Fish and chips: cross-cutting issues and actors in a co-managed fishery regime in the Pacific Northwest

The goal of biological resource management regimes is to balance human uses of resources with their inherent regenerative capacities. While accomplishing this goal, managers usually face a multiplicity of stakeholder groups bringing a suite of different, and at times conflicting, interests and values to the management table. In the case of the migratory Pacific salmon, the resource regimes are comprised of a series of hierarchically nested institutional arrangements, engaged in cross-level and cross-scale interactions. Co-management institutions have emerged, at least in part, to address these challenges, encompassing a diversity of stakeholders, providing a forum for the sharing of different beliefs, values and perspectives and, importantly, an institutional response to a suite of cross-scale challenges. This article examines how institutional innovation, specifically the emergence of the Pacific Northwest salmon co-management regime, created new roles and legitimized the participation of new actors. In turn, this has transformed tribal co-managers into ??cross-cutting actors??, active in management arenas at multiple jurisdictional and spatial levels in which they represent different interests or constituents. Wearing ??different hats??, these tribal actors mobilize a suite of cross-cutting issues, relevant within different policy subsystems, and create bridges among actors who may be opponents in other fora. This has altered the emergence and trajectory of conflict and cooperation as well as problems of institutional interplay and addressed some of the scale-related challenges that exist within the Pacific salmon management regime.     

Barriers to third‐party advertising in Canadian elections

A survey of public interest group leaders suggests some reasons why few third parties have chosen to advertise in recent elections. It indicates that public interest groups abstain from election advertising not because of the strictures of the Canada Elections Act but for other reasons, notably cost and fear of losing charitable status or of jeopardizing their access to and influence with officials. While the significance of these findings is limited by the scale of the survey, the results do raise tantalizing questions that warrant further research.