, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 591–601 | Cite as

Getting past the blame game: Convergence and divergence in perceived threats to salmon resources among anglers and indigenous fishers in Canada’s lower Fraser River

  • Vivian M. NguyenEmail author
  • Nathan Young
  • Scott G. Hinch
  • Steven J. Cooke


This article examines threat perception as a potential dimension of inter-group conflict over salmon fisheries in Canada’s Fraser River watershed. Environmental changes and the entry of new user groups are putting pressure on both the resource and regulators, as well as threatening to exacerbate conflicts, notably between First Nation (indigenous) fishers and non-indigenous recreational anglers. While resource conflicts are often superficially conceptualized as cases of competing interests, we build on recent studies suggesting that conflicts are associated with deeper cognitive and perceptual differences among user groups. We report findings from 422 riverbank interviews with First Nation fishers and recreational anglers focusing on perceptions of threat to the fisheries. Responses reveal both substantial agreement and disagreement in threat perceptions between the two groups. These patterns provide a potential roadmap for consensus building, and suggest possible avenues for policy-makers to defuse the “blame game” that often dominates this type of conflict.


Pacific Salmon Conflict management Co-management Threat perception Consensus building Mental models 



We thank all participants who agreed to be interviewed and Department of Fisheries and Oceans for logistical support. We thank Eric Vogt, Natalie Sopinka, Katrina Cook, and Nolan Bett for field assistance and Murray Rudd for commenting and providing perspectives on this article. We also thank Ravi Pendakur and Phyllis Rippey for their advice on statistics. This research was supported b the Ocean Tracking Network through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada with additional support from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Cooke is additionally supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program.


  1. Acheson, J.M. 1981. Anthropology of fishing. Annual Reviews in Anthropology 10: 275–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, W.M., D. Brockington, J. Dyson, and B. Vira. 2003. Managing tragedies: Understanding conflict over common pool resources. Science 302: 1915–1916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allain, J., and J.D. Fréchette. 1993. The Aboriginal fisheries and the Sparrow decision. Ottawa: Library of Parliament, Research Branch.Google Scholar
  4. Allan, J.D., R. Abell, Z.E.B. Hogan, C. Revenga, B.W. Taylor, R.L. Welcomme, and K. Winemiller. 2005. Overfishing of inland waters. BioScience 55: 1041–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armitage, D., and R. Plummer. 2010. Adaptive capacity and environmental governance. Berlin: Springer-.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J.R., R.J. Gowen, and D.S. McLusky. 1987. The effect of salmon farming on the benthos of a Scottish sea loch. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 109: 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chisholm, B.S., E. Nelson, and H.P. Schwarcz. 1983. Marine and terrestrial protein in prehistoric diets on the British Columbia Coast. Current Anthropology 24: 396–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, B.I. 2012. The uncertain future of Fraser River Sockeye, vols. 1–3. Ottawa: Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River, Canada. Public Works and Government Services Canada.Google Scholar
  9. Denzau, A.T., and D.C. North. 1994. Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos 47: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DFO. 2010. A vision for recreational fisheries in British Columbia, 2009–2013. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans.Google Scholar
  11. DFO. 2012. Aboriginal fisheries strategy. Retrieved January 20, 201, from
  12. English, K.K., T.C. Edgell, R.C. Bocking, M. Link, and S. Raborn. 2011. Fraser River sockeye fisheries and fisheries management and comparison with Bristol Bay Sockeye Fisheries. LGL Ltd. Cohen Commission Tech. Rept. 7: 190 pp and appendices, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  13. Evenden, M.D. 2004. Fish versus power: An environmental history of the Fraser River. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farrell, A.P., S.G. Hinch, S.J. Cooke, D.A. Patterson, G.T. Crossin, M. Lapointe, and M.T. Mathes. 2008. Pacific salmon in hot water: Applying aerobic scope models and biotelemetry to predict the success of spawning migrations. Physiological Biochemical Zoology 81: 697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffiths, S.P., K.H. Pollock, J.M. Lyle, J.G. Pepperell, M.L. Tonks, and W.W. Sawynok. 2010. Following the chain to elusive anglers. Fish and Fisheries 11: 220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison, H.L., and P.A. Loring. 2014. Larger than life: The emergent nature of conflict in Alaska’s Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Fisheries SAGE Open.. doi: 10.1177/2158244014555112.Google Scholar
  17. Henry, A.D. 2011. Belief-oriented segregation in policy networks. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Science 22: 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henry, A.D., and T. Dietz. 2012. Understanding environmental cognition. Organization & Environment 25: 238–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hewes, G. 1973. Indian fisheries productivity in pre-contact times in the Pacific Salmon area. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 7: 133–154.Google Scholar
  20. Jenkins-Smith, H.C., D. Nohrstedt, C.M. Weible, and P.A. Sabatier. 2014. The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In Theories of the policy process, ed. P.A. Sabatier, and C.M. Weible, 183–224. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  21. Jentoft, S., and R. Chuenpagdee. 2009. Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Marine Policy 33: 553–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, J.C., and D.C. Griffith. 2010. Finding common ground in the commons: Intracultural variation in users’ conceptions of coastal fisheries issues. Society and Natural Resources 23: 837–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lubell, M. 2000. Cognitive conflict and consensus building in the National Estuary Program. American Behavioral Scientist 44: 629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martins, E.G., S.G. Hinch, D.A. Patterson, M.J. Hague, S.J. Cooke, K.M. Miller, M.F. Lapointe, K.K. English, and A.P. Farrell. 2011. Effects of river temperature and climate warming on stock-specific survival of adult migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Global Change Biology 17: 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matti, S., and A. Sandstrom. 2011. The rationale determining advocacy coalitions: Examining coordination networks and corresponding beliefs. Policy Studies Journal 39: 385–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, B.M. 2007. Be of good mind: Essays on the coast salish. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  27. Redpath, S.M., J. Young, A. Evely, W.A. Adams, W.J. Sutherland, A. Whitehouse, A. Amar, R.A. Lambert, J.D.C. Linnel, A. Watt, and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2013. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 100–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roscoe, D.W., and C. Pollen. 2010. Report cards for three BC recreational fisheries. Vancouver, BC: Watershed Watch Salmon Society.Google Scholar
  29. Sabatier, P.A. 1998. The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 5: 93–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schaepe, D. 2007. Stó: lõ identity and the cultural landscape of S’olh Téméxw. In Be of good mind: essays on the coast salish, ed. B.G. Miller, 234–259. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  31. Shepardson, D.P., B. Wee, M. Priddy, and J. Harbor. 2007. Students’ mental models of the environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44: 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomas, D.R. 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation. 27: 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tyler, T.R. 1990. Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Weible, C.M. 2007. An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California Marine Protected Area Policy. Journal of Public Administration and Research and Theory 17: 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivian M. Nguyen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nathan Young
    • 2
  • Scott G. Hinch
    • 3
  • Steven J. Cooke
    • 1
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Forest and Conservation SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations