In order to prevent hijacking of the Halibut Migration thread, this thread is devoted to the science and sociology of resource management.
First, "how," "if," and "why" we manage our fisheries resources, are fundamentally social questions, they are not scientific questions. Science is value-free; science cannot set or define social priorities. Science is purely materialistic, and in the case of Alaska's fisheries resources, science is always employed in pursuit of social priorities and goals. If, for instance and as was mentioned in the Halibut Migration thread, more studies are "needed," those studies are "needed" only or primarily for the purpose of implementing social priorities, to aid in answering social questions, or to resolve competition for harvest of the resource (commons).
Once social goals are defined, the natural sciences can then supply us with uncertain, purely-materialistic, "best guesses" as to how society might proceed in the accomplishment of its goals, but "how" we manage our fisheries is only and always a social question for which science helps supply purely mechanical answers.
It is thus incorrect to say that "Advances in resource management come from a number of scientists that do not study the species of economic and social interests . . " Advances in resource knowledge come from scientists; such advances in materialistic knowledge are then used by managers in pursuit of a social agenda.
It's important, to my thinking, to keep such distinctions in mind in discussions of the management of our fisheries or other resources. How, or for what reasons and purposes, we manage our resources are not scientific questions, and it is impossible to overstate that fact. How and for what reasons and purposes we manage our resources are social questions. Once the questions are answered socially, science can help supply the materialistic/technical knowledge necessary for the implementation of social goals and priorities.