{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01598173515981735, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.848958333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fisher and Fishery Scientist: No Longer Foe, but Not yet Friend

It has often been assumed that, in natural resource issues, particularly ethical issues related to fisheries, fisheries scientists, fishers, and the general public differ in their opinions. Typically, these assumed differences are neither investigated nor quantified. This paper describes an approach to examine these assumed differences and demonstrates their implications in fisheries management. The method combines the Rapfish assessment of fisheries sustainability with the paired comparison method, in ranking fisheries sustainability using the nine ethical Rapfish attributes as criteria. A paired comparison questionnaire of these attributes was given to scientists, fishers and the general public. The resulting importance weighting of these attributes was applied to the normalised raw Rapfish scores for selected Canadian fisheries. We found no significant difference between respondent groups in the importance ranking of these attributes, thus no effect on the sustainability ranking of the examined fisheries when all attributes were considered. However, when sustainability was measured using only the three most important attributes, the rankings provided by fishers differed slightly from those by scientists and the general public.