Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 

 

Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 

 

To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.

 

Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 

 

In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.