Abstract
Fisheries science uses quantitative methods to inform management decisions that reflect cultural preferences which, in turn, indirectly influence the states of ecosystems. To date, it has largely supported Eurocentric preferences for the commodification of marine organisms under the tenets of maximum sustainable yield, whereby abundances are intentionally maintained far below their historical baselines despite broader socio‐ecological trade‐offs. In contrast, Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) adhere to the principle of “take only what you need and leave lots for the ecosystem,” implementing lower fishery removals to support socio‐ecological resilience. Despite the power imbalance favouring Eurocentric preferences in decision‐making, fisheries scientists increasingly recognize that the pairing of IKS and Western science, or Two‐Eyed Seeing, would lead to more holistic management goals. For recognition to transcend tokenism, meaningful collaborations and co‐governance structures underlying knowledge co‐production must carry through to legislated policy changes. Using recent co‐governance developments for fisheries management and spatial protections involving federal, provincial and Indigenous governments in Pacific Canada, we illustrate how the precautionary approach, including reference points and harvest control rules broadly applied in international fisheries, could be revised to make collaborative fisheries management compatible with IKS and improve biodiversity and fisheries protections. Our recommendations may create socio‐economic trade‐offs at different timescales for commercial fishers. Pre‐empting that challenge, we discuss IKS‐compatible economic approaches for addressing shorter term costs arising from reduced exploitation rates. Although our case study derives from Pacific Canada, the insights provided here are broadly applicable elsewhere in the world.