Benefits and Barriers to Effective Knowledge Exchange Between Commercial Anglers and Fisheries Researchers

By on February 3, 2025
A group of anglers fishing in National Elk Refuge. Flat Creek Anglers (Credit: Lori Iverson / USFWS via Flickr CC BY 2.0)

Local Ecological Knowledge, or LEK, has become a popular topic in fisheries research and management in recent years as the need for local knowledge and investment from commercial anglers and community members is necessary to implement management strategies successfully.

LEK can originate from any local group, such as indigenous tribes and recreational or commercial anglers. Information about where a target species can be found during a specific part of the year or the availability of certain species can be gleaned by relying on the knowledge of people who live off of the fishery.

This information makes fisheries research easier as locals can quickly point researchers in the direction of where to find elusive species and share what they have observed over the years. In return, researchers provide data that can help inform and refine future angling efforts.

Furthermore, as this data will likely be used to inform management efforts that will impact angling in the fishery, the involvement of locals in the research increases scientific understanding, according to a 2024 study. Additionally, working closely with locals ensures that local perspectives drive research and management approaches.

Key Challenges to Navigating Angler Perspectives 

While there are many benefits to partnering with local communities and mutually exchanging knowledge, there are challenges as well. The 2024 study found the following to be the main barriers:

  1. Limited research budgets that inhibited knowledge exchange activities.
  2. Technical language barriers lead to the exclusion of some anglers.
  3. Fishers’ reluctance to share expertise.

In terms of cost, some smaller fisheries received limited public funds and aren’t as lucrative, limiting exchange and collaboration activities due to cost restrictions.

One of the study’s participants explained that high-return fisheries like rock lobster receive a great deal of government funds for research because they earn so much in return. However, less lucrative industries, like wetline fisheries, are under-researched as a result of lower returns.

Despite the barrier, the anglers surveyed seemed hopeful that working together would lead to an improved scientific understanding of the target species.

Another barrier lies in how data is presented and shared between researchers and commercial anglers, with fishers sharing frustration over their concerns falling on deaf ears in the research community in the past.

One angler interviewed (Fisher 1) stated, “It’s hard for fishermen to articulate their ideas and thoughts to a scientist. You know, it’s just different levels of formal education. Doesn’t mean to say the fishermen are dumb and that, they’re quite smart, but they haven’t been to university, ya know. It’s harder for them to put it into words or to try and express it in a more scientific way. There’s a bit of that barrier.”

Ultimately, the sentiment shared among participants was that this language difference led to the exclusion of anglers who were less familiar with scientific approaches.

Reluctance to share expertise with researchers stemmed from a few concerns. First, anglers feared that their knowledge would be used to support the closure of fishing grounds in the name of conservation—a dilemma that limits catches for commercial anglers but helps preserve the fishery for future generations.

Fisher 18 explains, “I’d rather not [share spawning sites] because, you know, it obviously ends up getting closed down. Where you can’t fish there and that [referring to fishing closures and no-take reserves]. Which is probably not a bad thing, either, you know. And as the future goes on and I get older and the fishery changes, I’d probably be inclined to share that stuff.”

Second, anglers were hesitant to share knowledge out of concern that they would lose their competitive advantage.

Fisher 19 states, “They [fisheries researchers] came and asked us about the spawning aggregations for NW snapper. Yeah we had a bit of a conversation about that. But it’s a funny thing, that one [topic] is one we would like to keep to ourselves. So the trouble. even in fisheries, a fisheries person still has a best mate. And we can’t afford to lose them marks. Or the fish can’t afford for us to give them marks away.”

Conclusion

Overcoming these challenges can be difficult, but it is necessary to ensure that no knowledge is left behind. Tailored engagement models and training researchers to communicate with individuals from non-academic backgrounds help bridge the divide between anglers and researchers in historically excluded regions.

Furthermore, increased funding to support partnerships in all fisheries—including those that are less lucrative—and broadening engagement beyond just research needs call anglers into fisheries science.

Read the full study here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124001321?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=9015de40e9b53973

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

New NexSens XB200 Data Buoy