Do fishing education programs effectively transfer 'catch-and-release' best practices to youth anglers yielding measurable improvements in fish condition and survival?

There is growing interest in educating anglers on catch-and-release (C&R) best practices, yet there is little information on whether angler education programs yield measurable improvements in fish condition and survival. As such, we conducted a study focused on mixed-gender youth groups (aged 8-10) and contrasted three levels of training intervention. Treatment 1 training had no mention of C&R best practices. Treatments 2 and 3 trainings involved visual aids to illustrate best practices, while Treatment 3 added a hands-on demonstration. When caught by the most highly trained participants, fish experienced the least amount of air exposure, but were handled for longer periods, as trained anglers were more careful. Higher levels of training led to a higher likelihood that anglers wet their hands and used a bucket filled with water while handling fish but all treatment groups yielded similar incidences of deep hooking and bleeding. Overall, mortality (initial and after ∼12 h) was low across all treatments. Our findings suggest that a short (∼20 min) fishing workshop can transfer information on C&R practices, at least in the short-term, that can lead to some improved conditions for angler-caught fish. It is unclear the extent to which this information is retained in the long-term or how different target populations or training strategies might influence knowledge transfer and adoption and thus biological outcomes. With growing interest in sharing C&R best practices with anglers, we suggest that there is need for additional research on outreach strategies to ensure that such efforts are effective and yield meaningful benefits to fish welfare and conservation

Applying a knowledge–action framework for navigating barriers to incorporating telemetry science into fisheries management and conservation: A qualitative study

Telemetry studies have produced fundamental knowledge on animal biology and ecology that has the potential to improve management of aquatic resources such as fisheries. However, the use and integration of telemetry-derived knowledge into practice remain tenuous, so we surveyed 212 fish telemetry experts to understand existing barriers for incorporating telemetry-derived knowledge into fisheries management practices. We apply a sociological knowledge–action framework to structure the findings, which revealed four primary challenges to integrating telemetry findings into management: (1) the perceived uncertainties and unclear relevance of telemetry findings; (2) the underlying motivations and constrained rationalities of actors that can lead to inaction or suboptimal decisions; (3) the constraints of institutions, governance structures, and lack of organizational support, and (4) time and mismatches in scale, culture, and world views. On a more positive note, the relational dimension (collaboration, trust, and relationship building) appears to be important for overcoming and avoiding barriers. We further provide recommendations to navigate these perceived barriers and argue that these lessons also apply to other fields of applied ecology, conservation, and resource management

Collaboration and engagement produce more actionable science: quantitatively analyzing uptake of fish tracking studies

Aquatic telemetry technology generates new knowledge about the underwater world that can inform decision-making processes and thus can improve conservation and natural resource management. Still, there is lack of evidence on how telemetry-derived knowledge can or has informed management, and what factors facilitate or deter its use. We present one of the first quantitative studies related to the science-action gap and evaluate factors that influence the uptake of fish telemetry findings into policies and practices, as well as social acceptance of these findings. We globally surveyed 212 fish telemetry researchers regarding the knowledge uptake of an applied fish telemetry research project of their choice. Respondents’ personal and professional attributes, as well as the attributes of their chosen projects, were analyzed using machine learning algorithms to identify important factors that influenced the uptake (i.e., use, trust, and/or acceptance) of their findings. Researchers with extensive collaborations and who spent more time engaging in public outreach experienced greater uptake of their findings. Respondents with greater telemetry experience and commitment (e.g., more telemetry publications, higher proportion of research on fish telemetry) tended to achieve more social acceptance of their findings. Projects led by researchers who were highly involved and familiar with the fisheries management processes, and those where greater effort was devoted to research dissemination, also tended to experience greater uptake. Last, the levels of complexity and controversy of the issue addressed by the research project had a positive influence on the uptake of findings. The empirical results of this study support recent messages in the science practitioner literature for greater collaboration, knowledge co-production with partners, and public engage

Embracing Disruptive New Science? Biotelemetry Meets Co-Management in Canada's Fraser River

Evidence-based management of fisheries means being continually open to new sources of scientific findings and data, but this is difficult when there is uncertainty or disagreement about their value and utility. We submit that this is the case for rapidly advancing animal tracking research, or biotelemetry. While biotelemetry science has been broadly accepted in fisheries and aquatic research communities, its incorporation into fisheries policy and management has been limited. To gain insight into this disjuncture, we conducted an exploratory study of perspectives on biotelemetry among government employees and nongovernmental stakeholders involved in co-managing salmon fisheries in Canada's Fraser River. Using a knowledge mobilization theoretical framework, we examine how respondents perceived biotelemetry research across three dimensions: its epistemic value (its capacity to generate useful and valid new knowledge), its practical value (relative to real-world considerations such as cost), and its degree of fit or discord with existing policy and management practices. We find a wide range of views between both groups, which may explain the hesitant uptake of biotelemetry into policy and management in this case. We conclude by advancing several research questions as a guide for future study of

Knowledge users’ perspectives and advice on how to improve knowledge exchange and mobilization in the case of a co-managed fishery

Environmental scientists have long been frustrated by the difficulties involved in transferring their research findings into policy-making, management, and public spheres. Despite increases in scientific knowledge about social-ecological systems, research has consistently shown that regulators and stakeholders draw on tacit, informal, and experiential knowledge far more than scientific knowledge in their decision-making. Social science research in the fields of knowledge exchange (KE) and knowledge mobilization (KMb) suggest that one of the major barriers to moving knowledge into practice is that scientists fail to align their communication strategies with the information-seeking behaviours and preferences of potential knowledge users. This article presents findings from in-depth qualitative research with government employees and stakeholders involved in co-managing Pacific salmon fisheries in Canada's Fraser River. We investigate how members of these groups access, view, and use scientific information, finding both similarities and differences. Members of both groups express a strong interest in academic science, and self-report using scientific information regularly in their work and advocacy. However, the two groups engage in different information-seeking behaviours, and provide notably different advice to academic scientists about how to make research and communication more relevant to potential users. For example, government employees focus on the immediate applications of research to known problems, while stakeholders express greater concern for the political context and implications of scientific findings. We argue that scientists need to “go where the users are” in the behavioural and intellectual sense, and tailor their communications and engagement activities to match the habits, preferences, and expectations of multiple potential user groups. We conclude with recommendations on how this may be done

How do potential knowledge users evaluate new claims about a contested resource? Problems of power and politics in knowledge exchange and mobilization

This article examines how potential users of scientific and local/traditional/experiential knowledge evaluate new claims to knowing, using 67 interviews with government employees and non-governmental stakeholders involved in co-managing salmon fisheries in Canada's Fraser River. Research has consistently shown that there are major obstacles to moving new knowledge into policy, management, and public domains. New concepts such as Knowledge Exchange (KE) and Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) are being used to investigate these obstacles, but the processes by which potential users evaluate (sometimes competing) knowledge claims remain poorly understood. We use concepts from the sociology of science and find that potential users evaluate new knowledge claims based on three broad criteria: (1) the perceived merits of the claim, (2) perceptions of the character and motivation of the claimant, and (3) considerations of the social and political context of the claim. However, government employees and stakeholders have different interpretations of these criteria, leading to different knowledge preferences and normative expectations of scientists and other claimants. We draw both theoretical and practical lessons from these findings. With respect to theory, we argue that the sociology of science provides valu

“Consulted to death”: Personal stress as a major barrier to environmental co-management

Co-management is widely seen as a way of improving environmental governance and empowering communities. When successful, co-management enhances the validity and legitimacy of decision-making, while providing stakeholders with influence over processes and outcomes that directly impact them. However, our research with participants in co-management across several cases leads us to argue that many of the individuals who contribute to co-management a

To manage inland fisheries is to manage at the social-ecological watershed scale

Approaches to managing inland fisheries vary between systems and regions but are often based on large-scale marine fisheries principles and thus limited and outdated. Rarely do they adopt holistic approaches that consider the complex interplay among humans, fish, and the environment. We argue that there is an urgent need for a shift in inland fisheries management towards holistic and transdisciplinary approaches that embrace the principles of social-ecological systems at the watershed scale. The interconnectedness of inland fisheries with their associated watershed (biotic, abiotic, and humans) make them extremely complex and challenging to manage and protect. For this reason, the watershed is a logical management unit. To assist management at this scale, we propose a framework that integrates disparate concepts and management paradigm

Acoustic telemetry and fisheries management

This paper reviews the use of acoustic telemetry as a tool for addressing issues in fisheries management, and serves as the lead to the special Feature Issue of Ecological Applications titled Acoustic Telemetry and Fisheries Management. Specifically, we provide an overview of the ways in which acoustic telemetry can be used to inform issues central to the ecology, conservation, and management of exploited and/or imperiled fish species. Despite great strides in this area in recent years, there are comparatively few examples where data have been applied directly to influence fisheries management and policy. We review the literature on this issue, identify the strengths and weaknesses of work done to date, and highlight knowledge gaps and difficulties in applying empirical fish telemetry studies to fisheries policy and practice. We then highlight the key areas of management and policy addressed, as well as the challenges that needed to be overcome to do this. We conclude with a set of recommendations about how researchers can, in consultation with stock assessment scientists and managers, formulate testable scientific questions to address and design future studies to generate data that can be used in a meaningful way by fisheries management and conservation practitioners. We also urge the involvement of relevant stakeholders (managers, fishers, conservation societies, etc.) early on in the process (i.e., in the co-creation of research projects), so that all priority questions and issues can be addressed effectively