Searching for Subsistence: In the Field in Pursuit... - University of ...

FisheriesJobAmerican Society • www.fisheries.orgCenterVOL 32 NO 12DECEMBER 2007Fish NewsLegislative UpdateJournal HighlightsCalendarResearch, Monitoring and Evaluation of Fish and WildlifeRestoration Projects in the Columbia River Basin:Lessons Learned and Suggestions forLarge-Scale Monitoring ProgramsSearching for Subsistence:In the Field in Pursuit of an Elusive Conceptin Small-scale FisheriesFisheries • VOL 32 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 573

FEATURE:HUMAN DIMENSIONSSearching for Subsistence:In the Field in Pursuit of an ElusiveConcept in Small-scale FisheriesTras la subsistencia:en búsqueda de un conceptoelusivo en pesquerías artesanalesSeth Macinko and Sarah SchumannMacinko is an assistant professor and Schumann is an independent fisheries analyst at theDepartment of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island, Kingston. Macinko can be contacted at macinko@uri.edu..ABSTRACT: In small-scale fisheries, there can be no morevulnerable participants than those comprising the subsistencefishing sector. Yet “subsistence” is an ambiguous term infisheries management and there is little applied researchdirected at this sector. The first step towards incorporatingsubsistence fishing into formal strategies for managing smallscalefisheries will be the attainment of a fuller understandingof subsistence fishermen and their activities. This articlebuilds off earlier work by the authors (surveying conceptualvariation in the literature and worldwide attempts at formalmanagement regimes for subsistence fishing) by reporting onfield efforts to locate and define subsistence fishing activitiesin a specific location—Rhode Island, USA. Substantialmethodological and institutional challenges were encounteredand these challenges are reviewed in terms of the implicationsfor informed consideration of the place of subsistence fishingin small-scale fisheries.RESUMEN: En las pesquerías artesanales, no hay participantesmás vulnerables que los que componen la división de pescade subsistencia. Sin embargo “subsistencia” es un términoambiguo en el manejo de pesquerías y la investigación aplicadaa este sector es poca. El primer paso para incorporar la pescade subsistencia a las estrategias formales de manejo de la pescaartesanal será un profundo entendimiento de los propiospescadores y sus actividades. Este artículo canaliza el trabajoprevio de los autores (sondeando en la literatura variacionesde un concepto e iniciativas a nivel mundial para incorporarla pesca de subsistencia dentro de los regímenes formalesde pesca) mediante el reporte de trabajos en campo de laubicación y definición de actividades de pesca de subsistenciaen localidades particulares—Rhode Island, EEUU. Duranteeste proceso, surgieron retos metodológicos e institucionalesimportantes, mismos que fueron revisados en términos de lasimplicaciones que éstos tienen en las opiniones informadasacerca del lugar que tiene la pesca de subsistencia dentro dela pesca artesanal.Subsistence fishing is frequentlyalluded to in introductory fisheries textbooks,but rarely actually studied, andeven less frequently addressed in managementschemes. The existence ofsubsistence fishing may pose significantimplications for management: “To a largeextent, the subsistence fishery is not beingreported in fishery statistics, monitored,assessed or regulated. If there is indeeda significant subsistence fishery sector,this has implications for public policyregarding resource management, allocation,impact assessment and regionaleconomic planning” (Berkes 1990:35).Specifically, researchers have suggestedthat subsistence fishing may call for a differentkind of management: “Moreover,the methods employed to manage subsistence,recreational, small-scale andindustrial commercial fisheries are likelyto differ substantially, and until thesesectors are recognized and characterized,appropriate approaches are unlikely tobe formalized" (Branch et al. 2002a:477;c.f. Berkes 1990). In part, the belief thatit may be important to distinguish subsistencefishing from other kinds of fishingseems to be informed by a concernthat the groups involved are marginal,vulnerable populations—but researchersroutinely acknowledge that this cannotbe confirmed because so little formalresearch is directed towards subsistencefishing (Berkes 1990; Harris et al. 2002).In our view, the way forward is relativelyclear. The research communitymust learn more about both the characterof subsistence fishing (how different is it,if at all, from other forms of fishing coveredby existing management categories)and how extensive is it. Only this caninform decisions as to whether distinctmanagement measures are called for inparticular contexts.592 Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG

This article presents the results of fieldresearch focused on a simple exploratoryresearch question: is subsistence fishingoccurring in the coastal waters of RhodeIsland? We chose to study the coastalwaters of Rhode Island based on convenience,but we expect that our findingswill have relevance for a broader researchcommunity. Subsistence fishing is beginningto attract the attention of some fisherymanagers and researchers in the NewEngland region of the United States, whoharbor the intuitions that there may bea form of fishing that is neither strictlycommercial nor recreational and that aseparate management category may bewarranted. We wanted to assess theseintuitions and evaluate the potential ofthe theoretical constructs present in thesubsistence literature to be constructivelyapplied to fisheries management.PREVIOUS RESEARCHON SUBSISTENCE ANDSUBSISTENCE FISHINGOur ostensibly simple research questionimmediately becomes more complexwhen the ambiguity of the term“subsistence” is factored in. How doesone determine whether subsistence fishingis occurring, if the meaning of termitself is elusive? To address this difficulty,we based the current project onprevious theoretical work. Previously,we attempted to decipher the manymeanings of “subsistence” in the academicliterature and reviewed the fewknown attempts at formal managementof subsistence fishing (Schumann andMacinko 2007). We used this survey oftheoretical work on subsistence to guideformulation of our research questionsand examined existing reports of subsistencefishing, paying close attention tothe motivations underlying these studiesand the methodologies employed.How Do They Define Subsistence?A simple definition of subsistence fisheriesis “local, non-commercial fisheries,oriented not primarily towards recreationbut for the procurement of fish for consumptionof the fishers, their families, andcommunity" (Berkes 1988:319; 1990:35).Academic literature rarely reflects sucha simple definition, perhaps because thereality of subsistence fishing itself is notso straightforward. Academic efforts toelaborate more specific definitions havegiven rise to four broad categories ofmeaning, which we present as alternatedefinitions of the term:1. Subsistence: economic activities orsystems sustaining a basic level oflivelihood, not profit (Sahlins 1972;Eversole 2003);2. Subsistence: economies based on sharing,not selling (Young et al. 1994);3. Subsistence: social and cultural institutionssupported by an economy ofnon-market distribution (Wenzel1991; Freeman 1993; NRC 1999);and4. Subsistence: culturally significantfood-producing and distributing activities(Toth and Brown 1997; Brown etal. 1998; Brown and Toth 2001).While these four definitions no doubtshare a common origin, and may evenrepresent points along an evolutionarypath, they are used concurrentlytoday in different bodies of literature,and are clearly at odds with each other.Subsistence fishing, defined to mirrorthese different meanings of “subsistence,”’can be construed as fishing forSarah Schumann interviews the ownerof Ocean State Tackle, a key informant.Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 593

livelihood rather than profit, regardlessof whether the catch is eaten or sold(definition 1); fishing where catch isdistributed through non-market mechanisms,regardless of the economic levelof the fisherman (definition 2); fishingundertaken to support traditionalexchange structures, whether or not it isdone in the context of a market economy(definition 3); or fishing characterizedby its cultural significance, whetherit is a community or an individual activity(definition 4).Why and How Do TheyStudy Subsistence?Empirical studies of subsistence haveshown no more of a propensity to conformto a single mold than the theoreticalwork defining “subsistence.” Subsistencestudies can be grouped by geographicalarea and by the way they define “subsistence,”since the definitions summarizedabove tend to be linked with certainglobal locations. Motivations for studyingsubsistence vary accordingly.The longest-running history of subsistenceresearch is associated with Alaskaand other areas of the Arctic, and focusesfor the most part on the activities ofindigenous populations. In Alaska, theimpetus for these studies is the foundingmandate of the Subsistence Divisionof the Alaska Department of Fish andGame: “compile existing data and conductstudies...on all aspects of the roleof subsistence hunting and fishing onthe lives of the residents of the state”(State of Alaska Subsistence Law 1978).Most of the work produced by this entityfalls under the heading of “harvest studies”—inventoriesof the production andconsumption of wild foods at the communitylevel, measured usually in weightby species, with the purpose of enablingbetter management (Wolfe and Walker1987; Fall 1990; Usher et al. 2003).Other studies in Alaska, Canada, andGreenland have focused on historicaltrends in the importance and meaningof subsistence for Native peoples (examplesare Kruse 1991; Caulfield 1993). Inparticular, the branch of “acculturationstudies” has aimed to document changesthat occur as traditional structures comeinto contact with the market economy(Chance 1987). These studies assume adefinition of subsistence in line with oursecond and third definitions above, butthe word itself is rarely defined, thoughthere is an implicit link to indigenouspopulations.For a long time, subsistence studieswere exclusively the domain of Arcticresearchers, but more recently, it hasbeen alleged that subsistence is muchmore widespread and merits broaderinvestigation (Berkes 1990). This propositionhas been met with a variety offield research projects within the last fewyears.An interesting case is the processundertaken by South Africa’s Marineand Coastal Management agency toidentify subsistence fishermen in thatcountry. A basic premise of this researchwas that “[w]hile a priori clarity on thedefinition would ideally have provideda common understanding and basis forfurther work...it was recognized that theprecise definition of ‘subsistence’ wouldhave to emerge from the process itself"(Harris et al. 2002:411). Thus, anyonewho was not unmistakably a commercialor recreational fisherman was includedin the study (Hauck et al. 2002), so as“not to prejudge their legitimacy as subsistencefishers" (Harris et al. 2002:411).Fishermen (note that we use the term“fishermen,” except where directly quotingothers, in deference to the vernacularof our study area) were asked whetherthey considered themselves subsistencefishermen, and if not, what distinguishedthem from subsistence fishermen (Harriset al. 2002). Responses led researchersto conclude that their original generalizationsabout how and why subsistencefishermen fished—such as use of fish forconsumption and reliance on hand-madegear—had been fairly fallacious (Clarket al. 2002; Branch et al. 2002b).A third category of subsistence researchhas emerged in rural regions of the UnitedStates, and includes two studies of fishingand hunting in the Mississippi delta(Brown et al. 1998; Brown and Toth2001) and one of huckleberry collectingin Washington and Idaho (Carroll etal. 2003). Like the South African case,these researchers opted not to narrowlydefine subsistence at the outset but to leta context-appropriate definition emergethrough the interview process. Brown etal. (1998) pioneered a definition-4 typeuse of the word “subsistence” to describeharvest motivations lying outside thestrictly commercial and the strictly recreational,recognizing that until then theterm had been used only to describe theactivities of “extraordinary groups,” suchas Native Americans, while the comparableterm “informal economy” had beenused to describe the same activities whenperformed by familiar groups. Believingthat “limiting explanations of the participationof non-extraordinary groupsin mixed economies to the conceptualumbrella of informal economy mayobfuscate some interesting aspects of thesocial side of such activities” (Brown etal. 1998:605), they undertook to answerthe question: “Are there two conceptuallydistinct dimensions—lifestyle choiceand economic strategy—to the activitiesmeasured in the Mississippi Delta, therebyindicating a good fit with the concept ofsubsistence?” (Brown et al. 1998:611).Brown et al. (1998) refer to non-commercialfishing out of economic necessityas an activity that falls under the informaleconomy label, reserving the label"subsistence” for non-commercial fishingmotivated by culture and tradition.Carroll et al. (2003) set out not tostudy subsistence per se but to categorizetypes of users of the natural resources inquestion—huckleberries. Their objectivewas to resolve the “labeling question”—aconcern that forcing all activities intoeither the recreational or the commerciallabels oversimplifies motives. This groupof researchers coincided with the SouthAfrican commitment to “use the interviewingprocess itself to identify relevantcategories” (Carroll et al. 2003:323).METHODOLOGYFishing is a particularly interesting typeof resource use in that it can be done commerciallyas a full-time job, recreationallyas a leisure activity, or—as alleged in subsistencestudies—for the attainment offood and/or cultural benefits. Thus, theonly failsafe way to discern whether afisherman is a subsistence fisherman is, asthe South African study illustrates, to ask.But of course, this implies that some definitionof subsistence is known by the fisherman(and presumably communicated tothe researcher). In areas where the term“subsistence” is not widely used, it is moreappropriate to survey the motivations ofdifferent fishermen, as in the studies ofthe rural United States, and then determinewhether any of these motivationscan be called “subsistence.”594 Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG

For our study, we adopted an inductivestrategy that shared several similaritieswith the approaches of researchers inSouth Africa and the rural United States.We addressed the issue of the multiplemeanings of “subsistence” by dividing ourresearch question into two: (1) are thereany activities occurring in Rhode Islandthat could be called “subsistence fishing”under any of the academic meanings surveyedin Schumann and Macinko (2007;reviewed above), and (2) do the individualspracticing these activities call them“subsistence fishing” or do they haveother terms to describe their activities?We used a two-tiered interviewapproach consisting on one level of interviewswith “key informants,” and on thesecond level, interviews with fishermenthemselves (c.f. Brown and Toth 2001;Branch et al. 2002b; Harris et al. 2002).We did not supply respondents witha definition of subsistence in advance(c.f. Brown and Toth 2001; Harris et al.2002; Hauck et al. 2002) and we directlyinquired about motivations (c.f. Carrollet al. 2003).Whom Do We Target?Our key informants were people weselected based on a snowball samplingtechnique (referrals from one key informantto the next) and based on theassumption that they might know morethan most people about subsistence fishingin Rhode Island. Of the 21 people weselected as key informants, 2 were fisheriesenforcement agents, 2 were journalistsspecializing in fishing, 1 was a fisherymanager, 1 was an academic who hadpreviously supervised research on consumptionof contaminated fish in RhodeIsland, 2 were party or charter boat owner/captains, 1 was the president of the localrecreational fishing organization, and 12were bait shop owners/managers.In the second phase of our research,we interviewed 63 fishermen. Some werecontacted at bait shops but most werefound fishing from shore, including severaldigging for clams, several jiggingfor squid, and others targeting a varietyof finfish. Our interviews were spreadthroughout the days of the week, fairweather and foul, and from early morningto midnight.In the Arctic studies of subsistence,where a preformed legal definition andlong-term association of the term withindigenous populations have been influential,researchers seem to have had littledifficulty identifying subsistence resourceusers. In the absence of such definitionsand preconceptions, it is more difficult topinpoint who counts as a subsistence userand who does not. Where an economicdefinition of “subsistence” is paramount,as in the South African study, potentialsubsistence fishermen must be, first andforemost, poor, in order to qualify forinclusion in a subsistence study. Wheresubsistence is presumed to have a culturaldefinition, as in the studies of subsistenceharvesting in the rural United States,limited superficial criteria are availablefor identifying subsistence harvesters.Since the object of our study was todetect anything that could be labeledsubsistence under any one of the definitionsin our typology, we were looking foranyone who:1. Catches fish to sell or eat out of economicnecessity;2. Catches fish to exchange or give awayin order to maintain desired structuresof distribution, as either an economicor a social strategy; or3. Catches fish to maintain culture andtradition.Since a fisherman’s motivation is notdiscernible from his appearance, thismeant essentially interviewing everyonewe found fishing, with the exception oflarge-scale commercial fishermen andobvious “sport” fishermen who practiceSubsistence fishing from charter/party boats?Future research should pay moreattention to this possibility.catch-and-release, since these fishermenwould not fit under any definition ofsubsistence.What Do We Ask?With key informants, we began ourinterviews by asking whether they werefamiliar with the term “subsistence.” Ifthey were not, we asked them whetherthey knew of anyone who “fishes forfood.” If they were familiar with “subsistence,”we asked what the term meantto them and whether they thought itoccurred in coastal Rhode Island. Wethen asked them to specify differencesbetween recreational and subsistence (orfood) fishing, and between commercialand subsistence (or food) fishing. Finally,we asked them to provide us with a listof “clues” that we could use to identifysubsistence fishermen: who they tend tobe, locations where they tend to fish, andspecies they tend to catch. Their answersto this last part were mainly used to comeup with a list of sites to target, as well asto get a description of their sense of thesubsistence universe.Our strategy for interviewing fishermenthemselves was quite different. Weavoided using the word “subsistence”entirely, beginning the dialogue insteadwith the question “Why do you fish?”We then asked them whether they atewhat they caught and what else they didwith it (did they sell it, give it away, orsave it?). Several questions were gearedtowards discriminating between subsis-Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 595

tence and other fishermen and amongdifferent types (according to differentdefinitions of subsistence in the literature)of subsistence fishermen. To gaugeeconomic motivation (in support ofdefinition 1-type subsistence fishing), weasked whether they saved money by fishing,whether they would still fish even ifit were more expensive to catch fish thanto buy them, and whether it mattered tothem if they caught nothing. To gaugethe importance of culture and traditionin fishing (which would suggest the existenceof definition 3- and 4-type subsistencefishing) we asked them how longthey had been fishing and where/howthey learned to fish. We also asked aboutthe motivations of other fishermen, andwhether they believe there are differentcategories of fishermen.FINDINGSWe have organized our findings by thequestions asked. Some questions wereposed only to one group (e.g., only to keyinformants) whereas others were asked ofeveryone.Familiarity with “Subsistence”Seven of our 21 key informants hadnever heard the term “subsistence.”Of those who had, the range of theirresponses when asked to define subsistencewas narrower than in the academicliterature on subsistence—most keyinformants answered that subsistence was“fishing where the primary motivation isto catch food,” some adding that it is donefor survival, or at least that it accounts fora significant portion of the fishermen’sdiets. Since so many were unfamiliar withthe term “subsistence,” we asked what abetter term would be to describe fishingwith any of the motivations described inthe academic literature—hesitant suggestionsincluded “fishery-dependent” and“meat fishing.”Why Do People (Subsistence) Fish?The motivation for the kind of fishingmentioned above, according to a few ofour key informants, was food provisioning.But several others saw a dual motivation,where fun was just as importantas food in motivating fishermen to fish.Only one informant cited what could becalled a “cultural” motivation, evocativeof definitions number 3 and 4 of ourtypology.Taking a warning from Brown etal.’s observation that “at times cleardemarcations in meaning betweenthese domains—recreation and subsistence—couldnot be made either by thefishers themselves or by the researchers”(Brown et al. 1998:613), we asked all keyinformants to distinguish between thesetwo types of fishing. Many perceived nodifference—as one of our informantsemphatically stated when asked to supplya distinct label for fishing for food, “wecall that fishing; it’s just fishing.” Thosewho did perceive a difference statedeither that recreational fishermen werein pursuit of fun—not food—or that subsistencefishermen were unique in theirdependence on catch.The distinction between subsistenceand commercial seemed to be more clearcutfor our informants, who maintainedthat commercial fishing was done for saleand subsistence was done for the table—but one bait shop owner told us that itwas common practice among his customersto informally sell extra fish to contactswho owned restaurants.Asked whether subsistence fishingoccurred in Rhode Island, the key informantswere not at all in agreement: manyresponded that subsistence did not occurin Rhode Island, while others simply hadno idea. Still others suspected, but couldnot confirm, that it occurred, and onestated a firm belief that it is widespreadyet undocumented. We heard severalviews that no one in Rhode Island whomight fall into a subsistence categoryactually depends on fishing, but an equalnumber of respondents indicated that certaingroups (most notably the Asian ethnicgroup) fished for economic necessity.Even though not all informants agreedthat people fishing for food were dependenton their catch for survival, mostconcurred in the belief that fishing waseconomically rational, or that it couldbe made so by pooling resources such asvehicles used to access fishing sites.Of the 63 fishermen we talked to, 12could not be considered subsistence fishermenby any criterion because they releasedthe fish that they caught. Among thosewho consumed their catch, most werefishing for reasons that could be termed“recreation”: fun, relaxation, escape, andsport. However, we also heard some motivationsthat could fit under an economicnecessity definition of “subsistence”:• By fishing, I get it fresh—even if itwere cheaper to buy fish, I wouldn’t—fish at the store comes frozen, and whoknows how long ago it was caught orwhere it’s even from?• I’m on a special diet where I have toeat lots of fish....my Social Securitydoesn’t stretch far enough [to buy fish];it’s cheaper to catch them.• You learn how to catch fish, so if oneday you don’t have any money you’llknow how to survive.While the responses above emphasizeself-provisioning, three fishermen admittedto selling catch as a sideline income.One said:• I sell it. My friends buy it from me. Isell it to feed my family, and we eatsome of it too. I have a steady job butfishing supplements it. It’s like a hobbybut if you catch something you canmake a few bucks off it.Interestingly, only two of the otherinterviewees believed that it was possibleto save money by fishing. Other responseswere consistent with a cultural interpretationof “subsistence”:• When you’re an Indian, you’re supposedto fish. [Q: Is it tradition or recreation?]It’s both—really there’s nodifference at all between recreationand tradition. For both, it’s aboutpeace of mind.• I fish for bait and food. I like to makeall different kinds of food, like Chinesefood, deep-fried fish, soup…I could goon and on. I take all the fish I catch,and what I don’t eat I share withfriends.• Some people come to ‘bond’ and socializetogether. It’s ‘the fishing clan.’• We come here once a year and campand dig clams. We did this as kidsand now we’re repeating it with ourfamilies.• I dig [clams] for fun and exercise. Ialways come the third week in June,from Rehoboth, Massachusetts. Icamp nearby and friends stop by forcookouts. I share with them.596 Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG

Who is Subsistence Fishing?The most common theme that could be called “cultural”was the notion that motivation for fishing, as well as speciestargeted, is culturally and ethnically determined. We did notask informants to differentiate between ethnic groups, butinvariably the answer to the “Who is fishing for subsistence?”question elicited descriptions couched in ethnic terms. Asianand Latino immigrants, we were repeatedly told, fish for food,often depending on it for sustenance, while whites fish for fun.Scup, we were told, “is a black fish,” while Latinos like bluefish,and Asians go after squid, scup, tautog, fluke, shellfish (“evenperiwinkles”)—as several informants exclaimed, “Asians eatanything!”While we found no obvious association between ethnicityand motivation for fishing, it is notable that representationof non-white groups in our sample is disproportionately largewhen compared to the general population of Rhode Island. Ofthose fishermen we interviewed, 36% were white (compared tothe 85% of Rhode Island residents that are white), 13% wereblack (compared to 4.5% of the general population), 23% wereAsian (compared to 2% of the general population), and 28%were Latino (compared to 9% of the general population).Although few of the fishermen we talked with told us they aremotivated primarily by a need for food, many made reference toother fishermen who are. Confirming what the key informantssaid, fishermen reported that these groups are “ethnic”:• Chinese do it for food—it’s culture for them.• Some do it to eat daily—the Portuguese do this.• People do fish for food here, you see them in big familygroups. Mostly Southeast Asians.We encountered a widely held belief that people fishing forfood do not respect size limits. Two explanations were offered insupport of this view: one position was that it is due to culture—immigrants are accustomed to fishing in absence of regulationsso they have not adapted to the laws of this country—while theother is economic—“if you’re from a poor country, you can’tconceive of throwing back a short.”Several informants asserted that fishing was something thatimmigrant groups had brought with them from their nativecountries, and one alleged that immigrants’ adherence to thetradition of fishing declined with time spent living in thiscountry. Informants added that these immigrant groups werenot locally based, but came from surrounding states, as far awayas New Hampshire, to catch fish in Rhode Island. As for genderand age, we were told that whole families fished together—“from grandmothers down to five-year-olds” —to increase thenumber of bag limits they could take home in a day.Where Does Subsistence Fishing Occur?Our last question—“Where do people fish when fishing forfood?”—met with mixed responses. Many informants maintainedthat this type of fishing occurs only from shore, though afew (including a party boat owner) stated that it is quite prevalenton party boats, and some were familiar with cases of foodfishing occurring from privately owned boats (“sometimes you’llsee 9 people in a 15-foot boat fishing for scup”).Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 597

DISCUSSIONDid We Find Subsistence?Did we find anything that could becalled “subsistence” under any of thefour definitions we located in the literature?The answer to date has to be “notreally.” We did not find anyone actuallyfishing for livelihood, and the fact thatonly two fishermen stated that it was possibleto save money by catching (ratherthan buying) fish indicates that an economicnecessity definition of subsistence(definition 1) is not widely applicable tothe fishermen we encountered. However,quite a few of our key informants told us adifferent story, some claiming that fishermendepend on their catch for food andmany more affirming that fishing could bepart of a household budget strategy.We did not find anyone fishing to supporta network of food distribution basedon sharing (definition 2). Although severalrespondents mentioned sharing catch,none declared it as his primary motivationfor fishing. A few of the fishermen’sresponses allowed for an interpretationcorresponding to a cultural definition ofsubsistence, as in definitions 3 and 4, butthe questions we asked were not specificenough to distinguish between motivationsparticular to subsistence and morenuanced motivations of recreationalfishing.At this point, we cannot say thatwe have found activity that is differentenough to warrant a separate managementcategory (that is, in addition tocommercial and recreational), but wehave not concluded it does not exist.Several key informants corroborated theintuition that there may be a third categoryout there. As for the nature of thisthird category, our impression is that whatinformants associate with “subsistence” issomething along the lines of definition 1(fishing for livelihood), but with a particularemphasis on direct food procurement(as opposed to selling the catch). Inthis sense, their understanding is more inline with the connotation of “subsistencefishing” in everyday language—a focus onfood provisioning for direct consumptionfor the purpose of survival.This does not mean that subsistencefishing a la definition 1 is occurring inRhode Island, nor that it is the only kindof subsistence fishing occurring in RhodeIsland, nor moreover, that any form ofsubsistence is occurring—it only serves todemonstrate what comes to mind for peopleknowledgeable about fishing in RhodeIsland when they hear the word “subsistence.”But it is significant that the academicliterature does not seem to matchup with the “real world” assessments weencountered among informants.Though the stated purpose of this projectwas to search for anything that couldbe called “subsistence” according to theacademic literature and then determinewhether this type of fishing warrants aseparate management category, our findingthat “subsistence,” as understood byour key informants, may be occurring isin some ways even more significant: ifpeople are indeed fishing for food, outof need or as part of a household budgetstrategy, there is a good case for adaptingmanagement to reflect that need. Whileacademic definition 1 overlaps with ourinformants’ understanding of “subsistence,”much of the rest of the academicliterature is in danger of obscuring thisform of subsistence by relegating it to therealm of “informal economy.”What People "Know" versusWhat We "Found"There may be significant departuresbetween what people think about subsistencefishing and what we found in thefield. Below, we compare what we foundwhen interviewing fishermen with somecomments we received from our keyinformants, highlighting some of the discrepancybetween what people “know”and what we “found.”“It’s the Asians, blacks, ethnicgroups, Portuguese”Are the viewpoints we encounteredamongst our key informants accurate orare they the product of stereotyping andurban mythology? We were repeatedlytold that scup in particular is a target ofsubsistence fishermen and that “scup isa black fish” yet one very active blackfisherman we interviewed said he hadnever heard of scup and was surprisedwhen told of its alleged association withhis race. Similarly, Asian immigrantswere frequently cited as the archetypalsubsistence fishermen. At one bait shop,a group of Asian customers were specificallypointed out to us as being subsistencefishermen, yet when asked directlyabout their motivations, they replied thatthey fished for fun and released all the fishthey caught. Of course, we cannot drawany conclusions from these two anecdotesbecause they may represent the exceptionsto otherwise accurate assessments.Our sample size was too small and at thispoint we simply do not know if we endedup with anomalous cases in our sample.“Hmmm. Just what is subsistencefishing if you can afford to go outon a charter boat to do it?”We received this comment, clearlyimplying a definition 1-type understandingof “subsistence,” from a colleagueduring the planning stages of our project.Since we did not discount the possibilitythat other meanings of subsistence fishing(such as definitions 2, 3, and 4, whichdo not hinge on living standard) couldoccur on party/charter boats, we pursuedthis question, and found what may comeas a surprise to many: definition 1-typesubsistence may well occur within thecharter fishing industry (we use the term“charter” generically, while noting thatthe industry is divided into charter andparty boat operations). The party boatowner we interviewed stated that “10%of [his] party boat clients have to catchenough to justify going. They are thereto catch fish to eat.” This same key informantmentioned people fishing off hisparty boats in the past in pursuit of bothincome and food as part of an overallhousehold economic strategy. Definition1-style subsistence fishing off party boatshas been in documented in other settingsas well—for example, in Manhattanduring the Great Depression: “They didmore business than any other party fishingboat on Sheepshead Bay during theDepression. Kevin admits that the hardtimes may have actually contributed tothe brothers’ success: because fish wereso abundant in the area, people pooledtheir money and sent one person fromeach apartment house to go fishing: thatperson could conceivably catch enoughfish to feed the entire building (Lai 2001:284).”The Challenge of MethodologyIs it possible to study something withoutan operational definition of thatsomething firmly in hand? At bottom, aphilosophical clash between inductive598 Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG

and deductive approaches is embeddedin this question. A practical problem isalso involved: how can we ever definesubsistence, characterize subsistence use,and identify subsistence users if no contextually-relevantprior research in thearea has been conducted? A too-rigidinsistence on deductive approaches seemslikely to result in no research being conductedat all given our present ignoranceof subsistence fishing in many locationsaround the globe.CONCLUSIONSBased on our experiences to date, webelieve that an inductive approach is bothwarranted and effective when conductinginitial, exploratory research into subsistencefishing activities. The introductoryquestion “Why do you fish?” proved to bea remarkably stimulating and unbiasedway to engage fishermen in talk abouttheir motivations.We did not find clear cases of selfdescribedmotivations that could becalled “subsistence” under prevailingconceptions of that term in the academicliterature. Our respondents stressed recreationalbenefits and motivations. Thisresult is consistent with other researchers’examinations of self-reported motivations(Beehler et al. 2001). However, the beliefin something that could be called “fishery-dependence”or “food fishing” amongour key informants impels us to continuesearching. We think this project providedsome clear suggestions as to where to focusfurther research. We would look closely atthe fishery for scup and we would pursuethe possibility of subsistence fishing (mostlikely along the lines of definition 1) onparty boats. The research communitymust learn more about both the characterof subsistence fishing (how differentis it, if at all, from other forms of fishingcovered by existing management categories)and how extensive is it. Clearly, weencountered differences between perceptionand reality that are important to sortout prior to formulating managementstrategies. Only thorough investigationand an appropriate methodology caninform decisions as to whether distinctmanagement measures are called for inparticular contexts.REFERENCESBeehler, G. P., B. M. McGuinness, J. E.Vena. 2001. Polluted fish, sources ofknowledge, and the perception of risk:contextualizing African-Americananglers’ sport-fishing practices. HumanOrganization 60 (3):288-297.Berkes, F. 1988. Subsistence fishing inCanada: a note on terminology. Arctic41(4):319-320.______. 1990. Native subsistence fisheries:a synthesis of harvest studies in Canada.Arctic 43(1):35-42.Branch, G. M., M. Hauck, N. Siqwana-Ndulo, and A. H. Dye. 2002a. Definingfishers in the South African context:subsistence, artisanal and small-scalecommercial sectors. South AfricanJournal of Marine Science 24:475-487.Branch, G. M., J. May, B. Roberts, B.Russell, and B. M. Clark. 2002b. Casestudies on the socio-economic characteristicsand lifestyles of subsistenceand informal fisheries in South Africa.South African Journal of MarineScience 24:439-462.Brown, R. B., and J. F. Toth, Jr. 2001.Natural resource access and interracialFisheries • VOL 32 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 599

associations: black and white subsistencefishing in the Mississippi Delta.Southern Rural Sociology 17:81-110.Brown, R. B., X. Xu, J. F., and Toth, Jr.1998. Lifestyle options and economicstrategies: subsistence activities inthe Mississippi Delta. Rural Sociology63(4):599-623.Carroll, M. S., K. A. Blatner, and P. J.Cohn. 2003. Somewhere between:social embeddedness and the spectrumof wild edible huckleberry harvest anduse. Rural Sociology 68(3):319-342.Caulfield, R. A. 1993. Aboriginal subsistencewhaling in Greenland: the caseof Qeqertarsuaq Municipality in WestGreenland. Arctic 46(2):144-155.Chance, N. A. 1987. Subsistenceresearch in Alaska: premises, practicesand prospects. Human Organization46(1):85-89.Clark, B. M., M. Hauck, J. M. Harris,K. Salo, and E. Russell. 2002.Identification of subsistence fishers,fishing areas, resource use and activitiesalong the South African coast. SouthAfrican Journal of Marine Science24:425-437.Eversole, R. 2003. My business pays me:labourers and entrepreneurs among theself-employed poor in Latin America.Bulletin of Latin American Research22(1):102-116.Fall, J. A. 1990. The Division ofSubsistence of the Alaska Departmentof Fish and Game: an overview ofits research and findings: 1980-1990.Arctic Anthropology 27(2):68-92.Freeman, M. M. R. 1993. The InternationalWhaling Commission, small-typewhaling, and coming to terms withsubsistence. Human Organization52(3):243-251.Harris, J. M., M. Sowman, G. M. Branch,B. M. Clark, A. C. Cockcroft, C.Coetzee, A. H. Dye, M. Hauck, A.Johnson, L. Kati-Kati, Z. Maseko, K.Salo, W. H. H. Sauer, N. Siqwana-Ndulo, and J. Beaumont. 2002. Theprocess of developing a managementsystem for subsistence fisheries in SouthAfrica: recognizing and formalizing amarginalized fishing sector in SouthAfrica. South African Journal of MarineSciences 24:405-424.Hauck, M., M. Sowman, E. Russell, B.M. Clark, J. M. Harris, A. Venter,J. Beaumont, and Z. Maseko. 2002.Perceptions of subsistence and informalfishers in South Africa regarding themanagement of living marine resources.South African Journal of MarineSciences 24:463-474.Kruse, J.A. 1991. Alaska Inupiat subsistenceand wage employment patterns:understanding individual choice.Human Organization 50(4):317-326.Lai, Y. S. 2001. Down to the sea in partyboats. Pages 283-284 in M. W. Robbins,ed. Brooklyn: a state of mind. WorkmanPublishing, New York.NRC (National Research Council). 1999.The Community Development QuotaProgram in Alaska and lessons for theWestern Pacific. National AcademyPress, Washington, D.C.Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone age economics.Aldine Atherton, Inc., Chicago.Schumann, S., and S. Macinko. 2007.Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy:what’s in a word? Marine Policy31(6):706-718.Toth, J. F., Jr., and R. B. Brown. 1997.Racial and gender meanings of whypeople participate in recreational fishing.Leisure Sciences 19:129-146.Usher, P. J., G. Duhaime, and E. Searles.2003. The household as an economicunit in arctic aboriginal communities,and its measurement by means of acomprehensive survey. Social IndicatorsResearch 61:175-202.Wenzel, G. 1991. Animal rights, humanrights: ecology, economy and ideologyin the Canadian Arctic. University ofToronto Press, Toronto.Wolfe, R. J., and R. J. Walker. 1987.Subsistence economies in Alaska:productivity, geography, and developmentimpacts. Arctic Anthropology24(2):56-81.Young, O. R. 1994. Subsistence, sustainability,and sea mammals: reconstructingthe International Whaling Regime(Commentary). Ocean and CoastalManagement 23:117-127.600 Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 12 • DECEMBER 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG