Communication between scientists,fishery managers and recreational fishers: lessons learned from a comparative analysis of international case studies |
| |
| Authors: | M. Dedual O. Sague Pla R. Arlinghaus A. Clarke K. Ferter P. Geertz Hansen D. Gerdeaux F. Hames S. J. Kennelly A. R. Kleiven A. Meraner B. Ueberschär |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Conservation, Taupō‐nui‐a‐Tia Area, , Turangi, New Zealand;2. Departament Medi Ambient, Federació Catalana d'Activitats Subaquàtiques, , Sant Adrià de Besòs, Spain;3. Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, and Fachgebiet für Binnenfischerei‐Management, Humboldt‐Universit?t, , Berlin, Germany;4. Freshwater Fisheries Society of British Columbia, , Victoria, BC, Canada;5. Institute of Marine Research Bergen Norway, Department of Biology, University of Bergen, , Bergen, Norway;6. National Institute of Aquatic Resources, Department of Inland Fisheries, Technical University of Denmark, , Silkeborg, Denmark;7. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station d'Hydrobiologie Lacustre, , Thonon, France;8. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Arthur Rylah Institute, , Alexandra, Vic., Australia;9. New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, , Cronulla, NSW, Australia;10. Institute of Marine Research, , Arendal, Norway;11. Department of Biodiversity and Molecular Ecology, IASMA Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, , San Michele all'Adige, Italy;12. GEOMAR | Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, , Kiel, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | The management of recreational fisheries benefits from good collaboration between scientists, managers and recreational fishers. However, the level of collaboration largely depends on the levels of effective communication among the different stakeholders. This paper presents the views of scientists, managers and fishers concerning the quality of communication in eleven case studies of recreational fisheries. Case studies were synthesised and common reasons why communication did not always flow as intended were identified. The prevalent barriers to good communication, and therefore collaboration included a lack of rigorous scientific information transfer from scientists to fishers and managers, a fear from fishers that management actions will limit fishing opportunities, pre‐existing antagonism between commercial and recreational fisheries, and fishers' suspicion of science. Overcoming these issues is paramount to improve collaboration and participatory processes that help lead to robust, well‐accepted management actions. |
| |
| Keywords: | anglers collaboration communication fishers managers recreational fishing scientists |
|
|
