Tons of Fishing
Web Directories And resources!

Methods

Focus Group Composition

Four focus groups of 7 to 13 participants per group were conducted in the African American community of Buffalo, New York, from May 1999 to July 1999. Participation from both men and women, as well as anglers of varied ages, was essential to understanding issues important to this diverse group of persons. However, homogeneity within each group on variables such as age and gender was important to increase the likelihood that group members felt comfortable and willing to contribute to the group (Morgan 1998). Though it was believed that more African American men than African American women fish in the area, two focus groups were designed to include a majority or totality of women. Adequate representation from women was necessary to garner knowledge of their access to and consumption of sport fish, and advisory knowledge.

Sampling

For participant recruitment, the research team contracted with a local African American organization specializing in culture-specific health education and community outreach. Reliance on this organization allowed the researchers access to a segment of the African American community of Buffalo through a preexisting network of local churches whose congregations were exclusively African American. Working with church groups has been shown to be particularly effective in identifying interested individuals from African American communities for participation in research and health promotion projects (Thomas et al. 1994). Members of the community organization also used personal contacts, relying on relatives and friends to spread the word about the focus groups.

Meeting Format

Three of the focus groups met in a local African American church well-known and accessible to focus group members. The remaining group met in an office of a minority business development agency which was also easily accessed by participants. Focus groups were led by one of two trained African American moderators. A question guide developed by the researchers was used by the moderators to direct the focus group participants. For example, initial questions, such as "How is the fishing in Buffalo and western New York?" and "Tell me about why you fish here in Buffalo?" were designed to encourage participation from group members based on opinions and experiences. Discussion then covered advisory awareness and attitudes about fish safety. Following the last question, a brief survey requesting information on fishing history and demographic information was completed by participants. Demographic information collected is summarized in Table 1.

Data Collection and Analysis

For the first two focus groups, the lead author made detailed fieldnotes based on observational data and important issues that were focused on by participants. The second, third, and fourth focus group interviews were audiotaped. Thus, transcripts from three groups and fieldnotes from two groups were the textual database for analysis. Grounded theory (Glaser 1978; Strauss and Corbin 1990) was chosen as the analytic tool because this interpretive method allowed for the development of major themes from text data. Data were analyzed line-by-line, with coding generated by the lead author that conceptualized the nature of African American anglers' risk perceptions and fishing practices. Similar codes were clustered together to develop more abstract and encompassing themes, or categories. This analysis led to the identification of three main themes: 1) the context of sport fishing; 2) angler knowledge (including knowing the waters, tradition and experience, and sharing information); and 3) avoiding pollution (including avoiding polluted waters, avoiding polluted fish, and avoiding pollution within fish).

Results

Theme One: The Context of Sport Fishing

Part of understanding anglers' fishing behaviors and risk awareness relies on knowing their motivation for fishing. These anglers were fishing for sport and leisure--their motivation to fish was to get away from their daily routine and life's hassles. The reason why they fished was significant because it characterized their motivation to engage in this activity as a voluntary and pleasurable one and differentiated them from subsistence fishermen who fish only for food. Fishing for sport meant that the activity of fishing itself was important to the anglers. These anglers were largely avid fans of fishing, and the senior anglers in the group had fished for most of their lives. Unlike subsistence fishermen, the fish caught by these anglers may or may not be eaten, although all the participants in this sample consumed catch that they deemed edible. It was fishing itself, along with the thrill of the catch and the challenge it presented, that motivated them. Getting a fish to bite was the result of skill and luck. As one participant said, "I find myself that I just go fishing even if the fish are not bitin .... And that's the whole thing. Trying to make one of those fish bite.. the anticipation of being able to get a strike." Anglers felt exhilarated by having the opportunity to control their natural environment.

Recreational fishing was often done in groups of one or more friends. Fishing also provided opportunities for people to meet and develop new friendships based on a shared interest in their sport. Older anglers in particular emphasized the sport aspect of fishing, presumably because many of them were retired and this was a primary hobby. Other than just being an enjoyable activity, the water acted as a place where anglers could "free their minds" and focus on their sport of choice. The water was relaxing, and anglers enjoyed communing with nature, leaving their worries at the water. The water itself was calming and therapeutic, ascribed with qualities that could balance emotions or mental burdens. "There's something about the water the way it [affects] a human body. I guess it's because the body is mostly water... it settles your body, your mind, and everything." Anglers could "throw cares to the water" and leave refreshed. For younger anglers with families, this was important time to be alone or with angler friends. They were more likely than older anglers to report needing to get away from family responsibilities and spouses or children. A participant said that familial obligations were the factors that limited his access to fishing: "All the reasons that we go fishing for are what stop us from going. Those are the reasons that stop us."

Most anglers did eat their catch, but it was not for a daily meal. All anglers reported that they would fish more for pleasure if they had the time. Participants did not characterize sport fishing as a risky activity in which the potential for contamination weighed heavily on their minds. Rather, sport fishing was essentially beneficial--it was a break from the normal routine of life and reduced stress. The importance of stress reduction for anglers should be highlighted to understand the self-reported health benefits of fishing.

Theme Two: Angler Knowledge

Angler knowledge is defined as the wealth of information anglers drew upon to guide their fishing practices. Possession of angler knowledge signified one's identity as a recreational angler--this specialized knowledge was developed over time based on informal education and personal experience. Analysis identified that anglers' lay knowledge of sport fishing included substantive knowledge about local waters in relation to sport fishing practice (knowing the waters), emphasizing fishing as a traditional activity (tradition and experience), and the importance of the flow of information from one angler to another (sharing information).

Knowing the Waters

Understanding how and where to fish was an essential component of anglers' applied knowledge. Knowledgeable anglers literally knew the waters and understood their natural environment, including weather, fish habitats, and migration patterns. Overall, participants were impressed with the quality of fishing in the western New York area. One participant felt blessed because he considered Buffalo a "Mecca" for fishing due to the abundance of fishable waters. Note the praise for the area given in the following passage:

Participant 1: 1 think the fishing here in Buffalo and westem New York is some of the best fishing.... They have every type of fish in the river, in that lake out there/

Participant 2: They do.

Participant 1: They have almost every type of freshwater fish there is ... and there's different ways to fish for different fish.

Participants were knowledgeable of many types of fish and could name them easily. The fish mentioned by participants included varieties of bass, perch, trout, catfish, and others. Numerous locations in Buffalo and western New York were listed by anglers in terms of where to fish, and participants had a particular favorite depending on the type of fish they were looking for. The availability of fish was variable and affected by both the weather and patterns of migration. Anglers would travel to certain geographic areas, including other parts of the state, depending on the time of the year:

Participant 1: [The fish] travel by season. You got your spring, you got your summer. You got your fall. You go to certain areas at certain times. As the temperature changes, you move. You follow the fish.

Moderator: You follow the fish?

Participant 1: Fish have a certain pattern they travel. They start in Ohio and they migrate east and go down to the Buffalo basin. And by fall they turn and go back to Ohio. So they have a big circle, and you follow the fish.

Within the lake or body of water, anglers were able to catch different fish depending on where in the water they were fishing. Older men preferred fishing by boat because it allowed for the most mobility and provided access to waters that were inhabited by only a certain type of fish. Other species were available by fishing from the shore or a pier. By knowing the waters, anglers improved their likelihood of success.

A knowledgeable angler also understood the transitory conditions that affected fishing quality, such as water and air temperature, wind speed and direction, air pressure, and phase of the moon. There was an emphasis on air temperature change, rather than the change of seasons specifically, and most anglers were not likely to fish during cold winter temperatures or engage in ice fishing. If the air temperature was too high, such as during "the dog days" of summer, the fish did not bite and would lie low in the water. When the moon was full, it was believed that fish would not bite because they were "soft in the mouth." Wind speed and direction were important, and a fast wind made it difficult to control the rod. The group was quick to note the importance of wind direction and pressure:

Participant 1: If the wind is blowing from the east, the east wind/

Participant 2: /They will not bite.

Participant 1: It has a lot to do with the weather and wind pressure.

Moderator: And the fullness of the moon.

Participant 3: I don't like to fish when the wind is high. You miss some good strikes. When the east winds take the wind blowin' your pole...

Moderator: Is there a wind direction that is good?

Participant 1: The west.

Group: Southwest.

Participant 4: An old lady told me once, she was about 80 years old. "If the wind is blowin' in from the east that's when the fish bites the least. If it's blowin' in from the west, that's when they bite the best." And I found that to be true.

Though this paper was not meant to be an exhaustive exploration of fishing knowledge, the highlights presented here point to the fact that anglers' knowledge was based on experience, rather than adherence to published risk-reduction guides or formal communications from government agencies.

Tradition and Experience

Fishing was a lifelong hobby for many. As one participant noted, fishing was a tradition learned when young: "Well, actually I started fishing when I was a little boy with my grandfather. But then there were a lot of years when I didn't go. And then I started fishing again." Older anglers were particularly able to lend comment regarding fishing as a tradition because they could reflect back to their own beginnings as young anglers. Highly skilled, veteran anglers of today were a product of years of fishing from childhood:

Participant 1: 1 was just gonna say when I was really young and learnin' how to fish/

Participant 2: /You're still young.

Participant 1: When I was real young, my father used to, every Saturday or Sunday he had me on somebody's lake or somebody's woods huntin' or fishin'.

Knowledge about fishing was gained over time and was considered a skill. More experience, or time spent "on the water," led to better developed skills and to better overall fishing experiences. As one angler put it, "[fishing] is a skill you acquire and you learn and you go out and target the certain fish that you want to. And so you a have a bunch of fish you can go out and challenge." As anglers accumulated more experiences, the idea that personal experiences and fishing tradition made them better anglers was reinforced. As logic would suggest, experience and skill were greatest in older anglers.

Sharing Information

Closely connected to fishing as a traditional activity was the flow of information from one angler to another. Anglers were always in the process of gathering information to better their fishing acts. They preferred to discuss and gather information from other anglers because they were seen as accurate, trustworthy, and actively engaged in the act of fishing-- they were "on the water." Knowledge passed down from one generation to the next was particularly prized and trusted. Participants reported that elders in the family or community were able to offer such information, as in this participant's encounter with an experienced angler:

I used to get smallmouth black bass, but I used to give `em away because I didn't like `em because I used to cook `em like I learned to cook Bunnies and what not. But an old guy showed me how to clean black bass, to take that lateral line out--got to fillet them, cut the skin off, and cut that brown lateral line out the middle of the fillet `cause if you don't.. it tastes oily, it's like an oily fish taste. You take that lateral line out but keep the fillets, you got nothing but white meat. And it's delicious.

By passing on fishing knowledge to others, anglers kept alive a culture of fishing.

Information was shared between anglers, and inquiries regarding whether or not the fish were biting were frequent: "the first thing out your mouth when you fishing is, `Dude, they biting over there? Is it biting?' You don't care about nothing else." Another angler would ask "What you doing? What you got there, girl?" Participants wanted to know if the fish were biting in a certain area, what type of bait was being used, and what type of fish were caught. Striking up conversation in this manner allowed for the flow of substantive information from one angler to another and covered a multitude of topics.

There was an age difference regarding sharing information, however. Younger anglers were more likely to discuss home life and personal problems, even with a relatively new acquaintance, while older anglers were more likely to discuss fishing in general. There was a camaraderie among younger anglers who used fishing as chance to assist other anglers who needed help, not just with their fishing, but with personal problems as well. One participant noted how he would pass along extra fish he caught to help out another angler who was not having as much luck: "If somebody having a bad day, they ain't catching nothing. You catching it. Make `em feel happy [by giving them fish]. Here you go!" Another said he would assist others even if problems were of a more personal nature:

You give advice, you know. He might be going through something that I ... might of went through .... It can be like I don't know this man from a hole in the wall, and we be down there fishing, smoking cigarettes, talking. We sitting like this talking about our girls.

Whereas this type of sharing was not necessarily related to fishing and did not contribute to their fishing knowledge substantively, it did promote fishing as a stress-reducing and therapeutic social activity.

Theme Three: Avoiding Pollution

Anglers achieved fishing skill by developing a body of knowledge that overcame the natural challenges associated with catching sport fish. Angler Knowledge was found to be extensive, but what was missing in its composition was health advisory information. A lack of advisory information shows that risk communication information has not been incorporated into the African American angler knowledge base. This is not to say that anglers were oblivious to and uninterested in fish and water safety. Avoiding polluted waters and polluted fish were fundamental to their fishing and fish-consumption practices. Yet, lay notions of pollution were conceptually quite different than scientific ones. All anglers noted that the waters of western New York were contaminated; however, eating sport fish was not conceived as a serious health threat, and exposure to contamination via fish was thought to be avoidable. Though both water and fish were thought contaminated, the amount of pollution was thought to vary by location and be detectable by the senses. Therefore, pollution was indeed avoided, but based on different ideas of what pollution was and how it was detected. Anglers actively avoided pollution as they saw it by avoiding polluted waters, avoiding polluted fish, and avoiding pollution within fish.

Avoiding Polluted Waters

Polluted waters did not necessarily make fishing unsafe. One participant noted that "if the fish could live in the water, then it must be safe. They have babies in that water and they all swim around.... People swim in that water and they're still walking around." But specific visual evidence suggested that certain locations were simply too polluted and not safe for fishing. Anglers' conceptions of pollution were empirically based on observations of visual sources of contamination. Anglers felt they were able to determine which water was safe based on where the water was located, if it appeared stagnant, was near an obvious source of pollution, or simply if it appeared dirty as evidenced by junk or debris in the water. One participant noted that "if we see a lot of things polluting the water, you won't go fishing there." Such obvious sources of contamination were thought unsafe and not worth fishing in because the catch would not be safe for consumption.

The most obvious source of pollution was thought to come from industrial sites. A participant noted her concern over what she presumed to be the dumping of industrial wastes:

Participant 1: They pump everything into that water, especially over by the pier. If you go over by [a local manufacturer] and see the stuff that they pump in that water.... You see that water and it's, like, uh-huh. You know. And they ain't gonna tell 'em what illegal stuff they dump in there. You know what I'm saying?

It is difficult to know exactly what this participant inferred was industrial pollution, but there was skepticism in anglers' testimonies regarding both past and present practices of local manufacturing and waste management. Thus, it was important for anglers themselves to be judges of water safety by actually seeing the pollution as it happens. Another angler noted an obviously unclean area associated with the specter of a former industry: "Like down there by the old [steel mill] where the water is like still, I wouldn't fish where it's still water. Because that's like a stagnated water. So you got a lot of film and stuff developing. So, I like the river fish the best. Where the water is flowing the most."

Older anglers with a history of fishing in the area knew which waters were safe and which were not and would discuss this among themselves. They had a more intuitive sense of which waters were safe largely based on their depth of knowledge of where to fish. The group of men anglers over age 40 reported the following:

Moderator: Do you ever talk with other people who fish about whether or not the water in the area are safe?

From group: All the time.

Moderator: So the reason you're talking [with] people about whether or not water is safe is for what reason?

Participant: So you know whether the fish is safe to eat it. It ain't [worth it] to fish if you can't take none of it home. So I ain't go'n' go to no place that I can't keep, give `em away.

Anglers reported that they simply avoided waters of questionable safety, again relying on their history of fishing. "I try to stay away from those places. If I don't know, I ask. I've been fishing for a while, sol pretty well know where to go." Younger anglers tended to base their own actions on the actions-- rather than the words--of others. For example, one angler said he would not fish in an area that was both unfamiliar to him and where he did not see any other anglers. In contrast, if it was a frequented fishing hole, then it was considered safe.

Water safety was also judged by periodic warnings of temporary flare-ups of pollution broadcast on television, radio, or posted in newspapers. Information about fish kills and pollution flare-ups is not included in advisories given with fishing licenses by the New York State Department of Health. (Annual state health advisories provide information about the waters in general, rather than periodic fishing bans.) Younger anglers tended to rate safety on whether or not the government issued warnings, believing that these official bodies were monitoring water safety and pollution levels and would warn anglers of any immediate threat or hazard:

Participant 1: 1 mean 'cause the water is not toxic or anything. Of course, if it was toxic, then they would close it off.

Participant 2: 1 don't know, man. There's a lot of dumping, though, that you don't know about.

Participant 1: But the EPA monitoring that.

The waters, though polluted, were considered safe except when testing by environmental or government authorities indicated otherwise:

Moderator: Is there anyone else you talk to [about water safety]?

Participant 1: The authority of the environment, they test the water a lot.

Participant 2: You go up to Niagara Falls and they be all the time testin' that water.

Polluted waters were avoided based on visual pollution, discussing water safety with others, the actions of others, and warnings of governing bodies. Not all criteria were used at one time and they were often used in combination. Anglers knew there were pollutants in the water, but felt most water was still safe to fish from.

Avoiding Polluted Fish

Within those waters deemed safe for angling, certain fish were avoided in further efforts to reduce exposure to pollution. Anglers' cultural notions of pollution extended to their practice of choosing which fish to keep and which to return to the water or destroy. Unlike other fishing practices, there were few age-related differences in the avoidance of polluted fish. Because of the large variety of sport fish available in local waters, it was difficult to predict with total accuracy the type of fish one would catch. After getting a strike, the fish was evaluated based on species, visual appearance, and size. Most fish caught were of acceptable species for consumption. The exceptions were scavenger fish which were considered unfit to eat because they are bottom feeders. "Scavengers are the ones that eat off the bottom, eat anything... suckers, catfish, carp, sheepheads." These fish were also seen as uniquely able to process or digest junk that was at the bottom of the water such as shells, mussels, decaying fish, or inorganic material. Sheepheads, in particular, were the most detested of the scavengers. Avoidance of sheepheads appeared culturally based, since participants reported that anglers from other ethnic backgrounds, particularly Asians, did not have sanctions against these fish. African American anglers reported that anglers believed to be Chinese bought these fish from them for several dollars a head. As well, anglers from other areas of the country classified scavengers differently than local anglers:

These guys come out of Detroit .... They come with their coolers. And they don't call `em sheephead. That fish is not a sheephead. That fish is a drum .... They takes those fish back to Detroit and they fillet `em, and we won't eat `em here. We call `em sheephead and we won't eat `em.

Fish that appear to be sick or injured are also avoided. Anglers believed that fish could get sick "just like humans," and fish that appeared sick was rejected. These were fish in which there were obvious sources of contamination: a physical deformity, a sore, growth, cancer, laceration, or infection by a parasite. Sick-looking fish were often thrown on the banks or otherwise destroyed so as not to make the waters dirty or make other fish sick: "Because all the ones I think is sick, they land up on the rocks. I don't even throw it back in the water. I don't want it to contaminate nothing I'm trying to catch."

A third method of choosing less polluted fish was to judge by size. Across all varieties of fish, those which were too old were not kept for eating. Even though particularly large fish were prized or seen as a good catch, larger fish were not eaten because they were seen as old and tough; they were not tasty and would be "fishy." Conversely, too small a fish was returned to the water because it was either against fishing regulation guidelines or did not contain much edible meat.

Avoiding Pollution within Fish

For all anglers, regardless of age, specific steps were taken to ensure that the fish they were catching were cleaned appropriately. Scales, guts, and bones were removed to leave mostly meat, but skin was not always removed. Other parts of fish were cut out, depending on the fish itself. Some scavenger fish, if not completely avoided, were processed to remove parts thought not to be good for eating: "A lot of people take the sucker fish and they'll cut `em and only eat `em from the torso to the back of the tail and throw the other part away. From the dorsal fin on the top. And they wont eat the other part." Anglers repeatedly mentioned removing the "lateral line" from all fish, which was believed to be oily and fishy tasting:

Participant 1: You take that lateral line out but keep the fillets, you got nothing but white meat. And it's delicious.

Participant 2: There's a ... line in most fish like in the carp. This big white line down both side.. you can just pull it out and it takes the taste out.

Fish meat was considered leaner than most and was made even more so by removing any visible fat. Fat was believed to be where pollutants accumulated.

Filleting, leaving only the choicest meat, was the primary method of fish preparation. Though the practice was time intensive, it led to a superior, clean product. Whether or not to fillet depended on size, with larger fish being "filleted down"--getting rid of skin, scales, guts, fat, bones, or undesirable sections of meat thereby changing unusable, large, polluted fish into something cleaner and edible. Filleting can be characterized as a cleansing process-a way in which to get cleaner, more tasty fish meat. Bad taste was thought to be removed during cleaning. Cleaning removed pollution, and thus, bad taste. Larger fish did not taste right and were evaluated as poor:

Participant 1: You got a bass. I like the two, three pounds. When he's talkin' about five, six pounds, I don't want those. And they're big like that, I let `em go.

Moderator: So tell me, why is it that you don't want them?

Participant 1: They don't taste right.

Participant 2: They're oily and don't taste right.

Participant 3: Yeah.

Moderator: And they're older.

Participant 1: The meat get coarser.

Participant 2: That's right.

Anglers' attempts to reduce their exposure to impurities were largely based on one criteria: to get fish that tasted good. The taste was how fish was evaluated for quality. Relying on their sense of taste was an extension of the empirical nature by which anglers evaluated fish safety. Clean, healthy fish that was safe for eating tasted good. Polluted, or visibly sick fish necessarily tasted bad. Though this may contrast with scientific notions that contaminants may not be detected by the unaided human senses, local anglers' notions of pollution were intuitive and empirical. Anglers held the belief that they were able to detect for themselves the contamination that was present, and that they were the final judge of this contamination.

Discussion

Previous research on risk perceptions of sport fish consumption (Burger, Sanchez, and Gochfeld 1998; May and Burger 1996) has also found low perceived risks of sport fish consumption among anglers. For African American anglers in western New York, the act of fishing was pursued under a beneficial context in which there were several reported advantages: stress reduction, pursuance of a sport, and time spent outdoors in the natural environment. Since the consumption of sport fish was part of the fishing experience as a whole, eating fish--regardless of the potential for exposure to pollution--was included under this favorable context. Because anglers felt they could accurately assess the safety of fish, their perception of risk from eating sport fish was low. Combined with the fact they were not subsistence anglers, their exposure overall appeared to be limited to fish caught on recreational outings and to those fish they deemed edible. Only about 50 percent of participants in this sample were aware of the fish consumption advisories, further decreasing their perception of risk. Finally, the identification of Angler Knowledge suggests that even participants who may be aware of the advisories tend not to use this information to guide their practices.

Assuming that risk will be perceived by the lay public in its "pure" form (as a probabilistic relationship between exposure and adverse outcomes) is misguided. Humans, as social creatures, have a more comprehensive view of risk (Kasperson et al. 1988) based not on statistical relationships but rather on issues related to their culture or lifestyle. Cultural models theory (Holland and Quinn 1987) is particularly germane to the current study of cultural notions of risk. Emphasizing laypersons' knowledge and meaning of a variety of everyday objects, events, and social circumstances from a relativistic approach, cultural models theory seeks to identify schemas or simplified models of phenomena shared by a cultural group, similar to the notion of folk models. Culture, then, is a matter of shared knowledge, or "presupposed, takenfor-granted models of the world that are widely shared" (Quinn and Holland 1987:4). Though these models alone do not prescribe behavior, they are thought to be intricately related to behavioral expression. Cultural models may be particularly helpful in understanding the basis of the public's environmental risk perceptions because they can be generated directly from informants' testimonies.

Recently applied in investigations of the public reaction to threats from the dinoflagellate Pfisteria (Griffith 1999; Kempton and Falk 2000; Paolisso and Maloney 2000), cultural models theory has suggested that in ambiguous situations, preexisting schemas of related phenomena may be applied imperfectly to new situations. Pfisteria is an aquatic organism that can produce a neurotoxin to paralyze fish upon which it preys. Incidentally, the aerosol of this toxin may be hazardous for anglers boating near the outbreaks. As Kempton and Falk (2000) show, this fish-attacking organism is a novel type of risk-one without a well-fitting, existing schema or model to represent it in the minds of laypersons. The cultural models used to make sense of this organism led to representations of Pfisteria as environmental pollution or as a type of disease in fish. These cultural models were suggested as the reason for exaggerated perceptions of risk associated with this organism. Heightened risk perceptions had important consequences resulting in unnecessary behavior changes in the public, such as reductions in the consumption of all seafood, because pollution and fish-disease cultural models focused on harmful exposure through fish rather than to an air-borne toxin.

In the current study, a cultural model of pollution in aquatic environments and fish was uncovered, showing that lay notions of pollution and sport fish contamination are at odds with scientific models. Anglers' representation of pollution might be considered a "junk" model of environmental contamination--an aesthetic-empirical depiction in which pollution is thought recognizable by its unclean appearance and is avoidable because it is detectable by the senses. Pollution was conceptualized as junk or debris in waters that were visually unappealing and slow moving, both thought to be very clear signs of contamination. Similar to investigations in Jamaica Bay of New York City (Burger, Staine, and Gochfeld 1993) and the Newark Bay Complex of New Jersey (Pflugh et al. 1999), anglers in the current study felt they were able to judge if a fish was safe for eating by appearance or smell. Unfortunately, this model is ill-fitting for the more complex situation by which fish bioaccumulate invisible persistent chemicals by the consumption of organisms lower on the food chain. Scientific concepts of chemical pollution focus on the unseen and those substances undetectable to the unaided human senses. This type of pollution exposure may be one for which anglers do not have an appropriate, existing model. Therefore, anglers applying a cultural model are exposed to chemicals of which they are unaware because these substances cannot be detected by sight, smell, or taste. As with the case of Pfisteria in the Chesapeake Bay, the use of a related, but imperfectly fitting cultural model, could lead to behaviors that are unnecessary or even ill-advised. African American anglers in western New York could be at greater risk of exposure to persistent environmental chemicals because their cultural model does not allow for the detection of essentially invisible contaminants.

Though the value of anglers' understanding of the environment and fishing practices should not be underestimated, scientific evidence shows that exposure to persistent chemicals may not be avoidable based on intuition and past experience alone. At odds are a scientific model that views potential risks associated with chemical exposure from fish as high, versus a cultural model of environmental pollution that perceives fish contamination as relatively low in risk. Now identified, it is important to view these differences in sources of knowledge as opportunities for educational intervention. The challenge is to creatively present scientifically derived information as an alternative model to existing knowledge of anglers to enhance their understanding of the environment. Results from this study suggest that relying on what is known about the importance of tradition, experience, and sharing of information may provide insight into how to use these values to design and implement interventions for the target group that will be well-received.

Participants maintained a strong angler identity and had a desire to discuss with others their experiences of fishing. As a result, focus groups were an excellent method by which participants could relate their fishing histories while also informing the researchers of both perceptions of risk and folk knowledge. Because anglers were using a cultural model, it seems unlikely that they would be familiar with most scientific concepts related to exposure to persistent chemicals via the consumption of contaminated sport fish: invisible lipophilic chemicals, bioaccumulation, fish size and body burden, and position in the food chain. An educational intervention using group discussions in which researchers provide an alternative cultural model--an invisible pollution model based on the aforementioned scientific concepts--would give insight into whether or not anglers view these concepts as valid, compelling, or applicable to them as fishers. If anglers believe that larger, older fish are not as good for eating because they are tough and fishy tasting, this can be coupled with the notion that these fish are also more hazardous to eat because of bioaccumlated chemical pollutants. This pairing of information may be particularly well-received (Slovic 1986) because it is congruent with existing folk notions of fish quality, reinforcing their compliant behaviors. Dialogue could focus on a number of issues, including the recognition of polluted or sick fish, stressing that pollution in fish goes beyond what one can readily see, smell, or taste. It would be important to stress that part of knowing the local waters, such as where fish migrate, includes knowing about the unseen chemicals that are present in fish. It could also be suggested that to be a savvy angler, one must inspect the water and fish, but also the state fish consumption advisory. Anglers may view their increased knowledge of local waters as leading to a better fishing act.

Respected community leaders, who are both avid anglers and who understand and advocate the recommendations of the advisory, may act as moderators or discussion leaders in sessions by which other peer leaders or members of the angler community are educated. In terms of setting for these sessions, the fellowship halls or meeting rooms of churches may provide a familiar and easily accessed location, as was the case for the focus groups. Because anglers prefer learning from other anglers, these specially armed group leaders may be highly likely to influence others because they understand both Angler Knowledge and scientific principles of environmental contamination. They may be the best practitioners for using folk knowledge as a vehicle for scientific concepts, essentially acting as culture brokers between the scientific and angling communities. As active anglers, they would be likely to be trusted sources of information. Given that Angler Knowledge allows for the inclusion of new information and information sharing as part of its make-up, it is clearly an adaptive system. Tapping into this mechanism may be beneficial, as informed anglers can disperse new information from a new model throughout the normal course of their interaction with other anglers.

Age appears to be an important consideration in African American angler culture and the implications for application of study results. Older participants tended to be the expert anglers who had fished most of their lives. Overall, their knowledge base was greater because they had accumulated more experiences over their lifetime than younger anglers. They fished more frequently, emphasized the sport aspect of fishing, and shared information of fishing practices and water safety with each other often. Younger anglers tended to fish less, were more likely to mention the leisure and stress-- reduction benefits of fishing, spoke with anglers about their lives in general, and based water safety on where others fished more than on discussion of which locations were safest. Older anglers, because of their high level of involvement in angling combined with what has been described as a general respect toward elders and a tradition of oral communication in African American culture (Bailey 2000:49), stand out as the ideal conveyers of new information to all ages in the angling community. Targeting older anglers in educational sessions may prove to be particularly fruitful in the dissemination of enhanced knowledge of how best to avoid pollution in the environment while angling. Suggestions such as these are merely starting points for more elaborate risk communication and education strategies. Yet, the advantage is that these approaches acknowledge an emic, cultural model of environmental contamination and are grounded in the target group's folk knowledge.

Conclusions

Study results have identified the context, knowledge, folk concepts of pollution, and fishing practices of African American anglers, suggesting that they do not necessarily ignore or refuse to accept scientific notions of contamination and longterm health effects. Rather, they adhere to their own existing body of knowledge of fishing practices, pollution, and the natural environment. An important qualification is that this depiction of cultural traits may or may not be unique to African American anglers. With a singular focus on African Americans in this investigation, it is difficult to tease apart what is specifically a feature of African American ethnicity and what features may be shared among anglers from other ethnic groups. It seems likely that some of these attributes would overlap with angler culture in general, regardless of ethnicity. Future cross-cultural studies of angling practice, including groups such as Latinos, Anglo Americans, Asian Americans, or Native Americans, may illustrate the diverse ways angling and eating the catch are fully experienced and conceptualized. Because the current investigation studied a primarily urban context, African Americans who reside and angle in rural areas may have a different understanding of pollution and risk which should also be examined. In addition, ethnographic research into how angling is embedded into the African American community may be valuable in signifying the community-wide, cultural ramifications of increased risk awareness.

References Cited

Bailey, Eric J.

2000 Medical Anthropology and African American Health. Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey.

Burger, Joanna, Jessica Sanchez, and Michael Gochfeld

1998 Fishing, Consumption, and Risk Perception in Fisherfolk Along an East Coast Estuary. Environmental Research 77:2535.

Burger, Joanna, Kevin Staine, and Michael Gochfeld

1993 Fishing in Contaminated Waters: Knowledge and Risk Perception of Hazards by Fishermen in New York City. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 39:95-105.

Connelly, Nancy A., and Barbara A. Knuth

1998 Evaluating Risk Communications: Examining Target Audience Perceptions About Four Presentation Formats for Fish Consumption Health Advisory Information. Risk Analysis 18:649-659.

Connelly, Nancy A., Barbara A. Knuth, and John E. Vena

1993 New York State Angler Cohort Study: Health Advisory Knowledge and Related Attitudes and Behavior, With a Focus on Lake Ontario. Human Dimensions Research Unit document, series no. 93-9. Ithaca, MY: Cornell University.

Cordle, Frank, Raymond Locke, and Janet Springer

1982 Risk Assessment in a Federal Regulatory Agency: An. Assessment of Risk Associated with the Human Consumption of Some Species of Fish Contaminated with Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Environmental Health Perspectives 45:171182.

Fehringer, Norbert V., Stephen M. Walters, Ronald J. Kozara, and Louis F. Schneider

1985 Survey of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Fish from the Great Lakes and Selected Michigan Rivers. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 33:626-630.

Fiore, Beth J., Henry A. Anderson, Lawrence P. Hanrahan, Leon J. Olson, and William C. Sonzogni

1989 Sport Fish Consumption and Body Burden Levels of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons: A Study of Wisconsin Anglers. Archives of Environmental Health 44:82-88.

Giesy, John P., Kurunthachalam Kannan, J. Kubitz, L. Williams, and Matthew J. Zabik

1999 Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDS) and Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in Muscle and Eggs of Salmonid Fishes from the Great Lakes. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 36:432-446.

Glaser, Barney

1978 Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, Calif.: Sociology Press. Griffith, David

1999 Exaggerating Environmental Health Risk: The Case of the Toxic Dinoflagellate Pfisteria. Human Organization 58:119-127. Holland, Dorothy, and Naomi Quinn, eds.

1987 Cultural Models in Language and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, Branden B.

1991 Risk and Culture Research: Some Cautions. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 22:141-149.

Kannan, Kurunthachalam, Nobuyoshi Yamashita, Takashi Imagawa, Wim Decoen, Jong Seong Khim, Robert M. Day, Cheryl L. Summer, and John P. Giesy

2000 Polychlorinated Naphthalenes and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Fishes from Michigan Waters Including the Great Lakes. Environmental Science and Technology 34:566-572.

Kasperson, Roger E., Ortwin Renn, Paul Slovic, Halina S. Brown, Jacque Emel, Robert Goble, Jeanne X. Kasperson, and Samuel Ratick

1988 The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis 8:177-187.

Kearney, Jill P., Donald C. Cole, Liliane Ferron, and Jean-Phillipe Weber 1999 Blood PCB, p,p'-DDE, and Mirex Levels in Great Lakes Fish and Waterfowl Consumers in Two Ontario Communities. Environmental Research 80:138-149.

Kempton, Willett, and James Falk

2000 Cultural Models of Pfisteria: Toward Cultivating More Appropriate Risk Perceptions. Coastal Management 28:273-285. May, Helen, and Joanna Burger

1996 Fishing in a Polluted Estuary: Fishing Behavior, Fish Consumption, and Potential Risk. Risk Analysis 16:459-471.

Morgan, David L.

1998 Planning Focus Groups. In The Focus Group Kit, Vol. 2. David L. Morgan and Richard A. Krueger, eds. Pp. 55-69. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH)

2000 2000-2001 Health Advisories: Chemicals in Sportfish and Game. Albany: NYSDOH.

Pflugh, Kerry K., Lynette Lurig, Leigh Ann Von Hagen, Stanley Von Hagen, Joanna Burger

1999 Urban Anglers' Perception of Risk from Contaminated Fish. The Science of the Total Environment 228:203-218.

Paolisso, Michael, and R. Shawn Maloney

2000 Recognizing Farmer Environmentalism: Nutrient Runoff and Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms in the Chesapeake Bay Region. Human Organization 59:209-221.

Quinn, Naomi, and Dorothy Holland

1987 Culture and Cognition. In Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn, eds. Pp. 3-40. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Slovic, Paul

1986 Informing and Educating the Public About Risk. Risk Analysis 6:403-415.

Sonzogni, William, L. Maack, Thomas Gibson, David Degenhardt, Henry Anderson, and Beth Fiore

1991 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners in Blood of Wisconsin Sport Fish Consumers. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 20:56-60.

Strauss, Anselm, and Juliette Corbin

1990 Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Thomas, Stephen B., Sandra C. Quinn, Andrew Billingsley, and Cleopatra Caldwell

1994 The Characteristics of Northern Black Churches with Community Health Outreach Programs. American Journal of Public Health 84:575-579.

Tilden, John, Lawrence P. Hanrahan, Henry Anderson, Charles Palit, Joseph Olson, William MacKenzie, and the Great Lakes Sport Fish Consortium

1997 Health Advisories for Consumers of Great Lakes Sport Fish: Is the Message Being Received? Environmental Health Perspectives 105:1360-1365.

Vaughan, Elaine, and Brenda Nordenstam

1991 The Perception of Environmental Risks Among Ethnically Diverse Groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 22:29-60. Vena, John

1997 New York State Consumption Survey. Proceedings from the 1997 American Fisheries Society Forum on Contaminants in Fish. Seattle: Environment Consultants.

West, Patrick C., J. Mark Fly, Frances Larkin, and Robert W. Marans 1992 Minority Anglers and Toxic Fish Consumption: Evidence from a Statewide Survey of Michigan. In Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse. Bunyan Bryant and Paul Mohai, eds. Pp. 100-113. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Gregory P. Beehler, Bridget M. McGuinness, and John E. Vena

Gregory P. Beehler is a medical anthropologist and research associate in the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York. Bridget M. McGuinness is an epidemiologist and research associate in the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York. John E. Vena is a professor in the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine and the director of the Environment and Society Institute at the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York. The authors would like to thank the men and women who participated in the study. The authors also thank Catherine Lewis of LEWAC Associates of Western New York, Inc. for her assistance in the recruitment of participants and moderation of the focus groups, and Ann McElroy for her insightful comments regarding this manuscript. This project was supported by a grant from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (H751ATH298328).