The Kohala Center

The Flow of Fish

PreparedbyMarahJ.Hardt,OceanInkPhone:203‐293‐5590

Email:marah.hardt@gmail.comWeb:www.kohalacenter.org

FinalReport

February28,2011

Flow of Fish

February 2011

2

TableofContentsACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................................................... 3INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 4METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................... 5THEAPPROACH .........................................................................................................................................................................5THEPROCESS .............................................................................................................................................................................6GISDATABASEDEVELOPMENTANDQUANTITATIVEANALYSES.....................................................................................8QUALITATIVEDATAANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 10

RESULTS................................................................................................................................................................12OVERALLINTERVIEWEFFORT:WHODIDWESPEAKWITH? ...................................................................................... 12SUCCESSRATIO....................................................................................................................................................................... 13QUANTITATIVEANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................................... 13WhereAreTheseFishersFrom? .................................................................................................................................. 13WhatKindsofFishersAreThey?................................................................................................................................. 15HowDoTheyFish? ............................................................................................................................................................ 21WhatDoTheyFish? .......................................................................................................................................................... 23FlowsofFishersandFish ................................................................................................................................................ 25

QUALITATIVEANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................................ 37ThemeI:Regulation/Monitoring................................................................................................................................ 37ThemeII:Education.......................................................................................................................................................... 40ThemeIII:Commercialization...................................................................................................................................... 42ThemeIV:Access ................................................................................................................................................................ 44ThemeV:Long­termPerspective ................................................................................................................................ 45ThemeVI:OtherCulprits ................................................................................................................................................ 46DefiningFishers .................................................................................................................................................................. 47

OTHERSEAFOODSECTORS ............................................................................................................................49AREASOFOPPORTUNITY ...............................................................................................................................52WHATWELEARNED ............................................................................................................................................................. 52FINALTHOUGHTS................................................................................................................................................................... 55

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................56RESEARCHTEAM ...............................................................................................................................................57

Flow of Fish

February 2011

3

Acknowledgements

Wewould like towholeheartedly thank themany fishers, restaurant owners, chefs, seafoodpurchasers,andgovernment,academic,andindustryexpertswhosograciouslygavetheirtimeinassistingwiththisproject.Whetheritwas15minutesoverthephoneorathree‐hourlunch,theirwillingnesstosharetheir insightandhelpusexpandournetworkwasthefoundationofthisstudy.Inreturn,wewillcontinuetousethisrichbodyofinformationtoidentifymeansofpromotinghealthier,moresustainablereeffisheriesthatbenefitislandcommunities.

We also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo’s GISAnalyticallabstaff,andinparticular,ChrisNishioka,whogenerouslydonatedhistimetoassistwiththeGIScomponentofouranalysis.Inaddition,wewouldliketothankDr.RegKokubun,statistician for theDivisionofAquaticResources (DLNR)andThomasOgawa,managerof theMarineRecreational InformationProgramfortheirassistance inprovidingHawai‘i Island‐levelanddistrictleveldatafromtheirstatedatabases.

WethankArielleLevine,NOAA;ChadWiggins,TNC;andMeganLamson,MehanaConsulting;fortheircollaborativespiritandinvitationtojointheNOAAMappingWorkshop.

Thisprojectwassupportedbyagrant fromtheHawaiiFishTrust,aprogramofConservationInternational.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

4

IntroductionAsearlyasthe20thC.,thenearshorereeffisheriesoftheHawaiianIslandswerenotedascontainingfewerfishthaninthepast.Sincethattime,combinedlocalpressures(coastaldevelopment,invasivespecies,overfishing)andglobalthreats(climatechange)havecontinuedtoacceleratedeclines.Ofallthese,however,overfishingismostoftencitedastheprimecauseofresourcedepletion(Jokieletal.,2011).YetthesourceofoverfishingremainsobscuredinHawai‘iasdetailedrecordsareonlytakenofcommercialcatch.Yetnon‐commercialcatchlikelycontributessignificantlytorecentdeclinesinfishpopulations—thebestavailableresearchestimatesthatcatchfromnon‐commercialfishersisthreetimesthatofthecommercialsectoracrossthestate(Jokieletal.,2011).Despitetheirapparentdominanceintermsoftake,thesefishersdonothavetoreporttheircatch.Severalroutinesurveysbygovernmentagencies(HawaiiMarineRecreationalFishSurveys,2011)andotherorganizations(seeHamnetetal,2004,forexample)haveattemptedtoelucidatethis“blackbox”ofthefishery,butmuchstillremainsunknown.Fishersaroundtheworldareknownfortheirreluctancetodivulgeinformationabouttheirpractice.And,rightlyso.Manyafisherhaspersonallyexperiencedthedevastatingdepletionthathappenswhenafavoritefishingspotissharedtoowidelywithothers.However,thefishersaretheoneswiththemostknowledgeoftheircraftandtheenvironmentthatsupportsit.Theirstoriesrevealtheobstaclesthatcurrentlypreventmoresustainablepractices;theirinsightshelpguideinnovationtowardsopportunityforchange.Therefore,itistofishersandothermembersoftheseafoodsupplychainthatwemustturntolistenandlearn.Thisproject’sultimategoalistodesigninnovativesolutionsforincreasingfoodsecurityonHawai‘iIslandbysupportingmoresustainablereeffisheries.Becauseofthelackofdataon(especially)reeffisheries,itwasdeterminedthatanisland‐wideassessmentofthedistributionofcatcharoundtheisland—whocaughtwhatandwheredidthatcatchwindup?—wouldbeanecessaryfirststepinthisprocess.Afterall,howcansolutionsbeinventedwithoutadetailedmapoftheproblems?Ourpremisewasthatamorethoroughunderstandingofhowfishflowedacrossthelandscapewouldhelpprovideinsightintotheobstaclesandbarriersfishersandconsumersface,andthatthesebarriers,inturn,wouldhelppointthewaytoareasofopportunityripefordevelopment.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

5

METHODS

TheApproach

One of the main goals of the Flow of Fish study is to help determine best practices forapproaching communities and gathering the kind of sensitive information required forunderstanding and improving marine resource use in Hawai‘i. We therefore included socialscientists on our own team and consulted with other experts in Hawaiian culture andanthropologicalstudiestodevelopandrefineourinterviewprotocolthroughoutthestudy.

Inordertofacilitateamoreopendiscussion,wedecidednottodevelopaformalquestionnaireandinstead,stuckwitha“talking‐story”approach.Thedisadvantagetothisapproachisthatattimes, certain quantitative information was not captured. The advantages, however, weremany:

• Interviewees were provided the space and time to share their thoughts morecomprehensively.Thisallowedformoredetailedinformationtosurfacethanmighthavebeencapturedbyaformalsurvey.Forexample,bytellingstories,fishersprovidedcolorfulnarrativesoftheirfishinghistory,andthatoftheirparents,whichoftenincludeddiscussionoftheirvaluesandmotivationsforfishingwithouttheinterviewerhavingtodirectlyasksuchquestions.

• The format permitted tangential lines of thought to emerge that led back to basicinformation.Forexample,inoneinterview,thefisherhadbrieflydescribedhowhelearnedtofish froma friendwhonow livesonO‘ahu.He thenprovided someof thebasic informationneeded for the study, includingwhere his fishwas distributed (all within his home district).Later,however,whendiscussing themethodsofhis fishing,hedescribedat length the closebondhedevelopedwithhis friend,whotaughthimtofish. Inreturnforall theteaching, thefishersaidheoftensendssomeofhiscatchtohisfriendonO‘ahu.Theinterviewerwasthenabletoconfirmthatsomeofthefisher’scatchleavestheisland.

• Story‐telling surfaced insights and issues that we had not yet considered important. Asinterviewees offered insight outside of the more focused lines of questioning, we had theopportunitytoexploretheseissuesinfutureinterviews.Whileagoodformalsurveywillalwaysincorporatea“ground‐truthing”process tomakesure that thequestionsaskedarecapturingaccuratelythedatatheinterviewerisseeking,itismuchhardertocaptureinformationthattheinterviewermaynothavethoughttoconsider.

Anexampleofthiswaswhenonefisherdescribedaconnectionbetweendrug‐useandfishing.This sparked the idea toask fishersmoredirectly if theyhad thoughtsabout the larger‐scalesocietaldriversbehindanychangesorpracticesthattheyobserved.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

6

Anotherimportantdevelopmentinourprocesswastoprovideanopportunityforintervieweesto reviewournotes fromthe initialmeeting.We thankKepaMaly forguidingus in thisnewdirection.Thisdevelopmentservesthreefunctions:

Improves accuracy: it provides an opportunity for interviewees to edit/check interview andmakesureinformationiscorrectandincludesallrelevantdetails.

Buildstrust:itallowsintervieweestofeelmorecomfortable,knowingthattheinformationtheyshareattheinterviewissomethingtheycanreview.Anditgivestheinterviewerthechancetoshow transparency and good faith in capturing and accurately representing thestories/informationshared.

Increases referrals: by providing an opportunity to check back with the interviewees, thefollow‐upoffersthechancefortheinterviewertoaskforreferrals.Often,intervieweesthinkofpersons torecommend(orperhapsaremorewillingtosharetheirknowledgeaboutpeople)after they have had the chance to look over the interview notes, and are familiar with theprocess.

Thedrawbacktothisdevelopment isanadditional lagtime.Afterwritingup interviewnotes,researchersmusteithersendbye‐mailorprovideahardcopyforintervieweestoreview.Then,researchersmust follow up to solicit feedback.We found that it can take severalweeks forintervieweestoreviewandprovidethis feedback.Phonecallstofollowuparecritical (e‐mailcorrespondenceisinevitablyslow).However,webelievethattheprosofthisdevelopmentfaroutweigh the cons of extra time, given the overarching goal of increasing trust and buildingpositiverelationships.

TheProcess

We began our interviews by reaching out to personal contacts within The Kohala Centernetworkandthenetworkofteammembersofourresearchgroup.Wefoundthatindividualsweremostengaged(andwillingtoparticipate)whenwepresentedthestudyinthecontextoffoodself‐relianceandfoodsecurity.MakingclearTheKohalaCenter’soverarchingmissiontocreate educational and job opportunities on Hawai‘i Island that are culturally andenvironmentallysensitiveandexplicitlystatingthatwewerenotconnectedwithanyregulatoryagencyalsohelpedovercomesuspicion.

We also found it useful to explain that our goal was to hear, straight from the source (i.e.,fishers and other sectors of the seafood supply chain), the obstacles that they faced and tosolicit their ideas for how to overcome those obstacles. Interviewees also seemed morecomfortable oncewe explained that all datawould be averaged at the district level, so that

Flow of Fish

February 2011

7

detailedinformation,especiallywithregardtotheirfishinglocations,wouldnotbenecessary.Finally,askingpeopletosharetheirfishinghistoryalsoseemedtosetpeopleateaseandwasamorecomfortable(andlogical)placetostart.

In order to expand our sphere of contacts, we spoke with experts in the field of marineconservation, government officials, and industry leaders who helped provide us with insightintohowtodevelopourinterviewprocessandalsoprovidedleadsoncontactstointerview.Inaddition,collaborationswerekeytodevelopingcontactsoutsideour immediatenetwork.WeengagedwithNOAAresearchersonamappingworkshopthatbroughttogetherdiversemarineresource users in North Kona and South Kohala. In addition, funding also helped supportundergraduate researchers in UH Hilo’s Marine Anthropology course. These studentsconducteddozensofinterviewswithindividualsfromdifferentsectorsofsocietythatwewouldnothavehadopportunitytoreach.

Finally,weattendedpublicmeetingsorganizedbyfederalandstatebodiesonissuesrelatingtomarine resource use in Hawai‘i in order to meet and introduce the project to individualsinvolvedwithfisheries.

It is importanttonotethat initially,theprojectwasdesignedtointerviewindividualsfromalldifferent sectors of the seafood supply chain—from producers (fishers of all kinds) towholesalers,distributors, retailersandend‐users (chefs, restaurantowners).However,duetotimeconstraintsandthemorepressingneedforinformationonreeffisheries(becauseofalackofdataandthecurrentstateofdeclineinthissector),weshiftedfocusapproximatelyhalfwaythroughthestudytonon‐commercialreeffishers.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

8

GISDatabaseDevelopmentandQuantitativeAnalyses

WorkingcloselywiththeUniversityofHawai‘iatHilo’sGISlab,wedesignedaGISdatabasetoorganize and house information from all interviews. For GIS work, we focused on therecreationalfishersectorandorganizedallquantitativeinformationtopromotestandardizationandeffectivevisualizationoftheresults.

Figure1.GISDatabase.Showingthemaincategoriesusedtoorganizethedata,andthevarioussub‐categoriesthatemergedfromfishers’responses.

Thedataentry form, createdwithMicrosoftAccess, is shown in Figure1, detailing themaincategories and associated variables used to identify and categorize interviewees and theirresponses.Tocreatethisdatabase,all interviewswerereviewedandquantitativeinformationwaspulledandcategorizedaccordingtobasicvariablesusedtoidentifytheinterviewee(suchas Age, Home District, etc.) and specific data targeted by the interviewer (such as speciescaught, frequencyof fishingtrips,methodof fishing,distributionofcatch).Thedatabasewascontinually refined as more interviews were added to make sure that the information waspreservedatthemostdetailedlevelpossiblewhileassuringconsistencyandaccuracy.

Forexample,thecategory“Lochome”containsdistrictinformationatthemorerefinedscaleofnorthandsouth,suchas“NorthKohala”or“SouthKona.”However,becauseallfishersdidnot

Flow of Fish

February 2011

9

include this level of detail in their responses, we also created the Judicial ID category, thatidentifiesthe6districtsoftheisland:Hilo,Puna,Ka‘u,Kona,Kohala,andHāmākua.

Thedatabaseincludes25maincategoriesdescribedindetailinTable1.

Table1.MaincategoriesanddefinitionsforuseinGISdatabase.Category Definition Interview ID Identifying number of interview. This was given in chronological order of when

the interview was entered into the database and corresponds with first number in saved MS Word documents

Age Age of fisher in years Loc_Home District where fisher lived, includes North and South subdivisions Judicial_ID Number that corresponds with State GIS District layers for home location of fisher Primary_Loc Primary district fished by fisher Loc_fish All districts fished by fisher Reef_Pelagic Type of fish caught by fisher (Reef, Pelagic, or both) Primary_Fish Name of the primary fish caught by fisher (Hawaiian or Common) Species Names of all fish (given in common or Hawaiian names) caught by fisher Loc_Consumed Location(s) where caught fish is consumed Consume Describes what is done with catch (consume, giveaway, trade, sell) Who Who catch is distributed to (family, friends, neighbors, other, or not applicable) Primary_Method Primary method of fishing practiced by fisher Fishing_Method All methods of fishing practiced by fisher Shore_Boat Whether fishing is done by boat, from shoreline, or both Avg_Catch_LBS Average catch in pounds (lbs) per month Fish_Number_Per_Month Average number of fish caught per month Effort Average number of hours spent fishing per month Frequency Average number of fishing trips per month High_Pressure Areas noted to be under high pressure from fishers and other ocean resource users Self_Identify How fishers describe themselves with regards to fishing Background Ethnic background of fisher if provided How_Long_Fishing How many years fisher has been fishing Observations Brief summaries of qualitative observations provided by fishers Species_Present Same as “Species” above- added to facilitate ease of access to species list (internal

GIS set-up issue)

The database allowed for the creation of maps, which visualize quantitative spatial data.However, because informationwas collected in a qualitative fashion, adjustments had to bemadetostandardizethedatabeforemapscouldbecreated.

Whenasking fishershowoftenthey fish,howmanyhours theyspendfishing, thenumberoffish they catch, and howmany pounds of fish they catch, some fishers responded by sayingtheygofishingall thetime;fishallday long;catchstringersfullof fish;orcoolersfullof fish.When these typeof responseswere givenwithout further or specific detail to numbers, thedata point was not entered and left blank. However, this information was taken into

Flow of Fish

February 2011

10

considerationwhenanalyzingthetrendsrevealedinthedata(i.e.,wenotedhowmanyfishersfromaparticulardistricthadmentionedtheyfished“allday”whenlookingateffortdata).

Whengivenarangeofnumbersasaresponsetothesamequestions,anaveragewastaken.Forexample,ifafishersaidhe/shewentfishing3–4timesperweek,theaverageofthosetwonumberswascalculatedtobe3.5timesperweek.Thesamemethodwasusedtoreachaveragenumberswhengivenrangesforeffort(hoursspentfishing),numberoffishcaughtpertrip,andpoundsoffishcaughtpertrip.

Then,inordertostandardizeacrossfishers,wedeterminedthatamonthlytimescalewasthemostlogicalunittoapply,asmanyfishersgaveusresponsesin“permonth.”Forthosethatdidnot,wemultipliedbytheappropriateconversion.Forexample,iftheaveragenumberoffishingtripsperweekwas3.5,wemultipliedby4(numberofweeksinthemonth),togetatotalof14fishingtripspermonth.Thisnumberwasthenenteredfortheirfrequencyoffishingtripspermonth.Theaveragenumberoffishingtripspermonthwasthenusedtocalculatetheaveragenumber of hours fished permonth, the average number of fish caught permonth, and theaveragenumberofpoundsoffishcaughtpermonth.Soifafisherfishedanaverageof14dayspermonthandcaught10fishoneachtrip,thedataentryforourdatabasewouldbeatotalof140fishcaughtpermonth.

Othertimesfishersdescribedtheirfrequencyoffishingtripsinwaysthatweremoresporadic.Forexample,somefishersmentionedfishingeverydaysometimeswhenthefishingisgoodbutlatersaidthattheirusualamountoftripsmadewere1–2timespermonth.Inthesecases,weusedanaveragetakenfromtheirusualfishinghabits(forthisexample,1.5timespermonth).Anotherfisherreportedthathehadfishedabout10timesinthepast2years.Inordertogetastandardized monthly average to fit in the database, the number of fishing trips, 10, wasdividedbythetimeframegiveninmonths(24)toget0.42tripspermonth.

In all cases, as quantitative data was analyzed, we continually referred back to the originalinterview to make sure we stayed true to the context and accounted for these subtle butimportantvariancesasmuchaspossible.

QualitativeDataAnalysis

Theinterviewsprovidedvaluablequalitativeinformationinadditiontothequantitativedata.Inordertosynthesizetheideas,insights,andperspectivesofover70interviewees,wedevelopeda system to organize the interviews, identify themes, and then work to document patternswithinthosethemes.

First, two lead researchers re‐read every interview, highlighting ideas related to the mainthemes of “problems/obstacles/sources of frustration,” “things liked or disliked,” and“solutions/ideas for improvement.” After this initial pass through, the researchers discussed

Flow of Fish

February 2011

11

their findings, and came to an agreement on the most prevalent and robust themes thatemergedfromtheinterviews.Onceconsensuswasreachedatthislevel,researchersthenwentback to the interviews and identified more specifically how many individuals mentioned aspecific theme,and inwhat capacity (i.e.,webegan to identify sub‐themeswithin themajorcategories).

Basedonthesecategorizations,webeganto identifypatterns,anddiscern insights intoareasthatmight provide opportunities for future initiatives to take place and helpmove forwardmoresustainablereeffisheriesinHawai‘i.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

12

ResultsOverallInterviewEffort:WhoDidWeSpeakWith?

Weconductedatotalof116interviewsfromallsectorsoftheseafoodsupplychainincluding74 fishers, 4 charter boat captains, 10 restaurant owners/chefs, 8 retailers, 2wholesale/distributors,4elderfishers(nolongeractivelyfishingbutprovidedperspective),and14 experts (academics, government officials, industry experts). The duration of interviewsrangedfrom15minutestothreehours(averageof54minutes)andoccurredoverthephoneorinperson.

Weinterviewedindividuals18toover75yearsold.Themajorityofourintervieweesweremen,butwedidhavefivewomenfishersandseveralwomenrestaurantowners/chefs.

The rate of interviews increased over timeaswe built out our network and began toreceivemorereferralsfromthosetowhomwe initially reached out. The number ofinterviews conducted each month duringthe studyperiod is shown in Figure2. Thisfigure includes an estimate of half theinterviews by the undergraduates inSeptember and half in October, helping tocontribute to the rise in interview rateduring this time.November andDecemberproved difficult time‐wise because ofholidays and many referrals that wereceivedwere postponed during this time.

ByJanuarywewereturningourfocustosynthesizingthedatacollectedandthereforewerenotabletopursuefurtherinterviewsatthattime(althoughwehavemanycontactsremaining).

Thegeneral increasingrateof interviewsshowssupportthatourmethodforconnectingwithfisherswassuccessfulbutalsohighlightsthatthereisaninherent“building”stagewiththiskindofwork.Severaloftheexpertswespokewithcautionedusthatthislagtimewascommon,andtherefore needs to be incorporated into any future timeline for projects where communityengagement is required. We found that two months was the approximate period of timeneededtostartgeneratingmorecontactsataconsistentrate.

Inaddition,thedegreetowhichwereceivedreferralsalsoreflectspositivelyontheapproach.Table2showsabreakdownofthegenerationofreferralsforthestudy.Ascanbeseeninthe

Figure2.Numberofinterviewsconductedeachmonthduringthestudyperiod

Flow of Fish

February 2011

13

table, the number of referrals thatwere being generatedby second and third‐level contactswereconsistent,showingatransferoftrustfromword‐of‐mouthnetworkingthatprovidedanever‐growinglistofcontactsforthestudy.Table2.Numberandtypeofreferralspassedduringthestudy.Referral Level

Definition Number of Referrals

1 Personal contacts of The Kohala Center or research team, including undergraduate researchers

70

2 Individuals referred by our network of personal contacts 72 3 Individuals referred by 2nd level contacts 19 4 Individuals referred by 3rd level contacts 18

SuccessRatio

Inordertogaugehowourapproachworked,wecreateda“successratio,”definedastheratioofsuccessfulinterviewscompleted(numberof“yes”)toattemptedcontacts(numberof“yes”+“tried”).Oursuccessratioforallsectorswas80%,andthiswasalsothesuccessratioforfisher‐onlydata.

Given the focus of this study is on reef fishers, this report presents the qualitative andquantitativeanalysisofthe74fishersinterviewed.Abriefsummaryoffindingsfrominterviewswithindividualsfurtherupthesupplychainisprovidedattheendoftheresultssection.

QuantitativeAnalysis

WhereAreTheseFishersFrom?

Ofthe116totalinterviewsweconducted,74werewithindividualswhowerereeffishers,reefandpelagicfishers,orpelagicfishersthatfishedmostlyforfoodandthuswerelumpedinwiththiscategory(asopposedtocharterboats).ThetotalnumberoffishersthatweinterviewedineachdistrictisgiveninFigure3.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

14

Figure3.Numberoffishersinterviewedfromeachdistrict.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

15

Unfortunately, wewere not able to connect with any individuals who lived in the Hāmākuadistrict (fishers inWaimeaweregrouped into theKohaladistrict).Also,wewereonlyable tointerview3 fishers fromKa‘u (the last fisheroccurred too late to include inmaps).Wewereabletogeneratemorecontactswithineachofthesetwounder‐representeddistricts,butdueto logistical constraints we were not able to follow through with interviews at this time.Because of the low sample size in Ka‘u, analysis and discussion of resultswill focus onHilo,Puna,Kohala,andKonadistricts.

Wehadan almost equal representationof fishers fromeast andwestHawai‘i,with28 totalfrom the east side (19 from Hilo and 9 from Puna) and 29 in Kona. We also were able toconduct15interviewswithindividualswholivedinKohala,includingWaimea.

WhatKindsofFishersAreThey?

Onanisland‐widebasis,wefoundthat64%ofthefishersweinterviewedfishedonlyreeffish,while27%fishedreeffishandpelagics,and9%fishedonlypelagics.

Theseproportionsweremoreor lesspreservedonthedistrict‐level(Figure4).Hilo,however,lackedanypelagic‐onlyfishers.Asignificantproportionoffisherstargetedbothpelagicandreeffishineachdistrict. AquarteroffishersinHiloandKonafishedboth,whilenearlyhalfdidinPuna. Kohala fisherswereequallydividedbetweenonlypelagics andbothpelagics and reeffishat13%each.

Wealsoaddedalayerofdatatoexplorewhetherornotthesefishersweresellingtheircatch.Thislevelofinquiryisparticularlyimportantasthisistheinformationthatisgenerallyusedtosetupmanagementsystems.Hawai‘iisespeciallydifficultforcategorizingfishersbecausetheydonotneatlyoccupythetypicalbinarycategoriesof“commercial”or“recreational”ascanbeseenfromFigure5(Glazier,2007).

Themajority of fisherswe spokewithwho targeted only reef specieswere non‐commercialfishers,withnoneclaimingtobecommercial,andonlyasmallportion(10%inHiloand7%inKohala)sellinganyoftheircatch.Likewise,noneoftherelatively largeportionof fishersthatdescribedtheircatchasbothreeffishandpelagic(yellowpiewedgeinFigure4)claimedtobecommercial.Between7–13%oftheseindividualssoldsomeoftheircatchinKohala,Hilo,andKona.Noneofthefisherswespokewith inPunaclaimedtosellanyoftheircatchatall.Theonly category forwhichwehad some fishers claim tobe commercialwerepelagic fishers inKona.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

16

Figure4.TypeofFisher:Reef,Pelagic,orBothbydistrict.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

17

The vast majority of the fishers claimed to be reef, non‐commercial fishers. However, thecombinedpercentageoffisherswhosoldsomeoftheircatch(beitreef,pelagic,orboth)wasabout 20% in Kohala and Hilo, and about 10 % in Kona. We view these as conservativeestimatesfortworeasons:(1)fisherswouldoftenclaimnottoselltheircatch,butfurtheroninconversation mention how they offset costs through sale (see more on this in QualitativeAnalysis:Theme III:Commercialization)—manysimplydon’tconsider thisas“sales”andthus,somefisherswespokewithmayoffsettheirtakebutnothavementionedit,evenwhenasked;(2)individualswhoselltheircatchbutdonothaveaCMLarelesslikelytoadmittothesesales.

Thus,useof “shoreline fisher”or “reef fisher”maybeamoreaccuratedescription (ormorelikely predictor) of a fisher’s activities than the use of terms such as “recreational” or“commercial.” None of the 74 fishers we interviewed considered themselves commercialfishers,andmanyalsoshirkedthelabel“recreational,”asthosewhofishedforfoodortraditiondid not consider what they were doing “recreation.” (Charter boat captains, however, allconsideredthemselvesrecreationalandstronglyrebukedthetitleof“commercial”).

Anotherpotentiallayerofassociationishowfishersfish:fromshore,byboat,orboth.ResultsofthisdataaremappedinFigure6.Wefoundthatthemajorityoffisherswhouseaboatalsodosomeformofshorelinefishing.Thismaybeanartifactofoursurveyapproach,whichwastargetingreeffishers,butitalsomakessensefromaweatherandfinancialperspective:fishersmentioned that when theweatherwas rough, theywould shoreline instead of taking out aboat;also,iffinancesaretight,itischeapertogototheshoretofishthanpayforthefuelfortheboat. Inaddition,noteveryonecanaffordaboat, andmanyof the individualswe spokewithfishonafriend’sorafamilymember’sboat.Thus, if theircontact isnotgoingout,theyresorttoshorelinefishing.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

18

Figure5.Typeoffisherbytargetfishgroupandcommercial/non‐commercialstatus.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

19

Figure6.TypeofFishing:Shore,BoatorBothbydistrict.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

20

Notsurprisingly,thereappearstobeanassociationbetweenthetypeofcatch(reef,pelagic,orboth)and the typeof fishing (shoreline, reef,orboth). Thepercentageof fisherswho fishedonly pelagics nearly match the percentage of fishers who only used a boat. The sameassociationwasfoundbetweenthepercentageoffisherstargetingonlyreefspeciesandfishingonlyfromshore.Similarly,thepercentageoffisherswhotargetreeffishandpelagics(“both”inFigure 4) was similar to the percentage of fishers that used both boat and shoreline‐basedfishing.Thesecorrelationsmakesense—wewouldexpectpelagicfishersto, ingeneral,utilizeboatsmorethanreeffishers(thoughthisisnotalwaysthecase)andreeffisherstosticktotheshoremore.What these patterns suggest, however, is that categorizations by shore or boatmaybeanothermeansfororganizingfishersthatreflectsmoretrulythetypeofcatchtheyareexploiting(ratherthanrecreationalorcommercialcategorizations).

TheonlydistrictwherethispatterndoesnotholdwasKohala,wherethepercentoffisherswhocatchreeffishonlyisfargreaterthanthepercentageoffisherswhoonlyfishfromshore.Thisindicatesthat inKohala,at least,a largerportionofthereeffishmaybecaughtbyboatthanfromshore,comparedwithotherdistricts.Ofcourse,anyexaminationofthefrequencyofboatusemust consider the locationofboat ramps: inKohala, there is bothKawaihaeharbor andPuakōboatrampwhichfacilitateeasyaccesstothereefs (there isalsoahoistatMāhukona,thoughwedidnotspeakwithanyonewhomentioned it specificallyas something theyused;and another ramp at Kēōkeawhich takes some skill to launch from). The presence of thesepotentialaccesspointscouldexplainthisfinding.

Whether a fisher uses a boat or the shoreline, however, does not appear to predictwhat isdone with the catch. We found no strong patterns in comparing commercial vs. non‐commercial use (or both) of the catch and shoreline, boat (or both)‐based fishing activities(Figure5). This is despite the strongperceptionby some fishers thatboat fishers tend tobemorecommerciallyoriented,“shorelinefishersfishtofeedpeople;boatsfishtosell.”Certainlyboat‐based fishers have larger expenses that could incentivize fishers to offset with sale ofsomeoftheircatch,butthereissomecommercialsalefromshorelinefishersaswell.However,giventhelackofinterviewswithanycommercialreeffishers,andonlyafewwithcommercialpelagic fishers, no definitive conclusions regarding the association between shoreline use orboatuseandcommercialactivitycanbemadeatthistime.

These findings summarized thus far support previous studies that identify the need forregulationstobemoreflexibleandadoptanon‐binaryapproachtocategorizingfishers.Manyfishersareneithercommercialnorrecreational,butstraddlethetwospheres—bysellingtheircatch or trading it through formal and informal markets. What they target (i.e. reef versuspelagic) appears as amore usefulmeans ofmanaging fishing activities than asking them todefinethemselvesascommercialorrecreational.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

21

HowDoTheyFish?

There is another way oflooking at types of fishersand that includes looking attheir fishing method (gear),how often they fish, andhow long they fish. Thefisherswe interviewedwerenotonlydiverseinthetypesof methods used amongthem, but also individually:over 75% of all fishers usedtwo or more types of gear.Rod and reel andspearfishing from shorewere the most popularmethods employed in alldistricts (Figure 7). Ingeneral, Puna had a moreeven distribution ofmethods,withabout10%ofall fishers spearfishing fromboat,trolling,thrownet,andbottom fishing. Otherdistricts were moredominated by rod and reelandspearfishingfromshore,withasmallerpercentageoffishers dabbling in othergeartypes.

The exception to this wastrolling in Kona andspearfishing by boat in Kohala, which also had more than 10% of fishers participating. Notsurprisingly,Hilofishersdidnotemployspearfishingfromboatsortrollingasmuchastheotherdistricts,whichmatchesthelackofboat‐onlyfishersreportedinFigure6.

Figure7.Thenumberoffisherswhousevarioustypesoffishinggear.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

22

OurfindingsdifferfromthosereportedtotheStateintheCREELsurveys(FigureA1)inthatrodand reel fishing among our fishers was not nearly as dominant as in the State’s database.AccordingtotheState,over80%ofallfishersinalldistrictsuserodandreelfishing,withothergeartypesusedlessthan10%ofthetime.OurdatashowedthatmorefishersfromPunaandKohalausedspearfishing(boatandshore‐based)thanrodandreel,andinalldistricts,rodandreelwasnevermorethan37%ofallgeartypesused.

Itisunclearwhyourdatawouldshowthisstrongcontrast,butitmustbekeptinmindthatthenumberofinterviewsfromeachdistrictwespoketowassignificantlylessthatthosecontactedbytheCREELsurveys.However,itisalsopossiblethatCREELsurveystendtolocateandfindrodandreelfishersmoreoftenthanothertypesbecausethesurveydesignisbasedonashoreline‐interceptmethod,andfishersusingrodandreelfromshoreareeasiertolocateandapproachthanspearfisherswhomustbecaughtenteringorleavingthewater,forexample.

Wealsoinvestigatedthetimecommitmentoffisherstotheirfishingactivity,bothintermsofhow often they went fishing (number of fishing trips per month) and how long they spentfishingduringeachtrip(effort).Bothofthesefactorswereextremelyvariable,withindividualsofferingawiderangeofanswersthatvariedbymonth,season,andyear.Inaddition,differentfishers inherently had higher or lower levels of commitment, depending on factors such asemployment:“Iwouldliketogomoreoften,butfishing’sahobby,notajobsoIstillhavetogotoworkduringtheweek.”Otherfishersmentionedkids/familyobligations(“usedtogomorebefore thekids,”or“Icanonlygowhenmy ‘honey‐do’ list isdone”),weather,andcost (thiswasforboat‐users)aslimitingbothfishingtripfrequencyanddurationoffishingtrips.

Figure8.Effortdata.(a)Tripspermonth;(b)Hourspermonth.Boxplotsshow1stand3rdquartiles,horizontalblacklinedepictsmedian.Whiskersshowminandmaxvalues.

ba

Flow of Fish

February 2011

23

Figure8illustratestheaveragenumberoftripspermonth(frequency)andbycorrelation,thehourspermonth(averagehourspertrip*frequency).Therewereseveral“outlier”fisherswhofished everyday and others that would fish multiple hours in a day (such as all night).Unfortunately, the sample sizes were low for both of these categories, which makes actualcomparisonamongdistrictsdifficult.Whatcanbesaidisthatintermsoffrequencyoftripspermonth,halfofthefisherswespokewithfishmorethan3timespermonth,butmostfishlessthan7timespermonth.Asforeffort,morethanhalfthefishersinKona,Puna,andKohalafish15hoursamonth,butmostfishlessthan30hourspermonthforalldistricts.InKonaandPuna,most fish less than about 30 hours per month. Half of Hilo fishers fish less than 5 hours amonth,theshortestdurationofalldistricts.

WhatDoTheyFish?

Besidesidentifyingfishersastargetingreef,pelagic,orbothsetsofspecies,wealsoattemptedto gather information on amore species‐specific level. Aswe have notedwith almost everyother characteristic, fishers also proved highly variable in their catch,with somementioningtakingonlyoneor twospecies,whileothers listedup to26.Approximatelyhalfofall fishersdescribedsomewherebetween2and10speciesastheir“typical”catch.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

24

Figure9.Top5mostcommonlymentionedspeciesforeachdistrict.Numbersrepresentthenumberoffisherswhomentionedeachfish.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

25

On a district level, there were both commonalities and differences in terms of the speciescaught.Ofthetopfivemostcommonlymentionedspecies,Menpachiwasincludedinallfourdistricts(Hilo,Puna,KohalaandKona)whileUhu,KoleandManiniwerepresentinthreeofthefour.However,afterthesespecies,districtsvariedintermsofthefishreported(Figure9).

It is important to note, however, that this and catch abundance, were perhaps the mostdifficulttocaptureaccurately.Thisisbecausefishersoftenwouldsay“andotherreeffish”orsimply “I catch whatever bites, reef fish.” In terms of abundance, fishers were even lessdetailedwiththeiranswers,oftensayingitdependedontheday,orthat“thereisnosuchthingasanaverageday.”Somewouldoffer“catchafew”or“several”asananswer,butwhenaskedtoputthatintoanumberorweight,wouldsaytheycouldn’tsay.

Nineteen individuals did not provide any species‐specific data, while only 9 provided anestimate of weight of catch. Approximately 30 interviewees provided an estimate of thenumberoffishtheycaught.Foralldistrictscombined,75%offisherscaught lessthan64fishpermonth,withabouthalfofallfisherstakingfewerthan18fishpermonth.

FlowsofFishersandFish

Oneofthemajorcomponentsofthisstudywastodeterminewherefishersfishedandwheretheircatchwoundup.Thisiswhatwetermed“theflowoffish”anditprovidesinsightintohowlocal seafood supports thediet of different communities across the island, howeachdistrictcontributestothesupplyof localseafoodconsumption,andtheconnectionsamongdifferentdistricts.

Notsurprisingly,wefoundthatmostfishersfishedwithintheirhomedistrictandconsumedthemajorityoftheircatchthereaswell(Figures10‐15).

FishersfromPunafishedineverydistrictexceptforKohala.OverhalfofthefishersinterviewedinPunamentionedfishing ineitherHiloorKa‘u,butonlytwofished inKonaandoneontheHāmākuacoast.TherewasalmostasmuchconsumptionofcatchoutsideofPunaaswithinthedistrict,withcatcheateninKona,Hilo,andtwofisherssendingtheircatchtoO‘ahutofamily.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

26

Figure10.FlowoffishandfishersfromPunatootherdistricts.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

27

Hilofishershadasimilarpattern,withmorethanhalfoffishersnotingPunaandKa‘uasregularfishinggrounds.NearlyhalfofallHilofishersalsofishedinKona(agreaterpercentagethanthosefromPuna).About25%ofHilofishersalsofishedtheKohalacoastandslightlymorethanthatfishedtheHāmākuacoast.However,asmallerproportionoffishersatetheircatchoutside

Figure11.FlowoffishandfishersfromHilotootherdistricts.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

28

oftheirhomedistrict,comparedwithPuna.OnlyonefisherconsumedinKohalaorPunadistricts(nocatchwasconsumedinKonaorKa‘u,despitenearlyhalftheHilofishersfishingthosedistricts),andonlytwodescribedtheircatchasconsumedinHāmākua.

Similar to theeast side, themajorityof fishers inKohala fished in that regionor inKona.Nofishers from Kohala fished in Puna, but one did travel to Ka‘u, two to Hilo, and one to theHāmākuacoast.SimilartoPuna,approximatelyhalfofallfishersconsumedfishoutsideoftheirhomedistrict,(about25%notedtheircatchwasconsumedinKona,whiletwofishersdescribedconsumptionoftheircatchinHiloandanothersentcatchoffisland).

Figure12.FlowoffishandfishersfromKohalatootherdistricts.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

29

ThevastmajorityoffishersinKonadoatleastsomefishinginKonaandhavetheircatchconsumedinKona.However,aboutonethirdofKonafisherstraveltoKa‘uandaquartertraveltoKohalatofishaswell.Onlytwofishers(7%)fromKonaincludedHiloandonlyonementionedHāmākuaasdistrictswheretheyfished.

Figure13.FlowoffishandfishersfromKonatootherdistricts.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

30

SimilartoHilo,veryfewKonafishersdescribedtheircatchasconsumedinoutsidedistricts:onlyonefishernotedKa‘uasaplaceofconsumption,andoneinKohala.Onefisheralsomentionedsendingtheircatchoff‐islandtoO‘ahu(toafriend).

OfthethreefisherswespokewithfromKa‘u(onlytwoaremapped),twoincludedKonaasafishingspotandonementionedthattheysometimesfish inHilo.Onefishercatchesandeats(orshares)allhisfishinKa‘u.

Figure14.FlowoffishersandfishfromKa‘utootherdistricts.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

31

Thereisclearlymovementaroundtheislandoffishersandfish,butthevastmajorityoffisherscontinuetofishintheirhomedistrictatleastsomeofthetime.TherelativelysmallnumberofKonafishersthatgototheeastcoastisincontrasttothenearly36%percentoffishersfromHilothatnamedKonaasafishingdestination.Thisinformationsuggeststhattheremaybemoremovementoffishersfromtheeastsidetothewestthanviceversa.AndsinceHilofishersdidnotlistKonaasaplaceofconsumption,thefishtheycatcharemovingwesttoeasttosupplypeopleontheeastcoast.

Thispatternofmovementmaybedrivenbyshorelinefishers,especiallyspearfishers,whodonot have cumbersome gear to tote around. Conversations with experts on local fishingcommunitiesbroughttoourattentionthegear‐levelconsiderationsthatmaybeunderlyingthebehavior—in other words, it may not just be access, but ease with which fishers can travelfarther,thatdetermineswherefishersfish.Toinvestigatethisfurther,wemappedtheflowoffishers by type of catch (pelagic, reef, both) andmethod (shore, boat, both) to look for anypatterns(Figure15‐16andA2‐A21).Overall,wefoundthatboat‐onlyandpelagic‐onlyfisherstendedtostayinthehomedistrictorneighboringdistricts.Reef‐onlyfisherstendedtobethemostwide‐rangingforalldistricts.ForKonafishers,movementtoHilowasnotedbyreef‐only(Figure15)orshoreonly(FigureA11)fishers.ForKohala,reef‐only(FigureA2)andshoreandboatfishers(FigureA6)weretheonestogotoHilo.Punahadasimilar,complementarypattern,withreef‐only(FigureA16)andshore‐only(FigureA17)fisherstheonlyonesaccessingKona.Ontheotherhand,inHilo,bothreefandpelagicfishers(FigureA9)andshoreandboatfishers(FigureA10)traveledtoKonainadditiontoreef‐only(Figure16)andshore‐onlyfishers(FigureA8).Theseobservationssuggestthat,notsurprisingly,flowoffishersislikelyinfluencedbymobilityofgear,withreef/shorebasedfisherslessrestrictedintheirtravelthanboat/pelagicfishers.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

32

Figure15.Flowofreef‐onlyfishersfromKonatootherdistricts.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

33

Figure16.Flowofreef‐onlyfishersfromHilotootherdistricts.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

34

AlthoughourdatafromKa‘uislimited,overhalfthefishersfromtheeastcoastandnearlyonethirdfromKonaallgotoKa‘utofish.Veryfewconsumetheircatchthere(orsharetheircatch).ThisindicatesthatKa‘uappearstobeasourceoffishforresidentsacrosstheisland,aperceptionheldbyoneofthefishersweinterviewedfromKa‘u,whostatedthat“Lotsofpeoplefromotherislandsarecomingintothefishinggrounds,shorelineandboatfishermenfromotherislandsandotherpartsofHawai‘iisland.”

Onanisland‐level,thevastmajorityoffishisconsumedeitherbythefisherorbythefisher’sfamilyandfriends(Figure17and18).Almosteveryfisherwespokewithsharedsomeoftheircatchwithpeoplethattheyknew.Givingfishtothoseinthecommunitywhowereinneed,orcould not fish themselves, was also a common pattern to emerge. At least seven fishersspecifically mentioned “sharing with community and those who couldn’t fish” or giving to“families that are struggling.” From the elderly to single mothers, many fishers consideredgivingsomeoftheircatchas“therightthingtodo”andawayto“giveback”tothecommunity.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

35

Figure17.Destinationofsharedcatchisland‐wide.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

36

Figure18.Typesoftradebydistrict.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

37

QualitativeAnalysis

Weidentified6majorthemesfromamongstthe74fisherinterviews:Regulations/Monitoring;Education;Commercialization;Access; Long‐termPerspective;andOtherCulprits. Eachmajortheme contained several sub‐categories that highlighted different aspects of the generalconcern.Wealsomadenoteofthedifferentwaysinwhichfisherstendedtodefinethemselvesor their fishing practices, to help provide insight into how to best categorize the complexassortmentthatmakesupfishersinHawai‘i.

ThemeI:Regulation/Monitoring

Regulations/Monitoringwasthemostprevalenttheme,withhalfofall interviewees includingsomementionof regulations as the sourceof theproblemor a need for improved/differentregulationsinordertocurbthecurrentdeclinesinreeffish(Table2).

Flow of Fish

February 2011

38

Table2.Regulation/Monitoringsub‐categories,definitions,andprevalence.Prevalenceofsub‐categoriesisthepercentofthe37respondentsthatmentionedaspecificsub‐categorywithintheRegulationstheme:prevalence=(n/37)*100.

Theme Sub-category Definition Number (Prevalence)

Regulations/ Monitoring

Any mention of state or federal laws, enforcement, data monitoring

37 (50%)

Enforcement need The mention of a need for more enforcement or a lack of enough enforcement; also, a recognition that enforcement is difficult

10 (27%)

Ban SCUBA Spearing Mention of the need to ban spearfishing on SCUBA

4 (10.8%)

Ban Nighttime Spearing

The need to ban nighttime spearing; one case specifically mentioned for uhu

4 (10.8%)

License/Permits/Limits Desire for more licensing, permits, or limits

4 (10.8%)

No License/Permits Disapproval of any new licensing or permits

2 (5.4%)

MPAs good Approval or support of protected/closed areas/zones

7 (18.9%)

MPAs bad Disapproval of closed areas as management tool

3 (8.1%)

Bag limit Desire for limits on total take of some species

2 (5.4%)

Size limit Desire for more/different limits on legal size

4 (10.8%)

Seasonal closure Desire for more seasonal closures/support of seasonal closures

3 (8.1%)

Data Need for better/more data to base regulations upon including the need to integrate traditional Hawaiian knowledge

3 (8.1%)

Theneedforgreaterenforcementwasthemostprevalentissueexpressedbyallinterviewees.Thereappearstobeageneralacknowledgementthatenforcementofficersaretoofewandfarbetween tomakeadifference.The result is that the regulations inplaceareoftenworthlessbecauseofalargeamountofrule‐breakingthatgoesonunpunished.

Akeyfindingwasthatdiscussionsofenforcementoftenincludeddiscussionsabouteducation(ThemeII).Somebelievedrule‐breakingwassimplyamatterofpeoplebeinguninformedaboutregulations,as“lotsoftimesthepoachingisignorance.”Othersarguedthattheonlypractical

Flow of Fish

February 2011

39

way to enforce regulations was for individuals to be their own enforcers, and this requirededucatingindividualsaboutvalues,notjustwhichrulesexisted(seeTable3).

Several individuals argued that teaching the next generationof children was therefore critical to addressing this issue.Othersarguedthatthestateneedstoreplicatestructuresthatexist elsewhere, such as Alaska, and ramp up funding tosupporta teamofenforcementofficers thatwouldbea realpresenceon theshorelinesand in thewater.Alongwith thisphilosophy was a tangential insight that increasing thepunishmentwasparamounttoshiftingthebehavioroffisherstowards compliance: “We need to make example—sorry tosayit—ofpeoplewhobreakthelaw,andthenpeoplewillbemorerespectfulbecausetheywillknowothersarewatching.”

When it came to licensing, thereweremixed responses.Threeofthefourrespondentswhomentionedaneedforpermittingwanted this applied only in a restricted sense(andeachwantedtotargetadifferentgroup:commercialfishers,recreationalfishers,ornon‐residents).Twofisherswere strongly opposed to any licensing system for reef‐fishers.

There was some consensus, however, when looking atcomponentsoftheregulatorysystemthatwerealreadyin

place.Nearlyhalfofallrespondentsconcernedwithregulationssupportedoneormoreofthetypes of regulations currently in use, including closed areas (nearly 19% of respondentssupported),seasonalclosures,sizelimits,andbaglimits.Theseindividualsexpressedsupportofsuch measures and/or a desire for increased use of these tools for more species/morelocations.

Therealsoappearstobeastrongbeliefthatspearfishingisoneofthemostharmfulformsofreef fishing, contributing to declines. This observation is based on the multiple fishers whoargued for bans on nighttime spearing and SCUBA‐spearfishing (combined total of 21%).Nighttime spearfishing appeared to be linked more to commercially based activities: “[We]needtostopnighttimereefdivers—theyfill3–4coolersfullbecauseitissoeasy…TheyallselltoHonoluluandmakeakillingspreeofitfromNorthKona/S.Kohalatosouthpoint.Fewguysdo a lot of damage because if catching to sell, theywill take everything.” From 2008–2009,StateCommercialMarineLicensereportsshowthatapproximately81,000poundsoffishwerereportedascaughtusingdiving/spearonHawai‘iIsland,andabout54,400ofthatwasreeffish(primarilyuhu,lobster,andmenpachi).Itmaybeworthdetermininghowsignificantthistakeis

“Wemusteducateourchildrentobegoodstewards.Childrenthenbecometheirownenforcers…wewouldnotneedDLNRorDoCARE.”

“TheentirebudgetforDLNRmarineislessherethanthatinWyoming!Andtheyonlyhavestreamsandlakes.Wearesurroundedbyocean!”

Flow of Fish

February 2011

40

comparedwithlocalreefproductivity,andhowmuchofthisiscaughtatnightoronScuba.SeemorediscussionofthisissueunderThemeIII:Commercialization.

Therewerealsofourindividualswhosaidtheydidnottakestateregulationsintoaccount,andfishedaccordingtowhattheircustoms/traditionswereintermsofsizeorcatchlimits.

ThemeII:Education

AsmentionedintheRegulationsection,Educationwasanotherprevalentthemetoariseoutofthisstudy(Table3).Twenty‐sevenpercentofallintervieweesnotedthateducation(orlackofeducation) was an important factor in determining future health of coral reef fisheries. Theneedformoreeducationwasclearlyexpressedbythemajorityofinterviewees,butwhatkindofinformationtheybelieveneededtobesharedvariedamongrespondents.

Halfof the individualsexpressedconcerns that ingeneral, fisherswereunawareof thebasicnatural history of the reefs, and the importance of things such as breeding seasons, size formaturity,andotherfactorsthatcangreatlyaffectpopulationdynamics.“Youseethecoolersallfulloffishwitheggs,butifyouapproachthefishers,theygetangryandsay‘youcan’ttellmehowtofish.I’vefishedthiswaymywholelife.’Theyjustdon’tknow.”Thelogicbehindthissub‐categoryisthatiffishersunderstandwhycertainregulationswereinplace,thiswillhopefullyleadtogreatercompliance.Onefishertookthingsastepfartherthough,andarguedthat“Lotsof education is needed, showing the community that these things [different kinds ofmanagement tools] have worked in other places, because the community doesn’t want an‘experiment’intheirownbackyard.”Inthiscase,itistheresponsibilityoftheregulatorstonotonly teach the logic behind the laws, but to provide success stories to indicate that thesacrificesfisherswillmakeareworthit.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

41

Table 3. Education, sub‐categories, definitions, and prevalence. For sub‐categories, prevalence is the percentage of the 20respondentswithintheeducationthemethatreferredtoaspecificsub‐category

Theme Sub-category Definition Number (Prevalence)

Education 20 (27%)

Natural History Need to educate people about fish life cycles, how our actions affect the reef, how management works

10 (50%)

Values Instill conservation/sustainability ethic/ long-term perspectives

8 (40%)

Traditional Hawaiian Knowledge

Includes education on traditional Hawaiian management approaches and integrating this knowledge with modern management

6 (30%)

Lack of information

Need to educate individuals about what kind of rules exist/ disseminate information better especially to certain ethnic groups

3 (15%)

Abouthalfofthefisherswhowantedtoseemorenaturalhistoryeducationalsowantedtoseegreateremphasisonteachingvalues.Asdiscussed intheregulationstheme,there isastrongbeliefthatteachingfisherstoviewthereefasaresourcetobeconservedistheonlywaythatsustainability can be reached: “We really need to educate the next generation that this is asustainableresourceifwedoitright.Thatistheonlywaywewillgetthere.”Phrasessuchas“the ocean is our icebox,” “take only what you need,” and “think about the long‐termconsequencesofouractions”werecommoninthissub‐category.Insomecases,fishersarguedthatsuchlessonsneededtobesharedwithadults,whileotherfishersemphasizedtheneedforteachingthenextgenerationoffishers(whointurn,couldinfluencetheirparents).

Almost as popular was the call for traditional Hawaiian knowledge to be more thoroughlyintegratedintomodernmanagement.Thissub‐categoryoftenblendedwiththeprevioustwo,arguing that Hawaiian moon calendars (seasonal closures) offered insight into appropriateregulations while the concept of “taking only what you need” was a value adhered to byculturalpractitioners.Forexample,onefisherwhoidentifiedhimselfasaculturalpractitioner

Flow of Fish

February 2011

42

remarkedthat“howmuchyougetdependsuponwhatisavailable,andyoutakeonlywhatiscorrectamountgiventhat.Everydaywearepracticing,watchingareas.”

Finally,afewfishersnotedthatalthoughrulesandregulationswerepublicallyavailable,therewas a lack of access to this information for new fishers in the community, especially certainethnic groups. Therewas concern that fishers fromoutsideHawai‘i,where restrictionswerenotinherenttotheirculture,werenotonlyunawareoftherestrictionshere,butunawarethatregulationsevenexisted.Findingnewchannelsforcommunicatingthisinformationtoawideraudiencewasviewedascriticalbysomeparticipants.

ThemeIII:Commercialization

There was a strong sense among fishers that selling fish for profit was at the heart of theoverfishingproblem(34%ofinterviewees).Sixty‐fourpercentofrespondentsconcernedaboutcommercialfishingwereagainstsaleoffishbecauseitwasperceivedtoleadtooverfishing,orwereagainstitsimplyinprinciple(Table4).“Theproblemisperspective—peoplenowthinkingabouthowmuchsomethingisworth,notintermsofhowmuchdoIneed,howmanypeoplecanbefedbythis,butinsteadtheythinkintermsofdollars.Thatistheheartoftheproblem,whenweshiftedfromaresourcetoacurrency‐basedeconomy.”

Theseviewsarecomplicatedbythefactthatsomefishersoffsetthecostoftheirownfishingbysellingtheircatchandthereforeviewcommercialsellingasanintegralpartoftheirownfishingpractice.Moreoftenthannot,however,thefishtheysoldwerepelagic,andnotreeffish.Thispoints to the complexityofdefininga fisher inHawai‘i (Glazier, 2007). The samepersonwillsometimes fish for reef fish for themselves,but,especially if theyareusingaboat, theymaytroll or handline for pelagics in order to offset the gas cost. Alternatively, therewere a fewfisherswhofocusedoncatchingandsellingpelagics,butoccasionallywouldalso fish for reeffish(butnotsellthose).Approximately8%(n=6)ofthefishersweinterviewedmentionedthattheysoldfishtooffsetcosts,andfourofthosesixsoldpelagics.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

43

Table4.Commercialization,sub‐categories,definitions,andprevalence.Forsub‐categories,prevalenceisthepercentageofthe

23respondentswithinthecommercializationthemethatreferredtoaspecificsub‐category.Theme Sub-category Definition Number

(Prevalence) Commercialization Any form of selling fish for

money—this does not include trade or exchange

23 (33.7%)

Against Philosophically against the idea of selling fish for profit

6 (24%)

Cause of declines Idea that the profit motive incentivizes fishers to overfish

9 (36%)

Ban sale to outside markets

Against commercial selling of local fish off-island

1 (4%)

State leveldata forHawai‘i Islandshowsthatnearly54,000poundsof reef fishweresoldonaverage in2008–2009andthatreef fisharecaughtandreportedfromalldistricts.OurstudyprovidesevidencethatinHawai‘i,reeffisharesold“informally”byindividualswhogodoor‐to‐doororselltorestaurants“under‐the‐table”(Chineserestaurantswerespecificallymentioned).Fourintervieweesspecificallymentionedthattheyknewpeoplewhosoldreeffish(or‘opihi)toO‘ahu,butthatthistradewasnotalwaysreported.Thelackofanylargemarketforreeffishinrestaurants or retail outlets here in Hawai‘i supports the evidence that reef fish are eitherexportedtoO‘ahuorsold inmore informalarrangements:“Peoplewhowanttoeatreeffishheregoandcatch it themselves.”However, it is important tonotethatwedidnot interviewany fishers who considered themselves “commercial” reef fishers, and therefore, we aremissingthedetailsonthatchanneloftrade.

AsshowninFigure5,nofishersthatwespokewithwereclassifiedascommercialreeffishers,and less than10%claimed tobecommercial andnon‐commercial reef fishers inanydistrict.Further investigations into thevolumeof reef fish thatpasses through thesechannelswouldgreatlybenefitamoreholisticunderstandingoftheFlowofFishonHawai‘iIsland,andtherolethatcommercializationplays insupporting lifestylesand/or impacting the reefs.Twoways todo thismight be to build upon the network of contacts established in this study and to digdeeperintothoselocaloutletsthatdosell(orserve)reeffish.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

44

ThemeIV:Access

About one‐quarter of fishers mentioned that access (either too much or too little) was aproblem. The majority (55%) believed that the “free for all” was a primary driving force ofoverfishing. These fishers saw the increased ease of access to the shoreline as facilitatingincreasedpressureonthereefs fromtoomanyfishers.“It ishardernowtocatch.Beforeweneeded4WDtogetthereanditwassoabundantatthattimethatwecouldbepickywithourcatch…ButnowIdon’tseethosedaysanymore.”

Another fisher remarked that “when Iwas younger, access to the oceanwas difficult so notmanyfishermenwereontheshores.”Anothersummeditupthisway:“Ifacarcango,nomorefish.” In general, the sentiment was that places that had more difficult access (such as theHāmākuacoast)werethoughttohavemorefish;placesthatwereeasyforfisherstogettoaswellasothers(tourists,surfers,snorkelers),hadfewerfish.Sometimes,areasofmulti‐usealsocausedproblemsbecausefisherscouldn’tgettotheirresource.Forexample,itwasnotedthatpeoplevisiting the shorelinewouldoftenurinateon the rockswhere familiesused togatherfood.

Ontheotherhand,fivefishersarguedthataccesswastoorestricted.Thisviewpointwasheldby fisherswho believed gated communities and private developments had cut off access totraditionalfishingspots:“wearesupposedtohavegatheringrightsbutjustyougoandtrytocollectinsomeplaces—they’llarrestyoufortrespassing.”

However,limitedaccesswasnotalwaystheresultofdevelopments—twofishersremarkedthattheywereexcludedfromsomefishingspotsby“locals”whowouldnotletthemcomeandfish.Onefisherdescribedanincidentwhereheaskedifhecouldfishinaplacewherenobodywasfishingatthetime,andtheoldermentheresaidhecouldnotbecausetheywere“saving”thespotforafriend.

What is interesting about this latter perspective is that it reflects a deeper cultural traditionwherefishersaskpermissionbeforegoingtofishoutsideoftheirownhomeareas.Thispracticeis still observed bymany, andwasmentionedby 3 interviewees as a fundamental aspect ofbeing a “pono” fisher. In the case above, it is not clear if the fisher was outside his homedistrict,butclearlyaskingpermissionwasnotenoughtogainaccess.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

45

ThemeV:Long‐termPerspective

This theme reflects an awareness of the importance of sustainability or long‐term thinkingwithin fisheries. Thisawarenesswasevident in the reasonswhy fishersdid certain things,orwasstateddirectly,suchasthefisherwhosaid,“It’snotlikeCostco,it’snotanendlesssupplyoffish.Ifwedon’ttakecarenow,wewon’thavefishlater.”Somefishersmentionedthattheynolongerfishedforcertainspeciesbecausetheywereawarethefishwereindecline(uhuwasmentionedinparticular).Othersnotedthatitwasmoreimportantthanevertoonlytakewhatyouneed:“takemyonefishandIgohome.”

Overall,thisthemecapturedtheperceptionamongfishersthatchangeshaveoccurredonthereefandthereisaneedforalong‐termperspectiveinordertoachievemoresustainableuseofmarine resources (Table 5). Of the 74 fishers interviewed, 26 (35%) noted some form ofdeclinesonthereefs.Thesestatementsrangedfromageneral“therearejustnotasmuchfishasbefore” to “Ihave to fish fartherout thanbefore” to “Spiny lobstersand ‘Āweoweohavedeclined.” Fishers put forth many different reasons why they thought these declines hadoccurred(seeThemeVI:OtherCulprits)butonly13fishersmadereferencetoaneedformoresustainablepractices.Thedisparityoftwiceasmanyfishersnotingdeclinesasthosewhonotedaneedformorelong‐termsustainablepracticesisworthnoting.

In addition, it is interesting that over two thirds of fishers acknowledged changing theirbehaviorbecauseofdeclineswhile50% stated that therewasa lackof awareness regardingbest practices for the reef (see Theme II: Education). Clearly, there is a disconnect betweenthose fisherswhoare informed (or claim tobe)and theirperceptionofother fishersasnot.Furtherdiscussionaboutwhatfactorscontributedtofisherschangingtheirpractices(i.e.,whatmadethemawareandmotivatedtoshiftbehavior)mayhelpelucidateameansofeducatingothers.

Table5.Long‐termperspective,sub‐categories,definitions,andprevalence.Forsub‐categories,prevalenceisthepercentageofthe13respondentswithinthecommercializationthemethatreferredtoaspecificsub‐category.Theme Sub-category Definition Number

(Prevalence) Long-term Perspective

13 (17.6%)

Sustainability Important

Acknowledgement that sustainability (use of the word) is important

4 (31%)

Practice sustainability

Fisher made comment referring to limiting their take or altering their behavior because of the long-term

9 (69%)

Flow of Fish

February 2011

46

consequences

ThemeVI:OtherCulprits

Thisthemewasthe“blame”category—anyandalltheoriesonwhoorwhatwasthesourceofdeclines in reef fish or observed changes in marine resources. Like all other themes,informationpertaining to this categorywasgivenmostlyduring theopendiscussion sessionswhereweasked“isthereanythingelseyouthinkisimportantforustoknow,orobservationsyou would like to share related to marine resources/fisheries on Hawai‘i Island?”Approximately36%offishers interviewedprovidedsomeformofexplanationwithinoneofadozencategories(Table6).Table6.Otherculprits,sub‐categories,definitions,andprevalence.Forsub‐categories,prevalenceisthepercentageofthe27respondentswithinthecommercializationthemethatreferredtoaspecificsub‐category.Theme Sub-category Definition Number

(Prevalence) Other Culprits Reasons that interviewees gave for

noted declines or problems with fisheries that were not related to a specific regulation (i.e., type of fishing method)

27 (36.5%)

Pollution Comments regarding increased pollution, or decreased water quality

6 (22%)

Invasive species Most notably ta’ape and roi 4 (15%) Aquarium fishers Those fishers who target tropical reef

fish for aquarium trade—not food 4 (15%)

Immigrants Mention of “outsiders” or specific cultural groups as cause of the problem

3 (11%)

Special Occasions Tournaments, Lū‘au, parties, etc., that were mentioned as fueling excessive and/or wasteful catch

3 (11%)

Drugs Mentioned as driving force behind people fishing harder than normal

2 (7.4%)

Technology Increased efficiency of gear driving declines

2 (7.4%)

Habitat loss This was in regard to coastal development

1 (3.7%)

Turtles Perception that there are too many turtles now because of protected status

1 (3.7%)

Illegal FADs In the context of pelagics, these are 4 (15%)

Flow of Fish

February 2011

47

the illegal private buoys

Interesting tonote is thatdespite thecurrent tensionswith theaquarium trade fishers, theywere only considered a source of the problem by 4 interviewees. An equal number blamedinvasive species (primarily ta’apeand roi) as contributing todeclines innative fish.Themostpopularculpritwaspollution,whichincludedreferencestorunofffromgolfcourses.Onefishercommentedthatregulatorsshould“takeoutthehousesthatdumpallthesewageandkillthereef,notthefishermen.”

Special events, such as lū‘au and tournamentswere also seen by three fishers as occasionswhere fish were wasted. The same number of fishers also viewed increased fishing by“immigrant” populations to be a problem, and included both those individualswho lived onHawai‘iIslandandthosethatcameinfromotherislandsjusttofish.

Four fisherswere concerned about thehealthof pelagic species andnoted that increases inprivate and illegal FADs were a significant concern and potentially causing changes in fishdistributions. Also of concern for pelagic fish populationswere “foreign” or “longline” fleetswhichareperceivedtohuntdownallthefishbeforetheycangetintonearshorewaters.

Two fishers also raised the point that improvements in technology were problematic, withdiversnowhavinglonger,fasterspears,“camo”wetsuits,bigfins,SCUBAtanks,etc.“Fishdon’thave a sporting chance.”Another fisher noted that regulations need to adjust as technologyadjusts.

Referencestotheconnectionbetweendruguseandfishingweremadebyonlytwoindividualsbutnoteapotentiallyinterestinglarger‐scaledriverofchangeonthereefs.Asafreeandopen‐access system,anyone can turn to fishingas ameansof securing cashon shortnotice.Drugaddicts who cannot hold jobs can still go fishing in order to raise funds to support theiraddiction.

Eventhoughmany“external”factorsweregivenascontributingtothedeclines,manyfishersnot only acknowledged overfishing as a problem, but admitted that their own communitieswereasmuchasourceoftheproblemas“other”groups.

DefiningFishers

Ashasbeennoted,defining“types”of fishersprovesadifficult taskdue to thecomplexandfluidbehaviorof fishers.Whenaskedwhy they fish, respondents gave adiversityof reasonsincluding for fun, food, tradition,exercise, sport, relaxation,experience, survival, and income(Table7).Thevastmajorityoffishersoftenprovidedseveralofthesereasons,citingthatwhy

Flow of Fish

February 2011

48

they fished changeddependingon the season, circumstances in their job/life, or simplyhowtheyfeltonaparticularday.

Table7.Motivation,sub‐categories,definitions,andprevalence.Forsub‐categories,prevalenceisthepercentageofthe27respondentswithinthecommercializationthemethatreferredtoaspecificsub‐category.Motivation Number of fishers Fun 10 For Food (not dependent) 19 Subsistence (depends on fish for food) 3 Enjoyment/Relaxation/Recreation 4 The experience 6 Challenge/sport 6 Exercise 2 Tradition/Culture/Community 14 Work 1

Asmanagerslookforwaystolabelfishersinordertoassignspecificrulesandregulations,itwillbeimportantfortheregulatorysystemtoincluderoomforthesemorefluidfishingcategories.Licensingandpermitsystemsthatprovidemoresubtleandcreativecategoriesmayprovemoreeffectiveatgeneratingsupportwithinthecommunity,asopposedtothosethatseektopigeon‐hole fishers into the traditional “recreational” and “commercial” groups that do notappropriatelydescribethemajorityoffisherbehaviorshereonHawai‘iIsland.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

49

OtherSeafoodSectorsAsnotedinthemethods,wealsointerviewed42individualsfromacrossdifferentseafoodsectorsandacademia.Thisdatadeservesamoredetailedanalysisthancanbeprovidedhere,butasummaryofsomeofthemajorinsightsispresentedbelow:Pelagics,pelagicseverywhereasaresultofciguaterascare.Restaurantowners,chefs,andseafoodpurchasers(“buyers”)alldealtalmostexclusivelywithpelagicspecies(ono,‘ahi,andmahimahiwerethemostcommon,withmarlin,opah,andspearfishalsocommonlymentioned).Themostcommonexplanationgivenforthislimitedscopeofspecieswasthefearofciguaterapoisoning,whichisknowntoexistinreeffish,butnotopenwaterswimmers.Inaddition,familiaritywiththefishalsocontributedtothedecisionofbuyerstostickwithamorelimitedpalatethantheocean(andfishers)couldoffer.Forexample,onechefexplainedthathewasfromtheMainland,anddidn’tknowreeffish,howtoprepareandcookthem,andbecausehisclienteleweremostlytourists(Konadistrict)hedidn’tseemuchdemandforreeffish.Evenretailoutletswheretheycateredtomorelocal‐basedconsumers(forexample,choosingtocarrymore“rats”—the2–3poundtunasfavoredbysomeculturalgroups),theyavoidedcarryingtoomuchreeffishbecauseoftherisksassociatedwithciguatera.Severalbuyersnotedthatthemarketwasthere,inthattheyknewsomepeoplelikedreeffish,butthatitwasnotworththerisktocarrythem.Inallourvisitstoretailshops,wesawveryfewreeffishavailableforsale.

Transactionsrequirepersonalrelationshipbuilding.Manyofthetransactionsbetweenfisherandbuyerwereinitiatedbyphoneasthefishermadetheirwaytoshore.Fishersaskedthegoingpriceandifabuyerwasinterestedintheircatch,andaverbalagreementwasarranged.Therewerenocasesofanywrittentransactionstonotetheinitialpricenegotiation.Thisiswhydevelopmentofpersonalrelationshipsmaybesokeytothetrade—buyersdescribedhaving“regular”fishersthattheyknewwellandtrustedwhotheypreferentiallysourcedfrom.And,althoughthingsweredonerelatively“informally,”professionalismwashighlyregardedbyseveralofthelargerretailpurchasersandmanyofthechefs/restaurantowners.Althoughtherewerestrongpersonalrelationships,dependingonthesizeoftheestablishment,somebuyershadlistsofhundredsoffishers’CMLswhotheyhavepurchasedfishfrom.Clearly,theretailandrestaurantsaleofpelagicssupportsasignificantnumberoflocalfishers,includingsupplementingcharterboatcaptainsandcrew.Thisparticularsituationhascreatedtensionbetweencommercialfishersandcharters.Hawai‘iisoneofthefewstateswherecharterscan

Flow of Fish

February 2011

50

selltheircatch.Commercialfishersarguethisleadstoafloodingofthemarket,decreaseinprice,andanunfairsqueezeonthefishers.Buyersholdallthepower.Thenextstageinthetransactionwasnotable,asitrevealedthepowerthebuyershaveoverthefishers.Fishersbringtheirfishtothebuyerandalthoughapricehasbeenagreedupon,thebuyergetstoinspectthefishforitsquality.Thisisespeciallytruewith‘ahi.Thisinspectionoftenincludescuttingopenthefishtoseeifitis“burned”—somethingthatcannotbedeterminedfromexternalexaminationalone.However,thisexaminationisnotdoneinfrontofthefisher,butbehind“closeddoors”ofthebuyer.Thefisheristhenstuckacceptingthebuyers’verdict,andpotentiallyloweredprice.MostbuyerswespokewithsaidtheyalwaysaskedfortheCMLlicenseinordertorecordandreportonalltransactionstothestate.However,someadmittedtohelpingoutalocalfisherortwowhotheyknewpersonallywhodidnotalwayshavealicense(suchadmittancesupportstheideatherewassometrustbetweeninterviewerandinterviewee).Buyersdeterminedtheirpricesbycomparingwithwholesalers,andknowingthepricesoftheircompetitors.Pricecouldbenegotiatedbutformanybuyers,theyarguedtheydidnothavetimeforextendeddeal‐making,andthus,stuckwithfisherswhotrustedtheywouldprovideafairprice.Somebuyersmentionedthattheywouldgivebetterpricestotheirfisherssothatwhenitwaslowseason,thefisherswouldbeloyalandbringthemtheircatchforthatsameprice.Wholesalersfillagap.Manybuyerssupplementedthelocalsupplydirectfromfisherswithsupplyfromwholesalers.Thiswasdonetomeetdemandandensureastablesupply,thoughthemajorityvoicedapreferencefordirectpurchasing.Theexceptionstothiswereafewoutletsthathadconcernsabouthealthandsafety,andforinsurancereasonswentthroughawholesaler.Thereareseveralwholesalersontheislandanditwouldbeinterestingtofurtherexploretheirroleinstabilizingsuppliesforretailersandrestaurants.Fishersdefinitelymadecleartheypreferredtoselltoend‐buyersratherthanwholesalers/distributorsbecausepriceswerenotasgoodwiththesemiddlemen.However,whenthefishwererunning,sometimeswholesalersweretheonlyonesbuying.Fishflowisuneventhroughtimeandspace.Intermsoftime,isnosurprisethatsometimesthemarketisfloodedwithfish,whileothertimeschefsarescramblingtofindenoughfilletstofilltheplates.Theformersituationtendstohappenmorethanthelatter,however,accordingtotheindividualswespokewith.Intermsofspace,fishersarelimitedwithhowfartheycantraveltofindabuyeroncetheyhavelandedtheirfish.Thismeanstherearetimeswhendemand

Flow of Fish

February 2011

51

mightnotbemet,notbecausethesupplydoesn’texist,butbecausethesupplycan’tgetthere.Furtherexaminationofhowmorecooperativeorcommunity‐baseddistributionsystemscouldworktosecuremarketsforfisherswhilehelpstabilizesupplyforbuyers(andbringfreshlocalcatchtoamorediverse/widergeographicregion)couldprovebeneficial.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

52

AreasofOpportunity

Both the quantitative and qualitative data provide rich context for discerning areas ofopportunity for futurework. The goal of this studywas to provide greater understanding ofhowfisharecaughtanddistributedaroundHawai‘iIslandwiththehopethatsuchknowledgewould provide insights into howmore efficient, effective, and sustainable practices could beincorporatedintothesystem.

WhatWeLearned

TheFlowofFishprojectwasanexploratoryinitiativethatutilizedexistingnetworkconnectionsandexpandedupontheminordertoexploremoreintimatelytheknowledge,perceptions,andmotivationsoffishersonHawai‘iIsland.Asisalwaysthecasewhenspeakingwithexperts,ourjobwasto listenandsynthesizethevariousopinions,thoughts,andperspectivesprovidedbythediversefishersthatgrantedusaudience.Thisglimpseintothefishers’worldisbynomeanscomprehensiveandwecontinuedtolearnthroughouttheprocess.Belowisourattempttosiftthroughthisrichmediaofideasandhighlightsomeofwhatwefoundtobepromisingleadsforfuturedevelopment.

Insight I:EducationandEnforcementAreStronglyLinked.Conversationsaboutenforcementwereinherentlymixedinwithdiscussionsabouteducation,especiallytherecurringmentionofthe need to educate individuals so that they could takemore responsibility themselves. Theidea that ignoranceor a lackof conservationawarenessdrivesmuchof the transgressions issupportedbyconversationswehadwithgovernmentofficials,whocommentedthatfirst‐timeoffendersoftengenuinelydidnotknowthelaws.Theresultwasthatoftenthesefisherswouldgetawarningandtheofficerwouldeducatethemabouttherules.

Thiscloselinkbetweeneducationandenforcementsupportsnotionsthatcommunitiesmayberipe to take on an enforcing role by providing education, and starting with the youngergenerationmaybeapromisingapproach.Forexample,one fisherdescribedhowhe“sawanoldladyinPunalu‘usittingandscrapingallthe‘opihiofftherocks.Eventhesmallones.Butshedidn’tknow[thatwaswrong].But Icouldn’ttellher.Needherkids totellher.”Otherfishersalsomentionedthatteachingchildrenthevalueswasthebestwaytogettheirparentstolearn.Anotherstrengthtothisapproachisthosefisherswhoweretaughtvaluesaschildren(oftenbytheirownparentsorgrandparents)heldontothosevaluesthroughouttheirlives.Soteaching

Flow of Fish

February 2011

53

childrennowmaybeawayofprovidinganewgenerationofeducated,awareadults for thefuture.

Thisconceptisespeciallyrelevantgiventheguardedandoftenhard‐to‐penetrateinformationnetworks of fishers, especially across different ethnic groups, whichmakes dissemination ofrulesor valuesdifficult toachieve.Children,on theotherhand, congregate in schools, after‐schoolprograms,andcamps,whereitmaybeeasiertoeducatemanyatonce.

Exploringhowtolinkeducationandenforcementwithinandacrosscommunitiescouldprovidea way of increasing enforcement levels outside of state budget limitations while providingempowermenttothecommunity.

InsightII:Accessasanon‐monetaryincentive.Manyfishersexpressedsomeformoftheideathat “the reef isn’t something tomakemoneyoff of, it is there to feedus.”Historically, theHawaiian economywas based on a trade system and this practice of giving away or tradingcatch is still in full force today. Therefore,models that can identify or create non‐monetaryincentives for more sustainable fisheries may have greater buy‐in from communities thancurrency‐basedapproaches.Giventheperceptionbyseveralfishersthattoomuchortoolittleaccess creates barriers to sustainable fishing, providing communities with the means formoderating access may prove a strong non‐monetary incentive for encouraging moresustainablefishingbehaviors/practices.Suchanapproachwouldinherentlyrequiresomelevelof co‐management with regulatory agencies but could provide a community‐basedmanagementstructurethathelpstoalleviateenforcementburdenonthestate.

InsightIII:Distributionisunevenandthereisalatentreeffishmarket.Althoughthenumberoffishersfromeachdistrictistoolowtodrawanydefiniteconclusions,thedatasuggeststhattheremaybemoremovementoffishersfromeasttowest,andespeciallyfromotherdistrictsintoKa‘u.Thisimpliesthatfishfromthewestandsouthpointmaybesupplementingthedietsof residents across the island, andnot just in nearbydistricts. In addition, fishers repeatedlynoted that sharing the catchwith those in needwithin their communitieswas an importantaspect of their fishing practice. Several noted that they shared especiallywith the elderly orworkingprofessionalswhocouldnolongerfishforthemselves.

Thesefindings,takentogether,suggestthattheremaybeanopportunityfordevelopingamoreefficientdistributionsystemtoserve this latentmarket for reef fishamong thosewhoare inneedorcanno longer fish for themselves.Suchadistributionsystemwouldneedtoprovideeasyaccessforfishersandconsumers,andbestructuredinwaythatdidnotincreasepressureonthereefsbutinsteadfacilitatedthedistributionofcatchalreadybeingshared,butinamore

Flow of Fish

February 2011

54

efficientandeffectivemanner(thesystemcouldalsobetiedtoendeavorssuchasfishpondswhich increase production of reef fish). The system could also fill the gap in the way thatcurrentwholesalecompaniesdo—servingasacentraldepotfromwhichtoredistributefishinamannerthathelpsstabilizesupply.However,asacooperative‐typeendeavor,theprofitsfromthis redistributionwouldbe redirectedback towards the fishersand community, rather thanservingasa simple “middleman”mark‐up. Sucha systemoffers thepotential to create jobsand provide better tracking of fish flow data to facilitate more accurate monitoring andmanagement.

A community‐based distribution system for the commercial pelagic trade is also worthexploringforsimilarreasons.

InsightIV:Intention,morethancatch,definesfishers.Formanyofthefisherswespokewith,fishing is not about catching lots of fish, or thebiggest fish. Instead, it is an experience thatconnects the individuals with their cultural heritage, with the natural world, with anopportunityforgrowthandchallenge,orwithanescapefromthedailygrind.Whendiscussingwhytheyfished,fishersinthisgrouptoldusthingssuchas:“Iwasbornandraisedhere,thisiswhatIknow.Fishingismylife.Abigpartofmylife.”Otherssaiditwas“agreatwaytogetabalanceandgoodtherapy.”

Intheseinstances,thecatchitselfisofsecondaryimportance,“Idon’tgobecauseIwanttoeat,mostly Igobecause Iwant to fish; Iwant theexperience.”Fishers in thiscategorymayoffermore flexibility in terms of the kinds of rules and regulations that are applied, for it is theexperienceof fishingandnot thecatch itself that is thedriving forcebehind theactivity.Forothers, fishing is truly a subsistence activity, a “survivalmode” that either provides food orsomething to trade for other daily necessities. Limits on take for these individuals will havemuch greater consequences than the previous group described, and therefore warrantparticularconsiderationwithinthelaw.

Such a wide‐ranging set of motivations demands a more colorful approach to managementthan the typical black and white commercial/recreational divide that currently governs theresource. Further investigation into a more sophisticated and representative classificationscheme could provide an opportunity for communities to participate in their own self‐identification as fishers, and present alternatives to regulatory agencies for amore effectiveenforcementstructure.

InsightV:Commercialsaleslacktransparency.Severalfishersinvolvedwithcommercialsaleslamentedthelossoftheauctionblockonislandbecauseithasledtoalackoftransparencyin

Flow of Fish

February 2011

55

themarket.Now,fishersmustdelivertheirfishtothebuyerandwaitwhilethebuyerinspectsthefish—behindcloseddoors.Thebuyeristhusinfullcontrolofthenegotiations,leavingthefisherwithlittlepower—heorshemustacceptwhateverconditionthebuyerreportsthefishtobein,andtakethepriceoffered.Anopentradeforum,suchasanauction,allowsfishersandbuyerstointeractonmorelevelplayingfieldaseachfishispublicallydisplayedandexamined.Introduction of some kind of centralized, public space for commercial sales would help tobalance the power between fisher and buyer and could help to provide more fair pricenegotiations.

There iscurrent legislationbeingconsideredtoexplorefeasibilityofa fishauctiononHawai‘iIsland—integratingthefindingsofthisstudyintothatresearchwouldbebeneficial.

Insight VI: Show the Success Stories. Education, as has already been discussed, is likely astrongpotentialopportunity forcreatingchange. However, therewasaparticular sentimentexpressedbysomeintervieweesthatpointstoaslightlydifferentangleoneducationthanhaspreviouslybeendiscussed,anditdovetailswithsomenovelapproachestoproblem‐solvingthatareoccurringacrosstheglobeforallkindsofcomplexsystems—fromwomen’shealthtoglobalfisheries.Thatis,theimportanceofshowingandlearningfromsuccessstories.Therearetwobenefits togathering informationandbecomingfamiliarwiththesuccessstoriesthatalreadyexist:1)Communitiesaremore likelytoagreetoadoptcertainapproaches if theyhavebeentriedandtestedinothergeographicregionsorsimilarcontexts;2)Wecanlearnfromwhathasalreadyworkedinotherplacestodiscoverwhatmayworkbesthere. Thus,althoughHawai‘ihassomeuniquecomponentstoitsfisheries,gatheringinformationaboutsuccessfulinitiatives(fromMPAs, to Community Supported Fisheries, to co‐management structures, to differentkinds of aquacultural) and presenting these stories to communities, may be extremelybeneficialtobuildingtrustandformulatingeffectivestrategiesforfuturedevelopment.

FinalThoughts

Theinsightspresentedhererepresenttheseedsofideassparkedbyoverahundredhoursofinterviews.TheyaremeanttoserveaslaunchpadsforinvigorateddiscussionaroundthefutureofsustainablefisheriesonHawai‘iIsland.Assuch,wedidnotexamineindetailtheviabilityofeachinsightandweexpecttheideastoevolveandchangeasfuturediscussionsoccur.Ourhopeisthatthisprojectisjustthebeginningofamoreextensiveexplorationofcreativesolutionstoreeffisheriesmanagementthatwilldrawfromthewealthofknowledgeinherentinthecommunityofproducers,buyers,andconsumersofseafoodthatlivehere.WealsohopethatourmethodofapproachandanalysiswillhelpopenpathwaysforcontinuedconversationandtrustbetweenresearchersandfishersforfutureprojectshereandelsewherearoundHawai‘i.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

56

ReferencesHawaiiMarineRecreationalFishingSurvey,2011.http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/hmrfs.html.

Hamnetetal.,2004.Fishing,OceanRecreation,andThreatstoHawaii’sCoralReefs:ResultsofaHouseholdSurvey.HawaiiCoralReefInitiative.www.hcri.ssri.hawaii.edu/files/education/fishingbrochure.pdf

Jokiel,etal.,2011.MarineResourceManagementintheHawaiianArchipelago:TheTraditionalHawaiianSysteminRelationtotheWesternApproach.JournalofMarineBiologyVol2011.Doi:10.1155/2011/151682Appendixincludedasseparatedocumentavailablefordownloadatwww.kohalacenter.orgorwww.hawaiifish.org.

Flow of Fish

February 2011

57

ResearchTeamDr.MarahJ.Hardt,ProjectManager.MarahisfounderofOceanInk(www.oceanink.org),aconsultingcompanyfocusedonfindingcreativesolutionstooceanconservationissuesthroughresearch,writing,andstrategicproblem‐solving.Shehasabackgroundincoralreefecologyandhistoricalmarineecologyandhasworkedonadiversityofconservationchallenges,fromsustainableseafoodtoclimatechange.AnthonyOlayon,ResearchAssistant.AnthonyrecentlygraduatedfromtheDepartmentofGeographyatUHHiloin2009.HehaspreviouslyworkedattheKohalaCenterasaresearchassistantontheNorthKohalaHouseholdFoodProductionandConsumptionSurvey.Dr.GuyKaulukukui,StrategicDesignandAdministrativeSupport.FormerlytheAssociateDirectorforStrategicPartnershipsattheKohalaCenter,GuyisnowDeputyDirectoroftheStateofHawaiiDepartmentofLandandNaturalResources.Dr.KathrynBesio,SocialScienceAdvisor.KathrynisanAssociateProfessorofGeographyatUHHilo.SheisresearchingthefoodscapeofHawai`iIsland,particularlytheintersectionbetweenLocalfood/cuisine,homegardens,locallysourcedfoods,andLocalidentities.Dr.DonnaDelparte,GISAdvisor.DonnaisanAssistantProfessorwiththeDepartmentofGeographyandEnvironmentalStudies,UniversityofHawaiiatHilo.ShespecializesinGeographicInformationSystems(GIS)anditsapplicationinnaturalandsocialsciences.Dr.FionaMcCormack,SocialScienceAdvisor.FionaisanAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyatUHHiloandcollaboratedviahercourseinMarineAnthropology,helpingadvisestudentsonresearchprojectsthatincludedinterviewsusedintheFlowofFishstudy.Herresearchconcernstransformationsinpropertyandownershipstructures—withanexpertiseinMaorifisheries,andsheisnowdevelopingacomparableresearchfocusinHawaii.