|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 117
7
Communication and Outreach
Ultimately, the value of marine recreational fishing data, whether
collected by the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS) or any other survey, will be judged by the extent to which it
meets the needs of the individuals who use the data and will be trusted by
those whose lives are affected by the ways the data are used. This latter
group of stakeholders is a varied group including saltwater anglers, other
user groups who benefit from use of recreational fishery resources, and
commercial fishermen whose benefits from the fishery resource may be
influenced by allocations made as a result of available data. Stakeholders
rarely understand why fisheries data are collected in certain ways and
how the data are analyzed and applied to management decisions.
Communication and outreach efforts are essential to foster confidence in
the quality of the data among managers, other decision makers, and those
who rely on the fishery resources for recreation or for a living.
A primary challenge to be addressed in communication and outreach
efforts is the disparity in how data are perceived by various stakeholder
groups, including data collectors, data analysts, and the recreational and
commercial fishing communities. As described in Chapter 1, the MRFSS
was originally designed to characterize the nature of and trends
associated with recreational fisheries, particularly in terms of catch,
effort, and participation at national and sometimes regional scales.
Among the recreational fishing community, there is a widespread lack of
support and appreciation for the current MRFSS administered by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This lack of support is
related, in part, to the evolution of the use of the MRFSS data. Since its
inception, the MRFSS data have been applied to other purposes, most
notably stock assessment and management decisions for particular
species, which were not the original intent of the MRFSS. During that
117
OCR for page 118
118 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
time, the types and numbers of marine recreational fishery stakeholder
groups have grown, as has the recognition of the importance of knowing
accurately the size of the recreational harvest as a portion of total harvest
in many marine fisheries. These trends have contributed to an increased
interest in recreational fisheries statistics, not only among anglers but
among other stakeholders as well. All of them care about fisheries
management decisions, including allocation decisions. Political demands
placed on managers to make "good" decisions based on the MRFSS and
other data sources, and the scrutiny applied to fisheries statistics and their
associated methods, also have increased. In addition, it is difficult for an
individual angler to distinguish population trends (e.g., depletion) from
fluctuations caused by weather, local fish migration, and other factors
that affect catch rate. It also is difficult for an individual angler to
understand the cumulative effects of many anglers on the same species.
With all of these competing demands, communication and outreach
become even more critical to ensure a shared understanding of the
purposes, capacity, and limitations of the data-gathering approach, and
consequently, the quality of or limitations on uses of the data. These
concerns are relevant for any type of fisheries statistics, whether it is for
the MRFSS, some existing MRFSS-like state or regional survey, or even
commercial fishery statistics.
A previous National Research Council study notes the following:
It is important for scientists and managers to improve
their communication of the data available and to make
such data available to stakeholders more readily and in a
user-friendly form. When this is not achieved, a lack of
trust develops between those who control access to the
data and those who cannot gain access. In many cases,
disagreement of fishermen with the results of stock
assessments can be traced to [NMFS] not explaining the
sources of variability in the data and the uncertainty of
the models being used. (National Research Council,
2000)
What should this communication and outreach involve? Funda-
mentally, communication programs must identify and respond to the
information needs of each of the stakeholder groups involved in the
marine fishery management milieu. This requires identifying the appro-
priate stakeholder groups who have particular information needs or infor-
mation to share, and articulating the information and knowledge each
OCR for page 119
COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH 119
should have or wants to have (communication and outreach goals). It
also requires identifying the most appropriate means for exchanging
information among the various stakeholder groups, including the
recreational fishing community, data collectors, and data analysts and
users, taking into account that the understanding of probability and
statistics in the general population is not high. For any communication
program, it will be important to remember that communication should be
an exchange of perspectives and information, not just a one-way
presentation of information.
COMMUNICATION GOALS AND STAKEHOLDERS
The importance of clear and ongoing communications between
scientists, managers, and fishermen (both anglers and commercial fisher-
men) has been articulated most clearly in relation to the commercial
fishing sector. Jentoft et al. (1998) argues for actively engaging fisher-
men in fishery management processes to improve management decisions
by including experiential knowledge of those involved in the fishery,
improving communication among all parties involved, and increasing the
consideration given to socioeconomic aspects of the fishery in decision-
making processes. Johnston (1992) articulates a range of benefits accrued
through partnerships among commercial fishermen, scientists, and man-
agers, including a greater commitment by the fishermen to achieving
management successes when they have an active role in designing
management strategies, reducing data-gathering costs because fishermen
become more cooperative in the data-gathering efforts, and enhancing
the credibility of the management process and decisions based on data
collected. All of these benefits can lead to greater acceptance of fishing
regulations.
Commercial fisheries management has pushed the concept of
collaboration further than open, two-way dialogue by experimenting with
comanagement schemes that legitimize management decision-making
authority for fishermen (e.g., Yandle, 2003). True comanagement has
received limited attention for recreational fisheries management (Wilson
et al., 2003), but many of the concepts underlying comanagement
approaches suggest lessons for at least improving the relationships
between fisheries managers, fisheries scientists, and anglers. Attention to
communication and outreach may improve relationships among data
collectors and analysts, managers, and decision makers who use the data
OCR for page 120
120 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
and the private and for-hire sector fishery participants whose lives or
livelihoods are affected by the data and their use.
This committee heard from numerous groups and individuals ex-
pressing a lack of confidence in the estimates produced by the MRFSS.
This credibility gap arises from several sources, including a belief that
alternate data sources are more credible; criticism of the temporal,
spatial, group, or taxonomic stratification of the intercept sampling; lack
of understanding of statistical methodology; and recognition that the
sampling frame used for effort estimation suffers from undercoverage.
Communication and outreach goals associated with a marine recreational
fisheries statistics program might focus on topics related to data
collection efforts and to data interpretation and use.
DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS
An overarching goal associated with the data collection process may
be to encourage anglers and their representatives to form more positive
attitudes toward NMFS so that they will adopt their catch and effort
surveys and the results they provide, support management decisions
based on these results, and put more trust in the agency. More specific
goals may include:
ˇ Enabling anglers to better understand the reasons for using
probability samples rather than censuses and the implications for
such a sampling method in terms of on-the-ground contacts
between anglers and data collectors. The most common criticism
made by active anglers and the people that represent them
regarding the MRFSS is they have not been intercepted by
survey personnel working in support of NMFS. An onsite avidity
bias toward those who fish most frequently would suggest they
have a greater chance of being intercepted than more casual
anglers. Also, more avid anglers are likely to be more skilled
than casual anglers, which implies that their catch rates are
higher than those of casual anglers. Most anglers are not likely to
understand the intricacies and efficiencies of random sampling
designs and would question their use compared to a census.
Outreach activities should emphasize the process of data
collection, as well as results.
OCR for page 121
COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH 121
ˇ Ensuring that anglers understand the basics of sampling and the
importance of a frame from which to draw a sample. Such
knowledge may help build support for implementation of a
national registry or saltwater fishing license in their state (if they
do not already have one). Anglers should have a clear under-
standing of the link between having a saltwater fishing license,
and thus a sampling frame, and improving the quality of
recreational fisheries data and stock estimates based on those
data.
ˇ Improving the quality (validity) of the data collected by im-
proving the confidence anglers have in data-collection efforts. If
anglers are more invested in the survey process, they likely will
be more motivated to participate and report accurately and be
less likely to complain about a method they helped implement.
ˇ Improving the design of data collection efforts by providing a
mechanism for structured feedback from users regarding design
characteristics. Although several external reviews of the MRFSS
or portions of it have been conducted (Guthrie et al., 1991;
Pollock et al., 1994), an internal process of user feedback on
evaluation and modification of the design, currently, is not
available within the program. Some users of the MRFSS data
have initiated dialogue with the MRFSS project managers to
address design issues, but there is a need for a more formal and
institutionalized feedback process. This committee judges that
the lack of such a process may be because there has been no
formal re-evaluation of the MRFSS mandate and objectives in
relation to current data needs and usage. The rapid evolution of
uses and needs for data from recreational fisheries underscores
the requirement for such a re-evaluation by the MRFSS man-
agers and communication about that re-evaluation with data
collectors, data analysts, and the recreational fishing community.
ˇ Establishing a common knowledge base among anglers, data
collectors, and data users. Data collectors, for example, need to
understand common names for fish and generally be aware of
angler behaviors, gear types used, and species caught. Different
modes of fishing (e.g., shore-based, boat) occur at different times
and places and often are subject to different regulations. Also,
data collectors need to use categories that will meet the
requirements of analysts. Concerns have been voiced about the
ability and training of those conducting the surveys in support of
OCR for page 122
122 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
NMFS. If anglers are not confident that surveyors have the
requisite fish identification skills, then resultant data and efforts
to use those data in support of management are not likely to be
accepted. If data collectors "speak the same language" as the
anglers, confidence in the abilities of the data collectors will be
enhanced, and the data collectors should produce higher-quality
(more accurate) data. This is particularly important for taxo-
nomic stratification of data. Analysts must be able to employ
data with confidence that species designations are accurate and
consistently applied in the sampling process. Biological data
obtained from the intercept samples must be consistent with the
categories used in assessments. This committee heard testimony
that suggested that there are inconsistencies in taxonomic
segregation of data among different fishing modes. Here again,
improved outreach efforts between analysts and data collectors
are required, and this includes outreach with the recreational
fishery participants as well.
DATA INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION EFFORTS
Problems associated with marine recreational fisheries statistics are
not limited to data collection efforts. As detailed in previous chapters, the
MRFSS has been applied to answer questions it was not designed to
address. In some instances, misunderstandings have developed because
the current use of recreational fisheries data originating with the MRFSS
was not anticipated in the design of that program. Current users require
data that are more highly resolved--spatially, temporally, and
taxonomically--than is currently collected. Mechanisms to modify,
amend, or enhance the data collection processes could be identified
through better communication and outreach between data analysts, users,
and collectors.
In addition to dialogue on design issues, the MRFSS managers also
need to advise data users on constraints to some uses, as well as
fundamental features of the data collection system. The MRFSS website
is information rich and provides general background for the average
angler. In addition, the MRFSS personnel conduct regular meetings with
users to review results of sampling waves. However, our review
identified a number of areas where users extracted sections of data
histories but were unaware of the data characteristics, the methods of
compilation, or the fundamental nature of sampling versus census esti-
OCR for page 123
COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH 123
mation. These observations indicate that while the program has under-
taken some outreach activities with users, misconceptions and lack of
clarity on data characteristics continue to exist. Further, the users' lack of
knowledge of and involvement in the design basis of the survey clearly
has created some lack of trust in the underlying data presentations.
Considerably greater outreach effort appears necessary, although this
distrust may not be overcome completely.
Communication and outreach goals focusing on improving data
interpretation and application may include the following:
ˇ Ensuring that stock assessment scientists, fisheries managers,
and other decision makers are aware of the limitations and
inherent biases of marine recreational fisheries statistics related
to survey design and approach. Issues that assessment scientists
and decision makers should be aware of include the lack of
continuity in intercept samplers, differences in sampling methods
applied to different modes of fishing (e.g., independent anglers,
guided anglers, shore-based anglers), lack of incorporation of
design elements in the estimation process (e.g., weighting of
spatial or temporal sampling strata), differences in frequency and
distribution of fishing trips due to local topography and climate
(e.g., rocky shorelines with rough seas in the Pacific Northwest
lead to fewer access points than sandy shores and calmer waters
in the southeastern United States), and the lack of consistency or
accuracy in species designation among fishing or sampling
modes. Scientists using marine recreational fisheries data may
assume that their statistical properties are known and estimable
when in fact they may not be. Resolution of this difficulty can
occur only through a detailed outreach process between data
collectors and data analysts.
ˇ Facilitating the evolution of the survey system. While one might
consider limiting the use of data to the purposes for which they
were designed initially, data needs are likely to continue to
expand. Communication channels and outreach can be used to
identify the growing needs of fishery analysts and other data user
groups in the hope that the system can continue to evolve to meet
new needs and expectations without circumventing present
demands.
OCR for page 124
124 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH APPROACHES
As one recreational fishing participant commented to this committee
regarding the value of a pair of meetings the MRFSS data collectors con-
ducted with recreational fishing participants: "At the first meeting, the
MRFSS staff talked at us; at the second meeting, they talked with us."
This statement speaks volumes--the key to successful communication
and outreach is to talk "with" each other, not "at" each other. There is no
question that personal relationships matter, as does creating an atmo-
sphere for honest dialogue and exchange of ideas, rather than one-way
information flow.
Communication and outreach to achieve many of the goals noted
above can fall under the broad rubric of "public participation"
approaches--focusing on how citizens (e.g., anglers, head boat and
charter boat operators) can participate more actively and in a more
informed manner in management and decision-making processes related
to marine recreational fisheries, including data-gathering and data-use
efforts. Many public participation concepts developed for other natural
resource contexts are appropriate for marine recreational fisheries.
Institutionalize the Importance of Outreach and Communication
Involvement with and leadership for outreach and communication
should become an expectation for key individuals at all levels of the
marine recreational fishing statistics effort. This includes data collectors
within NMFS, as well as data analysts, stock assessors, and decision
makers. Individuals' performance plans for their jobs should require the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) managers,
technicians, and scientists to get out of their offices and interact with
anglers and the nongovernmental organizations that represent them;
adequate funding should be provided to support such activities. Work
hour rules may need to be revised--anglers typically have regular jobs as
well and may only be available during evening or weekend hours. Thus,
flexible schedules are needed for the NOAA staff who are asked to
interact regularly with those in the recreational fishing community. Good
relationships between anglers and data gatherers mean that data gatherers
must be well-trained, informed, and able to relate to anglers; additional
training beyond the biological basis for their jobs will be required.
Strategic plans prepared by NMFS should include specific activity
OCR for page 125
COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH 125
targets and outcomes focused on outreach and communication with a
variety of audiences and stakeholder groups.
Conduct Regular Regional Workshops
Increasing displeasure among stakeholder representatives over the
use of the MRFSS or Large Pelagic Survey data to enforce recreational
quotas led to a 2002 workshop, which was convened in San Diego by
NMFS and the three fishery management commissions. The workshop
involved stakeholder representatives, academics, and various agency
personnel and sought to indicate the data types and data collection
system appropriate for quota management. Such workshops, when
conducted on a regular basis, provide a forum for stakeholders and
agency personnel to interact, build relationships, and directly address
questions of concern. Given the time and planning that such workshops
will require in order to develop relationships and explore topics in depth,
it may not be possible to add these as one agenda item among many in
regional council or commission meetings; stand-alone meetings may be
required.
Engage Anglers in Partnership with Scientists
Engaging anglers in partnership with scientists to collect data to
inform stock assessment or other recreational fisheries management
processes may help foster positive relationships between anglers and
scientists and may provide forums for ongoing communication, not
necessarily solely about recreational fishing statistics. Wilson (1999)
suggests four types of approaches for anglerscientist interactions, based
on a review of North American cases. Two of these are particularly
pertinent to recreational fisheries statistics. The first of these types of
fishermanscientist partnerships is the "deference model" in which
anglers collect data for use by scientists, but the analysis and
interpretation is left to the scientists. Examples of these types include
angler catch and participation diaries (e.g., Connelly and Brown, 1995)
and various tagging studies (e.g., Kohler et al., 1998). Volunteer angler
logbooks (e.g., for striped bass; see Appendix C) also help foster this
connection between anglers and scientists and provide a useful database
that can be used for estimation of certain fishery statistics, such as
discards. In the commercial sector, this approach has also included at-sea
OCR for page 126
126 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
collaborations in which scientists are aboard commercial fishing vessels
from which they collect data.
The second type of collaboration suggested by Wilson (1999) is that
of traditional ecological knowledge, a concept from the study of the
value of indigenous knowledge in informing natural resource man-
agement decisions. The focus here is to acknowledge that local anglers
possess a type of knowledge that is different from science-based
knowledge, but that knowledge is valid and useful, based on long-term
observation and experience (Neis et al., 1996; Pederson and Hall-Arber,
1999). Traditional ecological knowledge has been used in recreational as
well as commercial fishery systems (Sutton, 1999).
Wilson (1999) notes that perhaps the most established cooperative
research group is the Fishermen and Scientist Research Society in Nova
Scotia, which was initiated in 1993. Building trust between fishermen
and scientists was noted as both a crucial challenge to overcome and an
important accomplishment achieved through the partnership (King,
1999). Although the Fishermen and Scientist Research Society focuses
on commercial fishermen, the experience provides lessons for the
recreational fishing and scientific communities.
Establish Stakeholder Advisory Groups
Ongoing citizen and angler advisory groups provide a forum to
enable managers and scientists to learn about non-scientist, non-manager
concerns and perspectives regarding resource management data and
decisions, and also provide a learning opportunity for anglers and other
stakeholders to become more informed about fishery management issues.
For example, Oregon's Department of Fish and Wildlife Sportfishing
Advisory Group provides guidance and consultation to fishery managers
before they take in-season management actions or otherwise change
allowed fishing patterns and regulations for lingcod (see Appendix C).
Advisory groups have the potential to contribute to better informed
management decisions, as they have for some regional fishery man-
agement councils, as well as better relationships between anglers and
managers and scientists.
OCR for page 127
COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH 127
Forge Partnerships with Others to Implement Outreach Activities
The National Sea Grant system within NOAA provides an estab-
lished infrastructure with an outreach mission. NMFS staff could work
more closely to reach stakeholder groups already identified by Sea Grant
Extension Educators, and Sea Grant professionals may be enlisted to
help facilitate dialogue among data collectors, data analysts and
assessment scientists, managers, and the recreational fishing community.
Other partnerships may build from Memoranda of Agreement that
NMFS has already established for other outreach purposes, such as with
the National Marine Educators Association, the American Sportfishing
Association, BOAT/U.S., and the International Game Fish Association
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000b).
Insights regarding the development and establishment of outreach
programs involving anglers, scientists, and managers can be gained by
learning from existing programs. If the marine recreational fishing
statistics data-gathering effort moves toward more state-based (or
regional) implementation, outreach programs become much more feas-
ible, in that outreach should be aimed "locally" to respond to the needs of
angler-group stakeholders on the scales they most often operate (within
the state, statewide, or regionally). One example is the Marine Resource
Network that "provides a link between the recreational angling
community, research, and fisheries managers. Details on research and
projects funded with saltwater license revenues are conveyed to the
angling community. This network of some 2,000 individuals establishes
a system of volunteers to provide support for outreach and education
events" (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000b).
Another example is the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistical Program
that has an advisory committee comprising representatives from the
commercial and recreational sectors (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 2000b).
Target Opinion Leaders and Innovators
within Recreational Fishing Communities
Perceptions of the MRFSS (as well as other surveys) are likely
driven less by science and available data than by various opinion leaders
and "innovators" in the marine fishing community (recreational fishing
organization leaders, tournament anglers, well-known anglers, outdoor
writers, and tackle manufacturers and other infrastructure providers) who
OCR for page 128
128 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
carry particular weight and influence with rank-and-file anglers and
whose support therefore is necessary to foster. Neither rank-and-file
anglers nor their representatives are likely to embrace better designed
surveys on their own without efforts that increase angler knowledge
about the surveys and encourage formation of favorable attitudes toward
them.
NMFS's efforts to communicate with recreational fishing community
constituents should recognize that "innovators" and "early adopters" typ-
ically comprise a small proportion of any specific community (about 15
percent, according to Rogers [2003]). Other individuals within the recre-
ational fishing community are likely to be among the "early majority"
(34 percent), the "late majority" (34 percent), and the "laggards" (16
percent). Rogers (2003) describes the latter two categories as being "a
skeptical group," adopting new ideas reluctantly. Establishing productive
relationships with them will take time and effort.
Rogers (2003) identifies five sequential stages in the process of
innovation decision making, which apply to outreach with marine
recreational and commercial fishing communities. First, individuals need
to be exposed to the new and improved surveys and understand how they
work. Second, individuals will form either favorable or unfavorable
attitudes toward the new surveys and the way in which survey data are
used. Third, anglers will need to engage in activities that lead to a
decision to accept or reject the new surveys, implying the importance of
opportunities to interact regularly in positive, active ways with data
collectors and decision makers so that information about how surveys are
conducted and used is consistently reinforced. Fourth, implementation
occurs when individuals adopt the new survey and the results it provides
in support of fisheries management. Finally, the decision to adopt the
new innovation (i.e., a new survey approach) must be reinforced by other
messages from NMFS that are consistent with what anglers are learning
about the operations and value of the new marine recreational fishing
survey approach. Anglers may reverse their decision to adopt the new
survey and information it provides if they are exposed to messages that
conflict with their understandings. Frequent, consistent, positive, and
interactive messages are required to promote continued adoption.
OCR for page 129
COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH 129
Contact Anglers Directly Onsite,
Electronically, and Through Mass Media
Much of what has been said already emphasizes the importance of
building relationships and of consistent, positive interactions over time.
NMFS staff should not expect that anglers will come to them. They
should be prepared to go to the anglers. Reaching opinion leaders, as
well as rank-and-file, can be done by regular attendance at angler assoc-
iation meetings, even to the point of becoming a regular agenda item at
meetings. The more frequent, more consistent, and more collegial an
outreach message is, the more positively it will be received by the
stakeholder groups of interest. As noted by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (2000b), anglers want "timely feedback to
the recreational fishing community in terms of survey findings. They are
often asked to provide the data, but they do not hear anything about
results. From their point of view, it seems as if the data go into a dark
hole. They want systems set up where the information is reported back to
them." Regular dialogue with angler groups addresses this need. Work-
ing with species-specific constituent organizations may be a feasible
approach to address specific questions that link data collection efforts
with concerns about stock management.
An alternative to meeting anglers onsite is to communicate with
anglers directly through electronic means and through mass media. The
availability of a list frame for sampling purposes (e.g., state saltwater
fishing licenses, a national registry) would also provide an opportunity
for fisheries managers and scientists to identify, and thus contact,
individual anglers for purposes other than data gathering. Fisheries
managers and scientists could regularly produce articles for mainstream,
highly subscribed recreational fishing magazines and other outlets.
Provide Access to Data and Training on How to Use Them
The National Research Council (2000) recommends that NMFS use
its internet capability, in a more interactive sense, to provide easily
accessible and understandable data visualizations (e.g., graphic plots,
maps, pictures), as well as providing the ability to access and manipulate
data on marine fisheries. Since 2000, the technology to provide easy
access to user-specified data requests has improved, and data users have
come to expect convenient access to data summaries. Federal statistical
agencies have put considerable resources into developing user-friendly
OCR for page 130
130 REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
interfaces on their websites. Examples of these include the U.S. Census
Bureau's fact finder (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) and the National Center
for Education Statistics' National Assessment of Educational Progress
Data Explorer (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). De-
veloping such systems should be done in conjunction with stakeholder
groups who are likely to use them to ensure that websites are user-
friendly and to explain appropriately the limitations and purposes of the
data presented. Other recommendations (National Research Council,
2000) include conducting fishery assessment and management simu-
lations with real data within a workshop, and including a variety of
stakeholder groups who could hear each others' interpretations, concerns,
and perspectives (e.g., anglers, commercial fishermen, environmental
advocates).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The success of a communication and outreach program depends on
identifying the needs of various stakeholder groups in the marine
recreational fishing community and then responding to those needs. Thus
far, there has been a lack of confidence with the MRFSS. Improved
communication and outreach on data collection efforts, interpretation,
and use will improve the credibility of the MRFSS. It is difficult for
individual anglers to see the effects of recreational fishing on their
target species and to distinguish daily and seasonal fluctuations from
trends. As a result, no matter how well designed and implemented a
marine recreational survey is, it will not succeed fully without the
cooperation of anglers. Unless anglers believe that the survey is well
designed and implemented and that it is being used intelligently to
address appropriate management issues, they are unlikely to
participate. In particular, anglers need to have a basic under-
standing of the relationship between a statistically based sampling
scheme and the frequency with which each of them is (or is not)
contacted by a data collector. If anglers believe that their input is
influencing the design and use of surveys, they are more likely to be
satisfied with those surveys than otherwise. If anglers understand the
basic purposes of recreational fishing survey data, the decisions to
which these data are being applied, and how those data are
interpreted and used, they are more likely to feel confident that the
approaches used are legitimate and are more likely to participate
willingly and provide valid information. The MRFSS managers
OCR for page 131
COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH 131
should advise anglers and data users on the constraints that apply to
the use of the data for various purposes. Managers and anglers also
should be informed clearly about any limitations of the data. The
MRFSS process and mandate is also in need of a formalized method for
periodic evaluation to ensure that the program continually evolves to
meet the needs of the stakeholder groups.
In addition, the committee feels that a meaningful dialogue between
managers and anglers will require more interactions and better
relationships between the two groups. Outreach and communication
should be institutionalized as part of an ongoing MRFSS program so
their importance is acknowledged and appropriate expertise can be
developed. Angler associations should be engaged as partners with
survey managers through workshops, data collection, survey design,
and participation in survey advisory groups. Partnerships with other
programs, particularly those with existing outreach programs (such as
Sea Grant), could facilitate outreach efforts. Many National Research
Council and other reports stress the importance of making use of local
and traditional knowledge and capacity building and the involvement of
local communities in knowledge-gathering and dissemination activities.
Those recommendations apply, as well, to the recreational fishing
community and can be used as a resource for future MRFSS outreach
efforts.
OCR for page 132
Representative terms from entire chapter:
fishery management
