Skip to content

American Fisheries Society Family of Websites:

Fisheries.org

American Fisheries Society
Family of Websites

Journals

Read our five journals and Fisheries magazine

Gray Literature Database

Find thousands of unpublished agency reports and other information

Annual Meeting

Join us in Honolulu in 2024

Divisions, Chapters, Sections

Find an AFS Unit near you or in your area of specialty

Climate Change and Fisheries

Learn how to communicate the effects of climate change on fisheries

Hutton Junior Fisheries Biology Program

Summer internships for high school students

Fisheries Community

Coming soon!

Center for Fisheries Technology and Collaboration

Find fisheries science products and services

Center for Technology and Collaboration

Quick answers to common questions

Other Resources
  • Standard Methods for Sampling North American Freshwater Fish Website

  • Rotenone Stewardship Program Information Site

  • Fishionary: A blog about fish words! 
Latest News
Give to Fisheries on Giving Tuesday New Journal Design
Donate
Login
Logout
  • Who We Are
  • MEMBERSHIP
  • POLICY
  • NEWS
  • EVENTS
  • JOBS
  • PUBLICATIONS
  • Professional Development
  • Engagement

Who We Are

Governance

Learn how AFS is structured

Divisions, Sections, Chapters

Find a community in your local
area or in your expertise

Committees

Get engaged and volunteer

Awards & Recognition

Nominate your heroes

Diversity

Learn more about our DEIJA efforts

AFS Celebrates 150+ Years

Explore our history

AFS Fisheries Partnerships

Meet our global partners

Meet the Staff

Dedicated to serving our members

Contact Us

Quick answers to common questions

Support AFS

Discover how you can support critical AFS programs

What Are Fisheries?

Explore fisheries professions

Membership

Learn about membership benefits and member types

Member Directory

Find your colleagues

Types of Membership

For all stages of your career                   

Give the Gift
of Membership

Invest in an aspiring fisheries
professional’s future

Who Are Our Members

From students to 50-year Golden Members

My Account

Log in to access member benefits or renew

Join/Renew

It’s Quick and Easy

Organizational Membership

Become a Strategic Partner!

POLICY

Recovering America’s
Wildlife Act

Critical funding for state conservation programs

Climate Change

Communicate the impacts
of climate change on fisheries

Magnuson-Stevens Act

Ensuring sustainability of marine fisheries

Waters of the US

News about Clean Water Act
jurisdiction

Water Quality

Healthy fisheries
require healthy waters                    

Pebble Mine

Protecting Bristol Bay salmon fisheries

National Fish
Habitat Partnership

Addressing fish habitat regionally

Infrastructure

Funding impacts on fish habitat

Aquaculture

Providing food security for the future

Future of the Nation’s
Aquatic Resources

Priorities for US fisheries policies

Recent Policy Statements

Official policy statements of AFS

Recent Policy Letters

Comments on policy,
legislation, and regulations

Advocacy Guidelines

For Units and members

Science Guidelines

Practicing science appropriately

Briefings

Congressional briefings with our partners

Resolutions

Member-approved resolutions
on policy

News

Announcements

Official AFS news

Annual Meeting

News from the meeting

Members in the News

Awards and interviews

Policy News

Round-up of all policy news

Newsletter

Bi-weekly newsletter for members and partners

Press Releases

News media releases

Events

Annual Meeting

Honolulu 2024

Future Annual Meetings

Where we are heading

Past Annual Meetings

Where we’ve been

World Fisheries Congress 2024

Seattle, Washington

Other Past Events

Past special events

Fisheries Events Calendar

Events around the world

Add Your Event Listing

Submit your calendar item

Jobs

Career Help from AFS

Compilation of job listing boards

Other Career Tips

Career info for members

Find a Job

Listings from all over North America

Post a Job

Submit your job opening

Publications

AFS Journals Program

More than 150 years of excellence

AFS Books Program

Publish with AFS

Submit Journal Article

Reach the right audience for your research

Fisheries Magazine

Monthly membership magazine

Writing Tools

Guides for authors and other resources

Bookstore

Shop more than 180 titles

Journal Online Access

Log in to access journal articles

Gray Literature Database

Thousands of unpublished agency reports and research

Professional Development

Continuing Education

Gain skills and enhance your career

Professional Certification

Official recognition of your expertise

Hutton Junior Fisheries
Biology Program

Summer high school
internship program

Leadership Opportunities

Hone your leadership skills, volunteer today!

Webinars

Check out upcoming sessions or browse our library

More Online Resources

Practical resources for fisheries professionals

Engagement

Support AFS

Discover how you can support critical AFS programs

Strategic Partners

See how your organization can partner with AFS

Shop AFS

Check out the latest AFS merch here

The Tangled Sociopolitical Web: How Do We Give Science a Stronger Voice and Make Our Decisions More Transparent?

  • June 28, 2017
  • Fisheries News & Science, News
  • Home
  • The Tangled Sociopolitical Web: How Do We Give Science a Stronger Voice and Make Our Decisions More Transparent?

Jim Burroughs, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, 9097 North 34th Street West, Porter, OK 74454. E-mail: [email protected]

Shannon K. Brewer, U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK

The collaborative approach to natural resource management has developed to include the needs, opinions, and perceptions of a variety of people representing science, along with those representing social or economic perspectives and often involving our political system. The natural sciences are represented by agency personnel who generally are focused on the best ecological outcomes for the resource (but see Michael 2017, this issue; Ruch 2017, this issue). Other involved parties include socioeconomic scientists and industrial, agricultural, and economic interests, each with their own unique science, perspectives, and agendas. Given the diverse set of stakeholders involved, it is not surprising that the political process is part of our decisions and influences outcomes that can sometimes be frustrating to natural resource scientists and managers. The dilemmas that accompany this tangled web are not new to the current generation of natural resource professionals. However, new professionals who have just completed academic degrees are often caught off guard when their best researched and strategized management plans meet sociopolitical disagreements that thwart their best efforts. In this article, we briefly summarize the complex relationship between agencies and sociopolitics, present the management of tailwater streams (i.e., stream segment downstream of a dam) as an example of managing under this complexity, and provide a few examples of how to provide science with a stronger voice and greater transparency in natural resource decisions.

The relationships between agencies and elected officials affect the balance between politics and science in making natural resource decisions. Top state and provincial agency officials sometimes report directly to the governor, premier, or an appointed commission. Agencies with budgets appropriated by legislatures and changes in administration add additional layers of complexity to the relationship. Politics and science are further linked via government committees composed of nonscientists providing oversight of scientific organizations. An example at the federal level is the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, currently chaired by Ted Cruz, which oversees climate research and funding at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. At the U.S. state level, political commissions may oversee natural resource agencies. In either example, human needs are part of the decision processes and, ideally, science is represented in the process without undue bias. However, in some cases, science may be unduly influenced under the guise of the review process (Ruch 2017, this issue). Alternatively, scientists may not effectively communicate scientific results in a way that is understandable, and thus useful, to making informed political decisions (Michael 2017, this issue).

Natural resources decisions lie along a continuum between science and sociopolitics. Simplified, agencies have five basic paths:

1. making a decision beneficial to the natural resource with little
or no political influence,
2. making a decision that benefits the resource but has possible
sociopolitical repercussions,
3. making a decision that does not benefit the resource because
of overwhelming sociopolitical influence,
4. making no decision at all or substantially delaying a decision
because of sociopolitical concern, or
5. making a decision that benefits both natural resources and
sociopolitical needs.

It is a boon for resources when the first or last paths are the obvious choices. The remaining three paths represent decisions where science is not the driver but may be used to educate decision makers and the general public. A national example related to several of these possible pathways is the enforcement of Clean Water Act standards in tailwater streams. Many tailwater streams have been listed on the 303d list of impaired waters (e.g., White and Norfolk rivers in Arkansas, Franks 2006; lower Illinois River in Oklahoma, Oklahoma DEQ 2014) due to dissolved oxygen levels that do not meet aquatic life-use support criteria. The insufficient levels are related to a combination of hydropower generation, stratification of the upstream reservoir, and lack of instream flows to support biological needs. The question that often arises with the degradation of tailwater resources is who is responsible for the damage? According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, water quality standards apply to tailwater streams (Novak et al. 2015). However, the state agency responsible for water quality may not agree with the interpretation of the standard and, if it does, it may be unclear who is responsible for making flow release decisions (i.e., the federal agency that owns the dam or the power company that generates electricity). Agencies are faced with several possible decisions that may relate to several of the aforementioned pathways, including applying for downstream water permits, discontinuing trout stocking, or ignoring the water quality violations that may result in publicized fish kills. Gray areas such as these have existed for years, yet attempts to determine the responsible party are often avoided and the resource remains degraded. Enforcement responsibility is also a confounding factor. In our example, federal agencies frequently avoid getting involved in state matters concerning water quality and defer enforcement to the states. The states may claim no enforcement authority. This circle of no responsibility perpetuates the status quo. The process would benefit from involvement by scientists who can better educate special interest groups and agency personnel on the likely outcome of different decisions. Other interest groups and the general public can then voice their concerns to politicians.

We see the need for two important efforts in the decision process: increased focus by agency scientists in advocating science and its implications and a more transparent process of decision making that is agreeable to all stakeholders from the beginning (when the objective is initiated) and through each step. Agency scientists can play a more active role in educating their constituents so they realize the ecological implications of the decisions. More important, agencies would benefit from embracing processes that promote transparency in decision making (Ruch 2017, this issue).

Interactions between agency staff and interest groups or professional societies are two communication pathways that can be useful for strengthening the voice of science during decision making processes. Educating particular interest groups (e.g., trout fishers, bass fishers) is one way to ensure that citizens understand science related to specific resource dilemmas. Part of our duty as scientists is to provide scientific information to our constituents (see Hughes 2014). Scientific information can be used to describe ecological consequences and socioeconomic costs (Hughes 2013). Scientists can present the facts and then relate those facts to what would be best for a particular ecological situation, but the ultimate decision extends to a balance with what is viewed as best for society. Advocacy on particular issues by professional societies is often viewed as acceptable when the advocacy represents the group’s viewpoint on an issue (e.g., AFS 1996). The voice of professional societies creates anonymity for agency personnel. By working with others within such societies, the voice of science may be heard by politicians. Local AFS Chapters can construct position statements to be shared on websites and with politicians (e.g., Martin et al. 2017, this issue). For example, the Idaho AFS Chapter has developed several position statements including responses to management of irrigation projects (i.e., water quantity, 1994) and species listings (i.e., resolution on the role of dams related to salmon and recovery, 1999; Bernard 2007). Although such actions may lead to improvements in some situations, the management decisions are rarely transparent.

Professionals would benefit from the use of processes that allow a clear path to our decisions that include both scientific knowledge and sociopolitics. For example, structured decision making (or other equivalent processes) was designed to make the objectives obvious and the path forward clear. In fact, one of the benefits of structured decision making is to promote transparency related to legal mandates and public preferences, thereby attempting to integrate policy and science (USFWS 2008). These types of organized processes are ways to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. The resulting decisions may not have the desired ecological or political outcome for some, but the path taken to get there should be obvious and, thus, we are able to learn from and are held accountable for our decisions. Uncertainty is a part of every decision, and although there are certainly reasons to collect more data before decisions are made, throwing research dollars to meet the political and public outcry for “something to be done” can simply delay a difficult decision (i.e., path 4 above).

As natural resource professionals, we have to move forward with sound science while using processes that acknowledge sociopolitical preferences. At the same time, scientists can improve educating our constituents and being active in their professional societies to address natural resource issues requiring a stronger voice. Sound natural and socioeconomic science plays a vital role. Scientific information needs to be distributed to decision makers, the general public, media, and our professional societies. It is also important to convey to professionals that it is unrealistic to expect science alone to drive the decision-making process. We can educate professionals about the reality of these processes so that they can provide improved outreach and education. More important, we would benefit from equipping natural resource professionals with the skills to (1) collect meaningful data, (2) distribute those data in multiple formats that can be easily understood by different audiences (e.g., journals, popular magazines, social media), (3) involve their professional societies, and (4) present data and negotiate for the resources in meetings and public forums. We also can educate professionals more about the importance of collecting and understanding human dimensions (socioeconomic) data to help support natural resource efforts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We appreciate the critical reviews provided by three anonymous reviewers and Bob Hughes, Guest Editor. We also thank Garey Fox, Emily Tracy-Smith, Joseph Margraf, and Kevin Whalen for comments provided on an earlier draft.

REFERENCES

AFS (American Fisheries Society). 1996. Policy statement: advocacy guidelines. Available: https://fisheries.org/policy_advocacyguidelines. (January 2016).

Bernard, J. 2007. The history of the Idaho Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Available: http://www.idahoafs.org/documents/IdahoChapterAFSHistory.pdf. (March 2016).

Franks, J. 2006. Overview of the Clean Water Act. Available: http://www.swpa.gov/PDFs/Hydro/2006Meeting/epa_clean_water_act.pdf. (August 2016).
Hughes, B. 2013. We are the AFS, we speak for the fish. Fisheries 38:527.

Hughes, B. 2014. Fisheries ethics, or what do you want to do with your scientific knowledge in addition to earning a living? Fisheries 39:195.

Martin, L. M., L. H. Roulson, and H. Sexauer. 2017. Engagement and challenges in advocacy: experiences from the Western United States. Fisheries 42:369–372.

Michael, J. H., Jr. 2017. Managing salmon for ecosystem needs in the pacific northwest: limiting science input in ecosystem management—silos r us. Fisheries 42:373–376.

Novak, R., J. G. Kennen, R. W. Abele, C. F. Baschon, D. M. Carlisle, L. Dlugolecki, J. E. Flotermersch, P. Ford, J. Fowler, R. Galer, L. P., Gordon, S. N. Hansen, B. Herbold, T. E. Johnson, J. M. Johnston, C. P. Konrad, B. Leamond, and P. W. Seelbach. 2015. Protecting aquatic life from effects of hydrologic alteration. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5160 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 822-P-15-002. Available: https://www.epa.gov/wqc/final-epausgs-technical-report-protecting-aquatic-lifeeffects-hydrologic-alteration-documents. (June 2016).

Oklahoma DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality). 2014. Appendix C: 2014 Oklahoma 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Available:
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/WQDNew/305b_303d/2014/2014_appendix_c_303d-final.pdf. (August 2016).

Ruch, J. 2017. Emerging law of scientific integrity—a bumpy birth. Fisheries. 42:353–356.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Introduction to structured decision making. Available: http://www.fws.gov/science/doc/structured_decision_making_factsheet.pdf. (January 2016).

Members click below for the July 2017 Fisheries magazine’s complete issue. Non-members, join here.

This content is for members only. Please login.

  • Recent News

    • American Lobster and Jonah Crab Populations inside and outside the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, USA November 20, 2023
    • Stray Compositions of Hatchery-origin Chinook Salmon and Steelhead in Natural Spawning Populations of the Upper Columbia Watershed November 20, 2023
    • Give to Fisheries on Giving Tuesday November 20, 2023
    • Turning Class Field Trips into Long-Term Research: A Great Idea with a Few Pitfalls November 18, 2023
    • A Historical Record of Sawfish in the Southern Gulf of Mexico: Evidence of Diversity Loss Using Old Photos November 18, 2023
  • About

    The American Fisheries Society is 501c Non-Profit Society

     

    Donate Now

    Quick Links

    • ABOUT
    • POLICY
    • EVENTS
    • PUBLICATIONS
    • MEMBERSHIP
    • NEWS
    • JOBS
    • ABOUT
    • POLICY
    • EVENTS
    • PUBLICATIONS
    • MEMBERSHIP
    • NEWS
    • JOBS

    Contact

    • 425 Barlow Place
      Bethesda, MD 20814
    • (301) 897-8616
    Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin-in Vimeo-v
    Copyright © 2023 American Fisheries Society | Privacy Policy