From Shore to Fork: Reevaluating Recreational Fishing as A Self- Provisioning, Alternative Seafood Network

From Shore to Fork: Reevaluating Recreational Fishing as A Self- Provisioning, Alternative Seafood Network | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article From Shore to Fork: Reevaluating Recreational Fishing as A Self- Provisioning, Alternative Seafood Network Jami Miller, Melva Treviño This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7659780/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The global seafood system faces many environmental, economic, and social challenges, including overfishing, industrialization, privatization, and the disappearance of small-scale fisheries, among others. All of these issues impact global food security. Alternative seafood networks (ASNs) aim to address these challenges through spatial and social transformations within local and regional seafood systems, such as shortening supply chains and educating consumers on how to source local seafood. Prominently recognized ASNs include community supported fisheries, local fish markets, seafood cooperatives, and pop-up farmer’s markets. This study employed an ethnographic approach comprised of semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and photographic documentation to investigate the contributions of on-shore, “recreational,” saltwater fishing on local and regional seafood systems in Rhode Island, USA. This paper aims to highlight the importance of ASNs in addressing food security, but also acknowledge the shortcomings. We contend that recreational fishing, when practiced for self-provisioning purposes, should be considered as an ASN and that informal markets and networks need to be incorporated into the ASN literature. We conclude, first, that recreational fishing can be an important food source, and thus coastal access should be considered as a food access issue. Second, seafood sourced through prominently recognized ASNs is not accessible to everyone, but self-provisioned seafood from recreational fishing can help address the gaps unmet by ASNs. Lastly, by acknowledging already existing, informal networks, specifically self- and community-food provisioning, we can learn to support the people and networks that currently provide sustainable seafood access to historically food-insecure communities. Alternative seafood networks Alternative food networks Coastal access Community supported fisheries Local seafood systems Recreational fishing Self-provisioning Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 1. Background Marine fisheries contribute an estimated 17 percent of global protein consumption (Teneva, Schemmel, and Kittinger 2018 ). Although a large proportion of the global seafood market can be attributed to commercial fisheries, small-scale fisheries (SSFs) play a crucial role in the global seafood system and provide a substantial buffer against food insecurity across numerous communities worldwide (Lowitt 2013 ; Stoll et al. 2021 ). SSFs comprise a diverse sector where individuals harvest and process seafood for subsistence and commercial use without significant industrialization. Estimates indicate that at least 40 percent of the global fisheries catch can be attributed to SSFs, and almost half a billion people depend to some extent on SSFs to support their livelihoods (FAO 2020 ). However, despite the vital contributions of marine SSFs to food security, food sovereignty, and livelihood access for coastal dwellers worldwide, SSFs receive less attention and management support than commercial and industrial fisheries (Harper et al., 2020). In North America, the roles SSFs play in local markets and food security and how they support informal and alternative food markets are poorly understood, as the monetary and non-monetary values of SSFs are often underrecognized or underestimated by state or federal decision-makers (Stoll et al. 2021 ; Heidkamp et al. 2022 ). Small-scale fishers are also often underrepresented or excluded from policy and decision-making processes (Weeratunge et al., 2014). In this paper, we present findings from a case study conducted in Rhode Island (RI), USA, also known as the “Ocean State,” to highlight the contributions of recreational anglers. Recreational anglers are a disproportionately understudied subset of SSFs in the Northeast, and more broadly, the United States, especially within the context of seafood systems (Steinback et al. 2009 ; Ebbin 2017 ). We argue that more attention should be given to recreational fishing as a seafood source and that a deeper understanding of recreational fishing activities can provide a more holistic perspective of how those engaging in this fisheries sector enhance local and regional (sea)food security and (sea)food access. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 70–85% of seafood in the United States is imported to meet consumer demand. Globalization of the seafood industry has created complex webs of global supply chains, as seafood producers seek out the most economically advantageous combination of low tariffs, interest rates, and transportation and production costs (Gephart, Froehlich, and Branch 2019). In many cases, seafood crosses international borders multiple times. For example, a significant portion of seafood caught by U.S. commercial fishers is exported overseas for processing, then reimported into the United States for consumption (Gephart, Froehlich, and Branch 2019). The current system makes it difficult to account for production, processing, and trade statistics (Gephart, Froehlich, and Branch 2019), and the lack of traceability and accountability has been found to increase the likelihood of overfishing and resource depletion (Bronnmann et al. 2020 ; Teneva, Schemmel, and Kittinger 2018 ). Compounded by other anthropogenic pressures, such as habitat destruction, pollution, climate change, and ocean acidification and warming, these stressors pose sobering challenges for world fisheries management. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that 34.2% of global fish stocks are overfished and 57.3% are fished at capacity. The global depletion of marine fisheries compromises vital ocean ecosystems, poses a threat to global food security, and presents economic challenges for coastal communities worldwide. Small-scale fishers in the Global North have been increasingly turning to alternative systems in response to strict regulations, high operational costs, depleted stocks, and competition with cheaper, imported products (Stoll, Dubik, and Campbell 2015; O’Hara 2020). In general, alternative food networks (AFNs) aim to address global food system challenges (and pitfalls) by bringing producers closer to consumers and establishing foodways that prioritize sustainability (Jarosz 2008 ). In some regards, AFNs appear to promote forms of food provisioning “corrective” to conventional food systems (Som Castellano, 2016). Such networks operate in formal and informal markets, but also provide a wide range of non-market benefits, filling gaps not met by existing market channels or public services and generate critical services, including food security, livelihoods, and human and ecosystem health (Malberg Dyg et al., 2020 ; Olson, Clay, and Pinto da Silva 2014; Stoll et al. 2021 ; Stoll, Dubik, and Campbell 2015; Witter and Stoll 2017). In the context of seafood systems, alternative seafood networks (ASNs) – a range of “boat to fork” seafood distribution models supported by community and small-scale fisheries – are presented as more environmentally sustainable, socially just, and economically viable alternatives to conventional seafood systems (Lowitt 2013 ; Stoll et al. 2021 ; Witter and Stoll 2017). In the Global North in particular, ASNs emerge to combat overfishing, industrialization, privatization, and the disappearance of small-scale fishing operations through fishing practices grounded in marine resources conservation, equitable pay for fishers, and the sourcing of sustainable and healthy seafood for consumers (Loring, Gerlach, and Harrison 2013; McClenachan et al. 2014 ; Stoll et al. 2021 ). The most recognized and studied ASNs are direct-to-consumer (DTC) seafood distribution models (e.g. community supported fisheries) and seafood outlets (e.g. local fish markets, seafood cooperatives, and pop-up farmers markets) (Jarosz 2008 ; O’Hara 2020; Witter and Stoll 2017). These seafood distribution models and outlets work within formal markets to build up local and regional seafood networks. First established in 2007, community supported fisheries (CSFs) implement a values-based direct marketing strategy where consumers pay fishers upfront for scheduled deliveries of local, sustainably harvested, high-quality seafood (Brinson, Lee, and Rountree 2011 ; McClenachan et al. 2014 ). The concept was modeled after community supported agriculture (or CSAs) and has become increasingly popular (Stoll et al. 2021 ). The goal of CSFs is to improve traceability through shortened supply chains, improve transparency by building market demand for local and sustainably produced seafood, increase revenues for fishers, and allow fishers the security to diversify their catch (Brinson, Lee, and Rountree 2011 ; McClenachan et al. 2014 ; Olson, Clay, and Pinto da Silva 2014; Witter and Stoll 2017). While ASNs like CSFs address important needs not met by conventional seafood systems, such as advocating for environmentally sustainable fishing practices and equitable compensation for fishers, these ASNs are not accessible to everyone. Some limitations include inaccessibility to the market for producers and consumers of seafood, through lack of affordability, geographical limitations, and cultural preferences. Further, ASNs focus on formal mechanisms for procuring and distributing food but often overlook informal, deeply established networks that should be acknowledged and supported, such as seafood provisioned by recreational, small-scale fishers. This paper addresses these gaps by presenting findings from a qualitative study conducted across coastal fishing access points in RI seeking to 1) identify the fishing practices and self-provisioned fish consumption habits among on-shore, recreational, saltwater anglers, 2) understand these anglers’ engagement in alternative seafood networks, and 3) trace local seafood networks from fishing location to consumption, or from “shore to fork.” Although recreational fishing is largely considered to be a pastime or a diversion activity, our findings show that recreational anglers substantially contribute to local and regional seafood networks by providing diverse populations access to sustainably caught, high quality seafood through self- and community-food provisioning. 2. Methods 2.1 Data Collection To investigate the contributions of on-shore, recreational, saltwater fishing on local and regional seafood systems in RI, we collected qualitative data using a triangulation of ethnographic methods. Ethnography emphasizes flexible research design, long-term immersion into a community, relationship building, and respect for social complexities (O’Reilly 2012 ). The most distinctive characteristic of ethnography is participant observation, whereby the researcher observes members of the community and participates in everyday life activities (Bernard 2017). By centering the needs of the local community, the aim of ethnographic methodologies is to produce informative and actionable research (Perkinson et al. 2016). For this study, we specifically applied a ‘step-in-step-out’ ethnographic approach (see Madden 2010; O’Reilly 2012 ). The student researchers, a graduate researcher and an undergraduate research assistant, did not cohabit with any of the participants or inhabit their towns of residence. Instead, we immersed in the on-shore saltwater fishing community by conducting recurring visits to specific coastal fishing sites in southern RI: Camp Cronin, Newton Avenue, and Hazard Rock in Narragansett and Fort Wetherill and Taylor Point in Jamestown (see Fig. 1 ). All data for this study was collected from May to July 2022. During that period, we completed qualitative site assessments via passive observation, field photography, and systematic field notes (O’Reilly 2012 ). We also conducted participant observation and in situ qualitative formal and informal interviews with on-shore saltwater anglers to gain an in-depth understanding of fishing practices and fish consumption and sharing behaviors among small-scale, recreational anglers. Interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions to encourage flexibility in the research design and allow participants the opportunity to speak about what they found most important (Bernard 2017). All formal interviews were audio-recorded with the consent of the participants. Each lasted between 15 and 90 minutes. The eligibility constraints included recreational anglers (18+) who fished in RI coastal waters. Questions ranged from discussing fishing habits, food sharing practices, fish consumption preferences and associated health concerns, and knowledge and perceptions of fishing regulations. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, depending on the preference of the participant, as both the graduate researcher and the undergraduate research assistant are fluent in Spanish. Overall, 21 participants were interviewed for this study, two of whom participated in one or more in-depth, follow-up interviews. Seventeen interviews were conducted in English, two in Spanish, and two in a combination of English and Spanish. Importantly, language barriers were a limiting factor of this research. There were many anglers who declined to speak with us because they either did not speak English or Spanish, or felt uncomfortable doing so. For future research, it would be beneficial to accommodate more languages, specifically speakers of Southeast Asian languages (e.g., Laotian, Khmer, Thai, Vietnamese). 2.2 Data Analysis Audio recordings of the interviews conducted in English were transcribed using the transcription service Otter.ai. These transcriptions were then re-read and edited for accuracy. Interviews conducted in Spanish were manually transcribed and translated to English. All completed interview transcriptions were coded using the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) Dedoose™. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyze the interview data, systematically organizing and identifying recurring themes, patterns, and relevant research findings across our data set (Braun and Clarke 2012; Saldaña 2021 ). First, deductive coding was used to apply open, in vivo descriptive codes derived directly from the participant responses (Bernard, 2017). A second round of analytical codes was applied to identify connecting threads between the data and broader literature informing this study (Cope, 2010 ). In this manner, both major ideas derived from the perspectives of recreational anglers in RI and the broader scientific literature relevant to this research were incorporated into the overall data analysis process. To enhance the reliability and validity of our findings, we triangulated our interview data by comparing it with data derived through different sources and methods, including our systematic field notes and ethnographic observations (see Kirner and Mills 2019 ). For example, we verified whether people’s observed actions matched what they shared in the interviews. Lastly, the photographs we collected to visually document the field sites were also used to triangulate the interview data and field observations, reinforcing the validity of the research findings. This study was approved by the University of Rhode Island Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Board Reference #IRB2122-226). Overall, the study presented minimal risk to participants. Each person received $ 10 USD as compensation for their participation in this study. It was made clear to them that their participation was voluntary. All participants were presented with a verbal consent form, which had to be agreed upon before we conducted the interviews. The consent form allowed participants the option to consent to be interviewed with or without audio recording. If a participant did not consent to be audio-recorded, then detailed hand-written notes were taken during the interview. All participants were given the opportunity to ask questions prior to giving their verbal consent. Participants were informed that they could withdraw consent to participate at any time before, during, or after the interviews were conducted. Additionally, all responses were kept confidential. Audio recordings and transcriptions were stored electronically on a secure server requiring password protection, and hard copies of the field notes were kept in the possession of the graduate student researcher. Only the research team members within the approved IRB protocol had access to the data. 3. Results The demographics information collected for this study included: age, gender, race and/or ethnicity, and town of residence. Participant ages ranged from 18 to 76 years, and the highest percentage of participants were between 55 and 64 years old. Seeing as gender was not the central focus of this research, it was either inferred from context or assumed by the graduate researcher because the open-ended question of self-defined gender identity made the first few participants unnecessarily uncomfortable. With that in mind, 90% of participants were male and 10% were female. All participants were asked about their race and ethnicity and encouraged to respond with however they self-identify. Responses included: Hispanic (2), Latina (1), Hispanic/Latino (1), Asian (1), Black (1), Indigenous (1), mix (2), White (4), Puerto Rican (1), Italian (1), Vietnamese (1), Japanese (1), American (1), Unsure (1), Human (1), and one participant chose not to respond. This study aimed to highlight the perspectives of fishers from marginalized racial and ethnic backgrounds – groups who are underrepresented in environmental studies in Rhode Island, particularly in coastal and marine research – to gain a better understanding of these populations' uses, behaviors, and perceptions towards coastal and marine resources. 3.1 The Recreational Angler Seafood Network Participants were asked for their town of residence, and responses included Providence, Pawtucket, North Smithfield, North Kingstown, Cranston, Cumberland, and Burrillville in Rhode Island, and Worcester, Lawrence, and Newton in Massachusetts. Participant responses reveal that a significant portion of recreational anglers who fish from shore in Rhode Island travel from inland communities to enjoy the coast and source food. For example, the largest percentage of participants commuted from Providence, RI to fish at the coast. To put that into perspective, Providence is about 30.5 miles one-way to the closest field sites, Hazard Rock and Taylor Point, and 35.5 miles one-way to the farthest field site, Camp Cronin. Figure 2 depicts a map of the identified local seafood network, illustrating the various locations where fish from the selected field sites are consumed or shared. To gain an even broader understanding of the recreational angler seafood network, participants were also asked where they usually go fishing (not including the field site at which they were interviewed). Responses ranged from states to towns to specific fishing locations. Outside of Rhode Island, participants fish in Massachusetts and Connecticut. One participant specified the town of Fall River, and three other participants specified Cape Cod Canal in Massachusetts. Within Rhode Island, participants mentioned multiple towns, including Pawtucket, Providence, Cranston, Warwick, Bristol, Tiverton, Newport, and Little Compton. Participants also mentioned specific fishing locations within these towns. 3.2 Reasons to Fish Participants were asked to share their top three reasons to go fishing. There was a wide range of responses that we grouped into eight categories. These categories, as shown in Fig. 3 , are: 1) to relax (24%), 2) for food (22%), 3) for fun (17%), 4) for sport (15%), 5) to be outside (9%), 6) because it is a family tradition (5%), 7) to meet people (4%), and 8) to spend time with friends and family (4%). Table 1 lists these options for each participant in the order in which they stated them. From these results, we can conclude that fishing for food is a major factor on its own and in combination with other reasons to fish. Table 1 The reasons each participant fishes. Responses are recorded in the order they were stated. Research Participant # Reasons to Fish 1 Food 2 Fun, Food 3 Family Tradition, Fun 4 Relax, Sport, Food 5 Sport 6 Sport, Food, Relax, Meet People 7 Relax 8 Relax, Food, Friends and Family 9 Food, Sport 10 Sport, Fun, Be Outside, Relax, Food 11 Relax, Food, Be Outside 12 Relax, Be Outside 13 Fun, Relax, Meet People 14 Sport, Food, Fun 15 Relax, Be Outside, Sport 16 Relax, Family Tradition 17 Fun, Friends and Family, Food 18 Sport, Be Outside, Food 19 Relax, Fun, Food 20 Fun, Family Tradition, Relax 21 Fun, Relax 3.2.1 Fishing for more than recreation Of the 21 participants, nine specified that they fish because it is fun. The participants either used the term ‘for fun’ or mentioned that they fish for enjoyment, as a hobby, or because it is exciting, as one person put it, they “ like the fight with the fish .” One participant said they fish because they “ like the outdoors ” and another said they do it to “ enjoy the beautiful coastal Rhode Island .” You can’t pass up days like this…You know, with like 6 to 7 people, so it’s like a little party. Everybody brings food…and it’s just nice, and then you meet people, you know…That’s the fun about it. Some participants also explicitly said that they fish for relaxation, while others mentioned that fishing was a form of stress relief, self-care, and a way for them to clear their mind or calm down. One person stated, “ this is how I stay sane in this crazy world .” Similarly, another participant said that fishing is “ something [to do] to get away .” Others used the terms ‘serenity,’ ‘liberation,’ and ‘happy place’ to describe fishing. We asked participants if they usually fish alone or with company. Of the twenty-one participants, twenty responded to this question. While six participants expressed that they would fish with or without company, four participants specified that they prefer to fish alone. One person said that fishing is her “ me-time .” Based on observations, we know that being alone is an important motivation for fishers as there were a few instances when fishers who were fishing on their own declined to speak with us because they had gone fishing to be by themselves. However, a majority of the fishers we interviewed view fishing as a social activity. One person said that he is always fishing with company because, even if he does not come into the fishing site with a friend, he will see people he knows, and they are all his “fishing buddies.” Someone else shared that they enjoy “meeting people” and learning fishing “tactics” from them. One person mentioned enjoying the sense “of camaraderie” they experience while they are out fishing. Another participant spoke to this point by stating that it does not take a long time to get to know people: It’s a family affair. (…) It just takes one [or] two seasons, and you see [someone] from last year, and you come, and everybody has a fish story . Additionally, many participants mentioned that fishing allows them to spend time with their families. We observed recreational anglers with their partners, children, and extended family enjoying cookouts, listening to music, and chatting into the evening. Three participants highlighted the importance of knowledge sharing – specifically, teaching their kids how to fish. One participant mentioned that he wants his son to take over providing for the family when he is no longer able. Therefore, fishing as a hobby is largely tied to community building and knowledge sharing, which creates a large network of people and marine resources. Therefore, ‘fishing for fun’ was never the only reason fishers gave for fishing. Those who fish for fun, also said that they get to relax, enjoy the weather, spend time with friends and family, meet new people, partake in family tradition, and it is a bonus when they get to eat the fish they catch. For example, one person stated that “ it’s not just for [sic] recreational ,” because he always cooks the fish that he catches. Another participant said they fish “ to get out of the house, and hopefully catch something to eat .” One fisher nicely encompassed all these sentiments: What motivates me to go fishing? I would say um the excitement of catching a fish. Whether it be small or large, it’s just the thrill of fishing…And meeting people, you know? And of course, when you catch it, you know, you’re probably gonna end up eating it, so it's a meal…All of those things combined. 3.2.2 Fishing for food 3.2.2.1 Species of interest Participants were asked which species of fish they target and why. Of the twenty-one participants, twenty responded. One participant said that he does not look for a particular species because he does not eat fish. The six species mentioned among the remaining nineteen participants who responded to this question included 1) scup, 2) striped bass, 3) summer flounder, 4) black sea bass, 5) tautog, 6) squid, and 7) bluefish. Table 2 lists the common name, an alternative colloquial name, and the scientific name for each species. Responses varied from naming one species to listing five or six. Figure 4 illustrates the frequency with which each species was mentioned. The figure reveals that the two most sought-after species are scup and striped bass, respectively. This finding is consistent with our field observations, seeing as the most observed species kept by recreational anglers’ was scup. Table 2 Species of interest names. Common, alternative colloquial, and scientific names for the six species of interest. Common Name Alternative/Colloquial Name Scientific Name Scup Porgy, mojarra (in Spanish) Stenotomus chrysops Striped bass Striper Morone saxatilis Summer flounder Fluke Paralichthys dentatus Black sea bass mojarra negra (in Spanish) Centropristis striata Tautog Blackfish Tautoga onitis Squid Calamari Doryteuthis pealeii Bluefish Blues Pomatomus saltatrix In terms of preference, participants target specific species for taste, sport, or a combination of the two. Research Participant 6 stated that the four best tasting fish are black sea bass, tautog, fluke, and scup. Black sea bass are characterized as “ hard to catch ” and “ very limited ,” but “ everybody thinks that’s the best tasting fish around ” (Research Participant 6). Research Participant 8, who mainly targets striped bass, emphasized this point by stating that “[Black sea bass] tastes better than striped bass .” Tautog are characterized as a “ prize fish ” with “ a good bite and a good fight ” (Research Participant 6). Tautog are territorial fish that feed on crustaceans and can be found near rocks. They are described as powerful and strong – “ the bulldog of fish ,” as one participant stated. They are also praised for their “ thick, white meat ,” “ meaty jaw ,” and for being “ a hearty meal ” (Research Participant 6). In contrast, fluke is sought-after for its “ very tasty, delicate, white [meat] ” (Research Participant 6). Lastly, scup are very abundant. If you were to look into a recreational angler’s bucket, it is likely that the majority of fish would be scup, with the occasional fluke (see Fig. 5 ). One participant stated that “ you get more for your money with scup ” (Research Participant 9). Another participant mentioned that scup, “ is abundant ” and that they are “ used to eating it with [their] family ” (Research Participant 15). A third person stated, “ I’ve never caught another kind [of fish] ” (Research Participant 2) and a fourth person said that scup “ is a really good fish to eat ” (Research Participant 7). Striped bass and bluefish are recognized as large game fish. Striped bass are targeted in the late evenings and early mornings around high tide when they feed. They are considered a ‘catch and release’ species due to the strict size and possession limits. However, recreational anglers who caught striped bass within the size requirement were extremely excited to bring the fish home to eat. Research Participant 18 stated that he usually targets striped bass “ for the fun of catching them ” and because “ they’re a good food source .” Squid is an important source of food and bait (see Fig. 6 ). The squid season is open all year-round, but many fishers stock up in early April and continue fishing through fall until the weather gets too cold. Research Participant 13 explained that squid are caught at night, usually by shining a flood light into the water to attract the squid to the surface. Research Participant 11 mentioned that he is willing to camp overnight for squid because it is his favorite food. In terms of bait, squid is either used fresh or frozen, chopped or whole, depending on the targeted species. We observed fishers chopping up both fresh and frozen squid to catch scup and using the whole squid to catch larger game fish, like striped bass. According to multiple participants, live baits such as nightcrawlers and clam worms, can be used to catch a variety of species, but squid is the preferred choice for many fishers: “ Yeah, mainly, the past two years I’ve been giving away a lot of fish, besides squid. Squid is my main source for like everything I want to catch. ” (Research Participant 16). 3.2.2.2 Self-provisioned fish is an important source of food for fishers Participants were asked how often they eat fish. Eleven participants provided this information, and responses range from one to four times per week. Figure 7 illustrates that most participants eat fish once per week, but a few consume a substantial number of fish multiple times a week. The one participant who is not represented in the figure said that he fishes off and on, so the number of fish he consumes varies and we did not receive a concrete answer on his weekly self-provisioned fish consumption habits. Participants were also asked what species of fish they consume the most. Responses correspond with results from the most sought-after species (in Fig. 4 ). Ten participants responded, and the majority stated that they consume either scup or striped bass the most. Three participants named scup, two named striped bass, one named scup and striper, one named scup and fluke, and one named squid. Of the remaining two participants, one said that it depends on the season and the other does not eat fish. 3.2.2.3 Perceived benefits of self-provisioned fish We asked participants whether they supplemented their catch by purchasing fish at a grocery store or fish market. Of the twenty-one participants, sixteen responded. Eleven participants said they buy fish from the store for different reasons and to varying degrees, while five participants said they never buy fish at any type of store or fish market. Reasons for buying fish at the grocery store or fish market include wanting to eat more fish than they can catch and wanting to diversify their diet with fish that are out of season or not local. For example, one participant said that he supplements his catch by buying fish at his local fish market, but he only purchases fresh, locally sourced fish, such as black sea bass and fluke. Conversely, a participant from Portugal, mentioned that he will buy salted cod and other species from a Portuguese market because the fish are imported from Portugal. Overall, many of the fishers we interviewed expressed value in knowing when, where, and how the fish they consume are sourced. Of the five participants who stated that they rarely buy fish, the reasons included wanting to catch fish themselves, adding that it is more fun to do this, and it helps them maintain a healthy diet. Two people emphasized that they do not buy fish that they can catch themselves in RI. There were also participants who mentioned that when the fish they have in storage (e.g., freezer) runs out, they wait until the next summer to catch and eat more fish. Three participants said they never buy fish at the grocery store because it is simply not fresh and has been frozen for an unknown period of time. [That] fish is not fresh. And that's [a]guarantee. They dress it, they put it nice, they put leaves there, looking it all dandy. But it’s not fresh. The fish I catch is fresh. I never buy fish. I come and catch. I don’t like swordfish, period…. Swordfish is something that probably comes from down south and is frozen [or] whatever, so I stay away from that . Most of the participants we interviewed shared that they like to ‘fish for food’ and many of these fishers spoke in depth about the benefits of catching their own fish. Specifically, numerous participants mentioned that they value freshness, traceability, locality, and quality of wild-caught fish. For example, a couple of participants specifically emphasized that they often cook their fish immediately after they catch it: It goes out of my bag, and cleaned, and into a frying pan. It doesn’t hit the refrigerator . If I catch a fish, it’ll be consumed within 12 hours.... You can cook it in your kitchen, and someone can walk in and go , “What are you cooking?” and not know you’re cooking fish. ‘Cause [fresh fish] just doesn’t smell . Most participants expressed a preference for fish caught by them or someone they know citing that self-provisioned, wild-caught fish is of higher quality and healthier than store-bought fish: At [a grocery store], I was shocked because I never saw scup there in my life and, all of a sudden, I see scup. Scup was like $4.99 a pound. And I [thought], it was nothing like this [fresh one]. I mean, it was just like gray, ugly. It looked like it’d been rotting… The squid in groceries is different from catch by rod and reel. Their squid is caught by net. (…) They just get squished. They get squished and mushy…When they pull it in it’s just stacked on top of each other and the pressure of the water and them moving the boat, it just becomes mushy and ew . Two participants in particular mentioned an aversion to farm raised fish. One person said that farm raised trout are the reason he does not fish in certain freshwater ponds, and another participant said that he does not buy fish at the grocery store that could have been farmed: I don’t trust those fishes because you don’t know what they’ve been fed, the water they’ve been grown since a baby. But when it comes to the ocean, I’m not afraid because it’s wild . 3.2.2.4 Fishing to share food with others Participants were asked whether they eat, give away, or sell the fish that they catch. After the first couple of interviews, the word ‘sell’ was removed from the question because it made participants uncomfortable and distracted from the rest of the question. Selling fish with a Recreational Saltwater Fishing License is illegal in RI, so it is not surprising that fishers were wary of the word ‘sell.’ However, in conversations with participants, we learned that many people know of someone who sells fish directly in the fishing spot, from their cars, or from home. For example, one person stated they were sure there were “ people that sell them ” but clarified that they themselves “ don’t sell them .” Of the 21 participants, 20 responded to the question about ‘giving away’ fish. Eighteen fishers (90%) share the fish they catch, while the remaining two (10%) who answered this question do not. For those who do not share fish, one participant explained that he is “ too greedy ,” implying that he keeps all his catch for himself, and the other said his friends are “ too picky .” Those who ‘give’ their fish away expressed that they share fish with their family, friends, and broader community, both within their town of residence and at the fishing location. For example, one participant was fishing with his wife, brother, and sister-in-law, and he said that they have a family of about 30 people to feed so they were aiming to catch the possession limit for scup (30 scup/person/day). A second participant shared their friend shares fish with their neighbors who are retired and have need. I take what I need and then if I catch a few extra I will try to feed people. I give away more than I keep…Because I really enjoy blessing people . I’m always out fishing. I never have time to eat. If they [cook] it and tell me take it with me, then yeah…. I don't cook any fish that I catch. I don't like to clean them. I don't like to cook. I catch them. [That’s] enough . One person said he likes to invite his ‘fishing buddies’ over for cookouts on Sundays. Another participant shared that she cooks her extra catch at home and distributes it to the homeless population in Providence. While in the field, we also observed fishers gifting, exchanging, and pawning off species they did not want. Two participants mentioned that they bring barbecues to Fort Wetherill (in Jamestown) on occasion and grill squid and scup to share on site. 4. Discussion 4.1 Fishing is about more than recreation: Fish is food In Rhode Island, recreational anglers need a Recreational Saltwater Fishing License to fish on the coast, but there is no academic literature focused on how recreational anglers use the fish they catch from Rhode Island waters. This study aimed to respond to our fragmented knowledge on recreational anglers and food sharing, and how these practices contribute to the local seafood system. This study revealed that the top three reasons to go fishing are to relax, for food, and because it’s fun. These results are similar to a Connecticut-based study carried out by Ebbin ( 2017 ) that found that the top five reasons to fish are for enjoyment, food, relaxation, family, and to be outside. It is also evident, as shown in Table 1 , that recreational anglers fish for a combination of purposes. For example, of the fifteen participants that stated they fish for fun or for sport, nine also mentioned that they eat the fish they can legally keep. Other participants who stated that they fish for relaxation, to get outside, or to spend time with friends and family, also mentioned the benefit of bringing home a meal. While some of the benefits of consuming self-provisioned fish are perceived, our findings reveal that recreational saltwater fishing provides anglers and their communities with access to the type of fish they want to eat – an expression of food sovereignty. Therefore, policy makers and coastal managers need to acknowledge that small-scale fishing is not just a recreational activity. It is also an important source of food, and we should identify ways to maintain and expand access to these food pathways. 4.2 Self-provisioned seafood addresses limitations of alternative seafood networks Prominently recognized ASNs fill an important role in local and regional food systems by providing an environmentally conscious and economically viable alternative to the global seafood industry. In terms of environmental sustainability, ASNs encourage short, relational supply chains that reduce fossil fuel emissions from transportation (McClenachan et al. 2014 ; Stoll et al. 2021 ). Historically, seafood producers have shipped their products around the world to keep production costs down and offer low prices for consumers (Gephart, Froehlich, and Branch 2019) – which makes it exceedingly difficult for local fishers, who want to process and sell their catch locally, to compete. ASNs have become an economically feasible alternative through values-based marketing. For example, CSFs highlight their ability to provide traceable, high-quality seafood direct to the consumer, and they are able to charge a price premium for ensuring these attributes. Further, CSFs require pre-payments from consumers for regularly scheduled deliveries which distributes risk and improves market and income stability for fishers (Brinson, Lee, and Rountree 2011 ; McClenachan et al. 2014 ). These practices promote collaboration, rather than competition, among fishers, providing small-scale fishers with the means to stay in the industry and the freedom to create markets for underutilized species. There are also improvements in social equity. By shortening the supply chain and encouraging consumers to connect directly with local fishers, ASNs cut out the middlemen in supply chains which improves recognition of fishers’ work and subsequently fair pay for their labor. The emphasis on local and relational operations increases transparency and accountability within the industry. There are many benefits to current ASN models, but there are also a couple major limitations. First, these prominently recognized ASNs are not accessible to everyone. For example, CSFs, local fish markets, seafood cooperatives, and pop-up farmers markets operate in a market-oriented model (Allen et al., 2003). This means only fishers with commercial fishing and dealers licenses in Rhode Island can legally sell fish and only consumers willing to pay price premiums are able to purchase said fish. There are also geographic and transportation constraints. Fishers who want to sell their seafood at farmers markets are restricted to locations near the dock where the fish are landed (O’Hara 2020) and only consumers who either live near the seafood outlet or who have access to transportation can reach these producers (Guthman 2008b ). Therefore, when discussing how to improve food access through ASNs, it is important to broaden the discussion on equity (Goodman, 2000, p. 217; Slocum, 2006 ). Historically, food access interventions have focused on the availability of food and how much is produced, rather than who has access to the means of production (Short, Guthman, and Raskin 2007). In the early 1980s, Amartya Sen popularized the concept of food access by arguing that famine was the result of ineffective policies relating to the acquisition and control of food (Rosenberg and Cohen, n.d.). However, the concept was co-opted by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in the 1990s who pushed for an increase in the availability of conventional food retailers as a feasible, economic fix to a complex, social problem (Rosenberg and Cohen, n.d.). This led to the concept of ‘food deserts.’ Short, Guthman, and Raskin (2007) define food deserts as “places where the transportation constraints of carless residents combine with a dearth of supermarkets and convenience stores” (352). Currently, there are two types of food access interventions: 1) bringing low-income residents closer to conventional food retailers by either improving transportation or relocating supermarkets, and 2) developing alternative food networks (Short, Guthman, and Raskin 2007). However, it has been found that expanding the availability of food retailers does not significantly affect shopping patterns or food choice (Rosenberg and Cohen, n.d.), and many farmers markets are located in relatively white, affluent communities (Guthman 2008a; Guthman 2008b ). This reveals that there is a disconnect between the priorities of these food access interventions and the needs of historically food insecure communities (Guthman 2008a; Guthman 2008b ). Guthman (2008a) argues that food security programs assume the primary barriers to food are knowledge, access, and cost when the disconnect lies in a lack of cultural competency and attention to privilege. Market-oriented ASNs fill an important need, but in order to reach historically food insecure communities, food access interventions need to consider how marginalized communities already access their food. Therefore, a second major limitation of ASNs is that the scope at which they are discussed is too narrow. ASNs are prominently recognized as market-oriented direct-to-consumer (DTC) seafood distribution models, such as community supported fisheries (CSFs). However, ASNs and CSFs are not synonymous. By focusing on commercial production and market-oriented distribution models and outlets, the ASN framework is overlooking informal markets and networks, such as self- and community-food provisioning. There is very little written academically on informal seafood markets, but not everyone goes to the grocery store or local fish market to buy fish. For instance, five participants from this study said that they never buy fish from the grocery store because they prefer to catch it themselves. Teneva, Schemmel, and Kittinger ( 2018 ) highlight the importance of subsistence economies to local food security, specifically food sharing through kinship networks, and Cooke et al. ( 2018 ) note that recreational fishing fits into this framework. Self-procurement and food sharing are an entire subset of alternative food production and distribution that should be acknowledged and incorporated into the ASN literature. 4.3 Recreational fishing can directly contribute to alternative seafood networks There are many non-market benefits associated with market-oriented ASNs. For commercial fishers, shortened, relational supply chains increase the recognition of their work, provide opportunities for education and advocacy regarding working conditions and pay, expand and strengthen their social networks, and the improvement in financial stability allows for greater independence in day to day operations (Witter and Stoll 2017). Further, these non-market benefits encourage coordination, rather than competition, among fishers; which, in turn, promotes transparency within the industry and creates an opportunity to diversify their catch and educate consumers on the importance of utilizing traditionally low-value fish (Witter and Stoll 2017). For consumers, the non-market benefits include the ability to trace where their seafood comes from, know their local seafood producers, build community, and learn about the local ecosystem and industry (Witter and Stoll 2017). Recreational fishing embodies many of these non-market benefits because it is an extensive, community-focused, and resilient network of people and marine resources. Geographically, the recreational angler seafood network extends regionally. We mapped the movement of fish from five fishing locations in RI to the communities in which the fish are shared (see Fig. 2 ). We found that fishers travel from in and out-of-state to RI waters to fish. Participants also shared that they frequent many different fishing locations throughout Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Therefore, the network is even larger than what Fig. 2 depicts, and future research can be done on where recreational anglers go fishing and where they share their fish to gain a better understanding of the breadth of this network. Mapping these movements also revealed that fishing is a link between urban communities and coastal spaces. Not only do designated fishing locations provide coastal access for coastal residents, but recreational fishing provides urban residents with direct access to seafood. The number of fish being shared and consumed is also substantial. Eighteen participants, or 90% of fishers interviewed, share the fish they catch; and, on average, participants consume self-provisioned fish two times per week. Some participants eat fish up to four times per week. The sheer quantity of fish moving through the network reveals the importance of self-provisioned fish to the local seafood system. Recreational fishing is an important food pathway and a significant source of seafood for numerous communities within and beyond the state boundaries. When considering food access and food access intervention, it is also important to understand which species of fish are utilized and by whom. For example, scup is considered an underutilized species due to its limited commercial market and there are efforts to increase consumer demand through market expansion for this species. However, this study revealed that scup is the most sought-after and consumed species by participants, which means there already is demand, through informal markets, and recreational anglers are utilizing a diversity of species. Lastly, recreational fishing is a well-established network, deeply rooted in social relationships and community building. Participants spoke about going fishing with family and friends, meeting up with fishing buddies, and meeting new people while fishing. At many fishing locations, fishers were eating food, listening to music, and chatting for hours. There is ample opportunity for knowledge sharing, both horizontally between peers and vertically between one generation to the next. Participants specifically mentioned learning new techniques and recipes from other fishers and teaching their children how to fish. The strength of the community and the diversity of their practices make it an incredibly resilient network. Fishers know each other, are recognized for their work, have autonomy over how they procure fish, and they and their community know exactly where, when, and how their fish was sourced. 5. Conclusions Recreational anglers catch fish not only for fun, but for food, which reveals that recreational fishing is an important food source and we need to maintain and expand access to that food pathway. This can be done by recognizing that coastal access is also a food access issue and working to reduce barriers to public coastal access. In Rhode Island, there are large swaths of private property with associations that push for private coastal access, which means that public right-of-ways need to be properly advertised, maintained, and expanded to aid the public in accessing the coast. There are also issues with parking and transportation to the coast that, if improved, could help the public gain access to these coastal spaces (Twichell et al. 2022 ). Therefore, one recommendation to improve access to seafood within the local seafood system would be for policy makers and coastal managers to advocate for improved coastal access across the state, particularly sites conducive to shore fishing. ASNs aim to address environmental, economic, and social challenges within the global seafood system, and it is important to acknowledge that this can be done through both formal and informal markets (Heidkamp et al. 2022 ). By recognizing the contributions of informal markets, specifically self- and community-food provisioning, and acknowledging informal seafood procurement and distribution, such as recreational fishing, as an ASN, we can support the people and networks that currently provide sustainable seafood access to historically food insecure communities. If desired by the community, researchers can work with local communities to make their practices known to policy makers to garner support and resources. One way to better acknowledge recreational fishing as an ASN is to reevaluate fishing license labels. It is evident that the reasons fishers engage in fishing are not singular, and therefore difficult to label. However, this study reveals that the label of ‘recreational’ angler does not fit all fishers with a Recreational Saltwater Fishing License. The umbrella term ignores the importance of food when fishing and the key role recreational anglers play in the larger social and cultural network of people and marine resources (Schumann and Macinko 2007 ; Cohn 2023 ). If policy makers determine regulation, amenities, and access based on recreational activities alone, then the recreational angler seafood network is not being prioritized as the important food source that it is. Therefore, the term oversimplifies fishing as an activity and minimizes the importance of its other uses. One recommendation to determine a better label would be to speak with recreational anglers, ask them how they self-identify as a fisher, and learn more about their fishing practices and motivations for engaging in the activity. Declarations 6. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the University of Rhode Island Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Board Reference #IRB2122-226). Written informed consent was waived because the study involved minimal risk to participants. Verbal consent was obtained, ensuring participants understood the voluntary nature of the study and their right to withdraw at any time. 7. Consent for publication All authors read and approved of the final manuscript. 8. Availability of data and materials The interview data collected for this study contains confidential information that could not be publicly shared due to ethical and legal restrictions. Given the sensitive nature of the data, and in accordance with the principles of participant confidentiality and data protection, the datasets generated and analyzed in this study cannot be made publicly available. Please contact the corresponding author if you have any questions regarding the interview data collected for this study. 9. Competing interests All authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests. 10. Funding Funding for this study was supported by the USDA Hatch research grant #W4004 and the Science and Engineering Fellowship Program at the University of Rhode Island. The funders played no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript. 11. Authors’ contributions JM and MT co-conceptualized the study. JM collected the data, conducted the data analysis, and wrote the original draft of the article. MT acquired funding for the study, supervised the data collection, supported the data analysis and interpretation, prepared the figures, and edited and contributed to the text. 12. Acknowledgements The authors thank Latsany Lopez, our undergraduate research assistant, for her support in data collection. We would also like to thank the fishers who took the time to participate in our study, and whose unique insights and perspectives were crucial to the completion of this research. References Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Fifth edition). AltaMira Press. Block, Jason P., Richard A. Scribner, and Karen B. DeSalvo. 2004. “Fast Food, Race/Ethnicity, and Income.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27 (3): 211–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.007 . Bowen, S., Elliott, S., & Hardison-Moody, A. (2021). The structural roots of food insecurity: How racism is a fundamental cause of food insecurity. Sociology Compass, 15(7), e12846. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12846 Brinson, Ayeisha, Min-Yang Lee, and Barbara Rountree. 2011. “Direct Marketing Strategies: The Rise of Community Supported Fishery Programs.” Marine Policy 35 (4): 542–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.014 . Bronnmann, Julia, Martin D. Smith, James Abbott, Clinton J. Hay, and Tor F. Næsje. 2020. “Integration of a Local Fish Market in Namibia with the Global Seafood Trade: Implications for Fish Traders and Sustainability.” World Development 135 (November): 105048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105048 . Cohn RM (2023) Recreating Labels, Sustaining Fishing Communities. Fisheries 48:183–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10915 Cooke, Steven J, William M Twardek, Robert J Lennox, Aaron J Zolderdo, Shannon D Bower, Lee F G Gutowsky, Andy J Danylchuk, Robert Arlinghaus, and Douglas Beard. 2018. “The Nexus of Fun and Nutrition: Recreational Fishing Is Also about Food.” Fish and Fisheries 19 (2): 201–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12246 . Cope M (2010) Coding transcripts and diaries. In: Clifford NJ, French S, Valentine G (eds) Key methods in geography, Second edition. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, pp 440–452 Ebbin, Syma Alexi. 2017. “Fishing for Food: Piloting an Exploration of the Invisible Subsistence Harvest of Coastal Resources in Connecticut.” Agriculture & Food Security 6 (1): 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-016-0087-z . FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en Gephart, Jessica A., Halley E. Froehlich, and Trevor A. Branch. 2019. “Opinion: To Create Sustainable Seafood Industries, the United States Needs a Better Accounting of Imports and Exports.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (19): 9142–46. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905650116 . Guthman, Julie. 2008b. “‘If They Only Knew’: Color Blindness and Universalism in California Alternative Food Institutions.” The Professional Geographer 60 (3): 387–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802013679 . ---. 2008a. “Bringing Good Food to Others: Investigating the Subjects of Alternative Food Practice.” Cultural Geographies 15 (4): 431–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474008094315 . Harper, Sarah, Dirk Zeller, Melissa Hauzer, Daniel Pauly, and Ussif Rashid Sumaila. 2013. “Women and Fisheries: Contribution to Food Security and Local Economies.” Marine Policy 39: 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.018 . Heidkamp CP, Morrissey J, Germond-Duret C, Rourke M (2022) Blue Economy: People and Regions in Transitions. In: Blue Economy. Routledge Jarosz, Lucy. 2008. “The City in the Country: Growing Alternative Food Networks in Metropolitan Areas.” Journal of Rural Studies 24 (3): 231–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.10.002 . Kirner, K., & Mills, J. (2019). Introduction to Ethnographic Research: A Guide for Anthropology. SAGE Publications. Loring, Philip A., S. Craig Gerlach, and Hannah L. Harrison. 2013. “Seafood as Local Food: Food Security and Locally Caught Seafood on Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula.” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 3 (3): 13-30-13–30. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2013.033.006 . Lowitt, Kristen. 2013. “Examining Fisheries Contributions to Community Food Security: Findings from a Household Seafood Consumption Survey on the West Coast of Newfoundland.” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 8 (2): 221–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2013.786668 . Malberg Dyg, P., Christensen, S., & Peterson, C. J. (2020). Community gardens and wellbeing amongst vulnerable populations: A thematic review. Health Promotion International, 35(4), 790–803. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz067 McClenachan, Loren, Benjamin P. Neal, Dalal Al-Abdulrazzak, Taylor Witkin, Kara Fisher, and John N. Kittinger. 2014. “Do Community Supported Fisheries (CSFs) Improve Sustainability?” Fisheries Research 157 (September): 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2014.03.016 . Morland, K., Wing, S., Diez Roux, A., & Poole, C. (2002). Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00403-2 Olson, Julia, Patricia M. Clay, and Patricia Pinto da Silva. 2014. “Putting the Seafood in Sustainable Food Systems.” Marine Policy 43 (January): 104–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.001 . O’Reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic methods (2nd ed). Routledge. Perkinson, M. T., Faith, T. D., Vahey, G. M., Vena, J. E., & Williams, E. M. (2020). Quantifying the Seafood Consumption Patterns of Recreational Anglers in Charleston and Berkeley Counties, South Carolina. Environmental Health Insights, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/EHI.S40668 Raja, Samina, Changxing Ma, and Pavan Yadav. 2008. “Beyond Food Deserts: Measuring and Mapping Racial Disparities in Neighborhood Food Environments.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (4): 469–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08317461 . Ramírez, Margaret Marietta. 2015. “The Elusive Inclusive: Black Food Geographies and Racialized Food Spaces: Black Food Geographies and Racialized Food Spaces.” Antipode 47 (3): 748–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12131 . Reese, Ashanté M. 2018. “‘We Will Not Perish; We’re Going to Keep Flourishing’: Race, Food Access, and Geographies of Self-Reliance: Race, Food Access, and Geographies of Self-Reliance.” Antipode 50 (2): 407–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12359 . Rosenberg, Nathan A, and Nevin Cohen. n.d. “Let Them Eat Kale: The Misplaced Narrative of Food Access,” 31. Saldaña J (2021) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Fourth edition. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks Schumann S, Macinko S (2007) Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy: What’s in a word? Marine policy 31:706–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2006.12.010 Short, Anne, Julie Guthman, and Samuel Raskin. 2007. “Food Deserts, Oases, or Mirages?: Small Markets and Community Food Security in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 (3): 352–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06297795 . Slocum, R. (2006). Anti-racist Practice and the Work of Community Food Organizations. Antipode, 38(2), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2006.00582.x Slocum, R. (2011). Race in the study of food. Progress in Human Geography, 35(3), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510378335toll , Joshua S., Bradford A. Dubik, and Lisa M. Campbell. 2015. “Local Seafood: Rethinking the Direct Marketing Paradigm.” Ecology and Society 20 (2): art40. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07686-200240. Steinback S, Wallmo K, Clay P (2009) Saltwater sport fishing for food or income in the Northeastern US: Statistical estimates and policy implications. Marine Policy 33:49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.04.001 Stoll, Joshua S., Hannah L. Harrison, Emily De Sousa, Debra Callaway, Melissa Collier, Kelly Harrell, Buck Jones, et al. 2021. “Alternative Seafood Networks During COVID-19: Implications for Resilience and Sustainability.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.614368 . Teneva, Lida T., Eva Schemmel, and John N. Kittinger. 2018. “State of the Plate: Assessing Present and Future Contribution of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Hawai‘i’s Food Security.” Marine Policy 94 (August): 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.025 . Twichell JH, Mulvaney KK, Merrill NH, Bousquin JJ (2022) Geographies of Dirty Water: Landscape-Scale Inequities in Coastal Access in Rhode Island. Frontiers in Marine Science 8: Walker, R. E., Keane, C. R., & Burke, J. G. (2010). Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Health & Place, 16(5), 876–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013 Weeratunge, N., Snyder, K. A., & Sze, C. P. (2010). Gleaner, fisher, trader, processor: Understanding gendered employment in fisheries and aquaculture N Weeratunge et al. Gendered employment in fisheries. Fish & Fisheries, 11(4), 405–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00368.x Witter, Allison, and Joshua Stoll. 2017. “Participation and Resistance: Alternative Seafood Marketing in a Neoliberalera.” Marine Policy 80 (June): 130–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.023 . Zenk, S. N., Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., James, S. A., Bao, S., & Wilson, M. L. (2005). Neighborhood racial composition, neighborhood poverty, and the spatial accessibility of supermarkets in metropolitan Detroit. American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 660–667. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.042150 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7659780","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":524266565,"identity":"6489f66b-9974-4f15-98b7-bb7fa91446d8","order_by":0,"name":"Jami Miller","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Rhode Island","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jami","middleName":"","lastName":"Miller","suffix":""},{"id":524266566,"identity":"24c5072c-0104-48f0-ba20-56296baee3ce","order_by":1,"name":"Melva Treviño","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Rhode Island","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Melva","middleName":"","lastName":"Treviño","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-19 15:08:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7659780/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7659780/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92872664,"identity":"aac12e76-4a88-4aeb-bb21-8c11d2fc9a5e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3397048,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ASNsMillerandTrevinoAFS.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/bb8b370f646515aab550a5b7.docx"},{"id":92874536,"identity":"ce9f05b0-653f-4af3-90dd-c9bf44fcad00","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:27:23","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5418,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"337aa75c3c5f43b6aa9e68d14b50ce25.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/36b0946e6116ccaaa11412d2.json"},{"id":92872661,"identity":"9d7da4dd-964e-485f-913b-0e0f75194ae6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":138422,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"337aa75c3c5f43b6aa9e68d14b50ce251enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/142d2c28164b23e254357154.xml"},{"id":92874537,"identity":"b9b4f4ad-22b2-4335-8dd8-b30641d8410d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:27:23","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":587939,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/d2c83129b10046b96f5fb592.png"},{"id":92874538,"identity":"d966d664-fb6d-478b-ba27-c88844a58840","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:27:23","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1160501,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/cafd720a64c6b89eac52d66e.png"},{"id":92872674,"identity":"94f01f30-8024-4154-b376-b70c5561c170","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":78678,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/cc045002a218e2d7de45112e.png"},{"id":92872670,"identity":"0a08bfe6-c5bd-4aa1-9bbe-1cc63c05cd79","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":47839,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/d5481bbadff4db0da021145a.png"},{"id":92872671,"identity":"ce6f6e5a-9713-48fe-a959-9b2ff07b0214","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":773730,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/bf1fb2979071199b6fbf8177.png"},{"id":92874543,"identity":"7626a55c-da62-477e-aff9-f1fe95219eeb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:27:24","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":637039,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/6ada1a1198b037b438679a93.jpeg"},{"id":92874541,"identity":"bc4865ea-7c1e-48ec-b13d-d79edda916ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:27:23","extension":"jpeg","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":139605,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/21e9cde88c2a42d4e21fb754.jpeg"},{"id":92872677,"identity":"519176f5-f855-4453-9e62-aa17a60cd56d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:24","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":111280,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/1906a6464d03bebd2b5ded12.png"},{"id":92872683,"identity":"5bbb6060-fd77-4ecb-8af3-b6eede56fb73","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:25","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":119457,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/580b697712dc4b2d4eb667de.png"},{"id":92872676,"identity":"04b82971-d5fe-4df7-9c05-7798067c3b3e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":29207,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/ebdd48d153cbd0048d68b631.png"},{"id":92872673,"identity":"604c5767-0f02-4846-a6d4-89c5f3e3b1ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":41983,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/e0a817c2002d1f8d25ebe988.png"},{"id":92872680,"identity":"5bd568eb-71da-4f8a-8330-720fc25920c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:24","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":100548,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/2a12a9c2b8d6de35857e55d3.png"},{"id":92872681,"identity":"95fe3b3f-8b93-47de-8335-f99061aeb79d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:24","extension":"png","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":991709,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/3681e8df9329f53aeeafe44e.png"},{"id":92872682,"identity":"018cbdb0-6da5-4d35-a58d-39db9ea207c3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:24","extension":"png","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":26945,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/33e44d6be691fb3643ca8685.png"},{"id":92872688,"identity":"5fb9bf2f-60cf-43b9-9506-5e80c57faf4d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:25","extension":"xml","order_by":17,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":130108,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"337aa75c3c5f43b6aa9e68d14b50ce251structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/566a59f2856423391d39cf96.xml"},{"id":92872678,"identity":"585f09f6-d350-441c-8d19-f01b69198236","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:24","extension":"html","order_by":18,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":148620,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/d7c23d88d6b15a9ce20519c9.html"},{"id":92872658,"identity":"c582db78-39c2-4d36-b678-e9706f1ad182","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":104473,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMap of the five field sites in southern Rhode Island.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e The field sites are labeled as follows: 1) Taylor Point, 2) Fort Wetherill, 3) Hazard Rock, 4) Newton Avenue, and 5) Camp Cronin. Hazard Rock and Newton Avenue overlap on the map because the public access entrances are one block from each other.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/83fe618100251c49c9591853.png"},{"id":92872660,"identity":"c125c6f0-2fb7-40af-90e8-fa33eb0a28fe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1070568,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA map featuring the local seafood network identified through our study.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e The lines represent the movement of fish from five fishing sites in Rhode Island to the communities in which the fish are consumed or shared. Participant responses reveal that a significant portion of shore anglers travel from inland communities to enjoy the coast and source food, including from out of state. For more information, visit the story map “\u003c/em\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c0f5d31186ae41b8a8d4456f8fb31d8b\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eArtisanal Fishers and Local Food Security in Rhode Island\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cem\u003e” created by Jami Miller.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/bd30f9618e327a581dd8cd89.png"},{"id":92872659,"identity":"e575f67d-8b37-40a5-95f4-91de36ccc1fa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":129479,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe reasons participants fish. \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe reasons why recreational anglers engage in fishing were grouped into eight categories based on similarity of responses.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/83b282068fb55140bb92f984.png"},{"id":92872663,"identity":"f5cf9183-5a3b-4a3c-b25c-c543b7f1ace9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100492,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpecies of interest to participants.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e Participants mentioned species such as striped bass, bluefish, summer flounder, black sea bass, scup, tautog, and squid. These species are grouped by their roles in the marine food web: primary predators are indicated with red hues, intermediate consumers with blue hues, and prey species in green.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/f4a8b00172c753b526be6344.png"},{"id":92874539,"identity":"992e0c6f-0834-499b-ac8d-12aeadb438b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:27:23","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":974628,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFish stored in buckets at the fishing sites. \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeft: Photo of Scup and flounder in a bucket of saltwater. Photo taken at Fort Wetherill by Jami Miller. Right: Fishers cleaning their scup on the rocks on site. Photo taken at Newton Avenue by Jami Miller.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/495a887768bf8f645ce9c13e.png"},{"id":92872667,"identity":"94b7158b-269d-4835-a36b-8d3c87495bc5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:19:23","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":76683,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCut up squid on a cutting board to be used for bait\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e. Photo taken at Fort Wetherill by Melva Treviño.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/1b2c96fc9b0cae998d6b3387.jpg"},{"id":92874540,"identity":"a94271a7-5093-48da-9ec4-b4f335038842","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:27:23","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":76386,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe number of days participants eat fish per week.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e Participants who responded to the questions about their consumption habits stated that they eat self-provisioned fish between one and four times per week.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/96d8e036a5a67ad47ccff5ae.png"},{"id":92875214,"identity":"672e9e40-ac21-47a1-b3e8-996b05cad35b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 14:35:24","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3346202,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7659780/v1/473e901f-ee0d-4571-b4e2-41fd65bef34f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"From Shore to Fork: Reevaluating Recreational Fishing as A Self- Provisioning, Alternative Seafood Network","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eMarine fisheries contribute an estimated 17 percent of global protein consumption (Teneva, Schemmel, and Kittinger \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Although a large proportion of the global seafood market can be attributed to commercial fisheries, small-scale fisheries (SSFs) play a crucial role in the global seafood system and provide a substantial buffer against food insecurity across numerous communities worldwide (Lowitt \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Stoll et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). SSFs comprise a diverse sector where individuals harvest and process seafood for subsistence and commercial use without significant industrialization. Estimates indicate that at least 40 percent of the global fisheries catch can be attributed to SSFs, and almost half a billion people depend to some extent on SSFs to support their livelihoods (FAO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, despite the vital contributions of marine SSFs to food security, food sovereignty, and livelihood access for coastal dwellers worldwide, SSFs receive less attention and management support than commercial and industrial fisheries (Harper et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn North America, the roles SSFs play in local markets and food security and how they support informal and alternative food markets are poorly understood, as the monetary and non-monetary values of SSFs are often underrecognized or underestimated by state or federal decision-makers (Stoll et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Heidkamp et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Small-scale fishers are also often underrepresented or excluded from policy and decision-making processes (Weeratunge et al., 2014). In this paper, we present findings from a case study conducted in Rhode Island (RI), USA, also known as the \u0026ldquo;Ocean State,\u0026rdquo; to highlight the contributions of recreational anglers. Recreational anglers are a disproportionately understudied subset of SSFs in the Northeast, and more broadly, the United States, especially within the context of seafood systems (Steinback et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Ebbin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). We argue that more attention should be given to recreational fishing as a seafood source and that a deeper understanding of recreational fishing activities can provide a more holistic perspective of how those engaging in this fisheries sector enhance local and regional (sea)food security and (sea)food access.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 70\u0026ndash;85% of seafood in the United States is imported to meet consumer demand. Globalization of the seafood industry has created complex webs of global supply chains, as seafood producers seek out the most economically advantageous combination of low tariffs, interest rates, and transportation and production costs (Gephart, Froehlich, and Branch 2019). In many cases, seafood crosses international borders multiple times. For example, a significant portion of seafood caught by U.S. commercial fishers is exported overseas for processing, then reimported into the United States for consumption (Gephart, Froehlich, and Branch 2019). The current system makes it difficult to account for production, processing, and trade statistics (Gephart, Froehlich, and Branch 2019), and the lack of traceability and accountability has been found to increase the likelihood of overfishing and resource depletion (Bronnmann et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Teneva, Schemmel, and Kittinger \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Compounded by other anthropogenic pressures, such as habitat destruction, pollution, climate change, and ocean acidification and warming, these stressors pose sobering challenges for world fisheries management. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that 34.2% of global fish stocks are overfished and 57.3% are fished at capacity. The global depletion of marine fisheries compromises vital ocean ecosystems, poses a threat to global food security, and presents economic challenges for coastal communities worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSmall-scale fishers in the Global North have been increasingly turning to alternative systems in response to strict regulations, high operational costs, depleted stocks, and competition with cheaper, imported products (Stoll, Dubik, and Campbell 2015; O\u0026rsquo;Hara 2020). In general, alternative food networks (AFNs) aim to address global food system challenges (and pitfalls) by bringing producers closer to consumers and establishing foodways that prioritize sustainability (Jarosz \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). In some regards, AFNs appear to promote forms of food provisioning \u0026ldquo;corrective\u0026rdquo; to conventional food systems (Som Castellano, 2016). Such networks operate in formal and informal markets, but also provide a wide range of non-market benefits, filling gaps not met by existing market channels or public services and generate critical services, including food security, livelihoods, and human and ecosystem health (Malberg Dyg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Olson, Clay, and Pinto da Silva 2014; Stoll et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Stoll, Dubik, and Campbell 2015; Witter and Stoll 2017). In the context of seafood systems, alternative seafood networks (ASNs) \u0026ndash; a range of \u0026ldquo;boat to fork\u0026rdquo; seafood distribution models supported by community and small-scale fisheries \u0026ndash; are presented as more environmentally sustainable, socially just, and economically viable alternatives to conventional seafood systems (Lowitt \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Stoll et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Witter and Stoll 2017). In the Global North in particular, ASNs emerge to combat overfishing, industrialization, privatization, and the disappearance of small-scale fishing operations through fishing practices grounded in marine resources conservation, equitable pay for fishers, and the sourcing of sustainable and healthy seafood for consumers (Loring, Gerlach, and Harrison 2013; McClenachan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Stoll et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most recognized and studied ASNs are direct-to-consumer (DTC) seafood distribution models (e.g. community supported fisheries) and seafood outlets (e.g. local fish markets, seafood cooperatives, and pop-up farmers markets) (Jarosz \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Hara 2020; Witter and Stoll 2017). These seafood distribution models and outlets work within formal markets to build up local and regional seafood networks. First established in 2007, community supported fisheries (CSFs) implement a values-based direct marketing strategy where consumers pay fishers upfront for scheduled deliveries of local, sustainably harvested, high-quality seafood (Brinson, Lee, and Rountree \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; McClenachan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The concept was modeled after community supported agriculture (or CSAs) and has become increasingly popular (Stoll et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The goal of CSFs is to improve traceability through shortened supply chains, improve transparency by building market demand for local and sustainably produced seafood, increase revenues for fishers, and allow fishers the security to diversify their catch (Brinson, Lee, and Rountree \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; McClenachan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Olson, Clay, and Pinto da Silva 2014; Witter and Stoll 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile ASNs like CSFs address important needs not met by conventional seafood systems, such as advocating for environmentally sustainable fishing practices and equitable compensation for fishers, these ASNs are not accessible to everyone. Some limitations include inaccessibility to the market for producers and consumers of seafood, through lack of affordability, geographical limitations, and cultural preferences. Further, ASNs focus on formal mechanisms for procuring and distributing food but often overlook informal, deeply established networks that should be acknowledged and supported, such as seafood provisioned by recreational, small-scale fishers. This paper addresses these gaps by presenting findings from a qualitative study conducted across coastal fishing access points in RI seeking to 1) identify the fishing practices and self-provisioned fish consumption habits among on-shore, recreational, saltwater anglers, 2) understand these anglers\u0026rsquo; engagement in alternative seafood networks, and 3) trace local seafood networks from fishing location to consumption, or from \u0026ldquo;shore to fork.\u0026rdquo; Although recreational fishing is largely considered to be a pastime or a diversion activity, our findings show that recreational anglers substantially contribute to local and regional seafood networks by providing diverse populations access to sustainably caught, high quality seafood through self- and community-food provisioning.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo investigate the contributions of on-shore, recreational, saltwater fishing on local and regional seafood systems in RI, we collected qualitative data using a triangulation of ethnographic methods. Ethnography emphasizes flexible research design, long-term immersion into a community, relationship building, and respect for social complexities (O\u0026rsquo;Reilly \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The most distinctive characteristic of ethnography is participant observation, whereby the researcher observes members of the community and participates in everyday life activities (Bernard 2017). By centering the needs of the local community, the aim of ethnographic methodologies is to produce informative and actionable research (Perkinson et al. 2016). For this study, we specifically applied a \u0026lsquo;step-in-step-out\u0026rsquo; ethnographic approach (see Madden 2010; O\u0026rsquo;Reilly \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The student researchers, a graduate researcher and an undergraduate research assistant, did not cohabit with any of the participants or inhabit their towns of residence. Instead, we immersed in the on-shore saltwater fishing community by conducting recurring visits to specific coastal fishing sites in southern RI: Camp Cronin, Newton Avenue, and Hazard Rock in Narragansett and Fort Wetherill and Taylor Point in Jamestown (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll data for this study was collected from May to July 2022. During that period, we completed qualitative site assessments via passive observation, field photography, and systematic field notes (O\u0026rsquo;Reilly \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). We also conducted participant observation and \u003cem\u003ein situ\u003c/em\u003e qualitative formal and informal interviews with on-shore saltwater anglers to gain an in-depth understanding of fishing practices and fish consumption and sharing behaviors among small-scale, recreational anglers. Interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions to encourage flexibility in the research design and allow participants the opportunity to speak about what they found most important (Bernard 2017). All formal interviews were audio-recorded with the consent of the participants. Each lasted between 15 and 90 minutes. The eligibility constraints included recreational anglers (18+) who fished in RI coastal waters. Questions ranged from discussing fishing habits, food sharing practices, fish consumption preferences and associated health concerns, and knowledge and perceptions of fishing regulations. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, depending on the preference of the participant, as both the graduate researcher and the undergraduate research assistant are fluent in Spanish. Overall, 21 participants were interviewed for this study, two of whom participated in one or more in-depth, follow-up interviews. Seventeen interviews were conducted in English, two in Spanish, and two in a combination of English and Spanish. Importantly, language barriers were a limiting factor of this research. There were many anglers who declined to speak with us because they either did not speak English or Spanish, or felt uncomfortable doing so. For future research, it would be beneficial to accommodate more languages, specifically speakers of Southeast Asian languages (e.g., Laotian, Khmer, Thai, Vietnamese).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAudio recordings of the interviews conducted in English were transcribed using the transcription service Otter.ai. These transcriptions were then re-read and edited for accuracy. Interviews conducted in Spanish were manually transcribed and translated to English. All completed interview transcriptions were coded using the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) Dedoose\u0026trade;. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyze the interview data, systematically organizing and identifying recurring themes, patterns, and relevant research findings across our data set (Braun and Clarke 2012; Salda\u0026ntilde;a \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). First, deductive coding was used to apply open, \u003cem\u003ein vivo\u003c/em\u003e descriptive codes derived directly from the participant responses (Bernard, 2017). A second round of analytical codes was applied to identify connecting threads between the data and broader literature informing this study (Cope, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). In this manner, both major ideas derived from the perspectives of recreational anglers in RI and the broader scientific literature relevant to this research were incorporated into the overall data analysis process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo enhance the reliability and validity of our findings, we triangulated our interview data by comparing it with data derived through different sources and methods, including our systematic field notes and ethnographic observations (see Kirner and Mills \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). For example, we verified whether people\u0026rsquo;s observed actions matched what they shared in the interviews. Lastly, the photographs we collected to visually document the field sites were also used to triangulate the interview data and field observations, reinforcing the validity of the research findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study was approved by the University of Rhode Island Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Board Reference #IRB2122-226). Overall, the study presented minimal risk to participants. Each person received \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e10 USD as compensation for their participation in this study. It was made clear to them that their participation was voluntary. All participants were presented with a verbal consent form, which had to be agreed upon before we conducted the interviews. The consent form allowed participants the option to consent to be interviewed with or without audio recording. If a participant did not consent to be audio-recorded, then detailed hand-written notes were taken during the interview. All participants were given the opportunity to ask questions prior to giving their verbal consent. Participants were informed that they could withdraw consent to participate at any time before, during, or after the interviews were conducted. Additionally, all responses were kept confidential. Audio recordings and transcriptions were stored electronically on a secure server requiring password protection, and hard copies of the field notes were kept in the possession of the graduate student researcher. Only the research team members within the approved IRB protocol had access to the data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe demographics information collected for this study included: age, gender, race and/or ethnicity, and town of residence. Participant ages ranged from 18 to 76 years, and the highest percentage of participants were between 55 and 64 years old. Seeing as gender was not the central focus of this research, it was either inferred from context or assumed by the graduate researcher because the open-ended question of self-defined gender identity made the first few participants unnecessarily uncomfortable. With that in mind, 90% of participants were male and 10% were female. All participants were asked about their race and ethnicity and encouraged to respond with however they self-identify. Responses included: Hispanic (2), Latina (1), Hispanic/Latino (1), Asian (1), Black (1), Indigenous (1), mix (2), White (4), Puerto Rican (1), Italian (1), Vietnamese (1), Japanese (1), American (1), Unsure (1), Human (1), and one participant chose not to respond. This study aimed to highlight the perspectives of fishers from marginalized racial and ethnic backgrounds \u0026ndash; groups who are underrepresented in environmental studies in Rhode Island, particularly in coastal and marine research \u0026ndash; to gain a better understanding of these populations' uses, behaviors, and perceptions towards coastal and marine resources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 The Recreational Angler Seafood Network\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e Participants were asked for their town of residence, and responses included Providence, Pawtucket, North Smithfield, North Kingstown, Cranston, Cumberland, and Burrillville in Rhode Island, and Worcester, Lawrence, and Newton in Massachusetts. Participant responses reveal that a significant portion of recreational anglers who fish from shore in Rhode Island travel from inland communities to enjoy the coast and source food. For example, the largest percentage of participants commuted from Providence, RI to fish at the coast. To put that into perspective, Providence is about 30.5 miles one-way to the closest field sites, Hazard Rock and Taylor Point, and 35.5 miles one-way to the farthest field site, Camp Cronin. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e depicts a map of the identified local seafood network, illustrating the various locations where fish from the selected field sites are consumed or shared.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e To gain an even broader understanding of the recreational angler seafood network, participants were also asked where they usually go fishing (not including the field site at which they were interviewed). Responses ranged from states to towns to specific fishing locations. Outside of Rhode Island, participants fish in Massachusetts and Connecticut. One participant specified the town of Fall River, and three other participants specified Cape Cod Canal in Massachusetts. Within Rhode Island, participants mentioned multiple towns, including Pawtucket, Providence, Cranston, Warwick, Bristol, Tiverton, Newport, and Little Compton. Participants also mentioned specific fishing locations within these towns.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Reasons to Fish\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked to share their top three reasons to go fishing. There was a wide range of responses that we grouped into eight categories. These categories, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, are: 1) to relax (24%), 2) for food (22%), 3) for fun (17%), 4) for sport (15%), 5) to be outside (9%), 6) because it is a family tradition (5%), 7) to meet people (4%), and 8) to spend time with friends and family (4%). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e lists these options for each participant in the order in which they stated them. From these results, we can conclude that fishing for food is a major factor on its own and in combination with other reasons to fish.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe reasons each participant fishes.\u003c/b\u003e Responses are recorded in the order they were stated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipant #\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReasons to Fish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFood\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFun, Food\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamily Tradition, Fun\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelax, Sport, Food\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e5\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSport\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSport, Food, Relax, Meet People\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelax\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelax, Food, Friends and Family\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFood, Sport\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e10\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSport, Fun, Be Outside, Relax, Food\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelax, Food, Be Outside\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e12\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelax, Be Outside\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e13\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFun, Relax, Meet People\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e14\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSport, Food, Fun\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e15\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelax, Be Outside, Sport\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e16\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelax, Family Tradition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e17\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFun, Friends and Family, Food\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e18\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSport, Be Outside, Food\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e19\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelax, Fun, Food\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e20\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFun, Family Tradition, Relax\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e21\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFun, Relax\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.1 Fishing for more than recreation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOf the 21 participants, nine specified that they fish because it is fun. The participants either used the term \u0026lsquo;for fun\u0026rsquo; or mentioned that they fish for enjoyment, as a hobby, or because it is exciting, as one person put it, they \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003elike the fight with the fish\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; One participant said they fish because they \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003elike the outdoors\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; and another said they do it to \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eenjoy the beautiful coastal Rhode Island\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can\u0026rsquo;t pass up days like this\u0026hellip;You know, with like 6 to 7 people, so it\u0026rsquo;s like a little party. Everybody brings food\u0026hellip;and it\u0026rsquo;s just nice, and then you meet people, you know\u0026hellip;That\u0026rsquo;s the fun about it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Some participants also explicitly said that they fish for relaxation, while others mentioned that fishing was a form of stress relief, self-care, and a way for them to clear their mind or calm down. One person stated, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethis is how I stay sane in this crazy world\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; Similarly, another participant said that fishing is \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003esomething [to do] to get away\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; Others used the terms \u0026lsquo;serenity,\u0026rsquo; \u0026lsquo;liberation,\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;happy place\u0026rsquo; to describe fishing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e We asked participants if they usually fish alone or with company. Of the twenty-one participants, twenty responded to this question. While six participants expressed that they would fish with or without company, four participants specified that they prefer to fish alone. One person said that fishing is her \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eme-time\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; Based on observations, we know that being alone is an important motivation for fishers as there were a few instances when fishers who were fishing on their own declined to speak with us because they had gone fishing to be by themselves. However, a majority of the fishers we interviewed view fishing as a social activity. One person said that he is always fishing with company because, even if he does not come into the fishing site with a friend, he will see people he knows, and they are all his \u0026ldquo;fishing buddies.\u0026rdquo; Someone else shared that they enjoy \u0026ldquo;meeting people\u0026rdquo; and learning fishing \u0026ldquo;tactics\u0026rdquo; from them. One person mentioned enjoying the sense \u0026ldquo;of camaraderie\u0026rdquo; they experience while they are out fishing. Another participant spoke to this point by stating that it does not take a long time to get to know people:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIt\u0026rsquo;s a family affair. (\u0026hellip;) It just takes one [or] two seasons, and you see [someone] from last year, and you come, and everybody has a fish story\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, many participants mentioned that fishing allows them to spend time with their families. We observed recreational anglers with their partners, children, and extended family enjoying cookouts, listening to music, and chatting into the evening. Three participants highlighted the importance of knowledge sharing \u0026ndash; specifically, teaching their kids how to fish. One participant mentioned that he wants his son to take over providing for the family when he is no longer able. Therefore, fishing as a hobby is largely tied to community building and knowledge sharing, which creates a large network of people and marine resources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTherefore, \u0026lsquo;fishing for fun\u0026rsquo; was never the only reason fishers gave for fishing. Those who fish for fun, also said that they get to relax, enjoy the weather, spend time with friends and family, meet new people, partake in family tradition, and it is a bonus when they get to eat the fish they catch. For example, one person stated that \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eit\u0026rsquo;s not just for [sic] recreational\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; because he always cooks the fish that he catches. Another participant said they fish \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eto get out of the house, and hopefully catch something to eat\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; One fisher nicely encompassed all these sentiments:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat motivates me to go fishing? I would say um the excitement of catching a fish. Whether it be small or large, it\u0026rsquo;s just the thrill of fishing\u0026hellip;And meeting people, you know? And of course, when you catch it, you know, you\u0026rsquo;re probably gonna end up eating it, so it's a meal\u0026hellip;All of those things combined.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2 Fishing for food\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2.1 Species of interest\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked which species of fish they target and why. Of the twenty-one participants, twenty responded. One participant said that he does not look for a particular species because he does not eat fish. The six species mentioned among the remaining nineteen participants who responded to this question included 1) scup, 2) striped bass, 3) summer flounder, 4) black sea bass, 5) tautog, 6) squid, and 7) bluefish. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e lists the common name, an alternative colloquial name, and the scientific name for each species. Responses varied from naming one species to listing five or six. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the frequency with which each species was mentioned. The figure reveals that the two most sought-after species are scup and striped bass, respectively. This finding is consistent with our field observations, seeing as the most observed species kept by recreational anglers\u0026rsquo; was scup.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSpecies of interest names.\u003c/b\u003e Common, alternative colloquial, and scientific names for the six species of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommon Name\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlternative/Colloquial Name\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScientific Name\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScup\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePorgy, \u003cem\u003emojarra\u003c/em\u003e (in Spanish)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStenotomus chrysops\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStriped bass\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStriper\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMorone saxatilis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSummer flounder\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFluke\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParalichthys dentatus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBlack sea bass\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003emojarra negra\u003c/em\u003e (in Spanish)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCentropristis striata\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTautog\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBlackfish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTautoga onitis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSquid\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCalamari\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDoryteuthis pealeii\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBluefish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBlues\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePomatomus saltatrix\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn terms of preference, participants target specific species for taste, sport, or a combination of the two. Research Participant 6 stated that the four best tasting fish are black sea bass, tautog, fluke, and scup. Black sea bass are characterized as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ehard to catch\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003every limited\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; but \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eeverybody thinks that\u0026rsquo;s the best tasting fish around\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Research Participant 6). Research Participant 8, who mainly targets striped bass, emphasized this point by stating that \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;[Black sea bass] tastes better than striped bass\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; Tautog are characterized as a \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eprize fish\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; with \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ea good bite and a good fight\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Research Participant 6). Tautog are territorial fish that feed on crustaceans and can be found near rocks. They are described as powerful and strong \u0026ndash; \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethe bulldog of fish\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; as one participant stated. They are also praised for their \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethick, white meat\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003emeaty jaw\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; and for being \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ea hearty meal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Research Participant 6). In contrast, fluke is sought-after for its \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003every tasty, delicate, white [meat]\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Research Participant 6). Lastly, scup are very abundant. If you were to look into a recreational angler\u0026rsquo;s bucket, it is likely that the majority of fish would be scup, with the occasional fluke (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). One participant stated that \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eyou get more for your money with scup\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Research Participant 9). Another participant mentioned that scup, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eis abundant\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; and that they are \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eused to eating it with [their] family\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Research Participant 15). A third person stated, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI\u0026rsquo;ve never caught another kind [of fish]\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Research Participant 2) and a fourth person said that scup \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eis a really good fish to eat\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Research Participant 7).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStriped bass and bluefish are recognized as large game fish. Striped bass are targeted in the late evenings and early mornings around high tide when they feed. They are considered a \u0026lsquo;catch and release\u0026rsquo; species due to the strict size and possession limits. However, recreational anglers who caught striped bass within the size requirement were extremely excited to bring the fish home to eat. Research Participant 18 stated that he usually targets striped bass \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003efor the fun of catching them\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; and because \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethey\u0026rsquo;re a good food source\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSquid is an important source of food and bait (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). The squid season is open all year-round, but many fishers stock up in early April and continue fishing through fall until the weather gets too cold. Research Participant 13 explained that squid are caught at night, usually by shining a flood light into the water to attract the squid to the surface. Research Participant 11 mentioned that he is willing to camp overnight for squid because it is his favorite food. In terms of bait, squid is either used fresh or frozen, chopped or whole, depending on the targeted species. We observed fishers chopping up both fresh and frozen squid to catch scup and using the whole squid to catch larger game fish, like striped bass. According to multiple participants, live baits such as nightcrawlers and clam worms, can be used to catch a variety of species, but squid is the preferred choice for many fishers:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eYeah, mainly, the past two years I\u0026rsquo;ve been giving away a lot of fish, besides squid. Squid is my main source for like everything I want to catch.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Research Participant 16).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2.2 Self-provisioned fish is an important source of food for fishers\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e Participants were asked how often they eat fish. Eleven participants provided this information, and responses range from one to four times per week. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e illustrates that most participants eat fish once per week, but a few consume a substantial number of fish multiple times a week. The one participant who is not represented in the figure said that he fishes off and on, so the number of fish he consumes varies and we did not receive a concrete answer on his weekly self-provisioned fish consumption habits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were also asked what species of fish they consume the most. Responses correspond with results from the most sought-after species (in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Ten participants responded, and the majority stated that they consume either scup or striped bass the most. Three participants named scup, two named striped bass, one named scup and striper, one named scup and fluke, and one named squid. Of the remaining two participants, one said that it depends on the season and the other does not eat fish.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2.3 Perceived benefits of self-provisioned fish\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe asked participants whether they supplemented their catch by purchasing fish at a grocery store or fish market. Of the twenty-one participants, sixteen responded. Eleven participants said they buy fish from the store for different reasons and to varying degrees, while five participants said they never buy fish at any type of store or fish market. Reasons for buying fish at the grocery store or fish market include wanting to eat more fish than they can catch and wanting to diversify their diet with fish that are out of season or not local. For example, one participant said that he supplements his catch by buying fish at his local fish market, but he only purchases fresh, locally sourced fish, such as black sea bass and fluke. Conversely, a participant from Portugal, mentioned that he will buy salted cod and other species from a Portuguese market because the fish are imported from Portugal. Overall, many of the fishers we interviewed expressed value in knowing when, where, and how the fish they consume are sourced.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOf the five participants who stated that they rarely buy fish, the reasons included wanting to catch fish themselves, adding that it is more fun to do this, and it helps them maintain a healthy diet. Two people emphasized that they do not buy fish that they can catch themselves in RI. There were also participants who mentioned that when the fish they have in storage (e.g., freezer) runs out, they wait until the next summer to catch and eat more fish. Three participants said they never buy fish at the grocery store because it is simply not fresh and has been frozen for an unknown period of time.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[That] fish is not fresh. And that's [a]guarantee. They dress it, they put it nice, they put leaves there, looking it all dandy. But it\u0026rsquo;s not fresh. The fish I catch is fresh. I never buy fish. I come and catch.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI don\u0026rsquo;t like swordfish, period\u0026hellip;. Swordfish is something that probably comes from down south and is frozen [or] whatever, so I stay away from that\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Most of the participants we interviewed shared that they like to \u0026lsquo;fish for food\u0026rsquo; and many of these fishers spoke in depth about the benefits of catching their own fish. Specifically, numerous participants mentioned that they value freshness, traceability, locality, and quality of wild-caught fish. For example, a couple of participants specifically emphasized that they often cook their fish immediately after they catch it:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIt goes out of my bag, and cleaned, and into a frying pan. It doesn\u0026rsquo;t hit the refrigerator\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIf I catch a fish, it\u0026rsquo;ll be consumed within 12 hours.... You can cook it in your kitchen, and someone can walk in and go\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;What are you cooking?\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eand not know you\u0026rsquo;re cooking fish. \u0026lsquo;Cause [fresh fish] just doesn\u0026rsquo;t smell\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost participants expressed a preference for fish caught by them or someone they know citing that self-provisioned, wild-caught fish is of higher quality and healthier than store-bought fish:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAt [a grocery store], I was shocked because I never saw scup there in my life and, all of a sudden, I see scup. Scup was like $4.99 a pound. And I [thought], it was nothing like this [fresh one]. I mean, it was just like gray, ugly. It looked like it\u0026rsquo;d been rotting\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe squid in groceries is different from catch by rod and reel. Their squid is caught by net. (\u0026hellip;) They just get squished. They get squished and mushy\u0026hellip;When they pull it in it\u0026rsquo;s just stacked on top of each other and the pressure of the water and them moving the boat, it just becomes mushy and ew\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Two participants in particular mentioned an aversion to farm raised fish. One person said that farm raised trout are the reason he does not fish in certain freshwater ponds, and another participant said that he does not buy fish at the grocery store that could have been farmed:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI don\u0026rsquo;t trust those fishes because you don\u0026rsquo;t know what they\u0026rsquo;ve been fed, the water they\u0026rsquo;ve been grown since a baby. But when it comes to the ocean, I\u0026rsquo;m not afraid because it\u0026rsquo;s wild\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2.4 Fishing to share food with others\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked whether they eat, give away, or sell the fish that they catch. After the first couple of interviews, the word \u0026lsquo;sell\u0026rsquo; was removed from the question because it made participants uncomfortable and distracted from the rest of the question. Selling fish with a Recreational Saltwater Fishing License is illegal in RI, so it is not surprising that fishers were wary of the word \u0026lsquo;sell.\u0026rsquo; However, in conversations with participants, we learned that many people know of someone who sells fish directly in the fishing spot, from their cars, or from home. For example, one person stated they were sure there were \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003epeople that sell them\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; but clarified that they themselves \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003edon\u0026rsquo;t sell them\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Of the 21 participants, 20 responded to the question about \u0026lsquo;giving away\u0026rsquo; fish. Eighteen fishers (90%) share the fish they catch, while the remaining two (10%) who answered this question do not. For those who do not share fish, one participant explained that he is \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003etoo greedy\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; implying that he keeps all his catch for himself, and the other said his friends are \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003etoo picky\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; Those who \u0026lsquo;give\u0026rsquo; their fish away expressed that they share fish with their family, friends, and broader community, both within their town of residence and at the fishing location. For example, one participant was fishing with his wife, brother, and sister-in-law, and he said that they have a family of about 30 people to feed so they were aiming to catch the possession limit for scup (30 scup/person/day). A second participant shared their friend shares fish with their neighbors who are retired and have need.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI take what I need and then if I catch a few extra I will try to feed people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI give away more than I keep\u0026hellip;Because I really enjoy blessing people\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI\u0026rsquo;m always out fishing. I never have time to eat. If they [cook] it and tell me take it with me, then yeah\u0026hellip;. I don't cook any fish that I catch. I don't like to clean them. I don't like to cook. I catch them. [That\u0026rsquo;s] enough\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne person said he likes to invite his \u0026lsquo;fishing buddies\u0026rsquo; over for cookouts on Sundays. Another participant shared that she cooks her extra catch at home and distributes it to the homeless population in Providence. While in the field, we also observed fishers gifting, exchanging, and pawning off species they did not want. Two participants mentioned that they bring barbecues to Fort Wetherill (in Jamestown) on occasion and grill squid and scup to share on site.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Fishing is about more than recreation: Fish is food\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Rhode Island, recreational anglers need a Recreational Saltwater Fishing License to fish on the coast, but there is no academic literature focused on how recreational anglers use the fish they catch from Rhode Island waters. This study aimed to respond to our fragmented knowledge on recreational anglers and food sharing, and how these practices contribute to the local seafood system. This study revealed that the top three reasons to go fishing are to relax, for food, and because it\u0026rsquo;s fun. These results are similar to a Connecticut-based study carried out by Ebbin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) that found that the top five reasons to fish are for enjoyment, food, relaxation, family, and to be outside. It is also evident, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, that recreational anglers fish for a combination of purposes. For example, of the fifteen participants that stated they fish for fun or for sport, nine also mentioned that they eat the fish they can legally keep. Other participants who stated that they fish for relaxation, to get outside, or to spend time with friends and family, also mentioned the benefit of bringing home a meal. While some of the benefits of consuming self-provisioned fish are perceived, our findings reveal that recreational saltwater fishing provides anglers and their communities with access to the type of fish they want to eat \u0026ndash; an expression of food sovereignty. Therefore, policy makers and coastal managers need to acknowledge that small-scale fishing is not just a recreational activity. It is also an important source of food, and we should identify ways to maintain and expand access to these food pathways.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Self-provisioned seafood addresses limitations of alternative seafood networks\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eProminently recognized ASNs fill an important role in local and regional food systems by providing an environmentally conscious and economically viable alternative to the global seafood industry. In terms of environmental sustainability, ASNs encourage short, relational supply chains that reduce fossil fuel emissions from transportation (McClenachan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Stoll et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Historically, seafood producers have shipped their products around the world to keep production costs down and offer low prices for consumers (Gephart, Froehlich, and Branch 2019) \u0026ndash; which makes it exceedingly difficult for local fishers, who want to process and sell their catch locally, to compete. ASNs have become an economically feasible alternative through values-based marketing. For example, CSFs highlight their ability to provide traceable, high-quality seafood direct to the consumer, and they are able to charge a price premium for ensuring these attributes. Further, CSFs require pre-payments from consumers for regularly scheduled deliveries which distributes risk and improves market and income stability for fishers (Brinson, Lee, and Rountree \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; McClenachan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). These practices promote collaboration, rather than competition, among fishers, providing small-scale fishers with the means to stay in the industry and the freedom to create markets for underutilized species. There are also improvements in social equity. By shortening the supply chain and encouraging consumers to connect directly with local fishers, ASNs cut out the middlemen in supply chains which improves recognition of fishers\u0026rsquo; work and subsequently fair pay for their labor. The emphasis on local and relational operations increases transparency and accountability within the industry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are many benefits to current ASN models, but there are also a couple major limitations. First, these prominently recognized ASNs are not accessible to everyone. For example, CSFs, local fish markets, seafood cooperatives, and pop-up farmers markets operate in a market-oriented model (Allen et al., 2003). This means only fishers with commercial fishing and dealers licenses in Rhode Island can legally sell fish and only consumers willing to pay price premiums are able to purchase said fish. There are also geographic and transportation constraints. Fishers who want to sell their seafood at farmers markets are restricted to locations near the dock where the fish are landed (O\u0026rsquo;Hara 2020) and only consumers who either live near the seafood outlet or who have access to transportation can reach these producers (Guthman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008b\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, when discussing how to improve food access through ASNs, it is important to broaden the discussion on equity (Goodman, 2000, p. 217; Slocum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHistorically, food access interventions have focused on the availability of food and how much is produced, rather than who has access to the means of production (Short, Guthman, and Raskin 2007). In the early 1980s, Amartya Sen popularized the concept of food access by arguing that famine was the result of ineffective policies relating to the acquisition and control of food (Rosenberg and Cohen, n.d.). However, the concept was co-opted by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in the 1990s who pushed for an increase in the availability of conventional food retailers as a feasible, economic fix to a complex, social problem (Rosenberg and Cohen, n.d.).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis led to the concept of \u0026lsquo;food deserts.\u0026rsquo; Short, Guthman, and Raskin (2007) define food deserts as \u0026ldquo;places where the transportation constraints of carless residents combine with a dearth of supermarkets and convenience stores\u0026rdquo; (352). Currently, there are two types of food access interventions: 1) bringing low-income residents closer to conventional food retailers by either improving transportation or relocating supermarkets, and 2) developing alternative food networks (Short, Guthman, and Raskin 2007). However, it has been found that expanding the availability of food retailers does not significantly affect shopping patterns or food choice (Rosenberg and Cohen, n.d.), and many farmers markets are located in relatively white, affluent communities (Guthman 2008a; Guthman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008b\u003c/span\u003e). This reveals that there is a disconnect between the priorities of these food access interventions and the needs of historically food insecure communities (Guthman 2008a; Guthman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008b\u003c/span\u003e). Guthman (2008a) argues that food security programs assume the primary barriers to food are knowledge, access, and cost when the disconnect lies in a lack of cultural competency and attention to privilege. Market-oriented ASNs fill an important need, but in order to reach historically food insecure communities, food access interventions need to consider how marginalized communities already access their food.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTherefore, a second major limitation of ASNs is that the scope at which they are discussed is too narrow. ASNs are prominently recognized as market-oriented direct-to-consumer (DTC) seafood distribution models, such as community supported fisheries (CSFs). However, ASNs and CSFs are not synonymous. By focusing on commercial production and market-oriented distribution models and outlets, the ASN framework is overlooking informal markets and networks, such as self- and community-food provisioning. There is very little written academically on informal seafood markets, but not everyone goes to the grocery store or local fish market to buy fish. For instance, five participants from this study said that they never buy fish from the grocery store because they prefer to catch it themselves. Teneva, Schemmel, and Kittinger (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) highlight the importance of subsistence economies to local food security, specifically food sharing through kinship networks, and Cooke et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) note that recreational fishing fits into this framework. Self-procurement and food sharing are an entire subset of alternative food production and distribution that should be acknowledged and incorporated into the ASN literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3 Recreational fishing can directly contribute to alternative seafood networks\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are many non-market benefits associated with market-oriented ASNs. For commercial fishers, shortened, relational supply chains increase the recognition of their work, provide opportunities for education and advocacy regarding working conditions and pay, expand and strengthen their social networks, and the improvement in financial stability allows for greater independence in day to day operations (Witter and Stoll 2017). Further, these non-market benefits encourage coordination, rather than competition, among fishers; which, in turn, promotes transparency within the industry and creates an opportunity to diversify their catch and educate consumers on the importance of utilizing traditionally low-value fish (Witter and Stoll 2017). For consumers, the non-market benefits include the ability to trace where their seafood comes from, know their local seafood producers, build community, and learn about the local ecosystem and industry (Witter and Stoll 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecreational fishing embodies many of these non-market benefits because it is an extensive, community-focused, and resilient network of people and marine resources. Geographically, the recreational angler seafood network extends regionally. We mapped the movement of fish from five fishing locations in RI to the communities in which the fish are shared (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). We found that fishers travel from in and out-of-state to RI waters to fish. Participants also shared that they frequent many different fishing locations throughout Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Therefore, the network is even larger than what Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e depicts, and future research can be done on where recreational anglers go fishing and where they share their fish to gain a better understanding of the breadth of this network. Mapping these movements also revealed that fishing is a link between urban communities and coastal spaces. Not only do designated fishing locations provide coastal access for coastal residents, but recreational fishing provides urban residents with direct access to seafood.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe number of fish being shared and consumed is also substantial. Eighteen participants, or 90% of fishers interviewed, share the fish they catch; and, on average, participants consume self-provisioned fish two times per week. Some participants eat fish up to four times per week. The sheer quantity of fish moving through the network reveals the importance of self-provisioned fish to the local seafood system. Recreational fishing is an important food pathway and a significant source of seafood for numerous communities within and beyond the state boundaries.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen considering food access and food access intervention, it is also important to understand which species of fish are utilized and by whom. For example, scup is considered an underutilized species due to its limited commercial market and there are efforts to increase consumer demand through market expansion for this species. However, this study revealed that scup is the most sought-after and consumed species by participants, which means there already is demand, through informal markets, and recreational anglers are utilizing a diversity of species.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLastly, recreational fishing is a well-established network, deeply rooted in social relationships and community building. Participants spoke about going fishing with family and friends, meeting up with fishing buddies, and meeting new people while fishing. At many fishing locations, fishers were eating food, listening to music, and chatting for hours. There is ample opportunity for knowledge sharing, both horizontally between peers and vertically between one generation to the next. Participants specifically mentioned learning new techniques and recipes from other fishers and teaching their children how to fish. The strength of the community and the diversity of their practices make it an incredibly resilient network. Fishers know each other, are recognized for their work, have autonomy over how they procure fish, and they and their community know exactly where, when, and how their fish was sourced.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eRecreational anglers catch fish not only for fun, but for food, which reveals that recreational fishing is an important food source and we need to maintain and expand access to that food pathway. This can be done by recognizing that coastal access is also a food access issue and working to reduce barriers to public coastal access. In Rhode Island, there are large swaths of private property with associations that push for private coastal access, which means that public right-of-ways need to be properly advertised, maintained, and expanded to aid the public in accessing the coast. There are also issues with parking and transportation to the coast that, if improved, could help the public gain access to these coastal spaces (Twichell et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, one recommendation to improve access to seafood within the local seafood system would be for policy makers and coastal managers to advocate for improved coastal access across the state, particularly sites conducive to shore fishing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eASNs aim to address environmental, economic, and social challenges within the global seafood system, and it is important to acknowledge that this can be done through both formal and informal markets (Heidkamp et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). By recognizing the contributions of informal markets, specifically self- and community-food provisioning, and acknowledging informal seafood procurement and distribution, such as recreational fishing, as an ASN, we can support the people and networks that currently provide sustainable seafood access to historically food insecure communities. If desired by the community, researchers can work with local communities to make their practices known to policy makers to garner support and resources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne way to better acknowledge recreational fishing as an ASN is to reevaluate fishing license labels. It is evident that the reasons fishers engage in fishing are not singular, and therefore difficult to label. However, this study reveals that the label of \u0026lsquo;recreational\u0026rsquo; angler does not fit all fishers with a Recreational Saltwater Fishing License. The umbrella term ignores the importance of food when fishing and the key role recreational anglers play in the larger social and cultural network of people and marine resources (Schumann and Macinko \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Cohn \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). If policy makers determine regulation, amenities, and access based on recreational activities alone, then the recreational angler seafood network is not being prioritized as the important food source that it is. Therefore, the term oversimplifies fishing as an activity and minimizes the importance of its other uses. One recommendation to determine a better label would be to speak with recreational anglers, ask them how they self-identify as a fisher, and learn more about their fishing practices and motivations for engaging in the activity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003e6. Ethics approval and consent to participate\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the University of Rhode Island Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Board Reference #IRB2122-226). Written informed consent was waived because the study involved minimal risk to participants. Verbal consent was obtained, ensuring participants understood the voluntary nature of the study and their right to withdraw at any time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e7. Consent for publication\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors read and approved of the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e8. Availability of data and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe interview data collected for this study contains confidential information that could not be publicly shared due to ethical and legal restrictions. Given the sensitive nature of the data, and in accordance with the principles of participant confidentiality and data protection, the datasets generated and analyzed in this study cannot be made publicly available. Please contact the corresponding author if you have any questions regarding the interview data collected for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e9. Competing interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10. Funding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding for this study was supported by the USDA Hatch research grant #W4004 and the Science and Engineering Fellowship Program at the University of Rhode Island. The funders played no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11. Authors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJM and MT co-conceptualized the study. JM collected the data, conducted the data analysis, and wrote the original draft of the article. MT acquired funding for the study, supervised the data collection, supported the data analysis and interpretation, prepared the figures, and edited and contributed to the text.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e12. Acknowledgements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors thank Latsany Lopez, our undergraduate research assistant, for her support in data collection. We would also like to thank the fishers who took the time to participate in our study, and whose unique insights and perspectives were crucial to the completion of this research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBernard, H. R. (2011). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Fifth edition). AltaMira Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlock, Jason P., Richard A. Scribner, and Karen B. DeSalvo. 2004. \u0026ldquo;Fast Food, Race/Ethnicity, and Income.\u0026rdquo; American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27 (3): 211\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBowen, S., Elliott, S., \u0026amp; Hardison-Moody, A. (2021). The structural roots of food insecurity: How racism is a fundamental cause of food insecurity. Sociology Compass, 15(7), e12846. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12846\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/soc4.12846\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrinson, Ayeisha, Min-Yang Lee, and Barbara Rountree. 2011. \u0026ldquo;Direct Marketing Strategies: The Rise of Community Supported Fishery Programs.\u0026rdquo; Marine Policy 35 (4): 542\u0026ndash;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.014\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.014\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBronnmann, Julia, Martin D. Smith, James Abbott, Clinton J. Hay, and Tor F. N\u0026aelig;sje. 2020. \u0026ldquo;Integration of a Local Fish Market in Namibia with the Global Seafood Trade: Implications for Fish Traders and Sustainability.\u0026rdquo; World Development 135 (November): 105048. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105048\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105048\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohn RM (2023) Recreating Labels, Sustaining Fishing Communities. Fisheries 48:183\u0026ndash;184. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10915\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/fsh.10915\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCooke, Steven J, William M Twardek, Robert J Lennox, Aaron J Zolderdo, Shannon D Bower, Lee F G Gutowsky, Andy J Danylchuk, Robert Arlinghaus, and Douglas Beard. 2018. \u0026ldquo;The Nexus of Fun and Nutrition: Recreational Fishing Is Also about Food.\u0026rdquo; Fish and Fisheries 19 (2): 201\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12246\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/faf.12246\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCope M (2010) Coding transcripts and diaries. In: Clifford NJ, French S, Valentine G (eds) Key methods in geography, Second edition. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, pp 440\u0026ndash;452\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEbbin, Syma Alexi. 2017. \u0026ldquo;Fishing for Food: Piloting an Exploration of the Invisible Subsistence Harvest of Coastal Resources in Connecticut.\u0026rdquo; Agriculture \u0026amp; Food Security 6 (1): 12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-016-0087-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40066-016-0087-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4060/ca9229en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGephart, Jessica A., Halley E. Froehlich, and Trevor A. Branch. 2019. \u0026ldquo;Opinion: To Create Sustainable Seafood Industries, the United States Needs a Better Accounting of Imports and Exports.\u0026rdquo; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (19): 9142\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905650116\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.1905650116\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuthman, Julie. 2008b. \u0026ldquo;\u0026lsquo;If They Only Knew\u0026rsquo;: Color Blindness and Universalism in California Alternative Food Institutions.\u0026rdquo; The Professional Geographer 60 (3): 387\u0026ndash;97. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802013679\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00330120802013679\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e---. 2008a. \u0026ldquo;Bringing Good Food to Others: Investigating the Subjects of Alternative Food Practice.\u0026rdquo; Cultural Geographies 15 (4): 431\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1474474008094315\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1474474008094315\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarper, Sarah, Dirk Zeller, Melissa Hauzer, Daniel Pauly, and Ussif Rashid Sumaila. 2013. \u0026ldquo;Women and Fisheries: Contribution to Food Security and Local Economies.\u0026rdquo; Marine Policy 39: 56\u0026ndash;63. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.018\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.018\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeidkamp CP, Morrissey J, Germond-Duret C, Rourke M (2022) Blue Economy: People and Regions in Transitions. In: Blue Economy. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJarosz, Lucy. 2008. \u0026ldquo;The City in the Country: Growing Alternative Food Networks in Metropolitan Areas.\u0026rdquo; Journal of Rural Studies 24 (3): 231\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.10.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.10.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirner, K., \u0026amp; Mills, J. (2019). Introduction to Ethnographic Research: A Guide for Anthropology. SAGE Publications.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoring, Philip A., S. Craig Gerlach, and Hannah L. Harrison. 2013. \u0026ldquo;Seafood as Local Food: Food Security and Locally Caught Seafood on Alaska\u0026rsquo;s Kenai Peninsula.\u0026rdquo; Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 3 (3): 13-30-13\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2013.033.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5304/jafscd.2013.033.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLowitt, Kristen. 2013. \u0026ldquo;Examining Fisheries Contributions to Community Food Security: Findings from a Household Seafood Consumption Survey on the West Coast of Newfoundland.\u0026rdquo; Journal of Hunger \u0026amp; Environmental Nutrition 8 (2): 221\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2013.786668\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/19320248.2013.786668\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalberg Dyg, P., Christensen, S., \u0026amp; Peterson, C. J. (2020). Community gardens and wellbeing amongst vulnerable populations: A thematic review. Health Promotion International, 35(4), 790\u0026ndash;803. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz067\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/heapro/daz067\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcClenachan, Loren, Benjamin P. Neal, Dalal Al-Abdulrazzak, Taylor Witkin, Kara Fisher, and John N. Kittinger. 2014. \u0026ldquo;Do Community Supported Fisheries (CSFs) Improve Sustainability?\u0026rdquo; Fisheries Research 157 (September): 62\u0026ndash;69. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2014.03.016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.fishres.2014.03.016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorland, K., Wing, S., Diez Roux, A., \u0026amp; Poole, C. (2002). Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(1), 23\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00403-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00403-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOlson, Julia, Patricia M. Clay, and Patricia Pinto da Silva. 2014. \u0026ldquo;Putting the Seafood in Sustainable Food Systems.\u0026rdquo; Marine Policy 43 (January): 104\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic methods (2nd ed). Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePerkinson, M. T., Faith, T. D., Vahey, G. M., Vena, J. E., \u0026amp; Williams, E. M. (2020). Quantifying the Seafood Consumption Patterns of Recreational Anglers in Charleston and Berkeley Counties, South Carolina. Environmental Health Insights, 10(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/EHI.S40668\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/EHI.S40668\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaja, Samina, Changxing Ma, and Pavan Yadav. 2008. \u0026ldquo;Beyond Food Deserts: Measuring and Mapping Racial Disparities in Neighborhood Food Environments.\u0026rdquo; Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (4): 469\u0026ndash;82. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08317461\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0739456X08317461\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRam\u0026iacute;rez, Margaret Marietta. 2015. \u0026ldquo;The Elusive Inclusive: Black Food Geographies and Racialized Food Spaces: Black Food Geographies and Racialized Food Spaces.\u0026rdquo; Antipode 47 (3): 748\u0026ndash;69. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12131\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/anti.12131\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReese, Ashant\u0026eacute; M. 2018. \u0026ldquo;\u0026lsquo;We Will Not Perish; We\u0026rsquo;re Going to Keep Flourishing\u0026rsquo;: Race, Food Access, and Geographies of Self-Reliance: Race, Food Access, and Geographies of Self-Reliance.\u0026rdquo; Antipode 50 (2): 407\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12359\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/anti.12359\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosenberg, Nathan A, and Nevin Cohen. n.d. \u0026ldquo;Let Them Eat Kale: The Misplaced Narrative of Food Access,\u0026rdquo; 31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalda\u0026ntilde;a J (2021) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Fourth edition. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchumann S, Macinko S (2007) Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy: What\u0026rsquo;s in a word? Marine policy 31:706\u0026ndash;718. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2006.12.010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2006.12.010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShort, Anne, Julie Guthman, and Samuel Raskin. 2007. \u0026ldquo;Food Deserts, Oases, or Mirages?: Small Markets and Community Food Security in the San Francisco Bay Area.\u0026rdquo; Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 (3): 352\u0026ndash;64. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06297795\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0739456X06297795\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlocum, R. (2006). Anti-racist Practice and the Work of Community Food Organizations. Antipode, 38(2), 327\u0026ndash;349. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2006.00582.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1467-8330.2006.00582.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlocum, R. (2011). Race in the study of food. Progress in Human Geography, 35(3), 303\u0026ndash;327. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510378335toll\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0309132510378335toll\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, Joshua S., Bradford A. Dubik, and Lisa M. Campbell. 2015. \u0026ldquo;Local Seafood: Rethinking the Direct Marketing Paradigm.\u0026rdquo; Ecology and Society 20 (2): art40. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07686-200240.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSteinback S, Wallmo K, Clay P (2009) Saltwater sport fishing for food or income in the Northeastern US: Statistical estimates and policy implications. Marine Policy 33:49\u0026ndash;57. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.04.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2008.04.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStoll, Joshua S., Hannah L. Harrison, Emily De Sousa, Debra Callaway, Melissa Collier, Kelly Harrell, Buck Jones, et al. 2021. \u0026ldquo;Alternative Seafood Networks During COVID-19: Implications for Resilience and Sustainability.\u0026rdquo; Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.614368\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fsufs.2021.614368\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeneva, Lida T., Eva Schemmel, and John N. Kittinger. 2018. \u0026ldquo;State of the Plate: Assessing Present and Future Contribution of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Hawai\u0026lsquo;i\u0026rsquo;s Food Security.\u0026rdquo; Marine Policy 94 (August): 28\u0026ndash;38. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.025\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTwichell JH, Mulvaney KK, Merrill NH, Bousquin JJ (2022) Geographies of Dirty Water: Landscape-Scale Inequities in Coastal Access in Rhode Island. Frontiers in Marine Science 8:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalker, R. E., Keane, C. R., \u0026amp; Burke, J. G. (2010). Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Health \u0026amp; Place, 16(5), 876\u0026ndash;884. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeeratunge, N., Snyder, K. A., \u0026amp; Sze, C. P. (2010). Gleaner, fisher, trader, processor: Understanding gendered employment in fisheries and aquaculture N Weeratunge et al. Gendered employment in fisheries. Fish \u0026amp; Fisheries, 11(4), 405\u0026ndash;420. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00368.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00368.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWitter, Allison, and Joshua Stoll. 2017. \u0026ldquo;Participation and Resistance: Alternative Seafood Marketing in a Neoliberalera.\u0026rdquo; Marine Policy 80 (June): 130\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZenk, S. N., Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., James, S. A., Bao, S., \u0026amp; Wilson, M. L. (2005). Neighborhood racial composition, neighborhood poverty, and the spatial accessibility of supermarkets in metropolitan Detroit. American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 660\u0026ndash;667. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.042150\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2105/AJPH.2004.042150\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Alternative seafood networks, Alternative food networks, Coastal access, Community supported fisheries, Local seafood systems, Recreational fishing, Self-provisioning","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7659780/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7659780/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe global seafood system faces many environmental, economic, and social challenges, including overfishing, industrialization, privatization, and the disappearance of small-scale fisheries, among others. All of these issues impact global food security. Alternative seafood networks (ASNs) aim to address these challenges through spatial and social transformations within local and regional seafood systems, such as shortening supply chains and educating consumers on how to source local seafood. Prominently recognized ASNs include community supported fisheries, local fish markets, seafood cooperatives, and pop-up farmer\u0026rsquo;s markets. This study employed an ethnographic approach comprised of semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and photographic documentation to investigate the contributions of on-shore, \u0026ldquo;recreational,\u0026rdquo; saltwater fishing on local and regional seafood systems in Rhode Island, USA. This paper aims to highlight the importance of ASNs in addressing food security, but also acknowledge the shortcomings. We contend that recreational fishing, when practiced for self-provisioning purposes, should be considered as an ASN and that informal markets and networks need to be incorporated into the ASN literature. We conclude, first, that recreational fishing can be an important food source, and thus coastal access should be considered as a food access issue. Second, seafood sourced through prominently recognized ASNs is not accessible to everyone, but self-provisioned seafood from recreational fishing can help address the gaps unmet by ASNs. Lastly, by acknowledging already existing, informal networks, specifically self- and community-food provisioning, we can learn to support the people and networks that currently provide sustainable seafood access to historically food-insecure communities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"From Shore to Fork: Reevaluating Recreational Fishing as A Self- Provisioning, Alternative Seafood Network","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-06 14:19:18","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7659780/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b2e8c536-834a-4f6a-9eed-544f5e486b4a","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-03T09:09:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-06 14:19:18","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7659780","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7659780","identity":"rs-7659780","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}