Figure 2. Current Approach to Fisheries Management in Most Councils and States in the U.S. (2010)

Recognizing the differences in these approaches as compared to the cyclical process of FishSmart points out two major considerations as to why the latter approach was successful in achieving a high level of stakeholder participation and creating sustainable fisheries management practices. The first consideration of the FishSmart process is that it combines the tools, people, and process into one overall applied approach. It does not separate out the use of various qualitative or quantitative tools, as do the approaches in Figures 2 and 3. In essence, the people (or stakeholders) of FishSmart complete the process because the stages of problem-identification, discussion, assessment, scientific research, consensus building, and decision-making are combined. The second consideration of FishSmart that is absent in the other two approaches is the intense role that the individual stakeholders played throughout the process. The circular model demonstrates that each individual stakeholder must be engaged enough to “be familiar with other stakeholder perspectives and previous stakeholder group decisions and results” (Miller et al., 2010, p. 427). The other two approaches do not indicate in any way how involved the stakeholders are with one another before, during, or after the problem-identification, discussion, consensus building, and decision-making.

Stakeholder relationships were improved during this process, as evidenced by the fact that continual stakeholder involvement and agreements had to be made throughout the workgroup meetings in order to develop and approve the final recommendations package that was sent to SAFMC. Miller et al. (2010) recognized that “there were not substantial conflicts between commercial and recreational interests” that would typically occur in larger fisheries management situations (p. 432). Had the relationships between the stakeholders been less than cooperative, it is likely that the package of recommendations for king mackerel fisheries would never have been created, thereby failing to achieve the goal of the entire process.
VII. Conclusions about the Process and Products

The dynamic process of FishSmart created an innovative approach to dealing with king mackerel fisheries in the southeastern Atlantic Ocean. It was successful because it was stakeholder-centered, giving the participants the opportunity to be a part of the entire process from start to finish. While this process was successful for Atlantic king mackerel, Miller and colleagues (2010) pointed out that “fisheries [with] more challenging conservation issues [will likely need] a substantially longer period to reach consensus” because more stakeholders with opposing viewpoints will be involved (p. 432). The approach used by FishSmart to create sustainable king mackerel fisheries practices allow the stakeholders to agree to “a common refrain... to ensure that king mackerel fisheries will be open and available for the workgroup member’s children to enjoy in the years to come” (Miller et al., 2010, p. 432). Overall, this process was successful and should be considered for use again in fisheries management to achieve realistic, attainable, and sustainable goals for enabling fisheries to thrive for both commercial and recreational interests well into the future.