “We have a tendency to talk a lot and not take much action. And, this is true in law enforcement across the board, but, I mean, [fisheries] law enforcement in particular. Even as a single officer or single agent, you can sit around and talk about a lot of the problems and potential solutions, but if you don’t get out and go do it, you’re not going to make a difference.” Though the Committee does not currently have the power to take action, jointly, to enforce fishing statutes, rules, and regulations, it can still strategize and identify regulatory 114 initiatives (e.g., education and outreach campaigns) for committee members to bring back to their own jurisdictions and entities for potential implementation. And, through more effective coordination with, and information-sharing between the Committee and the Commission, the Committee could better shine a spotlight on what regulatory changes may be necessary to protect and conserve Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. In support of this, one respondent said: “The potential is there to get a lot of work done with a group like this because, when you have the joint group with three or four states [or more], international partners, federal partners—that gets the attention of legislators and of executives within those governments. That’s where you make the changes.” “That’s the only thing that’s constant in this life…change,” “…and we’re going to have to evolve with it,” said two respondents. As new threats to, and challenges for, Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement emerge, the Committee acknowledges it must be better prepared and more easily able to adapt and flex in its regulatory responses. Commenting on the traditional approach to the regulation of illegal fishing behavior and fish crime, on respondent said: “Traditionally…it’s a reactive approach. Plain and simple. And that’s because, if somebody does something wrong, we deal with the problem, you know?” Nine respondents (41%) identified a need for the Committee to embrace a more proactive approach to fisheries law enforcement in the future for, as another respondent mentioned, “If we’re trying to chase the issues, then we’re always going to be behind.” 115 Perceptions of Law Enforcement Committee Effectiveness Overall, respondents were more satisfied than dissatisfied with the Committee’s effectiveness in protecting and conserving Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Respondents affiliated with state law enforcement entities exhibited the widest range of satisfaction, however this could be attributed to the fact that there was a greater number of state-affiliated respondents than federal-, tribal-, or binational-affiliated respondents. At least 6 respondents (27%) acknowledged the Committee to be imperfect and indicated there is room for improvement regarding its effectiveness. In general, respondents identified more positive aspects rather than negative aspects regarding the Committee’s effectiveness. Respondents perceived the Committee to be most effective in fostering cooperation, collaboration, and communication among jurisdictional authorities and law enforcement entities; sharing information and facilitating the exchange of ideas; bringing people together; and educating and training committee members. Respondents perceived the Committee to be least effective in taking regulatory action; adequately representing the perspectives of all regulatory authorities and entities in the Basin; and offering the right training opportunities and tools necessary to positively impact fish and fish habitat. At least 2 respondents (10%) indicated that the Committee attempts to address too many regulatory issues during their limited meeting time, which can be distracting for, and sometimes irrelevant to, some committee members. For instance, one respondent said: “It’s difficult with a group like this, when you’re interagency and interjurisdictional because it [overharvesting, for example] might be still a problem for this guy over here, but I need to move on. So, you have to be willing to recognize that you have 116 personal issues that you [have] to deal with back home at your office and in your jurisdiction. This group is about prioritizing larger issues in their region.” By focusing the Committee’s meeting topics and on broader, higher-priority issues that, in some way, affect all jurisdictional authorities and law enforcement entities, the Committee’s relevancy and overall effectiveness could be maximized. At least 18 respondents (82%) stated their belief that a joint approach is the most effective type of regulatory approach to deter unlawful fishing activities and ensure compliance among fisheries resource users in the Great Lakes. One respondent likened this type of approach to an ecosystem, in which all entities should function together, as part of one system—similar to how species and habitat types comprise, and function together as, ecosystems. This respondent noted that issues of noncompliance are “ecosystem problems. If you just look at a single agency [entity], you’re not dealing with the whole ecosystem.” Like an ecosystem-based approach has been critical in effective Great Lakes fisheries management, a joint approach, according to the respondents, is also critical in effective Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement (Hartig et al. 1998; McGarrell et al. 2013; Guthrie et al. 2019a; Guthrie et al. 2019b). Specific to the Committee, 20 respondents (91%) perceived the Committee to facilitate a joint approach to fisheries law enforcement in the Basin, while 2 respondents (10%) provided no direct response. This evidence reflects strong support for, and achievement of, the cornerstones of the following two mission statements of the Commission and Committee, respectively: To facilitate successful cross-border cooperation that ensures the two nations [U.S. and Canada] work together to improve and perpetuate this fishery [Great Lakes fishery] 117 (GLFC 2019a); and, to promote cooperation among all Great Lakes law enforcement jurisdictions (GLFC n.d.). Impact(s) of the Law Enforcement Committee Overall, respondents expressed they felt positively impacted by their affiliation with, and participation in, the Committee. As a result of their participation, many of the respondents have established and maintained professional relationships, which have evolved into more personal relationships over time. Additionally, respondents shared how observing mutually- shared regulatory issues with other committee members has helped them build trust and feel more comfortable to share and elicit information. Some respondents expressed that the Committee has encouraged them to broaden their own perspectives, and expand their awareness of, different cultures, histories, and traditions, especially regarding those that govern tribal fisheries law enforcement. This evidence suggests that positive impacts are felt not only by Committee members, but also are brought back to, and shared within, the jurisdictional authorities and law enforcement entities they represent. For example, in response to how the Committee has impacted them, either positively or negatively, one respondent said: “We’re always here so we get the information—we always try, every meeting, we try to take something back and change the way we work.” Thus, due to its sphere of influence, the Committee can have positive, cascading effects on fisheries law enforcement effectiveness throughout the Basin as long as individuals continue to participate in committee meetings. One of the respondents (5%) indicated that being a committee member gives them a 118 “higher feeling of purpose with what we’re trying to accomplish.” Evidence suggests that the Committee is valuable, especially regarding its potential to positively impact Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Respondents had different opinions about whether or not the Commission recognizes the value of the Committee and, thus, coordinates with the Committee, as necessary. Six respondents (27%) responded positively while 12 respondents (55%) responded either negatively or did not know. Though a few respondents indicated they recalled some level of participation among Commission staff (e.g., the Commissioners, Secretariat) at annual and mid-annual committee meetings, other respondents noted that these and similar interactions are rare. Some respondents elaborated to share their perceptions of disjunction among the Commission and Committee groups. Since the Commission’s and Committee’s annual and mid-annual meetings usually take place during the same time of year, at the same venue, perhaps, in the future, both groups could take steps (i.e., plan joint meetings) to increase their engagement with each other. In support of this, at least 2 respondents (10%) shared their interest in taking conscious steps toward more coordination among the fisheries managers, policy-makers, researchers, and fisheries law enforcement officers, stating: “Law enforcement needs the managers more than the managers need law enforcement to do their work. So, it’s on us to reach out to those people and talk to them. It’s on me to reach out to my [researchers], my managers, and say, ‘Hey, I need to know what you’re doing, you need to know what I’m doing, we need to work together.’” “It’s all on the law enforcement [staff] to build those relationships because we 119 need them more than they need us, just to accomplish our work.” Increasing the level of coordination among the Commission and Committee groups could lead to additional opportunities to enhance the Committee’s effectiveness in protecting and conserving Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Conclusion The future will bring new threats to, and challenges for, the regulatory regime charged with enforcing, or ensuring compliance with, statutes, rules, and regulations in place to protect and conserve Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources (Taylor et al. 2019). Jurisdictional borders that separate authorities and entities throughout the Basin will remain and, thus, law enforcement personnel will have to continue to coordinate, collaborate, and communicate to respond effectively to unlawful fishing activities. While the current regulatory regime already includes a Law Enforcement Committee with diverse law enforcement entity representation—capable of influencing basin-wide regulatory actions and decisions—the Committee could be more effective in fulfilling its mission to “promote cooperation” in perpetuation of Great Lakes fisheries (GLFC 2019b). By maintaining strong relationships among committee members; building trust within the Committee; finding opportunities to be more proactive in addressing regulatory issues; focusing on broader, high-level regulatory issues; continuing to facilitate a joint approach to fisheries law enforcement; and encouraging more coordination among fisheries law enforcement and non- fisheries law enforcement groups (e.g., the Commission), the Committee could be even more effective in guiding multiple jurisdictional authorities and law enforcement entities through future changes affecting Great Lakes fisheries, aquatic environments, and fisheries resource 120 user behavior. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge Bob Lambe—Executive Secretary of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission—Jill Wingfield, Kevin Ramsey, Terry Short, Dr. Brenda Koenig, and Bob Stroess for reviewing survey material offering support from the Commission. I would also like to thank the respondents without whom this research study would not exist. I am grateful to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for funding this research study. 121 APPENDICES 122 Appendix A. Information and Consent Form 123 124 Appendix B. Agenda 125 Appendix C. Survey Instrument 126 127 Appendix D. Semi-Structured Interview Questions 128 129 LITERATURE CITED 130 LITERATURE CITED Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry and J. S. Wholey, John Wiley & Sons. Gaden, M. (2007). Bridging jurisdictional divides: Collective action through a Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan: 296. GLFC (2019a). "About." Retrieved August 30, 2020, from http://www.glfc.org/about.php. GLFC (2019b). "Law Enforcement Committee." Retrieved April 25, 2020, from http://www.glfc.org/law-enforcement-committee.php. GLFC (n.d.). Terms of Reference. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: 3. Guthrie, A. G., W. W. Taylor, et al. (2019a). "The role of a multi-jurisdictional organization in developing ecosystem-based management for fisheries in the Great Lakes basin." Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 22(3): 329-341. Guthrie, A. G., W. W. Taylor, et al. (2019b). "Linking water quality and fishery management facilitated the development of ecosystem-based management in the Great Lakes basin." Fisheries 44(6): 288-292. Hartig, J. H., M. A. Zarull, et al. (1998). "An ecosystem approach to Great Lakes management: Practical steps." Journal of Great Lakes Research 24(3): 739-750. Kirshman, H. and N. J. Leonard (2003). Protecting the Fishery through Law Enforcement. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: 8. Likert, R. (1932). "A technique for the measurement of attitudes." Archives of psychology: 5-55. McGarrell, E. F., M. Suttmoeller, et al. (2013). Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 455- 472. Taylor, W. W., M. J. Good, et al. (2019). "The changing face of Great Lakes fisheries." Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 22(3): 355-367. VERBI Software (2019). MAXQDA 2020. Berlin, Germany, VERBI Software. 131 CHAPTER 4: THE PERCEIVED ROLE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN PROTECTING FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESOURCES THROUGHOUT THE GREAT LAKES 132 Abstract Hundreds of federal and non-federal entities and people work across jurisdictional borders to ensure compliance with statutes, rules, and regulations that aim to protect and conserve fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Law enforcement personnel (i.e., officers) represent these entities while also serving as intermediaries or liaisons among fisheries managers, decision-makers, researchers, and the general public (i.e., including fisheries resource users). This chapter examines the perceptions of a subset of fisheries law enforcement officers representing federal, state, and tribal government levels and jurisdictional authorities in the Great Lakes basin. As part of this research study, I surveyed 597 fisheries law enforcement officers from 15 natural resource management and law enforcement entities to document their perceptions of unlawful fishing activities and the resulting environmental impacts; consequences (i.e., punishments or sanctions) for violators; voluntary compliance with fish laws; coordination with other entities; and organizational and individual effectiveness in protecting Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. In general, respondents expressed that they were satisfied with their organizations’, and their individual, effectiveness in protecting fish and fish habitat. Respondents also noted certain aspects of their roles that are likely to reduce overall fisheries law enforcement effectiveness. For example, some respondents indicated they spend a significant percentage of their time on non-fisheries law enforcement activities (i.e., traditional or general policing activities such as littering or traffic control), which precludes them from dedicating their time to addressing ongoing regulatory issues (e.g., commercialization of fisheries resources) that are likely to affect fish and fish habitat. Respondents’ perceptions will provide meaningful insight to law enforcement entities 133 that wish to enhance their regulatory role in the Basin and improve their overall effectiveness. KEYWORDS: fisheries; law enforcement; roles; effectiveness; Great Lakes; survey 134 Introduction Hundreds of federal, non-federal, binational (and even local) government agencies and organizations are involved in ensuring the sustainability of fisheries and aquatic resources in the Great Lakes basin (Basin). Within these entities, law enforcement personnel or officers have specialized roles, duties, and responsibilities to protect, enhance, and conserve these resources (Kirshman and Leonard 2003; Finster 2007; McGarrell et al. 2013). In the Basin, fisheries law enforcement officers are challenged in executing the full extent of their position duties and responsibilities. The uncertainty surrounding the type and level of illegal fishing behavior and fish crimes; reasons that motivate people to violate fish laws; lack of coordination among jurisdictional authorities; disproportion of time dedicated to various law enforcement activities; and limited staff and financial resources could exacerbate these challenges (Eliason 2007; 2011). Additionally, these challenges could limit organizational and individual effectiveness, thereby decreasing the perceived value of, and general morale in, fisheries law enforcement basin-wide (McGarrell et al. 2013). Through the application of traditional criminological theories surround deterrence (Scholz 1984; Paternoster 1987; Furlong 1991; Mendes 2004; Filteau 2013; Gunningham 2017), voluntary compliance (Keane et al. 2008; Apel and Nagin 2011; Wilson and Boratto 2020), trust, and procedural fairness (Tyler 1997; Kuperan and Sutinen 1998; Nielsen and Mathiesen 2000; Skogan and Frydl 2004; Herian et al. 2012), the goal of this research study was to engage with fisheries law enforcement officers to better understand their self-identified roles and perceived effectiveness in protecting and conserving fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. To accomplish this, I surveyed federal, state, and tribal fisheries law enforcement officers working 135 in multiple jurisdictions throughout the Basin. The outcomes of this research study will be informative for natural resource management and their associated law enforcement entities as they continue to make decisions about funding, training, coordination efforts, and staff workloads. Additionally, I am hopeful this study will help bring awareness to the value of fisheries law enforcement as a critical component of the overall fisheries management regime (Ostrom 1990; Keane et al. 2008). Methods Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement involves hundreds of federal and non-federal entities spread across multiple jurisdictions. Each entity has their own vision, mission, regulatory approaches and strategies, and staff composition. Thus, the Basin presents an opportune study area in which to examine and compare the roles and the effectiveness of these entities in protecting and conserving Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Target Sample and Participants The target sample in this study was composed of law enforcement officers from those 16 law enforcement entities with staff representation in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s (Commission’s) Law Enforcement Committee (Committee) (Table 3.1). The participants included individuals who work for these entities. I targeted supervisory, investigative, administrative, and other fisheries law enforcement officers. Please refer to Appendix A. Breakdown of Target Sample and Participants (Table 4.6) for a breakdown of the target sample and participants included in this research study. 136 Research Design I designed a survey with a series of multiple-choice, ranking, and short-answer questions to engage with participants and examine their perceptions regarding their role and effectiveness in identifying illegal fishing behavior and reducing fish crime in the Basin. I designed and hosted the survey electronically in Qualtrics (Qualtrics 2019). The survey method was approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (Study ID 00003854). I worked with the Committee’s Chair and Vice-Chair to identify points-of-contact (POCs) at each entity to obtain their assistance in reviewing and disseminating the survey to the targeted participants. Once we identified the POCs, I e-mailed them to: 1) inform them about the goals of this research study; 2) request their participation; and 3) ask for their assistance in nominating other staff to participate in the survey. In the e-mail, I also included a letter written by the Commission’s Executive Secretary (Appendix B. Letter of Support), in support of this research study. I followed up with the POCs over the phone to clarify the intent of the request and answer questions. While the POCs were generally comfortable with the research design, a few of them did not wish to identify themselves according to the natural resource management and/or law enforcement entity(ies) they represented. I used a detailed information and consent form (Appendix C. Information and Consent Form) to convey the purpose of this research study and remind the participants that their involvement in this data collection would be voluntary and remain anonymous. Beginning in January, and running through September, 2020, the POCs disseminated a link to the survey through e-mail to the participants. Of the 16 POCs, only one (i.e., a supervisory officer) required mandatory participation from the other staff. The rest of the POCs 137 requested voluntary participation from other staff. Respondents provided written consent prior to any data collection. Survey I designed a 42-question survey (Appendix D. Survey Instrument) to obtain information about the participants. I organized the survey questions within five themes regarding participants’: • Demographic information; • Employment status and roles within their respective law enforcement entity(ies); • Beliefs about, and behaviors in, fulfilling their regular law enforcement duties; • Perceptions of the type, level, and significance of unlawful fishing activities occurring throughout the Basin; and, • Perceptions of organizational and individual effectiveness in identifying illegal fishing behavior and reducing fish crime in the Basin. In total, POCs at 15 of the 16 entities with staff representation in the Committee responded positively to my request for their participation (Table 3.1). The POCs disseminated a link to the survey through e-mail to fisheries law enforcement officers representing federal, non-federal, and binational government levels in the Basin. In total, after removing incomplete (i.e., less than 33% complete) and unclassified responses (n = 42), I received 597 unique responses to the survey, for a response rate of 48%. Approximate response rates, organized by government level, are included in Appendix E. Approximate Response Rates (Table 4.7). Response rates did not differ significantly among federal and non-federal respondents, and 138 there were no binational respondents. Staff affiliated with only one natural resource management and law enforcement entity (i.e., Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Enforcement Branch) declined to participate in the survey. Thus, perceptions of fisheries law enforcement officers associated with the provincial government level were not represented in the collected data. Analysis To summarize the survey results, I compiled and evaluated the quantitative data from the multiple-choice and ranking survey questions using descriptive statistics (e.g., count [percentage], mean, mode). I used the computer software package, MAXQDA, to analyze the qualitative data from the ranking and short-answer questions (VERBI Software 2019). Results Five hundred and ninety-seven officers responded to the survey between January 1 and September 30, 2020. Most of the respondents answered all of the survey questions, but some respondents left questions unanswered. One hundred percent of respondents were affiliated with either United States (U.S.) or Canada. Five hundred and thirty-five respondents (94% of the total respondents) identified as White or Caucasian while 35 (6%) identified as either Multi-Racial, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian, or Other (e.g., Asian American). The remaining respondents provided no response. Zero respondents identified as Black or African American, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander. Five hundred and seventy-one respondents (96%) self-affiliated with state (nonfederal) entities and, of these respondents, 339 (59%) self-identified as field officers. 139 Table 4.1includes a breakdown of the number of respondents organized by government level. Table 4.2 includes a breakdown of the number of respondents, organized by their self-identified role in fisheries law enforcement. I presented these roles and general descriptions (Table 3.4) in the survey as options for the participants to select from. Table 4.1. Number of respondents organized by level of government. Federal State Tribal Binational Number 20 571 6 0 Percent 3 96 1 0 Table 4.2. Number of respondents organized by their self-identified role in fisheries law enforcement. Federal Supervisory Staff State Supervisory Staff Number 13 4 2 1 0 130 339 43 4 6 Field Investigative Administrative Other Field Investigative Administrative Other Percent 65 20 10 5 0 25 65 8 1 1 140 Table 4.2 (cont’d). Tribal Supervisory Staff Field Investigative Administrative Other Number 3 3 0 0 0 Percent 50 50 0 0 0 At the time of this research study, 28 respondents (5%) were 18-25 years old; 90 (16%) were 26-30; 92 (16%) were 31-35; 91 (16%) were 36-40; 89 (16%) were 41-45; 104 (18%) were 46-50; 59 (10%) were 51-55; 17 (3%) were 56-60; 2 (0.3%) were 61-65; 2 (0.3%) were over 65; and 23 (4%) did not provide a response (Figure 4.1). The majority of respondents were well-educated; 366 (64%) had Bachelor’s degrees, 26 (5%) had Master’s degrees, and 1 (0.2%) had a Ph.D., law, medical, or other higher-level degree. Of these respondents, 183 (47%) had obtained their degrees in either a criminal justice or natural resource management discipline, at minimum. Of the 547 respondents (95%) who self- indicated their gender, 501 (92%) of the respondents were male, 45 (8%) were female, and 1 (0.2%) was gender variant/non-conforming. Roles, Activities, and Duties Based on their expertise and experience, respondents identified their perceptions of the primary roles of Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement officers, summarized in Table 4.3. I grouped their responses into categories, organized by government level, and listed by those roles most frequently mentioned to those least frequently mentioned. Respondents broadly identified their perceptions of the type of fisheries law 141 Age Distribution of Respondents Federal State Tribal s t n e d n o p s e R f o r e b m u N 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 18-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Over 65 Age Range (Years) Figure 4.1. Age distribution of respondents, organized by government level. 142 Table 4.3. Primary roles of fisheries law enforcement officers in the Great Lakes basin, as perceived by respondents. Level of Government Federal State Primary Roles Protect, enhance, and conserve fisheries resources, habitats, and the environment* Investigate and/or prosecute illegal fishing activities Educate the general public* Identify and enforce fish laws* Ensure fishing opportunities for future generations Conduct non-fisheries and wildlife law enforcement Maintain safety of the general public* Oversee regulation of fish harvest Patrol, monitor, and follow-up on illegal fishing activities Support fisheries management Identify and enforce fish laws Protect, enhance, and conserve fisheries resources, habitats, and the environment Educate the general public Ensure fishing opportunities for future generations Oversee regulation of fish harvest Maintain safety of the general public Patrol, monitor, and follow-up on illegal fishing activities Investigate and/or prosecute illegal fishing activities Support fisheries management Build and enhance community relationships Encourage use of fisheries resources at sustainable levels Ensure fairness in fishing opportunities among fisheries resource users Advise on key issues and emerging threats to fisheries resources, habitats, and the environment Serve and respond to the general public Assist in creation of new laws and policies Complete routine administrative tasks Reduce conflict among fisheries resource users Train other fisheries law enforcement officers Tribal Protect, enhance, and conserve fisheries resources, habitats, and the environment 143 Table 4.3 (cont’d). Level of Government Primary Roles Identify and enforce fish laws Educate the general public Maintain safety of the general public Asterisk indicates those primary activities that are were perceived by respondents to be commonly shared by fisheries law enforcement officers. enforcement activities in which they primarily engage. I presented a list of typical regulatory activities in the survey as options for the participants to select from. Respondents affiliated with state entities most frequently indicated they enforce statutes, rules, and regulations that govern sport or recreational fishing. Respondents affiliated with federal entities most frequently indicated they enforce boating and general recreation (e.g., transportation, swimming) laws. Both state and federal respondents least frequently indicated they enforce tribal fishing (i.e., tribal commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing) laws. Respondents affiliated with tribal entities most frequently indicated they enforce tribal fishing in the Basin. Overall, respondents indicated other regulatory activities in which they engage, including, but not limited to monitoring and, as necessary, investigating: the spread of aquatic invasive species; the commercialization of fisheries resources; charter fishing operations; habitat degradation (e.g., littering); and other environmental crimes (e.g., contamination and pollution). Respondents also identified their perceptions of their own primary duties, related to their current positions. I presented a list of typical regulatory duties in the survey as options for the participants to select from. Overall, respondents most frequently indicated they perceive their primary duties to align closest with enforcing laws; investigating violations; patrolling and 144 monitoring assigned areas; collecting and documenting evidence; writing incident reports; and, potentially, testifying in court. Respondents also indicated, though less frequently, they perceive a duty to coordinate with fisheries managers and researchers, and other law enforcement entities in their own, and among other, jurisdictions. Uniquely, respondents affiliated with tribal entities perceived to have a primary duty in educating or developing outreach efforts to inform fisheries resource users. Overall, respondents indicated other primary duties they perceive to have, including, but not limited to: conducting surveillance; conducting search and rescue missions; coordinating with legislators, prosecutors, and judges; reviewing permits; supervising officers; conducting non-fisheries law enforcement; training officers; and general administrative tasks. Perceptions of Fish Crimes and Impacts Respondents identified many illegal fishing behaviors they encounter on a regular basis within their jurisdictions. Commonly-reported behaviors included fishing without a license or permit; overharvesting; fishing during closed times or seasons; fishing in closed or restricted areas; fishing with illegal or damaged gear, or by illegal method (e.g., snagging); false reporting (e.g., underreporting harvest, harvesting or possessing undersized fishes); habitat destruction (e.g., pollution, disturbance); issues regarding boat safety and operations, and more. The majority of respondents indicated they do not perceive all illegal fishing behaviors to negatively impact fisheries and aquatic resources in their jurisdictions. Two hundred respondents (35%) indicated the contrary and 45 (8%) were uncertain. Respondents affiliated with federal and tribal entities expressed more uncertainty about whether or such behaviors negatively impact fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Overall, respondents most 145 frequently identified overharvesting or exploitation (i.e., harvesting at an unsustainable rate) as the behavior they perceive to have the greatest negative impact(s) on Great Lakes fish populations and fish habitat. Related to overharvesting, and in general, there was no significant difference among respondents’ perceptions of whether or not commercial versus recreational fishing violations result in greater negative impacts on fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources (X2 [2, N = 580] = 5.926, p = 0.0517). Perceptions of Consequences, and Ensuring Compliance While respondents acknowledged the occurrence of unlawful fishing activities in, and among, their jurisdictions, the majority of respondents most frequently indicated they perceive commercial anglers (335; 56%) and recreational anglers (512; 86%) to comply with fish statutes, rules, and regulations most of the time (Figure 4.2). However, respondents’ perceived levels of compliance among anglers differed significantly overall, as respondents perceived there to be less compliance among commercial anglers versus recreational anglers (X2 [2, N = 1089] = 9 2.162, p < 0.00001). In cases in which anglers fail to comply, 299 respondents (51%) indicated they perceive the severity of consequences or sanctions issued to fit (i.e., match or align with) the severity of the crime(s), most of the time. Two hundred and sixty-one (44%) expressed more skepticism, indicating they either do not often perceive the severity of sanctions to fit the severity of the crime(s) or do not know (9; 2%). Of those respondents who were skeptic, 196 (75%) perceived the severity of sanctions to be generally less severe than the severity of the crime. Respondents selected the regulatory approach they primarily use in their current positions. I presented a list of traditional regulatory approaches (Table 4.4) to law enforcement 146 Frequency of Compliance Among Anglers Commercial Anglers Recreational Anglers s t n e d n o p s e R f o r e b m u N 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Never Sometimes About Half the Time Most of the Time Always Frequency of Compliance Figure 4.2. Frequency of compliance among Great Lakes commercial and recreational anglers, perceived by respondents. 147 Table 4.4. Traditional regulatory approaches presented in the survey. Role Crime Control Approach Fairness or ‘Due Process’ Approach Education Approach Definition You prioritize the distribution of quick and appropriate sanctions or punishments to stop unlawful behavior and deter or prevent natural resource users from behaving unlawfully in the future. You prioritize fairness and equality in your interactions with natural resource users who behave unlawfully; rather than quickly distribute a sanction or punishment, you are more likely to listen to, and take into consideration, the natural resource users’ rationale behind their unlawful behavior before deciding upon a punishment. You prioritize the use of educational strategies and outreach to inform natural resource users to behave unlawfully about the negative consequences of their actions and deter them from behaving unlawfully in the future. in the survey as options for the participants to select from. Overall, 324 respondents (55%) most frequently indicated they primarily use a combination of two or more of these approaches. Respondents affiliated with state and tribal entities emphasized their use of the “Fairness or ‘Due Process’ Approach” over other approaches. Respondents affiliated with federal entities emphasized their use of the “Crime Control Approach” and “Fairness or ‘Due Process’ Approach.” Coordination In, and Among, Jurisdictions Among the stakeholders9 in the Basin, respondents indicated which stakeholder group they perceive to have the most positive, long-term impact(s) on fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Respondents affiliated with federal, state, and tribal entities most 9For the purposes of this dissertation, stakeholders are those individuals who have vested interests in the health and sustainability of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources in the Great Lakes basin. 148 frequently identified fisheries resource users (e.g., anglers) (199; 34%), researchers (179; 30%), and law enforcement (121; 21%) as the stakeholder groups they perceive to have the most positive impact(s). Interestingly, respondents less frequently identified educators and outreach staff, legislators, and managers as having the same level of impact. To gain an improved understanding of the type, and level of, coordination regarding regulatory efforts already occurring among stakeholder groups in the Basin, respondents offered their perceptions regarding ongoing coordination, or lack thereof, among fisheries law enforcement and fisheries researcher stakeholder groups. Results showed mixed responses regarding whether or not the entity with which respondents affiliate coordinates regularly with fisheries researchers. Overall, while 272 respondents (46%) indicated that regular coordination is occurring, there was no significant difference reported among those responses, contrasting responses, and those responses expressing uncertainty (X2 [4, N = 586] =2.503, p = 0.6442). Of those respondents who expressed that regular coordination is occurring, they most often indicated that such coordination occurs biannually, monthly, and weekly. Table 4.5 includes some of the typical ways in which respondents indicated they coordinate among stakeholder groups in the Basin. While some respondents suggested coordination can occur more regularly (daily), they also suggested it occurs less regularly (annually), or as needed. Table 4.5. Typical ways in which respondents coordinate in the Great Lakes basin. Level of Government Methods of Coordination Federal E-mail In-person formal and informal communications* Meetings* Phone calls On-site inspections 149 Table 4.5 (cont’d). Level of Government Methods of Coordination Assemblies for special case studies and projects State Tribal Briefings and reports E-Mail In-person formal and informal communications* Joint research and investigative efforts Meetings* Phone calls Trainings Briefings and reports In-person formal and informal communications* Meetings* Trainings Asterisk indicates those ways of coordinating that were perceived to be commonly shared by federal, state, and tribal respondents. Organizational and Individual Effectiveness Four hundred and ninety respondents (85%) perceived the entities they represent to be moderately or very effective in identifying illegal fishing behavior and reducing fish crime in their jurisdictions. However, four hundred and forty-two respondents (77%) indicated they could be more effective. Ninety-five respondents (16%) also expressed uncertainty about whether or not the entities with which they affiliate, given direction about how to do so, could be more effective. At least 524 of the respondents (91%) indicated they felt either moderately supported or more than moderately supported by their entities to make necessary improvements to organizational effectiveness in the future. An overwhelming 491 survey respondents (85%) perceived themselves, as individuals, to be moderately or very effective in identifying illegal fishing behavior and reducing fish crime in their jurisdictions. Only a small subset of respondents (9, 2%), which solely included state 150 fisheries law enforcement officers, perceived themselves to be extremely effective. Discussion While not wholly representative of basin-wide law enforcement, the survey responses were representative of 3 government levels (federal, state, and tribal) and 15 of the 16 natural resource management, and their associated law enforcement, entities included in the target sample (Table 3.1). The number of respondents affiliated with state entities significantly outnumbered the respondents affiliated with federal and tribal entities (Appendix E. Approximate Response Rates, Table 4.7). However, this was expected, as the number of individuals with dedicated fisheries law enforcement duties and responsibilities differ per governmental level. While the survey respondents were well-distributed in terms of age, 476 respondents (80%) identified as White or Caucasian males. The underrepresentation of females and other ethnic origins and indicates a major lack of diversity in those perceptions— representative of all values and interests—included in this research study and related to regulatory approaches to fisheries law enforcement in the Great Lakes. Roles, Activities, and Duties Across 3 government levels and 15 jurisdictions, respondents expressed their perceptions of the primary roles of Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement officers, which included the 3 following components, the: • Identification and enforcement of fish laws; • Protection (i.e., “to protect a resource that cannot protect itself,”), enhancement, and conservation of fisheries resources, habitats, and the aquatic environment; and, 151 • Education of the general public, which includes fisheries resource users. Respondents indicated they fulfill these roles by serving in supervisory and staff positions; working in field, investigative, administrative, and other capacities; and participating in certain law enforcement activities within their jurisdictions. While respondents affiliated with federal, state, and tribal entities indicated they shared some of these activities in common (Table 4.3), evidence suggests that the scale and frequency at which these activities are typically carried out differ according to government level. State respondents expressed the highest level of participation in the most diverse range of law enforcement activities, targeted or focused most closely on protecting fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. In contrast, federal and tribal respondents were both fewer in number and more limited in their participation in law enforcement activities. For instance, federal respondents indicated they participate in a broader set of law enforcement activities, related not only to fisheries resources but also boating operations, trade and transport, marine mammals, special case studies and investigations, and general public safety. Tribal respondents indicated they participate in a narrower set of law enforcement activities, focused primarily on tribal commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing. Additionally, evidence suggests that all respondents spend a significant percentage of their time conducing non-fisheries law enforcement activities, which precludes respondents and other officers from dedicating their time to protecting fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. This outcome aligns well with results obtained through other research studies that have examined natural resource law enforcement (Eliason 2007). Respondents further identified themselves by their position titles. The word cloud 152 (Figure 4.3) illustrates the range of position titles held by the respondents. At the time of this research study, 266 respondents (45%) had spent 0-5 years in their current positions. Three hundred and fourteen respondents (53%) expressed they felt extremely satisfied in their current positions. Perceptions of Fish Crimes and Impacts Survey respondents confirmed that illegal fishing behavior and fish crimes are prevalent throughout the Great Lakes, however they also expressed uncertainty regarding how much crime is occurring and the magnitude of the resulting negative impacts on fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. As of September 2020, respondents affiliated with federal, state, and tribal entities came to a consensus that commercial overharvest, especially in tribal commercial fisheries, is potentially the most environmentally-damaging and -destructive fish crime occurring throughout the Basin. For instance, one respondent said: “The amount of illegal commercial harvest from the Great Lakes is more than anyone can quantify.” However, the illegal harvest itself, and associated impacts, remain difficult, if not impossible to quantify. Quantifying the level of unlawful fishing activities has been a challenge in other fisheries, too, for it is time-consuming, expensive, and can be resource intensive or destructive (Randall 2004; Gavin et al. 2010; Donlan et al. 2020). Nevertheless, the uncertainty surrounding the true amount of illegal harvest presents a major roadblock to ensuring sustainable fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources in the Basin. Some respondents agreed that overharvesting in, or other criminal behavior related to, 153 Figure 4.3. Range of position titles held by respondents. 154 recreational or sport fisheries (e.g., false reporting) are also likely to lead to long-term, negative impacts on Great Lakes fish and fish habitat. On a case-by-case basis, the magnitude of impacts resulting from a recreational fishing violation may be less in comparison to that resulting from a commercial fishing violation. However, the build-up of these recreational fishing violations over time, which are perceived to occur on a more frequent basis than others, could equate to or even exceed the magnitude of such impacts resulting from commercial overharvest and other commercial fishing violations. Still, estimates of how much crime is occurring and the severity of impacts remains unknown. Perceptions of Consequences, and Ensuring Compliance Respondents most frequently perceived commercial and recreational anglers to comply with fish statutes, rules, and regulations most of the time in the Basin. However, respondents also reported spending a significant percentage of their time identifying and taking law enforcement action—often involving the issuance of sanctions—in response to fish crimes (e.g., fishing during closed times or seasons). While the majority of respondents perceived the severity of these sanctions to fit the severity of the crime, some respondents perceived the severity of sanctions to be less severe than the severity of the crime. Further, respondents noted that they perceive consequences for fish crimes to be uncertain, inconsistently issued, and, in a court of law, they can be potentially delayed in their issuance or negotiated down by effective prosecutors. Following the deterrence theory of punishment, violators may choose not to comply with fish laws if the certainty, severity, and celerity (i.e., swiftness) of punishment do not exceed the perceived benefits of the crime (Hobbes 1651; Bentham 1781; Chambliss and Seidman 1971; Tyler 1997; Mendes 2004; Beccaria 2016; n.d.). As a result, there 155 exists opportunity for violators to avoid consequences entirely or, almost worse, choose to accept consequences if the personal gains outweigh the losses. According to two respondents, for some violators, engaging in illegal fishing activities and behaviors is often “worth the risk of getting caught,” and, more than that, it is part of the “cost of doing business.” Anticipating the risks violators are willing to take may become easier through improved understanding of their motivations to commit fish crimes. For instance, respondents most frequently perceived violators to be motivated by whether or not they identify an opportunity to get away with a crime without incurring any or too many personal losses. In addition to the motivations exhibited in Figure 4.4, respondents cited other possible motivations to commit crimes as a potential result of: cultural beliefs and traditions (e.g., interest in gathering food); poor ethics and values; costly license and permit fees; interest in avoiding further injury or death of the resource; and/or a genuine need to break the law (i.e., perhaps due to homelessness); and learned behavior. With an improved understanding of the motivations behind why violators engage in unlawful fishing activities, Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement entities could modify or tailor their approaches to more effectively enforce, and ensure compliance with, fish statutes, rules, and regulations (Tyler 1990; Eliason 2010). For example, if fisheries law enforcement officers encounter a violator and, after inquiring, understand the violator to be unaware of the law or regulation (e.g., daily limit), then the officer might choose to handle the situation using an “Education or Outreach Approach,” offering a warning and educating the violator rather than issuing a more severe sanction (e.g., citation or fine). Given the range of fish crimes occurring in the Great Lakes, fisheries law enforcement officers should be trained and prepared to use a 156 s t n e d n o p s e R f o r e b m u N 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 They do not care about the law or Motivations for Why Violators Commit Fish Crimes Federal State Tribal Lack of For pride and To make money For fun, for the They see an Other boasting privileges thrill opportunity and might get away with it knowledge; they the potential do not know consequences of that their their unlawful behavior might behavior be unlawful Figure 4.4. Motivations for why violators commit fish crimes, as perceived by respondents. 157 combination of approaches (Table 4.4) depending on the violators they encounter and the violators’ motivations. Coordination In, and Among, Jurisdictions Respondents emphasized the potential of fisheries law enforcement entities— coordinating with other organizations and individuals—to positively impact fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resource sustainability in the Great Lakes. For instance, respondents affiliated with federal, state, and tribal entities noted the unique capacities in which they function as part of natural resource management entities, which include: working with fisheries researchers to identify the need for, develop, and implement fish laws; and, serving the general public by sharing information, educating others, and enforcing fish laws. With more regular, effective coordination, fisheries law enforcement officers can help ensure that statutes, rules, and regulations are clearly written, yet remain enforceable. They may also be able to better monitor the unlawful fishing activities occurring in, and among, their jurisdictions. Overall, respondents indicated they regularly—at the most, daily, and at the least, biannually—coordinate with other fisheries law enforcement entities and fisheries researchers. Interestingly, 89 respondents (33%) shared that they did not know how regular such coordination occurs throughout Great Lakes in a given year. A subset of respondents affiliated with state entities who expressed this uncertainty indicated that they believe coordination, if it occurs at all, does so at a higher grade or pay-level and involves only supervisory officers . If this is the case, then fisheries law enforcement entities should consider involving their staff more in regular coordination efforts or, at least, improving internal information-sharing processes (e.g., circulation of briefings or memos) with the goal of clarifying expectations and keeping staff 158 appraised of the status of regulatory activities. Ten survey respondents (2%) clarified they perceive a combination of stakeholder groups, coordinating and working together, to have the potential to make the most positive, long-term impact on Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. For instance, respondents emphasized the need for improved coordination among law enforcement entities, officers, and prosecutors, judges, and court staff. They perceived this coordination could lead to a better understanding of the negative environmental impacts resulting from unlawful fishing activities and, consequently, the development of stricter, or more severe, sanctions for violators. Organizational and Individual Effectiveness Overall, survey respondents perceived themselves and the law enforcement entities with which they affiliate to be effective in reducing illegal fishing activities and behaviors in the Great Lakes. Seventy-seven survey respondents (13%) perceived themselves to be less than moderately effective, indicating there to be room for improvement in increasing effectiveness of fisheries law enforcement officers in identifying, enforcing, and deterring fish crimes in, and among, their jurisdictions. Federal, state, and tribal survey respondents exhibited the same patterns in their perceptions of individual versus organizational effectiveness regarding fisheries law enforcement. For example, the majority of survey respondents (302; 52%) also perceived the law enforcement entity with which they affiliate, as an organization, to be moderately effective in reducing illegal fishing activities and behaviors throughout its jurisdiction—with room for improvement. More than modifying the severity and distribution of consequences or punishments, 159 survey respondents most frequency indicated that fisheries law enforcement officers should consider increasing and enhancing coordination efforts (402; 30%) and improving educational and outreach tactics (251; 19%)—aimed to inform the general public about the potential negative impacts of illegal fishing activities and behaviors—as strategies to increase individual effectiveness. Federal, state, and tribal respondents indicated other strategies, ranging from increasing the percentage of time spent on, and dedicated to, fisheries law enforcement activities to organizing and more community policing efforts within communities, that may also lead to increased individual effectiveness (Eliason 2007; 2011). Survey respondents most frequently indicated that law enforcement entities should consider increasing the abundance and presence of fisheries law enforcement officers (i.e., boots on the ground) (426; 30%) and strategizing improved officer coverage in, and among, jurisdictions (359; 25%) spanning the Basin as ways to increase organizational effectiveness. Interestingly, federal, state, and tribal respondents also emphasized the importance of recruitment in building a law enforcement staff group that possesses personal knowledge of, and expertise in using, natural resources in addition to passion and enthusiasm for ensuring protection for fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources in the Great Lakes. Respondents perceived law enforcement officers who exemplify this personal connection to the resource to be more effective in carrying out their law enforcement duties and responsibilities than those who do not. As of September 2020, 97% and 94% of federal, state, and tribal respondents indicated they personally fish or hunt—either recreationally, commercially, or for sustenance--, respectively. This evidence indicates that the current fisheries law enforcement regime in the Great Lakes is staffed with people who have a vested interested in ensuring the sustainability of 160 fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Conclusion Fisheries law enforcement officers serve critical roles in field, investigative, administrative, and other capacities and execute a diverse range of duties and responsibilities throughout the Great Lakes. They are enforcers of law, protectors of fish and habitats, and educators. They serve as intermediaries among other law enforcement entities, researchers, managers, legislators, judges and prosecutors, and the general public with the common goal of ensuring the sustainability of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources for future generations to use and enjoy. Further, fisheries law enforcement officers possess essential knowledge and experience, which can be used to improve law enforcement entities’ understanding of fish crimes, the motivations behind violators of fish laws, and best-fit consequences or punishments for these violators. Without the dedicated efforts of fisheries law enforcement officers, the future health and well-being of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources basin-wide are at stake. Currently, while some officers are satisfied in their work and perceive themselves to be effective in achieving the vision and mission of the law enforcement entities they represent, others consider themselves to be merely a “patch in a gaping wound.” Thus, more needs to be done, at both individual and organizational levels, to raise the profile of, and provide more support for, fisheries law enforcement and the critical role it serves not only in conserving fisheries resources, but also protecting and establishing trust with resource users (Riley et al. 2018). Of all the strategies this chapter outlines to increase fisheries law enforcement effectiveness, natural resource management and law enforcement entities should prioritize a 161 reevaluation of their assigned duties and responsibilities, ensuring that staff have the time, space, and flexibility to focus and dedicate their energies on identifying and enforcing illegal fishing activities and behaviors versus general policing activities. Such a reevaluation would confirm the high value these law enforcement officers carry in protecting Great Lakes fisheries and habitat. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge Bob Lambe—Executive Secretary of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission—Dan Eichinger, Chief Gary Hagler, Kevin Ramsey, Terry Short, Dr. Brenda Koenig, Bob Stroess, and Charlie Wooley for championing this survey effort through their respective agencies. I would also like to thank the respondents without whom this research study would not exist. I am grateful to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for funding this research study. 162 APPENDICES 163 Appendix A. Breakdown of Target Sample and Participants Table 4.6. Breakdown of target sample and participants. Level of Government Law Enforcement Entity Natural Resource Management Entity Jurisdiction Description of Participants Federal Office of Law Enforcement NOAA Fisheries District 1 (New England/Mid- Atlantic) Law enforcement officers identified by chief and supervisory points-of-contact Approximate Number of Officers Who Received Survey 3 Enforcement Branch U.S. Coast Guard Office of Law Enforcement U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation and Protection Fisheries and Oceans Canada 9th District, Great Lakes (Atlantic Area) Midwest Region (3) Central and Arctic Region Non-Federal Office of Law Enforcement State of Illinois All Boarding Officers working in and near the Great Lakes basin 366* Law enforcement officers identified by chief and supervisory points-of-contact Law enforcement officers working throughout Ontario, Canada; identified by chief and supervisory points-of-contact 3 7 All Conservation Police Officers statewide 125 Illinois Department of Natural Resources Division of Law Enforcement Indiana Department of Natural Resources Investigation Section District 1 District 10 All Conservation Officers and supervisors working in and near the Great Lakes basin 41 164 Table 4.6 (cont’d). Level of Government Law Enforcement Entity Natural Resource Management Entity Jurisdiction Description of Participants Approximate Number of Officers Who Received Survey 232 Law Enforcement Division Michigan Department of Natural Resources† Enforcement Division Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Law Enforcement New York Department of Environmental Conservation Office of Law Enforcement Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Bureau of Law Enforcement Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Enforcement Branch Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry§ State of Michigan All Field Officers and supervisors statewide State of Minnesota All Peace Officers statewide 190 State of New York All Environmental Conservation Police Officers statewide 310 State of Ohio All law enforcement officers statewide State of Pennsylvania All Waterways Conservation Officers statewide State of Wisconsin Conservation Wardens working in and near the Great Lakes basin 134 70 89‡ Lakes, trails, and backroads of Ontario Not applicable Not applicable 165 Table 4.6 (cont’d). Level of Government Law Enforcement Entity Natural Resource Management Entity Jurisdiction Description of Participants Treaty-ceded waters in the State of Michigan Tribal Conservation Officers working in and near the Great Lakes basin; identified by chief and supervisory points-of- contact Approximate Number of Officers Who Received Survey 10 Law Enforcement Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority Bay Mills Indian Community Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians Chippewa Indians Law Enforcement Division Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Bad River Band Bay Mills Indian Community Fond du Lac Band Keweenaw Bay Indian Community La Courte Oreilles Band Lac du Flambeau Band Treaty-ceded waters in the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin 20 Tribal Conservation Officers working in and near the Great Lakes basin; identified by chief and supervisory points-of- contact 166 Table 4.6 (cont’d). Level of Government Law Enforcement Entity Natural Resource Management Entity Jurisdiction Description of Participants Approximate Number of Officers Who Received Survey Binational Lac Vieux Desert Band Mille Lacs Band Red Cliff Band Sokaogon Mole Lake Band St. Croix Band Law Enforcement Committee Great Lakes Fishery Commission Great Lakes basin Law Enforcement Specialist Liaison 1 Asterisk indicates those 366 Boarding Officers who received the electronic link to the survey; only a subset of these officers (i.e., approximately 20 individuals) were expected to participate due to their limited capacity in working in and near the Great Lakes basin. † indicates the entity that required mandatory, statewide participation in the survey. ‡ indicates the number of Conservation Wardens surveyed (= 39% of all wardens statewide) § indicates the entity that did not participate in the survey. 167 Appendix B. Letter of Support 168 169 Appendix C. Information and Consent Form 170 171 172 Appendix D. Survey Instrument 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 Appendix E. Approximate Response Rates Table 4.7. Approximate response rates for the survey. Level of Government Number of Federal Non-Federal State Tribal Provincial Binational Respondents (Expected) 33 1,221 1,201 20 0 1* Number of Respondents (Actual) 20 Approximate Response Rate (Percent) 61 577 571 6 0 0 47 48 30 0 0 Asterisk indicates a participant who could be affiliated with multiple government levels and, thus, likely chose to affiliate with a different government level (e.g., state versus binational) upon completion of the survey. 185 LITERATURE CITED 186 LITERATURE CITED Apel, R. and D. S. Nagin (2011). "General deterrence: A review of recent evidence." Crime and Public Policy 4: 411-436. Beccaria, C. (2016). On Crimes and Punishments, Transaction Publishers. Bentham, J. (1781). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought. Chambliss, W. J. and R. B. Seidman (1971). Law, Order, and Power. Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley. Donlan, C. J., C. Wilcox, et al. (2020). "Estimating illegal fishing from enforcement officers." Scientific Reports 10(1): 1-9. Eilason, S. L. (2011). "Policing natural resources: Issues in a conservation law enforcement agency." Professional Issues in Criminal Justice 6(3 and 4): 43-58. Eliason, S. L. (2007). "From wildlife specialist to police generalist? The scope of non-wildlife violations encountered by conservation officers." Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice 4(2): 120-132. Eliason, S. L. (2010). "Accounts of wildlife law violators: Motivations and rationalizations." Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal 9(2): 119-131. Filteau, M. R. (2013). "Deterring defiance: 'Don’t give a poacher a reason to poach'." International Journal of Rural Criminology 1(2): 236-255. Finster, J. L. (2007). Investigating injurious species introductions as environmental crimes. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University: 78. Furlong, W. J. (1991). "The deterrent effect of regulatory enforcement in the fishery." Land Economics 67(1): 116-129. Gavin, M. C., J. N. Solomon, et al. (2010). "Measuring and monitoring illegal use of natural resources." Conservation Biology 24(1): 89-100. Gunningham, N. (2017). Compliance, deterrence and beyond. Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law. Cheltenham, United Kingdom, Edward Elgar Publishing: 63-73. 187 Herian, M. N., J. A. Hamm, et al. (2012). "Public participation, procedural fairness, and evaluation of local governance: The moderating role of uncertainty." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(4): 815-840. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civil. London, England, Simon and Schuster. Hobbes, T. (n.d.). "Deterrence theory." Criminology 41(1): 99-130. Keane, A., J. P. G. Jones, et al. (2008). "The sleeping policeman: Understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation." Animal Conservation 11(2): 75-82. Kirshman, H. and N. J. Leonard (2003). Protecting the Fishery through Law Enforcement. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: 8. Kuperan, K. and J. G. Sutinen (1998). "Blue water crime: deterrence, legitimacy, and compliance in fisheries." Law and Society Review: 309-338. McGarrell, E. F., M. Suttmoeller, et al. (2013). Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 455- 472. Mendes, S. M. (2004). "Certainty, severity, and their relative deterrent effects: Questioning the implications of the role of risk in criminal deterrence policy." Policy Studies Journal 32(1): 59-74. Nielsen, J. R. and C. Mathiesen (2000). "Important factors influencing rule compliance in fisheries lessons from Denmark." Marine Policy 27(5): 409-416. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press. Paternoster, R. (1987). "The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues." Justice Quarterly (2): 173-218. Qualtrics (2019). Michigan State University Qualtrics. Provo, Utah. Randall, J. K. (2004). "Improving compliance in U.S. federal fisheries: An enforcement agency perspective." Ocean Development and International Law 35(4): 287-317. Riley, S. J., J. K. Ford, et al. (2018). "Stakeholder trust in a state wildlife agency." The Journal of Wildlife Management 82(7): 1528-1535. 188 Scholz, J. T. (1984). "Cooperation, deterrence, and the ecology of regulatory enforcement." Law and Society Review: 179-224. Skogan, W. G. and K. Frydl (2004). Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University. Tyler, T. R. (1997). "Procedural fairness and compliance with the law." Revue Suisse D Economie Politique et de Statistique 133: 219-240. VERBI Software (2019). MAXQDA 2020. Berlin, Germany, VERBI Software. Wilson, L. and R. Boratto (2020). "Conservation, wildlife crime, and tough-on-crime policies: Lessons from the criminological literature." Biological Conservation 251: 108810. 189 SYNTHESIS 190 Along with good governance and multi-jurisdictional management, law enforcement is a critical component of basin-wide efforts to protect and conserve fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources in the Great Lakes basin (Basin). However, the role and effectiveness of law enforcement in ensuring the sustainable use of these resources is poorly understood, overlooked, and undervalued. Further, there is uncertainty surrounding the type and level of illegal fishing behavior and fish crime occurring in the Basin, thereby making it challenging for fisheries law enforcement entities and individuals to ascertain the full scope of resulting negative impacts on fish and fish habitat. As key ecological and anthropogenic issues have, and will continue, to threaten the resilience of these resources in times of change, the onus is on fisheries law enforcement to take necessary steps to enhance their organization and individual effectiveness, even with limited staff resources and financial support (Thomas et al. 1999). Law enforcement is a critical component of Great Lakes fisheries management and conservation Law enforcement describes those entities and individuals that have authority, and are responsible, for enforcing or obtaining compliance with the law. In the context of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources, fisheries law enforcement includes those entities and individuals that administer law enforcement-related processes and activities (Introduction, “Law Enforcement, Defined”) (Andrews 1909; Keane et al. 2008). In the Great Lakes, federal, non- federal, and binational governing and managing natural resource entities (e.g., Michigan Department of Natural Resources), along with associated regulatory entities (e.g., Law Enforcement Division), carry out their duties and responsibilities within, and among, various jurisdictional authorities (Piper 1967; Bogue 2001; Kirshman and Leonard 2003; Gaden 2007). 191 Law enforcement officers (i.e., boots on the ground) serve as intermediaries between fisheries managers, decision-makers, researchers, and resource users. Fisheries law enforcement is overlooked and undervalued Prior research indicates that law enforcement is overlooked and undervalued in the fisheries and aquatic ecosystem context (McGarrell et al. 2013). Further evidence collected during this research study supports this finding. For instance, fisheries law enforcement officers working in the Basin reported that they are often assigned non-fisheries law enforcement duties and responsibilities, which prevent them from dedicating their time to, or prioritizing, the enforcement of fish laws (Eliason 2007). Officers also shared their frustrations regarding their compensation, expressing they believe to be generally underpaid and under-supported (e.g., offered fewer and fewer opportunities for overtime work/pay) in comparison to traditional or general police officers (Walsh and Donovan 1984; Eliason 2006; 2011). Lastly, officers indicated that, as a result, they generally perceive morale within their agencies to be low. These factors not only make it difficult for law enforcement officers to continue to hone their fish law expertise, but also degrade the value of basin-wide fisheries law enforcement efforts over time. Currently, commercial overharvest is likely the most negatively impactful fish crime A survey of law enforcement officers representing multiple government levels and jurisdictional authorities in the Great Lakes confirmed that illegal fishing behavior and fish crime—ranging from fishing with illegal or damaged gear, or by illegal method, to habitat destruction—are occurring basin-wide. However, the level or scope, and frequency, at which 192 these crimes occur, and the resulting negative impacts they have on the environment is uncertain and difficult, if near impossible, to measure (Randall 2004; Gavin et al. 2010; Donlan et al. 2020). Based on their firsthand knowledge, expertise, and field experience, fisheries law enforcement officers perceived overharvesting in, or exploitation of, commercial fisheries to be the most negatively impactful fish crime occurring in today’s Great Lakes. Officers also expressed particular concerns about the level of overharvesting occurring in tribal commercial fisheries, indicating there to be fewer controls on the type and level of harvest in comparison to federal and other non-federal (e.g., individually-operated or private) commercial fisheries (Chapter 4, “Discussion: Perceptions of Fish Crimes and Impacts”). Aquatic invasive species are the primary biological threat to today’s Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources Over time, the Basin and its fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources have experienced social, economic, and cultural changes due to increasing human population growth, urban expansion, transportation, water resource development, extractive activities (e.g., mining and forestry), agriculture, and increasing natural resource use (Beeton et al. 1999; Coon 1999). Additionally, ecological changes (e.g., erosion) have modified the aquatic landscape (Hayes 2013; Taylor et al. 2019). A survey of, and interviews with, members of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Law Enforcement Committee suggest these changes threaten the sustainability of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources. Similar to what prior research has indicated, committee members cited the introduction and establishment of aquatic invasive species as the primary biological threat to today’s Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources (Chapter 2, “Introduction”) (Ruiz and Carlton 2003; Finster 2007; Rasmussen et al. 2013). In the 193 future, while ecological and anthropogenic threats will certainly pose challenges for fisheries law enforcement (Chapter 2, “Challenges”) they may also provide opportunities for fisheries law enforcement to improve its effectiveness as well (Chapter 2, “Opportunities”). Law enforcement is not wholly effective in protecting Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources, and improvements are necessary In the Basin, fisheries law enforcement must function effectively—across local, state, tribal, provincial, national, and international borders—to carry out their primary role, which includes: the identification and enforcement of laws; protection, enhancement, and conservation of fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources; and education of the general public (Chapter 4, “Results: Roles, Activities, and Duties”). A survey of fisheries law enforcement officers representing jurisdictions in the Basin confirmed these officers perceive themselves, and the entities with which they affiliate, to be far from wholly effective in fulfilling their primary roles. In traditional policing, examples of measures or metrics of law enforcement effectiveness typically include police statistics (e.g., the number of tickets issued) and victimization surveys (Skogan 1975). Based on the survey responses, coupled with lessons learned from traditional criminological theory, this synthesis offers the following metrics, suggested by fisheries law enforcement officers working in the Basin, to evaluate law enforcement effectiveness: • Level of cross-border coordination and collaboration among fisheries law enforcement entities, managers, decision-makers, researchers; 194 • Prioritization (e.g., high, medium, low) of fisheries law enforcement officer activities, duties, and responsibilities; • Distribution of officers in, and among, jurisdictions; • Number and diversity of trainings and educational opportunities offered internally (i.e., within natural resource management and/or law enforcement entities) and externally; • Level and quality of officer recruitment and retention; and, • Level of diversity among law enforcement officer staff. In consideration of these metrics, supervisory officers may be better able to evaluate the effectiveness of their own entities, and their staff, or establish a baseline from which to measure improvements in effectiveness over time. Fisheries law enforcement has the potential to make positive, lasting impacts on the health and well-being of Great Lakes fisheries and aquatic ecosystem resources where other entities simply cannot. I hope, as a result of this dissertation, its true value is realized. 195 LITERATURE CITED 196 LITERATURE CITED Andrews, C. S. (1909). "The importance of the enforcement of law." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 34(1): 85-89. Beeton, A. M., C. E. Sellinger, et al. (1999). An introduction to the Laurentian Great Lakes ecosystem. Great Lakes fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 3- 54. Bogue, M. B. (2001). Fishing the Great Lakes: An Environmental History, 1783–1933. Madison, Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press. Coon, T. G. (1999). Ichthyofauna of the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 55-71. Donlan, C. J., C. Wilcox, et al. (2020). "Estimating illegal fishing from enforcement officers." Scientific Reports 10(1): 1-9. Eilason, S. L. (2011). "Policing natural resources: Issues in a conservation law enforcement agency." Professional Issues in Criminal Justice 6(3 and 4): 43-58. Eliason, S. L. (2006). "Factors influencing job satisfaction among state conservation officers." Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 29(1): 6-18. Eliason, S. L. (2007). "From wildlife specialist to police generalist? The scope of non-wildlife violations encountered by conservation officers." Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice 4(2): 120-132. Finster, J. L. (2007). Investigating injurious species introductions as environmental crimes. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University: 78. Gaden, M. (2007). Bridging jurisdictional divides: Collective action through a Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan: 296. Gavin, M. C., J. N. Solomon, et al. (2010). "Measuring and monitoring illegal use of natural resources." Conservation Biology 24(1): 89-100. Hayes, D. B. (2013). Issues affecting fish habitat in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 51-80. 197 Keane, A., J. P. G. Jones, et al. (2008). "The sleeping policeman: Understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation." Animal Conservation 11(2): 75-82. Kirshman, H. and N. J. Leonard (2003). Protecting the Fishery through Law Enforcement. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission: 8. McGarrell, E. F., M. Suttmoeller, et al. (2013). Great Lakes fisheries law enforcement. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University Press: 455- 472. Piper, D. C. (1967). The International Law of the Great Lakes: A Study of Canadian-United States Co-operation. Durham, North Carolina, Duke University Press. Randall, J. K. (2004). "Improving compliance in U.S. federal fisheries: An enforcement agency perspective." Ocean Development and International Law 35(4): 287-317. Rasmussen, J. L., H. A. Regier, et al. (2013). Aquatic invasive species risks to the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins: Asian Carp as a case study for serious consideration of hydrologic separation. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard, Michigan State University Press: 767-786. Ruiz, G. M. and J. T. Carlton (2003). Invasion vectors: A conceptual framework for management. Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. G. M. Ruiz and J. T. Carlton. Washington, D.C., Island Press: 459-504. Skogan, W. G. (1975). "Measurement problems in official and survey crime rates." Journal of Criminal Justice 3(1): 17-31. Taylor, W. W., M. J. Good, et al. (2019). "The changing face of Great Lakes fisheries." Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 22(3): 355-367. Thomas, J. K., C. E. Adams, et al. (1999). "Law enforcement personnel eeeds of a state natural resource agency." Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4(1): 1-19. Walsh, W. F. and E. J. Donovan (1984). "Job stress in game conservation officers." Journal of Police Science and Administration 12(3): 333-338. 198