Effective Communication of Toxic Chemical Warnings to Anglers

This study addresses the following questions: (1) How do anglers know if toxic chemicals are present? (2) What information sources do anglers rely on to get information about toxic chemical contamination? (3) Who do anglers believe is responsible for warning them about toxic contamination/ (4) What communication strategies do anglers believe should be used to warn anglers of toxic chemical contamination/ Data were collected from personal interviews of 318 anglers in Michigan and 272 anglers in Kansas. The results indicated that there was not a strong consensus among anglers about any of these four issues. Thirty-nine different answers were given by anglers asked how they would know if toxic chemicals were present. In Michigan, 41.8% were erroneously relying on sensory detection of contamination, whereas in Kansas, 60.7% used sensory information to detect contaminants. An additional 27.4% of Michigan anglers and 15.1 % of Kansas anglers said they did not know how to detect contamination. The respective state fisheries management agencies were the most frequently mentioned sources of information about toxic chemicals. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources was mentioned by 47.8% of Michigan anglers, and the Kansas Fish and Game Commission (KFGC) was mentioned by 23.9% of Kansas anglers. In Kansas, the KFGC was most frequently thought to be responsible for issuing warnings (32.5%), and only 2.6% of the anglers correctly identified the state agency that is officially responsible for issuing water-quality warnings. Posting signs at affected sites to warn anglers about contamination was recommended by 40.3% of the anglers.