Where are the Fish? Using a “Fish as Food” Framework to Explore the Thunder Bay Area Fisheries

: Thunder Bay is the largest city in Northwestern Ontario and is located on the northern shore of Lake Superior, the world’s largest freshwater lake. While ﬁ shing and ﬁ sh consumption are signi ﬁ cant parts of the Thunder Bay area’s food systems, the ability to purchase ﬁ sh that are caught and processed in the region is extremely limited. While the lake once had an abundance of commercial ﬁ shing activity, today there are only a handful of commercial ﬁ shers left on the Canadian side and most of the catch is sold in the United States. In recent years, there have been growing efforts among community groups, local entrepreneurs, citizens, and Indigenous communities to enhance the sustainability of local food systems and ensure they can provide accessible, healthy, and culturally-appropriate foods, including ﬁ sh. This article uses a “ ﬁ sh as food” framework to explore how policies and governance impact small-scale commercial ﬁ sheries in the Thunder Bay area’s food systems. Based on twenty- ﬁ ve interviews with a diverse range of actors involved in ﬁ sheries, as well as a review of policies in the interrelated areas of ﬁ sheries management and food systems, we look at the barriers and potential opportunities for reintegrating small-scale commercial ﬁ sheries into food systems in the Thunder Bay area. Our ﬁ ndings indicate that ﬁ sheries governance is dominated by top-down approaches to resource management, to the detriment of equity, livelihoods, and access to local ﬁ sh for consumption.


Introduction
Small-scale fi sheries play a vital role in supporting food access and nutrition, as well as in maintaining traditional foodways and local economies for populations living in the world's rural and remote regions (Bell et al., 2015;Dey, Gosh, Valmonte-Santos, & Rosegrant, 2016;Loring, Gerlach, & Harrison, 2013). Th is is especially true in places where there is a historical and cultural connection to fi shing and limited access to fresh vegetables and other domesticated meats (Islam and Berkes, 2016;Lowitt, 2013). Th is has been true for the Th under Bay area, Northwestern Ontario's largest city, located on the north shore of Lake Superior. Lake Superior is the world's largest freshwater lake by surface area. and it is rich in biodiversity supporting over thirty native species of fi sh and many species of birds, amphibians, and mammals along its expansive coastline and on over 2,500 islands (Lake Superior Partnership, 2016;Minnesota Sea Grant, 2014).
Th under Bay's population is about 110,000 and the city is a regional centre for social services, food, and other basic amenities for populations in more rural and remote areas of the region. European settlement in the area began in the late seventeenth century and the city became an important hub for forestry and some mining, along with transportation since grain is shipped through Th under Bay's natural port from Western Canada. Th e majority of the settler population are of European and Scandinavian descent while Indigenous people make up almost 13% of the city's population, the highest proportion of urban Indigenous population in southern Canada (Statistics Canada, 2016). 1 Many people are unable to access healthy and preferred foods, 2 with new Canadians, lone-parent families, youth, Indigenous peoples, seniors, women, and racialized peoples particularly vulnerable (Th under Bay and Area Food Strategy, 2015).
While fi shing and fi sh consumption remain major elements of the Th under Bay area's food systems (see Ontario Nature, 2014), locally caught fi sh are extremely diffi cult to purchase in the city now, especially in relation to other communities around Lake Superior in Canada and the United States (MacIver, 2016;Prinselaar, 2018). Th e lake once had an abundance of commercial fi shing activity, yet in 2018 there were only three commercial fi shing enterprises in the Th under Bay area with most of the catch exported to markets in the United States. While there have been some eff orts to consider the changing role of small-scale commercial fi sheries in the Th under Bay area's food systems (see for example Lowitt, Levkoe, Song, Hickey, & Nelson, 2019a), government investments, research priorities, and civil society action have primarily focused on the agricultural sector. In this context, this article explores the barriers and opportunities for reintegrating small-scale commercial fi sheries into food systems in the Th under Bay area.
In recent years, there has been a growing focus, among non-profi t organizations and entrepreneurs, on enhancing the sustainability of regional food systems and ensuring healthy and culturally-appropriate foods are available to the population. Here, fi sheries have started to gain more attention. For example, the Th under Bay and Area Food Strategy (2018) and Th under Bay Food Charter (2008) identifi ed the protection of Th under Bay's watershed and the revitalization of its sustenance and commercial fi sheries as vital to the region's food systems (see also, Ontario Nature, 2014). In addition, a number of local initiatives have taken signifi cant steps to bring local commercially-caught fi sh back into the area's food systems through the establishment of locally owned businesses that reconnect harvesters and eaters (e.g., Eat the Fish, the Fish Shop, and Canadian Freshwater Fish), as well as through education, regional networking, and distribution (e.g., Cloverbelt Local Food Co-op and the Th under Bay Country Market).
Th is study-of the barriers and opportunities for reintegrating smallscale commercial fi sheries into food systems in the Th under Bay area-is based on twenty-fi ve key informant interviews in 2017 with fi sh harvesters, processors and retailers, First Nations and Tribal authorities, resource managers, and recreational fi shers across the Lake Superior region of Canada and the United States. Th ese interviews were semi-structured in format and they informed our understanding of the relationships between actors, policies, and governance relationships that infl uence Th under Bay fi sheries from a food systems perspective. Eight of the interviews were undertaken with informants involved in fi sheries in the Th under Bay area, through purposeful sampling that targeted leaders in sectors across food systems from harvesting and processing to distribution, marketing, and retail. Interviews focused on actors' roles in the fi shery, their understanding of its governance dynamics, and their perspectives about how they fi t into broader food systems. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using an inductive process of open coding (Berg, 2004). In addition to the interviews, we conducted a systematic review of relevant background information about fi sheries and food systems, which included surveying provincial and federal government websites, communicating with experts, and reviewing the scholarly literature. Th e combination of key informant interviews and policy review provides an evidence base for understanding the current situation and the potential for small-scale commercial fi sheries in the Th under Bay area's food systems.
In what follows, we use a "fi sh as food" framework to explore the history of fi sheries in the Th under Bay area, and its relationship to food systems. We then analyze the contemporary policies and governance relationships surrounding Th under Bay's small-scale commercial fi sheries, 3 paying attention to the key interrelated areas of harvesting, marketing/ consumption, and governance. Ultimately, we aim to contribute to a better understanding and action for building more equitable, healthy, and sustainable food systems in the Th under Bay area, specifi cally concerning access to locally and sustainably caught fi sh.

Fish as Food
In this article, we use the analytical concept of food systems as a framework for approaching fi sheries and fi sheries governance. A food system can be described as the interconnected processes and infrastructures involved in feeding a population, including growing and/or harvesting food along with the processing, distribution, marketing, wholesaling, retailing, consumption, and waste management (Tansey and Worsley, 1995;Ericksen, 2008). A food systems framework can integrate a range of dimensions often addressed in isolation-for example, geographical, political, economic, policy, food security and nutrition, sustainability, and conviviality, among others (Feenstra, 2002). Th ese dimensions can operate independently of each other, yet when they interact they have a profound impact on each other that shapes the way food systems function. As a framework, food systems direct us to consider a broader range of interconnections, their causes, and their outcomes.
Conceptualizing fi sheries from a food systems perspective enables analysis of the interdependencies between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems including outcomes for ecological and human health, food security, economically and culturally viable livelihoods, and community well-being based in principles of equity and democracy (see Levkoe, Lowitt, & Nelson, 2017). We call this approach "fi sh as food." As Love, da Silva, Olson, Fry, & Clay (2017) argue, food systems are an important part of the broader socio-ecological connections "integral to the viability and resilience of fi shing businesses" and we need to understand fi shing communities as part of this system rather than "simply the home of fi shermen or a landing site for vessels" (p.12).
A fi sh as food framework assists in broadening the scope of smallscale fi sheries by looking beyond the immediate fi sheries actors (e.g., fi sh harvesters, resource authorities, fi sh stocks) to the broader and interdependent social, economic, and ecological relationships within which fi sheries are embedded Olson, Clay, & da Silva, 2014). As Chuenpagdee (2018) explains, broadening the scope on small-scale fi sheries is vital to moving beyond a dominant resourcist perspective that manages fi sh primarily as a commodity or natural resource for economic gain (see Berkes, 2010), to understanding the full range of values surrounding small-scale fi sheries and their social, economic, and cultural contributions to fi shing communities and regions.
At the same time, within the food systems literature fi sheries receive relatively little attention as a focus on agriculture and terrestrial-based forms of food production dominates research Nelson et al., 2013). For example, as Seto & Fiorella (2017) argue, "Resources that originate in our oceans, rivers, and lakes are almost entirely omitted in our conceptions of a sustainable food system." Th ey attribute this to fragmented notions of food resources that fail to see fi sheries and agriculture as interlinked. Fisher et al. (2017) similarly found that fi sheries are rarely considered in analyses of global food systems and as a result are underrepresented in major food security policy and programming initiatives. A fi sh as food framework can help address this gap in food systems research and policy.
To operationalize our fi sh as food framework, we identify three analytical elements that collectively broaden the scope of the ways that fi sheries are typically studied and that help better understand fi sheries in the Th under Bay area. Th ese elements are fi sh harvesting, the fi sheries value chain, and governance and decision-making.
First, fi sh harvesting focuses on aspects that are typically considered within fi sheries management. Management responsibilities include fi sh population assessments, fi sh stocking, habitat restoration and design, and enforcement of harvesting regulations, including licensing (Song, Temby, , Krantzberg, & Hickey, 2017). Fisheries management in Lake Superior is primarily organized through centrally coordinated, top-down government structures (see Mahon et al., 2008), and, as we argue below, are resourcist in outlook.
Th e second element of our framework extends the analysis beyond harvesting and management to consider the range of actors and policies impacting fi sheries along the entire value chain from harvesting to distribution and marketing to consumption, and how these activities interact to shape fi sheries livelihoods and ecosystems. Here, we consider the social and cultural as well as economic values in which fi sheries are embedded across the value chain (see Lowitt et al., 2019a).
Th e third analytical element is governance and decision making. Th is element addresses the power relationships among actors across the entire value chain, including fi sh harvesting as well as actors that typically fall beyond a resourcist management perspective including civil society and the relationships among settler governments and First Nation authorities.

Th under Bay Area Fisheries: An Historical Context
Fisheries in the Th under Bay area have signifi cant historical and cultural value. Th e history of the area is closely tied to the development of fi sheries, which have undergone tremendous changes throughout the last several centuries. For millennia, Anishinaabe peoples made use of Lake Superior's abundant wildlife and fi shing (Quimby, 1960;Rogers,1972;Hansen, 1986), with fi sh as a regular food source and deeply integrated into cultural and spiritual practices (Bogue, 2000;Lemelin et al., 2014). Small groups united by ties of kinship followed a mobile lifestyle during the winter season with larger communities gathering at their preferred fi shing locations during spring and summer (Dawson, 1983) where intertribal trading could occur (McCullough, 1989). Fishing was based on an integrative form of governance that ensured survival and which formed the basis of identities and cultures tied to land and water ecosystems (Coulthard, 2014).
Indigenous fi shing activities were disrupted with the arrival of European settlers in the early seventeenth century to exploit a lucrative fur trade. Th roughout the seventeenth and into the late nineteenth centuries, commercial fi shing helped to support the fur trade and Indigenous people were central in the harvesting, packing, and curing of fi sh (Fort William First Nation, 2018). When the fur trade collapsed in the late nineteenth century, many traditional practices had been abandoned and Indigenous peoples were inundated with new agents of change, including the push to organize into treaty groups (Dawson, 1983). For example, after the signing of the 1850 Robinson Treaties, which cover most Anishinaabe settlements in the Th under Bay and Lake Superior area, policy shifted. While the treaties proclaimed the privilege of hunting and fi shing as they have "heretofore been in the habit of doing" (see Indigenous and Northern Aff airs Canada, 2010), the government often interpreted this to mean that fi shing was allowed only if it was for consumption (see Parliament of Canada, 1997), thus marginalizing Indigenous people from the local fi shing economy.
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, an infl ux of Finnish and Swedish people brought their skills, knowledge, and interest in commercial fi shing to Lake Superior (Roinila, 2003). Th e Th under Bay area fi shing stations (e.g., wharves, fl akes for drying fi sh) were located at Rossport, Sibley Peninsula ( Johnson Landing, Pass Lake), and Hurkett (Roinila, 2003) (Figure 1). In the off -season, most of the commercial fi shers established a base in Th under Bay. Fish was an important food source for local households, with smoked, pickled, canned, or salted varieties consumed during the winter months (Swedish Finn Historical Society, 2009). After the establishment of the railway in the early twentieth century, some of this fresh fi sh was shipped by train to distant North American markets (Goodier, 1982).
In the late nineteenth century, fi sheries also began changing substantially through the introduction of modern fi sheries management. Th is involved the institutionalization of a resourcist perspective on fi sheries that centralized power and authority with the state. Th e further concentration of power led to the rise of a managerial class that sought to manage both people and fi sh for maximum effi ciency and economic return, and prioritized positivist science over other forms of knowledge (Berkes, 2010;Bavington, 2010). In 1857, the Fisheries Act (Province of Canada) was passed and it required the appointment of overseers to enforce new regulations; this created hostility with many fi shers who resented this new outside authority (OMNRF, 2012(OMNRF, -2018a. Th is Act was also applied to Indigenous peoples "equally" with other members of the public, representing a further diminution of Indigenous rights (Blair, 1996(Blair, -1997Koenig, 2005). In 1868, during the fi rst session of the new federal parliament, the federal Fisheries Act was passed, assimilating provincial laws and establishing the federal Department of Marine and Fisheries (known today as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans). Federal and provincial governments began vying for control of commercial and sport fi sheries, with jurisdiction eventually ceded to the province of Ontario (OMNRF, 2012(OMNRF, -2018a. Th is delegation of responsibility continues to this day with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) having authority for fi sheries management in inland waters under the Ontario Fishery Regulations annexed to the federal Fisheries Act. By the early twentieth century, the ecological well-being of the Lake Superior watershed was impacted by many competing macroeconomic activities, including mining and tailings, dams to power forest company operations, and commercial trade along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. During the Second World War, increasing pressure was also placed on Lake Superior fi sh stocks to provide for food needs during the war, with large quantities of fi sh exported out of the area. In the 1940s, fi sh stocks already vulnerable from overexploitation and pollution were further ravaged by the invasive sea lamprey that feed on the blood of lake-dwelling fi sh. In the following decades, the province managed declining catches by limiting commercial fi sheries operations and by creating fi shing zones for fi sh harvesters that were often in deeper water where less fi sh thrived. Over time, this led to a decrease in the number of commercial fi shing enterprises and the disappearance of many small fi shing communities and fi sh processing facilities (Wightman & Wightman, 1997).
In addition to state-led fi sheries management authorities, transnational bodies were established over time. Th e fi rst bi-national body was the International Joint Commission (IJC), formed under the Boundary Waters Treaty Act (1909) to deal with issues of water quality and to resolve disputes in transboundary waters. In 1955, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) was established to control the sea lamprey. Th e GLFC had considerable success in managing sea lamprey through various technological means and continues to facilitate fi sheries research and management planning across state, provincial, and federal agencies. While important to fostering co-operation, these bodies have also been critiqued for being overly bureaucratic and for not understanding the complexity of social-ecological relationships around the Lake (Henquinet & Dobson, 2006;Krantzberg & Manno, 2010).
Since the 1980s, fi sh populations in Lake Superior have begun to recover largely due to government-led eff orts to enhance water quality and control invasive species. Although far from historic levels, Lake Superior is the only Great Lake with a self-sustaining lake trout population (Spooner, 2014). Lake whitefi sh has also recovered with OMNRF indicating stable populations especially in the western part of the lake near Th under Bay. Lake herring supports a fairly large fall fi shery and is particularly valuable for its roe (eggs). However, OMNRF indicated that today there are only three commercial fi sh harvesters in the Th under Bay area, with the majority of catches exported to the United States. Tourism and sport fi shing have also emerged as a policy priority for the OMNRF over the past several decades as sport fi shing (and the associated fi shing charters, accommodations, and so on) have become part of a burgeoning economic industry with considerable political power (see Crawford, 2001;Liuson, 1997). Th is is a factor potentially constraining the interest and resources that the ministry has put towards the commercial sector.
Lastly, of signifi cance to the viability of a fi shing sector that can support access to local fi sh are Indigenous communities around Lake Superior and the Great Lakes region more broadly that are increasingly asserting their existing Aboriginal and treaty rights to fi sh, including commercially. Around Lake Superior and the Great Lakes region there are diff erent types of governance arrangements in place between First Nations and the provincial and federal governments with regards to commercial fi shing. Th ere are several First Nations in proximity to Th under Bay with varying degrees of fi shing activity. Fort William First Nation, located just outside the city of Th under Bay, had several families that fi shed commercially for much of the twentieth century (Fort William First Nation, 2019); according to our interviews, no one in the community is presently fi shing on Lake Superior, but there are indications they may be seeking to reestablish their fi shery. Red Rock Indian Band located east of Th under Bay has a commercial fi shery on Lake Nipigon, a large inland lake within the Lake Superior watershed. In the next section, we touch on these considerations related to the development of Indigenous fi sheries along with the barriers and potential opportunities for reintegrating small-scale commercial fi sheries into food systems around Th under Bay.

Barriers and Opportunities for Th under Bay Fisheries
In this section we explore contemporary fi sheries in the Th under Bay area through the three elements of a fi sh as food framework: fi sh harvesting, broadening the fi sheries value chain, and governance opportunities. Drawing on our interviews with fi sheries actors across the Lake Superior region, background information, and a review of relevant policy documents, we address each of these elements in turn.

Fish Harvesting
Th e management of Th under Bay's commercial fi sheries is guided by the Strategic Policy for Ontario's Commercial Fisheries (see OMNRF, 2011). Th rough this document, the OMNRF identifi es key policy priorities for the province's commercial fi sheries, within the legislative framework set out in the Ontario Fishery Regulations (2007). While the strategy names ecological sustainability and inclusivity as important principles, we suggest that, in practice, management continues to be rooted primarily in a resourcist view that treats fi sh as a commodity for economic gain and doesn't adequately support local participation and inclusion of local knowledge, especially in the Th under Bay area.
A key shift in fi sheries management occurred in the early 1980s when the province pursued a policy of modernizing commercial fi sheries. An important outcome was the adoption of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQ). ITQs are a market-based allocation that enable fi sheries managers to allocate pre-determined shares of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) to individual fi sh harvesters, and fi sh harvesters to transfer them to others (McKay et al., 1995). ITQs have become a popular management tool across the world to apply a quasi-private property rights regime to fi sheries. 4 In Ontario, amounts are determined based on scientifi c data collected by government bodies. Licence holders must also be Canadian citizens and a quota can only be leased to another licence holder within the same management zone. 5 Despite these restrictions, ITQs encourage licence holders to treat fi sh as a tradable commodity. A fi sh harvester we spoke with postulated that a fi sh processing company from the United States had obtained quota and then secured arrangements with Th under Bay area fi sh harvesters to fi sh for the company. He explained, "they [the US fi sh processor] don't have a boat here. Th ey don't have a crew here. So they say okay I'll give you [Th under Bay fi sh harvesters] ten thousand pounds of whitefi sh, you get ten, you get ten. So now that's like a ten thousand dollar raise for you if you can catch them and there's a market for them to go to." In Ontario, quota must be held by a Canadian licence holder. In our discussions with government offi cials, it is likely that an American company is fi nancially supporting a Canadian licence holder to set up a subsidiary Ontario-based business to lease quota and in so doing is securing their access to fi sh. As explained in the quote above, this Ontario business isn't fi shing but secures relationships with other harvesters to catch fi sh that serves the US market. As a result, the ITQ system facilitates this as a legitimate relationship.
Some have promoted ITQs as an eff ective management tool for enabling the most effi cient harvesters to fi sh and encourage stewardship over the fi shery (McKay, 1995). However, ITQs have also been criticized for providing exclusive access to a public resource and contributing to a concentration of wealth in the fi shery (Pinkerton, 2013). From a fi sh as food perspective, this raises concern that fi sh will fl ow towards wherever the most capital resides. Our interview fi ndings indicate that this is likely occurring around Th under Bay, with most fi sh caught in the area shipped to fi sh markets in Boston and Chicago and sold as low-quality protein to be processed into gefi lte fi sh (a dish made from a poached mixture of ground and deboned fi sh). Th is not only minimizes local access to fresh fi sh, it also distances fi sh harvesters from consumers, and integrates harvesters into long-distance supply chains in which they have relatively little control over prices and most often no contracts. Th ese food systems interdependencies are generally overlooked within management, and we discuss them in more detail in the following section.
ITQs are only one specifi c example of a resourist approach to the harvesting of fi sh that emerged in our research. It is important to note that ITQs, and the export of fi sh they may encourage, is the most recent manifestation of a longer trend, with fi sh being shipped out of the region in long-distance supply chains since the nineteenth century. Th is resourcist view has deep roots in Canada's political economy as explained in Harold Innis's (1967) staples thesis. 6 Another concern that emerged in our study, related to the harvesting and management of fi sh, was a lack of consideration of fi sh harvesters' local knowledge. Th e Strategic Policy for Ontario's Commercial Fisheries (2011) suggests that management should account for sources of local and traditional knowledge in fi sheries. Nonetheless, a fi sh harvester we spoke with claimed, "Th e biologists ... people with degrees fi gure that everybody else is down below them ... When you say look this is [happening], what do you know about it? I've got a degree in biology. Well you don't make your living off of it." Likewise, an OMNRF employee explained, "We always just go with the best available science ... this stuff [local knowledge] is in my head rattling around but when I make decisions I still can only point to that point on the graph." Recognizing fi sh harvesters' local knowledge is important to empowering harvesters within decision-making processes, increasing capacity to manage fi sheries sustainably (see Haggan, Neis, & Baird, 2007) and supporting the diff erent knowledge systems important to sustainable food systems .
Lastly, there are signifi cant gaps pertaining to the participation of First Nations within management. For example, no First Nation in the Great Lakes region has offi cial standing within the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Th e Saugeen Ojibway Nation on Lake Huron argues there is evidence to indicate First Nations were intentionally excluded from participation in the Commission (see Saugeen Ojibway Nation Territories, 2004). Th e IJC, which doesn't focus specifi cally on fi sheries management but more broadly on water quality, has similarly been critiqued for treating First Nations as stakeholders and not recognizing the full extent of their Aboriginal and treaty rights (Norman, 2015).

Broadening the Fisheries Value Chain
From a fi sh as food perspective, considering the harvesting and management context of fi sheries and how this intersects with subsequent parts of the entire value chain is critical. Our policy review indicates that management authorities tend to focus on fi sh only up to the point of harvesting, ignoring what happens to fi sh after they are landed and the range of individuals and groups that play a role in the fi sheries, from lake to plate and beyond (see also Love et al., 2017). After harvest, other authorities take over resulting in a siloed approach with various government offi ces often working in isolation.
From a fi sh as food perspective, there are many diff erent fi sheries management policies that refer to food but also which limit the scope of fi sheries. For example, the Strategic Policy for Ontario's Commercial Fisheries identifi es a wholesome food source as a social benefi t of commercial fi sheries. Similarly, transnational agreements, such as the Joint Strategy Plan for the Management of Great Lake Fisheries (facilitated by the GLFC) and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (facilitated by the IJC), recognize that fi sheries are an important source of food with the latter particularly concerned with pollution in this context. Many of these policies also emphasize sustainable fi sheries, in terms of ensuring that Lake Superior fi sheries are suffi ciently protected such that future generations may enjoy them. However, while these policies make some reference to fi sh as a food source, a food systems perspective is lacking. Th at is, these policies do not view fi sheries as a part of food systems but rather as a natural resource that, if managed and protected well, may provide some benefi ts as a food source. Other aspects of fi sh as food, such as safety, processing, quality, nutrition, and consumption are located in various provincial and federal ministries of health, food, and agriculture. As evidence of this lack of a food systems perspective, a local fi sh harvester expressed frustration that, "they [OMNRF] classify us as a user group. We're not a user group, I hate that term. We're supplying food for the population of this province that doesn't angle [fi sh]." Despite this lack of a systems perspective, harvesting and management regulations aff ect subsequent stages of the fi sheries value chain, such as how much and what types of fi sh are available for processing and consumption, and who is catching it and how. Th e relationship among ITQs and the fl ow of fi sh into the US markets is just one example of this interconnection. More broadly, over time, as the province has sought to make the fi shery more effi cient through encouraging a reduction in the number of fi sh harvesters, this has been accompanied by a reduction and consolidation among the fi sh buyers and processors.
Th under Bay fi sh harvesters have come to rely on few buyersgenerally from outside the area-to procure their catch. While some fi sh stays in Ontario, much of this catch is sent to large markets in the United States. A cost-price squeeze and a lack of contracts with these companies makes harvesters vulnerable to low and fl uctuating prices. Because of concentration in the industry, smaller processors are also being squeezed. A fi sh processor from the eastern Lake Superior region summarized the situation: Th e cost of what that processor or producer gets hasn't increased with the cost of living by any stretch. I mean, the price of lake trout that the fi shermen get right now, I got that much or more 40 years ago and yet the cost of fuel on boats skyrocketed 10 times. A lot of the guys are in it because it's what they loved doing all their life and that's what they've done …. Some have branched out a little bit and started doing some of the value-added stuff , local trades which increases their overall income.
Concerns about regular access to markets and fair prices that emerged in our study are consistent with other recent research indicating these are top concerns for freshwater fi shers in other parts of the country (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2017). Across Canada and in the Th under Bay area, alternative marketing arrangements for fi sheries are emerging in response, such as fi sh markets, fi sheries co-operatives, and community supported fi sheries (DesRivieres, Chuenpagdee, & Matheret, 2017). While these marketing arrangements seek to address some of the vulnerabilities harvesters face in the long-distance supply chain, these are also based on broader sets of values such as reconnecting harvesters and eaters, supporting ecological sustainability, and building a renewed relationship with the lake.
Succession planning for fi sheries enterprises in the region is also a key concern. Th is was recognized by an OMNRF resource manager who said, "Fishing is super hard work and … You can't fi nd people in Ontario who are willing to do that work anymore. It's hard. If you're talking about Lake Superior, our fi shers are not young. None of them. Smith [not real name] has his sons working with him, he might take over the business. Other guys, they don't have anybody who is going to fi ll their shoes." Compounding this challenge is the reality that no new commercial fi shing licences are being issued by the province and existing licences are quite expensive to purchase. However, licences can be transferred intergenerationally without paying the sale value.
Presently, succession planning is not on the radar of provincial fi sheries policy but may be key to revaluing fi shers not just as resource harvesters but as local food providers with important intergenerational knowledge about the local ecosystems and relationships with communities.

Governance and Opportunities
Lastly, integral to the consideration of a fi sh as food framework are dynamics in governance and decision-making. In the above subsections we have identifi ed some governance challenges for Th under Bay area fi sheries when considering the broader fi sh as food framework, including limited power in decision making for fi sh harvesters, insuffi cient Nation to Nation relationships in fi sheries management, and a siloed approach to policy that separates fi sh harvesting from other aspects of food systems. In addition to these concerns, a civil society leader we spoke with was concerned about a lack of grassroots engagement in fi sheries governance, and through their work "trying to re-center not just governments or big NGOs voices" but citizens' voices.
Th e presence of a civil society voice was further weakened by budget cuts that led to the 2015 closure of the Lake Superior Binational Forum (LSBF), the only basin-wide citizen stakeholder forum that ran for nearly twenty-fi ve years. Recent research has attested to the central importance of civic engagement and community advocacy to the future resilience of the ecology and society of the lake (Langston, 2017). Overall, we suggest that top-down approaches and a resourcist view tends to dominate in fi sheries governance to the potential detriment of equity, local livelihoods, and access to local fi sh for purchase in an area in which it is a culturallyappropriate and nutritious source of food. Th is doesn't mean there isn't a role for the state; rather, this research supports the need for a shift towards more inclusive and participatory governance of fi sheries (see Jentoft et al., 2010;Song, Chuenpagdee, & Jentoft, 2013).
Th inking critically about governance presents opportunities for confi gurations of decision-making and engagement. Recognizing the challenges described above, individuals and organizations working to improve the ecological and social health of Lake Superior have claimed that there is a need for diff erent kinds of decision-making structures as well as a shift in the power relationships that govern the watershed. One non-profi t worker we spoke with argued that problems could not be solved by governments since they were the ones that created the problems (i.e., through legislation) in the fi rst place: "For me there's very little legitimacy in the International Joint Commission or the Ministry of the Environments or in stakeholder conservation authority type things. Th ese are shadows of what we could have when it comes to great lakes governance." Instead, he suggested there was a need to create new forms of leadership based on a diff erent kind of governance emerging out of a relational ethics: "[Th e] idea that we are in relationship with all of those upstream and downstream." For example, he noted that prior to the arrival of Europeans, the waters of Lake Superior were shared between various Indigenous nations. Th is approach to governance is based on a set of social agreements rooted in equity and sustainability. In respect to fi sheries, he argued that "fi sh are not just a resource. Th ey are part of a system, a way of knowing and a way of being human." Th is kind of governance is illustrated through the Great Lakes Commons Map (https://www.greatlakescommons.org/commons-map/), an open source platform for place-based digital storytelling. Th e map is a tool that collects and shares diverse place-based experiences in order to create a democratic knowledge commons.
Two locally-owned businesses, Eat the Fish and Canadian Freshwater Fish, are also promising examples of new types of governance arrangements that are pushing beyond values of economic gain to think about how economic development can be done in ways that support local livelihoods, ecological sustainability, and access to nutritious food. Th e newlyestablished local fi sh processor in Th under Bay, Canadian Freshwater Fish, is trying to support a new generation of younger people to enter fi shing by providing greater livelihood security for fi sh harvesters. Th ey explained: We're hoping, because now they're [fi sh harvesters] going to have a local place they can sell to and they're not going to have to wait for Boston [American fi sh buyer] to come here twice a week or whatever it is, they can sell their stuff every day and make a really good living off of it, we're hoping that some of the younger guys will start getting into it. Th at is what we're hoping ... We want the fi shermen to be able to make a living off of it. We talked about it last time. A lot of the fi shermen here and in the communities, are older. It's an older generation and the younger generation hasn't taken up and gotten into it; that's a concern for us because if these older fi shermen stop doing it and then there's nobody to fi ll that void, then that's a big problem.
Similarly, Eat the Fish, a small independently owned business founded in Th under Bay in 2016, is experimenting with innovative ways to source and market locally caught and wild fi sh. Th e two co-founders recognized there were few opportunities to purchase local fi sh in the region commenting that, prior to starting Eat the Fish, most people "had no idea that there was even a [commercial] fi shing industry here." Each week, Eat the Fish sets up a fi sh stand at the Th under Bay Country Market, off ering a direct-to-customer model that provides fi sh harvesters a better per-pound price while ensuring that fi sh caught in the region are kept in the Th under Bay area. Th ey also seek to provide customers with a closer connection to fi sh harvesters and to the lake. As one of the co-founders explained, "we're trying to share their [fi sh harvesters] stories … because we think it's important for people to take some pride in what we have here." While Eat the Fish sells popular commercial species like Lake Whitefi sh, they have also helped to establish new local markets for underutilized native fi sh species such as burbot-typically a bycatch for fi sh harvesters due to low market demand. By off ering market-goers education and taste samples about native fi sh species that have typically been less popular as an eating choice, they have created another revenue stream for fi sh harvesters while also reducing waste in the form of bycatch. In this way, Eat the Fish is a promising example of working across the fi sheries value chain to align fi sheries harvesting/management with human health and consumption goals.
Finally, processes of governance are being questioned by some Indigenous communities on Lake Superior, both in terms of the epistemological underpinnings of resourcist management approaches and with regards to the underlying authority of the Crown and the province to manage fi sheries. Some First Nations have begun to actively assert their own systems of governance, based on diff erent ways of knowing, and interrelationships and reciprocity among people, fi sh, and ecosystems. As such, Indigenous fi sheries are emerging that look diff erent from those managed by the province of Ontario. Batchewana First Nation (BFN) in eastern Lake Superior is one example of a commercial fi shery that the community is managing in alignment with their traditional knowledge, oral teachings, and inherent responsibilities (see Lowitt, Levkoe, Lauzon, Ryan, & Sayers, 2019b). With one of the largest fi sheries on the Canadian side of Lake Superior, BFN currently has twenty-seven active captains. Fish are an important part of the community's diet and livelihood with much of the catch sold to local processing plants, local restaurants, and retail outlets in the neighbouring city of Sault Ste. Marie. Chief Dean Sayers described this as a system of governance that works with nature and is driven by the intergenerational transfer of knowledge built over time between the people and their relationships to the natural environment. Th ose First Nations in greater proximity to Th under Bay, including Fort William, Red Rock, and Michipicoten, are also engaged in eff orts to reestablish their commercial fi sheries, which could infl uence the nature of commercial fi sheries in the area, including the scope and orientation of management, along with the availability of fi sh for purchase within the Th under Bay area. 7

Conclusion
Ultimately, fi sheries governance, whether implicitly or explicitly, is guided by a series of underlying values and ethics (Wiber, Berkes, Charles, & Kearney, 2004). As Ommer & Paterson (2014) write, "Management objectives are, or should be, a refl ection of what we value in a fi shery, such as a healthy ecosystem that supports healthy fi sh stocks, vibrant fi shing communities, and a healthy fi shing economy." As Song, Chunepagdee, & Jentoft (2013) point out, the expression of values is also tied to power relations, as there is a risk that the values and principles of some may dominate, suppressing those of others. From a fi sh as food perspective, our research suggests that being upfront about these values, power dynamics, and ethics is a fundamental part of the complexity surrounding fi sheries.
Fisheries management policies remain generally focused on a narrow set of values that, while sometimes acknowledging food, are missing a broader food systems perspective. Th is disconnect between food systems and fi sheries management is not unique to the Th under Bay area and has been widely observed in the literature. In this article, using a fi sh as food framework we have sought to identify some of the key governance and policy factors shaping the availability of local fi sh for purchase in the Th under Bay area. We hope that this article may spur further conversation about the role of fi sheries in the Th under Bay area's food systems and contribute to emerging eff orts (such as seen in the Th under Bay and Area Food Strategy) to support a sustainable and equitable freshwater foods economy for the area.
Future research could explore additional empirical data through a broader population sample of food systems actors beyond the Th under Bay area. Interrogating the broader fi sheries relationships across the Lake Superior watershed can point to solutions that address the barriers of more equitable and sustainable fi sheries. Th is research should also ask: How can collective rights and responsibilities surrounding fi sheries and the lake be balanced with individual rights? Can a local food system for fi sh succeed given existing values, and how might thinking about food systems contribute to a reconceptualization of the values surrounding fi sheries? We agree with Song et al. (2013) that governance challenges could be lessened if "values, images, and principles are made explicit, understood, and articulated in the policy and decision-making process" (167).

1.
Th is population statistic is likely a conservative estimate since the Census tends to under-count Indigenous people due to poverty and associated factors such as no fi xed address, distrust of government, and migration between geographical locations (Rotondi et al., 2017).

2.
It is estimated that approximately 10% of Th under Bay's population age twelve years and older experiences moderate to severe food insecurity (Statistics Canada, 2018).

3.
Th under Bay's commercial fi sheries have the attributes of being small-scale, including targeting multiple species and being carried out by individuals or families (Aguilera et al., 2015).

4.
As McKay (1995) et al. explain, depending on how the particular ITQ system is designed, harvesters can buy, sell, lease, trade, and inherit shares, almost just as they would any other property. In Ontario commercial fi sheries, ITQs can be leased between licence holders. Th is is close to what is usually thought of as private property. However, unlike private property rights to land, the government retains the right to determine an overall quota and other aspects of the fi shery that aff ect sustainable use of the fi sh stocks. Th us, ITQs may be defi ned as quasi-private property.

5.
Th e Government of Ontario has divided the province into twenty fi sheries management zones (FMZs) to ensure management is based on the specifi c needs and characteristics of diff erent areas. Regulations can be customized to each zone (e.g., conservation eff orts, catch limits, and fi shing seasons) (see Government of Ontario n.d.), with advisory councils set up in each zone to hear from stakeholders. 6.
In the staples thesis, Innis argued that Canada's political and economic development was deeply tied to the search and exploitation of its staples commodities for export to more advanced economies. 7.
Ontario's fi rst priority in fi sheries allocation is to conservation. After conservation, Aboriginal and treaty rights to fi sh for food, social and ceremonial purposes take priority. In the case of existing Aboriginal commercial fi shing rights, OMNRF allocates fi sheries resources in accordance with its understanding of case law. Remaining fi sh are allocated to recreational, (non-Indigenous) commercial, and bait fi sheries (OMNRF 2012(OMNRF -2018b.