Californian fishing communities contribute greatly to the state’s economy, but changes in demands upon marine resources, pollution impacts, and conflicting values for the management of fish and its habitat threaten the viability of the fishing communities’ way of life. Law can help to preserve the lore of fishing communities and protect them from disappearing from California’s culture. When protecting interests of disadvantaged coastal communities, organizations face a choice of how to balance protection of the marine resources relied upon by the communities and the people’s right to use those resources. Possible legal tactics include litigation to affect how managing agencies treat coastal communities, efforts to influence legislation (both locally and nationally), community organizing and advocacy efforts to support these approaches, or direct legal services to assist the members of these communities. This paper considers several organizations as illustrative of different approaches to public interest lawyering, and evaluates their respective effectiveness.

The North Giveth and the North Taketh Away: Negotiating Delivery Reductions to Mexico through the Colorado River Seven State Agreement for Drought Management – A Potential Conflict?
Brian Poulsen

Recently, the seven Colorado River Basin States negotiated a proposal for how to manage the Colorado River during times of drought. The Bureau of Reclamation is currently considering whether to adopt and implement that proposal. As part of their proposal, the seven Colorado River Basin States agreed that under certain conditions, Mexico should not receive its full treaty entitlement of Colorado River water. The states proposed to invoke a provision of the U.S.-Mexico Treaty governing the Colorado River which would allow the United States to deliver less than it is normally required to deliver. This article analyzes the U.S.-Mexico Treaty along with the seven Colorado River Basin States’ proposal to manage the River during droughts. The article concludes that the states’ proposal may not conform to the requirements of the treaty that address when the United States may deliver less than normally required. Even if the proposal does meet the treaty requirements, it will neither adequately protect the health of the Colorado River Delta nor improve U.S.-Mexican relations without Mexico’s input.

The African Bushmeat Crisis: A Case for Global Partnership
Andrew E. Kohn & Heather E. Eves

no abstract available

Fishing for the Truth: Achieving the “Best Available Science” by Forging a Middle Ground Between Mainstream Scientists and Fishermen
Margreta Vellucci

This article discusses whether cooperative research, conducted through a joint effort between scientists and fishermen, comports with the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s “best available science” mandate. In today’s world of depleting natural resources, the manner by which our nation’s fisheries are managed is of great import. Limits must be set in order to prevent overfishing and the complete destruction of a valuable but potentially finite natural resource. The article discusses a novel means by which to maintain sustainable fisheries. While a cooperative effort between scientists and fishermen would benefit both groups, the article discusses the controversies surrounding cooperative research and the hurdles that cooperative research must overcome in order to achieve the “best available science.” After a thorough discussion of the best available science requirement, the history of cooperative research in the fisheries industry, and the benefits to both the fishing industry and the scientific community, the article ultimately concludes that cooperative research does in fact comport with the best available science mandate.