346
R. Hamilton et al.
correct and highlight the need for interviewers to be open-minded. For example,
Johannes and Neis ( 2007 ) reported how fi shers informed marine biologists of an
area off the coast of Belize where whale sharks aggregated and were swimming
through milky clouds of water. The fi shers assumed the whale sharks were spawning but their assumptions were wrong, as whale sharks are viviparous and do not
release eggs. While their observations were accurate, the whale sharks were in fact
feeding on spawn released by large aggregations of snappers (cubera snapper –
Lutjanus cyanopterus , dog snapper – L. jocu ) (Heyman et al. 2001 ) . In Brazil, fi shers
reported that mullet, Mugil platanus , enter coastal rivers and estuaries to spawn
during extensive spawning migrations, whereas scientists suggest that spawning
occurs in the open ocean; although this has yet to be confi rmed and the different
instead accounts call for further work (Silvano and Valbo-Jorgensen 2008 ) . Clearly,
LEK is most useful in science and conservation if it is carefully collected, evaluated,
cross-referenced and validated whenever possible (Johannes 1981 ; Ruddle et al.
1992 ; Usher 2000 ) .
10.5.2 Only Knowing Part of the Picture
LEK in a local context is, by its nature, selective; it is a small part of a much bigger
picture. Workers need to be just as clear about what they will not learn through
interviews as about what they will (Sect. 10.3 and Table 10.1 ). One illustrative
example is blacktail snapper, Lutjanus fulvus , in Palau. This is a small snapper
evidently not known in aggregations or of particular interest to fi shers, and yet
predictably forms massive groups of ripe adults (Chap. 12.10). However, it has never
been picked up in LEK despite numerous interviews in Palau over the last two
decades or so (Johannes 1981 ; Sadovy 2007 ) .
People also differ enormously in how observant they are. Spearfi shers in Fiji,
Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands, and the Solomon Islands, for example, provided
impressive details on features such as colour changes, orientation relative to water
currents and behaviours among aggregated groupers (Passfi eld 1996 , YSM and RH
personal observation 2005). These fi shers could only have known such details from
their own experiences thus providing strong evidence that spawning aggregations
had been observed.
It is our experience that only the more obvious aggregations, or those of more
valuable species, are clearly and consistently reported in interviews. In Fiji, for
example, on a SCUBA dive to validate an aggregation site reported by many fi shers
to contain the camoufl age and squaretail coralgroupers, another species, the speckled blue grouper, Epinephelus cyanopodus , was also found that no one had mentioned in interviews despite its presence in the fi shery. We later discovered that only
shallow-water spearfi shers caught it and noted that our original interviews had not
included these fi shers (YSM personal observation 2006). In Palau, several groupers
were reported to assemble in signifi cant number in May and June in interviews
(Johannes 1981 ) , and these months were later included in a traditional seasonal
closure ‘bul’ and in national laws. Aggregations also occur in July and August, as
R. Hamilton et al.
correct and highlight the need for interviewers to be open-minded. For example,
Johannes and Neis ( 2007 ) reported how fi shers informed marine biologists of an
area off the coast of Belize where whale sharks aggregated and were swimming
through milky clouds of water. The fi shers assumed the whale sharks were spawning but their assumptions were wrong, as whale sharks are viviparous and do not
release eggs. While their observations were accurate, the whale sharks were in fact
feeding on spawn released by large aggregations of snappers (cubera snapper –
Lutjanus cyanopterus , dog snapper – L. jocu ) (Heyman et al. 2001 ) . In Brazil, fi shers
reported that mullet, Mugil platanus , enter coastal rivers and estuaries to spawn
during extensive spawning migrations, whereas scientists suggest that spawning
occurs in the open ocean; although this has yet to be confi rmed and the different
instead accounts call for further work (Silvano and Valbo-Jorgensen 2008 ) . Clearly,
LEK is most useful in science and conservation if it is carefully collected, evaluated,
cross-referenced and validated whenever possible (Johannes 1981 ; Ruddle et al.
1992 ; Usher 2000 ) .
10.5.2 Only Knowing Part of the Picture
LEK in a local context is, by its nature, selective; it is a small part of a much bigger
picture. Workers need to be just as clear about what they will not learn through
interviews as about what they will (Sect. 10.3 and Table 10.1 ). One illustrative
example is blacktail snapper, Lutjanus fulvus , in Palau. This is a small snapper
evidently not known in aggregations or of particular interest to fi shers, and yet
predictably forms massive groups of ripe adults (Chap. 12.10). However, it has never
been picked up in LEK despite numerous interviews in Palau over the last two
decades or so (Johannes 1981 ; Sadovy 2007 ) .
People also differ enormously in how observant they are. Spearfi shers in Fiji,
Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands, and the Solomon Islands, for example, provided
impressive details on features such as colour changes, orientation relative to water
currents and behaviours among aggregated groupers (Passfi eld 1996 , YSM and RH
personal observation 2005). These fi shers could only have known such details from
their own experiences thus providing strong evidence that spawning aggregations
had been observed.
It is our experience that only the more obvious aggregations, or those of more
valuable species, are clearly and consistently reported in interviews. In Fiji, for
example, on a SCUBA dive to validate an aggregation site reported by many fi shers
to contain the camoufl age and squaretail coralgroupers, another species, the speckled blue grouper, Epinephelus cyanopodus , was also found that no one had mentioned in interviews despite its presence in the fi shery. We later discovered that only
shallow-water spearfi shers caught it and noted that our original interviews had not
included these fi shers (YSM personal observation 2006). In Palau, several groupers
were reported to assemble in signifi cant number in May and June in interviews
(Johannes 1981 ) , and these months were later included in a traditional seasonal
closure ‘bul’ and in national laws. Aggregations also occur in July and August, as