RESUMO
Many global management and conservation initiatives fail to prevent overfishing either because they do not plan for local engagement, surveillance, and enforcement, and/or because they fail to include alternatives for short-term losses. Thus, these initiatives do not gain support among fishers. In this study, we interviewed fishers to investigate their stated behavior toward fisheries regulations. We assessed possible (non)compliant behavior under scenarios where fishers would face a moratorium on some of their target species. Additionally, we investigated the consequences of such a moratorium on the food web if it were to lead to fishing alternative species. Using data from two Brazilian coastal sites, we found that younger fishers and those who demonstrated a trustworthy relationship with stakeholders were inclined to comply with the rules. The level of potential compliance also varied between the studied places, probably due to unidentified local idiosyncrasies. Fishers tended to trust community actors (e.g., the leader or head of the fishing community) more than institutional actors (e.g., environmental agencies). When fishers were asked why they would choose specific replacement species in the event of a moratorium, they most often cited expected profitability and ease of capture as reasons. Fishers also tended to say that they would replace endangered species with species in the same and/or lower trophic categories. We suggest working toward stronger stakeholder engagement, given that an overall sense of trust in a community appears to be an important asset toward successful management. Higher levels of trust could promote more transparency in the decision-making process, which could facilitate information dissemination, awareness, and the need for compliance. The mixed methods approach used here could help predict responses to new and existing management policies and support adaptive fisheries management.