Fisheries Research 81 (2006) 306–315 Perceptions of fish distribution, abundance and behaviour: Observations revealed by alternative survey strategies made by scientific and fishing vessels Steven Mackinson ∗ , Jeroen van der Kooij Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK Received 23 May 2005; received in revised form 7 June 2006; accepted 19 June 2006 Abstract Comparisons are made between acoustic recordings of fish distribution, abundance and behaviour when alternative scientific survey and fishing strategies are employed. Two case-studies are examined. In the first, a scientific research vessel uses both strategies to observe sandeels on the Dogger bank. In the second, a commercial fishing vessel uses both strategies to observe demersal fish on the Shetland shelf edge. Although there were clear differences in the densities and distribution of sandeel schools and demersal fish recorded by the different observation perspectives, both strategies reveal important information to improve understanding of fish resources and ecology. The examples are used to illustrate how differences in perceptions may, at times, lead to starkly contrasting opinions between fishermen and scientists. Implications are discussed in the context of the changing emphasis of fisheries management toward partnerships and collaboration between industry, science and management. Crown Copyright © 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Acoustics; Fishermen’s knowledge; Sandeels 1. Introduction Fishermen are undoubtedly good observers. They have to be to make a living. Spending significantly more time on the water than fisheries scientists, fishermen tend to note and often record the factors that lead to successful catches; features of physi- cal nature, time, season and location (Neis et al., 1996; Sard` a and Maynou, 1998; Pederson and Hall-Arber, 1999; Maynou and Sard` a, 2001). The catching patterns recognised by fish- ermen allow them to return repeatedly to specific ‘hot spots’ that are the mainstay of their business. Such knowledge repre- sents the crown jewels of fishing livelihoods, and tends in many areas to have a long history of being passed on through families or fishing communities (Newell and Ommer, 1999). However, successful application of their knowledge on catching patterns does not necessarily require fishermen to question the underlying mechanisms responsible for producing the repeatable features in fish behaviour and distribution (Mackinson, 2001). In contrast, scientific surveys designed to determine fish abundance and dis- ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1502 524295; fax: +44 1502 524511. E-mail address: steve.mackinson@cefas.co.uk (S. Mackinson). tribution tend to be less spatially concentrated than the grounds targeted by fishermen; the idea being to find out not only where fish are, but also where they are not. The guiding principles of scientific endeavour further demand that scientific studies try to determine the environmental, biological and behavioural mech- anisms that influence the abundance and distribution of fish. When their knowledge is at odds with scientific information, fishermen frequently question its reliability. For example, often (but not always), they argue that there are more fish than sci- entific surveys suggest (e.g. Fishing News 15/3/02: page 16, Fishing News 17/5/02, page 3, Fishing News 19/3/04, page 1). At its worst, differences of opinion on the abundance and dis- tribution of fish can erode relationships between fishermen and scientists, resulting in antagonism, ill-feeling, resentment and confrontation (e.g. Pinkerton, 1989). Such situations are not ben- eficial to achieving sustainability of fish stocks and the fishing industry (e.g. FNI, 2003). This communication aims to demonstrate to scientists and fishermen how their differences in perceptions may, at times, lead to starkly contrasting opinions. It reasons that differences of opinion are rooted in alternative perspectives, both entirely understandable and valid within their windows of observation. Two case-studies are used to illustrate the differences. In the 0165-7836/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2006.06.023