GLOBAL CHALLENGES IN RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
GCRF_00.indd i
10/3/2007 12:47:25 PM
GLOBAL CHALLENGES IN RECREATIONAL ...
102 downloads
1560 Views
3MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
GLOBAL CHALLENGES IN RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
GCRF_00.indd i
10/3/2007 12:47:25 PM
GLOBAL CHALLENGES IN RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
Edited by Øystein Aas
Co-editors
Robert Arlinghaus, Robert B. Ditton, David Policansky and Harold L. Schramm Jr.
GCRF_00.indd iii
10/3/2007 12:47:26 PM
© 2008 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd Blackwell Publishing editorial offices: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK Tel: +44 (0)1865 776868 Blackwell Publishing Professional, 2121 State Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50014-8300, USA Tel: +1 515 292 0140 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, 550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia Tel: +61 (0)3 8359 1011 The right of the Author to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The Publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. First published 2008 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd ISBN: 978-1-4051-5657-8 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Global challenges in recreational fisheries / edited by Øystein Aas. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN: 978-1-4051-5657-8 (alk. paper) 1. Fishery management. 2. Fishing. I. Aas, Øystein. SH328.G56 2008 333.95′69–dc22 A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library Set in 11/13 pt Times by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, India Printed and bound in Singapore by Markono Print Media Pte Ltd The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards. For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website: www.blackwellpublishing.com
GCRF_00.indd iv
10/3/2007 12:47:27 PM
Contents
List of contributors Acknowledgments
GCRF_00.indd v
ix xii
Chapter 1
Introduction Øystein Aas
1
Chapter 2
An international perspective on recreational fishing Chapter editor: Robert B. Ditton 2.1 Overview Robert B. Ditton 2.2 Overview of recreational fishing in Australia Dennis D. Reid 2.3 Current status and challenges facing recreational fishing in the People’s Republic of China Jianzhong Shen 2.4 Recreational fishing in Finland Anna-Liisa Toivonen 2.5 The social and economic significance of recreational fishing in Germany Robert Arlinghaus 2.6 Recreational fisheries in Lithuania: Putting Lithuania on the recreational fishing map in Europe Algirdas Domarkas and Eglė Radaitytė 2.7 Recreational fishing in Malaysia Zahaitun Mahani Zakariah 2.8 Recreational angling in the Netherlands: Participation, trends and management Toine W.P.M. Aarts 2.9 Recreational fishing in Sweden Torleif Eriksson 2.10 An overview of angling in the United States of America Gilbert C. Radonski and Andrew J. Loftus
5 5 13
18 21
25
30 34
39 43
47
10/3/2007 12:47:27 PM
vi
Contents
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Biological impacts of recreational fishing resulting from exploitation, stocking and introduction Wolf-Christian Lewin, Daryl Peter McPhee and Robert Arlinghaus Marine recreational fisheries management challenges and marine protected areas: Comparison between the Mediterranean and Australia Daryl Peter McPhee, Ana Gordoa and X. Illas European sea bass in the North Sea: Past, present and future status, use and management challenges Jonathan E. Colman, Mike G. Pawson, Johannes Holmen and Thrond O. Haugen Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management: Nordic examples Pekka Salmi, Erik Neuman and Tapio Hakaste
56
75
93
111
130
Chapter 8
Substitution in recreational fishing Brad Gentner and Stephen Sutton
Chapter 9
A bioeconomic analysis of different management regimes in recreational fisheries Jon Olaf Olaussen and Anders Skonhoft
170
Economic impact of angling in Scotland and Iceland Sveinn Agnarsson, Alan Radford and Geoff Riddington
188
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
GCRF_00.indd vi
Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach to recreational fisheries management: Emphasis on the importance of the human dimension Robert Arlinghaus and Ian G. Cowx
Trends and developments in catch and release Chapter editor: David Policansky 11.1 Overview David Policansky 11.2 Factors affecting C&R mortality of striped bass caught on natural bait in Chesapeake Bay Rudolph Lukacovic and James H. Uphoff Jr.
150
202 202
208
10/3/2007 12:47:27 PM
Contents
Potential effects of circle hooks on the US recreational Atlantic billfish fishery Jason Schratwieser 11.4 The Atlantic salmon C&R story Eva B. Thorstad, Tor F. Næsje, Guy W. Mawle and David Policansky 11.5 The challenge of ethical angling: The case of C&R and its relation to fish welfare Robert Arlinghaus
vii
11.3
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
GCRF_00.indd vii
Competitive fishing: Trends, Opportunities and challenges Chapter editor: Harold L. Schramm Jr. 12.1 Competitive fishing and its role in recreational fisheries management Harold L. Schramm Jr. and John C. Harrison 12.2 Socio-economic analysis of competitive fishing in Poland Arkadiusz Wołlos, Hanna Mioduszewska and Harold L. Schramm Jr. 12.3 Legislative treatment and current status of competitive fishing in Germany Thomas Meinelt, Robert Arlinghaus and K. Jendrusch 12.4 From the inside looking out: A tournament organization’s perspective on growing competitive fishing Charlie Evans
214 219
223
237
237
249
254
259
International fishing tourism: Past, present and future Trude Borch, Øystein Aas and David Policansky
268
Subsistence versus sport: Cultural Conflict on the Frontiers of Fishing Jonathan Lyman
292
Recruiting new anglers: Driving forces, constraints and examples of success Richard Wightman, Stephen Sutton, Bruce E. Matthews, Kirk Gillis, Jonathan Colman and Jan-Rune R. Samuelsen
303
10/3/2007 12:47:27 PM
viii
Contents
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Index
GCRF_00.indd viii
The role of non-government organizations in recreational fisheries management: Challenges, responsibilities and possibilities John C. Harrison and Jason Schratwieser
324
Recreational fisheries in the twenty-first century: Towards a code of conduct Ian G. Cowx and Robert Arlinghaus
338
Epilogue: Benchmarking global recreational fishing Øystein Aas and Harold L. Schramm Jr.
353
363
10/3/2007 12:47:27 PM
List of Contributors
Toine W.P.M. Aarts Sport Fishing Netherlands, Bilthoven, The Netherlands Øystein Aas Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway Sveinn Agnarsson, Institute of Economic Studies, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland Robert Arlinghaus, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Müggelseedamm, Berlin, Germany Trude Borch, Norut Social Science Research, Tromsø, Norway Jonathan E. Colman, Department of Biology, University of Oslo, Blindern, Oslo, Norway Ian G. Cowx, International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull, Hull, UK Robert B. Ditton, Texas A&M University, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, College Station, Texas, USA Algirdas Domarkas, The Union of Fisheries Specialists, Vilnius, Lithuania Dennis Dunbar Reid, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre, Cronulla, NSW, Australia Torleif Eriksson, Department of Aquaculture, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden Charlie Evans, FLW Outdoors, Benton, Kentucky, USA Brad Gentner, Gentner Consulting Group, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA Kirk Gillis, Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, USA Ana Gordoa, Spanish Research Council (CSIC), Blanes, Girona, Spain Tapio Hakaste, TE-centre of Häme, Tampere, Finland John C. Harrison, Recfish Australia (Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Industry Confederation Inc.), Grange, Queensland, Australia
GCRF_00.indd ix
10/3/2007 12:47:27 PM
x
Contributors
Thrond Haugen, Department of Biology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Johannes Holmen, Department of Biology, University of Oslo, Blindern, Oslo, Norway Kai Jendrusch, Felsberg, Germany Wolf-Christian Lewin, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Berlin, Germany Andrew J. Loftus, Andrew Loftus Consulting, Annapolis, Maryland, USA Rudolph Lukacovic, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service, Stevensville, Maryland, USA Jonathan Lyman, Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA Bruce E. Matthews, Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, USA Guy W. Mawle, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK Daryl Peter McPhee, School of Geography, Planning & Architecture, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia Thomas Meinelt, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Department of Inland Fisheries, Müggelseedamm, Berlin, Germany Tor F. Næsje, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway Erik Neuman, Skärgårdsutveckling AB, Mariehamn, Åland, Finland Jon Olaf Olaussen, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway Mike G. Pawson, CEFAS, Lowestoft Laboratory, Lowestoft, Suffolk, UK David Policansky, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council, Washington, DC, USA Eglė Radaitytė, Lithuanian State Pisciculture and Fisheries Research Centre, Head of EU Matters, International Relations and Science Section, Vilnius, Lithuania Alan Radford, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK Gilbert C. Radonski, Andrew Loftus Consulting, Cape Carteret, North Carolina, USA
GCRF_00.indd x
10/3/2007 12:47:27 PM
Contributors
xi
Pekka Salmi, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research InstituteSaimaa Fisheries Research and Aquaculture, Enonkoski, Finland Hal Schramm, U.S. Geological Survey, Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Mississippi, USA Jason Schratwieser, International Game Fish Association, Dania Beach, Florida, USA Jianzhong Shen, College of Fisheries, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, P.R.China Anders Skonhoft, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway Stephen Sutton, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia Eva B. Thorstad, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway Anna-Liisa Toivonen, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland James Uphoff Jr, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service, Stevensville, Maryland, USA Richard Peter Wightman, Environment Agency – England and Wales, Almondbury, Bristol, UK Zhen Zahaitun Mahani binti Zakariah, Maritime Institute of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
GCRF_00.indd xi
10/3/2007 12:47:27 PM
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank the following people and institutions for their support and inspiration in this endeavour: z
z z z z z z
Wiley-Blackwell for accepting this book for publishing and for their support and follow-up during the production process. A special thanks goes to the publisher, Nigel J. Balmforth, and to editorial assistant Kate Nuttall. The Norwegian Research Council for economic support to the book project. Robert Arlinghaus, Robert Ditton, David Policansky and Hal Schramm for their help as co-editors. Great job! All the authors who contributed to this volume, and who had to put up with my direct and sometimes strict and demanding replies. The numerous professionals who have helped in reviewing the various versions of the chapter drafts. The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, for which I work, for accepting my use of research time to compile and make this book. The administrative officer at NINA, Margrethe Tingstad, for her excellent help in editing and completing the manuscripts.
This book is partly a product based on the activities and networks established at the fourth World Recreational Fishing Conference held at Trondheim, Norway, in June 2005. All the sponsors, committee members and participants at that meeting have also helped in the making of this book. Thank you to all of you! Øystein Aas Professor, Senior Research Scientist Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Lillehammer/Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås/University of TromsØ, TromsØ Norway February 2007
GCRF_00.indd xii
10/3/2007 12:47:27 PM
Chapter 1
Introduction Øystein Aas
Admittedly many of the problems have been recognized, thought of, written about and even variously acted upon; but the fact essentially remains that there is no generally recognized body of integrated recreational fisheries management theory or understanding. A.L.W. Tuomi (1977)
Through the efforts of many workers, our knowledge and professional ability in recreational fisheries are steadily growing. Yet, many challenges remain. This book represents the third in a series published by Blackwell Scientific (now Wiley-Blackwell), focusing on multidisciplinary research and management challenges related to recreational fishing. These volumes (Hickley and Tompkins 1998; Pitcher and Hollingworth 2002; Aas 2007) are closely linked to a conference series that started with the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Committee’s conference in Dublin 1996, later named the first World Recreational Fishing Conference (WRFC). Since then, the conference has been arranged every third year. In 1999, the second WRFC was conducted in Vancouver, Canada. The third WRFC was held in 2002 in Darwin, Australia, and the fourth WRFC took place in Trondheim, Norway, in 2005. The fifth WRFC is scheduled for November 2008, under the leadership of the International Game Fishing Association (IGFA), in Dania Beach, Florida, USA. Indeed, we seem to have succeeded in making this a viable and lasting meeting place! There has been a steady increase in countries and stakeholder groups represented at the conference, and at the Trondheim conference, 250 participants from almost 30 countries and five continents attended, with representatives for management agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research institutions and the recreational fishing business. Yet the WRFC conference series has the obvious potential to reach much farther and attract many more people working with recreational fishing. It is my hope that the growing interest in the conference series will continue and especially that regions and groups that have been under-represented will attend to a larger degree. During the more than 10 years that have gone by since Dublin 1996, the term ‘globalization’ has acquired a practical and not just an academic meaning to 1
GCRF_01.indd 1
10/3/2007 10:14:12 AM
2
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
citizens and professionals, including our little community of recreational fisheries managers, researchers, businesspeople and NGO representatives. Where Hickley and Tompkins (1998) documented large national and regional differences in views and practices, we have moved forward to better insights, starting to be able to explain these differences (Aas 2002). However, there is still much to be learned and much cooperation to be developed. The main goal for this book is to provide an updated, thought-provoking textbook on major topical issues and challenges in recreational fishing management. Further, we want to add strength to the global network of professionals working with recreational fishing in different arenas and sub-sectors. Subsequently, the overall objective with the book is to contribute to sustainable recreational fishing management, both in developed and developing countries. The fourth WRFC focused on several topics and targeted all stakeholders in the recreational fishing sector, including researchers, managers, NGO representatives and businesses. This book reflects that diversity, as it contributes a variety of chapters, both in terms of content and approaches. The editorial panel and the authors have tried to avoid typical single-storied cases, and instead we have tried to pick out topics and issues that are of interest to many regions of the world, and several state-of-the art papers are included in the book. The authors are a mix of researchers, managers and NGO representatives, making the chapters a mix of typical research papers, essays and discussion papers. Our hope is that this will make the book more attractive to readers. All chapters have been refereed to international journal standards, revised and carefully edited, but the different types of papers that are being presented have, of course, been taken into account in the reviews.
Short overview Chapter 2 is a global outlook on recreational fishing, using reports from nine countries to illustrate and highlight important diversity in recreational fishing worldwide. Participation, economy, rights regimes and basic management frameworks are presented, showing huge diversity among countries and pointing to major challenges and opportunities. The application of ecosystem management to fishery management and a comprehensive overview of the biological impacts of angling are then to follow in Chapters 3 and 4, providing important basis for sustainable, proactive management of recreational fisheries. Then, we focus on some specific issues for management of recreational fishing in the marine environment. Multiple-use interests are often more prominent in marine than freshwater environments, and setting aside areas at sea for conservation is gradually becoming an issue, representing challenges as well as opportunities to recreational fishing. These are presented and discussed in Chapter 5 using
GCRF_01.indd 2
10/3/2007 10:14:12 AM
Introduction
3
Australia and the Mediterranean as examples. Climate change represents yet unknown challenges to society, and day-to-day recreational fishery management already faces challenges from changed distribution and productivity on several fish species. Management of the European sea bass in Northern Europe is an interesting case in this perspective, discussed in Chapter 6. The principle of subsidiarity influences fishery management as well as other sectors of natural resources management. Challenges associated with this are discussed in Chapter 7, using Sweden and Finland as cases. Chapters 8, 9 and 10 apply different aspects of economy to fishery management. The phenomenon of substitution has been used to explain consequences of management decisions by economists and social-psychologists. Here, the two disciplines are compared and important lessons for future research and management are identified. Bioeconomic models are among the more powerful tools to illustrate outcomes from decision making in fishery management. This is illustrated using an example from Norwegian Atlantic salmon fisheries in Chapter 9. The importance of recreational fishing for income and job creation is illustrated in Chapter 10, again building on cases from more than one country – here Scotland and Iceland are used. Chapters 11 and 12 are state-of-the-art compilations on catch-and-release and competitive fishing. An update and overview of these important and intriguing topics in recreational fishing is presented, major trends and diversity are discussed and new research findings are presented. Fishing tourism is the topic addressed in Chapter 13. Despite its being a major type of tourism in several areas in the northern and southern hemisphere, few efforts are made to place and analyse fishing tourism in relation to other similar categories of tourism. In Chapter 14, a thought-provoking essay addresses the meeting between native people and sport anglers, an issue of relevance in several of the most sought after fishing destinations on the globe. Chapter 15 presents novel experiences on how to recruit new anglers in the USA, Great Britain and Norway, hopefully to inspire other countries. NGOs represent major players, and their analysis of major challenges and opportunities in the years ahead are presented in Chapter 16. A global code of conduct for recreational fishing has been discussed at previous WRFC conferences. Major aspects of the development of such a code is presented and discussed in Chapter 17. The diversity and general approach of this book will hopefully make it relevant and of interest to recreational fishing professionals in all continents and in different institutions, organizations and businesses related to recreational fishing. We also hope that the approach will make the book highly applicable in graduate university courses in recreational fisheries management. Compiling and writing this book has been a challenging task for all involved. Such extra efforts always are. While acknowledging this and thanking all contributors, I also hope that it has been somewhat fun for us all.
GCRF_01.indd 3
10/3/2007 10:14:13 AM
4
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
References Aas, Ø. (2002) The next chapter: Multicultural and cross-disciplinary progress in evaluating recreational fisheries. In: T.J. Pitcher and C. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries. Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 252–263. Aas, Ø. (Ed) (2007) Global Challenges in Recreational Fisheries, Wiley-Blackwell. Oxford. Hickley, P. and Tompkins, H. (Eds) (1998) Recreational Fisheries. Social, Economic and Management Aspects. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Pitcher, T.J. and Hollingworth, C. (Eds) (2002) Recreational Fisheries. Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Tuomi, A.L.W. (1977) Fisheries Management Goals, Problems, and Options. Report and Technical Papers of the Second European Consultation on the Economic Evaluation of Sport and Commercial Fisheries. EIFAC Technical Paper 26.
GCRF_01.indd 4
10/3/2007 10:14:13 AM
Chapter 2
An international perspective on recreational fishing Chapter editor: Robert B. Ditton
Abstract Besides using ‘recreational fishing’ as a rubric for all non-commercial forms of fishing, it is difficult to generalize further about recreational fishing because of social and cultural differences. The socialization process is probably generalizable between countries, cultures and subcultures, but there is anecdotal evidence that the meaning of recreational fishing to people in various countries and cultures and even how the activity is practised differ frequently. There is much to be learnt about recreational fishing in its various forms. To begin to explore the extent and character of recreational fishing, authors in seven developed nations and two developing nations provided an overview of recreational fishing in their respective countries with attention to the following topics: number of anglers, participation rate, fishing frequency, annual non-durable expenditures for fishing, management institutions and fishing constraints. An assessment of similarities and differences was made with a special attention to social science research needs and management implications.
2.1
Overview
Robert B. Ditton Traditions and chronologies of angling development have varied by country and region of the world to the point where it is virtually impossible to define recreational fishing in any agreed-upon way. Every nation in the world with recreational fisheries has developed or will develop a definition of recreational fishing that is socially and culturally defined by participants in the activity, and recognized by those charged with fishery resource management in each region and country. In this regard, as we increase global communication, we must be careful not to apply our own values or research results to understanding recreational fishing in other countries, cultures or subcultures. If terms like ‘recreational fishing’ 5
GCRF_02.indd 5
10/3/2007 10:17:16 AM
6
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
or research results on angler behaviour and motivations in the United States, for example, are being discussed in an international context; they cannot and should not be generalized to other nations, cultures or subcultures. It may turn out that future social science research efforts reveal few significant differences in experience preferences between particular angler groups in the United States and elsewhere despite differences in preferred species, but that remains to be seen.
Objectives There are four objectives of this chapter. First, are there some fundamental generalizations we can make about recreational fishing and those who participate in it worldwide? Second, what do we know or think we know about social and cultural differences and similarities from the current human dimensions literature? Third, what are the differences and similarities among a purposive sample of nations in terms of selected descriptors of recreational fishing such as number of anglers, participation rate, fishing frequency, annual non-durable expenditures for fishing, primary management authority and fishing constraints? Fourth, where does all of this lead us in terms of having a greater understanding of recreational fishing as a discretionary time pursuit, social science research needs and management implications?
Social meanings of recreational fishing As we move from country to country, culture to culture and to various subcultures and ethnic groups, we find anecdotal evidence that the meaning of recreational fishing to people, how the activity is practised and even what the activity is called differ frequently. There are similarities as well. In most Western countries, recreational fishing is described and defined mainly from a white middleaged male perspective because this is the predominant group of participants and, as a result, the angler group that managers and scientists know best. Can and should we assume that majority perspectives on experience preferences, consumptive orientation, species preferences, satisfaction, and so on are representative of the angler population overall or population subgroups? The answer is clearly no if the goal of management is to serve the diversity of recreational fishing wants and needs. Similarly, there has been little to no attention to understanding gender differences in recreational fishing perhaps because, as Henderson notes, most researchers (and likely fishery managers) assumed that the male experience was representative of all participants (Henderson 1994). As with most other leisure pursuits, recreational fishing is a social activity that involves family, friends and various combinations thereof. In his early personal community hypothesis, Burch (1969) proposed that people shared various interests
GCRF_02.indd 6
10/3/2007 10:17:17 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
7
and activities with other people in their personal communities at home and work. Understanding social group composition helps us to understand the various social meanings individuals assign to their activities (Cheek and Burch 1976). Therefore, instead of some singular view of recreational fishing, going fishing with family is quite different in terms of experience preferences sought than going fishing with close friends from the neighbourhood or from work, or than fishing alone (Field and O’Leary 1973).
The socialization process The family social group plays a major role in why some young people participate in recreational fishing and others do not and how they become participants in their youth and continue later in life. Ultimately, these understandings help us understand why rates of fishing participation are high in some places and low in others. Young people go through a learning process and are socialized into fishing mainly on family vacations and holidays. Socialization is a psychological process by which individuals are initiated into the culture of an activity, and learn various aspects of that culture including the acquisition of the skills, knowledge, experience, equipment as well as the norms involved in fishing (Kelly 1990). While the socialization process is generalizable between countries, cultures and subcultures, there are likely to be significant differences in exactly what information is transmitted about fishing and how it is transmitted. These are the very differences that prevent us from making many generalizations about recreational fishing and how it is practised worldwide. Individuals can be socialized into fishing as youngsters through their childhood experiences or as adults. Furthermore, early childhood experiences can influence leisure choices including fishing styles, and the extent of involvement as an adult, as demonstrated by Siemer et al. (1989). Socialization among minority group members can take place later in childhood because family members have had less exposure to recreational fishing and are less likely to participate. Their learning process depends on friends at school and co-workers. For example, African American males in the United States of America start fishing in freshwater between the ages of 17 and 22 on average. This means that they start fishing later in life and have fewer years of fishing on average than their Anglo counterparts (Hunt and Ditton 2002). We are just now beginning to understand the socialization process among seniors and women because of their expressed demand for recreational fishing.
The role of culture in understanding recreational fishing Cultural patterns contribute to what people think about fishing and, more specifically, how they participate in the activity. Culture embodies a system of
GCRF_02.indd 7
10/3/2007 10:17:17 AM
8
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
shared beliefs, values, customs and behaviours that members of society use to cope with their world and with one another (Bates and Plog 1990). Right from birth, members of various cultural groups begin learning their patterns of behaviour and ways of thinking about things through interaction, observation and imitation (Samovar et al. 1998). Individuals develop a basic definition of self and groups through this interaction process as well as specific perceptions of reality (Kelly 1990). These perceptions are based on belief and value systems that are learnt and perpetuated from generation to generation through continued shared experiences (Bates and Plog 1990; Samovar et al. 1998). This socialization process differs as cultures differ in terms of their social, perceptual and behavioural patterns. Differing cultures help explain important differences regarding fishing behaviours, practices and attitudes among various subpopulations of anglers in the United States and among anglers in other places in the world. For example, catch-and-release fishing is an appropriate fishing behaviour for some anglers who have learnt it from those who mentored them in fishing but not for others who have learnt something different. In the United States, catch-and-release fishing is widely promoted as a means to reduce pressure on recreational fishery resources but marketing messages are not likely to take precedence over the generational learning as to what constitutes recreational fishing and which are appropriate practises. For some anglers, catch and release is what constitutes ethical angling; for others, it is a way to keep on fishing while harvesting the largest fish possible. It is a concept that makes little sense to African and Hispanic American anglers in the United States, for example, who have more diverse species preferences and for whom retention and eating fish is an important part of the fishing experience (Hunt and Ditton 2002). It is a well-accepted norm of participation among billfish anglers (Ditton and Stoll 2003), but for anglers in other cultures, based on their beliefs and values, it is seen as ‘playing with the fish’ and a totally inappropriate form of fishing based on the concepts of fishing they learnt previously (Lyman 2002; see also Policansky et al. Chapter 11, this volume). Important conflicts can occur within the angling community when angler segments with different understandings of fishing, attitudes and behaviour come together (Arlinghaus 2005). For example, in the United Kingdom, there is the potential for conflict between Polish immigrants and UK residents in terms of the disposition of the catch of carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Polish immigrants like to eat the carp, whereas the value of the carp for UK coarse anglers is for catch-and-release fishing. Overall, it is difficult to generalize about fishing, or any leisure activity for that matter, because activities vary by social and cultural context. Thus, the term ‘recreational fishing’ is nothing more than a label or rubric of convenience for including all non-commercial forms of fishing, but there is much to be learnt from what constitutes recreational fishing in its various forms. The socialization process is probably the common denominator present in recreational fishing
GCRF_02.indd 8
10/3/2007 10:17:17 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
9
everywhere but with differences as to who provides the mentorship, when and where socialization takes place and for how long a period of time.
International overview of recreational fishing To better understand the extent and character of recreational fishing in various countries, several authors were asked to provide an overview of recreational fishing in their respective countries with attention to the following topics, to the extent that data were available: z z z z z z z
description of freshwater and saltwater fishery resources extent of participation in recreational fishing (number of anglers and their effort and rate of participation) catch social and economic significance of recreational fisheries institutional arrangements constraints to recreational fishing future outlook for fishing.
Seven developed countries were selected for analysis purposes: Australia, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, Sweden and the United States. The two developing countries selected were China and Malaysia. Looking at similarities and differences in terms of selected descriptors of recreational fishing, participation (Table 2.1) was considered a useful way to illustrate the extent of diversity involved in recreational fishing.
Developed nations For the seven developed nations, there was diversity in recreational fishing participation rates (percentage of the population that participated) ranging from a high of 55% in Lithuania to a low of 4.7% in Germany; three countries had participation rates of 30% or higher (Sweden, Finland and Lithuania; Table 2.1). Participation rates in recreational fishing are of interest when considered with population growth. If the number of anglers remains about the same while the population increases, this usually leads to a decline in rate of fishing participation. This is happening in the United States, where the rate of fishing participation has declined from 19% (1991) to 17% (1996) to 16% (2001) and this trend has been greeted by various efforts to recruit new participants to recreational fishing (see Wightman et al. Chapter 15, this volume). In developed nations, where the population is aging, where there are more people living in metropolitan areas and increases in subpopulation groups with low rates of fishing participation, this could be an issue as well.
GCRF_02.indd 9
10/3/2007 10:17:17 AM
2006 Population
Number of anglers
Participation Fishing frequency Expenditures/year Primary management rate (%) (days/year) (non-durable goods) responsibility €161
Licence for sampling purposes
Two states have licences
6
State level
7a
20
No licence Permits to fish in private waters
3.4 million
Private or collective owned
Various licences
90 milliona
Private landowner
20 million
€379
€176
1300 million
31
19
Australia
4.7
35–40
China
3.3 milliona
1.9 million
National and State licence. Permits to use private waters
82 millionb
No licence
5.2 million
No licence
Finland
Board of Angling Development (government and non-government members)
Germany
National level
16
€326
€111
State level
Privately owned fishing rights holders
Water boards and fishing clubs
State licences
Various licences
Sport fishing Netherlands licence
€40.5
Undetermined Undetermined
1.5 milliona
11
16
55
24.4 millionb
1.78 million
3.6 millionb
Malaysia 16.5 millionb
33
Lithuania
Netherlands
3 million
212.3 million
10
9 millionb
USA
Estimated. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
34.1 million
Sweden
Privately owned fishing rights holders
Nation
Table 2.1 Descriptors of recreational fishing for selected nations.
a b
GCRF_02.indd 10 10/3/2007 10:17:17 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
11
In terms of annual fishing frequency, Germany had the highest number of days per year (31). Three nations clustered between 16 and 19 days per year: Finland (19), Sweden (16) and the United States (16). Likewise, in terms of expenditures per year for trip-related expenditures per year, we see a clustering of expenditures by Germany (€379) and the United States (€326), and another clustering by Australia (€161), Finland (€176) and Sweden (€111). It was surprising to see as much clustering here because we did not know whether responses were only for trip-related non-durable expenses (which were sought) or included durable supplies and equipment as well. Sweden and Finland appeared to have similar licensing arrangements with waters and fishing rights thereto owned by riparian land owners with some notable exceptions made for non-owners. With the fisheries governance systems in Finland and Sweden, the waters are privately owned but generally collectively managed. Most of the inland waters are under private ownership along with the possession of land. The decision maker is commonly a collective, a shareholders’ association, which jointly controls the interests of individual owners in fishery matters and often takes care of fish stocking operations, for instance. Although the water owners still have basic use and management rights in Finnish fisheries, several use rights of non-owners have recently been protected by law, such as simple angling with hook and line and ice fishing. The latest reform in Finland was to separate rod-fishing licensing from the landowners’ sole right. In Sweden, decisions by the parliament have opened the way for free recreational fishing along the Swedish coast and in the four largest lakes. These waters and the recreational fishing on crown land in the mountain area are managed by state government agencies. Fisheries management responsibilities lie with state government fisheries agencies in the two youngest nations reviewed (Australia and the United States), and generally with some mix of government involvement and private landowners or fishing rights holders and the private organizations that represent them in the five remaining older nations (Finland, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden). Whether or not selected nations have recreational fishing licences runs the gamut from all states having required licences with consistent information collected therein (United States) to some states having licences (Australia) to the recent case where licences are issued by a private sector organization (Sport Fishing Netherlands) to situations where waters and/or fishing rights are privately owned and a governmental fishing licence is required but not mandatory in all situations (Finland, Germany, Sweden) to the case where there is no universal licence but permits are required for particular fisheries (Lithuania).
Developing nations Developing nations are typically characterized by an emerging attention to natural resource protection and sustainable management. China and Malaysia have
GCRF_02.indd 11
10/3/2007 10:17:17 AM
12
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
a diversity of fishery resources but due to a lack of management, many have become overfished or otherwise depleted in certain locales. When one considers the enormity of the Chinese population, for example, and the estimated recreational fishing participation rate (percentage that participate) of 7%, the management challenge comes into focus. There are opportunities as well. Instead of trying to restore and manage common-property native fisheries, developing nations such as China have encouraged private sector fisheries, which yield opportunities for both aquaculture and recreational fishing on a fee basis. The fee-fishing phenomenon in China provides some evidence that Chinese anglers derive a variety of non-catch-related benefits (i.e. social, psychological and environmental) from their fee-fishing activity since they are paying above fish market prices to catch their fish. It is a positive sign that Malaysia plans to implement a licence for recreational fishing in offshore waters that will provide support for its pelagic fisheries, perhaps because of their importance to the tourism economy. Currently, there are no universal recreational fishing licences in China and Malaysia that would provide a source of funding support for fisheries management or a complete census of anglers for follow-up research purposes. In conclusion, what do we know? First, from the overviews of the nine countries, we find some notable and interesting differences in recreational fishing worldwide in terms of the number of anglers, annual fishing frequency and expenditures, management infrastructure, constraints to fishing and whether or not they have a fishing licence for revenue generation and sampling purposes. There are some notable similarities among the selected countries using the same variables. Second, if we are to understand and appreciate the cultural differences in recreational fishing; how and when anglers were socialized into recreational fishing; how it is practised in each country, culture and subculture; its various forms and products; and what fishing means to various groups of participants; then these understandings are likely to be particular to countries, cultures and subcultures and cannot be generalized from understandings elsewhere. Third, as social science understandings of recreational fishing in most countries, cultures and subcultures are limited, there is a need for an international partnership of effort to encourage more comparative research efforts in this area. Fourth, if it is recognized that both social and biological science understandings are essential for effective fishery management, then anything less will have profound implications for the quality of recreational fishing experiences provided. Fifth, some of the countries we reviewed, where fishing is a more ubiquitous activity, appear to make effective use of population-level surveys to understand anglers and their fishing behaviour. However, those countries with licensing programmes in place appear to have a greater opportunity to randomly sample angler populations and subpopulations and achieve the understandings needed in a more cost-effective way to meet angler wants and needs. They also have the opportunity for their anglers help support the costs of fisheries management.
GCRF_02.indd 12
10/3/2007 10:17:17 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
2.2
13
Overview of recreational fishing in Australia
Dennis Reid Recreational fishing in Australia may be defined (FAO 1999) as ‘any fishing for which the primary motive is leisure rather than profit, the provision of food or the conduct of scientific research, and which may not involve the sale, barter or trade of part or all of the catch’. This definition excludes subsistence fishing activities of indigenous Australians living in traditional indigenous communities. With a population of 20 million, Australia comprises six states and two territories. A large proportion of the population (83%) lives within 50 km of the coast and the climate ranges from tropical to cool temperate. Australia’s Fisheries Zone is the third largest in the world, but the nation ranks only fifty-third in terms of world fish production. The marine waters are of relatively low productivity, partly reflecting the generally narrow continental shelf. Commercial fisheries produce 270,000 tons annually (value US$1.8 billion), while exports of seafood are 60,000 tons and imports 190,000 tons. Recreational fisheries harvest approximately 27,000 tons of finfish annually (Henry and Lyle 2003).
Fisher numbers and effort An estimated 3.4 million recreational fishers fish at least once per year, with total effort of 21 million fisher days (Henry and Lyle 2003). The participation rate of the population (more than 4 years of age, fished at least once per year) is 20% nationally, with participation rates in individual states varying from 13% to 32% (Table 2.2). The participation rate of residents of coastal cities is typically half to two-thirds that of non-urban areas close to the coast. Fishing by international tourists is relatively minor, with 4% of the visitors fishing during their trip. Most tourist fishers are from the United Kingdom, Japan, the United States and New Zealand. Males participate in fishing at about twice the rate of females (26% nationally for males, 12% for females), and the highest participation is by children 5 to 15 years of age. Similar rates apply to the groups from 16 to 60 years, but decline for the over 60 age groups. Approximately 80% of the total fishing effort is expended in marine and estuarine waters, with 20% in freshwater rivers and lakes. The more populous states of New South Wales and Queensland account for more than one-half of the national recreational fishing effort. The average effort per fisher is approximately 6 days per year, with 85% of fishers spending less than 10 days fishing per year.
Species caught by recreational fishers Approximately 4200 fish species, including 300 freshwater species, have been described in Australia, with 90% of these being endemic species. Recreational
GCRF_02.indd 13
10/3/2007 10:17:17 AM
GCRF_02.indd 14
10/3/2007 10:17:17 AM
6.7 5.8 17 999
Total population (million)
Population (>4 years)
Participation rate %
Number of fishers (000s)
NSW
550
13
4.3
4.9
Victoria
785
25
3.2
3.8
Queensland
479
29
1.7
2.0
Western Australia
328
24
1.4
1.5
South Australia
Table 2.2 Population, participation rate in fishing and number of fishers, by state/territory.
125
29
0.4
0.5
Tasmania
44
32
0.1
0.2
Northern territory
19
19
0.3
0.3
Australia capital territory
3352
20
17.2
20
Total Australia
International perspective on recreational fishing
15
Table 2.3 Top ten species by weight of total harvest. Common name
Family
Weight (tonnes)
Number (millions)
Flathead
Platycephalidae
2,336
7.4
Whiting
Sillaginidae
2,098
11.8
Mackerels
Scombridae
1,789
0.5
Bream
Sparidae
1,706
4.8
European carp
Cyprinidae
1,474
2.1
Pink snapper
Sparidae
1,422
1.3
Tunas/bonito
Scombridae
1,328
0.2
Australian salmon
Arripidae
1,113
1.7
Emperors
Lutjanidae
1,036
0.7
Red emperor
Lethrinidae
984
0.2
Other finfish
11,800
29.7
Total finfish
27,000
60.4
fishers harvest about 500 fish species, with the top 10 species comprising 57% of the total weight (27,000 tons) of all harvested fish (Table 2.3). Recreational fishers also harvest approximately 60 non-fish taxa, mainly crustaceans (prawns, freshwater crayfish, rock lobster, crabs and yabbies) and molluscs (squid, octopus, abalone, mussels, scallops and cockles). The overall release rate of fish is 44% and varies greatly by species. Freshwater native fish have suffered a long-term decline, mainly as a consequence of habitat degradation, commercial and recreational fishing, and prolonged and severe droughts. While native freshwater species are highly regarded by recreational fishers, the greater abundance of introduced species such as European carp, redfin perch and trout has led to the predominance of introduced species in the freshwater recreational harvest. While European carp ranks as the greatest harvest weight of the freshwater species, it has been listed as a noxious species in the eastern states and it is illegal to return caught carp to the water.
Fishing methods In terms of number of fishing trips, line-fishing accounts for 85% of the trips for all methods, with fishing by nets, traps, spear, hand collection of lobster and abalone accounting for the remaining 15%. Line-fishing includes the use of bait or lures, with advances in technology leading to a greater use of lures in the past decade. Fishing from boats accounts for 42% of all fishing trips. Net-fishing employs gill-nets, seine-nets and cast-nets for finfish, tangle-nets for crabs, and drag-nets, small scoop-nets and push-nets for crustaceans. Net-fishing for crustaceans occurs in estuaries and freshwater impoundments and rivers. The use of
GCRF_02.indd 15
10/3/2007 10:17:17 AM
16
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
traps is limited to the harvesting of rock lobster and freshwater yabbies. Underwater harvesting involves spear fishing for finfish and hand collection of rock lobster and abalone.
Economic and social aspects Although the participation rate in fishing in any one year is currently about 20%, the population who have ever fished is about 75%, with about one-quarter of fishers dropping in or out of fishing in any single year. An increased diversity of recreational activities over the past two decades has arguably reduced the participation in recreational fishing by younger people. Estimated directly attributable fishing expenditures in 2000–2001 by recreational fishers were AU$1.8 billion, or the equivalent of AU$540/angler-year. Expenditure on boats and trailers was AU$940 million, which was the largest individual expense for fishers. Associated travel amounted to AU$395 million and expenditure on fishing gear AU$182 million. A total of 511,000 boats with a capital value of AU$3.3 billion were used for recreational fishing in 2000–2001. The primary motivation factors associated with recreational fishing are for relaxation (37%), sport (18%), being with friends or family (15%) and enjoying the outdoors (13%). Only 8% of the fishers considered catching fish for food as the primary motivation factor.
Major institutional arrangements affecting recreational fishing The administrative powers over recreational fishing are the responsibility of the individual states and territory governments. Two states (New South Wales and Victoria) have a general fishing licence that covers fishing for any freshwater and saltwater finfish, crustaceans and molluscs. In three other states (Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia), a licence is required for certain highvalue species, such as abalone and rock lobster, and for certain fishing methods such as traps and nets. All states have catch controls (comprising bag limits and minimum and maximum sizes) and effort controls (closed seasons and areas, number of rods per fisher, number of nets or traps, allowed baits, etc.).
Major constraints on recreational fishing The profile of recreational fishing will change significantly with the aging of the Australian population over the next four decades. There is a projected 250% increase from 2005 to 2050 for the number of persons over 65, compared with 9% for those under 65. Persons over 65 currently have half the participation rate
GCRF_02.indd 16
10/3/2007 10:17:18 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
17
in fishing of those under 65 years of age; so if we assume the current participation rates by age group, the projected number of fishers will increase by only 10% while the total population is projected to increase by 25%. The changing demographics could also have significant impacts on the general profile of recreational fishing. For example, dive fisheries for rock lobster predominantly involve younger fishers. In 40 years, will the current 30-year-old divers still participate in the rock lobster fishery, but use traps instead of diving, or will they drop out of the fishery? Will there be a change in the boat/shore composition of fishers? Many such questions arise from the demographic changes which will occur in the coming decades. z
z
z
z
Effects of changing climate: Australia is currently suffering severe drought over much of the country. The largest river system has the lowest inflows ever recorded. Scientists have forecast increasing temperatures, greater frequency of severe weather events and rising sea levels. These effects will have impact on recreational fishing by direct effects on the distribution of fish, the abundance of particular species, species diversity and by climatic effects on fishers and their environment. Establishment of no-fishing areas: This is an important topic for recreational fishing in a number of states. Governments have to balance the conflicting demands of conservationists, recreational fishers, commercial fishers and the general public. Environmental effects of infrastructure development for an increasing population: The development of coastal land for housing and the environmental consequences of increased energy demands could impact recreational fishing through direct impacts on the resource and restriction on access currently available. Future competition between native and introduced species.
Outlook for recreational fishing Recreational fishing through charter operations and fishing guides has grown rapidly over the past decade, and this seems set to continue. These operations range from luxury game-fish charters to freshwater fly-fishing trips and lowcost estuary sightseeing trips. The enhancement of recreational fishing opportunities has gained increased interest and funding over the past decade. Government and community agencies have been very active in the stocking of estuaries and rivers, while there is strong funding support for research and monitoring of fish aggregating devices (FADs) in coastal waters and artificial reefs in estuaries. The growth of educational programmes has been an important recent development. These involve agencies working closely with community volunteers to run
GCRF_02.indd 17
10/3/2007 10:17:18 AM
18
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
fishing clinics, instructional talks to schools and the general promotion of sustainable fishing.
2.3
Current status and challenges facing recreational fishing in the Peoples Republic of China
Jianzhong Shen There are several reasons why there is great potential for recreational fisheries development in China. First and foremost, China is the largest country in the world with a population of over 1300 million. According to the China Angling Association, there are an estimated 90 million anglers or about 7% of the overall population. In China, there is no general angling licence and the exact number of anglers is unknown. China also has a vast area of inland water, coastline and islands. Its inland waters cover 17,160,000 ha, accounting for 1.8% of the total land area of China. Lakes account for 42% of the total inland waters and there are about 85,000 reservoirs with a total area of 20,050,000 ha. China has more than 18,000 km of continental coastline and 7300 islands with 14,000 km of shoreline. The meandering shoreline along the mainland includes many bays that provide habitat for reproduction and fish growth (Lin and Hong 2005). Also, China has about 800 native freshwater fish species and more than 3000 marine fish species, many of which are popular target species for anglers. In addition, China has a welldeveloped aquaculture industry with the highest yield in the world and plenty of opportunities for recreational fee fishing. Although China is a developing country, it is developing rapidly. With an increase in personal income and more free time, people want to spend money on recreational activities to enhance their quality of life. Also, angling in China is a traditional activity that dates back to the eleventh century bc or even earlier. It is one of the most popular recreational activities because people believe that it will be beneficial in tempering their will and patience, getting close to nature, enjoying the fresh air and natural sights, sharing the happiness of catching fish and challenging fishing records and relaxing from the stress of overwork. For most, it is a way to get fish as food, and for a few, it is a way of earning their livelihood while enjoying the pleasure of fishing.
Angling modes Angling in open public waters, such as large rivers, lakes and reservoirs, is either forbidden or neglected with no charge required due to the lack of fisheries management. Not surprisingly, these waters have low fish catches.
GCRF_02.indd 18
10/3/2007 10:17:18 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
19
Therefore, angling in China involves mostly fee fishing. Most angling occurs in private or collective-operated water bodies, such as ponds, tanks, semi-open middle-sized lakes or reservoirs stocked with farmed commercial-sized fish or artificial-breeding fish larvae or juveniles. Typically, anglers must buy a fishing permit. In general, there are two main types of fishing. One is to pay for the catch according to a defined price per unit of weight depending on fish species and services provided. This type of angling usually occurs in ponds and tanks where fish density is high and they are easy to catch. The extent to which the price is higher than the commercial market fish price depends on the extent of facilities and services afforded. The other type of angling is to buy a fishing permit for the day, month or year. This type of angling occurs usually in semiopen large- or middle-sized lakes and reservoirs stocked with fish. The price of the permit depends on the potential quantity of the catch and extent of fishing limitations. If anglers expect to catch more fish with no limitations on species caught, they will pay more for a permit. In China, most anglers, with few exceptions, use natural baits or artificial feeds. A variety of fishing competitions or related activities (e.g. fishing festivals) play an increasingly important role in the development of recreational fishing in China. Previously, fishing competitions were organized by the Chinese Angling Association and co-sponsored with fishing-related corporations, fishing clubs or large fish farms. Recently, local governments, other authorities, professional fishing clubs and organizations, and enterprises such as fishing gear manufacturers and baits factories have begun to sponsor fishing tournaments. Local government and authorities seek to promote commerce and trade, as well as to stimulate industrial development and the local economy, by sponsoring national or international fishing tournament events. Sea-fishing clubs have been formed in coastal cities to help promote recreational sea fishing in these locations. Accordingly, there are an increasing number of fishing competitions each year sponsored by a variety of organizations. Also, angling as a competitive event in the National Workers’ Games and the National Peasants’ Games further encourages the development of recreational fishing.
Target fishing species Because fishing usually occurs in farm ponds, tanks or stocked lakes and reservoirs, there is little use of natural species. Fish species differ by region, depending on the economic conditions and available aquatic resources. In relatively well-developed coastal regions, target species include fish, shrimp, frogs, turtles and tortoises. In comparison, soft-shell turtles (e.g. Trionyx sinensis) and tortoises, or piscivorous fish, for example, mandarin fish (Siniperca chuatsi), are high-valued species sought by high-income anglers. For most anglers, however, cyprinids, such as gold fish (Carassius auratus), grass carp (Ctenopharynogodon idellus),
GCRF_02.indd 19
10/3/2007 10:17:18 AM
20
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus), black bream (Megalobrama amblycephala) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio) are the major freshwater target species. Gold fish is the most common and popular species targeted. These species are herbivorous or omnivorous, and are commonly farmed for food. Besides carnivorous fish [such as yellow catfish (Pelteobargrus fulvidraco), snakehead (Channa argus or Channa maculates), top-mouth culter (Erythroculter ilishaeformis) or Mongolian culter (E. mongolicus)], some introduced carnivorous species [such as large mouth bass (Micropterus salmonides) and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)] are important secondary target species. In marine waters, popular target fishing species include large yellow croaker (Psedosciaena crocea), small yellow croaker (P. polyactis), yellow drum (Nibea albiflora), genuine porgy (Pagrosmus major), red porgy (Pagrus pagrus), black porgy (Sparus macrocephalus), Japanese sea perch (Lateolabrax japonicus), rockfish (Sebastes schlegeli) and grouper (e.g. Epinephelus maculatus).
Economic significance of recreational fishing Development of recreational fishing opportunities is an alternative way to increase profits by transferring farmed fish into angling products where prices are higher than the market price for fish. According to some surveys, the profit from recreational fishing enterprises is about 4–5 times that of farming only (Gao 2001). Second, when commercial fishermen were shifted into recreational fishing businesses, their incomes increased and overharvest was reduced. Third, with rapid development of recreational fishing, many new fishing gear manufacturing plants have been built, and now China is the largest producer of fishing gear and export country in the world. Furthermore, it is widely recognized that recreational fishing development drives service businesses such as hotels, inns, cafés, restaurants and so on.
Status of recreational fishing While recreational fishing is encouraged by national policy and supported by local government and fisheries agencies, the development of recreational fishing in China is uneven nationwide. The extent of fisheries development varies by geographic location, level of economic development and abundance and quality of fisheries resources. In several coastal provinces, for example, recreational fishing is relatively well developed because of their economic and resource advantages. Not surprisingly, urban and suburban areas have greater numbers of anglers and fishing-related expenditures than small cities and rural places.
GCRF_02.indd 20
10/3/2007 10:17:18 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
21
Challenges to the development of recreational fishing Although China has experienced rapid growth in recreational fishing, future development faces problems. First, recreational fishing enterprises are run mainly by households or small collectives and thus lack the capital needed to achieve their potential. Second, the fish targeted by anglers in China are mainly limited to domesticated or farmed omnivorous and herbivorous fishes. Few predatory or naturally bred fishes are available for fishing. Third, owing to the lack of management and poor quality fishery resources, fishing opportunities, as a result, are localized in ponds, tanks or stocked lakes, reservoirs, and rarely in the open waters. Fourth, anglers generally use artificial feed, with few alternatives, as bait for sport fishing. Further research is necessary to learn how to enlarge the scale of fishing opportunities and improve fishing conditions. In particular, we need to focus on (1) developing opportunities for high-value predatory species; (2) new fishing grounds, particularly in open waters; (3) new ways to fish, for example, fly fishing and (4) ways to attract more people to fishing while conserving and protecting the fish biodiversity. In particular, research is needed in policy and regulations, management measures and fishing techniques to keep fishing healthy and sustainable. Moreover, most anglers are male and mainly middle-aged or older (based on unpublished data available with the author). Therefore, for sustainable recreational fisheries development, we need a better understanding of this problem and need to take effective measures to attract more young people (males and females) into angling.
2.4
Recreational fishing in Finland
Anna-Liisa Toivonen Recreational fishing varies with the seasons of the year in Finland. There are many choices for autumn, winter and spring although summer is the high season because many different types of gear can be used. Most target species spawn in the spring but there are also autumn and even winter spawners. The behaviour of the target species also depends on the spawning of their prey. As a consequence, target species tend to be typical of the season. The choice of fishing gear is limited during the winter but fishing waters become much more reachable when there is ice. Gill-net fishing and ice jigging are typical fishing methods during the winter. Another seasonal specialty is catching crayfish, Astacus astacus L. and Pacifastacus leniusculus Dana, in August with a trap and bait.
GCRF_02.indd 21
10/3/2007 10:17:18 AM
22
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Number of anglers Fishing participation has always been reasonably high in Finland (Moilanen 2001; FGFRI 2002, 2004, 2005). While the trend is slightly decreasing, about 35–40% of the population fish during their free time at least once a year. The latest statistics report that there were 1.9 million recreational fishers among the population of 5.2 million Finns in 2004. Depending on ice conditions, more than one-half million fishers go ice fishing annually. Fishing is not a male-dominant nature-based recreational activity, as about 40% of all fishers are women and more than 25% are children, that is, under 18 years of age. Participation is highest, 50%, in the age group of 10–17. Families often spend holidays in summer cottages by the lakes and the sea. This is a natural way of socializing both women and children to fishing, and this explains the high rate of participation of these groups (Salmi et al. 2006). Simple angling with hook and line is the most common fishing method in Finland with more than 7 million fishing days a year (FGFRI 2005). Gill-nets, wire traps and spinning rods are used more than 6 million fishing days each. The next most common are the ice-fishing jig and trolling gear, with nearly 5 million and more than 3 million fishing days annually, respectively. The fly-fishing rod is used in one-half million fishing days even though fly-fishing opportunities are scarce compared with neighbouring Sweden and Norway.
Fishing methods A characteristic feature of the Finnish recreational fishery is the relatively wide use of gill-nets compared with other countries. The tradition is connected to the summer cottage culture that has prolonged the tradition from when it was subsistence fishery to the present and where the skills of gill-netting have been passed on to current generations. In recent years, however, the trend has been towards active fishing methods using rods and away from the use of passive and more efficient gears such as gill-nets and wire traps. Catches of recreational fishers have accordingly decreased in recent years. One-half of the catch is caught with passive methods using gill-nets and wire traps. Hooks and lines, ice-fishing jigs, spinning rods and trolling gear are all equally efficient in that their share of the total catch is about 10% each. The level of catch is presently about 38 million kg/year and its value is €46 million (in commercial fishers’ prices excluding VAT). More than 80% of the catch is from lakes and rivers, and less than 20% is from the sea. In comparison, the commercial catch (excluding Baltic herring, Clupea harengus membras L.) from the sea is around 20 million kg and the value is close to €17 million (excluding VAT).
GCRF_02.indd 22
10/3/2007 10:17:18 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
23
Recreational catch By definition, the recreational catch is not to be sold, but it can sometimes be bartered. It is consumed, however. One-half of the catch is perch ( Perca fluviatilis L.) and pike (Esox lucius L.) about quarter each (Figure 2.1), and the other half consists of roach, (Rutilus rutilus L.), vendace (Coregonus albula L.), bream (Abramis brama L.), pike-perch (Sander lucioperca L.) and whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus L.), to name the most common. The share of trout (Salmo trutta L.) and salmon (Salmo salar L.) is marginal, only 2% of the catch.
Economic significance Economic value of recreational fisheries was measured in the Nordic countries (Toivonen et al. 2004) in terms of consumer surplus. The monetary values date from 1999 and are obsolete as such. The aggregate running expenditure of recreational fishers excluding all long-lasting items and including only the age group of 18–69-year-old fishers was about one per mille (‰) of the gross national income (GNI) in Finland, Norway and Sweden, and somewhat less in Denmark. Employment factors were relatively close to those of private consumption but higher than that only in Denmark. Most inhabitants in Finland live in big cities in the southern parts of the country. Even though fishing is relatively more common among country dwellers than city people, the large majority of fishers still come from the cities. Fishing activity takes place all over the countryside 35 30
Percentage
25 20 15 10 5 0 1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Perch
Pike
Roach
Bream
Pikeperch
Whitefish
2002
2004 Vendace
Figure 2.1 Proportion of species in catch. Perch and pike together constitute half of the catch.
GCRF_02.indd 23
10/3/2007 10:17:18 AM
24
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Number of residing fishers
Number of fishers fishing in the regions annually
0–9999
0–9999
10,000–19,999
10,000–19,999
20,000–29,999
20,000–29,999
30,000–180,000
30,000–180,000
Figure 2.2 Finland is divided into 226 fisheries regions. The map on the left shows where the fishers live, and the map on the right shows where the fishers go fishing. One fisher fishes in 1.5 fisheries regions on average.
(Figure 2.2) close to the attractive fishing waters. Again, this means the economic activity created by the fishers is often directed to regions where there are less job opportunities than in the cities. Fishing is thus an activity that helps keep the countryside alive.
Major institutional arrangements According to the Fisheries Law (286/82) and Fisheries Act (886/82), the right to fish belongs to the landowner who can sell fishing licences. To enhance the use rights of the non-owners, simple angling with rod and line became ‘everyman’s right’ in 1993. Similarly, in 1982, ice fishing was first allowed in any county in Finland for a special licence fee, and eventually became ‘everyman’s right’ in 1996. Starting in 1997, the right to fish with a spinning rod was separated from the landowners’ licence system. Provincial lure-fishing fee licences (€27 in 2007) can now be bought regardless of the landowner. Waterways with salmon, brown trout or whitefish populations are special cases. Gill-net fishing requires a licence from the landowner. All 18–64-year olds who fish must pay a management fee (€20 in 2007) to the state if they conduct other forms of fishing than angling or ice fishing. For household and recreational fishing outside private waters in the sea, only the management fee is needed. In Åland Islands non-residents are required to secure a licence from the landowner for any fishing. The governance of the fishing waters is somewhat complicated in Finland (Salmi and Muje 2001). Even if the waters are private, there is often a shareholders’ association to take care of the local decision making. Fisheries regions
GCRF_02.indd 24
10/3/2007 10:17:19 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
25
form a wider intermediate institutional frame both in terms of water areas and interest groups involved. State governance is under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and their district organization.
Future outlook The future of fisheries in general, in light of global trends, was discussed by Laitinen et al. (2005). Although recreational fishing was not dealt with directly, one of the resulting four alternatives was a tourism-oriented fishery scenario where the demand for fishing tourism services grows significantly. At present, fishing tourism is an emerging industry that seems to have potential but still lacks established practices and any official status. Recreational fishing is among the top ten of all outdoor activities in Finland (Sievänen 2001) in terms of participation. With statistical evidence, few access barriers, a strong supply of opportunities and the tradition of spending leisure time in cottages, there is good reason to believe that participation in recreational fishing will remain high.
2.5 The social and economic significance of recreational fishing in Germany Robert Arlinghaus Recreational fishing in Germany constitutes a popular leisure activity of local, regional and national importance. The objective of this section is to update previous accounts on the socio-economic importance of recreational fishing in Germany based on the first nationwide telephone survey conducted by Arlinghaus (2004). Although non-angling methods are used locally in non-commercial recreational fishing in Germany, most recreational fishing takes place by rod and line. Hence, angling and recreational fishing are used synonymously here.
Number of Anglers There is no agreement in Germany on how an angler is defined. Many fisheries professionals count the total number of officially registered German fishing licence holders. The latest estimate was about 1.5 million people (1.8% of the total population of c.82.5 million as of 2005). However, holding an official fishing licence is not required in each of the 16 German states. Moreover, people fishing without an official licence in Germany or in other countries are not included in the aforementioned estimate of angler numbers, which is why the previous estimate is likely underestimated (Steffens and Winkel 2002).
GCRF_02.indd 25
10/3/2007 10:17:20 AM
26
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Angler numbers (millions)
7 6
Often
From time to time
Total
5 4 3 2 1 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year
Figure 2.3 Time series of angler numbers estimated by telephone surveys using random sampling of German households (Allensbacher Werbeträgeranalyse, unpublished data).
In the nationwide telephone survey conduced in 2002, anglers were defined as people aged 14 and older having fished at least once during their lifetime. The estimated number was about 3.8 million people. Active angles were defined as people having fished at least once during the 2002 fishing season in Germany or abroad in other countries. The estimate of active anglers in Germany was 3.3 million (95% confidence interval, 2.6–4.1 million). For people aged 14 and older in the population, the estimated number of active anglers was 4.7% of the German population. Further support for this estimate of angling participation is provided by a periodically conducted marketing survey that asks a large sample of German residents whether they angle often or occasionally. Unfortunately, this survey does not further specify what ‘often’ or ‘from time to time’ means. As shown in Figure 2.3, the total number of anglers is relatively stable at around 5 million people, of which around 1 million indicated they fish often.
Preferred fishing locations Nationwide, the most preferred waters are large rivers (for 31% of the anglers) and natural lakes (28%). Of the anglers, 15% prefer to fish in artificial standing waters, 6% in canals, 4% in small rivers and 4% in put-and-take fisheries. For 12% of German anglers, saltwater constitutes the main fishery. German anglers not only target German fishery resources, they also export their effort to a large
GCRF_02.indd 26
10/3/2007 10:17:20 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
27
extent to foreign fisheries. On average, 40% of their angling days were spent abroad in 2002. More than 60% of all anglers spent most of their time (more than 50% of the annual angling days) fishing in countries other than Germany. Popular countries include the Scandinavian countries. Also, locations overseas are visited regularly (Herrmann et al. 2002).
Target species Most German anglers prefer piscivorous fish such as pike (E. lucius L.), pikeperch (S. lucioperca L.), perch (P. fluviatilis L.) and various salmonid species, because these species are considered of higher culinary value than non-piscivorous fish species. Among non-piscivorous fish, carp (C. carpio L.) and smaller species such as roach (R. rutilus L.) or bream (A. brama L.) are the preferred target of some anglers, particularly among certain angler groups such as specialized carp anglers or match fishers. Because of the current interpretation of the Animal Protection Act, the only ‘reasonable reason’ to fish recreationally is to catch fish for consumption, and most anglers in Germany remove the legally sized fish they capture. About 75% of the angler catch is removed for household consumption, and the reminder is likely voluntarily or regularly released. The total harvest was estimated at 45,000 metric tonnes in 2002. In terms of species that constitute the main portion of the harvest, the harvest of most anglers is predominantly comprised of carp, various salmonids and pike. Among saltwater fish, cod (Gadus morhua L.) is found most often in the harvest (Figure 2.4). Other
1.1
Other saltwater fish
2.6
Other salmonids
3.3
Other cyprinids
3.7
Gras carp
1.1
Herring
2.1
Rudd
2.5
Roach
3.2
Perch
3.2
Zander
5.5
Bream
5.9
Eel
6.4
Cod
7.1
Brown trout
10.3
Pike
10.5
Rainbow trout
11.6
Carp
19.7 0
5
10
15
20
25
Relative frequency (%)
Figure 2.4 Relative frequency (%) of fish species primarily harvested by N = 474 German anglers as determined by a telephone survey (Source: Arlinghaus 2004).
GCRF_02.indd 27
10/3/2007 10:17:20 AM
28
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Economic significance It was estimated that the total economic impact of German recreational fisheries was €5.2 billion in 2002, with 52,000 jobs directly or indirectly dependent on angler expenditures. This estimate exceeded a previous estimate of jobs (20,000) assumed dependent on angler expenditures (Hilge 1998). The multiplier identified for €1 of angler expenditure was 1.8. The average annual use value over and above current expenditure was estimated with €134 per angler. The average annual non-use value was estimated at €21 per person. This suggests that the German population values recreational fishing even if they are not using the resources themselves. Economists distinguish option, bequest and existence non-use values, and the non-use value estimate stated earlier comprises the sum of these three. The total economic benefits generated by German recreational fisheries overall were estimated to be €6.4 billion in 2002.
Major institutional arrangements Ownership of freshwater fishery resources in Germany is usually dependent on ownership of land adjacent to the water body. Fishing rights can be purchased or leased from landowners who hold the fishing rights. In the latter case, the person or the group (e.g. an angling club or organization) that leases the fishing rights for a certain time period also has the duty to manage the fishery resources without causing harm to the ecosystem. This duty is established in state-specific fisheries legislation and nature conservation laws and by-laws. Legislation is enforced by public agencies either at the national or federal level. Thus, German recreational fisheries systems can be characterized as joint community–public cooperative management regimes. Although fishing rights are private entities, in most recreational fisheries, the fishery resources are typically used jointly by all anglers belonging to a club or purchasing a licence by paying a fee to the fishing rights holder (e.g. a commercial fisher or the angler association/club). Purchasing an angling licence in Germany often requires an angler to have passed an angling examination after attending a 30-h angling course (Von Lukowicz 1998) and to hold a state fishing licence called a Fischereischein. Recently, some northern states (e.g. Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, SchleswigHolstein) have relaxed this burden by allowing fishing for non-piscivorous fish or fishing by non-resident tourists without taking the exam. The funds generated through fishing licence sales are used to cover the administrative costs of statelevel fisheries agencies. Any additional revenues are used to fund projects such as fish stocking, habitat rehabilitation, scientific surveys and fish community monitoring.
GCRF_02.indd 28
10/3/2007 10:17:20 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
29
Major constraints Recreational fishing in Germany suffers from a number of issues such as (1) lack of social priority; (2) lack of management approaches for integrating the interests of multiple stakeholder groups and often conflicting management goals; (3) lack of cooperative institutional linkages between fisheries agencies and water management agencies and between different angler associations; (4) lack of systems thinking and (5) lack of research and monitoring. Moreover, many fisheries professionals and private fisheries managers disregard modern developments such as the need to integrate the human dimensions of fisheries into day-to-day management. Probably the greatest constraint, however, is the multiple-use characteristic of most fisheries. There are efforts to reduce fishing pressure in some areas, and many nature conservation stakeholders oppose recreational fishing on ideological grounds. Also, fisheries legislation differs in each of the German states, which can create an unnecessary burden on angler who want to fish in other states. In this case, it can be difficult to obtain a fishing permit and it is difficult for anglers to inform themselves about local-level regulations. Moreover, many habitats have been irreversibly modified, which has contributed significantly to fishery resource declines and reduced fishing quality. Addressing these issues is often beyond the control of fisheries stakeholders, which can lead to increased reliance on stocking to counter fish declines. Stocking, however, can also seriously harm entire fish communities and is therefore controversial in Germany. The social movements that strive to ban recreational fishing entirely, that is, the animal welfare movement, are also a major constraint. Animal protection is a part of the German constitution as of 2002, and the Animal Protection Act first enacted in 1972 sets severe limits on previously popular fishing practises such as competitive fishing, live baiting, holding fish in ‘keep nets’ and voluntary catch and release (Meinelt et al. this book). Fisheries stakeholders also view the explosion of fish-eating birds, especially cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo) as a major constraint in German recreational fisheries (Steffens and Winkel 2002). Although the impact of cormorants on local fisheries will vary, it has been documented that they can alter fish community composition. Finally, a major barrier to the development of recreational fisheries is the lack of research understanding of the activity. For most fisheries, there is little or no information present on available fish stocks and the activity, attitudes and behaviour of anglers. Without this information, sustainable management is difficult to accomplish. Such research conducted with fishery operators and practitioners locally is urgently needed.
GCRF_02.indd 29
10/3/2007 10:17:20 AM
30
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Future outlook Today, recreational fishing is firmly established as the dominant or sole user of most freshwater and many coastal fish stocks. Since the last overview papers published on German recreational fisheries, there has been important progress. The mass media has greatly increased reports on recreational fishing, and politicians are more aware of the size and economic importance of this sector. It remains to be seen whether this attention will strengthen the sector in the future and improve its sustainability by addressing the issues mentioned earlier as well as the largely neglected potential of fishing to negatively impact fish communities (Lewin et al. this book). To address and understand the latter issue will require increased investments in research, monitoring and education.
Acknowledgements I thank the German Anglers’ Association and the Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries for their financial support.
2.6
Recreational fisheries in Lithuania: putting Lithuania on the recreational fishing map in Europe
Algirdas Domarkas and Egle˙ Radaityte˙ The goal of this section is to introduce the field of recreational fisheries in Lithuania, which has been going through dynamic changes in recent years. This section will discuss angling in Lithuania, the social and the economic value of recreational fishing using survey data on attitudes towards fisheries, money spent on fishing and non-compliance with fishing rules and the future of recreational fisheries in Lithuania.
Angling in Lithuania Angling has always been one of the most popular leisure pursuits in Lithuania. This is not surprising, as 4% (2639 km2) of the country’s territory is covered by water. In addition, there is the Baltic Sea coast and the Curonian Lagoon, which are also popular fishing locations. However, there has always been the common misconception that the development of recreational fishing and the introduction of fishing tourism could have no positive effect on fish stocks and assisting with conservation. It is only now with research and the involvement of non-governmental organizations that the full potential can be seen.
GCRF_02.indd 30
10/3/2007 10:17:20 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
31
Social and economic value of recreational fishing While the results of surveys conducted to date have not yet been presented on the international level, this presentation focuses mainly on survey results carried out previously. The first survey was conducted in 2002 by Vilmorus, a market research company, on behalf of the Alliance of Associations ‘Žuvininkų Rūmai’ (The Chamber of Pisciculturists, NGO). The study found that approximately 1.5 million (or 55%) Lithuanian citizens often take fishing rods and spend their leisure time fishing in rivers and lakes. About eight out of ten males fish while about three to four of ten females fish in Lithuania. This survey showed that recreational fishing was most popular among people between 18 and 30 years of age. This is characteristic of seven out of ten of survey participants. It is interesting to note that the age of angling enthusiasts correlates inversely with participation in recreational fishing by: as age increases, the percentage of fishermen in the population goes down. In the age group between 50 and 59 years, six out of ten persons participate in fishing, with the number dropping to three to four persons in the age group of 60 years or more (Table 2.4). Consequently, fishing as a recreation activity can be linked with employable age: two out of three respondents of working age participate in angling, while fishing loses its attraction in the retirement years, when only one out of three of surveyed pensioners take their fishing rods and spend time by rivers and lakes. Income is related to fishing participation in several ways: six out of ten persons with low income (up to approximately €58 per household member) seek an additional source of income rather than relaxation through angling. With increased income, the motivation for angling participation increases considerably (Table 2.4). A second survey conducted in 20031 showed that Lithuanians spent an average of 140 litas (approximately €40.5) on their angling-related needs per surveyed year. More men spent money on fishing needs (or they get more fishing rods as gifts) than do women. About 33.3% and 5.0% of the men and women spent money on fishing (Table 2.5). By average monthly household income, the highest percentage of persons having fishing expenses was the group with monthly incomes of over €145 per month (21.6%) and among those with monthly incomes of €58 or less (19.3%) (Table 2.5). According to the survey 2003, it was estimated that 0.5 million Lithuanian citizens spend approximately 72 million litas (approximately €21 million) per year for angling. This estimate can be compared with those for other fisheries in Lithuania. There are about 20 large aquaculture companies (formerly known as pond pisciculture farms) in Lithuania, producing fish valued at 9–10 million litas annually. The estimated cost of production is seven times less than that of anglers’ expenditures.
GCRF_02.indd 31
10/3/2007 10:17:20 AM
32
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Table 2.4 Data of recreational fishing survey (2002).
Fishing population
Fishing population (%) 55.00
Non-fishing population (%) 45.00
By gender Males (%)
78.36
Females (%)
34.50
Age indicators (years) 18–29
71.3
28.7
30–39
65.3
34.7
40–49
64.0
36.0
50–59
59.5
40.5
60 or more
35.1
64.9
Income indicators Under 200 LTL (∼ €58)
61.07
38.93
201–300 LTL (∼ €58–89)
43.73
56.27
301–500 LTL (∼ €89–145)
52.44
47.56
501 or more LTL (∼ €145 or more)
66.67
33.33
Note: LTL – the Lithuanian litas.
More than 100 companies fish in the Curonian Lagoon, rivers, lakes and other water bodies with the help of commercial fishing gear. Their catch is valued at approximately 3 million litas per year, which is 24 times less than the spending of Lithuanian anglers. Approximately the same number of big and small companies fish in the Baltic Sea. Their catch is valued at approximately 24–25 million litas per year, or three times less than that spent by Lithuanian anglers. When the income of all commercial fishers working in aquaculture, inland waters and the Baltic Sea are taken together, this still amounts to about one-half of the money spent by anglers. Recreational fishing has enormous growth potential – about 1.5 million Lithuanian people go angling at least once in a while, according to the 2002 survey. The main obstacles for them to become regular anglers are, among others, a poor economic situation and inadequate fishing conditions. Improvement in these two areas is expected to lead to an increase in the number of anglers and their spending on fishing needs. Meanwhile, illegal fishing is the main barrier to the development of recreational fisheries. This mostly affects fish stocks in small water bodies. A 2004 survey indicates that Lithuanian citizens had violated fishing regulations on up to 0.7 million occasions per year.
GCRF_02.indd 32
10/3/2007 10:17:20 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
Table 2.5
33
Data of recreational fishing survey (2003).
Distribution of fishing expenses by gender Fishing population spending money on fishing Males (%) Females (%)
Fishing population who have fishing expenses covered by others
31.86
1.40
3.95
1.03
Income categories of the angler population Under 200 LTL (∼ €58)
16.94
2.42
201–300 LTL (∼ €58–89)
14.18
0.36
301–500 LTL (∼ €89–145)
17.20
1.06
501 or more LTL (∼ €145 or more)
20.25
1.27
Distribution of fishing expenses by age (years) 15–19
28.40
7.41
20–29
21.71
21.71
30–39
22.62
22.62
40–49
19.19
19.19
50–59
19.33
19.33
60–74
8.51
8.51
75 or more
2.74
2.74
Distribution of fishing expenses by gender per year Males (%)
Females (%)
Under 50 LTL (∼ €15)
53.80
18.18
51–100 LTL (∼ €15–29)
22.78
36.36
101 or more LTL (∼ €30 or more)
23.42
45.45
LTL – the Lithuanian litas (€1 = 3.4528 LTL).
Future of recreational fisheries All of the gathered data indicate that the current polarization of freshwater fisheries towards small-sized commercial fishing has no future and may doom anglers to years of poverty and despair. One way out of this is the redirection of the commercial industry towards recreational fisheries and fishing tourism. Many people in Lithuania consider angling their favourite pastime, at least to a certain extent. The observed increase in angling popularity makes possible the development of an entire new infrastructure to support this activity. The changing situation in Lithuania is rather slow, with virtually all financial assistance from the state going to support commercial fisheries and pond pisciculture. Approximately 10–12 million litas (approximately €2.9–3.5 million)
GCRF_02.indd 33
10/3/2007 10:17:21 AM
34
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
are available for this purpose in Lithuania from the European Union. During the past 5 years, several million litas have been allocated to pond pisciculture companies to assist them in dealing with diseases and the after-effects of drought. Fish disease and drought effects can be seen in recreational fishing as well, but angler organizations have received no financial aid to deal with these problems. They also have little chance of getting support for the creation of ecologically based fisheries (i.e. organic fisheries). For example, while the Lithuanian State Pisciculture and Fisheries Research Centre breeds many fish, they raise none that are important for recreational fishing (grayling, brown trout, etc.) as their by-laws state they should only restore fish with commercial value. Insufficient pisciculture and management efforts have led to impoverished fish stocks in most water bodies, which have no appeal to anglers. All of these reasons are major factors hindering the development of the recreational fisheries market in Lithuania. Data collected until 2004 have convinced the Lithuanian government to pay more attention to the aforementioned problems. The Law on Angling was approved in 2004. As emphasized in this law now, angling has priority over commercial fishing in inland waters. To evaluate and develop new angling regulations, a Board of Angling Development by the Ministry of Environment was established with members from governmental as well as non-governmental organizations. These steps are expected to lead to an entirely new perspective on the development of recreational fisheries in Lithuania. Furthermore, the Lithuanian State Pisciculture and Fisheries Research Centre in cooperation with the Kaliningrad State Technical University and the Association of Fishing Enterprises Lampetra in 2006 launched a project titled ‘Development of Scientific-Technical Support for Reproduction of Fish Stocks in TransBoundary Water of Lithuania and Russia under the Neighbourhood Programme of Lithuania, Poland and the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation’. The project will involve new data collection and information published as a study about angling tourism, as well as a strategy for the development of recreational fishing in border water bodies.
2.7
Recreational fishing in Malaysia
Zahaitun Mahani Zakariah Recreational fishing is a great past time for Malaysians. The fishing activities have become so fashionable that avid anglers can choose either to fish in natural environments (seas and rivers) or man-made aquatic environments such as dams, abandoned mining pools and fish ponds. At present, recreational fishing activities in Malaysia are still unregulated and there are no regulations such as bag limits,
GCRF_02.indd 34
10/3/2007 10:17:21 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
35
size limits, permitted species and fishing gear restrictions. Although regulation is underprovided, recreational fishing practice in Malaysia is restricted to three types of fishing gear, namely, hook and line, ‘one hook squid jigging’ and castnet. Other fishing gear such as crab trap and scissors-net have to be licensed and are not considered recreational. Recreational fishing is a growing industry in Malaysia based on the popularity of fishing tourism and fishing competitions being organized throughout the year. However, the official number of recreational fishers is undetermined because the recreational fishing activity is not yet licensed. In the near future, through the Department of Fisheries, the Malaysian government is scheduled to licence offshore anglers.
The status of freshwater recreational fishing in Malaysia The freshwater ecosystem consists of rivers, streams, natural lakes, dams and abandoned mining pools. The riverine fish communities are determined by the unaffectedness of the ecosystem. The mighty rivers contain game-fish icons such as Malaysian red mahseer, Tor tambroides (Bleeker), snakehead, Channa micropeltes (C. & V.), giant featherback, Notopterus sp. and Sultan fish, Leptobarbus hoevenii (Bleeker) while hardy species such as African catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Burchell), sailfin catfish, Pterygoplicthys sp. and tilapia have become predominant in polluted urban rivers. These are the non-indigenous species that were accidentally introduced to rivers by aquaculture or the aquarium fish trade. A study showed that the sailfish catfish, Pterygoplicthys pardalis (Castlenau) endemic to South America was a widespread species in some rivers of peninsular Malaysia (Page and Robins 2006). Accordingly, fish ponds serve as alternative angling spots in urban areas where the rivers are relatively insignificant in their variety of fish resources. Nevertheless, a significant variety of fish can still be found in pristine river ecosystems. For example, the Malaysian red mahseer, also known as kelah, can only survive in clean river ecosystems. Like the other mahseer species, for example, Tor tor (Hamilton) in rivers of the Indian subcontinent, the Malaysian red mahseer is also a popular game fish. Anglers and tourists are willing to pay large amounts of money for the opportunity to catch this fish. To ensure its conservation, the Department of Wildlife and National Parks established a sanctuary at the Taman Negara (National Park). This national park covering 4343 km2 of virgin jungle, sprawls across the mountainous interiors of three states in peninsular Malaysia, namely Kelantan, Pahang and Terengganu. Under the supervision of the Department of Wildlife and National Parks, angling activity is only permitted in designated streams.
GCRF_02.indd 35
10/3/2007 10:17:21 AM
36
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
The status of marine recreational fishing in Malaysia With its 4492 km of coastline and a 453,000-km-wide Exclusive Economic Zone, as well as the 561 islands scattered in its waters, Malaysia offers vast potential for marine tourism including recreational fishing. In Malaysia, marine recreational fishing activity is divided into inshore and offshore fishing. The latter is more commercialized because of the necessity for other things such as boats, fishing tackle and marine equipment, as well as accommodation (e.g. hotels, chalets and resorts). Figure 2.5 shows the prime marine recreational fishing sites in Malaysian waters that are usually located in the vicinity of islands, shoals, coral atolls and sea mountains. The pristine marine environments in East Malaysia offer magnificent angling havens. In terms of biodiversity, these natural marine ecosystems offer a huge variety of fish species. Malaysian waters host over 4000 fish species (Anon 1997), including trophy game-fish species such as billfish, yellowfin tuna, giant trevally, wahoo and cobia. Some near-shore waters in Malaysia are also hot spots for billfish. The highly migratory billfish congregates near shores along the east coast of peninsular Malaysia between July and September. A prestigious international angling competition, known as the Royal Pahang Billfish International Challenge, has been organized since 2004. The practice of catch and release is an important requirement of the competition. Besides natural ecosystems such as coral reefs, ship wrecks are also preferable fishing spots because they have abundant fish populations. Knowing that submerged structures at sea function as fish stock enhancers, the Department of Fisheries and Fisheries Development Authority of Malaysia have deployed fish aggregation devices (FADs) on the sea bottom. The prime destinations for deep-sea angling tourism and competitions are usually where these FADs are located. Recreational fishing activity not only targets finfish; squid jigging is also a popular recreational activity in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia. With the availability of spawning squid aggregations, squid jigging competitions are often organized between March and September along the east coast of peninsular Malaysia.
Major constraints to recreational fishing in Malaysia Recreational fishing in Malaysia faces two major constraints: competition with the commercial fishery sector and the dwindling resource availability. There may be conflicts between anglers and commercial fishermen because they share common fishing grounds. It is possible that these problems are aggravated by the absence of regulations, particularly on catch limits. Without regulations, recreational fishers can catch unlimited numbers of fish.
GCRF_02.indd 36
10/3/2007 10:17:21 AM
P. Langkawi
THAILAND
P. Pangkor P. Jarak ST RA IT S O F M AL AC
SINGAPORE
P. Tioman P. Pemanggil P. Aur P. Pemanggil P. Sibu
K. Rompin
P. Perhentian P. Redang P. Tenggol
PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
CA
Deep-Sea angling sites Billfish
SOUTH CHINA SEA
Luconi Shoals
SARWAK
SABAH
KALIMANTAN
P. Mantanani
P. Layang-Layang
BRUNE
Figure 2.5 Location of recreational fishing spots in Malaysia (Source: The Angling Association of Malaysia).
CELEBES
SEA
GCRF_02.indd 37 10/3/2007 10:17:21 AM
38
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
The lack of designated areas for marine recreational fishing in Malaysia may cause competition for access to resources. This problem could be significant except where specific management measures have been applied to minimize conflict. Conflicts in freshwater recreational fishing have been minimized by the designation of angling areas in the National Park. Recreational fishing at freshwater fish ponds reduces reliance on the natural ecosystem. Resource conflict occurs when important trophy species like billfish become either by-catch or target species for trawlers. The Indo-Pacific sailfish Istiophorus platypterus and black marlin, Maikara indica, are the two types of billfish that seasonally congregate in the near-shore waters along the east coast of peninsular Malaysia. While this highly prestigious game fish generates big profits during the international angling competition, it is not a favourable eating fish for Malaysians. Instead, billfish species are sold at 6 MR (Malaysian ringgit) (or US$1.60) and consumed as fish crackers and fish meal. Dwindling fish resources in coastal waters are indeed a constraint on the sustainability of recreational fishing activity. The phase of rapid growth of catches that prevailed in the 1960s and 1970s has been linked to declining catches in the 1980s in coastal waters of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries (Pauly and Chua 1988). With increase of fishing capital (e.g. boats and gear), overfishing has taken place since 1970s in Malaysia (Jomo 1991). Until today, the clearest sign of overfishing in the coastal waters of Malaysia has been seen in the increasing percentage of ‘trash fish’ (Anon 2004). Perhaps, deep-sea recreational fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone is the best alternative for avid anglers. There is a common but often-overlooked potential for the destruction of fish habitats (e.g. mangrove, coral reefs, seagrass beds and jungle rivers) due to the adverse impact of destructive fishing, logging and pollution. For example, without good conservation efforts, the pristine habitats of riverine fishes can be adversely affected by pollution and siltation due to logging activity and earthworks undertaken near riverbanks. Some endemic fishes are susceptible to changes in the river ecosystem. Extinction of some freshwater fish species caused by river impoundment has been observed in one of the hydroelectric dams in Malaysia (Zakariah and Ali 1996). Thus, intact forest habitat is indeed important for the conservation of pristine jungle rivers and its dwellers. In doing so, the Malaysian red mahseer has become a ‘flagship species’ that protects other riverine species and pristine jungle rivers.
Future outlook for recreational fishing in Malaysia Malaysia’s future outlook in recreational fishing is best illustrated by its work with the Malaysian red mahseer. With support from international organizations, such as
GCRF_02.indd 38
10/3/2007 10:17:22 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
39
the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia Pacific (NACA), Malaysia took further steps in mahseer management by organizing an International Symposium on Mahseer 2006: Biology, Culture and Conservation. The symposium, which was attended by ten Asian nations, adopted a ‘Mahseer Declaration, Kuala Lumpur 200’ to effectively safeguard this fish through sustainable exploitation, conservation and aquaculture. Like commercial fishing, recreational fishing also deserves consideration as a contributor to resource exploitation. Therefore, recreational fishing also needs to be regulated. In this light, Malaysia is planning to have regulations on recreational fishing. The Department of Fisheries has drafted the Regulation on Marine Recreational Fishing, which is made under the Fisheries Act 1985. Under this drafted regulation, a licence will be issued to offshore anglers. In terms of conservation measures, the drafted regulation will add sharks, swordfish, marlin and sailfish to the catch-and-release species list. Size limits will be imposed for other species like groupers and snappers.
2.8
Recreational angling in the Netherlands: participation, trends and management
Toine W.P.M. Aarts The total surface of the Netherlands is 41,528 km2, and the total surface of freshwater is 7653 km2 (18%). The coastline in the west and north-west is 451 km. This makes the Netherlands a water-rich country with numerous possibilities for recreational fishing. There are canals, shallow and deep lakes, rivers, streams, brooks, ditches, brackish waters and, of course, the sea.
Participation According to an investigation of The Dutch Institute for Public Opinion and Market Research (TNS NIPO), there are 1,780,000 anglers in the Netherlands, which is about 11% of the total population. Most participants are males over the age of 14 (1,000,000). There are also 260,000 females over 14 years of age participating. Also, there are 520,000 children under 15 years of age who go fishing at least once a year. On average, males over 14 years of age fish 14 times a year. Anglers fishing in coastal waters total about 673,000. About 70% of this group also fishes in freshwater. Group composition is as follows: 450,000 were males, over 14,120,000 were females over 14 and 103,000 were children under 15. In this group, males over 14 years of age fish on average 4.4 times a year (Figure 2.6).
GCRF_02.indd 39
10/3/2007 10:17:22 AM
40
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Anglers in the Netherlands 2004 29% Male 15+ Female 15+ Children <15 56% 15% Figure 2.6 The distribution of angler participation in the Netherlands (2004).
Preferred species Non Don’t know Others Pikeperch
Third most preferred
Eel
Second most preferred
Pike
Most preferred
Perch
Sometimes
Carp Bream Roach
% 0
20
40
60
80
Figure 2.7 Preferred species for freshwater fishing in the Netherlands. The non-category shows the people without second or third species preference.
Species sought and caught In the Netherlands, there are about 70 different freshwater fish species. Currently, roach (R. rutilus) and bream (A. brama) are the most common species and also the most sought by anglers (Figure 2.7). In coastal waters, depending on the season, the following species are most preferred: Atlantic cod (G. morhua), eel (Anguilla anguilla), European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), garpike (Belone belone), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), whiting (Merlangius merlangus), common sole (Solea solea), dab (Limanda limanda), European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) and flounder (Platichtys flesus).
The social and economic significance of recreational fisheries While participation is high, the social and economic significance is also high. We know the most about male anglers over 14. Overall, they make 15 million fishing trips a year. Each male angler spends an estimated €577 per year on fishing. The total economic value of freshwater angling only is estimated
GCRF_02.indd 40
10/3/2007 10:17:22 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
41
between €363,000,000 and €601,000,000 a year. Employment for freshwater angling is estimated between 1460 and 2505 person-years. For sea angling, economic value and employment are estimated at €127,000,000 and 800 person-years, respectively.
Management Before 2006, the Netherlands had the Organization for the Improvement of Inland Fisheries (OVB) and The Dutch Angler Association (NVVS). The first was a governmental organization, the latter a private association. The OVB issued the governmental single rod licence (570,000 per year) and the NVVS issued the so-called Large licence for members (350,000 per year). In 2006, these organizations merged, and starting in 2007, the government licence disappears. The new organization is called Sport Fishing Netherlands. They will organize a new licence system and issue combined licences called a Vispas. Sport Fishing Netherlands has 12 federations and 1000 angling clubs with 400,000 individual members, including youngsters (under 15 years of age). Individuals who want to go fishing but do not want to join an angling club can still buy a ‘Small Vispas’ (former single rod licence). The members get a personalized Vispas (credit-card sized), which is a combination of the former single rod licence and the former Large licence. These members contribute to their clubs, to the federation and to Sport Fishing Netherlands. The money is used to improve fisheries in the country by representing interests in the Netherlands (and internationally as well): by advising clubs, federations, and water boards on how to improve fish stocks and their habitats; by educating members; by promotional efforts through television, two magazines and several Web sites; and by working together with members, water boards and the government on the collection and publishing of data concerning fish stocks, fishing rights, good fishing locations, the abundance of rare or exotic species and fish migration problems (also see www.sportvisserijnederland.nl). There are several organizations affecting recreational fishing in the Netherlands. Sport Fishing Netherlands is currently in talks with the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, with the water boards and with nature organizations. The combination of Dutch Professional Fishermen and members of Sport Fishing Netherlands are represented at VBC’s (Fisheries Management Commissions), where joint management is discussed.
Legal framework The legal framework is formed by the ‘Law of Fisheries’ in which the single rod licence, fishing rules and the protection of species are included. Since January 2007, the law has changed to recognize the new licence system. The law still says
GCRF_02.indd 41
10/3/2007 10:17:22 AM
42
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
that an angler must have the proper licence to go fishing. Next, there is the ‘policy document on inland fisheries’ in which the structure of fisheries and basic targets are defined. Finally, there is ‘the red list’, where abundance of species is specified as to which species are considered endangered and, therefore, protected. The European Water Framework Directive will also affect the angling situation in the Netherlands. The water boards currently have a shared responsibility for fish stocks in their waters, whereas, before, angling clubs had the responsibility to themselves. This can be positive for water quality and diversity of fish stocks, but negative for fish quantity and on angling clubs and their activities, that is, planting fry.
Major constraints to recreational fishing The major constraints in the Netherlands include the distribution of fishing rights, nature protection efforts and physical access to some waters. The fishing rights on waters are mostly very old (c.200 years) and very much divided. After the Second World War, even more small, individual contracts regarding fishing rights were made. Our organization has to make arrangements with all of these owners to get permits. This makes it unclear for individual anglers as to where they can fish and results in considerable costs each year for permits and also for necessary communication. More and more areas are protected by nature organizations. Sometimes they do not allow recreational fishing. The banks of waters are increasingly unreachable because of a created littoral zone with abundant vegetation. These littoral zones serve as habitat for fish and other animals. The European Waterframework Directive has had a positive effect on efforts to improve water quality and fish habitat by the water boards. This has had and will continue to have a positive effect on fish stocks. However, these water boards also blame bream and carp for the turbidity of some waters and are planning to remove these cyprinids. This will have a negative effect on recreational fishing opportunities. Our organization needs to discuss this matter with the water boards and try to resolve the fishing issues involved.
Trends in recreational fishing During the last few decades, the number of anglers in the Netherlands has increased. However, the number of single rod licences sold has decreased. In 1977, it reached its highest point with almost 10% of the population buying the single rod licence. Then, in 1978, the licence system was changed and the price of a single rod licence increased. Since 1990, the number of single rod licences sold is stable at about 4.5% of the overall Dutch population.
GCRF_02.indd 42
10/3/2007 10:17:23 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
43
We expect an increase in the coming years with a merging of the single rod licence and the Large licence. This is not only because the total number of participants has been increasing in recent years but mostly because Sport Fishing Netherlands has built a central database with all people included who purchase licences. This more inclusive central database provides the foundation for a new licence system because it will make it possible to identify members and others who buy a Small Vispas. The database will make it possible to promote membership to this group. Then, as licences are private documents and no longer governmental documents, our organization can be more responsible for the fight against illegal fishing than previously. We are educating bailiffs and working on a programme with a central registration of violations of the fisheries law. Sport Fishing Netherlands is going to work together with the governmental organizations on this issue. As 30–40% of fishing is without a licence, an increase of licence sales is expected.
2.9
Recreational fishing in Sweden
Torleif Eriksson Sweden is rich in aquatic environments. About 100,000 lakes cover about 9% of the country. Rivers and streams of over 300,000 km run through the countryside. A coastline with 150,000 km2 of coastal waters further adds aquatic resources to a country with about 9 million inhabitants (Anon 1995). Most Swedes use these resources for recreation. Furthermore, fish have always been an important resource in Sweden, although interest in different fish species has shifted over time. As a result of the growth of the ‘welfare state’ (more time for recreation, more money to spend on recreation), the public’s interest in recreational fishing has increased considerably over the last decades. The use of fish and small game has changed from being an important part of subsistence in the rural areas to being mainly for recreational use. At present, the value of commercial catches is much lower than the estimated welfare values created by recreational fishing, especially in freshwater.
What constitutes recreational fishing? In national inquiries made every 5 years over the last 20 years, recreational fisheries have been defined as fishing activities during leisure time that use a rod and reel as well as fishing methods that catch a larger number of fish, such as gillnets and traps. Recreational fisheries are divided into sport fishing with the use of a rod and reel and household fishermen who use mainly gill-nets (Anon 2005a). Sport fishermen are the major category of recreational fishermen, comprising about 80% of the recreational fishermen (75% sport fishing among recreational
GCRF_02.indd 43
10/3/2007 10:17:23 AM
44
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
fishing women, 81% sport fishing among recreational fishing men). About 12% define themselves as generalists practising both sport fishing and household fishing (Anon 2005a). There is also an age-related difference, where a higher preference for sport fishing exists among younger people (ages 16–24), among whom 84% practise sport fishing and 2% practise only household fishing. Among the oldest age group interviewed (ages 65–74), there was still a high proportion among the recreational fishermen who practised sport fishing: 71% as well as a significantly higher proportion of only household fishing (17%).
Description of the major freshwater and saltwater fisheries In 2005, the total catch was estimated at approximately 58 million kg, of which 11.2 million kg were released. Of the catch (46.5 million kg), 29 million kg were caught using rod and line and 17.5 million kg were caught using gill-nets, traps and so on (Anon 2005a).
Number of anglers and effort in Sweden Recreational fishing is an important part of life for many Swedes. According to the National Board of Fisheries (Anon 2005a), around 3 million Swedes stated that they were interested in recreational fishing, with an estimated 29 million fishing days. An estimate of their total costs for recreational fishing during 2005 was nearly SEK 3 billion [equivalent to about €333 million or US$430 million (2006 value)]. Men are more interested in fishing than women: 61% compared with 35%. About 1.8 million people fished last year. The total number of fishing days in Sweden was estimated at 29 million days, a little more than one-half of which occurred in the summer. The number of fishing days by Swedes who fished abroad was estimated at 1.1 million days. The importance of fish and wildlife is even greater for the local population in the northern part of Sweden, especially in mountain communities. Results of the study by Ericsson et al. (2005) show that around 75% of the population in these mountain communities live in households with family members who are anglers. This can be compared with 43% for Sweden overall.
Main species sought and caught in Sweden The most popular species in the sport fishing catches was the European perch (P. fluviatilis L.), northern pike (E. lucius L.), herring (C. harangus L.) and mackerel (S. scombrus L.). A total catch of 28,000 tons was estimated for these species (Anon 2005a). In the sport fishery, Brown trout (S. trutta L.) was important with catches of 2500 tons.
GCRF_02.indd 44
10/3/2007 10:17:23 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
45
Social and economic significance of recreational fishing Total expenditures on recreational fishing were estimated at about SEK 2600 million of which SEK 723 million was spent on fishing equipment, SEK 585 million on travel costs and SEK 570 million on costs for boats (Anon 2005a). Most of the SEK 2600 million in total expenditures were spent by those practising sport fishing, with SEK 160 million spent by household fishermen and SEK 460 million spent by generalists. On average, each individual spent about SEK 3000 annually for recreational fishing [equivalent to about €333 or US$430 (2006 value)]. In a Nordic study 1999 (Toivonen et al. 2004), a questionnaire used the contingent valuation (CV) method to measure the total economic value (TEV) by estimating the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for recreational fisheries and the preservation of fish stocks. The annual economic value of recreational fisheries (use value) expressed as the WTP of recreational fishermen for their fishing experience over and above their actual expenditures during the last 12 months was estimated at US$106 million (1999 prices) in Sweden, while the non-use value was estimated at US$173 million. These results show the importance of including the WTP of both recreational fishermen and non-users of fish stocks when calculating the economic value of recreational fisheries and fish stocks.
Major institutional arrangements for recreational fishing Fishing rights on Swedish inland waters are private and divided between a large number of owners, which often hinders successful management. To promote fishery management, and to make more waters accessible for public fishing, the Act of Fishery Management Units was passed in 1960. Later in 1981, the act was revised and government subsidies were directed towards the organization of units and the management of fisheries within units. Today a large proportion of freshwater lakes and streams are organized in local Fishery Management Units (FMUs) consisting of a number of private landowners. The alpine areas in the westernmost part of north Sweden (approximately 8 million ha) are dominated by state-owned land. The administration and management of the mountain area differ from that in other areas also due to presence of the Sami people and their particular rights to the use of land and water resources (Eriksson et al. 2006). Decisions by the parliament have opened the way for recreational fishing along the Swedish coast (1985) and recreational fishing and hunting on Crown land in the mountain area (1993).
Major constraints on recreational fishing Today, accessibility to fishing waters is good overall in Sweden. There is a variation in different types of waters, such as coastal waters, lakes and streams.
GCRF_02.indd 45
10/3/2007 10:17:23 AM
46
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Many running waters are used for hydropower energy production and are destroyed as fishing waters. This has resulted in a high fishing pressure on stream fish populations and generally an overexploitation of these types of fish populations (Eriksson et al. 1999; Nordwall et al. 2000). In a national inquiry (Anon 2005a), recreational fishermen were asked to indicate the most important factors that would cause them to fish more. Almost 50% claimed they currently fish as much as they want. The most important constraints for not fishing more were not having more time, companions to fish with (especially among younger people), better knowledge about fishing and better fishing waters/opportunities to catch fish.
Future outlook for recreational fishing in Sweden The use of fish has changed from being an important part of subsistence in the rural areas to mainly recreational use. Fish and wildlife resources add considerably to the welfare of anglers in Sweden. For instance, in the mountain area with 1.2 million tourist angling days and a consumer surplus of SEK 200 per day, angling in the mountain area has a total consumer surplus of over SEK 200 million. Along with this number comes the value of fishing made by non-tourists. An estimated cost per day for tourist fishers in the mountain area is only SEK 400 based on results by Kriström et al. (2004) and Laitila et al. (2006). With 1.2 million tourist fishing days, the total cost is about SEK 500 million per year. Adding the consumer surplus yields a total valuation of SEK 700 million [equivalent to about €78 million or US$100 million (2006 value)] (Eriksson et al. 2006). Also, recreational fishing and hunting add highly positive values to society (Norling 2003). These activities have a positive, preventing and rehabilitating effect on physical illness and stress-related illnesses. Furthermore, recreational fishing adds value by being an activity that you can participate in over an entire lifetime. It is also an excellent activity that can be enjoyed in the company of friends and family. Increased welfare and leisure time in the modern societies are believed to attract more visitors to the region. A general increase in the tourism industry is therefore seen as a possible new source of employment. The potential of the fishing and hunting tourism industry has also been emphasized by the Swedish government (e.g. Anon 2005b). Thus, in Sweden, recreational fisheries are important and highly preferable for society. Furthermore, the development of sport fishing tourism as an industry is potentially quite valuable, especially for rural development purposes.
GCRF_02.indd 46
10/3/2007 10:17:23 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
47
2.10 An overview of angling in the United States of America Gilbert C. Radonski and Andrew J. Loftus The opportunities for recreational anglers to pursue their sport in the United States are as diverse as its physiography. Abundant natural lakes, man-made lakes (reservoirs/large impoundments), ponds, large rivers, streams, coastal marine (saltwater) and offshore marine (saltwater) provide fishing opportunities for the country’s estimated 34.1 million anglers over 16 years of age (US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Census Bureau 2002).
Freshwater fishing The following descriptions of types of fishing available are thumbnail sketches; the reader can access a searchable and comprehensive report online.2 Overall, in 2001, 27.9 million anglers enjoyed freshwater (including Great Lakes) fishing on nearly 350 million trips totalling over 443 million days. They spent in excess of US$21 billion during the year on trips and equipment. Of their expenditures, triprelated costs garnered the largest portion, approximately $10 billion, with an additional $3.2 billion on equipment and $7.5 billion on special equipment (boats, vans, etc.).
Saltwater fishing In 2001, almost 9.1 million anglers enjoyed saltwater fishing on 72 million trips totalling 91 million days. Overall, they spent $8.4 billion during the year on trips and equipment. Of their expenditures, trip-related costs garnered the largest portion, $4.5 billion. Food and lodging cost $1.5 billion; transportation cost $773 million; and other trip costs such as equipment rental, bait and guide fees were $2.2 billion. Saltwater anglers spent a total of $3.9 billion on equipment – $987 million on fishing equipment (rods, reels, etc.), $103 million on auxiliary equipment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.) and $2.8 billion on special equipment (boats, vans, etc.).
Fishing for large pelagic species While the national survey of fishing participation conducted every 5 years by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Bureau of the Census is considered the
GCRF_02.indd 47
10/3/2007 10:17:23 AM
48
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
best available information for comparisons made earlier in this section, it does not adequately cover ‘rare-event’ fisheries, or those fisheries with low rates of participation (percentage of the population that participate). Highly migratory species (HMS), primarily tunas, sharks, swordfish and billfish (species of marlin, sailfish, etc.), are rare-event fisheries. Fishing for these big game species are immortalized in the works of such noted authors as Ernest Hemingway and Zane Grey and are considered by many to be the pinnacle of saltwater recreational fishing. Despite their broad geographic coverage, reliable estimates of the number of anglers participating in these fisheries are not available. Landings statistics, often pieced together from multiple surveys, provide managers with ‘best available’ data on which to base management actions. Notably, however, recreational fishing for some species of billfish has become almost an entirely catch-and-release event. While some fish are retained, surveys conducted by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and non-governmental organizations indicate that billfish tournaments are increasingly ‘release’ events and that private anglers and charter vessels are voluntarily releasing large numbers of fish (Table 2.6).
Species preferences Of the 28 million anglers who fished in freshwater (other than the Great Lakes), 10.7 million spent 160 million days fishing for black bass. Panfish were sought by 7.9 million anglers (103 million days). Catfish and bullheads drew 7.5 million anglers (104 million days). Nearly 6.7 million anglers fished for crappie (95 million days). Trout fishing attracted 7.8 million anglers (83 million days) and 4.9 million anglers fished for white bass and striped bass (62 million days). Freshwater anglers also commonly fished for walleye, sauger, salmon and steelhead. In 2001, 1.8 million anglers fished in the Great Lakes. Perch, the most commonly sought fish for these waters, attracted 693,000 anglers (7 million days). Table 2.6 Number of kept and released fish, Maine through Virginia (National Marine Fisheries Service 2005). 2000
2001
2002
2003
Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number kept released kept released kept released kept released
GCRF_02.indd 48
White marlin
2
59
5
118
8
215
12
160
Blue marlin
0
17
1
14
0
30
4
30
Sailfish
6
0
0
2
0
6
0
6
Swordfish
14
5
1
10
5
6
9
21
10/3/2007 10:17:23 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
49
Next, black bass drew 589,000 anglers (6.4 million days), followed by walleye, which appealed to 570,000 anglers (5 million days). Salmon drew 516,000 anglers (almost 4 million days of fishing). Among the nearly 9.1 million saltwater anglers, 2.3 million fished for flatfish, including flounder and halibut (21 million days). Bluefish were a favourite of 1.1 million anglers (12 million days). Sea trout were sought by 1.5 million anglers (17 million days) and 609,000 anglers fished for mackerel (6 million days). Striped bass were sought by 1.7 million anglers (17 million days). Five million days were spent fishing for salmon by 722,000 anglers.
Social and economic significance Overall, anglers spent US$35.6 billion in 2001 including $14.7 billion on travelrelated costs, 41% of all fishing expenditures. Food and lodging resulted in $6 billion, 40% of all trip-related costs, and $3.5 billion, 24% of trip-related expenditures, was spent on transportation. Other trip expenditures such as landuse fees, guide fees, equipment rental, boating expenses and bait cost anglers nearly $5.3 billion, 36% of all trip expenses. For that same year, fishing equipment expenditures totalled $17 billion, 48% of all fishing expenditures. Anglers spent $4.6 billion on fishing equipment such as rods, reels, tackle boxes, depth finders, and artificial lures and flies. This amounted to 27% of all equipment expenditures. Auxiliary equipment – camping equipment, binoculars, and special fishing clothing – amounted to $721 million, 4% of equipment costs. Special equipment such as boats, vans and cabins cost anglers $11.6 billion, 69% of all equipment costs. Anglers also spent a considerable amount on leasing and ownership –nearly $3.2 billion, or 9% of all expenditures. They spent $860 million on magazines, books, membership dues and contributions, licences, stamps, tags and permits (US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Census Bureau 2002). Table 2.73 summarizes economic activity for 2001.
Major institutions and institutional arrangements affecting fishing Public waters are quite extensive in the United States. Limited private waters are legally and physically distinct from public areas. Fishery resources are considered to be held in trust by respective state governments for the common benefit. For the most part, states have the responsibility and authority for managing freshwater and coastal fishery resources within their jurisdictions; namely to the outer edge of the Territorial Sea. The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA), Public Law 94-265 (as amended through 11 October 1996) extended US fishery
GCRF_02.indd 49
10/3/2007 10:17:23 AM
GCRF_02.indd 50
10/3/2007 10:17:23 AM
Non-residents only
552,044,071
1,997,246,383
Source: American Sportfishing Association.
Non-residents only
Residents only
2,549,290,453
8,845,322,669
2,472,926,952
Residents only
Great Lakes
11,318,249,621
Saltwater fishing
3,795,728,516
22,725,239,782
Residents only
Non-residents only
26,520,968,298
7,257,892,205
Freshwater fishing
34,270,111,132
Non-residents only
41,528,003,337
Retail sales ($)
1,598,588,209
5,758,670,014
7,357,258,224
6,482,748,973
24,603,155,360
31,085,904,333
10,489,699,311
64,300,655,346
74,790,354,657
19,577,276,686
96,487,242,015
116,064,518,700
Output ($)
456,277,394
1,447,736,150
1,904,013,545
1,754,763,068
6,383,637,113
8,138,400,181
2,764,648,154
16,646,281,127
19,410,929,282
5,195,684,786
24,913,116,155
30,108,800,941
Wages and salaries ($)
National summary of the economic impact of sportfishing (2001).
Residents only
All fishing
Table 2.7
16,357
49,967
66,324
66,933
229,964
296,898
99,554
584,338
683,892
190,200
877,846
1,068,046
Jobs ($)
101,892,628
493,262,762
1,287,916,577
1,913,373,871
Sales tax ($)
$28,593,352
$85,456,389
$338,686,239
$470,239,851
State income tax
$74,812,510
$228,539,766
$303,352,277
$306,137,839
$1,051,807,279
$1,357,945,118
$455,337,103
$2,672,636,540
$3,127,973,643
$869,933,684
$4,015,078,291
$4,885,011,975
Federal income tax
International perspective on recreational fishing
51
jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the Territorial Sea baseline. Under the FCMA, eight regional fishery management councils (the Councils), in conjunction with the states and the federal government, were authorized to manage marine fisheries primarily within the 3–200 mile (5.5–370 km) fishery conservation zone. A major source of funding is from the sale of fishing licences by individual states (as well as the District of Columbia and some Native American tribal governments). In 2003, for example, the 50 states sold 27.91 million licences providing user-pay revenues of US$512.97 million. Another source of funds is the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, signed into law in 1950 (Radonski 2000). The Sport Fish Restoration Program is funded by revenues collected from the manufacturers of fishing rods, reels, creels, lures, flies and artificial baits, who pay an excise tax on these items to the US Treasury. An amendment in 1984 extended the excise tax to previously untaxed items of angling equipment, captures import duties collected on fishing tackle, yachts and pleasure boats and motor boat fuel taxes and reverted highway fuel taxes paid by boaters. In 1984 the Dingell–Johnson Act collected $38 million; in 1998 the annual collection rose to $224 million as a result of the amendment. Appropriate state agencies are the only entities eligible to receive grant funds. Each state’s share is based 60% on its number of licenced anglers and 40% on its land and water area. No state may receive more than 5% or less than 1% of each year’s total apportionment (Radonski 2000). An important provision of this act is that it requires each state governor to certify that no fishing licence monies are used for anything other than to support fishery management programmes. Percentage of U.S population and anglers by age group 1996 25,000,000
6,000,000 US population Anglers 5,000,000
20,000,000
3,000,000
Anglers
Population
4,000,000 15,000,000
10,000,000 2,000,000
5,000,000 1,000,000
0 4 4 4 9 4 9 9 9 9 4 4 4 –1 0–2 5–2 0–3 5–3 0–4 5–4 0–5 5–5 0–6 0–7 0–7 4 2 2 3 5 7 3 4 6 7 5
16
75
+
0
Age group
Figure 2.8 Relationship between the US population and angler participation (Source: Fedler 2000).
GCRF_02.indd 51
10/3/2007 10:17:24 AM
52
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
A third source of funds includes appropriations from each state’s general revenue funds and other miscellaneous sources such as fines, product sales, etc. These funds generally account for 10–12% of the total monies available to support state-level fishery management programmes.
Future of fishing in the United States of America Sport fishing in the United States of America occupies a solid niche in its social make-up and the economy. Participation involves a substantial percentage of the total population (Figure 2.8), which although erratic, is levelling out after years of rapid growth. The US population growth over the next several decades will continue to be greatest among minorities (Fedler 2000). An aging population and increasing urbanization will also affect further growth. Fishing activity occurs within nearly all age cohorts, although older Americans (55 years old and older) are less likely to fish than those between the ages of 25 and 54. Americans in rural settings are more likely to fish than their urban counterparts, but all segments fish at significant rates. These demographic factors influencing angling growth will tend to drive fishing participation downward given projected changes in the US population composition unless their effects are mitigated by programmes designed to overcome the obstacles to fishing associated with aging, residence location, gender, race, ethnicity and other factors. Continued progress in expanding attractive fishing opportunities is achievable, but only if the benefiting recreational fishing community is willing and able to continue to underwrite the costs.
Notes 1 The survey ‘Money Spent on Fishing’ was conducted by a market research company ‘Vilmorus’ for The Chamber of Pisciculturists. 2 At www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html and www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/overview/overview.html 3 Table 2.7 was constructed by Southwick Associates for the American Sport Fishing Association. http://www.asafishing.org/asa/statistics/saleco_trends/economic_impact_ table.html
References Anon (1997) Assessment of Biological Diversity in Malaysia. Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment, Malaysia. Anon (2004) Annual Fisheries Statistic, Volume 1. Department of Fisheries, Malaysia. Anon (2005a) Fishing 2005 – A Study on Recreational Fishing in Sweden. 10, Fisheries Board of Sweden, Gothenburg [in Swedish].
GCRF_02.indd 52
10/3/2007 10:17:24 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
53
Anon (2005b) Prerequisites of Sport Fishing Tourism in Sweden – Report from a Governmental Commission. National Environmental Protection Board and Fisheries Board, Sweden [in Swedish]. Arlinghaus, R. (2004) Recreational fisheries in Germany – a social and economic analysis. Berichte des IGB 18: 1–160. Arlinghaus, R. (2005) A conceptual framework to identify and understand conflicts in recreational fisheries systems, with implications for sustainable management. Aquatic Resources, Culture and Development 1: 145–174. Bates, D.G. and Plog, F. (1990) Cultural Anthropology (3rd edn). McGraw Hill, New York. Burch, W.R., Jr. (1969) The social circles of leisure: competing explanations. Journal of Leisure Research 1: 124–147. Cheek, N.H., Jr. and Burch, W.R., Jr. (1976) The Social Organization of Leisure in Human Society. Harper & Row, New York. Ditton, R.B. and Stoll, J.R. (2003) Social and economic perspective on recreational billfish fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research 54: 545–554. Ericsson, G., Eriksson, T., Laitila, T., Sandström, C., Willebrand, T. and Öhlund, G. (2005) Hunting and fishing – extent, importance and management. Report no. 14, Mountain MISTRA [in Swedish]. Eriksson, T., Nordwall, F. and Näslund, I. (1999) Harvesting of stream fish populations – do we fish too much? In: Fishery Forestry in a River Valley – Managing in a Sustainable Way. The river Ammerå project, pp. 243–266 [in Swedish]. Eriksson, T., Andersson, J., Byström, P. et al. (2006) Fish and wildlife in the Swedish mountain area: resources, use and management. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 2: 1–9. FAO (1999) Guidelines for the Routine Collection of Capture Fishery Data. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 382, Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome. Fedler, A.J. (2000) Sport fish restoration in the future. In: Celebrating 50 Years of the Sport Fish Restoration Program. Fisheries (Special Supplement), 24(7), Bethesda, MD. FGFRI (2002) Recreational Fishing 2000, Official Statistics of Finland. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery 54. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute. FGFRI (2004) Recreational Fishing 2002, Official Statistics of Finland. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery 51. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute. FGFRI (2005) Recreational Fishing 2004, Official Statistics of Finland. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery 62. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute. Field, D.R. and O’Leary, J.T. (1973) Social groups as a basis for assessing participation in selected water activities. Journal of Leisure Research 5: 15–25. Gao, H. (2001) The ever developing recreational fisheries in China (in Chinese). Chinese Fisheries 11: 76–77. Henderson, K.A. (1994) Broadening an understanding of women, gender, and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research 26: 1–7. Henry, G.W. and Lyle, J.M. (2003) The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey. Final Report, FRDC Project No. 99/158. Cronulla, NSW, Australia. Herrmann, M., Milner, L.M., Giraud, K.L., Baker, M.S. and Hiser, R.F. (2002) German participation in Alaska sport fisheries in 1998. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 9: 27–43. Hilge, V. (1998) Data on recreational fisheries in the Federal Republic of Germany. In: P. Hickley and H. Tompkins (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic and Management Aspects, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 10–14.
GCRF_02.indd 53
10/3/2007 10:17:24 AM
54
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Hunt, K.M. and Ditton, R.B. (2002) Freshwater fishing participation patterns of racial and ethnic groups in Texas. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 52–65. Jomo, K.S. (1991) Fishing for Trouble: Malaysian Fisheries, Sustainable Development and Inequality. Institute of Advanced Studies, University of Malaya. Kelly, J.R. (1990) Leisure (2nd edn). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kriström, B., Laitila, T. and Paulrud, A. (2004) Ekonomiska konsekvensanalyser av olika förvaltningsstrategier för fiskerekreation i Kaitumälven. In: Ekologiskt anpassad turistnäring – Exemplet fiske i Kaitumälven, Slutrapport, Gällivare kommun. Laitila, T., Jonsson, A. and Paulrud, A. (2006) Regleringsdammen vid Storsjö-Kapell – Sportfiskarnas värdering av ett återställande till naturligt fjällfiske. FjällMistraRapport nr. 19, Fjällmistra, SLU, Umeå, 2006. Laitinen, J., Honkanen, A., Kettunen, J., Koskela, J. and Meristö, T. (2005) Kalatalouden tulevaisuus (The Future of Finnish Fishing Industry). Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Helsinki [in Finnish, English summary]. Lin, L. and Hong, H. (2005) Thoughts on industrialization of recreational fisheries in China (in Chinese). Chinese Fisheries 1: 79–80. Lyman, J. (2002) Cultural values and change: catch and release in Alaska’s sport fisheries. In: J. Lucy and A. Studehome (Eds) Catch and Release in Marine Recreational Fisheries, pp. 29–36. Moilanen, P. (2001) Recreational fishing. In: Finnish Fishery Time Series. Official Statistics of Finland. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery 60, pp. 108–112. National Marine Fisheries Service (2005) Pre-draft of the Atlantic highly migratory species fishery management plan including the 2005 Stock assessment and fishery evaluation (safe) report for Atlantic hightly migratory species. Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. Nordwall, F., Lundberg, P. and Eriksson, T. (2000) Comparing size limit strategies for exploitation of a self-thinned stream fish population. Fisheries Management and Ecology 7: 413–424. Norling, I. (2003) Sportfishery, Importance and Value for the Society. Swedish Sportfishery and Fishery Management Association, p. 22 [in Swedish], Stockholm, Sweden. Page, L.M. and Robins, R.H. (2006) Identification of sailfin catfishes (Teleostei: Loricariidae) in Southeastern Asia. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 54(2): 455–457. Pauly, D and Chua, T.E. (1988) The overfishing of marine resources: socioeconomic background in Southeast Asia. Ambio 17(3): 200–206. Raab, B. and Vedin, H. (1995) National Atlas of Sweden: Climate, lakes and rivers. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm. Radonski, G.C. (2000) History of the federal aid in sport fish restoration program. In: G.H. Rassam, A. Loftus and B. Tyler (Eds) Celebrating 50 Years of the Sport Fish Restoration Program, Fisheries (Supplement), 25(7), Bethesda, MD. Salmi, P. and Muje, K. (2001) Local owner-based management of Finnish lake fisheries: social dimensions and power relations. Fisheries Management and Ecology 8: 435–442. Salmi, P., Toivonen, A.L. and Mikkola, J. (2006) Impact of summer cottage residence on recreational fishing participation in Finland. Fisheries Management and Ecology 13: 275–283.
GCRF_02.indd 54
10/3/2007 10:17:24 AM
International perspective on recreational fishing
55
Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E. and Stefani, L.A. (1998) Communication between Cultures (3rd edn). Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Siemer, W.F., Brown, T.L. and Decker, D.J. (1989) An Exploratory Study of Lake Ontario’s Boating Salmonid Anglers: Implications for Research on Fishing Involvement. HDRU Series No. 89-4, Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Sievänen, T. (Ed.) (2001) Luonnon virkistyskäyttö [Outdoor recreation] 2000. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 802 [in Finnish, English summary and tables]. Steffens, W. and Winkel, M. (2002) Evaluation recreational fishing in Germany. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 130–137. Toivonen, A.L., Roth, E., Navrud, S. et al. (2004) The economic value of recreational fisheries in Nordic countries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11: 1–14. US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Bureau of the Census (2002) 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated Recreation. US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Von Lukowicz, M. (1998) Education and training in recreational fisheries in Germany. In: P. Hickley and H. Tompkins (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic and Management Aspects. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 287–293. Zakariah, Z.M. and Ali, A. (1996) Fisheries management in Chenderoh Reservoir, Perak, Malaysia. In: Z.A. Abu Hassan and Zubaid Akbar (Eds) Conservation and Faunal Biodiversity in Malaysia. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.
GCRF_02.indd 55
10/3/2007 10:17:24 AM
Chapter 3
Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach to recreational fisheries management Emphasis on the importance of the human dimension Robert Arlinghaus and Ian G. Cowx
Abstract In recreational fishing, high and often selective angling mortality coupled with deleterious management actions such as stocking non-native fish can, under certain situations, impact fish communities and entire ecosystems. To counterbalance these impacts, an ecosystem approach to recreational fisheries may be needed. This chapter reviews the meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach for recreational fisheries focusing on inland waters. It examines the principles behind the approach and potential constraints on adoption in recreational fisheries management. Most of the principles of the ecosystem approach for recreational fisheries are already enrooted in a properly defined sustainability paradigm. Thus, the concept is not new. For its success, it is important to account for the vital role of the human dimension in at least two areas: setting of management objectives and expecting paradoxical dynamics resulting from the anglers’ behaviour. Local capacity-building and self-empowerment of anglers to internalize the importance of an ecosystem approach to recreational fisheries management is crucial if recreational fisheries are to be integrated into the wider framework of aquatic ecosystem management.
Introduction Recreational fishing is firmly established as the dominant or sole user of many coastal and most inland fish stocks in industrialized societies (Arlinghaus et al. 56
GCRF_03.indd 56
10/3/2007 10:20:05 AM
Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach
57
2002), and its importance in less developed countries is increasing rapidly (Cowx 2002b). Fishing activity of any kind, whether commercial or recreational, affects fish communities (e.g. size and age structure, recruitment), food webs (e.g. trophic relationships) and, indirectly, aquatic ecosystems (Pauly et al. 2002; Post et al. 2002). Given the potential cumulative fishing mortality of millions of recreational anglers, it is possible that recreational angling can deplete exploitable fish stocks in much the same manner as has occurred in commercially exploited marine stocks (Goedde and Coble 1981; Cooke and Cowx 2006; Lewin et al. 2006). Indeed, Post et al. (2002) discussed several examples of angler-exploited Canadian freshwater fish stocks that showed signs of severe overexploitation, with some stocks of rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss), walleye (Sander vitreus), pike (Esox lucius) and lake trout (Salvelinus namycush) collapsing or declining severely in two to three decades of intensive fishing. Of the 27 walleye fisheries examined by Sullivan (2003), 12 collapsed in response to angling mortality. Also, in the marine environment, there are well-documented examples of recreational fishing contributing to stock declines (Schroeder and Love 2002; Westera et al. 2003). The main reason for these patterns is that locally annual exploitation rates can range up to 80% for popular target species (reviewed by Lewin et al. 2006). Despite this evidence, the potential role of recreational fishing in global fish reductions seems to be largely ignored by decision makers (Cooke and Cowx 2004, 2006). This is partly because weak monitoring and the diffuse nature of recreational fishing in the landscape leads to invisible stock declines (Post et al. 2002). As a consequence, the potential negative biological impact of recreational fishing is less obvious to stakeholders, fisheries managers and politicians (Post et al. 2002), which, in reality, can constitute a conservation issue of global relevance, particularly in selected freshwater fisheries (Arlinghaus and Cooke 2005). Unintended consequences of fishing, including habitat destruction, incidental mortality of non-target species, evolutionary shifts in population demographics and changes in the function and structure of ecosystems are being increasingly recognized in the marine commercial fisheries (Pauly et al. 2002; Pikitch et al. 2004). Critical in this respect is the need to recognize that recreational fishing can also induce large-scale, sometimes irreversible, changes in fish communities and aquatic ecosystems. This can be related to selective exploitation patterns inducing ecological and evolutionary changes in the fish stocks (see Cooke and Cowx 2006; Lewin et al. 2006; Lewin et al. this book for extensive reviews) or be a result of detrimental fishing practices or management actions, especially stocking of native, hatchery-reared fish and introduction of exotic species or transfer of fish across catchments (Arlinghaus et al. 2002; Cooke and Cowx 2006; Lewin et al. this book). Stocking, for example, can be both beneficial or extremely detrimental to the ecosystem and fish community structure and functioning. An example of negative ecological impacts associated with introductions is brown trout (Salmo trutto) stocked into New Zealand streams and subsequently displaced
GCRF_03.indd 57
10/3/2007 10:20:06 AM
58
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
many native fishes in the family Galaxiidae. Historically, galaxiids were common top predators, but are now restricted to trout-free reaches above waterfalls and other barriers to migration (Townsend 2003). Other impacts associated with stocking are genetic contamination and spread of disease, of which many examples exist in the literature (Lewin et al. 2006, this volume). Many more examples of impacts of stocking top predatory fish into native communities on the ecosystem level were recently provided by Eby et al. (2006). Given the impacts associated with recreational fishing mortality and activity (e.g. disruption of wildlife, groundbaiting, Niesar et al. 2004; Arlinghaus and Niesar 2005) and with recreational fisheries management practices such as stocking, accounting for potential ecosystem-level impacts induced by fishing has relevance for some, clearly not all, recreational fisheries. The relevance is evident in recreational fisheries where intensity of fishing is high or stocking is considered a panacea for management and where mismanagement has been identified in the past (e.g. Post et al. 2002; Sullivan 2003). The first step would involve increased awareness of the potential ecosystem impacts of recreational fishing, instead of trying to discount them in the public discussion (Nussmann 2005). However, declines in fish stocks are only partly the result of fishing. Anthropogenic activities, such as agriculture, damming, deforestation, navigation, wetland reclamation, urbanization, water abstraction and transfer and waste disposal have altered freshwater ecosystems profoundly, probably more than terrestrial ecosystems (Cowx 2002a). Consequently, in most areas of the world the principal impacts on freshwater recreational fisheries do not originate from the fishery itself but from outside the fishery (Arlinghaus et al. 2002). The need for concerted effort to prevent and reduce modification of fisheries habitats – as well as conservation of fish and fisheries as renewable common pool resources or entities in their own right – are the greatest challenges facing sustainable development of recreational fisheries [Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 1999]. An emerging approach to help address the multifaceted problems prevalent in the marine commercial fisheries sector is ecosystem-based fishery management (Pikitch et al. 2004). This approach, which potentially has its roots in inland catchment-based management and coastal zone management, may also be applicable to recreational fisheries. The objective of this chapter is to review the concept of ecosystem-based management and assess whether it is appropriate for recreational fisheries in freshwater ecosystems.
Ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) management Meaning of the EAF In recent years, an increasing number of terms and concepts that have reversed priorities for management from the target species, particularly fish, to the ecosystem
GCRF_03.indd 58
10/3/2007 10:20:06 AM
Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach
59
have been proposed (Pikitch et al. 2004). These include ecologically sustainable development (ESD, e.g. Scandol et al. 2005), ecosystem management (EM, e.g. Larkin 1996; Lackey 1998; Schramm and Hubert, 1999), ecosystem-based management (EBM, e.g. Ward et al. 2002), ecosystem-based fishery management (EBFM, e.g. Brodziak and Link 2002; Pikitch et al. 2004) and EAF (e.g. Garcia and Cochrane 2005). Although they differ slightly in the scope of the regions and activities covered, and therefore the breath of issues to be managed (Fletcher 2006), all approaches recognize that management must deal with the full suite of ecological and evolutionary consequences of fishing. In this context, the term EAF is preferred instead of the more common EBFM advocated by Pikitch et al. (2004) to avoid misunderstanding among stakeholders that the ecosystem per se is the ‘foundation’ of fisheries management (Garcia et al. 2003). This may be misinterpreted as giving environmental considerations pre-eminence over socio-economic and cultural ones, raising concern about equity, political and socio-economic issues (Garcia et al. 2003). Also the term ‘approach’ inherent in EAF delineates a way of taking ecosystem considerations into more conventional fisheries management and a mechanism to account for ecosystem processes in the formulation of management measures (Sissenwine and Murawaski 2004). The EAF hence emphasizes an evolution of fisheries management rather than a revolution (Mace 2004), thereby avoiding that ‘revolutionary ideas’ might be interpreted by fisheries stakeholders as a threat to continued participation. According to FAO (2003), the global interest in an EAF has been motivated by z
z z z
heightened awareness of the importance of interactions among fishery resources and between fishery resources and the ecosystems within which they exist recognition of the wide range of societal objectives for, and values of, fishery resources and ecosystems within the context of sustainable development poor performance of current management approaches as witnessed by the poor state of many of the world’s fisheries recent advances in science, which highlight knowledge and uncertainties about the functional value of ecosystems to humans (i.e. the goods and services they are capable of providing).
In both large- and small-scale commercial and recreational fisheries, fishing activities usually affect other components of the ecosystem in which the harvesting is occurring. For example, there are sometimes issues such as by-catch of non-targeted species, physical damage to habitats, food-chain effects or changes to biodiversity (FAO 2003; Cooke and Cowx 2006; Lewin et al. 2006). Responsible fisheries management must therefore consider the broader impact of fisheries on the ecosystem as a whole, taking biodiversity across genetic, species and population levels into account. This is the basic premise of the EAF, that is, the sustainable use of the whole system, including their functions, services
GCRF_03.indd 59
10/3/2007 10:20:06 AM
60
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
and fish stocks, to persist in the long term (Costanza and Patten 1995), not just a targeted species. In this context, the ecosystem approach to sustainable fisheries was defined by FAO (2003) as ‘to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystems’. Therefore, the EAF strives to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking account of the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human components of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries (FAO 2003). The ecosystem approach recognizes that humans are an integral component of ecosystems, not a non-natural disturbance to be avoided. It can be considered a general framework for analysis and implementation of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (www.biodiv.org, UNEP 1998). These broad objectives correspond to the concepts of maintaining ecosystem health, ecosystem integrity, social–ecological resilience and ecosystem productivity and utilizing the productivity of fish stocks in an equitable manner. However, these objectives can only be achieved by transforming these difficult-to-define concepts into socially acceptable and more tangible issues such as conserving biodiversity, maintaining fishery habitats, protecting important components of the ecosystem and translating these issues into activities that can be related to operational objectives. The definition of an EAF provided above by the FAO (2003) has a striking similarity to the one of sustainable development popularized on a global scale by the Bundtland report [World Commission on Enviroment and Development (WCED) 1987], and subsequently adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (‘Earth Summit’ Agenda 21 in Rio de Janeiro 1992), viz ‘meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Thus, the EAF is not a separate concept from the overarching sustainability paradigm, but is enrooted in sustainable management and can be considered a means to approach sustainability in situations where one activity, here recreational fishing, comprises the socially accepted or the socially demanded state of an exploited ecosystem (Arlinghaus et al. 2002). The roots of the EAF are deep in early days of inland water fisheries, wildlife and forest management. So, traditional fishery management, as practiced by small-scale fishing communities, was possibly more ecosystem-conscious than the modern, conventional management of large-scale marine fisheries (Garcia and Cochrane 2005). However, despite the emphasis on the social and economic dimensions of fisheries and in contrast to a properly defined sustainability concept, the EAF concept typically focuses on ecologically sustainable development (Scandol et al. 2005) or ecological sustainability (Charles 1994). It essentially means ‘fisheries management in an ecosystem context,
GCRF_03.indd 60
10/3/2007 10:20:06 AM
Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach
61
not ecosystem management in a fisheries context’ (Link 2002) or ‘using what is known about the ecosystem to manage fisheries’ (Fluharty 2005).
Principles of the EAF According to FAO (2003) and Pikitch et al. (2004), the EAF should z z z z
limit fishing impacts on the ecosystems, as measured by indicators of environmental quality and system status minimize the risk of irreversible change to natural assemblages of species and ecosystem processes as a result of fisheries through good governance, obtain and maintain long-term socio-economic benefits without compromising the ecosystem generate knowledge of ecosystem processes sufficient to understand the likely consequences of human actions.
Others, more general principles of the ecosystem approach to conserve and sustainably manage biological diversity, including fish, were developed in a workshop on the ecosystem approach as guiding for the implementation of the convention on biological diversity. These principles are today known as the Malawi principles, reflecting the location where the workshop took place in 1998 (UNEP 1998); they have great relevance within the ecosystem approach to recreational fisheries management. Their main feature is that social aspects and issues are explicitly dealt with, that is, a single focus on the ecosystems and biology is avoided. It is also noteworthy that societal choice dictates management objectives, that is, those are subjected to change and interpretation of different stakeholders. Also, the ecosystem approach explicitly acknowledges that some impact of humans on ecosystems is inevitable, which should be guiding for recreational fishing as well. The 12 principles are (1) Management objectives are a matter of societal choice. (2) Objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term. (3) Management must realize that change is inevitable. (4) Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level. (5) The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate scale. (6) A key feature of the approach includes conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning. (7) Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning. (8) Ecosystem managers should consider the effects of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems. (9) There is a need to understand the ecosystem in an economic context.
GCRF_03.indd 61
10/3/2007 10:20:06 AM
62
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
(10) There must be a balance between conservation and use. (11) All forms of relevant information should be considered, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices. (12) All relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines should be involved. Where knowledge is insufficient, that is, where the local situation is poorly understood due to lack of data and lack of efficient monitoring (Post et al. 2002; Arlinghaus 2006), robust and precautionary recreational fisheries’ management measures that favour the ecosystem should be adopted. Critical in this respect is awareness of potential ecosystem impacts and right incentives among resource users, including those of recreational fisheries, to strive for an improved ecosystem state or avoiding ecosystem-level impacts. In simple terms, good governance must motivate anglers to ensure that, through their fishing activities, no undesirable impacts on the ecosystem and the fish stocks are induced.
EAF challenges of managing ecological services generated by fish The National Research Council (NRC 1999) described the EAF as ‘an approach that seriously takes all major ecosystem components and services – both structural and functional – into account in managing fisheries’. It is therefore a fundamental distinction between ecosystem components (e.g. fish, habitat and people) and services. Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems (summarized for fish in Table 3.1). Fisheries management deals explicitly with cultural services (yield, income, recreational experience, aesthetic values), but other ecological services provided by fish, particularly supporting ones, are usually not considered (Garcia and Cochrane 2005). Fisheries may have an impact on such other services that in turn may impact on the productivity or resilience of the entire social–ecological system of recreational fisheries (Carpenter and Folke 2006). The EAF can help to raise awareness of the total environment in which fisheries and its management takes place, which contrasts with the traditional, narrow, fisheries focus or single species orientation of many fisheries stakeholders and managers (Schramm and Hubert 1999; Cowx 2003). In recreational fisheries, this problem is sometimes less prevalent; fisheries stakeholders have successfully contributed to effective aquatic ecosystem conservation by, for example, replacing stocking by a more sustainable set of harvest regulations, striving for improved water quality or rehabilitation of water bodies to promote natural regeneration (Bate 2001; Arlinghaus et al. 2002). The EAF to recreational fisheries necessitates three key changes in management philosophy to move beyond the current sectoral approach to fisheries management (Figure 3.1). First, management goals must be framed with respect to the conservation or improvement of all ecosystem services of fish as long as
GCRF_03.indd 62
10/3/2007 10:20:06 AM
Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach
Table 3.1
63
Major fundamental and demand-derived ecosystem services generated by fish.
Fundamental ecosystem services Regulating services
Linking services
Regulation of food web dynamics
Linkage within aquatic ecosystems
Recycling of nutrients
Linkage between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
Regulation of ecosystem resilience
Transport of nutrients, carbon and minerals
Redistribution of bottom substrates
Transport of energy
Regulation of carbon fluxes from water to atmosphere
Acting as ecological memory
Maintenance of sediment processes Maintenance of genetic, species, ecosystem biodiversity Demand-derived ecosystem services Cultural services
Information services
Production of food
Assessment of ecosystem stress
Aquaculture production
Assessment of ecosystem resilience
Production of medicine
Revealing evolutionary tracks
Control of hazardous diseases
Provision of historical information
Control of algae and macrophytes
Provision of scientific and educational information
Reduction of waste
Keeping people in close contact to nature
Supply of aesthetic values
Promotion of respect for wildlife
Supply of recreational activities including recreational fishing
Learning and environmental education
Supply of social benefits and quality of life including cultural, social (e.g. friendships), psychological (e.g. satisfying various needs through fishing) and physiological (e.g. human health) dimensions Supply of economic benefits such as jobs Supply of ecological benefits such as the impetus for fishers to engage in fish population management/rehabilitation Source: Modified from Holmlund and Hammer 1999.
achieving this is possible for fisheries managers (which is not always the case; e.g. large-scale habitat improvement schemes can rarely be implemented by fisheries stakeholders alone – see below). With respect to recreational fisheries, the primary goods and services referred to in the EAF include security of satisfactory recreational experiences, provision of healthy fish for domestic consumption, preservation of the myriad of socio-economic and ecological benefits recreational fishing provides to society (Arlinghaus et al. 2002), but also conserving
GCRF_03.indd 63
10/3/2007 10:20:06 AM
64
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Key ecosystem services
Ecosystem structure, functioning, processes
Stocking, habitat managment harvest regulations
Recreational fisheries management
Habitat modification
Habitat management
Pollution, sedimentation
Water quality management
Ecosystem approach to management Figure 3.1 Key aspects of an ecosystem approach to managing the ecological services generated by fish. This approach considers the cumulative and interactive impacts of multiple sectors on the stocks and flow of key ecosystem services. Fisheries stakeholders are often not able to modify impacts acting on a particular fishery outside their traditional domain (Source: Modified from Rosenberg and McLeod 2005).
biodiversity and maintaining habitats. In much of the industrialized world, rebuilding ecosystems can be viewed as the overarching goal of modern sustainable fisheries management and not sustainable fisheries per se, because public support is more likely to occur for sustainable ecosystems than for sustainable fisheries (Pitcher 2001). Second, an ecosystem approach to recreational fisheries must account for interactions betweens sectors by integrating management goals across multiple sectors (Figure 3.1). Current approaches in fisheries management, both marine and freshwater, ignore these interactions at the cost of decreasing the overall ability of systems to provide the full range of services, as well as compromising the ability of any given policy to meet individual sector goals (Rosenberg and McLeod 2005). There is a need to manage recreational fisheries, with wider cross-sectoral implications in mind. For example, opening up access for fishing should not impinge on wildlife or groundbaiting should not contribute to nutrient loading (Niesar et al. 2004; Arlinghaus and Niesar 2005). On the other hand, non-fishery impacts due to, for example, agricultural practices affect habitat and water quality through nutrient input into surface waters, which in turn alter the productivity of freshwaters and the fish community structure and abundance. The EAF must recognize all these activities in concert. Third, cumulative impacts across sectors, such as non-fishery-induced habitat impacts noted earlier, may significantly undermine ecosystem services. Unfortunately, fisheries stakeholders are often politically and financially compromised
GCRF_03.indd 64
10/3/2007 10:20:07 AM
Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach
65
and so are unable to take effective actions, and they are required to consult with a multitude of stakeholders, such as water management authorities, landowners or owners of hydropower plants, to exert a response. The EAF can only be successful if all stakeholders work together for a common goal.
Threats to the implementation of the EAF in recreational fisheries, with emphasis on the human dimension The ecosystem approach as a potential new management philosophy in recreational fisheries has evolved because z
z
z
z
Recreational fisheries, owing to human population growth and intense anthropogenic alteration of freshwater ecosystems, tend to be intrinsically linked to heavily managed water bodies (rivers, lakes and coastal waters) where multiple user conflicts are well described and acknowledged (Cowx 1998; Arlinghaus 2005). Recreational fishers, owing to increased mobility, high communication speed and technological progress (e.g. echo sounders), can effectively exploit fish also in remote, previously inaccessible areas (Cox and Walters 2002). Of the consideration of multiple human values by various stakeholders in the process of natural resource management – values that are necessary for setting policy, establishing laws and ultimately making management decisions and actions (Cambray and Pister 2002). Of the freshwater biodiversity crisis, which can only be halted or reversed by rehabilitation or conservation of crucial aquatic habitats (Cowx and Collares-Pereira 2002).
Existing frameworks for implementing the EAF in the marine environment (e.g. FAO 2003; Garcia et al. 2003) do not appear to account fully for the interaction between, and impact of, other stakeholders on fisheries but concentrate on the impact of fisheries on ecosystem functioning (Figure 3.1). This is an important issue because degradation of habitat through non-fishery impacts is equally, if not more, important for the maintenance of natural fisheries resources in inland waters. In inland waters, where the principal drivers are environment related, the concept of EAF is appropriate, although the concept may be premature because, as repeatedly mentioned, many ecosystems have been heavily impacted, and defining a healthy ecosystem is based on highly diverse value systems of different stakeholders (Arlinghaus 2005). Nevertheless, this issue has to be resolved because various legislation worldwide such as the European Water Framework Directive are now encouraging ‘good’ environmental governance (whatever that means is dependent on the values of different stakeholders facilitating intensive conflicts between, say, nature conservationists and fisheries stakeholders; Arlinghaus 2005).
GCRF_03.indd 65
10/3/2007 10:20:07 AM
66
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
However, before it can be fully accepted as a management approach for recreational fisheries, EAF needs to be more advanced in terms of evaluating alternative ecosystem states, defining operational ecosystems objectives and specifying ecosystem management standards and performance measures analogous to those that currently exist for single-species management of fisheries (e.g. Larkin 1996; Mace 2001). This process includes segregating the difference between anthropomorphic expectations and end states derived by natural recovery processes; what is deemed acceptable to society may not necessarily be appropriate to optimal ecosystem functioning. This setting of ecosystem objectives or standards is considered by scientists (e.g. Scandol et al. 2005) to be a major constraint on the adoption of EAF because of the unacceptably high research costs in gaining the information to support the decision making for most small-scale fisheries, a characteristic of most recreational fisheries. This is particularly true in freshwater recreational fisheries, where millions of anglers exploit thousands of different fish stocks. It would be prohibitively expensive and impractical to monitor them all (Cox and Walters 2002). Consequently, it should be recognized that alternative feedback mechanisms between exploiters and the exploited system on the status of recreational fisheries, such as angler creel surveys, are necessary, which cannot be replaced by fishery-independent fish population surveys. A number of other factors are also likely to threaten the implementation of EAF. These include z z z z z
difficulty of reconciling competing objectives of the multiple stakeholders insufficient or ineffective participation of stakeholders in the development and implementation of the approach insufficient knowledge, as well as biological uncertainties combined with ecological uncertainties inadequate solutions to equity issues and in defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders sometimes unrealistic expectations on what management can realistically achieve and how pristine, unexploited fish stocks look like together with lack of ecosystem thinking and environmental concern and behaviour among various stakeholder groups.
Perhaps more important than the lack of appropriate environmental behaviour as a constraint to the future implementation of the EAF concept, is the lack of what socio-psychologists call inappropriate indirect pro-environmental behaviour. Such behaviour is the lack of support for the EAF concept or for measures that target the ecosystem rather than single species or that are more likely to benefit entire communities instead of single species. This is, for example, critical in central Europe, where recreational fisheries stakeholders are not only users of fisheries resources, but are also private managers of a large set of water bodies (Arlinghaus 2005, 2006). Thus, the beliefs,
GCRF_03.indd 66
10/3/2007 10:20:07 AM
Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach
67
attitudes and incentives of the local angler community often determine what type of management action is taken in a particular water body, irrespective of whether this is agreement with the principles of the EAF. In practice, there is sometimes little appreciation of ecosystem considerations as evidenced by, for example, the dichotomy of management preferences of some angler populations that tend to focus on stocking of single species (Arlinghaus and Mehner 2003, 2005) instead of approaches such as habitat management that could potentially benefit entire fish community and ecosystem functioning (Cowx 1999, 2002a). Anglers residing in Berlin (Germany), for example, support stocking and tend to avoid habitat management (Arlinghaus and Mehner 2003), even if these anglers fish outside the city borders in less disturbed, more rural areas (Arlinghaus and Mehner 2004). Highly modified water bodies or even artificial systems such as ponds or canals can over time become the ‘natural’ reference state as perceived by anglers, which reduces their perceived need for habitat enhancement as a necessary tool to enhance fish populations and angling quality. As suggested by Arlinghaus and Mehner (2003), some anglers, particularly those living in highly urbanized environments, may perceive long-term degraded water bodies (and the impoverished fish stocks therein) as a fixed baseline or a fixed reference point against which management measures are judged (Figure 3.2). This may arise because few anglers experienced a severe decline in fishing quality over their lifetime because of the slow response of fisheries to non-fishery impacts on aquatic ecosystems and because most anthropogenic alterations such as artificial river embankments occurred previous to birth of the contemporary angler generations in Berlin. As a result, anglers may no longer perceive habitat degradation to be the primary threat to sustainability of recreational fisheries, thus dissipating support for EAF (Figure 3.2). The shifting angler–nature relationship is also evident in the growing trend towards artificial, highly stocked fisheries in Central Europe including the United Kingdom (North 2002; Arlinghaus et al. 2002) and the observation that many anglers have adapted or grown accustomed to a deterioration in habitat and water quality (Lappalainen and Pönni 2000). However, there is a trend towards ‘exotic’ fishing tourism worldwide that exposes some angler segments socialized in highly urbanized environment to more pristine areas. It remains to be seen whether this changes the perspectives described above for Central Europe in the future. Another dichotomy between strong support for traditional management versus less support for management that is more in line with the EAF occurs under public fishing rights regimes and open-access characteristic of large parts of North America. Here, there is an intensive scientific debate towards more active management of angling effort to more effectively control domino-like overfishing tendencies occurring across a landscape of spatially structured open-access fisheries, where traditional management aiming at indirectly controlling effort/ mortality through bag limits and size limits has been found to be ineffective at high angling effort levels (Cox and Walters 2002). Cox et al. (2002) showed that
GCRF_03.indd 67
10/3/2007 10:20:07 AM
68
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
“Degradation of the environment and loss of fishery habitat are the preeminent concerns for the sustainability of inland fisheries” (FAO 1999).
Do anglers prefer measures to rehabilitate habitats over other management options? Yes
Perceptions of anglers are in agreement with an ecosystem approach to recreational fisheries management based on an degraded habitat perspective
Visible support for an ecosystem approach
Limited support for an ecosystem approach
No
Primary threat for sustainability of fishery is no longer perceived to be habitat degradation. That means "shifting baseline syndrome".
The heavily and long-term modified waters are a fixed baseline for anglers. Thus, the awareness of the beneficial effect of habitat rehabilitation on fish and fisheries is not widespread among anglers (any more).
“Each generation of fisheries scientists (or anglers) accepts as a baseline the stock size and species composition that occurred at the beginning of their careers, and uses this to evaluate changes” (Pauly 1995).
Figure 3.2 Schematic presentation of the likely impact of the shifting baseline syndrome for the anglers’ support for strategies in agreement with the ecosystem approach to recreational fisheries management (Source: modified from Arlinghaus and Mehner 2003).
under open-access and unlimited effort, traditional harvest regulations such as bag limits and seasonal closures are not drastic enough to affect total exploitation. Despite clear signs of local overfishing particularly among the most productive stocks attracting higher angling effort levels (Parkinson et al. 2004), some North American angler populations show little support for partially limiting angling effort as a means to more effectively controlling overexploitation (Cox and Walters 2002). This lack of support can be counterproductive to the implementation of the EAF to recreational fisheries management (Post et al. 2002). In both Central Europe under restricted-access as well as in North America under open-access, the intrinsic incentives and personal reward systems of anglers seem to be sometimes counterproductive to the implementation of EAF
GCRF_03.indd 68
10/3/2007 10:20:07 AM
Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach
69
and may create perverse dynamics that counter any potential for implementation of EAF measures such as habitat management instead of stocking or effort limitation instead of output controls such as minimum size limits or bag limits. For many anglers, an important driver for support of management measures is catch-dependent angler satisfaction. For example, in Germany, satisfied anglers are more likely to support ecosystem-based habitat management, whereas less satisfied anglers are more likely to focus on stocking of single fish species or a new species to increase fish abundance and angling quality (Arlinghaus and Mehner 2005). Consequently, efforts should be made to closely pay attention to the determinants of catch-dependent angler satisfaction because support for the EAF to recreational fisheries is very likely dependent on high satisfaction levels among the angler population. Alternatively, opposition can be strong whenever stricter regulations or intervention is needed or planned to be implemented (Cox and Walters 2002). Hence, it can be concluded that appropriate incentives, beliefs and attitudes within the angler community is essential if the EAF is to be successfully implemented locally and regionally. It is safe to assume that support for the EAF will very likely only develop if anglers experience personally the rewards of increasing fish abundance by limiting angling mortality through effective effort controls or by changing traditional management approaches such as stocking in favour of alternative actions that increase natural recruitment. We like to call this ‘a second-chance approach to education and information of anglers’ based on personal experiences rather than information campaigns via brochures or leaflets. Nevertheless, managers have to be prepared for unforeseen dilemmas in almost all situations depending on the values of the local angler constituency. For example, Sullivan (2003) provided a compelling case study about active management of angler effort in Alberta, Canada, and the resulting increase in walleye stocks that in turn created discomfort among anglers despite high catch rates. The reason was that, in that case, catch rates were high, but regulations very stringent in terms of the fraction of the catch that was allowed to be removed. The local angler constituency, however, was mainly harvest-oriented. Hence, dissatisfaction was first high when stocks were growthoverfished (i.e. fish were harvested at small sizes before reaching their maximum productivity), but also remained high when stocks and the associated and catch rates recovered over time due to low harvest rates. Such social dynamics have to be accounted for if the EAF is to be a success in recreational fisheries management.
Conclusions and outlook Although the EAF is being considered a novel strategy (Pikitch et al. 1994), in the freshwater and coastal environment it has its foundations in catchment management planning and coastal zone management. The concept is hence
GCRF_03.indd 69
10/3/2007 10:20:08 AM
70
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
everything but new and is in fact enrooted in the (properly defined) sustainability paradigm. It is nevertheless important to increasingly consider potential ecosystem impacts associated with recreational fishing and its management. Recreational fisheries would benefit from the EAF because it may lead to more sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources and it is much more inclusive in terms of the diversity of stakeholder involvement and human values to be considered than a sectoral, single-species management approach to recreational fisheries management. The prerequisites for its implementation are well developed in most recreational fisheries. For example, Hilborn, Orensanz and Parma (2005) identified three primary influences on fisheries management success: (1) the way in which individuals are allowed access to fish resources (access), (2) the decision making structure of the institutions (decision making) and (3) the spatial scale of management (scale). Review of several case studies indicates that there is no single prescription for successful fisheries management; however, a better outcome is more likely with more restrictive access, more appropriate incentives, and increasingly simpler institutions and appropriate management scales (Hilborn et al. 2005), all of which is given in many privately governed recreational fisheries systems (Arlinghaus 2006). To move forward, the greatest challenge for recreational fisheries is to accept that ecosystem-level impacts are possible through their activity (see Cooke and Cowx 2006; Lewin et al. 2006). If this becomes accepted among all those involved in the management of recreational fisheries, progress towards addressing these impacts can be expected, particularly if stakeholders build strong alliances with non-fishery stakeholders. This is relevant in Europe and other regions where non-fishery activities, rather than fishing itself, most strongly impacts on fish communities. Unfortunately, the EAF tends to stress the ecological ‘well-being’ of the sustainability equation as a means to counterbalance the narrow and human-centred vision of conventional fisheries management (Garcia 2005). Without acknowledging the human dimensions of anglers and the need to providing incentives and governance structures that make the interest of the anglers consistent with the interest of society as a whole, progress towards successful implementation of the EAF will be slow. It will also be slow because, with the exception of stocking (Cowx 1994) and possibly intensive fishing pressure (Post et al. 2002), the impact of recreational fishing will be largely dependent on local conditions (e.g. state of the ecological system, number of anglers, collaboration between stakeholders regionally). Consequently, adoption of the concept rests on the spread of the idea from one local angler community to the next, particularly in central Europe, where small-scale governance structures exist (e.g. local angling clubs). This slow internalization of the concept may work against recreational fisheries because they will be marginalized by the more powerful players in the target ecosystem. For the immediate future, it is necessary to translate the broad policy statement about conservation of ecosystems into practical ways of setting and measuring
GCRF_03.indd 70
10/3/2007 10:20:08 AM
Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach
71
progress towards ecosystem-level goals and specifying ecosystem-level indicators and trigger points for performance monitoring as they currently exist for single-species fisheries management (Gangl and Pereira 2003). The paucity of knowledge about how recreational fisheries behave in the wider ecosystem context of improvements in environmental quality is perhaps the major constraint that must be addressed (Scandol et al. 2005). There is too little research into the responses, and hence indicators of fishing success, and of the ecosystem consequences of recreational fisheries. To address this, and other issues in the EAF, it is suggested that scientists and environmental managers engage with anglers and other stakeholders to provide appropriately targeted advice and information. Such public outreach must become mandatory for technically competent persons to inform about potential ecosystem impacts of seemingly benign activities of great social and economic value such as recreational fishing. What might be needed to stimulate changes in management approaches and understanding is the promotion of local expertise to ensure that the concepts and philosophies are taken up by the local end-users. Particularly in Europe, this local capacitybuilding and self-empowerment of anglers is crucial if recreational fisheries are to be integrated into the wider environmental framework of aquatic ecosystem management.
References Arlinghaus, R. (2005) A conceptual framework to identify and understand conflicts in recreational fisheries systems, with implications for sustainable management. Aquatic Resources, Culture and Development 1: 145–174. Arlinghaus, R. (2006) Overcoming human obstacles to conservation of recreational fishery resources, with emphasis on central Europe. Environmental Conservation 33: 46–59. Arlinghaus, R. and Cooke, S.J. (2005) Global impact of recreational fisheries. Science 307: 1561–1562. Arlinghaus, R. and Mehner, T. (2003) Management preferences of urban anglers: habitat rehabilitation measures versus other options. Fisheries 28(6): 10–17. Arlinghaus, R. and Mehner, T. (2004) A management-oriented comparative analysis of urban and rural anglers living in a metropolis (Berlin, Germany). Environmental Management 33: 331–344. Arlinghaus, R. and Mehner, T. (2005) Determinants of management preferences of recreational anglers in Germany: habitat management versus fish stocking. Limnologica 35: 2–17. Arlinghaus, R. and Niesar, M. (2005) Nutrient digestibility of angling groundbaits for carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) and implications of groundbaiting for recreational fisheries management. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12: 91–97. Arlinghaus, R., Mehner, T. and Cowx, I.G. (2002) Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish and Fisheries 3: 261–316.
GCRF_03.indd 71
10/3/2007 10:20:08 AM
72
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Bate, R. (2001) Saving Our Streams: the Role of the Anglers’ Conservation Association in Protecting English and Welsh Rivers. The Institute of Economic Affairs and Profile Books, London. Brodziak, J. and Link, J. (2002) Ecosystem-based fishery management: what is it and how can we do it. Bulletin of Marine Science 70: 589–611. Cambray, J. and Pister, E.P. (2002) The role of scientists in creating public awareness for the conservation of fish species: African and American case studies. In: M.J. CollaresPereira, I.G. Cowx and M.M. Coelho (Eds) Conservation of Freshwater Fish: Options for the Future. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 414–423. Carpenter, S.R. and Folke, C. (2006) Ecology for transformation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 309–315. Charles, A.T. (1994) Towards sustainability: the fishery experience. Ecological Economics 11: 201–211. Cooke, S.J. and Cowx, I.G. (2004) The role of recreational fishing in global fish crises. BioScience 54: 857–859. Cooke, S.J. and Cowx, I.G. (2006) Contrasting recreational and commercial fishing: searching for common issues to promote unified conservation of fisheries resources and aquatic environments. Biological Conservation 128: 93–108. Costanza, R. and Patten, B.C. (1995) Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecological Economics 15: 193–196. Cowx, I.G. (1994) Stocking strategies. Fisheries Management and Ecology 1: 15–30. Cowx, I.G. (1998) Aquatic resource planning for resolution of fisheries management issues. In: P. Hickley and H. Tompkins (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic and Management Aspects. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 97–105. Cowx, I.G. (1999) An appraisal of stocking strategies in the light of developing country constraints. Fisheries Management and Ecology 6: 21–34. Cowx, I.G. (2002a) Analysis of threats to freshwater fish conservation: past and present challenges. In: M.J. Collares-Pereira, I.G. Cowx and M.M. Coelho (Eds) Conservation of Freshwater Fish: Options for the Future. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 201–220. Cowx, I.G. (2002b) Recreational fishing. In: P.J.B. Hart and J.S. Reynolds (Eds) Handbook of Fish Biology and Fisheries Volume II. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 367–390. Cowx, I.G. (2003) Recreational fisheries: options for the future. In: A.P.M. Coleman (Ed.) Regional Experiences for Global Solutions, The Proceedings of the 3rd World Recreational Fishing Conference 21–24 May 2002, Northern Territory, Australia. Darwin: Fisheries Report 67, Fisheries Group, Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development, pp. 199–202. Cowx, I.G. and Collares-Pereira, M.J. (2002) Freshwater fish conservation: options for the future. In: M.J. Collares-Pereira, I.G. Cowx and M.M. Coelho (Eds) Conservation of Freshwater Fish: Options for the Future. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 443–452. Cox, S. and Walters, C. (2002) Maintaining quality in recreational fisheries: how success breeds failure in management of open-access sport fisheries. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 107–119. Cox, S.P., Beard, T.D. and Walters, C.J. (2002) Harvest control in open-access sport fisheries: hot rod or asleep at the reel? Bulletin of Marine Science 70: 749–761. Eby, L.A., Roach, W.J., Crowder, L.B. and Stanford, J.A. (2006) Effects of stocking-up freshwater food webs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 576–584.
GCRF_03.indd 72
10/3/2007 10:20:08 AM
Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem approach
73
FAO (1999) Review of the State of World Fisheries Resources: Inland Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 942. FAO (2003) Fisheries Management 2: The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 4 (Suppl. 2). Fletcher, W.J. (2006) Frameworks for managing marine resources in Australia through ecosystem approaches: do they fit together and are they useful? Bulletin of Marine Science 78: 691–704. Fluharty, D. (2005) Evolving ecosystem approaches to management of fisheries in the USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 300: 248–253. Gangl, R.S. and Pereira, D.L. (2003) Biological performance indicators for evaluation exploitation of Minnesota’s large-lake walleye fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 1303–1311. Garcia, S.M. (2005) Fishery science and decision-making: dire straights to sustainability. Bulletin of Marine Science 76: 171–196. Garcia, S.M. and Cochrane, K.L. (2005) Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of implementation guidelines. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 311–318. Garcia, S.M., Zerbi, A., Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T. and Lasserre, G. (2003) The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. Issues, Terminology, Principles, Institutional Foundations, Implementation and Outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 443. Goedde, L.E. and Coble, D.W. (1981) Effects of angling on a previously fished and an unfished warmwater fish community in two Wisconsin lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110: 594–603. Hilborn, R., Orensanz, J.M.L. and Parma, A.M. (2005) Institutions, incentives and the future of fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 47–57. Holmlund, C.M. and Hammer, M. (1999) Ecosystem services generated by fish populations. Ecological Economics 29: 253–268. Lackey, R.T. (1998) Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban Planning 40: 21–30. Lappalainen, A. and Pönni, J. (2000) Eutrophication and recreational fishing on the Finnish coast of the Gulf of Finland: a mail survey. Fisheries Management and Ecology 7: 323–335. Larkin, P.A. (1996) Concepts and issues in marine ecosystem management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 6: 139–164. Lewin, W.-C., Arlinghaus, R. and Mehner, T. (2006) Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational fishing: insights for management and conservation. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14: 305–367. Link, J.S. (2002) What does ecosystem-based fisheries management mean? Fisheries 27(4): 18–21. Mace, P.M. (2001) A new role for MSY in single-species and ecosystem approaches to fisheries stock assessment and management. Fish and Fisheries 2: 2–32. Mace, P.M. (2004) In defence of fisheries scientists, single-species models and other scapegoats: confronting real problems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 274: 285–291. Niesar, M., Arlinghaus, R., Rennert, B. and Mehner, T. (2004) Coupling insights from a carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) angler survey with feeding experiments to evaluate composition, quality, and phosphorus input of groundbait in coarse fishing. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11, 225–235.
GCRF_03.indd 73
10/3/2007 10:20:08 AM
74
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
North, R. (2002) Factors affecting the performance of stillwater coarse fisheries in England and Wales. In: I.G. Cowx (Ed) Management and Ecology of Lake and Reservoir Fisheries. Oxford, Blackwell Science, pp. 284–298. NRC (1999) Sustaining Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press, Washington. Nussmann, M. (2005) The recreational fisher’s perspective. Science 307: 1560–1561. Parkinson, E.A., Post, J.R. and Cox, S.P. (2004) Linking dynamics of harvest effort to recruitment dynamics in a multistock, spatially structured fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 1658–1670. Pauly, D. (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 430. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S. et al. (2002) Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418: 689–695. Pikitch, E.K., Santora, C., Babcok, E.A. et al. (2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 305: 346–347. Pitcher, T.J. (2001) Fisheries managed to rebuild ecosystems? Reconstructuring the past to salvage the future. Ecological Applications 11: 601–617. Post, J.R., Sullivan, M., Cox, S. et al. (2002) Canada’s recreational fisheries: the invisible collapse? Fisheries 27(1): 6–15. Rosenberg, A.A. and McLeod, K.L. (2005) Implementing ecosystem-based approaches to management for the conservation of ecosystem services. Marine Ecology Progress Series 300: 270–274. Scandol, J.P., Holloway, M.G., Gibbs, P.J. and Astles, K.L. (2005) Ecosystem-based fisheries management: an Australian perspective. Aquatic Living Resources 18: 261–273. Schramm, H.L. Jr. and Hubert, W.A. (1999) Ecosystem Management. In: C.C. Kohler and W.A. Hubert (eds) Inland Fisheries Management in North America (2nd edn). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 111–122. Schroeder, D.M. and Love, M.S. (2002) Recreational fishing and marine fish populations in California. CalCOFI Report 43: 182–190. Sissenwine, M. and Murawski, S. (2004) Moving beyond ‘intelligent thinkering’: advancing an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series 274: 291–295. Sullivan, M.G. (2003) Active management of walleye fisheries in Alberta: dilemmas of managing recovering fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 1343–1358. Townsend, C.R. (2003) Individual, population, community, and ecosystem consequences of a fish invader in New Zealand streams. Conservation Biology 17: 38–47. UNEP (1998) Ecosystem approach under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Information Document No. 9 (UNEP/CBD/COP/4/Inf.9), 4th Conference of the Parties to the CBD to be held in Bratislava, Slovakia from 4 to 15 May 1998. Ward, T., Tarte, D., Hegerl, E. and Short, K. (2002) Ecosystem-based Management of Marine Capture Fisheries. World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, Sydney. Westera, M., Lavery, P. and Hyndes, G. (2003) Differences in recreationally targeted fishes between protected and fished areas of a coral reef marine park. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 294: 145–168. WCED (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
GCRF_03.indd 74
10/3/2007 10:20:09 AM
Chapter 4
Biological impacts of recreational fishing resulting from exploitation, stocking and introduction Wolf-Christian Lewin, Daryl Peter McPhee and Robert Arlinghaus
Abstract While the biological impacts of commercial fishing are well documented, those of recreational fisheries have received less attention. However, intensive and selective angling and related activities (e.g. fish stocking and introductions) can affect fish populations and aquatic ecosystems, often in conjunction with impacts external to the fishery. The risks range from those occurring to the exploited fish population (truncation of the natural age and size structure, delay of stock rebuilding through depensatory mechanisms, loss of genetic variability and adaptation, evolutionary changes) to those that occur to the aquatic ecosystem (changes in trophic cascades or nutrient cycling). In particular, genetic changes and the loss of biodiversity can be a severe threat to fish communities and ecosystems and require sophisticated management approaches. Finally, those implications for a sustainable management of recreational fisheries are discussed, which can help to reduce or avoid unwanted biological effects, social conflicts and ensure the long-term persistence of the natural resources.
Introduction Fishing is of worldwide importance for the generation of food, income and for the satisfaction of various non-consumptive social needs (Arlinghaus et al. 2002). Commercial fishing and fisheries-related activities, such as the stocking of hatchery-reared fish and the introduction of non-native fish species have been the focus of concerns with respect to stock declines and vanishing aquatic biodiversity (e.g. Myers and Worm 2004; Allan et al. 2005; Eby et al. 2006). Yet, during the last decade it has been increasingly recognized that recreational angling is often the sole or dominant use of fish stocks in many freshwater habitats and 75
GCRF_04.indd 75
10/3/2007 10:21:10 AM
76
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
coastal areas of industrialized societies (Arlinghaus et al. 2002; Cooke and Cowx 2006) and that its importance is also increasing in developing countries (Cowx 2002). Recent studies point out that both commercial fishing, but also recreational angling potentially contribute to global fish decline (McPhee et al. 2002; Post et al. 2002). This chapter focuses on exploitation, stocking and introductions, such activities associated with recreational fishing that can have long-term and sometimes irreversible direct and indirect effects on fish populations and aquatic ecosystems. Stocking is the addition of native fish to a water body, whereas introduction means the introduction of exotic, that is, non-native, fish species or the transfer of native fish species between biogeographically disconnected catchments. Direct effects are those that occur directly on the exploited fish population, whereas effects occurring on the level of food webs and ecosystems are classified as indirect effects. Impacts associated with recreational fishing such as habitat modifications, bait harvesting, wildlife disturbance, nutrient input, noise and loss of fishing tackle have mainly local (but sometimes significant) importance; they are, however, not the focus of this chapter (for details, see Lewin et al. 2006). It should also be noted that, in many cases, the biological impacts of angling occur in addition to substantially modified habitats and increased aquatic pollution as a result of continued urban and industrial development. Hence, non-fishery impacts can have a more severe negative influence on fish populations than recreational exploitation alone (Arlinghaus et al. 2002). However, this does not free the recreational fishing sector from the obligation to address the sometimes contentious issue of its own impact. On the contrary, the increased awareness that the aquatic resources are not infinite, and that there is a tight linkage between ecosystems and people on a scale that transcends traditional fisheries management boundaries, necessitates an interdisciplinary approach, particularly as the fisheries management authorities usually do not have the political or financial power to implement, for example, restoration programmes on their own (Knudsen and MacDonald 2000). Furthermore, sufficient cooperation between all or the majority of stakeholders can prevent or minimize inter- and intrasectoral conflicts (Arlinghaus 2005). For example, the cooperation between fisheries stakeholders, fisheries managers, scientists and environmental conservationists may contribute to a better understanding of the challenges and solutions that ultimately benefit both recreational fishing and environmental conservation. The objective of the present chapter is to highlight important issues based on selected examples extracted from the literature. We first present patterns of angling exploitation and the direct consequences on ecological and evolutionary timescales. Subsequently, we follow this order for stocking and introduction, and discuss the indirect impacts of exploitation and stocking, combined. The main types of the documented impact and potential risks resulting from angling and stocking/introduction are provided in Table 4.1.
GCRF_04.indd 76
10/3/2007 10:21:11 AM
GCRF_04.indd 77
10/3/2007 10:21:11 AM
High selectivity for size and size-related life-history traits
Selectivity for behavioural traits
Addition of native fish species
Introduction of nonindigenous species or transfer of fish across catchments
Angling
Angling
Stocking, transfer of native bait fish
Introduction, transfer of exotic bait fish
Selectivity for species
Addition of piscivorous fish
Angling
Stocking and introduction
Indirect effects on food webs and ecosystems
High exploitation rates
Angling
Pattern
Increased top-down control, alteration of food-web structure
Selective removal of species, loss of biodiversity
Increase of competition, predation, hybridization, transfer of parasites and diseases, outbreeding
Increase of competition or predation, hybridization between hatchery and wild fish, outbreeding, transfer of parasites and diseases
Selection pressure against boldness, aggression, changes in migration time
Truncation of age and size structure; decrease in age and size at maturation, possibly alteration of the genetic growth potential and some related reproductive traits
Decline in catch and harvest, high population fluctuations, depensation
Direct ecological and genetic effects in some target species
Decrease of species richness and biomass of non-piscivores, changes in the zooplankton and phytoplankton community, reduction of phytoplankton biomass, changes in nutrient cycling within aquatic ecosystems, between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and in global nutrient cycling, loss of ecosystem resilience
Changes in food webs, trophic cascades and nutrient cycling, loss of ecosystem resilience
Decrease or loss of native fish, amphibian, zooplankton and zoobenthon species
Decrease or loss of native species, changes in the fish community, loss of genetic diversity and adaptive potential
Altered predator–prey interactions, reduced recruitment and growth
Demographic bottlenecks, loss of resilience, genetic variability and evolutionary potential
Population decline, loss of fisheries value, loss of populations
Potential risks
Table 4.1 Summary of angling patterns and associated direct and indirect effects and potential risks resulting from exploitation and stocking.
78
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Patterns of angling exploitation: exploitation rates and selectivity Angling adds a further trophic level to aquatic ecosystems, and anglers can be regarded as key predators in aquatic ecosystems (Hilborn and Walters 1992). Although the level of angling exploitation varies locally, the angling mortality can be significantly high for some components of the food web, in particular for highly valued fish species (often large, aquatic top predators such as salmonids or percids receive a disproportional higher fishing mortality than others) (Post et al. 2002). Moreover, angling is highly selective not only for species but also for sizes, ages, sexes and morphological, physiological, behavioural and lifehistory associated traits (reviewed by Lewin et al. 2006). Because of trophy fishing, minimum-length regulations, or size-specific behaviour and vulnerability to the angling tackle, larger size classes are often positively selected in recreational fisheries (Olson and Cunningham 1989). Even if fish are released because they are protected by harvest regulations or because anglers voluntarily practice catch and release (C&R), there may be negative impacts on fish populations, given a high amount of angling effort (Muoneke and Childress 1994; Batholomew and Bohnsack 2005; Arlinghaus et al. 2007). Depending on fishing tackle, angler experience, fish species or other fish-related or environmental factors, C&R can cause significant stress, affect reproductive success (Cooke et al. 2002; Steinhart et al. 2004) or lead to immediate or delayed post-release mortality that ranges from close to zero to over 90% in particular situations (Muoneke and Childress 1994; Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005). Because of the magnitude of the number of fish frequently released by anglers, even relatively low levels of post-release mortality can lead to significant levels of fishing mortality for a particular species (McPhee et al. 2002; Sullivan 2003). However, C&R can also be a valuable management tool to reduce the mortality and to improve the size structure of exploited populations if used properly in combination with the right species, environmental factors (e.g. water temperature) and by sufficiently skilled anglers who minimize the detrimental impacts (Anderson and Nehring 1984).
Direct effects of high exploitation rates and selectivity Ecological effects Because of the combination of high exploitation rates and pronounced selectivity, angling can have various ecological effects on the exploited fish species. By ecological effects we mean impacts that affect the demography and dynamics of the exploited populations. Typically, exploited populations can cope with a considerable fishing mortality because of compensatory responses that allow
GCRF_04.indd 78
10/3/2007 10:21:11 AM
Biological impacts of recreational fishing
79
populations to rebound from exploitation. These compensatory responses can involve changes in growth rates, fecundity and natural mortality. However, depensatory responses, known in the ecological literature as Allee effects (Stephens and Sutherland 1999), may counteract compensation if the population size is reduced to such a great extent that group dynamics and intraspecific interactions, such as mate choice, are impaired (Stephens and Sutherland 1999). In particular, predatory fish are sensitive to depensatory effects, and those effects may prevent the recovery of these populations (Post et al. 2002). Size-selective angling can shift the size and age structure towards higher percentages of younger and smaller fishes in intensively exploited fish species (Goedde and Coble 1981; Almodovar and Nicola 2004). Because of the positive relationship between fish size and various reproductive traits, such as absolute fecundity or egg and larval size at hatch, the selective removal of large/old individuals may affect the reproductive capacity of the exploited fish population (Bobko and Berkeley 2004). In addition, larger and often older fish guarantee an allocation of the reproductive output over a period of many years (Secor 2000). This pattern plays an important role in the regulation of fish recruitment (Elliott 1994), and there is much evidence that a broader age structure enhances the population’s resilience to external disturbances (Heyer et al. 2001; Hsieh et al. 2006). In addition, at least in some recreationally exploited fish species (e.g. salmonids), the fish are capable of social learning from older and more experienced individuals (Brown and Laland 2003). Experiments with hatchery-reared fish have shown that the contact to trained conspecies improved, for example, feeding behaviour (Brown et al. 2003) or predator avoidance (Järvi and Uglem 1993). Anglers may also induce behavioural changes in the targeted fish, the effects of which may cascade through the food web. If animals avoid a refuge area because of disturbance or predation (Frid and Dill 2002), they may be susceptible to natural predators (Crowder et al. 1997) or experience greater competition in suboptimal or crowded habitats. The habitat change may also have indirect effects by locally influencing the distribution and biomass of their predators as well as of their prey (Lenihan et al. 2001). These ‘trait-mediated effects’ can be important in structuring food-web interactions (Biro et al. 2003), but have not been investigated in a recreational fishing setting so far.
Genetic effects Many marine and freshwater fish species targeted by anglers show a structure of genetically and phenotypically more or less distinct subpopulations (Verspoor et al. 2005). This structure, defined by genetically based adaptations to the local environment, and by evolutionary history, demographic processes and the level of gene flow, ensures their resilience against short- and long-term environmental changes (Ryman et al. 1995) and plays a critical role in sustainable fisheries
GCRF_04.indd 79
10/3/2007 10:21:11 AM
80
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
(Hilborn et al. 2003). In particular, populations living in uncommon or variable habitats constitute an important part of a species’ gene pool (Nielsen et al. 2001). Demographic bottlenecks resulting from high angling exploitation may reduce the genetic variation within a population and its capacity for the retention of rare alleles by genetic drift and inbreeding (Hedrick and Miller 1992), which is particularly relevant in small, isolated populations characteristic of small freshwater ecosystems (Stockwell et al. 2003). The genetic variability may be lowered additionally by the removal of the largest individuals (Borrell et al. 2004). Because many commercially exploited fish stocks (e.g. cod, Gadus morhua) have declined and failed to recover even after a significant reduction of the exploitation (Walsh et al. 2006), there is growing concern that selective exploitation over decades may not only result in demographic consequences for targeted and non-targeted fish species but also in evolutionary changes in some traits and life-history characters (Hutchings 2005). In fact, recent studies have pointed out that intensive and selective fishing has the potential to influence life-history parameters, behavioural traits and reproductive success (Conover and Munch 2002; Walsh et al. 2006). Most studies on evolutionary changes as a consequence of high and selective fishing have been concerned with commercial fishing. However, there are some indications that angling also may select for or against certain traits, provided the fishing mortality is high and the survivors represent genotypes that are less vulnerable to angling mortality and proliferate in subsequent generations. For example, anglers selectively exploited the genetically distinct early running adults and therefore altered the adaptive architecture of an Iberian Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) population (Consuegra et al. 2005). Intensive angling may have also decreased the age at first maturation in pike (Esox lucius) (Diana 1983) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) populations (Drake et al. 1997), and may have also contributed to a change in the age at first maturation and to a degradation of the genetic growth potential of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations (Nuhfer and Alexander 1994; Magnan et al. 2005). Recreational fishing may continue in a region long after commercial fishing operations have ceased because fish stocks have been significantly reduced and commercial fishing is not economically viable. This may lead to persistent selection pressures acting on various traits of recreationally exploited fish species.
Patterns of fish stocking and introduction A major impact of recreational fishing on aquatic ecosystems originates from the stocking of fishes predominantly raised in hatcheries and from deliberate or accidental introductions of non-native fish species or native fishes carrying genes that evolved in other catchments than the recipient ecosystem. Such activities have been performed on a worldwide scale often without considering the effects
GCRF_04.indd 80
10/3/2007 10:21:11 AM
Biological impacts of recreational fishing
81
on the native species (Cambray 2003), and many of the large lakes in the world are threatened by the introduction and spread of non-native species (Hall and Mills 2000). The introduction of cosmopolitan non-native species have contributed to a homogenization of the world’s fish fauna (Rahel 2002) and have led to severe economic losses (Pimentel et al. 2000). The motives for stocking and introductions are numerous, ranging from the reintroduction of locally extinct species, the enhancement of wild fish stocks to maintain or increase fish production and the improvement of water quality, to the establishment of new recreational fisheries (Cowx 1994). Stocking can mitigate the effects of recruitment failures caused by anthropogenic activities and enhance threatened fish populations (Welcomme and Bartley 1998) and can sometimes be considered a sustainable practice (e.g. in put-and-take fisheries; Arlinghaus et al. 2002). It may also be considered more politically preferable to harsher regulations that further limit angling catches to support growing recreational fisheries (Travis et al. 1998). While stocking has initially been performed in freshwater environments, there is increasing interest in marine and estuarine stocking (Taylor et al. 2005). In areas where non-native species have been stocked in the past, the effects may be irreversible if the species has become established and self-sustaining, regardless of current policies that prevent further stocking. Depending on the origin and ecology of the stocked/introduced species and the biological and environmental conditions, stocked fish, particularly those not native to the recipient system, can threaten wild fish populations, shift the natural species assemblages and change aquatic ecosystems and their links to the surrounding landscape (Eby et al. 2006). This also applies to species that are native to a system, if they originate from hatcheries and constitute selected genetic lines that are not adapted to the system in which they are stocked. Because the ecological risks associated with uncontrolled stocking/introduction have been increasingly recognized, legislation in many countries has reduced stocking and restricts or prohibits the introduction of non-native species. Despite this, the stocking of hatchery-reared fish and the translocations of fishes between watersheds to enhance commercial or recreational fisheries is still common (Holmlund and Hammer 2004). There are also examples of accidental introductions associated with the stocking of an unknown mixture of species (Bischoff et al. 1998) or the use of live bait fish (Holthe et al. 2005).
Direct impacts of stocking Ecological effects There are many indications that competitive interactions between stocked and wild fish can affect wild fish populations (Weber and Fausch 2003). The competition
GCRF_04.indd 81
10/3/2007 10:21:12 AM
82
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
risk is particularly high if both species did not evolve in sympatry, so that differences in their resource use that would ameliorate competition did not evolve (Dunham et al. 2002). Because of anglers’ preferences for predatory fishes, stocking practices often increase the densities of predatory fish. Those shifts in the natural species assemblage can contribute to the decrease or loss of local wild fish populations, may destabilize the natural predator–prey system (Stewart et al. 1981) and can contribute to a simplification of food webs (Schwartz et al. 2006). For example, introduced predatory fish contributed to the extinction of the Australian rainbow fish (Melanotaenia eachamensis) in the wild (Barlow et al. 1987), affected native galaxids in New Zealand (Townsend and Crowl 1991), native salmonids in North America (Krueger and May 1991) as well as the endemic species Valencia hispanica in Spain (Planelles and Reyna 1996). The predation by stocked fish may not only affect the other fish species but also amphibian species (Collins and Storfer 2003) and aquatic invertebrates (Knapp et al. 2005). Negative effects of competition and predation are likely to occur if stocking biases the natural community structure or increases the fish densities beyond the threshold set by the carrying capacity of the water body. The introduction of benthivorous fish such as carp (Cyprinus carpio) can cause significant changes in aquatic ecosystems if their densities exceed a waterbody-specific threshold. Their feeding activity and excretion can increase turbidity, facilitate eutrophication and contribute to a regime shift in shallow lakes (Zambrano et al. 2001). An additional risk associated with stocking is the worldwide spread of diseases and parasites (Lafferty et al. 2004). Examples are the spread of the parasites Gyrodactylus salaris that infects Atlantic salmon and Anguillicola crassus parasiting on eel (Anguilla anguilla). Both were spread outside their native range mainly by an anthropogenic movement of infected fish (Johnsen and Jensen 1991; Wickström et al. 1998). The risk of a pathogen transfer is particularly high if the introduced species is a healthy host and the local fish community has not been in former contact with the pathogen.
Genetic effects Stocking may lead to hybridization between fishes of different origin and to gene flow from the stocked to the local fish stock. Whereas a small gene flow between populations may increase their capability for adaptation, a larger gene flow may result in the disruption of locally adapted gene complexes followed by a fitness loss in the locally adapted population (Krueger and May 1991). It is not only the introduction of non-native fish but also the translocations of fish within their native range across disconnected watersheds that can destroy the phylogeographic structure of fish species and affect the fitness of local populations (Gilk et al. 2004).
GCRF_04.indd 82
10/3/2007 10:21:12 AM
Biological impacts of recreational fishing
83
Hatchery-reared fish may perform poorly under natural conditions, primarily as a consequence of hatchery shortfalls such as domestication, genetic drift or inbreeding (Brown and Day 2002). The hybridization between wild and hatcheryreared fish can affect the fitness of the wild fish population. The genetic effects are especially deleterious the more the hatchery and wild fish genetically differ. Differences in terms of genetic diversity, behaviour, morphology or physiology, resulting from selection differences between hatchery and natural environments, have been demonstrated by many researchers (e.g. Einum and Fleming 2001).
Indirect effects of exploitation and stocking on ecosystems According to the trophic cascade theory, changes in the abundance of top predators control a cascade of trophic interactions that regulate zooplankton, algal dynamics and nutrient cycles in aquatic ecosystems (Reid et al. 2000). Both the selective removal or the selective stocking of specific species can have severe but contrasting impacts on aquatic communities, trophic cascades and entire ecosystems (Eby et al. 2006). The consequences of species-selective angling are rarely studied, and until now, there were only few indications that angling may have the potential to induce cascading effects (Pinnegar et al. 2000). Nevertheless, it is likely that the overexploitation of top predators by anglers, or alternatively the increase of top predatory fishes through stocking programmes, impacts other trophic levels. The stocking of top predators can increase the strength of the top-down control leading to shifts of the species abundance and composition in the invertebrate communities (Biggs et al. 2000). For example, the stocking of planktivorous salmonids to enhance the recreational fishery favoured the small-bodied zooplankton species (Donald et al. 2001). The reduction of the large zooplankton species can release the phytoplankton from grazing pressure and promote algal biomass. In contrast, the stocking of piscivorous fish species can reduce the abundance of planktivorous fishes, increase the abundance of large-bodied zooplankton and decrease phytoplankton biomass – an effect utilized in lake restoration techniques (e.g. Carpenter and Lathrop 1999). Predatory fish species can influence nutrient dynamics and stoichiometry via several mechanisms: by determining the magnitude of zooplankton herbivory, the nutrient recycling rate of the zooplankton and by the nutrient recycling of fish (Elser et al. 2000). For example, the stocking of predators can reduce the nutrient excretion by planktivorous fish (Findlay et al. 2005). Predators can influence the nutrient transfer between littoral and pelagic areas if they force planktivorous fish to hide and to feed in the littoral (Okun et al. 2005). Also, the nutrient exchange between aquatic and adjacent terrestrial ecosystems may be affected if stocked fish increase the predation pressure on amphibians or insect larvae – an effect that may cascade through terrestrial food webs (Eby et al. 2006). Those effects
GCRF_04.indd 83
10/3/2007 10:21:12 AM
84
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
cascading down to the level of primary producers may even change the carbon exchange between aquatic ecosystems and atmosphere (Schindler et al. 1997). To sum up, given a high intensity of stocking, it is not unlikely that poorly planned stocking practices can compromise biodiversity. Although the mechanisms are still a matter of debate, there are many indications that biodiversity contributes to the functioning and the resilience of ecosystems (Hooper et al. 2005). Irrespective of the preceding discussion, stocking and angling exploitation do not necessarily impact fish populations negatively. There are also studies that have failed to detect any significant impact of, for example, angling mortality, if mortality levels were low or compensatory processes strong. Concerning stocking, several studies indicate that stocking, depending on environmental conditions, stocking practices and the size and origin of the stocked fish may be a useful management tool for re-establishing fish stocks (Schram et al. 1999) and for improving stocks of salmonids, for example (Aprahamian et al. 2003), eel (Leopold and Bninska 1984), tench, Tinca tinca (Skrzypczak and Mamcarz 2006), muskellunge, Esox masquinongy (Wahl 1999) and pikeperch, Stizostedium vitreum (Pratt and Fox 2003), as long as the fundamental problems that have caused the population decline have been addressed. In addition, stocking of piscivorous fish combined with a reduction of nutrient loads can be used to rehabilitate eutrophied lakes (Mehner et al. 2004). Stocking offers conflicting potentials for fisheries management and the significant ecological risks associated with stocking; in particular, the genetic impacts on wild populations need to be addressed by an appropriate risk assessment approach (Holmlund and Hammer 2004).
Implications for the management of recreational fisheries Although the main threats to fish populations (e.g. modifications of water bodies and habitat loss) most often originate from outside the fishery (Arlinghaus et al. 2002), there is growing evidence that intensive angling and associated activities can have a negative impact on fish population ecosystems, contributing to regime shifts from a desired to a less desired state and thus resulting in high costs to society. Common management approaches – although often successful – cannot always prevent unwanted biological effects. The open-access nature of many recreational fisheries presents a considerable challenge to fisheries managers (Kearney 2001). To avoid or reduce biological impacts on fish stocks and ecosystems, management principles such as precaution, cooperation across stakeholders and public agencies, risk assessment, active adaptive management practices and post-implementation evaluation of management measures should be adapted and routinely applied to the management of recreational fishing (Arlinghaus et al. 2002). To avoid the detrimental impacts of selective exploitation, the exploitation should not be biased towards particular components of a population. The protection of
GCRF_04.indd 84
10/3/2007 10:21:12 AM
Biological impacts of recreational fishing
85
a naturally variable size and age structure and an increase of the proportion of old repeat spawners reduce the risk of recruitment failures (Birkeland and Dayton 2005). This may necessitate a greater use of maximum-size limits or slot limits (both a minimum- and maximum-size limit) for some species. Where necessary, a reduction of the overall fishing mortality may be locally needed (Post et al. 2002) by closing fishing or implementing successful C&R protocols. A combination of output (catch and harvest) and input (fishing effort) controls might ensure successful fisheries management. However, the effectiveness of common regulations varies to such an extent that the reliance on bag limits or minimumsize limits needs rethinking (Conover and Munch 2002). Catch and release may help to reduce the overall fishing mortality and to preserve the natural age and size structure of exploited fish species if used properly with regard to species and environmental factors, and by sufficiently skilled anglers (Cooke and Suski 2005). Under conditions of unsustainable exploitation, other possible management actions are specific quota, access restrictions, increases in access costs in terms of time or money, lottery systems of access, annual rotation access schemes, regulations of total angling effort, total harvest limitations or combinations of these options (Carpenter and Brock 2004). The establishment of protected areas becomes increasingly important in the management of marine fisheries. With regard to inland freshwater reserves, there are very few scientific studies available, although work is emerging in the Caspian Sea region, highlighting the need to consider marine and freshwater areas in integrated reserve network planning (Khanmohammadi et al. in press). The protection of certain areas of rivers or lakes may contribute to the rebuilding of fish stocks, especially for fish species that are affected by fishing, habitat loss and other threats to aquatic biodiversity (Suski and Cooke 2006). To ensure the conservation of ecosystems and fish communities in the long term, protected areas must be complemented by parallel policies taken in areas outside the reserves. Because fish populations of different water bodies vary locally and anglers link spatially segregated fisheries in space and time (Post et al. 2002), recreational fisheries management should be flexible, and temporally and spatially matched to the scales of ongoing exploitation, maintaining an intermediate level of aggregation of management between the extremes of one-size-fits-all and completely disaggregated management (Carpenter and Brock 2004). The protection of genetic variability and the prevention of detrimental genetic changes are crucial for sustainable recreational fishery. Genetic aspects are particularly important in the case of stocking practices for which numerous guidelines are available (e.g. Molony et al. 2003; Mehner et al. 2004). Unjustified transfers of fish species between disconnected watersheds should be avoided. The use of local brood stocks can avoid a disruption of local adaptation. A hatchery management regime with appropriate mating schemes, breeding conditions and more natural conditions can foster the local retention of adaptive genetic variation, reduce domestication and increase the post-release survival (Brown and
GCRF_04.indd 85
10/3/2007 10:21:12 AM
86
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Day 2002). In accordance with the precautionary approach, stocking should be accompanied by risk assessments and appropriate monitoring programmes. However, stocking has often been considered unsuccessful for various reasons, ecological as well as economic (Moyle et al. 1986). In addition, stocking can make it difficult for fisheries management to monitor the status of the natural fish population and can undermine incentives for sustainable management practices (White et al. 1995). Consequently, a shift from a predominance of artificial stocking to the rehabilitation of aquatic habitats may be promising. The rehabilitation of aquatic habitats that aims at the ecological integrity of entire aquatic ecosystems and encompasses the increase of habitat diversity and the improvement of water quality (Roni et al. 2005) may be more successful than the traditional stocking practices, with ecological risks being minimal. Habitat improvement may significantly improve not only the fishery per se but have wider social and economic benefits to the community as a whole. Unfortunately, large-scale habitat rehabilitation projects cannot be conducted by fishery stakeholders alone, thus limiting its immediate application in recreational fisheries management. It is our hope that future efforts will strive to balance the interest of recreational fisheries with efforts to conserve fish populations in a state that could be termed ‘natural’. In this respect, it is necessary to emphasize that recreational fishing is often the last factor in a chain of anthropogenic impacts on ecosystems. Therefore, effective conservation has to address all contentious issues and should focus on the most important issues in the first place, those being habitat modifications in all freshwater systems and in many coastal ones as well. Finally, this chapter is not meant to be a blanket criticism of recreational fish exploitation and stocking. Rather, it is meant to be a summary of issues that vary in importance from locality to locality and that need to be addressed by the appropriate fisheries management. On the whole, we consider that recreational anglers can be drivers of conservation in many areas. They should not be seen as a non-natural disturbance to ‘natural’ ecosystems but as a component of nature that has a vested interest in preserving this situation now and in the future.
References Allan, J.D., Abell, R., Hogan, Z. et al. (2005) Overfishing of inland waters. BioScience 55: 1041–1051. Almodóvar, A. and Nicola, G. (2004) Angling impact on conservation of Spanish stream-dwelling brown trout Salmo trutta. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11: 173–182. Anderson, R.M. and Nehring, R.B. (1984). Effects of a catch-and-release regulation on a wild trout population in Colorado and its acceptance by anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4: 257–265. Aprahamian, M.W., Smith, K.M., McGinnity, P., McKelvey, S. and Taylor, J. (2003) Restocking of salmonids – opportunities and limitations. Fisheries Research 62: 211–227.
GCRF_04.indd 86
10/3/2007 10:21:12 AM
Biological impacts of recreational fishing
87
Arlinghaus, R. (2005) A conceptual framework to identify and understand conflicts in recreational fisheries systems, with implications for sustainable management. Aquatic Resources, Culture and Development 1: 145–174. Arlinghaus, R., Mehner, T. and Cowx, I.G. (2002) Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish and Fisheries 3: 261–316. Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., Lyman, J. et al. (2007) Understanding the complexity of catch-and-release in recreational fishing: an integrative synthesis of global knowledge from historical, ethical, social, and biological perspectives. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15: 75–167. Barlow, C.G., Hogan, A.E. and Rodgers, L.J. (1987) Implication of translocated fishes in the apparent extinction in the wild of the Lake Eacham rainbow fish, Melanotaenia eachamensis. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 897–902. Bartholomew, A. and Bohnsack, J.A. (2005) A review of catch-and-release angling mortality with implications for no-take reserves. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 129–154. Biggs, B.J.F., Francoeur, S.N., Huryn, A.D., Young, R., Arbuckle, C.J. and Townsend, C.R. (2000) Trophic cascades in streams: effects of nutrient enrichment on autotrophic and consumer benthic communities under two different fish predation regimes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 1380–1394. Birkeland, C. and Dayton, P.K. (2005) The importance in fishery management of leaving the big ones. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 356–358. Biro, P.A., Post, J.R. and Parkinson, E.A. (2003) From individuals to populations: prey fish risk-taking mediates mortality in whole-lake experiments. Ecology 84: 2419–2431. Bischoff, A., Freyhof, J. and Staas, S. (1998) Nachweise des Zobels Abramis sapa (Pallas 1811) (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) im Rhein. Lauterbornia 33: 5–8. Bobko, S.J. and Berkeley, S.A. (2004) Maturity, ovarian cycle, fecundity and age specific parturition of black rockfish (Sebastes melanops). Fisheries Bulletin 102: 418–429. Borrell, Y.J., Pineda, H., McCarthy, I., Vazquez, E., Sanchez, J.A. and Lizana, G.B. (2004) Correlations between fitness and heterozygosity at allozyme and microsatellite loci in the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Heredity 92: 585–593. Brown, C. and Day, R.L. (2002) The future of stock enhancements: lessons for hatchery practice from conservation biology. Fish and Fisheries 3: 79–94. Brown, C. and Laland, K.N. (2003) Social learning in fishes: a review. Fish and Fisheries 4: 280–288. Brown, C., Davidson, T. and Laland, K. (2003) Environmental enrichment and prior experience of live prey improve foraging behaviour in hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 63: 187–196. Cambray, J.A. (2003) Impact on indigenous species biodiversity caused by the globalisation of alien recreational freshwater fisheries. Hydrobiologia 500: 217–230. Carpenter, S.R. and Brock, W.A. (2004) Spatial complexity, resilience, and policy diversity: fishing on lake-rich landscapes. Ecology and Society 9: http://www.Ecologyandsociety. org/vol9/iss1/art8. Carpenter, S.R. and Lathrop, R.C. (1999) Lake restoration: capabilities and needs. Hydrobiologia 395/396: 19–28. Collins, J.P. and Storfer, A. (2003) Global amphibian declines: sorting the hypotheses. Diversity and Distributions 9: 89–98.
GCRF_04.indd 87
10/3/2007 10:21:13 AM
88
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Conover, D.O. and Munch, S.B. (2002) Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science 297: 94–96. Consuegra, S., Garcia De Leaniz, C., Serdio, A. and Verspoor, E. (2005) Selective exploitation of early running fish may induce genetic and phenotypic changes in Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 67 (Suppl. A): 129–145. Cooke, S.J. and Cowx, I.G. (2006) Contrasting recreational and commercial fishing: searching for common issues to promote unified conservation of fisheries resources and aquatic environments. Biological Conservation 128: 93–108. Cooke, S.J. and Suski, C.D. (2005) Do we need species-specific guidelines for catchand-release recreational angling to effectively conserve diverse fishery resources? Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 1195–1209. Cooke, S.J., Schreer, J.F., Wahl, D.H. and Philipp, D.P. (2002) Physiological impacts of catch-and-release angling practices on largemouth bass and smallmouth bass. American Fisheries Society Symposium 31: 489–512. Cowx, I.G. (1994) Stocking strategies. Fisheries Management and Ecology 1: 15–30. Cowx, I.G. (2002) Analysis of threats to freshwater fish conservation: past and present challenges. In: M.J. Collares-Pereira, I.G. Cowx and M.M. Coelho (Eds) Conservation of Freshwater Fishes: Options for the Future. Blackwell Science, London, pp. 201–219. Crowder, L.B., Squires, D.D. and Rice, J.A. (1997) Non-additive effects of terrestrial and aquatic predators on juvenile estuarine fish. Ecology 78: 1796–1804. Diana, J.S. (1983) Growth, maturation, and production of northern pike in three Michigan lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112: 38–46. Donald, D.B., Vinebrooke, R.D., Anderson, R.S., Syrgiannis, J. and Graham, M.D. (2001) Recovery of zooplankton assemblages in mountain lakes from the effects of introduced sport fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1822–1830. Drake, M.T., Claussen, J.E., Philipp, D.P. and Pereira, D.L. (1997) A comparison of bluegill reproductive strategies and growth among lakes with different fishing intensities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 496–507. Dunham, R.A., Adams, S.B., Schroeter, R.E. and Novinger, D.C. (2002) Alien invasions in aquatic ecosystems: toward an understanding of brook trout invasion and potential impacts on inland cutthroat trout in western North America. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 12: 373–391. Eby, L.A., Roach, W.J., Crowder, L.B and Stanford, J.A. (2006) Effects of stocking-up freshwater food webs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 576–584. Einum, S. and Fleming, I.A. (2001) Implications of stockings: ecological interactions between wild and released salmonids. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 75: 56–70. Elliott, J.M. (1994) Quantitative Ecology and the Brown Trout. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Elser, J.J., Sterner, R.W., Galford, A.E., Chrzanowski, T.H., Findlay, D.L., Mills, K.H., Paterson, M.J., Stainton, M.P. and Schindler, D.W. (2000) Pelagic C:N:P stoichiometry in a eutrophic lake response to a whole-lake food-web manipulation. Ecosystems 3: 293–307. Findlay, D.L., Vanni, M.J., Paterson, M., Mills, K.H., Kasian, S.E.M., Findlay, W.J. and Salki, A. (2005) Dynamics of a boreal lake ecosystem during a long-term manipulation of top predators. Ecosystems 8: 603–618.
GCRF_04.indd 88
10/3/2007 10:21:13 AM
Biological impacts of recreational fishing
89
Frid, A. and Dill, L. (2002) Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6(1): 11. Available at http://www.consecol.org/vol6/ iss1/art11. Gilk, S.E., Wang, I.A., Hoover, C.L., Smoker, W.W., Taylor, S.G., Gray, A.K., and Gharrett, A.J. (2004) Outbreeding depression in hybrids between spatially separated pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, populations: marine survival, homing ability, and variability in family size. Environmental Biology of Fishes 69: 287–297. Goedde, L.E. and Coble, D.W. (1981) Effects of angling on a previously fished and an unfished warm water fish community in two Wisconsin lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110: 594–603. Hall, S.R. and Mills, E.L. (2000) Exotic species in large lakes of the world. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 3: 105–135. Hedrick, P.W. and Miller, P.S. (1992) Conservation genetics: techniques and fundamentals. Ecological Applications 2: 30–46. Heyer, C.J., Miller, T.J., Binkowski, F.P., Caldarone, E.M. and Rice, J.A. (2001) Maternal effects as a recruitment mechanism in Lake Michigan yellow perch (Perca flavescens). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1477–1487. Hilborn, R. and Walters, C.J. (1992) Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment. Chapman and Hall, New York. Hilborn, R., Quinn, T.P., Schindler, D.E. and Rogers, D.E. (2003) Biocomplexity and fisheries sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100: 6564–6568. Holmlund, C.M. and Hammer, M. (2004) Effects of fish stocking on ecosystem services: an overview and case study using the Stockholm Archipelago. Environmental Management 33: 799–820. Holthe, E., Lund, E., Finstad, B., Thorstad, E. and McKinlay, R.S. (2005) A fish selective obstacle to prevent dispersion of an unwanted fish species, based on leaping capabilities. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12: 143–147. Hooper, D.U., Chapin, F.S. III, Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J. and Wardle, D.A. (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75: 3–35. Hsieh, C.-H., Reiss, C.S., Hunter, J.R., Beddington, J.R., May, R.M. and Sugihara, G. (2006) Fishing elevates variability in the abundance of exploited species. Nature 443: 859–862. Hutchings, J.A. (2005) Life history consequences of overexploitation to population recovery in Northwest Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 824–832. Järvi, T. and Uglem, I. (1993) Predator training improves the anti-predator behaviour of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 68: 63–71. Johnsen, B.O. and Jensen, A.J. (1991) The Gyrodactylus story in Norway. Aquaculture 98: 289–302. Kearney, R.E. (2001) Fisheries property rights and recreational/commercial conflict: implications of policy developments in Australia and New Zealand. Marine Policy 25: 49–59.
GCRF_04.indd 89
10/3/2007 10:21:13 AM
90
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Khanmohammadi, M., McAlpine, C.A., McPhee, D.P. and Peterson, A. (2007) Linking marine and freshwater ecosystems in the design of marine reserves for enclosed and semi-enclosed seas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, in press. Knapp, R.A., Hawkins, C.P., Ladau, J. and McClory, J.G. (2005) Fauna of Yosemite National Park lakes, has low resistance but high resilience to fish introductions. Ecological Applications 15: 835–847. Knudsen, E. and MacDonald, D. (2000) Sustainable fisheries: are we up to the challenge. Fisheries 25: 6–43. Krueger, C.C. and May, B. (1991) Ecological and genetic effects of salmonid introductions in North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 66–77. Lafferty, K.D., Porter, J.W. and Ford, S.E. (2004) Are diseases increasing in the ocean? Annual Review Ecology and Systematics 35: 31–54. Lenihan, H.S., Peterson, C.H., Byers, J.E., Grabowski, J.H., Thayer, G.W. and Colby, D.R. (2001) Cascading of habitat degradation: oyster reefs invaded by refugee fishes escaping stress. Ecological Applications 11: 764–782. Leopold, M. and Bninska, M. (1984) The effectiveness of eel stocking in Polish lakes. EIFAC Technical Papers 42(Suppl. 1): 41–49. Lewin, W.C., Arlinghaus, R. and Mehner, T. (2006) A review of documented and potential biological impacts of recreational angling: insights for management and conservation. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14: 305–367. Magnan, P., Proulx, R. and Plante, M. (2005) Integrating the effects of fish exploitation and interspecific competition into current life history theories: an example with lacustrine brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 747–757. McPhee, D.P., Leadbitter, D. and Skilleter, G.A. (2002) Swallowing the bait: is recreational fishing in Australia ecologically sustainable? Pacific Conservation Biology 8: 40–51. Mehner, T., Arlinghaus, R., Berg, S., Dörner, H., Jacobsen, L., Kasprzak, P., Koschel, R., Schultze, T., Skov, C., Wolter C and Wysujack, K. (2004) How to link biomanipulation and sustainable fisheries management: a step-by-step guideline for lakes of the European temperate zone. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11: 261–275. Molony, B.W., Lenanton R, Jackson, G. and Norriss, J. (2003) Stock enhancement as a fisheries management tool. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 13: 409–432. Moyle, P.B., Li, H.W. and Barton, B.A. (1986) The Frankenstein effect: impact of introduced fishes on native fishes in North America. In: R.H. Stoud (Ed.) Fish Culture and Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp. 415–426. Muoneke, M.I. and Childress, W.M. (1994) Hooking mortality: a review for recreational fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science 2: 123–156. Myers, R.A. and Worm, B. (2004) Extinction, survival of recovery of large predatory fishes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, doi:10.1098/rstb.2004. 1573: 1–8. Nielsen, E.E., Hansen, M.M. and Bach, L.A. (2001) Looking for a needle in a haystack: discovery of indigenous Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in stocked populations. Conservation Genetics 2: 219–232.
GCRF_04.indd 90
10/3/2007 10:21:13 AM
Biological impacts of recreational fishing
91
Nuhfer, A.J. and Alexander, G.R. (1994) Growth, survival, and vulnerability to angling of three wild brook trout strains exposed to different levels of angler exploitation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14: 423–434. Okun, N., Lewin, W.C. and Mehner, T. (2005) Top-down and bottom-up impacts of juvenile fish in a littoral reed stand. Freshwater Biology 50: 798–812. Olson, D.E. and Cunningham, P.K. (1989) Sport-fisheries trends shown by an annual Minnesota fishing contest over a 58-year period. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9: 287–297. Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R. and Morrison, D. (2000) Environmental and economic costs of non-indigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50: 53–65. Pinnegar, J.K., Polunin, N.V.C., Francour, P., Badalamenti, F., Chemello, R., HarmelinVivien, M.-L., Hereu, B., Milazzo, M., Zabala, M., D’Anna, G. and Pipitone, C. (2000) Trophic cascades in benthic marine ecosystems: lessons for fisheries and protected-area management. Environmental Conservation 27: 179–200. Planelles, M. and Reyna, S. (1996) Conservation of samaruc, Valencia hispanica (Valenciennes, 1846), (Pisces: Cypridontidae), an endemic and endangered species, in the community of Valencia (east Spain). In: A. Kirchhofer and D. Hefti (Eds) Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, pp. 329–335. Post, J.R., Sullivan, M., Cox, S., Lester, N.P., Walters, C.J., Parkinson, E.A., Paul, A.J., Jackson, L. and Shuter, B.J. (2002) Canada’s recreational fisheries: the invisible collapse? Fisheries 27: 6–17. Pratt, T.C. and Fox, M.G. (2003) Contribution and relative survival of age-0 walleyes stocked at two sizes in six eastern Ontario lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 997–1005. Rahel, F.J. (2002) Homogenization of freshwater faunas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 291–315. Reid, P.C., Battle, E.J.V., Batten, S.D. and Brander, K.M. (2000) Impacts of fisheries on plankton community structure. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 495–502. Roni, P., Hanson, K., Beechie, T., Pess, G., Pollock, M. and Bartley, D.M. (2005) Habitat rehabilitation for inland fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 484, Rome. Ryman, N., Utter, F. and Laikre, L. (1995) Protection of intraspecific biodiversity of exploited fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 5: 417–446. Schindler, D.E., Carpenter, S.R., Cole, J.J., Kitchell, J.F. and Pace, M.L. (1997) Influence of food web structure on carbon exchange between lakes and the atmosphere. Science 277: 248–251. Schram, S.T., Lindgren, J. and Evrard, L.M. (1999) Reintroduction of Lake Sturgeon in the St. Louis River, Western Lake Superior. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19: 815–823. Schwartz, J.D.M., Pallin, M.J., Michener, R.H., Mbabazi, D. and Kaufman, L. (2006) Effects of Nile perch, Lates niloticus, on functional and specific fish diversity in Uganda’s Lake Kyoga system. African Journal of Ecology 44: 145–156. Secor, D.H. (2000) Longevity and resilience of Chesapeake Bay striped bass. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 808–815. Skrzypczak, A. and Mamcarz, A. (2006) Changes in commercially exploited populations of tench, Tinca tinca (L.) in lakes of Northeastern Poland. Aquaculture International 14: 179–193.
GCRF_04.indd 91
10/3/2007 10:21:13 AM
92
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Steinhart, G.B., Marschall, E.A. and Stein, R.A. (2004) Round goby predation on smallmouth bass offspring in nests during simulated catch-and-release angling. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133: 121–131. Stephens, P.A. and Sutherland, W.J. (1999) Consequences of the Allee effect for behaviour, ecology and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14: 401–405. Stewart, D.J., Kitchell, J.F. and Crowder, L.B. (1981) Forage fishes and their salmonid predators in Lake Michigan. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110: 751–763. Stockwell, C.A., Hendry, A.P. and Kinnison, M.T. (2003) Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 94–101. Sullivan, M.G. (2003) Active management of walleye fisheries in Alberta: dilemmas of managing recovering fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 1343–1358. Suski, D.D. and Cooke, S.J. (2006) Conservation of aquatic resources through the use of freshwater protected areas: opportunities and challenges. Biodiversity and Conservation in press, doi: 10.1007/s10531-006-9060-7. Taylor, M.D., Palmer, P.J., Fielder, D.S. and Suthers, I.M. (2005) Responsible estuarine finfish stock enhancement: An Australian perspective. Journal of Fish Biology 67: 299–331. Townsend, C.R. and Crowl, T.A. (1991) Fragmented population structure in a native New Zealand fish: an effect of introduced brown trout? Oikos 61: 348–354. Travis, J., Coleman, F.C., Grimes, C.B., Conover, D., Bert, T.M. and Tringali, M. (1998) Critically assessing stock enhancement – An introduction to the Mote Symposium. Bulletin of Marine Science 62: 305–311. Verspoor, E., Beardmore, J.A., Consuegra, S., Garcia De Leaniz, C., Hindar, K., Jordan, W.C., Koljonen, M.-L., Mahkrov, A.A., Paaver, T., Sanchez, J.A., Skaala, O., Titov, S. and Cross, T.F. (2005) Population structure in the Atlantic salmon: insights from 40 years of research into genetic protein variation. Journal of Fish Biology 67 (Suppl. A), 3–54. Wahl, D.H. (1999) An ecological context for evaluating the factors influencing muskellunge stocking success. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19: 238–248. Walsh, M.R., Munch, S.B., Chiba1 S. and Conover, D.O. (2006) Maladaptive changes in multiple traits caused by fishing: impediments to population recovery. Ecology Letters 9: 142–148. Weber, E.D. and Fausch, K.D. (2003) Interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids in streams: differences in biology and evidence for competition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 1018–1036. Welcomme, R.L. and Bartley, D.M. (1998) Current approaches to the enhancement of fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 5: 351–382. White, R.J., Karr, J.R. and Nehlsen, W. (1995) Better roles for fish stocking in aquatic resource management. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15: 527–547. Wickström, H., Clevestam, P. and Höglund, J. (1998) The spreading of Anguillicola crassus in freshwater lakes in Sweden. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture 349: 215–221. Zambrano, L., Scheffer, M. and Martinez-Ramos, M. (2001) Catastrophic response of lakes to benthivorous fish introduction. Oikos 94: 344–350.
GCRF_04.indd 92
10/3/2007 10:21:14 AM
Chapter 5
Marine recreational fisheries management challenges and marine protected areas Comparison between the Mediterranean and Australia Daryl Peter McPhee, Ana Gordoa and X. Illas
Abstract Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a management tool of global interest for biodiversity conservation and fisheries management. Much of the research attention focused on MPAs is directed towards the cost and benefits of MPAs on commercial fisheries. This chapter compares the development and implementation of MPAs in Australia and the Mediterranean and their potential impacts on the recreational fishing sector. These two contrasting regions differ significantly with respect to bio-physical characteristics, governance arrangements, environmental pressures, experience with MPAs and recreational fishing standpoints. These differences have led to differences in definitions of MPAs and in the development and implementation of MPAs. In both regions, the impact of MPAs on recreational fishing businesses has not been thoroughly analysed and warrants further detailed analysis. Local economies dependent on recreational fishing may suffer when MPAs are of a size and in locations that do not leave significant fishing areas that can still be accessed.
Introduction The creation of marine protected areas (MPAs) has been recognized as an important tool for the conservation of marine biodiversity and fisheries management (e.g. Roberts and Polunin 1993; Allison et al. 1998; Ward et al. 2001). The concept emerged in the 1970s (Ballantine 1997; Norse 2003) and gained global 93
GCRF_05.indd 93
10/3/2007 10:22:20 AM
94
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
impetus in the mid-1990s as a potential solution to overfishing and the conservation of marine biodiversity (Zeller 1997). Prominent MPAs were initially established in the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), Florida Keys (United States), De Hoop (South Africa) and Leigh (New Zealand). MPAs represent, according to the view of some researchers and managers, the lynch pin of precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management and marine biodiversity conservation in the face of high fishing mortality and uncertainty (e.g. Sumaila et al. 2000; Roberts et al. 2001; Pauly et al. 2002; Gell and Roberts 2003). The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 identified an ambitious target of a global representative system of MPAs by 2010. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recommends that by 2012, 20–30% of each marine habitat should be designated as an MPA where no fishing occurs. There is, however, considerable debate in the literature regarding the use of specific targets in MPA development and the need to strictly adhere to them (see e.g. Lauck et al. 1998; Agardy et al. 2003; Kaiser 2004; Ray 2004). Agardy et al. (2003), for instance, have criticized the setting of inflexible MPA targets, arguing that adherence to strict minimum targets of 20%, or any other figure, is not productive. They have suggested that advocating such an untested rule of thumb creates dangerous targets that could inflate expectations, further polarize arguments and provoke political backlash, which may ultimately see the abandonment by some governments of MPAs as a management tool. There is a very large body of literature on the costs and benefits of MPAs on commercial fisheries (e.g. Ferreira and Russ 1995; Edgar and Barrett 1999; McClanahan and Mangi 2000; Lenfant et al. 2003). In contrast, there is significantly less information on the costs and benefits of MPAs on the recreational fishing sector. That said, consideration of some of the issues regarding recreational fishing and MPAs can be found in Denny and Babcock (2004), Bartholomew and Bohnsack (2005), Cooke et al. (2006) and Lynch (2006). Together with recognition of the magnitude of the recreational catch (e.g. Coleman et al. 2004; Cooke and Cowx 2004), the open-access nature of recreational fishing creates an imperative for, but also a significant challenge to, the implementation of MPAs. Where little or no fisheries management has been or is in place and stocks are already highly depleted, the benefits of MPAs are considered higher than in areas where traditional approaches to fisheries management exist and are adequately enforced (Ward et al. 2001; Tupper 2002; Hilborn et al. 2004).
Definition of an MPA Although terminology can vary (e.g. marine park, marine reserve, fishery reserve, MPAs), they are collectively marine areas that are managed principally to conserve marine fauna and their habitats. For consistency, the term MPA will be used in this chapter. An important, but not necessarily universal, concept for
GCRF_05.indd 94
10/3/2007 10:22:21 AM
Marine recreational fisheries management challenges and MPAs
95
MPA management is ‘multiple use’, which involves accommodating many activities in such a way as to conserve the environment, minimize conflict and allow all parties to continue to operate in an ecologically sustainable manner (Hall 1999). A multiple-use MPA generally includes a number of ‘no-take areas’ where all forms of fishing are prohibited. Conflict and contention regarding MPAs is generally focused on these ‘no-take’ areas. In this chapter we discuss the development and implementation of MPAs in Australia and the Mediterranean from the perspective of recreational fisheries management. These two contrasting case studies correspond to two regions that differ significantly with respect to bio-physical characteristics, governance arrangements, environmental pressures, experience with MPAs and recreational fishing standpoints.
Australia Australia has the third largest exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the world. In 1991, the Commonwealth government initiated a long-term marine conservation programme that included a commitment to expand significantly Australia’s existing network of MPAs through the establishment of a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA). The Oceans Policy launched in 1998 signalled the Commonwealth government’s intention to accelerate the implementation of the NRSMPA across all state and Commonwealth waters. The primary goal of the NRSMPA is to establish and manage a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of MPAs for biodiversity conservation. These three factors make up the CAR principles: z z
z
Comprehensive – the full range of identified ecosystems are included in the MPA network. Adequate – the MPA network will have the required level of protection to ensure ecological viability and integrity of populations, species and communities. Representative – the areas that are selected for inclusion in the MPA network should reasonably reflect the biodiversity of the marine system.
On the basis of the CAR principles, in 2004 a significantly expanded network of MPAs called the Representative Areas Program (RAP) was introduced in the Great Barrier Reef. This resulted in approximately 33%, or 115,000 km, of the marine park being closed to all forms of fishing, including areas adjacent to large regional population centres (Fernandes et al. 2005). Other examples of MPA networks developed and implemented in Australia include Jervis Bay (NSW) (Sant 1996; Cho 1998; Lynch et al. 2004; Lynch 2006) and Victorian coastal waters (Wescott 2006). MPA planning in other areas is ongoing. The number
GCRF_05.indd 95
10/3/2007 10:22:21 AM
96
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Table 5.1 Number and area (hectares) of Australian Marine Protected Areas in each of the IUCN management category. IUCN management category and description IA. Strict nature reserve II. National park III. Natural monument IV. Habitat/species management area V. Protected landscape VI. Managed resource protected area Total
Number
Area (ha.)
18
14,674,788
43
15,062,242
9
345
99
17,347,773
–
–
29
24,715,160
198
71,800,308
and area of MPAs in each of the IUCN categories is listed in Table 5.1. While the concept of multiple use underpins marine park planning in Australia, some significant and historically important recreational fishing areas have become no-take areas where recreational fishing is prohibited. Unlike the situation in the United States (Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005; Cooke et al. 2006), specifically allowing catch-and-release-only zones within an MPA network has not been considered in Australia. The process of marine park planning in Australia generally involves identifying candidate no-take areas, frequently by using computer-based approaches on bio-physical parameters (e.g. McDonnell et al. 2002; Stewart and Possingham 2003). The public are then consulted on the candidate areas via a range of mechanisms including public meetings and printed and electronic material. Following this period of consultation and as a result of information received from the public, the size and the boundaries of the MPA may be adjusted by the marine park agency and then the marine park network is finalized. There has been sufficient experience with MPAs in Australia to begin to identify recreational fisher’s opinions of MPAs and a number of practical challenges in implementing them in areas where significant recreational fishing effort occurs. The change in the magnitude and spatial pattern of recreational fishing effort, and the economic impacts on businesses associated with recreational fishing are paramount.
Recreational fishers opinions of MPAs in Australia Not surprising, given the number of anglers in Australia and the diversity of motivations and aspirations, are the varied views of recreational anglers on MPA, ranging from outright opposition to strong support (Sant 1996). However, opposition from recreational fishing interests to the RAP was very strong. It catalysed the creation of a political party ‘The Fishing Party’ (www.fishingparty.com.au)
GCRF_05.indd 96
10/3/2007 10:22:21 AM
Marine recreational fisheries management challenges and MPAs
97
that opposed the programme and the party fielded candidates in subsequent federal and state elections. Public rallies organized by recreational fishing interests and politicians that oppose MPAs are commonplace.1 Although quantitative data is generally lacking, anecdotal information suggests a number of factors that influence the level of acceptance of MPAs among individual anglers. The perceived level of benefit in terms of increased catches in areas remaining open to fishing as a result of MPAs is an important factor in influencing the level of acceptance. Also important is whether an angler’s access is directly impacted by declaration of an MPA and whether a comparable angling experience can be accessed locally or regionally at a similar cost. Equity relative to other anglers is also an important consideration. Given the current anecdotal nature of these assertions, they warrant further research as understanding factors that influence the level of MPA acceptance by anglers is critical for marine park planning.
Changes in recreational fishing participation and redistribution of effort The impacts of the redistribution of fishing effort after declaration of an MPA is an important issue for the commercial fishing sector (e.g. Baelde 2005) and is no less important for the recreational fishing sector (Lynch 2006). For the commercial fishing sector, the impact can be mitigated through structural adjustment. That is, providing compensation and ex gratia payments for those wishing to leave the industry with the aim of removing a level of fishing effort that approximates that potentially displaced as a result of MPA declaration. For the recreational fishing sector, due to its open-access nature, such structural adjustment approaches aimed at fishers themselves are seldom feasible. Redistribution of fishing effort can have negative ecological, economic and social impacts. Negative ecological and economic impacts can result in areas remaining open to fishing as a result of fishing effort being concentrated in a reduced area (Walters and Bonfil 1999; Dinmore et al. 2003; Haddon et al. 2003; Baelde 2005; Hilborn et al. 2006). Redistribution of recreational fishing effort may have negative social impacts through greater competition and crowding, which may lead to reduced levels of satisfaction among fishers. The importance of considering crowding in leisure settings (including fishing) is well established (e.g. Shelby et al. 1989; Manning et al. 2000; Stewart and Cole 2001). There is yet to be any detailed studies that focus on quantifying the redistribution of recreational fishing effort as a result of MPAs and the impacts (environmental, economic and social) of any redistribution that does occur. The only information currently available is from Hunt (2005), who identified that implementation of the RAP resulted in regional decreases in angling effort in some parts of the Great Barrier Reef region, but not others. Table 5.2 shows
GCRF_05.indd 97
10/3/2007 10:22:21 AM
98
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Table 5.2 Changes in recreational fishing effort in four regions of the Great Barrier Reef as a result of implementing the Great Barrier Reef Representative Areas Program. Cairns (%)
Rockhampton (%)
Mackay (%)
Townsville (%)
Changes in total number of participants
–37
0
–15
0
Change in total number of fishing trips
–37
–5
–17
0
Change in number of boatbased participants
–57
0
–24
–13
Source: Hunt (2005).
significant reduction in the number of participants and the number of fishing trips in the Cairns and Mackay regions, but not the Rockhampton or Townsville regions. All four regions were adjacent to areas within the marine park network that included no-fishing zones. No increases in recreational fishing effort were observed at the regional level. However, this does not mean that significant local increases did not occur.
Economic impacts of MPAs on business associated with recreational fishing For fisheries the economic costs of MPA declaration (e.g. loss of access) are tangible, immediate and relatively easy to demonstrate, while economic benefits are less tangible, tenuous and potentially long term in nature (Scholz et al. 2004; Cook and Heinen 2005). Businesses such as bait and tackle shops and charter boats that directly support recreational fishing activities may be negatively impacted by MPA declaration. In recognition of this, in the case of the rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the structural adjustment and compensation package, while focused on the commercial fishing sector, allowed for businesses associated with the recreational fishing sector to also access financial support. This appears to be the first instance of its kind in the world and reflects clear acknowledgement from the Commonwealth government of the economic significance of the industries reliant on recreational fishing. Final figures on the number of recreational fishing-related businesses that received financial support and the total value of this support are not yet available.
The Mediterranean Management of the Mediterranean basin is complex as a result of 21 countries bordering the basin, many of which have significant social, cultural, economic
GCRF_05.indd 98
10/3/2007 10:22:21 AM
Marine recreational fisheries management challenges and MPAs
99
and political differences. The impacts of human population pressures on the coastal zone environment have rapidly increased (Pergent-Martini et al. 2002) and most stocks of harvested species are considered to be overexploited (Lleonart 2005). The Mediterranean Action Plan predicts that the Mediterranean Basin’s resident population could reach 555 million by 2025 and the urban population of coastal Mediterranean administrative regions could reach 176 million. The European Environment Agency expects that the region could host 350 million tourists per year by 2025. Given the projected population growth, conservation management policies are necessary, although difficult to achieve in a system managed by 21 countries plus several regional governments with their own fully established legal systems. Chevalier (2005) provided a complete and comprehensive outlook of the governance of the Mediterranean Sea. A feature of governance arrangement that has direct implication in fisheries management is that coastal states have established territorial waters but few have claimed an EEZ. Most countries have established 12-mile territorial seas and some countries have claimed fishing zones extending beyond that limit to ensure the protection of fish resources in view of the increasing trend of fishing ships flying non-Mediterranean flags (often flags of convenience) targeting pelagic species, particularly the Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). The diversity observed in the legislation and management of MPAs in the Mediterranean reflects the heterogeneity of governance arrangements in the region. Examples range from relatively large multiple-use marine areas to small sanctuaries theoretically totally closed to any human activity. This variety of MPAs may illustrate a good adaptation to local needs, but often results from economic and political compromises that downplay ecological considerations (Harmelin 2000). Confusion over terminology and definition also exists with the term MPA being used to cover a wide range of protection measures in the context of habitat protection, fisheries management and biodiversity conservation. We have identified at least 23 terms for MPAs in the Mediterranean from marine reserves or national parks to expressions as ‘area di tutela biologica’. The variety of nomenclature is due to different national and regional legislation, but they can be grouped into the categories identified by Ramos-Esplá et al. (2004): fishery activity limitation or prohibitions, protection of costal buffer zones, preservation of indicator species, restocking areas and preservation of the marine and/or coastal environment. MPAs have frequently been influenced by political or economic interests with scientific advice not well considered, but they are also constrained by the length of coast of each country (e.g. Monaco with a coast length of only 3.8 km). The MPA network has generally consisted of several small rather than fewer large MPAs, and the level of network integration is generally low as a result of MPA decision-making being made independently at the local level rather than at the national level (Francour et al. 2001) or ideally coordinated across territorial borders.
GCRF_05.indd 99
10/3/2007 10:22:22 AM
100
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
This is despite the efforts from The European Union to set up an ecological network ‘Natura 2000’, created to conserving natural habitats and wild fauna and flora in the territory of the member states. An ecosystem approach (see Arlinghaus and Cowx in this book) to determine MPA location and scale is especially difficult in the Mediterranean because in this region marine and coastal systems cross regional and state borders. Francour et al. (2001) reviewed the principal MPAs in the north-western Mediterranean and provided the first attempt to synthesize the main features for the successful functioning of MPAs in that region. We present here a general review of MPAs in the whole basin rejecting those which had no sub-tidal protected area. The information has been gathered from Francour et al. (2001) and RamosEsplá et al. (2004), as well as the following data sources: z z z z z
MPA Global: A database of the world’s MPAs, www.mpaglobal.org The Network of Managers of MPAs in the Mediterranean, www.medpan.org Reservas Marinas del Estado Español, www.mapa.es/rmarinas/ Center for Mediterranean Cooperation. France–Italy–Spain–MPAs in the West Mediterranean, http://iucn.org/places/medoffice/en/index.html Peninsola del Sinis, Isola di Mal di Ventre www.areamarinasinis.it
The historical trend of sub-tidal MPA implementation in the region is shown in Figure 5.1. The first MPA was Mljet National park, established in Croatia in 1960, but in the next 16 years only nine new MPAs were added. Since 1977 on
140
No MPA (Cumulative number)
120
100
80
60
40
20
2004
2000
1996
1992
1988
1984
1980
1976
1972
1968
1964
1960
0
Year
Figure 5.1 Cumulative number of sub-tidal marine MPAs declared annually in the Mediterranean Sea from 1960 to 2005.
GCRF_05.indd 100
10/3/2007 10:22:22 AM
Marine recreational fisheries management challenges and MPAs
101
average approximately four new MPAs are implemented per year. At present the number of MPAs with sub-tidal areas is 132 and sufficient information was available for 127 so as to identify the total area covered by MPAs was 12,954 km2, which approximately represents 0.5% of the whole Mediterranean. Fraschetii (2004) identified approximately 200 MPAs in the Mediterranean region, but this figure appears to include protected areas that do not extend sub-tidally. Most of the protected areas are located in the northern basin (Figure 5.2a) and the country with most protected area in square kilometres is Spain (Figure 5.2b). Mediterranean MPAs are characterized by their small size (Figure 5.3); 39% of them are smaller than 10 km2, and 41% of them are smaller than 1 km2. The size of an MPA together with the extent of connectivity among populations is a key consideration in MPA design (Sale and Lusin 2003). In the Mediterranean the conceptual question of MPA size, single large or several small (the so-called SLOSS debate) has never been explicitly considered in the selection of Mediterranean MPAs (Francour et al. 2001). A reason for this could be the ambiguity in MPA goals that are frequently evident (e.g. fisheries enhancement versus biodiversity conservation), or indeed the lack of goals altogether, which has hindered conceptual development of MPAs in the Mediterranean (Claudet et al. 2006). Exceptions though are some of the Marine Reserves that can be more precise in their stated goals with dispersal and re-establishing lost predatory interactions identified as specific key objectives (Guidetti 2006).
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
(b)
Albania Algeria B-Herzegovina Croatia Cyprus Egypt France Greece Israel Italy Lebanon Libya Malta Monaco Montenegro Morocco Slovenia Spain Syria Tunisia Turkey
No MAP
(a)
6000
Potected area (km2)
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 Albania Algeria B-Herzegovina Croatia Cyprus Egypt France Greece Israel Italy Lebanon Libya Malta Monaco Montenegro Morocco Slovenia Spain Syria Tunisia Turkey
0
Figure 5.2 (a) The total number and (b) the area in square kilometres of MPAs declared in each Mediterranean country.
GCRF_05.indd 101
10/3/2007 10:22:22 AM
102
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
(a) 120
100
Number of MPAs
80
60
40
4261
3835
3409
2983
2557
2131
1704
1278
852
0
0
426
20
Marine area (km2)
(b) 60
Number of MPAs
50 40 30 20
276
258
239
221
202
184
166
147
129
110
92
74
55
37
0
0
18
10
Marine area (km2)
Figure 5.3 Frequency distribution of Mediterranean MPAs by protected marine area in square kilometres; (a) the whole size range and (b) MPAs smaller than 300 km2.
Economic considerations in Mediterranean MPA policies have generally been scarce and limited to the positive effect on tourism and recreational activities and on their positive effect on fishing jobs by increasing stock sustainability (Sumaila et al. 2000). However, MPAs may result in loss of access for recreational fishers (with a concomitant fall in angler-generated income) and conflicts among stakeholder groups. These in part may be mitigated by zoning arrangements, although
GCRF_05.indd 102
10/3/2007 10:22:22 AM
Marine recreational fisheries management challenges and MPAs
103
such an arrangement is unlikely to be universally successful if MPAs are implemented over a large geographic area. There are MPAs in the Mediterranean that are strictly no-take areas, but most are segmented in two or three zones: integral (no-take), general and peripheral with different degrees of protection.
MPA and recreational fisheries With a few exceptions, legislation aimed at managing recreational fishing and ensuring its sustainability is limited in the Mediterranean region. In a recent comparative overview of the regulatory policy for recreational marine fishing in Spain and France it was observed that the legislation in the general and peripheral zones is frequently equal or more restrictive for recreational fishing than for commercial fishing (Gordoa et al. 2004). In Spain those restrictions are less justified than in France or Italy, where recreational fishing is not well regulated. In both countries, a recreational fishing license is not required and, moreover, long lines, trolling and traps, and gears, which are more commonly associated with commercial fishing, are permitted in recreational fishing although their dimensions and number are regulated. These two countries, as well as most Mediterranean countries, have considered the need to implement a reasonable legislative framework for recreational fishing and its management. The first Marine Mediterranean Recreational Fishing Congress was held in Palma de Mallorca in 2006 where the social and economic importance of recreational fishing was clearly established, as was the growing contribution of the activity for tourism. The economic impact of boat-based recreational fishing in Spain has been estimated to be at least 20% higher than the commercial Spanish Mediterranean fishing fleet (Gordoa et al. 2004). The magnitude of the recreational fleet in the Mediterranean is unknown and difficult to estimate because of the absence of recreational fishing licences in most countries. Nevertheless, its size is expected to be large considering that the Spanish Mediterranean recreational fleet alone has around 40,000 vessels (Gordoa et al. 2004). Further, nothing is known about the harvesting impact of recreational fishing on a regional scale, but local studies indicate that they are far from negligible (Morales-Nin et al. 2005) and warrant considerable further research and management attention. In the Mediterranean socio-cultural studies on MPAs are very few (Himes 2004) and only concern commercial fishing. MPAs are not generally the subject of discussion or conflict when fishing restrictions affect both harvesting sectors: commercial and recreational. But there are marine reserves where commercial fishing, although restricted, is permitted while recreational is entirely prohibited. The latter situation causes inequities and potentially leads to conflict. The crux of the issue is that in the Mediterranean recreational fishermen are rarely integrated in the decision-making process, and as far as we know they are only consulted in the MPAs decisions by the Balearic Islands Regional Government.
GCRF_05.indd 103
10/3/2007 10:22:22 AM
104
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Recreational fishing in the Mediterranean can be summarized as having important economic impacts and yet-unknown harvest intensity, but with the exception of Spain, little or no regulatory measures are in place to manage the activity. To emerge from overexploitation in the Mediterranean, the managing policies should include recreational fishing, and states and regional governments need to establish effective legislation to manage the activity and move towards a uniform policy on recreational fishing. Such a policy should include prudent use of MPAs as a management tool.
Comparisons between the Mediterranean and Australia The case studies present two clearly different examples of MPA development and their status of implementation. Australia has progressed to the stage of implementing a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of MPAs that approaches the ambitious target set by The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. In Australia, though, it is still too early to comprehensively elaborate how effective (or otherwise) the MPA network has been for recreational fisheries management. The Mediterranean has had experience with ad hoc MPAs, but is still in the early planning stages of developing and implementing a network of MPAs based on clear ecological criteria. While some authors (e.g. Norse 2003) suggest that the Australian approach should serve as a global model for developing and implementing MPAs, this chapter identifies that, in practice, the Australian approach may have limited utility in other important marine regions of the world. The waters of the Mediterranean are divided among 21 countries and such territorial divisions are commonplace globally (e.g. Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea and the North Sea). In contrast, Australia as an island continent has the luxury of sole jurisdiction over an extremely large EEZ. Thus, MPA development and implementation in Australia do not need to involve negotiations with other countries. However, for the effective development and implementation of MPAs in an area such as the Mediterranean, international collaborations are imperative and the results of such collaborations need to ensure that no country is disadvantaged relative to another. The key to effective MPA planning rests with an approach that integrates ecological information with social and economic considerations through a participatory approach. It is only through such integration that MPA implementation can move beyond the ad hoc opportunism that characterizes the Mediterranean and many other parts of the globe. The benefits of effective participation in MPA planning processes include increased support and compliance and it also allows for marine park planners to take advantage of expert local knowledge of the marine environment (Baelde 2001; Manson and Die 2001; Lunn and Deardon 2006). A participatory approach can also lead to the collection of information on fishing activities at a local scale, which can potentially aid the mitigation of conflict and negative impacts on fishing businesses (Scholz et al. 2004).
GCRF_05.indd 104
10/3/2007 10:22:23 AM
Marine recreational fisheries management challenges and MPAs
105
While the development and implementation of MPAs in Australia includes extensive consultative arrangements, generally lacking are effective participatory approaches particularly in the initial identification of candidate MPAs. To date, many recreational fishing representatives feel that their expert local knowledge was considered secondary to information from scientists and not fully incorporated into marine park planning, leading to a feeling of disempowerment. Such disempowerment is likely to seriously compromise MPA developments where jurisdictional and territorial arrangements (e.g. Mediterranean) make the strong support of stakeholders (including recreational fishers) of even greater importance than it is in Australia. The experience in Australia suggests that MPAs result in changes in the magnitude and distribution of recreational fishing effort and the impacts of such changes should be considered in marine park planning. The impacts can be ecological, economic and social. Economic impacts on businesses supporting recreational fishing can occur as a result of MPAs, and where such impacts are significant, compensation and structural adjustment provided by government may be necessary. Changes in the patterns of recreational fishing effort and the economic impacts on businesses associated with recreational fishing are two important issues that need to be considered in marine park planning. The question of whether recreational fishing (or some forms of it) should be allowed in an MPA when marine biodiversity conservation is the principal management goal can only be addressed on a case-by-case basis (Cooke et al. 2006). Issues to take into consideration include the different recreational fishing gears in use (angling versus traps versus nets) and the impact of these on species or the habitat under protection, whether traditional recreational fishing management tools (e.g. bag limits) are or can be used effectively and the impacts of a redistribution of fishing effort (Cox et al. 2002) and the desirability of this. Also, there is a debate as to whether catch-and-release fishing is compatible with notake reserves (Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005; Cooke et al. 2006). The sociopolitical characteristics of a region and regional economic circumstances should also be thoroughly considered.
Conclusion The two very different regions examined in this paper demonstrate that MPAs can be applied in both regions, but the design of the MPA network needs to be different and must take into consideration bio-physical and socio-political factors. In both cases, there is a lack of monitoring concerning the empirical benefits to recreational fishing resulting from MPA implementation. However, it is also crucial to stimulate learning and exchange of lessons across regions and nations, both to the benefit for conservation and for the management of recreational fisheries. Critical information gaps identified include the need for assessment of the regional economic impacts of MPAs, the potential for redistribution of
GCRF_05.indd 105
10/3/2007 10:22:23 AM
106
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
recreational fishing effort and the optimal size, number and arrangement of MPAs given both bio-physical and socio-political factors. From the Australian situation an important lesson is the critical need for participatory frameworks for the development on MPAs that involve from the outset the recreational fishing sector. Failure to do this has the potential to result in significant conflict that may compromise the implementation and management of MPAs in many regions where the socio-political circumstances are significantly different than those in Australia. The Mediterranean example highlights the practical challenges of MPA implementation and management, and indeed recreational fisheries management in general, across national and regional borders. The use of participatory approaches that incorporate ecological, economic and social information are essential for tackling these practical challenges.
Note 1 For examples of media coverage see: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/ s1698339.htm and http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,205469505006009,00.html
References Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P. et al. (2003) Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 353–367. Allison, G.W., Lubchenco, J. and Carr, M.H. (1998) Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecological Applications 8: 79–92. Baelde, P. (2001) Fishers’ description of changes in fishing gear and fishing practices in the Australian South East Trawl Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 52(4): 411–417. Baelde, P. (2005) Interactions between the implementation of marine protected areas and right-based fisheries management in Australia. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12: 9–18. Ballantine, W.J. (1997) ‘No-take’ marine reserve networks support fisheries. In: D.A. Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grant and J.P. Beumer (Eds) Developing and Sustaining World Fisheries Resources: The State of Science and Management: 2nd World Fisheries Congress Proceedings. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp. 702–706. Bartholomew, A. and Bohnsack, J.A. (2005) A review of catch-and-release angling mortality with implications for no-take reserves. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 129–154. Chevalier, C. (2005) Governance of the Mediterranean Sea. Outlook for the Legal Regime. IUCN-Med, Málaga, Spain.
GCRF_05.indd 106
10/3/2007 10:22:23 AM
Marine recreational fisheries management challenges and MPAs
107
Cho, G. (1998) Conservation and management in Jervis Bay, Australia. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 701–717. Claudet, J., Pelletier, D., Jouvenel J-Y, Bachet F and Galzin, R. (2006) Assessing the effects of marine protected area (MPA) on a reef fish assemblage in a northwestern Mediterranean marine reserve: identifying community-based indicators. Biological Conservation 130(3): 349–369. Coleman, F.C., Figueira, W.F., Ueland, J.S. and Crowder, L.B. (2004) The impact of United States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305: 1958–1960. Cook, G.S. and Heinen, J.T. (2005) On the uncertain costs and tenuous benefits of marine reserves: a case study of Tortugas Ecological Reserve, South Florida, USA. Natural Areas Journal 25(4): 390–396. Cooke, S.J. and Cowx, I.G. (2004) The role of recreational fisheries in global fish crises. BioScience 54: 857–859. Cooke, S.J., Danylchuk, A.J., Danylchuk, S.E., Suski, C.D. and Goldberg, T.L. (2006) Is catch-and-release recreational angling compatible with no-take marine protected areas? Ocean and Coastal Management 49: 342–354. Cox, S.P., Beard, T.D. and Walters, C. (2002) Harvest control in open-access sport fisheries: hot rod or asleep at the reel? Bulletin of Marine Science 70(2): 749–761. Denny, C.M. and Babcock, R.C. (2004) Do partial marine reserves protect reef fish assemblages? Biological Conservation 116: 119–129. Dinmore, T.A., Duplisea, D.E., Rackham, B.D., Maxwell, D.L. and Jennings, S. (2003) Impact of a large-scale area closure on patterns of fishing disturbance and the consequences for benthic communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science 60: 371–380. Edgar, G.J. and Barrett, N.S. (1999) Effects of the declaration of marine reserves on Tasmanian reef fishes, invertebrates and plants. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 242: 107–144. Fernandes, L., Day, J., Lewis, A. et al. (2005) Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 19(6): 1733–1744. Ferreira, B.P. and Russ, G.R. (1995) Population structure of the leopard coralgrouper, Plectropomus leopardus, on fished and unfished reefs off Townsville, central Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Fishery Bulletin 93(4): 629–642. Francour, P., Harmelin, J.G., Pollard, D. and Sartoretto, S. (2001) A review of marine protected areas in the northwestern Mediterranean region: siting, usage, zonation and management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 11: 155–188. Gell, F.R. and Roberts, C.M. (2003) Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14: 133–134. Gordoa, A., Dinatalle, A., Franquesa, R., Caillart, B., Maucedier, L., Mina, X. and Nuss, S. (2004) Sport Fishing: an informative and economic alternative for tuna fishing in the Mediterranean (SFITUM). EU FISH/C. 02/C 132/11. Guidetti, P. (2006) Marine reserves re-establish lost predatory interactions and cause community changes in rocky reefs. Ecological Applications 16(3): 963–976. Haddon, M., Buxton, C., Gardner, C. and Barrett, N. (2003) The effects of introducing MPAs on a commercial fishery – a rock lobster example. Fishing Today 16: 17–20.
GCRF_05.indd 107
10/3/2007 10:22:23 AM
108
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Hall, S.J. (1999) The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems and Communities. Blackwell Science, Victoria, p. 176. Harmelin, J.G. (2000) Mediterranean marine protected areas: some prominent traits and promising trends. Environmental Conservation 27: 104–105. Hilborn, R., Stokes, K., Maguire, J. et al. (2004) When can marine reserves improve fisheries management? Ocean and Coastal Management 47: 197–205. Hilborn, R., Micheli, F. and De Lao, G.A. (2006) Integrating marine protected areas with catch regulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 642–649. Himes, A. (2004) Small-scale Sicilian fisheries: opinions of artisanal fishers and sociocultural effects of MPAs. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 55: 654–674. Hunt, C. (2005) Estimating the Impact on Recreational Fishing-dependent Businesses of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Rezoning. A Report for the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra (Australia), p. 21. Kaiser, M.J. (2004) Marine protected areas: the importance of being earnest. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: 635–638. Lauck, T., Clark, C.W., Mangel, M. and Munro, G.R. (1998) Implementing the precautionary principle in fisheries management through marine reserves. Ecological Applications 8 (Suppl.): 72–82. Lenfant, P., Louisy, P. and Licari, M.L. (2003) Inventory of dusky groupers (Epinephelus marginatus) in the marine reserve of Cerbere-Banyuls (France, North-Western Mediterranean Sea) after 17 years of protection. Cybium 27(1): 27–36. Lleonart, J. (2005) Mediterranean and Black Sea. In: Review of the State of World Fishery Resources. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 457. Lunn, K.E. and Dearden, P. (2006) Fishers’ needs in marine protected area zoning: a case study from Thailand. Coastal Management 34: 183–198. Lynch, T.P. (2006) Incorporation of recreational fishing effort into design of marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 20(5): 1466–1476. Lynch, T.P., Wilkinson, E., Melling, L., Hamilton, A., Macready, A. and Feary, S. (2004) Conflict and impacts of divers and anglers in a marine park. Environmental Management 33(2): 196–211. Manning, R., Valliere, W., Minteer, B., Wang, B. and Jacobi C. (2000) Crowding in parks and outdoor recreation: a theoretical, empirical and managerial analysis. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 18(4): 57–72. Manson, F.J. and Die, D.J. (2001) Incorporating commercial fishery information into the design of marine protected areas. Ocean and Coastal Management 44: 517–530. McClanahan, T.R. and Mangi, S. (2000) Spillover of exploitable fishes from a marine park and its effects on the adjacent fishery. Ecological Applications 10(6): 1792–1805. McDonnell, M., Possingham, H.P., Ball, I.R. and Cousins, E. (2002) Mathematical methods for spatially cohesive reserve design. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 7: 107–114. Morales-Nin, B., Moranta, J., García, C. et al. (2005) The recreational fishery off Majorca Island (western Mediterranean): some implications for coastal resource management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62(4): 727–739.
GCRF_05.indd 108
10/3/2007 10:22:23 AM
Marine recreational fisheries management challenges and MPAs
109
Norse, E.A. (2003) Why marine protected areas? In: J.P. Beumer, A. Grant and D.C. Smith (Eds). Aquatic Protected Areas: What Works Best and How Do we Know? Australia: Australian Society for Fish Biology, pp. 1–9. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S. et al. (2002) Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418: 689–695. Pergent-Martini, C., Pergent, G. and van der Maarel, E. (2002) Ecological research for integrated coastal zone management: Introduction. Journal of Coastal Conservation 8: 107–108. Ramos-Esplá, A.A., Valle-Pérez C, Bayle-Sempere, J.T and Sánchez-Lizaso, J.L. (2004) Areas Marinas Protegidas como herramientas de Gestión Pesquera en el Mediterráneo (Area COPEMED). Serie Informes y Estudios COPEMED no. 11. Ray, G.C. (2004) Reconsidering ‘dangerous targets’ for marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: 211–215. Roberts, C.M. and Polunin, N.V.C. (1993) Marine reserves: simple solution to managing complex fisheries? Ambio 22: 363–368. Roberts, C.M., Bohnsack, J.A., Gell, F., Hawkins, J.P. and Goodridge, R. (2001) Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science 294: 1920–1923. Sale, P.F. and Ludsin, S.A (2003) The extent and spatial scale of connectivity among reef fish populations: implications for marine protected areas designated for fisheries enhancement. Gulf and Caribbean Research 14(2), 119–128. Sant, M. (1996) Environmental sustainability and the public: responses to a proposed marine reserve at Jervis Bay. Ocean and Coastal Management 32(1): 1–16. Scholz, A., Bonzon, K., Fujita, R., Benjamin, H., Woodling, N., Black, P. and Steinback, C. (2004) Participatory socioeconomic analysis: drawing on fishermen’s knowledge for marine protected area planning in California. Marine Policy 28: 335–349. Shelby, B., Vaske, J. and Heberlein, T. (1989) Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple locations: results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences 11: 269–291. Stewart, R.R. and Possingham, H.P. (2003) A framework for systematic marine reserve design in South Australia: a case study. In: J.P. Beumer, A. Grant and, D.C. Smith (Eds). Aquatic Protected Areas: What Works Best and How Do we Know? Australia: Australian Society for Fish Biology, pp. 132–143. Stewart, W. and Cole, D.N. (2001) Number of encounters and experience quality in Grand Canyon backcountry: consistently negative and weak relationships. Journal of Leisure Research 33(1): 106–120. Sumaila, U.R., Guénette, S., Alder, J. and Chuenpagnée, R. (2000) Addressing ecosystem effects of fishing using marine protected areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 752–760. Tupper, M.H. (2002) Marine reserves and fisheries management. Science 295: 1233–1235. Walters, C. and Bonfil, R. (1999) Multispecies spatial assessment models for the British Colombia groundfish trawl fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 601–628. Ward, T.J., Heinemann, D. and Evans, N. (2001) The Role of Marine Reserves as Fisheries Management Tools: A Review of Concepts, Evidence and International Experience. Bureau of Rural Science, Canberra, p. 192.
GCRF_05.indd 109
10/3/2007 10:22:23 AM
110
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Wescott, G. (2006) The long and winding road: The development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of highly protected marine protected areas in Victoria, Australia. Ocean and Coastal Management 49: 905–922. Zeller, D. (1997) Marine reserves: time for a global perspective. In: J.P. Beumer, A. Grant and D.C. Smith (Eds) Aquatic Protected Areas: What Works Best and How Do we Know? Australian Society for Fish Biology, Australia, pp. 70–74.
GCRF_05.indd 110
10/3/2007 10:22:23 AM
Chapter 6
European sea bass in the North Sea Past, present and future status, use and management challenges Jonathan E. Colman, Mike G. Pawson, Johannes Holmen and Thrond O. Haugen
Abstract There is growing awareness of the socio-economic benefits and ecological sustainability of exploitation by angling rather than commercial fishing. Recently, European sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax L., an important commercial and recreational species, has been spreading north and increasing in the North Sea. Over the last 10–15 years, it has established in Norwegian coastal waters, providing a unique opportunity to examine whether co-management (of commercial and recreational fishing) of a marine species can work across international waters. We contrast the recent past and present management schemes for sea bass in Ireland (recreational angling only since 1992) with those in the United Kingdom (implemented in 1990, with no distinction between commercial and recreational use), and give special attention to the value of monitoring population trends in relation to management goals. We argue that, for effective management of an invasive species, it is essential that information becomes available to evaluate whether the management measures implemented are appropriate and working.
Introduction The European sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax L., is attractive to both recreational anglers and commercial fishermen, and its fisheries provide an excellent opportunity to investigate a history both unique and in many ways similar to those of other important natural resources. Wild fish populations such as Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua L., in the North Sea, anchovies, Engraulis encrasicolus L., in the Bay of Biscay and striped bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum), on the east coast of the United States of America have at some time been overharvested as a result 111
GCRF_06.indd 111
10/3/2007 10:24:00 AM
112
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
of improvements in the efficiency of fishing equipment. However, sea bass are one of the few (only?) commercial marine fish species actually increasing in numbers in the North Sea. Could this be an example of good management, or a response to positive climate forcing or interactions with other species? Recent studies (Pawson et al. 2007a,b; Colman et al. unpublished data) show that sea bass populations have been expanding and establishing in new areas and that this change reflects a true increase in numbers despite increased catch and effort by fishermen. Concurrently, there has been an increasing appreciation and eagerness by anglers to fish for sea bass. What can the history of this amazing fish teach us? Can we learn from past and present use and management approaches? How can one country (Norway, in this case) best address the management of a new species when it is highly valued and sought after by both commercial and recreational fisheries? Similarities can be drawn with the history of striped bass and its management in the eastern United States of America (Field 1997). However, an important difference is the multinational aspect of sea bass in north-west Europe and the establishment of potentially new populations in new countries, such as Norway. Information about the biology of sea bass and their movements suggests an expansive distribution and population interactions across international boundaries, which poses a challenge for cooperative management of combined commercial and recreational fishing amongst neighbouring countries. To address this challenge, we integrate biological and angling/harvesting information and compare management practices in different North Sea countries to investigate what may or may not work and how best to apply a ‘winning’ management scheme.
Sea bass biology relevant to management Sea bass are distributed in north-east Atlantic shelf waters from southern Norway, through the North Sea, Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, Bay of Biscay and Mediterranean, to north-west Africa. Tagging studies around England, Wales and Ireland (Pawson et al. 1987, 2007b) have demonstrated that adult sea bass appear to return to the same feeding area each summer. Together with studies on geographical and seasonal patterns of feeding, condition and gonad development (Pawson and Pickett 1996; Masski 1998), these suggest that, once sea bass reach maturity, they either occupy well-defined (usually inshore) feeding areas or move to the south and west to pre-spawning and spawning areas as the water temperature decreases during October–December. Ripe adult sea bass have been caught by pelagic trawling in the Bay of Biscay during January–March (Fritsch et al. 2007), and planktonic egg surveys (Thompson and Harrop 1987; Jennings and Pawson 1992) have shown that sea bass spawn offshore in the English Channel and eastern Celtic Sea from February to May, when the temperature range was 8.5–11°C. Ripe sea bass were also caught in a sheltered Norwegian fjord during
GCRF_06.indd 112
10/3/2007 10:24:01 AM
European sea bass in the North Sea
113
April 2004 and 2005, when sea temperatures at 0–2 m depth were 8.8–9.3°C (Colman et al. unpublished data). Large numbers of sea bass eggs were collected from cod stomachs at the same location. Ripe sea bass have also been reported in the inner parts of the Oslo fjord, and it is reasonable to assume that spawning in Norway may be favoured by local sea temperature regimes and steep fjord sides that result in deep inshore waters. Jennings and Pawson (1992) found that sea bass larvae resulting from offshore spawning move steadily inshore towards the coast as they grow and suggested that, when they reach a specific developmental stage at around 11–15 mm in length (at age 30–50 days), they actively swim into estuarine nursery habitats. From June onwards, age-0 sea bass in excess of 15 mm are found in estuaries, harbours and shallow bays all along the south-east, south, and west coasts of England and Wales, where their growth is strongly related to summer temperatures (Pawson 1992; Kelley 2002; Reynolds et al. 2003). However, survival of age-0 through the first winter is reduced at temperatures below 5–6°C (Jennings et al. 1991; Kelley 2002), which may well explain the attraction to warm water of age-0 sea bass, especially in winter towards the north of their distribution, where age-0 sea bass may otherwise not survive (Pawson and Eaton 1999). Thus, warmer winters in the northerly part of their range might be expected to enhance survival of first-year sea bass. On the south and west coasts of the United Kingdom, juvenile sea bass emigrate from nursery areas at around 36 cm total length (age 3–6 years, depending on growth rate), often dispersing well outside the ‘home range’ and not necessarily recruiting to their specific parent spawning stock (Pickett et al. 2004). It appears that there is substantial mixing of sea bass at this stage throughout large parts of the populations’ range, and pre-adult fish have been observed to emigrate from the Thames Estuary (southern North Sea) along the Channel coast and even into the eastern Irish Sea. Sea bass attain maturity after 4–7 years, or at approximate lengths of 35 cm for males and 42 cm for females (Kennedy and Fitzmaurice 1972; Pawson and Pickett 1996). A recent tagging study (2000–2004) (Pawson et al. 2007b) revealed a change in the migration patterns of adult sea bass, with no recaptures reported offshore in the western Channel of fish tagged in the North Sea, whereas all winter recaptures of adult sea bass tagged in the North Sea 20 years ago were from the offshore fishery in the western Channel (Pawson et al. 1987). Thus, the seasonal migration of adult sea bass from the North Sea to the Channel is now much less evident. In addition, reports of local, inshore, recaptures of tagged adult sea bass in the North Sea and Irish Sea between November and April were scarce in the 1980s (2.8%), whereas this proportion is now much higher (14.6%). This suggests that climate warming may have lengthened the duration of residence of adult sea bass in summer feeding areas and, at least in the North Sea, has allowed sea bass to spawn much further north than previously. This fits well with the observations that the sea bass population has developed both in abundance and
GCRF_06.indd 113
10/3/2007 10:24:01 AM
114
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
its northwards range since the early 1990s (Pawson et al. 2007a). Norwegian findings of first-year sea bass are very rare, but occasional observations of 10–15 cm long fish suggest that sea bass are spawning and recruiting to populations in Norwegian fjords (Colman et al. in prep. a,b).
Stock identity Tagging studies have indicated considerable mixing of sea bass within and between the North Sea, English Channel, Celtic Sea and Irish Sea (Pawson et al. 1987, 2007b; Pickett et al. 2004; Fritsch et al. 2007). Given the extent of mixing between sea bass sub-populations at earlier life stages due to larval drift (Jennings and Pawson 1992), it is not surprising that there is a lack of genetic structuring/ differentiation between spawning grounds and between adults and juveniles (Castilho and McAndrew 1998; Naciri et al. 1999; Bonhomme et al. 2002; Fritsch et al. 2007). It is, therefore, difficult to identify distinct biological stocks throughout the sea bass population in north-west Europe by using genetic and tagging data, and assessments of the dynamics of sea bass populations around the coasts of England and Wales (Pawson et al. 2007a) show common features regarding year-class strength over large parts of its range. This suggests that the abundance and survival of juvenile sea bass may be controlled by large-scale environmental patterns. Pawson et al. (2007b) proposed sea areas within which fishery and biological data could be used in assessments and for which management advice may be given, based on a consideration of both the current patterns of seasonal movements of sea bass in the exploited populations (i.e. >36 cm), as indicated by tag recaptures, and the characteristics of the seasonal fisheries taking them. In particular, they propose that sea bass in the North Sea may now be considered as a separate management stock. It is not known, however, whether sea bass around Norway recruit from further south in the North Sea or are now part of a self-supporting stock. An interesting question that arises is whether the fjord structure of the Norwegian coast promotes a more pronounced population structuring compared with the sea bass from other parts of the North Sea, as it does for Atlantic cod (Knutsen et al. 2003). Similar growth patterns shown on scale samples from comparative cohorts and long-distance movements of tagged sea bass (a sea bass tagged in 2004 in the inner Oslo fjord was caught by an angler north of Bergen) indicate that at least some fish disperse relatively widely (Colman et al. unpublished data).
Fisheries management – general considerations Most exploited fish stocks need protection to be able to persist at or above a sustainable level. However, the objectives for management have changed from the
GCRF_06.indd 114
10/3/2007 10:24:01 AM
European sea bass in the North Sea
115
earlier goal of yield maximization to a more compound modern goal (Hart and Reynolds 2002). Hilborn and Walters (1992) recognize four themes for objectives: (1) biological, (2) economic, (3) recreational and (4) social. Ideally, fisheries management should be based on a broad foundation of scientific knowledge that relates to these categories, but opinions on which interest groups should contribute to this knowledge differ. The scientific environment is typically located within governmental institutes and universities and is often accused of not communicating with the commercial fishing industry, which is claimed to only take shortterm profit into consideration when negotiating management options. In the following, we provide an overview of the aforementioned four objectives in relation to sea bass and indicate how the different groups involved can contribute to an appropriate management plan. Whilst much of this is comparable to striped bass in the eastern United States of America, it is important to keep in mind the multinational aspects and newly establishing populations of European sea bass. The biological objectives incorporate the future well-being of the species in question and its ecosystem interactions, with the aim of maintaining self-sustaining stocks. Through sampling of commercial catches, age distributions and thus cohort strength can be measured, using mathematical population models with which predictions of future stocks, both in numbers and biomass, can be made (Hart and Reynolds 2002). Marine science institutes are mainly responsible for the production and application of these models to particular species, but input from fishermen who in their daily work observe the fish can also contribute valuable information. The economic objectives take into account all parties involved in the realization of potential values in fishing, both commercial and recreational. People from widely different labour areas, including fishermen, fleet owners, fish processing workers and logistics workers, make a living in the commercial sector. However, value distribution among these groups depends on whether large-scale companyowned or small-scale artisanal fisheries are involved. Recreational fisheries, as defined, generate little, if any, value measured in terms of fish sold, as most fish caught are consumed by the angler and his family and friends, or released alive. The economical potential, in some cases fully realized, lies in all sorts of business concerned with equipment supply, accommodation, transportation and guiding of anglers. Recreational objectives are somewhat harder to quantify, as they refer to the psychological need in humans to be engaged in self-experienced meaningful activities during their spare time. Social objectives are involved in all stages in the fishing industry. Most coastal communities were originally built around the fish and fishing industry, and many small communities are likely to vanish if the major local employment businesses disappear. In countries such as Norway, government authorities subsidise rural development, including fishing and fish processing. Small-scale artisan fisheries generate more jobs for fishermen, while large-scale commercial fisheries involve more labour-intensive onshore-based work and employ a number of people in factories. Promotion of recreational angling has incorporated social
GCRF_06.indd 115
10/3/2007 10:24:01 AM
116
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
objectives with the aim of engaging more people in a healthy leisure activity, by emphasizing the valuable psychological aspects that contribute to the participants’ well-being, the better understanding and respect of nature and a positive influence on the quality of life that angling generates. Presently, a number of countries successfully combine management of commercial and recreational fisheries for marine species, and some fisheries management authorities regard recreational fishing for marine species to have a greater potential for generating value than commercial fishing. Well-known examples are Ireland (for sea bass, see the following section) and the United States of America [for striped bass, see Field (1997) and Chapter 11]. The change to management favouring recreational fishing in both these countries began with a population crash of the species in question, in the United States of America primarily caused by overharvesting by commercial fishing. To restore the populations of sea bass and striped bass, complete bans were placed on commercial fishing and recreational angling was strictly regulated. This means that, for these two species, the recreational angler has limited competition from commercial fishing and, as a consequence, can enjoy more fish in general, including more large fish. For striped bass, commercial fishing has also resumed and is regulated under the presumption of moderation and sustainable use.
Sea bass fisheries in north-west Europe Partly because of the high prices offered for the species, the commercial sea bass fisheries in north-west Europe have developed rapidly since the late 1970s. It is not always easy to distinguish between fisheries directed at sea bass and those where sea bass are taken as a by-catch, and sea bass are rarely exploited as the main target species throughout the entire year. However, the commercial sea bass fisheries can be split into inshore and offshore components. In the inshore fishery, small boats use a wide variety of fishing methods with relatively little activity in winter, and have in the past exploited juvenile sea bass less than 36 cm long in inshore nursery areas, where they can be extremely vulnerable. Once sea bass mature, they are less available to the inshore fishery, but they have been increasingly targeted on their pre-spawning and spawning grounds by French mid-water pair-trawlers since the early 1980s and more recently by British vessels, chiefly between November and April. Catches of sea bass taken by rod-and-line have comprised a substantial part of the overall landings in southern Britain for many years (Dunn et al. 1989; Dunn and Potten 1994), where the sea bass is widely regarded as the most important marine recreational angling species. In several areas, charter boats take groups of anglers out specifically to catch sea bass on offshore reefs and areas of tidal overfalls, the larger vessels going offshore as far as the Channel Isles. Recreational angling for sea bass is also popular along the French coast, particularly
GCRF_06.indd 116
10/3/2007 10:24:01 AM
European sea bass in the North Sea
117
between the Cherbourg Peninsula and southern Brittany, and appears to have grown steadily around Jersey and Guernsey in recent years. Few sea bass are caught along the Irish coast of the Irish Sea to the north of the River Boyne, and the best sea bass angling extends from the west of County Wexford around the southern coast to County Clare, where sea bass shoal in estuary mouths, off rocky headlands and reefs and along open storm beaches. In the North Sea, sea bass have been caught regularly by recreational anglers along the south coast of Norway since the late 1980s. Recent reports indicate that sea bass are currently caught in coastal waters from the Swedish border in the south-east to the Bodø area in the north (Figure 6.2). They are also caught from the shore in the far north of Scotland, and near warm-water discharges from power stations on the Scottish east coast, areas that in the past have been considered to be on the periphery of the species’ normal range. Southwards along the English coast, small quantities of sea bass are taken as a by-catch in trawls and set nets and occasionally by directed angling, and they are regularly caught in the southern North Sea as part of a mixed fishery in fixed and drift nets, trawls and by lines. In particular, sea bass may be targeted in estuaries and around wrecks and offshore banks from May until November using gill-nets, lines and angling. Sea bass are caught in the southern North Sea by French boats using bottom trawls, and both shore and boat angling for sea bass has become popular and worthwhile along the Netherlands and Belgium coasts.
Commercial landings A combination of the official UK statistics and landings derived from a voluntary logbook scheme run by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), have been used to provide ‘best estimates’ of sea bass landings in England and Wales (Pawson et al. 2007a). Other countries’ estimates are based on official reports. Commercial landings of sea bass from the North Sea have increased considerably in the last 20 years, because of a number of strong cohorts recruiting to the fishery and protection of juveniles (Pawson et al. 2005). Boats from the United Kingdom and France are responsible for the bulk of commercial landings in the North Sea area, although other countries along the continental North Sea coast have increasingly contributed, ranging from 2 t (Denmark) to 122 t (Netherlands) annually. There is some small-scale commercial fishing for sea bass in Norwegian waters, mostly as by-catch, though there are reports of targeted commercial sea bass gill-net fishing during the winter from the inner Oslo fjord area. No official statistics are available for Norway. Total international landings of sea bass from the southern North Sea and the eastern English Channel were relatively stable at around 500 t over the period 1984–1990, and then rose to a peak of 1900 t in 1994, since when they have fluctuated between 1210 and 1810 t (Pawson et al. 2007a).
GCRF_06.indd 117
10/3/2007 10:24:01 AM
118
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Recreational catch There is no routine collection of information on sea bass catches by anglers anywhere in Europe. However, good-quality data on recreational catch and effort in England and Wales were obtained for 1986–1987 and 1992–1993 as a result of two economic studies (Dunn et al. 1989; Dunn and Potten 1994), which estimated that some 24,500 sea-anglers fished regularly for sea bass in the United Kingdom in 1986/87 and took around 415 t of sea bass annually. A preliminary study on recreational fishing in France was carried out by IFREMER (Institut Français pour la Recherche et l’Exploration de la Mer) and BVA (Institut, D’Etudes de Marche et D’Opinion), using telephone interviews with a sample of around 2000 people greater than 15 years old, stratified by geographical and socio-economical characteristics of the population. When raised by the corresponding French population (48 million), the recreational sea bass catch in 2002 was estimated at 1200 t for the English Channel and 3600 t for the Atlantic. A repeat study in 2004 indicated that 900,000 persons said that they fish for sea bass, one-third of whom fish more than seven times in a year to take an estimated catch of 3450 t. Thus, the catch of sea bass in French recreational fisheries is probably as high as the commercial catch. There are no sea bass catch data for Ireland. The quantity of sea bass caught by anglers in other countries surrounding the North Sea is unknown. In Norway, sea bass catches are now more frequently reported in the media than a decade ago, and according to the anglers themselves, the number caught has increased dramatically over the last 15 years (Box 6.1). Anglers who specifically target sea bass estimate that they catch approximately one fish per 4-h fishing. Based on angling reports and interviews, we estimate anglers in Norway at present catch over 10 t per year, or five times that of the present commercial catch (Table 6.1), though we have no hard data to support this.
Management of sea bass fisheries Due to the northward extension of its distribution (Figure 6.1), the sea bass is regarded as a ‘newly colonizing species’ in a number of countries. Invasive fish species impose important questions to management: should they be considered a resource and encouraged (with appropriate management), or are they to be considered a threat for existing species and therefore eradicated? However, it is impossible to prevent marine species from expanding their distribution, and the only way of actively influencing a marine fish stock is by controlling its exploitation. Fisheries authorities therefore need to develop a framework for managing fisheries for new species, especially if it might be replacing another species due to temperature changes, for example. They may easily become subject to overexploitation if management regulations are lacking, with the unfortunate result that both the displaced and the newly arrived species may disappear.
GCRF_06.indd 118
10/3/2007 10:24:01 AM
European sea bass in the North Sea
Box 6.1
119
Questionnaire survey of anglers from the inner parts of the Oslo Fjord
Methods: Anglers were approached at random either in the field while they fished or in sport stores while shopping for fishing equipment. A prepared questionnaire was read out loud and the angler’s answers were recorded. Although these interviews were carried out randomly, by anglers, days and places, most of those questioned were from the Oslo area and spent much of their fishing time in the inner Oslo fjord. Although we have no demographic or social–economic information, it is also likely that our interviewees represented an economically strong and motivated (state-of-the-art equipment, etc.) type of angler. However, fishing is the outdoor activity most Norwegians take part in, and anglers in Norway are representative of most of society. 2004 Questions
2006
#
%
#
%
Yes
24
77
16
94
No
7
23
1
6
Will you focus more on sea bass fishing in the future?
Do you think recreational fishing should be regulated, for example, with lengths or bag limits? Yes
14
44
13
81
No
18
56
3
19
Should near-shore commercial fishing be regulated, for example, for the benefit of recreational fishing? Yes
––
––
15
88
No
––
––
2
12
What characteristic of sea bass do you appreciate most? The fight
6
75
2
12
As a food source
2
25
3
19
The excitement of catching a ‘new’ species
0
0
11
69
Why do you fish in general? For food
13
22
0
0
For sport and recreation
22
38
9
56
The social aspects
15
26
7
44
Other reasons
8
14
0
0
Trends: There was a clear understanding among all our interviewees that sea bass were increasing, but this was much more prevalent in 2004 than 2006. (continued)
GCRF_06.indd 119
10/3/2007 10:24:01 AM
120
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Box 6.1
Continued
Almost all of those asked (94%) in 2006 replied that they were going to direct more of their efforts towards sea bass fishing in the future. Sea bass is clearly becoming a major sports-fish in Norway, and our data show that this trend is increasing. Regulations: Anglers interviewed in 2004 were much less positive towards regulating sport fishing in saltwater. Before 2005, there was little tradition for regulating recreation/sport or hobby fishing in coastal Norway, apart from the use of nets. In 2005, tourists were regulated as to the amount of fish they could keep (15 kg). This law has been much debated, and the ensuing media coverage is likely to have influenced our interviewees in 2006. Most of those who answered in 2006 felt that sport (81%) and commercial (88%) fishing should be regulated. Unfortunately, we did not have this question in 2004. Sea bass fishing in Norway appears to be evolving from a ‘by-catch’ among hobby and recreational anglers to a more focused sport fishing activity. In 2004, the answers to questions about why the interviewees fished and what they appreciated most about catching sea bass reflect a traditional hobby, for example, for food and ‘other reasons’. This changed rapidly over 2 years and, in 2006, most of those interviewed said they fished sea bass for the excitement. They also preferred sea bass fishing for the challenge and strength of the fish and valued the social aspects of sea bass fishing. A high number (6 out of 8, or 75%) in 2004 also answered that the fight was the best thing about catching sea bass. This might be a result of the low number who could answer that question in 2004, because catching a sea bass was obviously a prerequisite. By 2006, sea bass fishing was already becoming well established among those interviewed, and the fish’s fight evidently became less of an important impact factor. Over the 2-year period, there was a clear shift in anglers’ thoughts as to why sea bass might be increasing in abundance in Norway, with global warming as the leading explanation. Interestingly, those interviewed in 2004 had broader ecological explanations with a number of plausible reasons, such as interspecific competition, population growth and dispersal, or better resources; while in 2006 it would seem that everything happening in nature is now a consequence of climate change. This is something we would like to investigate in future studies.
United Kingdom In the late 1970s, recreational anglers reported that sea bass were declining in abundance around the English and Welsh coasts, though the commercial fishery was quite small at that time. Pawson et al. (1987) showed that the exploitation pattern of sea bass had been shifting towards younger ages in the early to mid-1980s,
GCRF_06.indd 120
10/3/2007 10:24:02 AM
European sea bass in the North Sea
121
Table 6.1 Estimated annual sea bass landings (in tonnes) in countries surrounding the North Sea and eastern English Channel, based on reported catch-records over the period 2000–2004. Commercial landings United Kingdom
575
France
886
Netherlands
122
Denmark
2
Norway
2+ and growing
Other countries
Unknown (negligible)
Source: Pawson et al. 2007a; Colman et al. unpublished data.
1982
1992
2002
Figure 6.1 The temporal trend in the spatial distribution of UK commercial catch statistics for European sea bass, showing the northwards extension to its geographical range since the 1980s. The catch per unit effort increases with increasing darkness of the shaded squares (data from Defra catch statistics data base).
and recruitment in some important fisheries occurred at 32–36 cm, owing to local fishing patterns targeting sea bass of 3–5 years old in and around harbours and estuaries. There was strong evidence of growth-overfishing (too many small fish being caught before they had a chance to grow) in many areas, and Pawson et al. (1987) estimated that yields in areas such as the southern North Sea would increase if the size at first recruitment to the fishery was delayed until around 45 cm total length was reached. However, because many inshore fisheries in southern England depended heavily on exploiting juvenile sea bass, a minimum size at recruitment no higher than approximately 36 cm was indicated. It should be noted that the UK’s strategy for sea bass conservation in the 1980s did not include direct controls on the level of fishing for sea bass. Effort limitation and catch quotas were considered ineffective in such a fragmented multispecies
GCRF_06.indd 121
10/3/2007 10:24:02 AM
122
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
fishery that employs mainly small, inshore boats and also because there were insufficient assessment data on which to base quantitative recommendations. In 1990, a package of technical measures was implemented in England and Wales, comprising a national minimum landing size (MLS) of 36 cm (adopted by the European Commission in 1990 to apply to all north-western European waters), closure of 34 key sea bass nursery areas in estuaries or around the warmwater discharges from coastal power stations where juvenile sea bass congregate and are vulnerable to fishing, and mesh size regulations for enmeshing nets which effectively banned meshes between 65 and 89 mm (i.e. those most selective for sea bass of 30–36 cm). Pawson et al. (2005) showed that these technical measures increased protection of juvenile sea bass, achieved the predicted increase in yield of sea bass in UK fisheries and helped safeguard the stock fished close inshore by small boats.
Ireland A similar decline in sea bass catches in Ireland in the 1970s prompted the introduction of a number of conservation measures. A size limit of 38 cm was introduced in 1975, and increased to 40 cm in 1990, when a closed time for fishing for sea bass by nets and bans in certain areas were also introduced. Additional regulations in 1992 prohibited fishing for sea bass from a boat and using nets in their capture, banned the sale of wild sea bass and introduced a bag limit of two sea bass in any 24-h period and a closed season for angling for sea bass between 15 May and 15 June. The cumulative effect of these regulations has been to outlaw commercial fishing for sea bass in the Republic of Ireland, based on the argument that recreational fishing generated considerable value, and managing in its favour could be combined with the rehabilitation and sustainable use of the sea bass population.
France The offshore fishery for adult sea bass (>40 cm) shoaling for spawning between December and early May in the English Channel, Bristol Channel and in Biscay has increased steadily since the early 1980s, with a recent average of 20 French pelagic pair-trawl teams fishing each year. Although there are no direct effort or catch (total allowable catch – TAC) restrictions on this fishery, a national regulation limiting sea bass landings by French pelagic trawlers fishing in the Channel to 2 t/boat/week in January–April was introduced in 1996 to prevent markets from being oversupplied. Since 1998, this measure has been extended to all trawlers landing sea bass, and the current limit of 5 t/boat/week was also adopted by the United Kingdom in 2000 to prevent excessive landings by Scottish vessels participating in the winter offshore fishery.
GCRF_06.indd 122
10/3/2007 10:24:02 AM
European sea bass in the North Sea
123
Norway Fishing regulations for coastal species are almost non-existent in Norway, though some small-scale, local regulations exist in numerous fjords for recreational fishing for salmonids. Sea bass is not recognized as a ‘Norwegian species’ but as a ‘rare visitor’, allowing unlimited harvest by commercial fishermen as by-catch and with no regulations whatsoever for recreational fishing. Sea bass catches are not registered in official statistics. The only sea bass catch registration system available is on our project’s Web site (www.seabass.no), and this is used mostly by recreational anglers. Although we have encouraged commercial fishing markets to use this register, or to record in some form the number of sea bass delivered to their market by commercial fishermen, the response has been meager. However, the number of catch reports is increasing each year.
Discussion Future management considerations The imperatives of large-scale commercial fishing and environmental challenges, both biotic and abiotic, shape all marine management regimes. When planning a management scheme, it is important to have a clear objective and also to understand to whom and how management will apply. This becomes especially challenging when the species is attractive for both commercial and recreational fishing. There are some simple scenarios that immediately come to mind: (1) plenty of fish, with no need to regulate commercial or recreational fishing, (2) limited numbers of fish, requiring both commercial and recreational fishing to be regulated and (3) severely depleted fish stocks, with very strict regulations or no fishing allowed by anyone. However, it is also important to understand the biological aspects and dynamic changes of the fish population, and the socio-economical values and potential consequences of commercial and/or recreational fishing. With respect to management of sea bass fisheries, assessments of sea bass stocks in UK coastal waters suggest that the current level of exploitation is sustainable and has led to an increase in exploitable biomass since the mid-1990s (Pawson et al. 2007a). Information on recruitment shows that year-class strength has generally improved since the early 1990s and, with the protection given to small sea bass, the growth-overfishing observed in the 1980s has been largely ameliorated. From what is known about stock mixing in sea bass and, in particular, the common traits in stock dynamics and biological parameters, it is reasonable to assume that these trends will be reflected throughout other areas, and that sea bass population in north-west Europe as a whole are probably being fished sustainably. However, forecasts of the actual or potential changes in yield accompanying these stock dynamics must take account of the availability of the sea bass population to the various fisheries. Pawson et al. (2007a), for example, suggest
GCRF_06.indd 123
10/3/2007 10:24:02 AM
124
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
that the fisheries in the North Sea are not taking full advantage of the increased productivity of the sea bass population. Because sea bass are especially important to inshore artisanal fishers and recreational anglers, a management regime that results in moderate fishing mortality and produces relatively high abundance of medium-sized and large fish is likely to enhance the socio-economic value of the species (Drew Associates 2004), as well as ensuring long-term conservation of the resource, should environmental conditions become less favourable for good recruitment. In late 2005, stakeholders in England and Wales were consulted on a proposal to raise the MLS for sea bass from 36 to 45 cm so as to increase the numbers of larger sea bass in the population, and thus enhance angling opportunities. The results were polarized, with some respondents fully supporting the proposal, but many others suggesting that they would suffer a substantial loss of earnings (or lose the chance to take a meal-sized sea bass home). The outcome is that a 40-cm MLS is being considered in England (Wales decided not to change the present regime) in 2007, with an evaluation to be carried out 3 years later. No other country appears to be formally considering further changes to management of sea bass fisheries.
What do we learn from this? The United Kingdom has found that regulations based on a good understanding of the fish, its biology and its fisheries can produce the intended results, an increase in the sea bass population and higher yields. Pawson et al. (2005) suggest that technical measures do work, as they have for striped bass in the United States of America (Field 1997), though they must be aimed at specific management goals and it is important to understand and explain to stakeholders the implications of their implementation. They also emphasize the need to monitor the progress of the fishery and stock, to judge the success of or adapt the management scheme. Future plans to manage for the benefit of recreational anglers will require stricter restrictions on commercial fishing, with the aim to generate greater overall value to society. Whilst these may lead to more ecologically and socio-economically sustainable fisheries, they could also be considered to be discriminative against commercial fishermen. Anecdotal reports indicate that angling for sea bass has increased in Ireland, with more and larger fish being caught. Unfortunately, no monitoring was conducted either before or after these conservation measures were implemented, and the claim that these measures have worked is not borne out by official sources [Fisheries Science Services (FSS) 2006]. In the absence of a commercial fishery, it is difficult to monitor the effects of the management actions. There is also resentment that sea bass originating in Ireland may move offshore as they grow and mature, to be harvested by other nations’ fishing fleets in spite of the ban placed on Irish commercial fishermen and strict regulations for angling.
GCRF_06.indd 124
10/3/2007 10:24:03 AM
European sea bass in the North Sea
125
Norway: a golden opportunity for testing a recreational-based management regime During the last 20 years, the amount of sea bass caught in Norwegian waters has increased dramatically. The reason for this increase is probably related to an expansion in sea bass abundance and distribution, and directed sea bass angling has increased over the same period in several areas in southern and western Norway. Over the last 5 years, reports of catches of sea bass have come from anglers as far north as Bodø, northern Norway (Figure 6.2). Most sea bass are caught between June and October, but occasional catches have been reported midwinter from the Oslo fjord, as well as along the southern and western coasts. Anglers report that they expect to increase their efforts to catch sea bass in the future (Box 6.1). Besides the socio-economic information, our interviews and information exchange with recreational fishermen contribute key information on angling hot spots for sea bass, their dispersal, distribution, feeding patterns and trends in population growth, and the gathering of vital biological samples such as scales and tissue (for genetic analysis). Our interviews also illustrate how careful we need to be when interpreting angler interview data. There are many biases, and the lack of systematic sampling restricts scientific validation.
Figure 6.2 Reported sea bass catch locations in Norway in 2005 (black dots). Reports represent angler catches that have been submitted via the online catch-report system at www.seabass.no or to the authors directly.
GCRF_06.indd 125
10/3/2007 10:24:03 AM
126
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Norway has a large angling population, though it is difficult to separate those fishing in fresh- and saltwater, as many combine their fishing to include many types of venue, species and methods. Only people 16 years and older need register, and only when angling for anadromous salmonids in freshwater. Thus, it is difficult to estimate the number of sea anglers in Norway. Household surveys indicate that half the adult population fish at least once a year, and over one-half of a billion Norwegian kroners (NOK; c.€70 million) are spent annually on fishing equipment alone. Considering the additional expenses involved with fishing trips, for example, boating equipment, cars and transportation, fuel, lodging, food, outdoor equipment and accessories, clothes and so on, the monitory value of angling in Norway is immense. At present, there is a very limited catch value possibly under NOK 1 million (around €0.1 million) reported for sea bass by commercial fishermen in Norway. The possibilities for developing fisheries based on the increasing abundance of sea bass in Norway requires us to learn from the experience in other European countries. On the basis of the comparative values for sea trout, Salmo trutta L., angling, it seems highly likely that the socio-economical value of recreational angling for sea bass will far outweigh the commercial value of sea bass in Norway, especially where the population is newly established and low in numbers. Even in England and Wales, where there are well-established commercial fisheries, sea-bass-related angling activities generate more money (£100 million, Drew Associates 2004) than the commercial catch (£6.8 million in 2003). Theoretically, therefore, restrictions on commercial fishing could further improve the total socio-economic value of sea bass fishing in Norway. For this reason, it should be considered whether to introduce regulations on commercial fishing for sea bass in Norway, especially now when there is little or nothing to lose for the commercial fisheries’ interests. It is easy to provide rational arguments why this is the most sustainable way of management for this species: z z z
Regulation policies in the United Kingdom have proven successful in restoring and securing sustainable stock sizes of sea bass. The continuing policy of banning commercial fisheries in Ireland. Positive results from other species, such as striped bass in particular, in the United States.
The only obstacle we see that can prevent politicians from accepting a ban on commercial fisheries for Norwegian sea bass is the unknown effect sea bass have on established commercial fish species. If a burgeoning sea bass population has a pronounced negative effect on, for example, cod, saithe, Pollachius virens L., salmon, Salmo salar L., or sea trout, it seems unlikely that politicians will protect sea bass from commercial fishing. To explore this issue, local trials of a ban on commercial fishing and promotion of sport fishing for sea bass could
GCRF_06.indd 126
10/3/2007 10:24:03 AM
European sea bass in the North Sea
127
be held in areas with low commercial fishing activities (such as the inner parts of the Oslo fjord). Provided that such an experiment is adequately monitored through examination of anglers’ catches, the interactions between sea bass and other fish species can be revealed. Even though sea bass is likely to be an important target species of interest from an angler’s point of view in the future, it is important to keep in mind that it is part of a dynamic ecosystem and a fish community that interact in complex relationships. It would be equally detrimental if a management programme focused too much towards sea bass, resulting in the collapse of other fish species. How do we convince the policy makers that this novel idea is worth a try? Money! Economic value! We argue that the sea bass population needs protection from commercial harvest at this stage, irrespective of whether it eventually proves to be a valuable replacement for lost commercial fishing opportunities, or an additional sport fishing species. Simultaneously, we need to document the revenue created by the recreational fishing sector and promote them as a strong user group, thus securing recreational fishing’s rightful place at the negotiating table.
References Bonhomme, F., Naciri, M., Bahri-Sfar, L. and Lemaire, C. (2002) Comparative analysis of genetic structure of two closely related sympatric marine fish species Dicentrarchus labrax and Dicentrarchus punctatus. Comptes Rendus Biologies 325: 213–220. Castilho, R. and McAndrew, B.J. (1998) Population structure of seabass in Portugal: evidence from allozymes. Journal of Fish Biology 53: 1038–1049. Drew Associates (2004) Research into the Economic Contribution of Sea Angling. Final report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pp. 71 + annexes. Dunn, M., Potten, S., Radford, A. and Whitmarsh, D. (1989) An Economic Appraisal of the Fishery for Bass in England and Wales. Report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. CEMARE, University of Portsmouth, p. 217. Dunn, M.R. and Potten, S.D. (1994) National Survey of Bass Angling. Report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fish and Food. CEMARE, University of Portsmouth, pp. 45. Field, J.D. (1997) Atlantic striped bass management: where did we go right? Fisheries 22: 6–8. Fisheries Science Services (2006) Bass on All Coasts (Subareas VI and VII) in 2006 Stock Book. Fisheries Science Services, Marine Institute, www.marine.ie, p. 375–377. Fritsch, M., Morizur, Y., Lambert, E., Bonhomme, F. and Guinand, B. (2007). Assessment of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax, L.) stock delimitation in the Bay of Biscay and the English Channel based on mark-recapture and genetic data. Fisheries Research 83: 123–132. Hart, P.J.B. and Reynolds, J.D. (2002) Handbook of Fish Biology and Fisheries, Vol. 2: Fisheries. Blacwell Publishers, Oxford, p. 410. Hilborn, R. and Walters, C.J. (1992) Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. Chapman & Hall, London, p. 570.
GCRF_06.indd 127
10/3/2007 10:24:03 AM
128
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Jennings, S. and Pawson, M.G. (1992) The origin and recruitment of bass, Dicentrarchuslabrax, larvae to nursery areas. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 72: 199–212. Jennings, S., Lancaster, J.E., Ryland, J.S. and Shackley, S.E. (1991) The age structure and growth dynamics of young-of-the-year bass, Dicentrarchus labrax, populations. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 71: 799–810. Kelley, D. (2002) Abundance, growth and first-winter survival of young bass in nurseries of south-west England. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 82: 307–319. Kennedy, M. and Fitzmaurice, P. (1972). Biology of bass, Dicentrarchus labrax, in Irish waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 52: 557–597. Knutsen, H., Jorde, P.E., Andre, C. and Stenseth, N.C. (2003) Fine-scaled geographical population structuring in a highly mobile marine species: the Atlantic cod. Molecular Ecology 12: 385–394. Masski, H. (1998) Identification de frayères et étude des structures de population de turbot (Psetta maxima L.) et du bar (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) en Manche ouest et dans les zones avoisinantes. Thesis presented at the Faculty of Science in Brest. University of Bretagne Occidentale, pp. 136 + annexes. Naciri, M., Lemaire, C., Borsa, P. and Bonhomme, F. (1999) Genetic study of the Atlantic/ Mediterranean transition in sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Journal of Heredity 90: 591–596. Pawson, M.G. (1992) Climatic influences on the spawning success, growth and recruitment of bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) in British waters. ICES Marine Science Symposium 195: 388–392. Pawson, M.G. and Eaton, D.R. (1999) The influence of a power station on the survival of juvenile sea bass in an estuarine nursery area. Journal of Fish Biology 54: 1143–1160. Pawson, M.G. and Pickett, G.D. (1996) The annual pattern of condition and maturity in bass, Dicentrarchus labrax, in waters around England and Wales. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 76: 107–125. Pawson, M.G., Kelley, D.F. and Pickett, G.D. (1987) The distribution and migrations of bass, Dicentrarchus labrax L, in waters around England and Wales as shown by tagging. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 67: 183–217. Pawson, M.G., Pickett, G.D. and Smith, M.T. (2005) The role of technical measures in the recovery of the UK sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) fishery 1980–2002. Fisheries Research 76: 91–105. Pawson, M.G., Kupschus, S. and Pickett, G.D. (2007a) The status of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) stocks around England and Wales, derived using a separable catchat-age model, and implications for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 346–356. Pawson, M.G., Pickett, G.D., Lebalour, J., Brown, M. and Fritsch, M. (2007b) Migrations, fishery interactions and management units of sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax L., bass in Northwest Europe. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 332–345. Pickett, G.D., Kelley, D.F. and Pawson, M.G. (2004) The patterns of recruitment of sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax L. from nursery areas in England and Wales and implications for fisheries management. Fisheries Research 68: 329–342.
GCRF_06.indd 128
10/3/2007 10:24:03 AM
European sea bass in the North Sea
129
Reynolds, W.J., Lancaster, J.E. and Pawson, M.G. (2003) Patterns of spawning and recruitment of sea bass to Bristol Channel nurseries in relation to the 1996 ‘Sea Empress’ oil spill. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 83: 1163–1170. Thompson, B.M. and Harrop, R.T. (1987) The distribution and abundance of bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) eggs and larvae in the English Channel and Southern North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 67: 263–274.
GCRF_06.indd 129
10/3/2007 10:24:04 AM
Chapter 7
Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management Nordic examples Pekka Salmi, Erik Neuman and Tapio Hakaste
Abstract A major challenge for recreational fisheries management is in the complex, diverse and dynamic nature of the system. This chapter is based on the view that the way in which fisheries management institutions are designed and applied significantly contributes to the level of sustainability. We study stakeholder participation and spatial scale of management by drawing on examples of multistakeholder settings from northern Europe. The main tensions and conflicts in the case studies occurred between large-scale access rights for anglers and local owner-based management. Large management areas provided by public fishing rights enhance fishing opportunities for non-local anglers, but they generally do not encourage participation and responsibility in management. For better sustainability, the management institutions should prepare for communication between levels and enhance stakeholder participation. Local stock management should be improved and based on biological monitoring.
Introduction A major question for successful recreational fisheries is how fishers’ access to the desired fishing waters is arranged. Typically, problems have been related to competition with other resource user groups and the negative impacts resulting from these water uses on the quality of the fishing experience. Non-fishery impacts on recreational fishing resources can include, for instance, hydropower development, water quality problems, water abstractions for agriculture and recreational (non-fishery) use of waters (Hickley and Tompkins 1998; Arlinghaus et al. 2002). Conflicting demands also within the fisheries sector may determine 130
GCRF_07.indd 130
10/3/2007 10:24:51 AM
Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management
131
the ‘social carrying capacity’ of a fishery and thus opportunities for recreational fishing (Arlinghaus 2005). There are various manifestations of collision between different stakeholder groups (Wilson et al. 1998; Arlinghaus 2005). Conflicts triggered by management of the access to the fishery rosources are in many instances cultural rather than interest driven (Jentoft 2003; Arlinghaus 2005). Designing institutions from the conflict management perspective is important especially when numerous or heterogenic stakeholder groups use the same fishing waters (Arlinghaus 2005). This chapter is based on a view that how management institutions are designed and adapted contributes significantly to the level of sustainability and conflicts in recreational fisheries. Sutinen and Johnston (2003) have proposed angling management organizations (AMOs) to better integrate the recreational sector into the management of fisheries. The AMOs are expected to encourage improved resource stewardship, reduce enforcement and monitoring costs, fewer management conflicts and greater long-term net economic benefits in recreational fisheries. However, conflicts between and among stakeholders can still be prevalent (Arlinghaus 2005), suggesting that additional factors are necessary to consider for minimizing conflicts. Along with changes in society, such as globalization, the spatial scale and level of participation in decision making are important determinants of governance institutions (Kooiman and Bavinck 2005). Public participation in decision making has been widely debated and studied, among others, in the fields of environmental planning (e.g. Rydin and Pennington 2000) and in forestry (e.g. Niskanen and Väyrynen 1999). Social science analyses of fisheries institutions are concentrated on issues surrounding commercial fisheries with an emphasis on co-management theory. Recreational fisheries have been rarely addressed as a stakeholder group in this literature. The social-psychology-oriented ‘human dimensions’ research tradition in the United States and elsewhere (Aas and Ditton 1998; Arlinghaus 2005, 2006) has provided valuable information about recreational fishers’ attitudes and opinions, but not much attention has been paid to address issues like scale and participation in recreational fisheries management. A major challenge for fisheries management is in the complex, diverse and dynamic nature of the system (Kooiman et al. 1999). The objective of this chapter is to discuss challenges of recreational fisheries management with an emphasis on stakeholder participation and spatial scale by drawing on case studies and examples from northern Europe. After reviewing recent discussions on participation, representation and scale in fisheries management, four case studies are presented and compared. For this purpose we analyse the local management of recreational fisheries in the Nordic case areas in terms of ecological, socioeconomic, community and institutional sustainability (Charles 2001).
GCRF_07.indd 131
10/3/2007 10:24:52 AM
132
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Participation, representation and scale in fisheries management Management systems are never designed in an institutional vacuum (Jentoft 2003) and the organization of management systems varies significantly around the world. Owing to the diversity also, the paths of development vary. From the historical perspective, Harris (2001) points out that the views of fisheries management have shifted from traditional to modern and further to postmodern. In the traditional view, authority is invested in local communities, while in the modern view authority is structured hierarchically and fisheries management is exercised in a top-down manner and the state authority and science are dominant. ‘Community participation’ is a postmodern view, where the conflict between disparate goals is submerged in a conflict over management process and which is often presented as a solution for problems of modern top-down fisheries management. Brown (2001) defines ‘community-based cooperative management’ as an arrangement where authority and responsibility over local resources is shared between government and local resource users and/or their communities. Harris (2001) raised a troublesome question: who is the community that is to participate in the management process? The community is no longer just local actors, which has led analysts to talk of stakeholders. Recreational fishers are important stakeholders in many fisheries although they often live permanently outside the fishing site and thus are not members of the ‘local community’. Representation of stakeholder groups and the scale of management are interwoven in co-management theory (e.g. Wilson et al. 2003). This can be encompassed at any spatial scale. Co-management can be broadly defined as a collaborative and participatory process of decision making between representatives of user groups, governmental agencies, research institutions and other stakeholders (Jentoft 2003). Co-management has been presented as a way forward from fishery crises (Sen and Raakjær Nielsen 1996), which are at large crises of fisheries management rather than resource crises (Symes 1996). Recreational fishers have become powerful stakeholders in many fisheries (Arlinghaus et al. 2002), for example, in the US fisheries management (Mikalsen and Jentoft 2001). However, they are not self-evidently included in a participatory management system (Varjopuro and Salmi 2003). There are numerous subgroups of recreational fishers, which tend to complicate representation in the management system. Co-management is considered as one manifestation of co-governance, where societal parties join hands with a common purpose in mind (Kooiman and Bavinck 2005). Other forms of co-governance comprise communicative governance, public–private partnerships, regimes and networks. In order to reach successful collaboration, attention is directed to the design of institutions, for example, which groups, and in which way, should participate in the day-to-day management (Kooiman 2003).
GCRF_07.indd 132
10/3/2007 10:24:52 AM
Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management
133
As co-management may occur at different geographical and political levels, the spatial scale affects the way stakeholders are represented. On smaller scales, decision making can be handled in face-to-face communications in which differences about facts can be sorted out and differences about values can be debated and compromises reached (Degnbol et al. 2003). In many cases, direct participation – although a democratic ideal – will be out of question because of the sheer number of legitimate interests involved (Mikalsen and Jentoft 2001). Larger scale requires other procedures for representation and deliberation (Jentoft 2003). In practice, fisheries decisions are rarely made solely by the state or, for instance, solely by the local community. The governance system is often a mixture of tasks and rights at different hierarchical levels and scales. Ostrom (1999) argues in favour of polycentric systems, where citizens are able to organize not just on one but multiple governing authorities at different scales. Each unit may exercise considerable independence to make and enforce rules within a circumscribed scope of authority for a specified geographical area. Pascual-Fernández et al. (2005) have addressed the importance of institutional linkages: institutions are linked to each other and form networks that are themselves institutions. The functioning of these networks is dependent on how they are structured and what flows within them. McCay and Jentoft (1996) have argued that fisheries management should adopt the principle of subsidiarity, that is, the management authority should be vested at lowest possible organization. The lowest level could be the vessel, an angling club, firm or a local community. Securing local involvement may bring local and tacit knowledge to the management discussions. In some situations, however, the subsidiarity principle can mean regional, national or even international level of decision making. Jentoft and McCay (1995) suggest that a fisheries management regime should not surpass the ecosystem boundary as defined by fish stock boundaries. Thus, local stocks should be subject to local level management, while migrating stocks should be the responsibility of regional, national or transnational institutions depending on the particularities that pertain to each species. In the discussion of developing institutions for natural resource management the delimitation and size of the managed area are important factors. Bruckmeier and Neuman (2005, ref. Ostrom 1999; Neuman et al. 2004) have collected five arguments in favour of small areas for natural resource management: z z z z
GCRF_07.indd 133
Managers need to have a joint understanding of the functioning of the resource and how their actions affect the other managers and the resource. Managers must trust each other and observe their mutual relations. Managers should have good knowledge of the area. Managers must have a good possibility of controlling the fishery.
10/3/2007 10:24:52 AM
GCRF_07.indd 134
10/3/2007 10:24:52 AM
d
c
b
a
Osakaskunta, fiskelag, Statutory Fishery Association. Fiskevårdsområde, Local Fisheries Management Area. Kalastusalue, fiskeområde. Fiskevårdssammanslutning.
Free: angling with a rod and natural bait, ice fishing with a rod. Province-wide lure fishing fee system
Legal use rights
Free: angling with a rod and natural bait, gill-netting for herring (Clupea harengus) for local people
Regional associationd Fisheries authority of the Provincial Government
Fisheries Regionc
National and district fisheries authorities
Local Fishery Associationa
Local Fishery Associationa
Public
Individual owner
Individual owner
Private
Åland Islands
Turku archipelago/Case Häme
Ownership
Study areas
Table 7.1 Management institutions and state-organized use rights in the study areas.
Free: rod fishing, fishing with long-lines and herring gill-nets in deep water.
National and regional fisheries authorities
––
Local Fishery Associationb
Individual owner
Östhammar archipelago
Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management z z
135
The resource should be distributed in few populations per species, ideally one. Three arguments have been presented in favour of large areas. { Large management areas enable better fishing opportunities. { In large areas, more personal and economic resources are available for management. { Managing large areas reduces the risk that exploitation of the same population in several areas will complicate management.
We use the above arguments later in the discussion section for studying management challenges of recreational fishing at different scales.
Recreational fisheries management in Nordic case areas Fisheries and management institutions Coastal and inland water areas in Sweden and Finland have traditionally been under private ownership and managed (jointly) by the people who own the shoreline (Table 7.1). The water owners are responsible for the local management of fisheries. The Local Fisheries Associations (LFAs) organize joint decision making concerning the collective village waters. Water owners have traditionally been mostly locals, but lately a considerable part of the waters has come in the possession of people who live outside the area. Moreover, the ownership structure has become fragmented especially due to growing needs of summer cottage dwelling. Consequently, there are many joint-owner groups within lake and coastal water areas and the ownership structure has become a mosaic (Sipponen 1999). The LFAs in the case study areas are normally based on a village extending from a few to a few dozen kilometres with less than ten to hundreds of stakeholders. There are currently approximately 2100 LFAs in Sweden (Fiskeriverket 2002). These organizations are well established inland, but there is so far a small number along the coasts. The major proportions of privately owned coastal water areas, where LFAs have not yet been established, are managed in an informal way by individual water owners or their associations (Sandström et al. 2002). In Finland, there are a total of about 7500 LFAs, 75% in the inland waters (Salmi et al. 2002). However, only a small part of these associations are operative. In coastal areas the average size of private waters is often substantially smaller than in the lake areas. Especially the non-local recreational fishers, together with commercial interests, have demanded larger fishing areas than those provided by the LFAs. Therefore, fisheries regions (FRs) was founded in the 1980s to offer a forum for decision making on a larger scale of operation than that of the local associations. The idea behind FR is to strengthen cooperation in uniform watersheds, where it is appropriate to coordinate LFAs. FRs makes a management plan that collects information about fish stocks and fishing and provides management guidelines for the water area.
GCRF_07.indd 135
10/3/2007 10:24:52 AM
GCRF_07.indd 136
10/3/2007 10:24:52 AM
Stockholm
Östhammar
Sweden
Finland
Aland
Figure 7.1 The case study areas.
Turku
Tampere
Hämeenlinna meenlinna
Lahti Lathi
Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management
137
Fisheries in Sweden are governed by 21 county administrations, which belong to the state governance system, and the National Board of Fisheries. In Finland, the central authority is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. In the 1980s the introduction of district authorities, responsible for all inland and coastal waters, strengthened the role of the government in Finnish fisheries management. The special provincial government in the autonomic Åland Islands has substantial power as the ‘central’ authority. It issues rules concerning, for example, minimum sizes for captured fish of some species and mesh sizes for fishing gear. These rules must be followed by the local managers, which, however, can decide about further restrictions. In the past, fish resources have formed an important part of livelihoods and subsistence in Swedish and Finnish coastal and freshwater areas. The commercial use has decreased and concurrently recreational fisheries have substantially increased, as in all industrialized countries. The use of passive fishing gear in recreational fishing is a special feature of Nordic fishing culture. Subsistence fishing traditions, especially the use of gill-nets, small fyke-nets and wire traps, have importance although rod fishing has increased and dominate. We name the users of passive fishing methods as household fishers and the users of different types of rod and/or line gear as anglers. Local fishers are mostly household fishers, albeit angling is also common among them. The summer cottage dwellers form an important fisher group, which can be characterized as semi-local (Salmi et al. 2006). Household fishing is common also among them, when they have the legal possibility for it. Non-local fishers are almost exclusively anglers. Angling became free for the public along the Swedish Baltic coast in 1985. In Finland, except the Åland Islands, the adoption of a province-wide lure fishing fee system in 1997 allowed rod fishing in the privately owned waters irrespective of the owners will. It is still, however, possible to buy licences from the LFAs for fishing with rods, like for passive gears. The Finnish state-organized lure fishing permits are sold for each province and the income is distributed back to the LFAs and individual water owners. Trolling is not included in Swedish ‘free fishing’, but in Finland trolling with one rod is allowed when the lure fishing permit is purchased. In many cases, the FRs have created their own licence areas for trolling, where fishers can use several rods. These can also bring significant incomes for the FR. To sum up, fisheries interests, practices and management in Sweden and Finland are a complex mix of official and private stakeholders at different scales, and angling, household and commercial fishing sometimes go on in the same area.
Study sites The study sites were chosen to provide varying examples of recreational fisheries management challenges in the setting of an owner-based governance system. The four study areas are the Östhammar archipelago in Sweden, the Turku archipelago, the Åland Islands and the Häme lake area in Finland (Figure 7.1).
GCRF_07.indd 137
10/3/2007 10:24:53 AM
138
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
The Östhammar area is located about 100 km north from Stockholm in the municipalities Östhammar and Norrtälje. The water area of the study site covers c.100 km2. The area is unique when compared with other Swedish Baltic coastal areas, because it is managed by ten functioning LFAs. The case study areas in the Turku archipelago comprise 2 out of 15 FR in the archipelago, Nauvo and Velkua. The main parts of the Velkua FR are situated in the municipalities Velkua and Rymättylä, 40 km west of the city of Turku. The size of the water area of the Velkua Region is 361 km2 and that of Nauvo is 1006 km2. The study area in the Åland Islands was made up of four municipalities: Geta, Hammarland, Kökar and Lemland. Their total archipelago water area, that is, the area inside the border between the inner private waters and the common water of the open sea, is 1140 km2 and their total population is c.3800. The Häme study site is an inland area in southern Finland. It is larger than the other study sites with over 800,000 inhabitants in 56 municipalities. The total water area is 3870 km2. In this province there are altogether 2000 water owner units, which are combined into 30 FRs.
Challenges in fisheries management The Östhammar area The data in the Östhammar area were collected in a mail survey using an eightpage questionnaire (Salmi 2002) treating the conditions in 2001 and was sent to water owners, other estate owners, holders of boat places, fishing club members and occasional visitors of the area. The total sampling population was 1995 persons or households and 1443 questionnaires (72%) were returned. The material also consists of 16 qualitative interviews, made with representatives of local water owners, fishers and other local groups, tourist entrepreneurs and representatives of the fisheries and environmental authorities. Recreational fishing is extensive and carried out by locals, owners of summer cottages and tourists. Gill-netting for pikeperch (Sander lucioperca), whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) and perch (Perca fluviatilis) are most important for both commercial and household fishers, while the anglers mostly fish for pike (Esox lucius) and perch. The LFAs are dominated almost totally by local water owners. They considered possibilities for household fishing (mostly gill-nets) as an important benefit of water ownership. Also a vast majority of the owners who lived permanently in another area found household fishing opportunities somewhat or greatly important. Rod fishing opportunities were considered important among the nonlocal water owners. More than two-thirds of the local water owners found it essential that the ownership supports keeping alive traditions of the family and archipelago life.
GCRF_07.indd 138
10/3/2007 10:24:53 AM
Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management
139
According to the local stakeholder groups, the most typical conflict was that between water owners and anglers. Owners of private waters were worried about the increased fishing pressure from the rod fishers and the lack of regulations dealing with the development. Trolling was considered a more efficient method than gill-nets. Water owners connected the disappearance of large-sized fish with increased trolling. Alternatively, anglers criticized the situation where private water owners have the right to decide about gill-net fishing and could not understand the negative attitudes towards trolling among the water owners. The anglers especially disapproved household fishers who catch more fish than they could use and sell the surplus. The local water owners in the Östhammar area were typically against the free access of anglers to the privately owned waters, because it has transferred an essential part of the power and control away from the owner level and changed the economic opportunities – water owners cannot any more control or receive licence incomes from rod fishing. They stated that the funding of fisheries management and especially fish stocking are suffering. The anglers were considered ‘free riders’, who use the resource without sharing the costs. The strongest arguments against the free rod fishing made comparison to communism and owners’ assets confiscated by the state. In addition, there were claims that the anglers cause damage and use the locals’ jetties and boat sheds as their own. These accusations were contradicted by anglers. A fishery advisor in the area found it peculiar, when the state decides about free rod fishing without properly compensating the owners. To solve or reduce these conflicts, most stakeholders in the Östhammar area wanted to improve monitoring of fish stocks and to strengthen management cooperation between different groups. All groups wanted to enhance locals’ participation in fisheries governance, but opinions varied whether they would increase water owners’ or recreational fishers’ influence in the governance. Only a few informants regarded increased power for the non-local recreational fishers or for the authorities as important. The Åland Islands The material from the Åland Islands was collected by a mail survey almost identical to that for Östhammar. The Åland survey also dealt with the conditions in 2001. The questionnaire was sent to 765 randomly chosen estate owners (about 200 in each of the four municipalities) and to the professional fishermen and to the chairmen of the LFAs, who also got a special questionnaire concerning their specific activities. The mail survey was returned by 63%, and in total 437 answers was used in the analysis. Approximately 70% of these respondents owned water. Most of them (93%) had shares in undivided waters. Two hundred and eighteen persons considered themselves as household fishers, 29 as rod fishers and 20 combined the two forms.
GCRF_07.indd 139
10/3/2007 10:24:53 AM
140
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
A special citizenship in the Åland province is needed for buying land and water and they can only be inherited by direct heirs, which mean that almost all water owners have a strong local connection, even if they live outside the islands. Different from Finnish and Swedish coastal waters, angling in the archipelago still demands permit from the water owner. Recreational fishing is carried out by locals, owners of summer cottages and tourists. Visiting anglers using local tourist services are common. Gill-netting for whitefish and perch are most important for both the professionals and the household fishers, for the latter also flounder (Platichtys flesus). Anglers fish mostly pike and perch. About 40% of the local water owners participated in the meetings of a LFA and only 7% of the non-locals. As regards the benefits of water ownership, both categories valued the household fishing opportunity highly. Social factors as maintaining the traditions and taking part in local management also ranked high: c.60% among the local owners and 70–80% among the non-local. The occurrence of conflicts in Åland was low. Few respondents found the fishing pressure too high. Twenty percent of the locals considered the professional fishers to fish too much and 17% the rod-fishing tourists. Among the non-local water owners, the corresponding figures were 6 and 38. The opinion that tourists catch too much was quite common also among commercial fishers. Two-thirds of the respondents had no opinion as regards conflicts between different groups, which probably reflects the view that there are few serious conflicts. Among those who expressed an opinion, 70% found the conflict between water owners and fishers important and 53% that between fishers and nature protection. As regards methods for improving the fisheries management system, high proportions had no opinion (31%) or were content with the situation (25%). ‘Increasing the cooperation between groups’ was the only popular (31%) method to improve the management. Very few wanted to give the authorities or specific groups more influence. The great majority of interviewed tourist fishers were quite content with their fishing opportunities, but a few fishing in an area split on small LFAs and numerous private owners wanted bigger waters available on the same licence. The Turku archipelago The data from the Turku archipelago were compiled combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Most of the material used here is from qualitative interviews. In the Nauvo Region, 25 interviews were made with water owners, recreational fishers and managers (Salmi and Nordquist 2003). In Velkua a total of 38 persons from the corresponding stakeholder groups were interviewed together with an additional mail survey sent to 365 water owners (Salmi et al. 2001). A total of 165 (45%) responded to the survey. In the FR of Nauvo, the participation rate in LFA meetings was 55% for the local and 45% for the non-local water owners. The actual power of the local own-
GCRF_07.indd 140
10/3/2007 10:24:54 AM
Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management
141
ers is substantially greater, because they have bigger properties than the nonlocals, who are often summer cottage dwellers. A constraint for FR in the Turku archipelago is that the boundaries have been drawn according to those of municipalities, which are not coherent entities from the perspective of fish stocks or fisheries. The benefits of water ownership in the Turku archipelago were related to the possibility for household fishing and keeping traditions alive. The target species of both recreational and commercial fishers are similar to those of Åland. Local water owners associated conflicts usually with recreational fishing, especially to those fishers who access the privately owned waters using the provincial lure fishing fee. The opposition to this system was justified by three main arguments: (1) the licence system causes harm to commercial fishing and the tourist industry, (2) the ‘lure fishers’ disturb nature, fish reproduction and other people using the shore for recreation and (3) the licence system hampers the local management and control of fisheries. The provincial lure fishing fee system was often labelled as ‘legalized poaching’. Some LFAs had stopped the stocking of pike and trout (Salmo trutta) fingerlings after the adoption of the lure fishing fee system, because ‘only a fool stocks fish for other people free of charge’. Criticism towards the lure fishing fee system was mostly targeted at specialized non-local trollers, using relatively big mobile boats. Many non-local anglers held the state-organized fishing rights important because water owners did not provide enough fishing areas for rod fishers before the province-wide lure fishing fee system was established. The public rod fishing rights have eased recreational fishers’ access especially to those fishing grounds where owners had been reluctant to provide licences or where local fisheries management was absent. The opportunity to move between fishing sites became easier, which benefited trolling and other mobile anglers. The local recreational fishers, however, are often water owners, or access local fishing waters rather easily as community members, and thus they are usually satisfied with the old local owner-based licence system. It can be concluded that in the Nauvo region the rights of commercial and local household fishers were of primary importance. In a few other FR in the area, the recreational fishing opportunities have been ranked higher and joint-licence areas have been provided for trolling and other rod fishing, the Velkua Region being an example. The Velkua FR consists of numerous small ownership units: 333 LFAs and 598 privately managed water areas in 2001. A vast majority of the small water areas have been inactive and thus the FR has made attempts for increased activities and sparkle more joint-licence areas for angling. Although the commercial and household fishing traditions were important for water owners and other local people both in the Velkua and Nauvo FR, in Velkua the wide use rights of non-local anglers were generally seen as less problematic than in Nauvo. One explanation for the difference is that Velkua is both geographically and culturally closer to the urban areas. Nauvo belongs to an area characterized by distinct fisher–peasant traditions and emphasis on local
GCRF_07.indd 141
10/3/2007 10:24:54 AM
GCRF_07.indd 142
10/3/2007 10:24:54 AM
Licence incomes
Resources for local management
Insignificant Extensive
Local power to regulate the fishing
Conflicts
Institutional
Significant
Support of the local community
Community
Mostly missing Restricted, local licence
Information on local fish stocks
Ecological
Licence incomes
Extensive
Insignificant
Significant
Restricted, local licence
No
Household fishers, all cases Åland
Socio-economic Opportunities for recreational fishing
Sustainability criteria
Sustainability dimension
Licence incomes mediated by the state
Partial
Insignificant
Varying
Wide, state licence
Mostly missing
Häme
Anglers
Licence incomes mediated by the state
Partial
Intense
Small
Wide, state licence
No
Turku
Table 7.2 The sustainability of the local recreational fisheries management in the studied cases.
Licence incomes (only from trolling)
None
Intense
Small
Free
Mostly missing
Östhammar
Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management
143
entrepreneurship. The importance of natural resources, especially the fish, has strengthened the culture of self-management, which is often manifested by invoking the local private ownership. Lake fisheries in Häme In Häme, the managers and chairmen of the FR were interviewed. The focus was on what their organizations had achieved after 20 years of operation. A total of 30 semi-structured interviews were carried out by the district fisheries authority. The province of Häme is considered the leading recreational fishing area in Finland with about 300,000 fishers a year (Anon 2005). The most popular methods are rod-and-reel fishing from shore, ice-fishing and trolling (Toivonen et al. 2002). The catches consist mainly of pike, perch, pikeperch and roach (Rutilus rutilus). Pikeperch is among the most wanted catch, in addition to the salmonids brown trout and land-locked salmon (Salmo salar). Managing the partly migratory pikeperch stocks, and some minor brown trout stocks, are issues where the intermediate management level represented by the FRs is better suited than the local level (LFA). However, only 10 of 30 FRs in the Häme district have used their right to regulate fishing, although there are biological evidence expressing concern over the overharvest of the pikeperch stocks (Lappalainen et al. 2005). Different groups had different opinions about how the fishing regulations should be implemented. Anglers point out the higher efficiency of gill-nets compared with trolling or angling, while water owners are more concerned about how to supervise that all fishery groups obey shared rules. Harvest regulations is a topic, where scientific knowledge and the local procedures seldom seem to meet. Although the majority of the decision power within a FR is clearly in the hands of the water owners, the establishment of this organization also gave the recreational fishers a formal mandate to participate in fisheries management. Recreational fishers’ access to fishing seems to be the easiest field for cooperation within FR in Häme. They have formed joint-licence areas for anglers: the same licence is valid for fishing in several privately owned water areas. These licences were introduced before the state-organized provincial lure fishing fee system introduced as a parallel system from 1997. It is possible that the already widespread joint-licence system in the Häme region partially mitigated conflicts, which arose elsewhere in Finland (see above). On the other hand, the provincial lure fishing fee also brings remarkable income for many water owners in the Häme region. This has probably also mitigated the conflicts.
Discussion We want to evaluate fisheries management in our cases against the following sustainability criteria (Table 7.2):
GCRF_07.indd 143
10/3/2007 10:24:54 AM
144 z z z z
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Ecological sustainability: the existence of a stock management based on sufficient information. Socio-economic sustainability: good fishing opportunities for the recreational fishers. Community sustainability: the recreational fishery supports the local communities and causes no serious conflicts. Institutional sustainability: a good capability of local management institutions to maintain and balance other sustainability dimensions.
Serious problems of ecological sustainability are rarely at the core of recreational fishing problems in the studied Nordic recreational fisheries. There are contradictory perceptions about the impact of angling on fish stocks, but the effects of household gill-netting are more widely recognized and regulation measures are increasing. A major challenge is that data on how fishing, regulations and stocking affect the local stocks is insufficient or missing in almost all study areas, and hence the management is mostly based on trial and error. The recreational fishers’ organizations, dominated by the urban fishers, have used political influence at the government level to create new access rights for anglers in Sweden and Finland, with the exception of the Åland Islands. The establishment of these rights aroused tensions especially in the Östhammar and Turku archipelagos. Decision making regarding household fishing opportunities were in the hands of local water owners in all studied areas, but use rights for anglers vary from local licences in the Åland Islands to totally free access in the Östhammar case. Turku and Häme offer multiple opportunities for anglers when purchasing licences: province-wide lure fishing fee, joint-licences provided by the FR or local licences from the water owners. When the owners have the possibility to regulate the recreational fisheries and make income from it, the fishing contributes to upholding cooperation and traditions and thus supports the local communities. This is the case for household fishing in all areas and for angling in the Åland Islands and in the Häme area, while the contribution from anglers in the other areas are insignificant. Conflicts between the locals and non-local anglers have been intense in both Östhammar and Turku. Subjects of the conflicts are related not only to competition over fish and fishery management decisions, but equally so to more general questions of control, self-determination, cultural traditions and sustainability of the local community. In the Åland Islands, the water owners are content as they have control over the full spectrum of fishing. The system for selling licences to tourists was well developed rather early. Moreover, recreational pressure from nearby cities is substantially smaller in Åland than in the other study areas. Consequently, there has been no political pressure to free angling from the local control. In spite of these local regulations, fishing tourism is far better established in Åland than in the other studied coastal archipelagos.
GCRF_07.indd 144
10/3/2007 10:24:54 AM
Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management
145
Licence incomes are the most important economic resources for local fisheries management. Especially in the Östhammar study site the lack of licence incomes from angling counteract local fisheries management and add to the conflict. It has been claimed, that the construction of LFAs was halted along the Swedish Baltic coast largely due to the free rod fishing: these fishers needed no more to buy fishing licences from the water owners, which eroded the economic basis for local management. When resources are lacking, it is difficult to create forums for communication and participation in order to build trust and networks. In the Åland Islands most of the LFAs are well equipped, but in other studied sites enhancing communication networks is a key challenge. The process of formulating a management plan in the Finnish FR is a vehicle for discussing the goals and practises of local fisheries management. The studied examples reveal challenges in achieving sustainable institutional arrangements in complex multi-stakeholder settings. The ‘rules of the game’ result from historical developments and political power relations. Along with the changes in the societies, the statutory institutions and legislated fishing rights have been subject to reforms. In the Swedish and Finnish recreational fishing management, first the traditional and then the modern hierarchical view have become important (Harris 2001). The recent diversification of fisher groups widens the discussion from ‘local community’ to ‘stakeholders’ in which also the non-resident groups, such as the urban recreational fishers, are included. Arguments in favour of small management areas include good knowledge of the area, joint understanding of the functioning of the resource and building of trust and ability to control the fishery (Bruckmeier and Neuman 2005). Moreover, the spatial scale of management should be defined in such a way that the fish resource is distributed in few populations per species, ideally one. Good fishing opportunities for non-local fishers speak in favour of larger management areas. The areas should also be large enough for harnessing sufficient social and economic resources for management. In our examples, the target species have a number of smaller stocks with different spawning-places and genetic differences in a scale roughly corresponding to that of the local management units (Bruckmeier and Neuman 2005). To avoid overfishing and its most serious consequence, loss of genetic variation, stock management should be based on genetically defined stocks (Laikre et al. 2005) and on appropriate information on their status. Such information demands well-planned monitoring, which is mostly lacking in all the studied areas. The main tensions and conflicts in the studied Finnish and Swedish examples occurred between the large-scale access rights for anglers and the local ownerbased management. From the non-local anglers’ perspective, there should be easily accessible and large enough fishing areas. The state-organized wide angling rights in Sweden and Finland have obviously provided these, but at the same time the motivation and resources for fisheries management at the local scale
GCRF_07.indd 145
10/3/2007 10:24:54 AM
146
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
have diminished. Anglers have used their political influence to affect the statelevel formation of wide public fishing rights, but they have scantly participated in the day-to-day decision making. As water owners, many local household fishers and anglers have an option to participate in the LFAs. The institutional problems in the studied areas, excluding the Åland Islands, stem from fragmentary governance structure, which lacks emphasis on creating communication and trust between stakeholder groups. The main challenge is how to build bridges between local and non-local stakeholders. Enhancing institutional linkages (PascualFernández et al. 2005) between the spatial scales of management would help incorporate fisher’s knowledge, local monitoring of fish stocks and strengthen human and economic resources to the management system. The weakness of public fishing rights in the studied areas is that anglers lack involvement and responsibility regarding management. The autonomic position of the province of Åland provides tools for developing the governance system in connection with local circumstances and especially the strong traditions and culture of commercial and household fishing. There the conflicts are small largely due to the strong owner engagement and lack of pressure for wider public rights for anglers. The state has a crucial role in (re)designing the institutions for fisheries management and cooperation, but there should be close collaboration with relevant stakeholders right from the beginning of the process. Local stakeholders have a key position in the management regime and the representation of well-organized recreational fishers’ groups can be arranged by their organizational representatives, but how can the interests of large numbers of unorganized and occasional fishers be involved? It is likely that a person who fishes once or twice a year is not particularly interested in fisheries governance as long as fishing opportunities are sufficient. One option to incorporate knowledge about occasional anglers’ values, problems and interests is to use social science surveys, albeit this method does not possess the benefits of face-to-face communication (Varjopuro and Salmi 2003). FR in Finland form an organization model, which can increase cooperation between the stakeholders above the village level, provide good fishing opportunities and monitoring of fish stocks. The presented case study from Häme area shows that this organization can find common interests for cooperation and build trust between stakeholders especially in lake areas, where compatible geographical borders for management units can be established more easily than in the coastal areas. There the scale of the FR has been suitable for developing access rights for fishers and also improved the fish stock management. However, the success of the FR differs substantially and the organization is not well known by the public. Especially in the Finnish coastal areas, these institutions have not functioned adequately, partly because they were established without participation of the islanders (Salmi 2001). Another way of achieving the advantages of large areas is used in the Åland Islands, where local owner associations are cooperating voluntarily in selling fishing licences for large areas and in stocking operations (Neuman and Holmström 2003).
GCRF_07.indd 146
10/3/2007 10:24:54 AM
Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management
147
Drawing from the Finnish and Swedish experiences we suggest the following general recommendations for the development of well-functioning recreational fisheries institutions: z z z
encouraging local stock management based on sufficient information, which presumes monitoring of sedentary fish stocks building trust, handling conflicts and securing fishing opportunities through stakeholder participation improving communication and institutional linkages between scales of management to enhance the knowledge base and resources for decision making.
References Aas, Ø. and Ditton, R. (1998) Human dimensions perspective on recreational fisheries management: implications for Europe. In: P. Hickley and H. Tompkins (Eds) Recreational Fisheries. Social, Economic and Management Aspects. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 153–164. Anon (2005) Recreational Fishing (2004). Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Official Statistics of Finland SVT. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Vol. 62, p. 47. Available online at: http://www.rktl.fi/www/uploads/pdf/tilasto2005_62.pdf. Arlinghaus, R. (2005) A conceptual framework to identify and understand conflicts in recreational fisheries systems, with implications for sustainable management. Aquatic Resources, Culture and Development 1: 145–174. Arlinghaus, R. (2006) Overcoming human obstacles to conservation of recreational fishery resources, with emphasis on central Europe. Environmental Conservation 33(1): 46–59. Arlinghaus, R., Mehner, T. and Cowx, I. (2002) Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish and Fisheries 3: 261–316. Brown, R.C. (2001) Community-based cooperative management: renewed interest in an old paradigm. In: T. Pitcher, P. Hart and D. Pauly (Eds) Reinventing Fisheries Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 185–194. Bruckmeier, K. and Neuman, E. (2005) Local fisheries management at the Swedish coast: biological and social preconditions. Ambio 34: 91–100. Charles, A. (2001) Sustainable Fishery Systems. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series 5, Blackwell Science, Oxford. Degnbol, P., Wilson, D.C., Jensen, S.S. and Grolin, H.A. (2003) Spatial Scale in Coastal Zone Management: Current Approaches, Challenges and Possibilities. Paper presented at: Rights and Duties in the Coastal Zone, 12–14 June 2003, Stockholm. Fiskeriverket (2002) Yttrande till Utvärdering av det fria handsredskapsfisket (SOU 2001:82). Available online at: www.fiskeriverket.se (in Swedish). Harris, C.K. (2001) Social regime formation and community participation in fisheries management. In: T. Pitcher, P. Hart and D. Pauly (Eds) Reinventing Fisheries Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 261–276. Hickley, P. and Tompkins, H. (1998) Preface. In: P. Hickley and H. Tompkins (Eds) Recreational Fisheries. Social, Economic and Management Aspects. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. ix–xv.
GCRF_07.indd 147
10/3/2007 10:24:55 AM
148
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Jentoft, S. (2003) Co-management – the way forward. In: D. Wilson, J. Raakjær Nielsen and P. Degnbol (Eds) The Fisheries Co-management Experience. Accomplishments, Challenges and Prospects. Fish and Fisheries Series 26, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 1–14. Jentoft, S. and McCay, B. (1995) User participation in fisheries management. Lessons drawn from international experiences. Marine Policy 19: 227–246. Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance. Sage Publications, London. Kooiman, J. and Bavinck, M. (2005) The governance perspective. In: J. Kooiman, M. Bavinck, S. Jentoft and R. Pullin (Eds) Fish for Life. Interactive Governance for Fisheries. MARE Publication Series No 3, Amsterdam University Press, pp. 11–24. Kooiman, J., van Vliet, M. and Jentoft, S. (1999) Creating opportunities for action. In: J. Kooiman, M. van Vliet and S. Jentoft (Eds) Creative Governance. Opportunities for Fisheries in Europe. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 259–272. Laikre, L., Palm, S. and Ryman, N. (2005) Genetic population structure of fishes – implications for coastal zone management. Ambio 34: 110–117. Lappalainen, J., Malinen, T., Rahikainen, M. et al. (2005) Temperature dependent growth and yield of pikeperch, Sander lucioperca, in Finnish lakes. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12: 27–35. McCay, B. and Jentoft, S. (1996) User participation in fisheries management. Lessons drawn from international experiences. Marine Policy 19: 227–246. Mikalsen, K.H. and Jentoft, S. (2001) From user-groups to stakeholders? The public interest in fisheries management. Marine Policy 25: 281–292. Neuman, E. and Holmström, B. (2003) The fishery and its management in the municipalities of Lemland, Kökar, Geta and Hammarland. Åländsk Utredningsserie 2003, 4. The Provincial Government of Åland, Mariehamn, p. 34 (in Swedish). Neuman, E., Bruckmeier, K., Laikre, L. et al. (2004) Local Fishery Management at The Swedish Coast – Biological and Social Precondition. HERS SUCOZOMA Report 2004:2. Human Ecology Department, Göteborg University, Sweden (in Swedish). Niskanen, A. and Väyrynen, J. (Eds) (1999) Regional Forest Programmes: A Participatory Approach to Support Forest Based Regional Development. EFI Proceedings No. 32, European Forest Institute, Joensuu. Ostrom, E. (1999) Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science 2: 493–535. Pascual-Fernández, J.J., Jentoft, S., Kooiman, J. and Trinidad, A. (2005) Institutional linkages. In: J. Kooiman, M. Bavinck, S. Jentoft and R. Pullin (Eds) Fish for Life. Interactive Governance for Fisheries. MARE Publication Series No. 3, Amsterdam University Press, pp. 217–238. Rydin, Y. and Pennington, M. (2000) Public Participation and Local Environmental Planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment 5: 153–169. Salmi, J., Muje, K., Salmi, P. and Virtanen, P. (2001) Paikallinen vesialuehallinto ja muuttuva kalastus. Velkuan kalastusalueen intressiryhmien näkemyksiä. Kala- ja riistaraportteja nr 238, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Helsinki, p. 52 (in Finnish).
GCRF_07.indd 148
10/3/2007 10:24:55 AM
Scale and participation in recreational fisheries management
149
Salmi, J., Salmi, P. and Muje, K. (2002) Kalastuskuntien ja alueiden profiilit vuonna 1999. Valtakunnallisten postikyselyjen tuloksia. Kala- ja riistaraportteja nr 247, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Helsinki, p. 41 (in Finnish). Salmi, P. (2001) Private Water Owners and Multiple-use Conflicts in the Finnish Archipelago Sea. Paper presented at the Inaugural Conference ‘People and the Sea, Maritime Research in the Social Sciences – an Agenda for the 21st Century’, 30 and 31 August and 1 September 2001, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Salmi, P. (2002) Local Fishery Management and Private Property of Coastal Waters – Case Study Östhammar-Singö Archipelago, Swedish East Coast. HERS-SUCOZOMA Report 2002:7, Göteborg University, Human Ecology Section, Gothenburg. Salmi, P. and Nordquist, J. (2003) Kenen ehdoilla kalavesiä käytetään? Kalavesien omistus ja intressiryhmien näkökulmat Nauvon kalastusalueella. Kala- ja riistaraportteja nr. 285, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Helsinki, p. 36, http:// www.rktl.fi/www/uploads/pdf/raportti285.pdf (in Finnish). Salmi, P., Toivonen, A.-L. and Mikkola, J. (2006) Impact of summer cottage residence on recreational fishing participation in Finland. Fisheries Management and Ecology 13: 275–283. Sandström, O., Holmström, B., Lappalainen, A. et al. (2002) Förvaltningsmodeller för Östersjöns skärgårdsfiske och vattenbruk, Tema Nord 2002:521 (in Swedish). Sen, S. and Raakjær Nielsen, J. (1996) Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis. Marine Policy 20: 405–418. Sipponen, M. (1999) The Finnish Inland Fisheries System. The Outcomes of Private Ownership of Fishing Rights and Changes in Administrative Practices. Biological Research Reports from the University of Jyväskylä 73, Jyväskylä, p. 81. Sutinen, J. and Johnston, R. (2003) Angling management organizations: integrating the recreational sector into fishery management. Marine Policy 27: 471–487. Symes, D. (1996) Fishing in troubled waters. In: K. Crean and D. Symes (Eds) Fisheries Management in Crisis. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 3–16. Toivonen, A.-L., Moilanen, P. and Railo, E. (2002) Suomi kalastaa 2001 – Kalastusrasitus kalastusalueilla. Kala- ja riistaraportteja 266, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Helsinki, p. 52, http://www.rktl.fi/www/uploads/pdf/raportti266. pdf (in Finnish). Varjopuro, R. and Salmi, P. (2003) Co-management and recreational fishing. In: D. Wilson, J. Raakejaer Nielsen and P. Degnbol (Eds) The Fisheries Co-management Experience. Accomplishments, Challenges and Prospects. Fish and Fisheries Series 26, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 231–245. Wilson, D., McCay, B., Estler, D. et al. (1998) A Social and Cultural Impact Assessment of the Highly Migratory Species Fisheries Management Plan and the Amendment to the Atlantic Billfish Fisheries Management Plan. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory Species Office, p. 180. Wilson, D., Raakjær Nielsen, J. and Degnbol, P. (Eds) (2003) The Fisheries Co-management Experience. Accomplishments, Challenges and Prospects. Fish and Fisheries Series 26, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
GCRF_07.indd 149
10/3/2007 10:24:55 AM
Chapter 8
Substitution in recreational fishing Brad Gentner and Stephen Sutton
Abstract Fisheries managers need to measure participation rates and patterns to understand how anglers will respond to management actions and to changes in the recreational landscape. Understanding substitution in recreational fishing is an important component of gauging anglers’ behavioural response to these changes. Substitution has implications for licence sales if anglers switch to different activities, stock impacts if anglers switch to different species and crowding if anglers switch locations. In this chapter, current methodologies used by social psychologists and economists to measure activity substitution, target-species substitution and site substitution are discussed. Each disciplinary approach reviews several studies that directly or indirectly examined angler substitution giving the reader the background necessary for more in-depth examination of substitution. Finally, both disciplinary approaches are compared and contrasted with an eye towards integrating substitution research across the two disciplines.
Introduction Recreational fisheries managers and service providers need information on the factors that influence recreational fishing participation rates and patterns (Aas et al. 2000; Criddle et al. 2003; Arlinghaus 2006). Without such information, recreational fisheries managers cannot forecast how policy, environmental or economic changes will impact anglers, fish stocks, other environmental factors and the economy. More specifically, it is important for local management to explore angler substitution decisions in the face of changes in the recreation landscape including changing policies or changing environmental conditions. In the face of a changing recreational landscape, an angler may substitute different species, different locations or different activities to maintain the same level of benefits. For example, establishment of regulations that differentially affect angler segments may force some anglers into location or activity substitution decisions (Arlinghaus 2005). Such behavioural adaptations involving substitution 150
GCRF_08.indd 150
10/3/2007 10:25:46 AM
Substitution in recreational fishing
151
decisions can undermine management goals or negate the expected benefits of recreational fisheries management, especially if these adaptations are unknown or unanticipated (Cox and Walters 2002). If new fishing regulations for one species cause anglers to increase targeting of substitute species, unanticipated changes in exploitation rates of the substitute species and changes in expenditure patterns can occur (Gentner 2004). Likewise, if anglers have substitute activities that provide them with similar benefits to fishing, activity substitution decisions can result in reduced fishing licence sales, reduced rates of fishing participation, reduced fishing frequency and reduced levels of angler expenditures (Ditton and Sutton 2004). Finally, changes in the cost of fishing, such as increasing fuel prices, may cause anglers to substitute lower-cost activities, disrupting the economies of coastal communities. Collectively, these are salient topics for fishing-related service providers, for communities that depend on economic activity generated by fishing activity, for fisheries managers who are responsible for ensuring sustainable exploitation of fisheries and for fisheries administrators whose budgets depend on the support of fishing licence revenues. From an academic perspective, the concept of recreation substitution has been used to understand how anglers make choices of activities, target species and fishing locations when faced with changes in the recreational landscape or changes specifically with their preferred type of fishing activity. At one point or another, most anglers experience changes that influence the benefits available from various types of fishing, or experience changes that influence their ability to obtain the benefits they desire. In general, social–psychological and economic theories suggest that, when anglers experience trade-offs, constraints or changes in the quality of their experience, they will try to select alternatives that most closely resemble the original experience they were seeking, thereby enabling them to maximize the benefits they obtain from participation. For example, when faced with reduced access, increased cost or reduced physical ability, anglers may respond by reducing their fishing participation and replacing fishing with another activity, such as hunting, that provides them with similar benefits. Likewise, when facing changes in fishing for a preferred species or at a preferred location, such as new regulations or declining fish stocks, anglers may change their behaviour by targeting alternative species or fishing at alternative locations that provide them with similar benefits (Carpenter and Brock 2004). Finally, substitution may occur if other conditions change such that the individual is able to obtain a greater level of benefits by choosing to target other species or participate in activities other than fishing. Substitution in recreational fishing has been studied by both social psychologists and economists with somewhat different conceptual development and methods used within these two disciplines. Unfortunately, economic and social– psychological research on substitutability in recreational fishing has been conducted largely independently with little cross-discipline integration. In this chapter, we review the current state of knowledge about substitutability in recreational
GCRF_08.indd 151
10/3/2007 10:25:46 AM
152
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
fishing from both a social–psychological and an economic perspective, and provide some guidance for developing a more integrated approach to future substitutability research.
Social–psychological perspective Social psychologists have studied fishing substitution as part of a larger interest in substitution in outdoor recreation in general. Most of this research is based on the conceptual framework developed by Hendee and Burdge (1974), who originally defined substitution as ‘an interchangeability among activities in satisfying participants’ motives, needs and preferences’ (Shelby and Vaske 1991). This definition has since been expanded further to refer to the interchangeability of recreational experiences ‘such that acceptably equivalent outcomes’ can be achieved by varying the timing, means of access, setting, resource or activity (Brunson and Shelby 1993). Thus, a replacement activity, setting, resource and so on must be perceived as satisfying one’s needs and providing similar outcomes to the original if it is to be considered a substitute (Iso-Ahola 1986). A replacement that does not provide the same benefits as the original is considered to be a complement or an alternative, but not a substitute (Shelby and Vaske 1991). Social psychologists are primarily concerned with substitution decisions in response to constraints on recreation participation (i.e. factors that interfere with individuals’ ability or desire to participate or their ability to achieve the satisfactions or benefits they seek). Substitution decisions that allow anglers to obtain acceptably equivalent outcomes by modifying their behaviour are investigated as one potential strategy for negotiating leisure constraints. The multi-dimensional nature of substitutability is illustrated in Figure 8.1. The original typology presented by Shelby and Vaske (1991) has been modified slightly to incorporate substitution between target species in recreational fisheries which Sutton and Ditton (2005) suggest is a ‘type of strategic substitution
Resource
Same
Same
Different
Temporal or strategic substitute
Resource substitute: −Site −Species
Activity substitute
Resource and activity substitute
Activity Different
Figure 8.1 A typology of substitution alternatives for recreational fishing (Source: Shelby and Vaske 1991).
GCRF_08.indd 152
10/3/2007 10:25:46 AM
Substitution in recreational fishing
153
whereby the strategy is to substitute one resource (species) for another’. Varying the timing or means of access to undertake the same activity at the same location results in a temporal or strategic substitute (upper left quadrant of Figure 8.1). Participating in the same activity using a different resource (location or target species) results in a resource substitution (upper right quadrant). The two lower quadrants of Figure 8.1 encompass activity-related substitution decisions. Participating in a different activity at the same location results in an activity substitute (lower left quadrant), whereas participating in a different activity at a different location results in a resource-and-activity substitute (lower right quadrant). Within recreational fisheries, researchers have applied the Brunson and Shelby (1993) framework primarily to studying resource and activity-related substitutes for recreational fishing.
Activity substitution The extent to which anglers can replace fishing with another activity that provides them with the same benefits as fishing is the focus of activity substitutability research. Researchers have been interested in understanding the proportion of anglers that have potential substitutes for fishing, the activities that are substitutable and the personal and demographic characteristics of anglers that influence their willingness and ability to substitute other activities for fishing. Whereas these substitution choices would typically (but not necessarily) involve both resource (i.e. location) and activity substitutes, the primary interest has been in understanding the activity-related dimension of these substitution decisions. Substitution theory suggests that, for an activity to be substitutable for fishing, it must be perceived by the angler as providing the same benefits as fishing (IsoAhola 1986). Moreover, the perceived number and quality of available substitutes is thought to be inversely correlated with the psychological importance anglers assign to the various attributes of the fishing experience (Manfredo and Anderson 1987). Consequently, activities that appear to researchers and managers as being similar to fishing may not necessarily be perceived as substitutes by anglers themselves (Vaske et al. 1983). Vaske et al. (1983) suggest that directly questioning individuals about substitutes is the best way to identify the number and types of substitutes available. However, Manfredo and Anderson (1987) suggest that answers to direct questions may not always yield descriptions of quality substitutes, and that more attention should be devoted to understanding the importance of activity attributes in the substitution decision. A number of studies have directly questioned anglers as to whether there are ‘any other outdoor recreation activities that would provide you with the same level of satisfaction and enjoyment that you receive from fishing’. Ditton and Sutton (2004) reported that 51% of the saltwater anglers in Texas and Florida responded affirmatively to that question. Likewise, 60% of the anglers in a state-wide angler
GCRF_08.indd 153
10/3/2007 10:25:47 AM
154
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Table 8.1 Activities identified as acceptable substitutes for recreational fishing by anglers in Texas and Florida, USA, and Queensland, Australia. Texas and Florida (USA)
Queensland (Australia)
Activity
% of Anglers
Activity
Hunting
35
Camping
Golf
19
Hiking
32
Camping
16
Sports (including golf (17%), rugby, cricket)
31
SCUBA
10
Surfing/waterskiing
28
Boating
9
Hunting/shooting
13
Boating
13
% of Anglers 43
survey in Queensland, Australia, responded affirmatively to the same question. Common activities listed by the United States and Australia samples as acceptable substitutes for fishing included camping, hunting, golf and boating (Table 8.1). Additionally, Ditton and Sutton (2004) found that female anglers in Texas and Florida were more likely than male anglers to identify non-challenge-oriented activities such as swimming (17%), hiking (10%) and gardening (5%) as acceptable substitutes for fishing. A number of factors have been identified as important predictors of anglers’ willingness or ability to substitute other activities for fishing. Not surprisingly, anglers who are more specialized or committed to fishing are less able to replace fishing with another activity without loss of satisfaction and benefits (Manfredo and Anderson 1987; Sutton and Ditton 2005; Sutton 2006). For example, Sutton’s (2006) survey of Queensland anglers found that only 35% of the anglers who said fishing were their most important outdoor activity also reported to having other activities that provide them the same level of satisfaction and enjoyment as fishing. In comparison, 80% of the anglers who rated fishing as their third most important outdoor activity said that other activities could provide them with the benefits they receive from fishing. Committed fishers have invested more time, energy and money into fishing and therefore have, to some extent, rejected other activities in favour of fishing. Consequently, it is not surprising that committed anglers are less able to replace fishing with another activity because these anglers have become more dependent on fishing to meet their leisure needs than their less-committed counterparts. As Ditton and Sutton (2004) suggest, further attention to the relationship between commitment and substitution has the potential to provide a great deal of information about how and why anglers make activity substitution decisions. Such information can also be helpful in solving conflicts between different angler segments because the resulting management measures might have greater impact on committed anglers who benefit more from their fishing experience than less committed anglers (Arlinghaus 2005).
GCRF_08.indd 154
10/3/2007 10:25:47 AM
Substitution in recreational fishing
155
Demographic characteristics of anglers have also been found to influence the ability to substitute other activities for fishing. For example, Ditton and Sutton (2004) found that anglers in Texas and Florida who were younger, more educated or male were more willing to substitute other activities for fishing than individuals who were older, less educated, or female. Demographic variables are thought to affect substitutability by influencing the fishing constraints that lead to substitution decisions experience by individuals. Previous work with a range of leisure activities (including fishing [Sutton 2007]) has shown that demographic variables such as age, education, income, and size and composition of households are significantly related to the level and types of constraints experienced. Because constraints on leisure activities appear to be somewhat populationdependent, the effects of demographic variables on willingness to substitute will probably vary across angler populations and sub-populations. Activity substitutability is a viable way by which individuals negotiate constraints on their participation in leisure activities. The few studies that have been conducted on activity substitutability in recreational fishing suggest that a substantial number of anglers may be able to replace fishing with another activity without much loss of satisfaction or benefit. The implications of these findings for recreational fisheries managers and service providers are clear: if constraints interfere with anglers’ ability to get the benefits they desire from fishing, many people are likely to drop out of fishing in favour of other activities where they perceive fewer constraints. Moreover, if new (i.e. less committed) anglers perceive constraints, these individuals may drop out of fishing and take up other activities before they have the opportunity to develop the attachment to fishing that provides them with the motivation to negotiate constraints and continue their participation. Collectively, these results point to a strong need for a better understanding of constraints on fishing activity and other factors that might cause anglers to quit fishing in favour of other activities.
Species substitution When anglers are faced with constraints that reduce the benefits or satisfactions they receive from fishing for their preferred species (e.g. new size or bag limits, reduced fish populations, reduced access), anglers may be able to alter their behaviour to obtain acceptably equivalent outcomes by targeting alternative species. In a study of shark anglers in the Gulf of Mexico (USA), Fisher and Ditton (1994) found that 68% were able to identify acceptable substitutes for shark fishing. Likewise, in a more general study of saltwater anglers in Texas and Florida, 86% of anglers reported that there was another species that could be substituted for their preferred species (Sutton and Ditton 2005). In both studies described above, species identified as acceptable substitutes were similar in terms of the challenge and setting characteristics of the original species.
GCRF_08.indd 155
10/3/2007 10:25:47 AM
156
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
For example, shark anglers identified substitutes that involved fishing offshore for other large challenging game species such as king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), and dolphin fish (Coryphaena spp.) (Fisher and Ditton 1994); likewise, most inshore anglers were able to substitute among similar inshore species like red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) and spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus). In both studies, fishing for species that did not have similar challenge and setting characteristics was generally not seen as an acceptable substitute; shark anglers were generally unwilling to substitute inshore species such as red drum and spotted seatrout for sharks (Fisher and Ditton 1994), and anglers who preferred inshore species generally did not see offshore species as potential substitutes (Sutton and Ditton 2005). To further explore anglers’ perceptions of substitute species, Sutton and Ditton (2005) asked anglers in Texas and Florida to rate the importance of several factors in determining if another species was an acceptable substitute. Factors rated as most important were ‘having access to that type of fishing’, ‘the substitute species being good to eat’, ‘having the right kind of fishing tackle’, and ‘being able to fish in the same or similar settings’. Although fishing for one species may appear to provide the same benefits and fishing experiences as another, anglers may not find it an acceptable substitute if they have developed a high level of emotional attachment to a particular species [e.g. highly specialized carp, Cyprinus carpio L., anglers in some Central European countries (see Arlinghaus in press)] or if other variables are perceived as constraints. In particular, the cost of fishing for the substitute species must be considered. In Fisher and Ditton’s (1994) study of shark fishers, fishing for some offshore species such as billfish was not considered an acceptable substitute for shark fishing because of access and cost constraints associated with this type of fishing. Likewise, in a study of salmon fishing in New Zealand, Shelby and Vaske (1991) found that no other species were acceptable substitutes for river salmon fishing. These results suggest that some fisheries may be unique, with few other types of fishing or fishing locations offering acceptable substitutes (Arlinghaus in press), even when apparently similar fishing experiences are available. Results from the few studies that have investigated species substitutability suggest that target-switching is indeed a viable means for many anglers to negotiate constraints on their preferred type of fishing, although the extent to which target switching is likely to occur will probably vary across fisheries. Targetswitching behaviour could have serious management implications in multi-species fisheries. An important finding of the Sutton and Ditton (2005) study was that the percentage of anglers who reported currently targeting potential substitute species was generally lower than the percentage who believed each species to be a substitute for their preferred species. This ‘latent effort’ for potential substitute species indicates potential for effort shifts between target species in response to constraints that affect one type of fishing but not another. Such effort shifts could affect management goals if these goals are set on a species-by-species or fishery-by-fishery-specific basis without consideration of the inter-relationships between biological and sociological variables (Sutton and Ditton 2005), or without
GCRF_08.indd 156
10/3/2007 10:25:47 AM
Substitution in recreational fishing
157
considering the potential regional movements shifts that might occur after regulatory or other changes in fishing quality at a particular fishery (Cox and Walters 2002).
Site substitution Site substitution is the replacement of one fishing site by another. Whereas site substitution has received considerable attention from an economic perspective (see the section on ‘Economic Perspective’ below) only a few studies have investigated site substitution from a social–psychological perspective. Ditton et al. (1975) found that anglers on Great Bay were not likely to fish when they visited Lake Michigan despite the close proximity of the two resources. In a study of salmon fishing in New Zealand, Shelby and Vaske (1991) found that few salmon anglers were willing to substitute other nearby salmon rivers for their preferred salmon river. Reasons most commonly cited by anglers for not perceiving other rivers as acceptable substitutes included the travel distance, costs associated with fishing there and perceptions of lower fish populations and poorer fishing conditions (Shelby and Vaske 1991). These results suggest that some anglers associate fishing with certain resources, and consequently, they may not perceive other sites as substitutes for their preferred site even though other sites may share apparently similar characteristics (Shelby and Vaske 1991). Conversely, when Manfredo and Anderson (1987) asked Metolius River fly fishers what they would do if the river was no longer available for fly fishing, 95% reported that they would continue to fly fish but at a different location (5% said they would choose a different activity). Moreover, two-thirds of respondents indicated that their chosen replacement was ‘as good’ or ‘almost as good’ as their Metolius opportunity (Manfredo and Anderson 1987), suggesting that site substitution can be an important option for anglers constrained from fishing at their preferred site, and that site substitution may be a more attractive option than activity substitution. Collectively, the results of the few studies examining substitutability among fishing sites suggest that the attractiveness of site substitution options will depend on the psychological attachment to the original site, perceptions about the similarity of potential substitute sites and the range of other substitution options (e.g. activity or species substitution options) available. However, considerable work remains in understanding the variables affecting the willingness of anglers to substitute among sites.
Economic perspective Economists have studied substitutability primarily as a by-product of obtaining better measures of demand and the net benefits, or welfare, obtained by individuals from participation in fishing (McConnell et al. 1994; Hicks et al. 1999;
GCRF_08.indd 157
10/3/2007 10:25:47 AM
158
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Gentner and Lowther 2002; Massey et al. 2006). The major assumption underlying the economic approach to studying substitution is that individuals make choices that maximize utility or benefit; hence, the economic and social–psychological approach rests on similar assumptions. However, methods employed to study substitution largely differ between the social–psychological and economic research tradition and, as will be shown later, economist focus on maximizing utility and are less focused on looking at perfect substitutes. Within the context of leisure activity choices, an economist assumes that individuals maximize their utility, or benefit, by choosing levels of consumption of all the goods that they consume, with angling being one good among many leisure activities. Likewise, within the narrower context of recreational fishing, it is assumed that anglers will make choices of locations to fish or species to target based on where they expect to receive the greatest utility. Substitution occurs when consumers move away from the consumption of one good to another, and can be driven by a number of endogenous or exogenous factors. From this theoretical perspective, fishing for one species versus fishing for another versus participating in some other non-fishing activity are seen as separate goods with different attributes that can be evaluated in substitution decisions. For example, tightening a regulation for one species might reduce its benefit compared with fishing for some other species or compared with participating in some other activity. Whether the individual chooses to switch to another species or changes activities altogether depends on which choice results in the greatest utility to the angler. Consequently, whereas social psychologists tend to see a distinction between different types of substitution, like activity substitution versus species substitution, economists view all types of substitution as more or less the same, at least from a theoretical and modelling standpoint. Economists measure the acceptability of substitutes by measuring the loss (or gain) in welfare resulting from the substitution decision. The acceptability of various substitutes can also be estimated prior to any expected change in the relative benefits of various choices by looking at the marginal rate of substitution (MRS). MRS defines the substitutability of activities or species by comparing how many units of the substitute would be necessary to leave the angler as well off after the loss of one unit of the preferred activity or species. This allows the relative ranking of the universe of all substitutes, not in terms of monetary units, but in terms of the relative acceptability of the substitute to the angler.
Economic tools Economic theory broadly characterizes economic agents into producers and consumers. The focus here is on consumers of recreational fishing and more generally consumers of recreation. Consumers choose a bundle of goods to consume, based on their preferences, to maximize their utility, or benefit, constrained by
GCRF_08.indd 158
10/3/2007 10:25:47 AM
Fishing trips
Substitution in recreational fishing
159
MRS = 6/4 = 1.5 fishing trips for every golf trip
6
U3 U2 U1 4
Golfing trips
Figure 8.2 Indifference curves and the marginal rate of substitution between fishing and golfing trips.
their income. The very heart of consumer theory is tracing consumer preferences for goods, not in monetary terms, but in terms of the relative substitutability of all goods in the consumption bundle. Take, for instance, the two-good example in Figure 8.2. To simplify this discussion it is assumed that there are only two recreational activities, fishing and golfing, and there is only one species of fish available. In the figure, each indifference curve, labelled U1, U2 and U3, represents all the possible combinations of fishing and golfing that produce the same utility level to an individual angler in each curve. The slope of any of these curves at any point is the MRS which measures the substitutability of fishing for golfing. In Figure 8.2, the point selected has a slope of 1.5, which means this angler would rather have 1.5 fishing trips than one golfing trip. For a given price for fishing and a given price for golfing, a consumer will pick the combination of fishing and golfing that maximizes their utility, given that the combination does not exceed their budget. It is this budget constraint that determines the mix of fishing and golfing and it is the indifference curve that traces a consumer’s preference for each. As you change the price for fishing while holding the price of golfing constant, the economist can trace out an individual’s demand curve where each budget constraint intersects an indifference curve. In Figure 8.3, we have the standard demand and supply curves for fishing. The derivation of the supply curve will not be discussed here because it is not necessary for understanding substitution decisions. With only the demand and supply curves, the total benefit to society of the current level of fishing activity can be determined by the size of the shaded triangle ABC in Figure 8.3. Economists call this area many things including welfare, benefits or willingness to pay for fishing. For this discussion, the term welfare will be used. Many changes in the recreational landscape can impact the shape and location of the demand curve for fishing. Increases in the price of fuel cause anglers to substitute away from fishing, because their budget constraint changes where it contacts the indifference curve.
GCRF_08.indd 159
10/3/2007 10:25:48 AM
160
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Price C Demand
Welfare
B A
Supply
# of fishing trips Figure 8.3 Demand, supply and welfare.
Regulations change consumer’s preferences for fishing, which, in turn, change the shape of the indifference curves. Increases in fishing participation from other anglers may create crowding, which may lower the utility some consumers receive from fishing. Other changes in the recreational landscape have similar effects. All of these changes induce substitution away from fishing and change the shape or position of the demand curve. When the shape of the demand curve changes or shifts inwards or outwards, the size of the triangle ABC changes. Take, for example, a policy that reduces harvest for the only fish available in this simplistic example. This reduction reduces the relative attractiveness of fishing to golfing, causing the consumer to prefer more golfing and less fishing after the policy than before. This change in preferences shifts the demand curve inward, moving demand from D′ to D″ in Figure 8.4. Now the size of the welfare triangle has shrunk to AEF, thereby showing a loss in welfare. This welfare measure, while measuring the loss to society from the policy, also measures the acceptability, in monetary terms, of substituting fishing for golfing. In practice, economists do not have the luxury of starting with individual consumer preferences to construct indifference curves, income constraints and individual demand curves. Instead, economists begin by observing transactions in the market to construct demand curves. Substitution can be estimated from these demand curves using various techniques. Analysis of substitution, while possible with these models, has not been the focus. To add complexity, fishing trips are not goods traded in the market, and so an economist cannot simply examine sales receipts. As a result, economists use non-market valuation techniques to construct demand curves and study angler preferences. Within the class of non-market valuation techniques there are two basic measurement tools – revealed preference (RP) tools and stated preference (SP) tools. RP data are derived from observing choices made by consumers in the marketplace whereas the collection of SP data involves presenting hypothetical market transactions to consumers using a survey.
GCRF_08.indd 160
10/3/2007 10:25:48 AM
Substitution in recreational fishing
161
Price C
E
B A
Supply
D D’’
D’ # of fishing trips
Figure 8.4 A welfare loss from tightening a harvest restriction.
Site choice models have emerged as the model of choice when examining demand for recreational fishing trips. Hunt (2005) gives an overview of the history and the current state of the art in site choice models, including a comprehensive bibliography. Typically, RP data consists of cross-sectional data collected from anglers on site after the completion of a fishing trip. As a result, site choice models are rarely used to examine activity substitution or species substitution but are suited for examining site substitution decisions (McConnell et al. 1994; Hicks et al. 1999; Hunt 2005). To examine activity substitution or species substitution using RP data, it would be necessary to collect data on all recreational choices made over a period of time – data that are not typically collected. An alternative to expensive and time-consuming panel data collections is the collection of SP data. One type of SP data well suited to the examination of substitution is the stated preference choice experiment (SPCE). SPCE’s present anglers with a series of hypothetical trips that have been decomposed into a group of attributes describing the fishing trip and asks anglers to pick their preferred trip. Variation in trip attributes is controlled though an experimental design that allows the importance of the individual attributes to the overall trip choice to be estimated through statistical modelling. A good primer on SPCEs is the Louviere et al. (2000) book. SPCEs have the following advantages RP panel data. First, as the researcher controls the variation in an SPCE, efforts can be focused on species of concern. With panel surveys, the researcher does not know a priori if there will be enough variation in species targeted or regulations to be able to estimate substitution. Lack of variation in regulation is often cited as a problem when analyzing policies with RP data (Gentner 2004; Hunt 2005). Panel surveys also place a large record-keeping burden on the participant, making it difficult and expensive to recruit panel members and keep those participants involved in a long-term and
GCRF_08.indd 161
10/3/2007 10:25:48 AM
GCRF_08.indd 162
10/3/2007 10:25:48 AM
35,851
17,556
King Mackerel
Dolphin
–1.74
–$51,052.45
Job losses
–$150,521.01
$2,498,901
$132.28
–581
–359
441
656
–979
–340
Effort change
Income impacts
1.9%
2.5%
1.8%
–5.2%
–1.1%
Share change
Sales impacts
Expenditures and impacts
Total welfare loss
Welfare loss/trip
Welfare effects
Net loss
No trip
32,418
18,891
Red Snapper
2003 Effort
Grouper
Target species
1: Reduction in bag limit from 4 to 2 fish
($) 68.98
($) 50.60
($) 69.09
($) 89.01
($) 67.20
Average trip cost
–$67,107
–$24,757
$22,297
$45,328
–$87,101
–$22,874
Total expenditure change
Changes in expenditures
Table 8.2 Effort change, welfare loss and economic impacts of a 50% reduction in the red snapper bag limit.
Substitution in recreational fishing
163
burdensome survey. Finally, panels require a longer time horizon than SPCEs, requiring much more forethought by managers when making and analyzing policies.
Activity substitution While research on activity substitution is needed, to our knowledge, no work has been done specifically looking at activity substitution. Historically, detailed data on the recreational consumption bundle purchased is not collected with enough specificity over a long enough time series to estimate substitution across different activities. Most SPCE surveys do allow the angler to choose not to take a trip, as seen in Oh et al. (2005), but what the angler would choose to do instead is not asked. Future SPCEs should include a follow-up question(s) to delve further into this topic.
Species substitution This section will focus on a study conducted in the south-eastern US in 2003 and is an extension of a paper published by one of the present author (Gentner 2004). This effort focused on four species or species groups: groupers (Epinephelus and Mycteroperca spp.), red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), king mackerel, and dolphin fish. Table 8.2 displays the model output from a simulated two fish reduction in the red snapper bag limit, which is a 50% reduction from the current bag limit. From Table 8.2, this reduction reduces red snapper effort by 5.2%. Where does this reduction in effort go? Intuitively, most anglers, particularly those heavily invested in fishing, will not quit fishing but will switch to another species in the face of tightening regulations. This model allows this substitution to be quantified. From this analysis, 1.1% of grouper trips would also be lost, but king mackerel effort would rise by 1.8% and dolphin effort would rise 2.5%. After accounting for substitution, only 1.9% would quit fishing altogether. Interestingly, a reduction in the red snapper bag limit reduces grouper trips, indicating that red snapper and grouper are complements. That is, red snapper anglers also fish for grouper on the same trip and vice versa. Such a relationship between red snapper fishing and grouper fishing had been suspected but had not been quantified. With these forecasted shifts in effort, fishery biologists can determine if the change in red snapper bag limit will achieve the desire reduction in red snapper mortality and if another stock might be imperiled because of substitution into other fisheries. Also, through the forecasted effort shifts, it is possible to examine economic impacts more directly. These additional data allow for a more accurate estimate of economic impacts because, in this case, incorporating substitution has the effect of ameliorating estimated economic impacts; about 30% of the
GCRF_08.indd 163
10/3/2007 10:25:48 AM
164
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
decreased expenditures for red snapper and grouper fishing are offset by increased expenditures for king mackerel and dolphin fishing. If desired, price elasticities of substitution could also be calculated across the different species to support the creation of multi-species bioeconomic or computable general equilibrium models, with incorporation in to ecosystem models discussed below.
Site substitution Site substitution is probably the most well-studied area of substitution in economics; see Hunt (2005) for a list of papers using RP site choice modelling techniques. While not usually the focus of these papers, site substitution can be estimated from their results. Aas et al. (2000) examined site substitution under private ownership in the face of increased harvest regulations using an SPCE. Aas et al. (2000) divide a hypothetical brown trout (Salmo trutta) and European grayling (Thymallus thymallus) river in Norway into three sections with varying regulation profiles: status quo with regard to regulations and two sections whose regulations are allowed to vary. Under the status quo, anglers face no gear restrictions, face a 25-cm minimum size limit and face no bag limit. In the first example, in both varying sections, one and two, average catch rates goes up by one fish, average size goes up by 10 cm and both have no gear restrictions. Section one has an increased minimum size limit to 35 cm and a 5 fish/day bag limit, while section two has the same minimum size as the status quo (25 cm) and only allows the retention of two fish per day. In this scenario, there is substitution away from both the status quo section (17% loss) and section two (13% loss) towards section one (increasing 30%). Aas et al. (2000) found that, by segmenting anglers into fly-only anglers, general or mixed-gear anglers, and non-fly angler, the substitution patterns differed, showing segmentation matters. Caulkins et al. (1986) use a site choice RP model to examine substitution when water quality conditions change on a body of water. While this paper is primarily a comparison of two different RP methods, they show that a one unit increase in water quality at Shadow Lake in Wisconsin will increase effort at that lake by 12%, showing that anglers will substitute towards higher water quality. While not explicitly discussed, Carpenter and Brock (2004) incorporate substitution in their ecosystem model of hypothetical lake region. This is a good example of how substitution plays a holistic role in the management of fish stocks and other ecosystem variables. Carpenter and Brock (2004) develop a stylized model that predicts effort shifts across the landscape based on stock abundance at different lakes and based on travel distance to those lakes. They show that, when regulations are uniform at all lakes, anglers will fish down the stocks at lakes closest to home and then substitute to more distant lakes as catch quality declines. This is a growing area for research in substitution, as substitution is the key that links the human element of ecosystems to changes in those ecosystems.
GCRF_08.indd 164
10/3/2007 10:25:49 AM
Substitution in recreational fishing
165
Towards an integration of disciplines It is clear from the preceding sections that there are disciplinary differences that have hindered social psychologists and economists from working more closely together towards a comprehensive understanding of substitution in recreational fishing. The primary difference seems to be that social psychologists and economists define the concept of substitution somewhat differently. Social psychologists define substitution in terms of the interchangeability of experiences that provide ‘acceptably equivalent outcomes’ in the face of constraints on an angler’s preferred fishing experience. Under this conceptualization of substitution, behaviour shifts that do not result in ‘acceptably equivalent outcomes’ (as perceived by the individual making the choice) are not considered substitution. Within substitution research, social psychologists have largely ignored other choices that anglers might make in response to changing circumstances that result in non-equivalent outcomes. For example, in investigating species substitution, the social psychologist would ask anglers to identify other species that would provide them with the ‘same satisfaction and enjoyment’ as fishing for their preferred species, and use the resulting data to make predictions about the potential for effort shifts in response to constraints on anglers’ preferred fishing type (Sutton and Ditton 2005). However, anglers could also respond to new constraints by choosing other species or activities that do not provide the same satisfaction and enjoyment. These experiences would be considered to be compliments or alternatives, but not substitutes (Shelby and Vaske 1991). The economic perspective is broader: substitution is any behaviour change in response to changing circumstances under the assumption that anglers make choices to maximize their utility or benefits obtained from participation in leisure activities. Thus, even if the behavioural shift results in substantially different outcomes obtaining the same or lower utility, it would still be considered substitution if it is a utility maximizing choice. Such behavioural shifts would not be accounted for under the ‘traditional’ social–psychological approach to studying substitution, which depends largely on identifying ‘acceptably equivalent outcomes’. Economists view substitutes on a continuum from non-substitutes to perfect substitutes and can estimate the extent to which choices along the continuum provide a similar level of benefits as the original through the marginal rate of substitution and through examining changes in angler welfare. Moreover, economists focus more broadly on substitution resulting from any number of exogenous or endogenous changes in the market for recreational activities. Economists measure the loss in satisfaction when moving from perfect substitutes to less-than-perfect substitutes in terms of the willingness to accept a lower level of utility from changes in the preferred activity. In the case study presented earlier, the policy generates a loss of $132.28 per trip (Table 8.2). That is, every angler would feel a loss if the opportunity to catch and keep four red snapper was no longer available. To an economist, this loss is a measure of the ‘acceptability’
GCRF_08.indd 165
10/3/2007 10:25:49 AM
166
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
of the substitute to the angler, and is useful for making predictions about behavioural shifts. However, economists view all behaviour through an angler’s utility function, and cognition cannot be captured as an argument in the utility function. On the other hand, social psychologist can focus on the angler’s cognition or perceived constraints when making substitution decisions. Consequently, economic studies generally do not reveal whether anglers who experience such welfare losses would still perceive the experience as providing outcomes that are ‘acceptably equivalent’ to the original. If anglers did perceive acceptably equivalent outcomes, then such behavioural shifts would be considered substitution by social psychologists as well. However, anglers who suffered a welfare loss and did not perceive the choice as providing acceptably equivalent outcomes would not be considered by the social psychologist as having made a substitution decision even though this behavioural shift may be a valid way of responding to the newly imposed regulation. The red snapper species substitution example indicates that anglers will compensate for changes in the red snapper bag limit by targeting king mackerel or dolphin, and provides valuable quantitative estimates of effort shifts across these species. Linking behavioural adaptations to likely biological impacts is a major advantage of the economic approach when properly coupled with a biological model of the species target. Carpenter and Brock (2004) take this approach one step further, linking location substitution with an ecosystem model. However, these results cannot tell us why anglers choose these substitutes, the extent to which these substitutes are perceived by anglers as being equivalent to the original or the extent to which species or locations not included in the models might also be substitutes. Social psychologists, however, can better explain the internal, more subtle predictors of substitution that are not easily captured by a SP modelling approach. Hence, we view social–psychological and economic approaches as complementary, each fulfilling a different role for the researcher and the manager. If the social–psychological definition of substitution was adapted to include substitute activities, species or locations that offer a less than acceptably equivalent experience but ones the angler would undertake, the definitions of social psychologists and economists would merge into a common framework that only differs in the way substitution is measured. Clearly, cognition and perception have a place alongside quantifying behavioural shifts and associated economic and biologic impacts stemming from substitution. The SPCE outlined in the case study above provides a vehicle for bridging the gap between the social– psychological and economic approaches to studying substitution and provides the link to couple social and natural sciences. In addition, hypothetical choice models have also been used to understand angler choices of management regulations (Aas et al. 2000; Gillis and Ditton 2002; Oh et al. 2005). Incorporating cognitive and perceptual variables into the design and execution of economic choice surveys would lead to a more integrated understanding of substitution
GCRF_08.indd 166
10/3/2007 10:25:49 AM
Substitution in recreational fishing
167
decision making, thereby developing a more comprehensive understanding of species substitution versus activity substitution versus location substitution in response to changes in the social, ecological and managerial landscape of recreational fishing.
Conclusions This chapter has outlined the concepts of substitutability in recreational fisheries as investigated and applied by fisheries social psychologists and economists. Results of the studies reviewed in the previous sections clearly show that substitution choices by recreational fishers have the potential to affect management goals, the benefits obtained by individuals from their participation in recreational fishing and fishing participation rates and patterns. Compared with other recreational fisheries management issues, substitution has received relatively little attention from researchers and managers. There is a clear need for more theoretical and applied research into substitution decision making and the outcomes of substitution behaviour aimed at providing quality information in support of recreational fisheries management. The separate approaches to studying substitutability used by social psychologists and economists should be viewed as complimentary, with each discipline bringing important conceptual and empirical elements to the table. By working together in a more integrated fashion, social psychologist and economist can improve the analysis of angler substitution, across activities, sites and species.
References Aas, O., Haider, W. and Hunt, L. (2000) Angler responses to harvest regulations in Engerdal, Norway: a conjoint based choice modelling approach. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: 940–950. Arlinghaus, R. (2005) A conceptual framework to identify and understand conflicts in recreational fisheries systems, with implications for sustainable management. Aquatic Resources, Culture and Development 1(2): 145–174. Arlinghaus, R. (2006) Understanding recreational angling participation in Germany: preparing for demographic change. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11: 229–240. Arlinghaus, R. Voluntary catch-and-release can generate conflict within the recreational angling community: a qualitative case study of specialised carp, Cyprinus carpio (L.), angling in Germany. Fisheries Management and Ecology (in press). Brunson, M.W. and Shelby, B. (1993) Recreation substitutability: a research agenda. Leisure Sciences 15: 67–74. Carpenter, S.R. and Brock, W.A. (2004) Spatial complexity, resilience and policy diversity: fishing on lake-rich landscapes. Ecology and Society 9(1): 8. Available online at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art8/
GCRF_08.indd 167
10/3/2007 10:25:49 AM
168
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Caulkins, P.P., Bishop, R.C. and Bouwes, N.W. Sr. (1986) The travel cost model for lake recreation: a comparison of two methods for incorporating site quality and substitution effects. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(2): 291–297. Criddle, K.R., Herrmann, M., Lee, T.S. and Hamel, C. (2003) Participation decisions, angler welfare, and the regional economic impact of sportfishing. Marine Resource Economics 18: 291–312. Cox, S.P. and Walters, C.J. (2002) Maintaining quality in recreational fisheries: how success breeds failure in the management of open-access fisheries. In: T.J. Pitcher and C. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic, and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 107–119. Ditton, R.B. and Sutton, S.G. (2004) Substitutability in recreational fishing. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 87–102. Ditton, R.B., Goodale, P.K. and Johnsen, P.K. (1975) A cluster analysis of activity, frequency, and environment variables to identify water-based recreation types. Journal of Leisure Research 7: 282–295. Fisher, M.R. and Ditton, R.B. (1994) A social and economic characterization of the US Gulf of Mexico recreational shark fishery. Marine Fisheries Review 55(3): 21–27. Gentner, B. (2004) Examining target species substitution in the face of changing recreational fishing policies. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, 20–30 July 2004, p. 12. Tokyo, Japan: What are Responsible Fisheries? Compiled by Ann L. Shriver, International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade. Corvallis, OR. Gentner, B. and Lowther, A. (2002) Evaluating Marine Sport Fisheries in the USA. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingsworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, and Economic, and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 186–206. Gillis, K.S. and Ditton, R.B. (2002) A conjoint analysis of US Atlantic billfish fishery management alternatives. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1218–1228. Hendee, J.C. and Burdge, R.J. (1974) The substitutability concept: implications for recreation research and management. Journal of Leisure Research 6: 155–162. Hicks, R., Steinback, S., Gautam, A. and Thunberg, E. (1999) Volume II: The Economic Value of New England and Mid-Atlantic Sportfishing in 1994. NOAA Tech Memo No. NMFS-F/SPO-38. Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/econ/pubs. html (last accessed 2 November 2006) p. 52. Hunt, L.M. (2005) Recreational fishing site choice models: insights and future opportunities. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10: 153–172. Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1986) A theory of substitutability of leisure behavior. Leisure Sciences 8: 367–389. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A. and Swait, J.D. (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 402. Manfredo, M.J. and Anderson, D. (1987) The influence of activity importance and similarity on perception of recreation substitutes. Leisure Sciences 9: 77–86. Massey, M., Newbold, S. and Gentner, B. (2006) Valuing water quality changes using a bioeconomic model of a coastal recreational fishery. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52: 482–500.
GCRF_08.indd 168
10/3/2007 10:25:49 AM
Substitution in recreational fishing
169
McConnell, K.E., Strand, I.E. Jr., Valdes, S.K. and Weninger, Q.R. (1994) The Economic Value of Mid and South Atlantic Sportfishing. Volume 2: Report on Cooperative Agreement #CR811043 01 0 between the University of Maryland, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, p. 134. Oh, C., Ditton, R.B., Gentner, B. and Riechers, R. 2005. A stated discrete choice approach to understanding angler preferences for management options. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10: 173–186. Shelby, B. and Vaske, J.J. (1991) Resource and activity substitutes for recreational salmon fishing in New Zealand. Leisure Sciences 13: 21–32. Sutton, S.G. (2006) An Assessment of the Social Characteristics of Queensland’s Recreational Fishers. CRC Reef Research Centre Technical Report No. 65. CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville, p. 150. Sutton, S.G. (2007) Constraints on recreational fishing participation in Queensland, Australia. Fisheries 32: 73–83. Sutton, S.G. and Ditton, R.B. (2005) The substitutability of one type of fishing for another. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25: 536–546. Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P. and Tweed, D.L. (1983) Recreationist defined versus researcher defined similarity judgments in substitutability research. Journal of Leisure Research 15: 251–262.
GCRF_08.indd 169
10/3/2007 10:25:49 AM
Chapter 9
A bioeconomic analysis of different management regimes in recreational fisheries Jon Olaf Olaussen and Anders Skonhoft
Abstract The chapter analyses various management regimes in recreational fisheries within a bioeconomic framework. It demonstrates how bioeconomic modelling may be used to reveal the different forces that must be taken into account when managing recreational fisheries. The key point of this approach is that ecological and economic objectives, as well as trade-offs between the two, have to be considered to accurately measure the effects of management actions. We show how four different management regimes, ranging from the myopic price-taking management scheme to the social planner solution affect the overall surplus, the allocation of benefits between anglers and landowners (or the property right holder) and the harvest and stock abundance. The model is illustrated using an example from a Norwegian Atlantic salmon fishery.
Introduction Various management regimes in recreational fisheries yield different outcomes with respect to harvest, stock size, overall surplus, landowner surplus and angler surplus. In this chapter, four management regimes for a recreational fishery are presented and discussed. As in all modelling, we stick to stylized representations, well aware of the more complex and often mixed regimes one faces in the real world. However, by cultivating these stylized examples, more general insights on the economic and biological forces involved are obtained. This type of modelling is phrased bioeconomic modelling. For an easily understood introduction to bioeconomic modelling in general, the reader is referred to Conrad (1999). Further, the reader will appreciate the thorough presentation of bioeconomic modelling in the more advanced work of Clark (1990) and Conrad and Clark (1987). 170
GCRF_09.indd 170
10/3/2007 10:27:23 AM
Bioeconomic analysis of different management regimes
171
A comprehensive and in-depth presentation of the required mathematics and comparative statistics involved are given in Silverberg (1990). Bioeconomic models are commonly applied to analyse recreational fisheries. One of the first studies was a model on marine recreational fishing by McConnell and Sutinen (1979). The conceptual article on recreational fishing by Anderson (1993) also provides a good example of the power of bioeconomic modelling. One of the most important new issues Anderson analysed was how to incorporate catch and release and bag limits into recreational fishing models by introducing a distinction between landings and catch. In addition, many authors have been dealing with bioeconomic models of commercial and recreational fisheries harvesting the same fish stock (see Bishop and Samples 1980; Rosenman 1991; Cook and McGaw 1996; Laukkanen 2001). The key point of all bioeconomic modelling is that ecological growth conditions are taken as restrictions when the objective function is maximized by the fishery management authority. The managing authority may be private landowners or official authorities while the objective function may be the landowner profit function or the total surplus generated in the fishery (more details follow). This last type of objective function is typically found if the national authorities manage the fishery. For simplicity, it is assumed that the natural system is in biological equilibrium in the cases presented in this chapter. Throughout the chapter, the analysis applies examples from a typical Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) recreational fishery in Norway. However, the insights from these examples can be generalized to similar management situations worldwide. For example, while Norwegian Atlantic salmon fisheries are predominated by private ownership, the state is also a large landowner in some rivers. On the contrary, while national or state authorities provide most fishing permits in the United States, exceptions where riparian right holders possess exclusive rights to fish also exist [e.g. the well-known Supreme Court decision in the Craft versus Burr case in the Jackson River in Virginia 1996. See Murphy and Stephenson (1999)]. Cox and Walters (2002, p. 117) state that access and effort limitations also occur across North America. In fact, increasingly, closed seasons and closed areas are used in the United States in both freshwater and saltwater. The variety of management regimes considered range from the type characterized by strong rights to public access of fishing opportunities in New Zealand opposed to the strong protection of private property rights in all freshwater fisheries in Scotland.
The Atlantic salmon recreational fishery Biological equilibrium The size of the salmon population in biomass, or number of fish, at the beginning of the fishing season in year t is Xt. Both a coastal and a river fishery act on
GCRF_09.indd 171
10/3/2007 10:27:24 AM
172
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
the salmon during the spawning run from its offshore environment to the coast, where reproduction takes place in its parent or home river. However, in the following section the marine fishery is ignored to make the exposition as tractable as possible [see Olaussen and Skonhoft (2005) for a full model with marine harvest]. Accordingly, the stock entering the home river is Xt. The recreational river fishery exploits this spawning population along the upstream migration. When the exploitation rate is 0 < yt < 1, the spawning stock becomes (1 – yt)Xt = St. This spawning stock hence yields a subsequent recruitment R(St) to the stock in year t + τ, where τ is the time lag from spawning to maturation age (see e.g. Hvidsten et al. 2004).1 Throughout the analysis, it is assumed that the stock– recruitment relationship R(St) is of the Shepherd type (Shepherd 1982), with ∂R(St)/∂St = R′(St) ≥ 0, R″(St) ≤ 0 and R(0) = 0. More salmon in the stock increases the recruitment, but at a decreasing rate. Hence, a small increase in the spawning salmon stock may lead to a substantial increase in the recruitment if the initial stock level is low, but only modestly or not at all if the initial stock is high (more details follow). Further, we assume that none of the spawners survive,2 that is,
X t +τ = R (St )
(1)
Following the approach of Anderson (1983, 1993), McConnell and Sutinen (1979) and Lee (1996), the recreational fishing effort is measured in number of daily fishing permits sold.3 In real life, fishing permits may be for 1 day, 1 week or a whole season. However, all these possibilities are combined in 1-day permits as this is the most common type (Fiske and Aas 2001). Thus, the fishing effort is directly expressed in terms of the number of day permits, Dt. When assuming that the catch in the river follows the instantaneous Schaefer-type harvest function, the river yield Yt is Yt = qDt X t
(2)
where q is the catchability (productivity) coefficient. In a recreational fishery, this productivity parameter is typically affected by various types of gear restrictions, for example, with respect to types of bait and fishing equipment that are allowed. Moreover, the total catch in the river is per definition
Yt = yt X t
(3)
From equations (2) and (3) it follows that the river exploitation rate is yt = qDt. The biological equilibrium version of (1) may then be written as: X = R (S ) = R ((1 − qD ) X )
GCRF_09.indd 172
(4)
10/3/2007 10:27:24 AM
Bioeconomic analysis of different management regimes
173
For R′(S) > 0, equation (4) yields a negative relationship between X and D, that is; more harvest effort D reduces the equilibrium stock X [see Olaussen and Skonhoft (2005) for more details].
Demand and cost functions We now introduce a market for sport fishing in our representative spawning river. On the supply side there is a fixed number of landowners who are given the right (by law) to sell fishing permits (NOU 1999). The competition from landowners in other rivers may vary. Crucial factors are the distance between the rivers, which may range from some few kilometres to over a hundred kilometres, transportation costs and various river-specific attributes like the quality of the fishing (see below).4 In most instances, the market situation is probably something between price-taking and monopoly behaviour (Skonhoft and Logstein 2003). However, both these market forms are studied as stylized extremes. Price-taking simply means that the landowners take the fishing permit price as exogenous. This market situation arises if there are many landowners providing fishing permits in fairly similar (homogeneous) nearby rivers. Therefore, if one of the landowners decides to set a higher price in a given river, none of the anglers will fish there because they have a large supply of substitute rivers with similar characteristics. As demonstrated in the Appendix to this chapter, under price-taking market conditions, the permit price will be equal to the marginal cost of providing fishing permits. The marginal cost is the cost of providing one extra fishing permit. Therefore, if the landowner instead tries to lower his permit price, he or she will operate below his or her marginal cost, and hence, the landowner is forced to increase the price to avoid selling at a loss. A monopolistic landowner, on the other hand, operates under quite different market conditions. A monopolistic landowner is able to influence the permit price directly by determining how many permits to be sold as demonstrated in the Appendix to this chapter. Monopolistic power arises when the landowner faces no competition from nearby rivers, either because the substitutes are too distant or because the nearby rivers are not good substitutes due to some river-specific attributes, like catch rates or other measures of trip quality. Hence, there is a specific demand for buying permits in this specific fishing river, which the monopolistic landowner takes advantage of. On the demand side, there are a large number of potential recreational anglers demanding fishing permits. Demand is a function of the angler preferences for the attributes of the fishing experience. Economic theory states that price per day is one of the most important attributes and Anderson (1983), among others, has expanded this list to include the average size of the fish caught, the total amount of fishing effort by all individuals, the anglers’ income, the market price of fish,
GCRF_09.indd 173
10/3/2007 10:27:28 AM
174
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
companions and the nature of the surroundings [see also Rudd et al. (2002) for a more general overview]. Empirical evidence shows that two of the most important determinants of fishing trip satisfaction in the Norwegian Atlantic salmon fishery are the price of permits and, as a notion of the quality of the river, the size of the catch (Fiske and Aas 2001).5 In the following we focus on just these two factors. In line with McConnell and Sutinen (1979), the quality effect is expressed as average catch per day, and for a given number of fishing days, a higher catch per day shifts the demand function upwards. The inverse market demand for fishing licences (when suppressing the time notation) is hence given as
P = P ( D, v )
(5)
where P is the fishing permit price per day and v is the catch per day induced demand effect defined as v = θ Q, with Q = Y/D = qX from equation (2). Therefore, the parameter θ > 0 indicates how catch per day translates into demand. Obviously, the quality effect will vary between rivers and it may change over time. For these and others reasons, it is difficult to assess the strength of the quality effect, but on the whole we may interpret θ as a parameter measuring how important the catch is compared to other factors influencing demand (see also discussion section below). Hence, in addition to ∂P / ∂D = PD < 0 , we have Pv > 0. PD < 0 which means that the more fishing permits the anglers have already bought, the less they are willing to pay for an additional permit as illustrated by the downward sloping demand schedule depicted in Figure 9.1. Pv > 0 simply means that anglers are willing to pay more for each fishing permit if the quality of the fishing experience in terms of average catch per day is higher as illustrated by the upward shift of the demand curve in Figures 9.2 and 9.3.
Permit price, P a
P∗ c
b Demand curve (willingness to pay) P = P (D, ν)
D∗
Number of permits, D
Figure 9.1 Angler surplus.
GCRF_09.indd 174
10/3/2007 10:27:28 AM
Bioeconomic analysis of different management regimes
175
When inserting catch per day into the inverse demand condition (5), the current profit of the landowner reads: π = P( D, θ qX ) D − C ( D).
(6)
The first term on the right-hand side of equation (6) is the total income of fishing permit sales and is simply the permit price multiplied by the number of permits. The latter term C(D) is the cost function, covering fixed as well as variable costs with C′(D) > 0 and C″(D) ≥ 0. Fixed costs include various types of costs associated with preparing the fishery (constructing tracks, fishing huts and so forth), whereas variable costs include the costs of organizing the fishing permit sales together with enforcement. In the following, we will assume constant marginal costs [C′(D) > 0 and C″(D) = 0) as depicted in Figures 9.4 and 9.5. This means that the cost of providing one extra permit is the same irrespective of how many permits that are offered initially. Before we analyse how different market conditions affect the way the fishery is managed when maximizing the profit function [equation (6)], we demonstrate how angler, landowner and total surplus in the fishery is calculated.
Angler surplus, landowner surplus and total surplus The angler surplus is defined as the difference between the amount the anglers are willing to pay (wtp) for the fishing permits and what is actually paid (the going permit price). For example, if the wtp is NOK 100 (Norwegian kroner, NOK 1 ≈ €0.12) for a fishing permit and the actual permit price is NOK 50, the surplus is NOK 50. By summing up all anglers who have a willingness to pay that exceeds the actual permit price, we have the total angler surplus. This is illustrated in the permit–price diagram in Figure 9.1, where the total angler surplus is given by the area abc when the permit price is P* and D* permits are sold. Note that the demand curve in Figure 9.1 is depicted for a given stock size. What if the stock changes? The complicating factor when measuring angler surplus is that the demand curve is dependent on the stock size [see equation (5)] which is the aforementioned quality effect (see Anderson 1983). Hence, a higher stock size means that the demand curve shifts out as depicted in Figure 9.2, and where the angler surplus increases by the area abb`a` due to the stock increase when the price is still P* and the number of permits sold increases. From the biological equilibrium condition (4) we recall that an increased number of fishing days D, or increased market demand, reduces the stock. As demonstrated by Anderson (1983), in order to measure consumer (angler) surplus correctly in such a setting, constant stock externality demand curves should be introduced. These are denoted as constant quality demand curves in the following and all demand curves depicted in Figures 9.1–9.5 are of this type. Hence, angler
GCRF_09.indd 175
10/3/2007 10:27:29 AM
176
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Permit price, P a′
a
P∗
c
b′
b
Demand curve (willingness to pay) P = P(D, ν) D∗ Number of permits, D Figure 9.2 The quality effect and angler surplus.
Permit price, P
a′ PM c′
b′ Demand curve P = P (D, νM)
a
P* c
b
DM
Demand curve P = P (D, ν∗)
D∗ Number of permits, D
Figure 9.3 Measuring angler surplus when quality and price increase, vM > v*.
surplus is measured under the demand curve when all anglers are familiar with the total number of permits sold, and hence, they know the harvest pressure and the accompanying stock size. In other words, when, say D* permits are sold as in Figure 9.3, the accompanying stock size is X* and the relevant demand curve is the curve for which the given stock is exactly X*. Hence, the angler surplus when D* permits are sold is given by the area abc. Consider next a situation where only DM fishing permits are offered in the market. Then the accompanying stock is XM and where XM > X*. As the stock is higher than when D* permits
GCRF_09.indd 176
10/3/2007 10:27:29 AM
Bioeconomic analysis of different management regimes
177
Permit price, P
e
PM d
c
a
b
P∗
f
Supply curve, C ′ (D) Demand curve, P(D, ν)
DM
Number of permits, D
Figure 9.4 Landowner and total surplus.
were sold, the P = P(D, v*) curve is no longer relevant when measuring the angler surplus. Rather, we must measure the area below the new constant quality demand curve P = P(D,vM). Hence, if the anglers buy DM fishing permits at the price PM the new angler surplus is given by the area a'b'c'. The landowner surplus (profit) is given by the difference between the actual price charged in the market and the cost of providing a fishing permit which is the marginal cost of providing permits (or the supply curve of the landowners). When assuming that the marginal cost is constant, C″(D) = 0, the supply is given by a horizontal curve in Figure 9.4. If the permit price is PM as in Figure 9.4, the profit (landowner surplus) described by equation (6) is hence simply the difference between total income and total cost as illustrated by the area abcd. On the other hand, if the permit price is P* as in Figure 9.4, then the permit price is equal to the marginal cost of providing permits, and hence, the landowner surplus is zero. The total surplus in the fishery is simply the sum of angler and landowner surplus, and hence, if P* is the going permit price as in Figure 9.4 then the total surplus and angler surplus coincides (because the landowner surplus is zero) and is given by the area aef. On the other hand, if PM is the permit price, then the angler surplus is given by the area cde, and together with the landowner surplus abcd, the total surplus is given by the area abce.
Surplus under monopolistic versus price-taking supply To understand why different market conditions generally lead to different total surplus as well as differences in the distribution of surplus between anglers and landowners, we now compare the surplus under price-taking and monopolistic supply. As already mentioned, price-taking supply may happen when there are many other rivers with similar quality located nearby. In the case of a price-taking
GCRF_09.indd 177
10/3/2007 10:27:30 AM
178
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
landowner, or perfect competition, the landowner surplus is zero because competition drives the price of permits equal to the marginal cost it takes to provide them. As explained earlier, the permit price is in reality determined by the marginal cost since demanding a higher price means that anglers will fish in substitute rivers (see the Appendix for technical details). This situation is already depicted in Figure 9.4 where P* and D* now refer to the permit price and number of permits sold under price-taking supply, respectively. As discussed earlier, monopolistic permit supply means that the landowner is able to take advantage of the downward sloping demand schedule for permits. Exactly how the monopolistic manager determines the number of permits and permit price and the accompanying consequences for the equilibrium stock size is demonstrated in the Appendix. The key point is that the monopolistic landowner is able to restrict the supply of fishing permits (which the price-taking landowner per definition is unable to do). The landowner charges the amount per permit that the anglers are willing to pay, which is the monopolistic price PM, where permits are sold until marginal revenues equal marginal costs (marginal revenue is defined as the revenue of selling one more permit – see the Appendix). The reason why the monopolistic landowner has the power to set price where marginal revenue equals marginal cost is that the anglers cannot get the same good from anyone else. Under monopolistic supply then, the landowner surplus (profit) is the net income of providing fishing permits, and is hence given by the difference between total income and total cost. As the total cost is the area below the supply curve, the monopolistic landowner surplus is given by the area abcd in Figure 9.4 when DM (hereafter the number of permits under monopolistic supply) permits are sold at the monopolistic permit price PM. Figure 9.5 demonstrates another feature of the differences between price-taking and monopolistic supply of permits by the landowner. As just explained, the price-taking landowner ends up providing a total of D* permits at the price P*, while the monopolistic landowner provides DM permits at the price PM. To make Figure 9.5 as simple as possible, the figure is drawn for two stock sizes. First, P = P(D,v*) is drawn for X*, which is the actual stock size when the landowner is a price-taker. Second, P = P(D,vM) is drawn for XM which is the actual stock size when the landowner is a monopolist. As we typically see that the monopolistic landowner finds it more economically rewarding to sell less fishing permits at a higher price than the price-taking landowner, the monopolistic landowner holds a larger stock than the price-taking landowner such that XM > X* [due to the ecological equilibrium condition (4)]. Hence, the quality of the fishing experience is higher under monopolistic than under price-taking management meaning that the demand curve under monopolistic management shifts out compared with the demand curve under price-taking conditions. We are now able to consider the differences in angler surplus, landowner surplus and total surplus under price-taking and monopolistic supply conditions when the demand for angling is affected by the quality in terms of the stock size.
GCRF_09.indd 178
10/3/2007 10:27:30 AM
Bioeconomic analysis of different management regimes
179
Permit price, P
a′
a b′
PM
Demand curve P = P(D, v M )
P∗
c
b
Supply curve C ′(D) Demand curve P = P(D, ν ∗)
DM
D∗ Number of permits, D
Figure 9.5 Angler surplus under monopolistic and price-taking management.
In Figure 9.5, angler surplus have changed from abP* under price-taking supply to a′b′PM under monopolistic supply. It turns out that it is generally unclear whether the angler surplus is higher under monopolistic than under price-taking management. The figure is drawn for a situation where the angler surplus is highest under price-taking supply of fishing permits, abP* > a′b′PM. This will always be the case as long as the slope of the demand function is unaffected by the quality effect like in Figure 9.4. However, we cannot generally rule out the possibility that the slope is steeper after the quality shift, and if so, the angler surplus may be higher under monopolistic than under price-taking management. Hence, if anglers respond strongly to the quality effect, we may have a situation where the angler surplus is lower under the price-taking than under the monopolistic management. The intuition is clear cut and may be illustrated by an example: Think of a situation where 1000 fishing permits are sold in a small river at the price of NOK 50 per permit. It may very well be the case that none of the anglers are willing to pay more than NOK 50 because the harvesting pressure is relatively high (low fish stock and hence low quality in terms of catch per day). The aggregate angler surplus is hence NOK 0. But what if only 50 permits are sold in the same river at the price of NOK 500 per permit? As the harvest pressure is significantly lower and we presumably have a higher fish stock, we may find that some of these 50 anglers are willing to pay even more than the 500 NOK, and if so the angler surplus is >NOK 0. Generally, as the demand curve has shifted, it is not possible to say whether the angler surplus is highest under price-taking or monopolistic supply of permits. The landowner surplus changes from zero under price-taking supply to PMb′cP* > 0 under monopolistic supply. Regarding total surplus, the sum of angler and
GCRF_09.indd 179
10/3/2007 10:27:30 AM
180
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
landowner surplus, we see that it unambiguously increases under monopolistic management as long as the angler surplus is at least as large as under price-taking supply of permits. However, in cases where the angler surplus decreases as discussed earlier, the total surplus effect is ambiguous.
Management regimes and results Myopic landowners We will consider two types of time horizons that managers may take into account when they make their management decisions, the myopic (short sighted) and the long-term planning horizon. Assume firstly that the landowners supply fishing permits based on current economic and biological conditions. When landowners act myopic, it means that they ignore all possible future effects of their actions today. For example, the landowner just considers the present stock size and does not take into account how the current fishing pressure will affect the future fish stock through recruitment. There may be various reasons leading to such myopic management, one important reason being insecure property rights due to the marine harvest activity (which is not modelled explicitly here). Other factors such as ecological and environmental uncertainties may also play a role. It may also be that the landowners act ‘as if’ they were myopic simply because they believe that their fishing permit sales today do not influence the future stock size. Myopic behaviour seems to fit with the stylized management situation in many Norwegian salmon river fisheries (Skonhoft and Logstein 2003). Probably, this is due to the traditional view that even a small number of spawners will be sufficient to fully recruit a salmon river. As will be discussed below, it turns out that this reasoning makes sense: The extent to which the myopic behaviour is important for the stock size depends strictly on the recruitment relationship.
Myopic monopolistic landowner The first result column in Table 9.1 reports the results in the myopic monopolistic case [all parameter values are based on Olaussen (2007)]. The equilibrium stock (X) is 15.9 (all numbers hereafter in 1000) salmon while 11.1 permits (D) are sold. The resulting fishing permit price (P) is NOK 0.38. The accompanying angler surplus (AS) is NOK 1841, landowner surplus (LS) is NOK 3686 and total surplus (TS) is NOK 5527.
Myopic price-taking landowners We next consider price-taking landowners; that is, the landowners take the fishing permit price as exogenous. It is still myopic management and so future effects
GCRF_09.indd 180
10/3/2007 10:27:31 AM
Bioeconomic analysis of different management regimes
Table 9.1
Results, different management regimes in a typical Norwegian salmon river. Myopic
X
181
Long-term planning (infinite planning period)
Monopolistic
Price-taking
Monopolistic
Social planner
15.9
14.9
15.9
15.4
D
11.1
20.7
10.8
18.0
P
0.38
0.050
0.39
0.15
AS
1841
6438
1735
4862
LS
3686
0
3687
1819
TS
5527
6438
5422
6681
Notes: X is stock size (in 1000), D is number of fishing permits (in 1000), P is permit price (in 1000 NOK), AS is angler surplus (in 1000 NOK), LS is landowner surplus (in 1000 NOK), and TS is total surplus (in 1000 NOK).
on the fish abundance are ignored as well. Technically, this means that the landowners maximize the profit function (6) with respect to number of permits, while taking the price and the stock as given. Again, the details are found in the Appendix while the numerical results are shown in Table 9.1. Not surprisingly, the stock size is driven down by an increasing number of permits sold compared to the previous monopolistic case. Notice, however, that the substantial increase in permits (from 11.1 to 20.7 permits) only reduces the equilibrium stock by about 1000 salmon per year. To a large extent, this owes to the recruitment function being of the Cushing type which means that quite few spawners are able to fully recruit the river. The reason why the number of permits sold increases so much is the substantial fall in the permit price when the landowners are no longer able to restrict the supply of permits. Thus, a lower permit price means more angler days and the angler surplus (AS) increases substantially compared with the monopolistic case. On the other hand, the landowner surplus (LS) is competed away and decreases to zero. The zero landowner surplus follows directly from the assumption of a constant marginal cost curve as the pricetaking landowner faces a permit price equal to his marginal costs (see the Appendix). Note, however, that even with increasing marginal costs, the market supply curve would still be equal to the constant marginal cost curve depicted in Figure 9.5 as long as all landowners are price-takers (perfect competition), and hence, the landowner surplus would still be zero.
Long-term planning The case where the landowners take into account that their permit sale decision this year affects future stock abundance is now considered. This means that landowners have a long-term planning horizon, that is, they are aware of the future consequences of current harvest activity.
GCRF_09.indd 181
10/3/2007 10:27:31 AM
182
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Monopolistic landowner with long planning horizon The problem of the monopolistic landowner is now to maximize the profit function [equation (6)] while taking the effort–stock equilibrium relationship given by equation (4) into account (again, see the Appendix for details). The outcome following this management scheme yields more or less the same results as under myopic monopolistic management (Table 9.1). This is obviously not a general result, but hinges critically on the given recruitment function as well as the given parameter values. Briefly speaking, there is not much to gain in terms of restricting the number of permits compared with the myopic monopolist. The reason is that the myopic monopolist restricts the number of permits sold sufficiently to secure a high equilibrium stock level; hence there is not much to gain in terms of a higher stock by restricting it further.
Social planner solution As opposed to the monopolistic landowner, the social planner aims to maximize the total surplus (TS), that is, the sum of angler surplus (AS) and landowner surplus (LS) while taking the stock–effort equilibrium relationship (4) into account. As indicated, this may typically be the objective if the national authority, or a non-profit organization, manages the river. Fishing permits provided by the national authorities are common practice in a number of countries (see above). The same type of management may occur when, for example, a fishing association is given the authority to provide fishing permits in a specific lake or river under conditions determined by the authority or a landowner association. The results presented in Table 9.1 may seem surprising at first glance. It turns out that the social planner management is less stock conserving than both monopolistic regimes considered. However, the interpretation is straightforward. The overall gain obtained by lowering the permit price and hence increasing the number of permits sold outweigh the loss in terms of driving the stock down. In addition, again due to the specific recruitment function at hand, the stock decrease is quite small. As expected, the total surplus (TS) is higher than under the other management regimes (NOK 6681), but note that neither the anglers nor the landowners strictly prefer the social planner solution over the other management regimes. The anglers as a group are better off under the myopic price-taking management while the landowners prefer both monopolistic regimes instead of the social planner regime. From the angler group point of view, they are facing a higher permit price than in the myopic price-taking case. This means that those anglers that are willing to pay less than the social planner permit price (NOK 0.15), but more than the myopic price-taking permit price (NOK 0.05) lose their surplus. However, the landowners gain more than the anglers lose by charging NOK 0.15 instead of NOK 0.05 compared with the price-taking situation. Even so, they will prefer the monopolistic cases in which they are able to
GCRF_09.indd 182
10/3/2007 10:27:31 AM
Bioeconomic analysis of different management regimes
183
maximize their surplus by charging higher prices. Note also that although the difference in total surplus between, for example, the social planner and myopic price-taker management is quite small, the distributional differences are substantial. This seems also to be a more general lesson from the present example since, although the stock size differences between the different management regimes under consideration here are quite small, the distributional consequences depend critically on the type of management.
Discussion Through different market conditions, like perfect competition or monopolies, different property rights regimes, like privately held resources versus publicly held, and different planning horizons, such as myopic or long term, different management regimes arise. In this chapter we have shown how different management regimes in a recreational fishery, ranging from the myopic price-taking management scheme to the social planner solution, affect overall surplus, the allocation of benefits between anglers and landowners (or the property right holder) and the harvest and stock abundance. As bioeconomic models incorporate the economic consequences (in terms of benefits) and the biological consequences (through the size of the fish stock), some crucial trade-offs facing a recreational fishery manager are highlighted. For example, a typical economic trade-off occurs when selling more permits comes at the cost of bringing down the permit price while a typical ecological trade-off occurs when fishing more today decreases the future fish stock. To what extent does it pay off to restrict access to a given fishery in order to raise the fish stock and profits? It is not surprising that it depends critically on the underlying biological and economic factors. As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, modelling is about making simplifying assumptions. To what extent the results survive when the assumptions are relaxed tell us whether it is a good model or not. For example, including more factors influencing the demand for fishing permits seems necessary. One important issue to be mentioned is to what extent the number of anglers fishing the beat at the same time affects the demand [see Anderson (1980) for a theoretical exposition]. Generally, there seems to be at least two contradictory hypotheses about how this would affect the demand. On one hand, increasing the number of anglers may lead to crowding at the site and thereby reducing the demand. This pulls in the direction of a reduced angler surplus in the price-taking and social planner regimes compared with the monopolistic regimes in our analyses. However, sociability may be an important part of the angling experience too, and hence, the angler satisfaction may in fact increase with the number of participants, at least to some point. If this is the case, the angler surplus in the price-taking and social planner regimes will be higher than suggested by our results. Another fruitful hypothesis seems to be the one argued by Schuhmann and Schwabe (2004), who found empirical support for a non-linear utility–congestion relationship
GCRF_09.indd 183
10/3/2007 10:27:31 AM
184
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
among recreational anglers. Analysing the Roanoke River striped-bass fishery in North Carolina, they found a positive linear term for congestion on recreational demand, while the quadratic term was estimated to be negative. They argued that some degree of aggregate use was viewed favourably, perhaps for social reasons, but that after a particular level of aggregate use was reached, further increases reduced the site quality and thereby its utility. See also Boxall et al. (2003). On the other hand, in a Norwegian survey, Atlantic salmon anglers reported strictly decreasing willingness to pay levels as the number of anglers at the beat was increased (Olaussen 2006), indicating that any potential sociability effects were dominated by crowding. It seems therefore clear that making general assumptions about how anglers respond to congestion are not very fruitful, as this may vary between different types of recreational fisheries. However, casespecific knowledge about how congestion affects the anglers are crucial if angler (consumer) surplus is to be measured correctly, and hence it is also crucial if overall surplus to be maximized. We have demonstrated how total surplus and the distribution of surplus between landowners (property right holders) and anglers are distributed under different management regimes. In addition, this analysis calls attention to the fact that there are many ways of managing a recreational fishery. It turns out that some apparently very different management regimes may yield quite similar results with respect to some of the potential objectives of the manager, and also large differences with respect to others. We have concentrated on typical economic objectives in this chapter, but it should be noted that managers may have other objectives in mind as well. However, the analysis provided here indicates what consequences one may expect of changing management regimes, and what differences may be expected when comparing different management schemes.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Øystein Aas and Brad Gentner for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this chapter.
Appendix: Technical note Myopic monopolistic landowner The myopic monopolistic landowner maximizes the profit function (6) with respect to number of permits sold while taking the stock as given. The first-order condition in this case is written as: (A1)
GCRF_09.indd 184
10/3/2007 10:27:31 AM
Bioeconomic analysis of different management regimes
185
The left-hand side is the marginal income while the right-hand side is the marginal cost of selling fishing permits. Hence, the monopolist offers more fishing permits until the extra income of selling one more fishing permit is equal to the extra cost. Differentiating the economic equilibrium condition (A1) yields
(A2) The numerator on the right-hand side is positive because of the second-order condition for a maximum to be fulfilled. Under the reasonable assumption that the quality effect dominates the potentially negative cross-effect in the demand function, such that P′′Dν (D,θqX)D + P′ν (D,θqX) > 0, we find that the economic equilibrium condition, if existing, is positively sloped in a X–D diagram, and hence a bioeconomic equilibrium exists as long as the ecological equilibrium schedule is negatively sloped in the X–D plane.
Myopic price-taking landowners Price-taking landowners maximize the profit function (6) with respect to number of permits, while taking the price as well as the stock as given. The first-order condition is, therefore, written as P(D, ν) = C ′ (D),
(A3)
and hence they simply sell permits until the permit price equals the marginal cost of providing permits. Differentiation of the first-order condition yields dX/dD = [C″(D)–P′D (D, θqX)]/P′ν(D,θqX). Again, the numerator is positive due to the second-order condition for the maximum, and we hence find that this equilibrium condition is positively sloped in the X–D plane as well.
Long-term planning monopolistic landowners The maximization problem facing a landowner maximizing over an infinite planning period under monopolistic conditions may be written as the current value Hamiltonian (Conrad and Clark 1987) (A4) where ρ is the discount factor, ρ = 1/(1+ δ), δ is the yearly rate of discount and λ is the shadow value of the resource constraint. As the time lag in recruitment is 5 years, the stock dynamics is given by a fifth-order differential equation, and
GCRF_09.indd 185
10/3/2007 10:27:32 AM
186
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
hence no analytical solutions are obtainable. However, although beyond the scope of this text, the equilibrium conditions may be derived (see e.g. Clark 1976, 1990).
Notes 1 See Clark (1976) for an analysis of the dynamics of a delay-difference recruitment model. 2 Hvidsten et al. (2004) find that only 0.3–3.8% of the spawners survive justifying this simplifying assumption. 3 Others have used a different approach – for instance, Bishop and Samples (1980), Cook and McGaw (1996) and Laukkanen (2001) use the actual catch. 4 Note that there may be many landowners in each river competing with each other as well. In such cases, the degree of homogeneity between the products the various landowners offer will determine the degree of monopolistic price setting, and where more homogeneity means more price-taking behaviour. However, in the following we focus our attention to the competition between rivers, implicitly assuming that the landowners in our representative river act as one landowner when determining the permit price. 5 In a survey of Norwegian rivers, 92% of sport fishermen reported that the quality of the river in terms of average catch per day was important. In addition, 72% reported that the price of fishing permits was important (Fiske and Aas 2001).
References Anderson, L.G. (1980) Estimating the benefits of recreation under conditions of congestion: comments and extension. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7: 401–406. Anderson, L.G. (1983) The demand curve for recreational fishing with an application to stock enhancement activities. Land Economics 59(3): 279–287. Anderson, L.G. (1993) Toward a complete economic theory of the utilization and management of recreational fisheries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24: 272–295. Bishop, R.C. and Samples, K.C. (1980) Sport and commercial fishing conflicts. A theoretical analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7: 220–233. Boxall, P., Rollins, K. and Englin, J. (2003) Heterogeneous preferences for congestion during a wilderness experience. Resource and Energy Economics 25: 177–195. Clark, C.W. (1976) A delayed-recruitment model of population dynamics, with an application to baleen whale populations. Journal of Mathematical Biology 3: 381–391. Clark, C.W. (1990) Mathematical Bioeconomics. John Wiley, New York. Conrad, J.M. (1999) Resource Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Conrad, J.M. and Clark, C.W. (1987) Natural Resource Economics. Notes and Problems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
GCRF_09.indd 186
10/3/2007 10:27:32 AM
Bioeconomic analysis of different management regimes
187
Cook, B.A. and McGaw, R.L. (1996) Sport and commercial fishing allocations for the Atlantic salmon fisheries of the Miramichi river. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 44: 165–171. Cox, S. and Walters, C. (2002) Maintaining quality in recreational fisheries: how success breeds failure in management of open-access sport fisheries. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Fiske, P. and Aas, Ø. (Eds) (2001) Laksefiskeboka. Om Sammenhenger mellom Beskatning, Fiske og Verdiskaping ved Elvefiske etter Laks, Sjøaure og Sjørøye. NINA Temahefte 20: 1–100. Hvidsten, N.A., Johnsen, B.O., Jensen, A.J. et al. (2004) Orkla- et Nasjonalt Referansevassdrag for Studier av Bestandsregulerende Faktorer av Laks. Nina fagrapport 079. Laukkanen, M. (2001) A bioeconomic analysis of the northern Baltic salmon fishery: coexistence versus exclusion of competing sequential fisheries. Environmental and Resource Economics 18: 293–315. Lee, S-T. (1996) The Economics of Recreational Fishing. Dissertation, University of Washington. McConnell, K.E. and Sutinen, J.G. (1979) Bioeconomic models of marine recreational fishing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 6: 127–139. Murphy, E.A. and Stephenson, K. (1999) Inland Recreational Fishing Rights in Virgina: Implications of the Virginia Supreme Court Case Kraft V. Burr. Special Report SR131999. Virginia Water Resource Research Center. NOU (1999) Til Laks åt Alle Kan Ingen Gjera? NOU 1999:9. Olaussen, J.O. (2007) Playing Chicken with Salmon. Marine Resource Economics 22: 173–193. Olaussen, J.O. (2007) Bandwagon or Snob Anglers? Evidence from Recreational Atlantic Salmon Fishing. Working Paper 2006, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. Olaussen, J.O. and Skonhoft, A. (2005) The Bioeconomics of a Wild Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Recreational Fishery. Working Paper Series 14/2005, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. Rosenman, R. (1991) Impacts of recreational fishing on the commercial sector: an empirical analysis of Atlantic mackerel. Natural Resource Modeling 5(2): 239–257. Rudd, A.M., Folmer, H., van Kooten, G.C. (2002) Economic evaluation of recreational fishery policy. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Schuhmann, P.W. and Schwabe, K.A. (2004) An analysis of congestion measures and heterogeneous angler preferences in a random utility model of recreational fishing. Environmental and Resource Economics 27(4): 429–450. Shepherd, J.G. (1982) A versatile new stock-recruitement relationship for fisheries, and the construction of sustainable yield curves. Journal du Conseil, Conseil Internationale pour L`Exploration de la Mer 40 (1): 67–75. Silverberg, E. (1990) The Structure of Economics: A Mathematical Analysis (2nd edn). McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Skonhoft, A. and Logstein, R. (2003) Sportsfiske etter Laks. En Bioøkonomisk Analyse. Norsk Økonomisk Tidsskrift 117(1): 31–51.
GCRF_09.indd 187
10/3/2007 10:27:32 AM
Chapter 10
Economic impact of angling in Scotland and Iceland Sveinn Agnarsson, Alan Radford and Geoff Riddington
Abstract This chapter discusses two recent studies of angler expenditure and their impact on output and employment, one Scottish and the other Icelandic. According to the former, anglers spend a total of €167 million on angling in Scotland, with salmon and sea trout fishing accounting for €108 million of this total. It is further speculated that angling in Scotland generates about €147 million in output and is responsible for €71 million of the income per annum, and that between 2450 and 2800 jobs depend – directly or indirectly – on angling. The Icelandic study estimates angler expenditure at €21.1–24.6 million, and the total output effect at €84.9–99.6 million. These are though overestimates, as they do not allow for any possible substitution effects. There exist close links between angling and tourism in general, and these ties can be explored to further increase the revenue generated by anglers, both at the regional and domestic level.
Introduction Historically, two kinds of ‘economic’ evaluations have been applied to recreational fishing. One set of evaluations focuses on the impact of angling on local/ regional income and employment. Studies of this kind include Cobham Resource Consultants (Anon 1983), Whelan and Marsh (1988), Mackay Consultants (Anon 1989), Dunn et al. (1989), Radford et al. (1991), Moon and Souter (1994) and Riddington et al. (2004).1 The other form of economic evaluation is rooted in the economic value/cost benefit analysis (CBA) framework. This type of study examines economic value and its sensitivity to changes in resource allocation. The primary focus is on how a change in resource-use impact on the well-being of individuals as reflected in their willingness to pay for the change (see Hanley and Spash 1993). As such, the evaluation process might be unconcerned about the differential impacts on 188
GCRF_10.indd 188
10/3/2007 10:26:52 AM
Economic impact of angling in Scotland and Iceland
189
the incomes of individual regions or sectors of the economy. Examples of this kind of evaluation of angling activity include Willis and Garrod (1991), Davis and O’Neill (1992), Foundation for Water Research (1996), Gibb Environment (1999), Willis and Garrod (1999) and Spurgeon et al. (2001). This chapter concerns itself with the first type of economic evaluation and presents two recent studies of angler expenditure and their impact on output and employment, one Scottish and the other Icelandic. Both were published in 2004 and estimate the effect angling has on the domestic economy using similar methodology, although the Scottish study is more sophisticated in three ways. First, it computes the ‘economic’ impact both at the regional and national levels, second, it differentiates between four types of fisheries and third, it allows for various substitution possibilities.
Theoretical background In order to evaluate the economic impact of a certain activity, for example, angling, it is necessary to first identify the full effects of a change in angling expenditure, and then analyse the substitution possibilities that exist for individual anglers.
Multipliers In a modern society numerous linkages exist between different branches of economic activity, and in order to identify the full impact of a certain economic activity it is necessary to trace all these links, or at least obtain a decent picture of these complex linkages, so that the total contribution of the activity in question may be properly assessed. In general it can be expected that the total effect will exceed the initial expenditure, but the difference between the two may differ between activities and change over time.2 This total effect is often decomposed into three categories: direct, indirect and induced effects. The direct effect is simply the increase in local incomes (wages and selfemployment income) and any increase in locally sourced inputs (i.e. additional local output) that arise from the initial angler expenditure. To determine the magnitude of the initial direct effect, it is therefore vital to know the composition of angler expenditure so that the share of locally sourced inputs can be identified. There are various indirect effects arising from the direct effect. Specifically, the local impact of producing these additional locally sourced inputs is known as the first-round indirect effect. This effect manifests itself in further increase in local incomes (wages and income from self-employment) and further demands by firms for locally produced inputs, which creates further rounds of successively smaller indirect effects. The combined impact of the direct and all the rounds of indirect effects are modelled by what is termed ‘Type I’ multiplier analysis.
GCRF_10.indd 189
10/3/2007 10:26:53 AM
190
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
As described, both the direct effect and every round of indirect effects increases household incomes, and in each spending round a proportion of these are spent on locally produced goods, creating further local income and local output. This is the induced effect. ‘Type II’ multiplier analysis incorporates these induced effects into the analysis, enabling the estimation of the corresponding Type II total output effects and the Type II total income effect, which is also termed Type II gross value added (GVA). Once the (Type I and/or Type II) local incomes or output impacts are calculated, local employment (Type I and/or Type II) can be estimated through known relationships between output and employment or total wages and employment. The regional impact of angler expenditure will depend on such things as interfirm linkages within the regional economy, taxation policy and the proportion of local income normally spent within the region. These parameters themselves will be dependent on the size of the region: the smaller the area, the less likely local business and retailers will purchase locally produced supplies (weak indirect effects), and the less likely local households will purchase locally produced goods (weak induced effects).
Substitution possibilities Anglers will respond in different ways to the eventual loss of a particular type of fishing in a region (see Gentner and Sutton, Chapter 8, this volume). Some anglers will spend as much on alternative activities within region. If all anglers responded in this way, the cessation of angling for a given fishery type would have little impact on regional income and employment. On the other hand, if anglers divert their expenditure outside the region, one can argue that angling’s contribution to regional income and employment is significant. Practitioners often make the simplifying assumptions that visitors have better substitutes outside the region, whereas local residents have better substitutes within it (see Fisheries Resources Management 2000). This implies that a region would lose all visitor anglers spending and retain all local anglers spending. Researchers employing these assumptions thus only need to quantify visitor spending. The aforementioned assumptions are somewhat crude, and whilst this is an obvious point, the actual substitution possibilities are not always evident and may only be properly revealed by the anglers themselves. Moreover, substitution possibilities will vary with the size of the region; the smaller the region, the fewer substitutes there are within it. Further, substitution possibilities can vary through time. Thus, in the short run, the closure of a fishery may at first lead to a considerable decline in regional expenditures. In the long run, however, new activities may be developed.
GCRF_10.indd 190
10/3/2007 10:26:53 AM
Economic impact of angling in Scotland and Iceland
191
Scottish study The principal aim of the Scottish study was to analyse the impact on income and employment of angler expenditure in Scotland, both for the country as a whole and in seven regions (Dumfries and Galloway, Borders, Highlands, North-east Scotland, Central Scotland, Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland). For each region, the income and employment impact of four types of angling salmon (Salmo salar) and anadromous brown trout (Salmo trutta), resident brown trout, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and coarse fishing were to be estimated, as well as for the whole of Scotland.
Surveys The Scottish study relied on data generated through a survey of anglers and a survey of owners. A survey of freshwater anglers in Scotland was conducted in 2003 and sought to collect observations on angler days for each region–fishery combination, with the primary focus on expenditure per day. These estimates are scaled using information from the owner survey (see below). In the angler survey, the relevant population is the number of angler days for each region– fishery combination and not the number of anglers. In surveying the anglers, three survey instruments were employed. First, an electronic questionnaire was developed and published on the Web. Second, a paper version was produced and distributed via fishing clubs, proprietors, tackle shops and so on. Third, a total of 920 questionnaires were sent to fisheries, clubs and shops; 32.3% were returned. Finally, there was some limited on-site survey work with 71 questionnaires completed in the Shin and Spey catchment. The resulting database consists of over 3000 observations and has the capacity to provide information in a number of dimensions including by species (4), by region (7), by expenditure category (13) and by angler origin (13). The Owners’ Survey had the primary objective to provide estimates of angler days for each of the specified combinations of regions and fishery types and, for each of the combinations, to provide estimates of the proportion of anglers who are respectively local, visitors from within Scotland and non-Scottish visitors. The aspiration was to obtain data from every freshwater fishery in Scotland, and the survey of owners did not therefore involve any explicit sampling process. Also, where possible the intention was to use, amend or update previous studies. In the case of salmon and sea trout fisheries (and coarse and brown trout, that occur on riverine salmon and sea trout fisheries) 53 District Salmon Fishery Boards either provided names or collected information for river catchments. It was inevitable that there was some non-response. In the case of salmon and sea trout angling, there is systematic collection of catch statistics, and if one can
GCRF_10.indd 191
10/3/2007 10:26:53 AM
192
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
estimate the relationship between angler effort (days) and catch, there is a basis for scaling observations for non-response. For other fisheries, a database of 2830 fisheries was established. In total 738 responses out of a possible 872 were received from the contact list. This provided estimates of angler days and origins for 1935 fisheries/waters of the 2830 entries in the database (68.4%). Some contact/responses provided estimates for many waters. This usually occurred when dealing with angling clubs and estates in particular.3 From the database, it is possible to aggregate individual estimates to provide estimates for Scotland as a whole, or for four fishing types, for seven regions, by 13 angler origins. For salmon and sea trout fisheries, estimates are available on a river-by-river basis. Other fisheries can be aggregated by Unitary Authority area or any other geographical boundary.
Angler activity, expenditure and substitution possibilities Angler expenditure varies greatly between fisheries. As expected, salmon angling attracts the highest spending per day, both generally (€199) and across every region. On average, the Highlands are the most expensive region (€206); but, rainbow trout in Dumfries and Galloway and coarse angling in the North-east are marginally more expensive than in the Highlands. These estimates include the expenditure by anglers on behalf of others. Anglers spend a total of €167 million on angling in Scotland, with salmon and sea trout anglers accounting for over 65% (€108 million) of this total. In terms of angler days, rainbow trout angling in Central Scotland attracts the largest activity, though salmon and sea trout in the Highlands and the North-east are much more significant in terms of expenditure. Local anglers who fish within their own region spent €54.2 million and were responsible for 33% of the €167 million total. Scottish anglers fishing other Scottish regions spent a relatively modest €25 million, (15%) of the total expenditure and anglers from outside Scotland €87 million (52%). If a fishery ceased to exist, then theoretically all angler expenditure could be lost to a region. In addition to separately estimating local and visitor spending, the study consequently also analysed anglers’ actual substitution possibilities, irrespective of where they came from. On average the survey indicated that 61% of the total angler expenditure in the salmon and sea trout fishery would be lost. The percentage varies between 20% in the Western Isles and 68% in the Border region. There is significant variation in the reaction of anglers. The Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland retain a greater proportion of their angler spending. This is probably because resident anglers would simply switch species rather than incurring the travel costs associated with fishing on the mainland. There also
GCRF_10.indd 192
10/3/2007 10:26:53 AM
Economic impact of angling in Scotland and Iceland
193
exists the strong possibility that a relatively higher proportion of visiting anglers incur the relatively higher costs in fishing these islands because their visit is essentially multipurpose (e.g. visiting relatives, staying with friends). These visitors are more likely to continue to visit even if their preferred fishing were not available. Using these loss figures it is possible to produce estimates of the expenditure lost to each region. From Table 10.1, it can be seen that €30.5 million of €52.2 million total expenditure would be lost in the Highland region. Unfortunately, the angler questionnaires could not accommodate questions about angler alternatives if a type of angling ceased throughout Scotland, or indeed if all forms of angling ceased in Scotland. It is thus important to realize that each cell in Table 10.1 reflects the regional expenditure that would be lost in circumstances where other types of angling are still available in the region and the first-choice type of angling is still available in other Scottish regions. Strictly, the loss to Scotland as a whole from the collapse of a type of angling throughout Scotland cannot be obtained by aggregating the losses to the individual regions (or to fishing types) as reflected in Table 10.1. This is because the substitution possibilities increase as the area becomes larger, but the questionnaire could not ask anglers about these particular substitution possibilities. In effect, the aggregation of the individual cells (the bottom row of Table 10.1) provides an upper limit on the expenditure loss to Scotland. This upper limit is closer to the true loss when the proportion of anglers normally transferring within Scotland, who would transfer outside, in the event of a complete Scottish collapse is greater.
Impact on income and employment The seven regional economies were modelled using an approach, developed by CogentSI,4 which can be finessed to produce models specific for angling for particular regions. As the model identifies expenditure patterns for anglers, local businesses, retailers and local employees, it effectively traces through the impact outlined below (see Figure 10.1). Gross value added (GVA) is a measure of the income in the form of wages, rents and income from self-employment to households in the region. By feeding the expenditure losses of Table 10.1 through the CogentSI model, it is possible to arrive at an estimate how much these losses would reduce local household income in the form of wages and all income from self-employment.5 Further, one can calculate the ratio of local income change to the initial change in expenditure. As expected, smaller less self-sufficient regions have lower ratios, but the expenditure patterns also vary between different anglers. Thus, salmon and sea trout angling in the North-east and Central regions have the highest ratios and brown trout angling in Orkney and Shetland the lowest.
GCRF_10.indd 193
10/3/2007 10:26:53 AM
194
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
VAT
Imports
Local industry
Local industry Expenditure
Output 2
Output 1
Home wages plus
Home plus margin
Retail
Imports
Home plus margin
Local retail
Wages
Imports
Taxes
TAX
Direct Indirect Induced
Figure 10.1 Tracing the impact of angler expenditure.
Table 10.1
Expenditure loss summary table for Scotland (€1000). Salmon and sea trout
Brown trout
Dumfries and Galloway
2,585
1,343
The Borders
6,671
619
Highlands
30,507
North-east Scotland Central Scotland Western Isles Orkney and Shetland Scotland total
Rainbow trout
Coarse fish
Total
861
1,247
6,034
432
15
7,737
4,133
1,440
506
36,584
22,583
1,772
4,268
367
28,992
3,013
3,450
7191
1,195
14,850
239
363
<1
<1
601
<1
475
<1
<1
475
65,597
12,155
14,192
3,328
95,273
Regional income can also be related to changes in angler days. On average an increase/decrease of one salmon angler day in Scotland will increase/decrease household income by €118. This figure though varies greatly between regions; it is highest in the Highlands (€165), but hardly noticeable in Orkney and Shetland. The CogentSI models were also used to estimate regional employment effects assuming that no substitutions took place, that is, that regions would lose the entirety of angler expenditure and that the aforementioned substitution took place. As the latter is a better estimate of the impact on employment, we only discuss those results here.
GCRF_10.indd 194
10/3/2007 10:26:53 AM
Economic impact of angling in Scotland and Iceland Table 10.2
195
Employment in Scotland with substitution. Salmon and sea trout
Brown trout
Rainbow trout
Coarse fish
Dumfries and Galloway
88
38
34
38
The Borders
136
11
10
0
Highlands
781
122
37
12
North-east Scotland
688
34
171
27
Central Scotland
63
43
218
25
Western Isles
20
14
NA
NA
Orkney and Shetland
NA
13
NA
NA
Table 10.2 presents the number of jobs that are dependent on angling in each of the seven regions. Thus, for example, it is estimated that 781 jobs would be lost – both directly and indirectly – in the Highland region if salmon and sea trout angling ceased.
Impact at national level The effects of a given change in angler expenditure will necessarily be larger at the Scottish and the UK level. This is because these larger areas are more capable of supplying both consumers and local industries. However, the larger the area, the stronger is the substitution effects. If an angler switches from the Highland Region to the North-east it is a loss to the Highlands but not to Scotland as a whole. The angler survey revealed how angler expenditure would change in circumstances where other types of angling are still available in the region, and the firstchoice type of angling is still available in other Scottish regions. Unfortunately, the questionnaires could not accommodate questions about angler alternatives if a type of angling ceased throughout Scotland, or if all forms of angling ceased in Scotland. It cannot be assumed that a local (Highland) angler who states he would fish for the same species in another region (North-east), would fish outside Scotland (e.g. Norway) when faced with closure of a complete fishery type. The estimation of Scottish level impacts therefore had to rely on making assumptions and distinctions between locals and visitors to Scotland. The first assumption that could be made is that all angler expenditure is lost. If this were to happen, the combined impact of the direct, indirect and induced effects would result in a decrease in Scottish output of €242.6 million per annum, where €164 million can be traced to the salmon and sea trout fishery. This, though, may constitute an unreasonably harsh assumption. It may, for instance, be more realistic to assume that all Scottish anglers continue to fish in
GCRF_10.indd 195
10/3/2007 10:26:54 AM
196
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Scotland whilst all non-Scottish visitors leave when they cannot fish the region/ fishery combination they want. On this basis, the loss of Scottish output would be €133.7 million. The assumption that no Scots will go elsewhere to fish may also be regarded as too strong. As a third scenario, it was therefore assumed that the most likely group to leave are those Scots already travelling for their fishing and that 50% of these will take their expenditure elsewhere outside Scotland. This set of assumption yields a combined effect on output of €154.8 million. Given these figures, it is reasonable to speculate that angling in Scotland generates about €147 million of Scottish output per annum. The impact on Scottish income can also be calculated using these three scenarios. In the first case, income is estimated to fall by €113.6 million, in the second by €63.1 million and the third by €71.3 million. Given the assumptions, it is believed that freshwater angling is responsible for some €71 million of Scottish income per annum. Finally, it is possible to estimate the impact on Scottish employment. At one extreme, Scotland would lose 4400 jobs if angling ceased altogether, and all angler expenditure would be lost. In reality, only a proportion of angler expenditure would be lost, and under the more reasonable assumptions outlined above the employment loss would be between 2450 and 2800 jobs.
Icelandic study In Iceland, fishing rights in rivers and lakes are privately owned and go with the land that adjoins the rivers. The fishing rights are inseparable from the ownership of the land. Where there is more than one owner of fishing rights, the owners of the river or lake in question are obliged to form an association to share expenses and income from the fishery. The associations are then entirely responsible for the management of the local fishery and, in addition, frequently undertake various activities which are designed to increase expected catches and make the fishery more attractive and profitable (Isaksson 2002). Salmon fishing in the ocean has been forbidden since 1932 and freshwater gill-netting of salmon greatly reduced in recent years. The salmon fishing season in Iceland is relatively short, only 105 days, but the season for sea trout and char is much longer. The number of rods is limited so that large areas are assigned to each angler. As a rule of thumb, one rod is allowed for each 100 salmon caught so that the expected catch is one salmon per rod-day. There is a 12-hour fishing day for salmon, and similar rules apply to trout fishing, although they may in some cases be more flexible. These strict institutional arrangements and well-defined property rights are one of the reasons why the resource rent in salmon and trout fishing has grown tremendously in recent years. In addition, the various improvements undertaken by river owners and associations have further improved the value of the fishery.
GCRF_10.indd 196
10/3/2007 10:26:54 AM
Economic impact of angling in Scotland and Iceland
197
Owner survey The Icelandic study (see Agnarsson and Helgadottir 2004) focused mainly on salmon angling, by far the most important fishery in Iceland, but information was also gathered on the various trout fisheries. These were, however, lumped together into one category, rather than split into two as in the Scottish study. In addition, unlike that study, distinction was made – where possible – between the salmon and sea trout fisheries. The Icelandic study also differs from the Scottish one in that it deals with the importance of angling for the country as a whole, not at a regional level. The study consisted of detailed questionnaires that were sent out to all active fishing associations in Iceland, which at the time numbered 119. The survey was then complemented with information on the number of domestic and foreign anglers and angler expenditures obtained from other sources. The fishing associations were classified into salmon fishing and trout/char fishing associations, depending on the stock utilized in each lake or river. The salmon fishing was further subdivided into four quality categories, reflecting differences in average catches and facilities. In all, 47 associations returned the questionnaires, and the reply rate varied between salmon and trout categories. The associations managing the 18 salmon rivers in category I were most willing to participate (78% reply rate), but the reply rate in category II (19 rivers) was also quite acceptable (63%). However, the reply rate in the other two categories was much lower, 35% and 17% respectively. Five of 21 trout river associations returned the survey questionnaires.
Economic impact The returned questionnaires were then used to estimate total revenue and cost in each of the four salmon categories, and then for the salmon and trout fisheries as a whole. Gross revenue in the salmon fishery was estimated at €8.4–9.3 million in 2003, and revenue net of costs €6.0–7.2 million. Consequently, gross revenue per salmon is estimated at €287–321 and per day at €218–242. Similarly, gross revenue in the trout fishery is estimated at €1.6–1.8 million, but as total cost is slightly larger, net revenue is found to be negative. All in all, the gross revenue of Icelandic fish associations in 2003 is estimated at €10.0– 11.1 million. These figures are, however, more likely than not to underestimate the revenue accruing to the fish associations, as they do neither include dormant associations with little or no activity nor take into account direct permit sales by farmers to anglers. In addition, permit prices have risen very sharply in the last few years. In order to calculate the full importance of angling it is necessary to make a few assumptions concerning mark-ups of permit seller, number of anglers and expenditure. Fish associations most often rent out the fishing rights to clubs or
GCRF_10.indd 197
10/3/2007 10:26:54 AM
198
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
individuals who in turn sell the permits on to individual anglers. The mark-up differs but was in this study put at 25–30%. In many cases the permit price also includes lodgings. Information on the number of active anglers in Iceland is limited, but recent studies indicate that 55,000–61,000 Icelanders can be defined as freshwater anglers and that purchases of fishing permits make up just over 40% of their total expenditure each year.6 In this study it is assumed that the number of anglers has remained little changed, and that expenditure share of permit purchases is 40%. According to a tourist study undertaken in 2003, 2–3 thousand foreign visitors came for the salmon fishing, while the number of trout fishermen was put at 3–4 thousand. In the absence of any reliable information on the composition of foreign anglers’ expenditure and length of stay, it was assumed that foreign salmon fishermen spend on average three non-fishing days in the country and that average expenditure per non-fishing day ranged between €138 and €277.7 It was further assumed that imported goods accounted for one half of all domestic expenditures by anglers, both domestic and foreign. A model developed by the Institute of Economic Studies was used for the analysis (Hall and Jonsson 2003). Using the aforementioned assumptions and survey results, it was estimated that direct effects amounted to €21.1–24.6 million, and indirect and induced effects to additional €63.4–75 million, yielding a total effect of €84.9–99.6 million. The figures overstate the economic impact of angling in Iceland as no allowance is made for any substitution possibilities. Many Icelanders presently engaged in angling would probably take up a new revenue-generating interest, and some foreigners might still visit the country for other purposes than fishing. It is, however, clear that the revenue accruing to fishing associations and lease holders, totalling €11.9–13.7 million, would be lost altogether, at least in the short run.
Conclusions Angling is an important branch of economic activity in both Scotland and Iceland. In Scotland it is estimated that €242.6 million per annum would be lost if all angling would cease. The loss to the Icelandic economy would be one-third of that in Scotland, or €84.9–99.6 million. However, these figures overstate the true importance of angling. New fisheries might take the place of those that are lost, other pastimes gain a following and new interests develop. Through time, these substitution possibilities would cushion the blow of the angling expenditure losses. Thus, it might be more reasonable to relax this assumption and instead assume that all foreign anglers would cease to visit Scotland, as well as 50% of those Scots already travelling inside Scotland for their fishing. The expenditure loss in that case would amount to €147 million per annum. No comparable estimates have so far been done for Iceland, but it clear that the contribution of foreigners to angling expenditure is smaller in Iceland than in Scotland. The Icelandic
GCRF_10.indd 198
10/3/2007 10:26:54 AM
Economic impact of angling in Scotland and Iceland
199
economy would therefore probably not suffer as much from the absence of foreign anglers as the Scottish. In Scotland, the average expenditure per day in the seven regions amounted to €199 in the salmon and sea trout fisheries. In Iceland, by contrast, the average revenue accruing to salmon river associations ranged between €218 and €242 per day. However, as noted earlier, permit purchases only amount to about 40% of the total expenditure for the average Icelandic angler. Thus, the total outlay per day might be considerably higher, possibly in the range €545–604, or three times the expenditure of the Scottish angler. The resource rent alone, the share of the owner of the fishing rights in Iceland, appears to be higher per day than total expenditure in Scotland. It should be noted here that the expenditure per day varies a great deal between regions in Scotland. It is €274 in the Highlands, €229 in the Border region and €188 in North-east Scotland, but significantly lower in other regions. However, even allowing for these differences, it is clear that fishing right owners in Iceland enjoy a much higher return on their natural resource than their colleagues in Scotland. One reason is doubtlessly the fact that the institutional setup in Iceland is more favourable towards the creation of substantial resource rents. Fishing right owners have shown considerable foresight in limiting fishing effort, building up stocks and improving facilities. In addition, Iceland is a more expensive country, and one would therefore expect this difference in price levels to show up in this kind of comparison. Economic impact studies aim to analyse and quantify the various income flows in specific sectors or branches. The results provide valuable information that can be utilized by decision makers in a variety of ways, for example, to pinpoint underutilized income generating possibilities and develop improved market strategies. In some cases, these results may confirm a priori held beliefs, and in others quench generally accepted wisdom. The economic importance of angling can be increased in a number of ways. Better management and various improvements can increase the value of the fisheries and thus the resource rent accruing to fishing right owners, not least in Scotland. However, it is important to note that in the case of ocean-going species, such as salmon, sea trout and char, increased cooperation may be called for between the fishing right owners and authorities responsible for regional or national fish management. A government ban on salmon fishing in the ocean may, for example, be a prerequisite for a successful enhancement programme in a particular river. The modern tourist can choose from a wide range of attractions, and while many opt to visit capitals or other large cities, others prefer to wander a little off the beaten track and visit the more tranquil and remote corners of the world. Tourist authorities have long realized that it is of utmost importance for these regions to hold on to these visitors, encourage them to stay as long as possible and spend freely on what the region has to offer. Angling can serve a vital role in this respect. Anglers frequently stay for a few days, and although the lure of a good fishing is the main magnet, they may also engage in other revenue-generating activities.
GCRF_10.indd 199
10/3/2007 10:26:54 AM
200
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
These two studies clearly show that angling by itself is an important contributor to national income, but by weaving recreational fishing closer together with other forms of tourism it should be possible to achieve two important aims. First, to increase the revenue that visiting anglers generate and, second, to make the visitors aware of other experiences that the region has to offer. The latter objective may become especially important in the case where fisheries are lost, as anglers may then be able to find suitable local substitutes for the fisheries, be it other rivers or lakes, or a different activity.
Notes 1 For more general books on the economics of natural resources the reader is referred to introductory texts such as Hartwick and Olewiler (1997), Field (2005) and Conrad (1999). 2 Modern input–output analysis can be traced to the writings of Wassily Leontief, see Leontief (1986) and Dietzenbacher and Lahr (2004). See also the chapter by Schaffer on regional impact models in the web book of regional science. 3 For Example, Assynt Angling Company supplied one group estimate for 152 waters. 4 Cogent Strategies International Ltd, Killylung, Dumfries, Scotland DG2 0RL. 5 Pure profit or dividend income is assumed to be a leakage from the regional economy. 6 Toivonen et al. (2000, 2004). 7 This reflects the assumption that foreign anglers are in general better off than other tourists.
References Agnarsson, S. and Helgadottir, T. (2004) Lax- og silungsveidi a Islandi. Efnahagslegt Vaegi (Economic Value of Angling in Iceland). Institute of Economic Studies, University of Iceland, C04:06 (in Icelandic). Cobham Resource Consultants (Anon 1983) Countryside Sports and Their Economic Significance. The Standing Conference on Countryside Sports 1983. Conrad, J.M. (1999) Resource Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Davis, J. and O’Neill, C.O. (1992) Discrete choice valuation of recreational angling in Northern Ireland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 3: 452–457. Dietzenbacher, E. and Lahr, M.L. (2004) Wassily Leontief and Input–Output Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dunn, M.R., Potten, S.D., Radford, A.F. and Whitmarsh, D.W. (1989) An Economic Appraisal of the Bass Fishery in England and Wales. Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources Report 30, University of Portsmouth. Field, B.C. (2005) Natural Resource Economics: An Introduction. Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL. Fisheries Resources Management (2000) Assessing the Economic Value and Realising the Potential of Recreational Freshwater Fisheries in the Western Isles. A Report Prepared for the Western Isles Fisheries Trust.
GCRF_10.indd 200
10/3/2007 10:26:54 AM
Economic impact of angling in Scotland and Iceland
201
Foundation for Water Research (1996) Assessing the Benefits of Surface Water Quality Improvements: Manual. Foundation for Water Research, Marlow. Gibb Environment (1999) Economic Assessment of The River Lune Salmon Fishery. Gibb House. Hall, A. and Jonsson, A. (2003) Flug og ferdathjonusta a Islandi. (Tourism in Iceland). Institute of Economic Studies, University of Iceland, C03:08 (in Icelandic). Hanley, N. and Spash, C. (1993) Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Aldershot. Hartwick, J.M. and Olewiler, N.D. (1997) The Economics of Natural Resource Use (2nd edn). Addison-Wesley, New York. Isaksson, A. (2002) Freshwater Fisheries in Iceland. Directorate of Freshwater Fisheries, Iceland, EV-2002–004. Leontief, W. (1986) Input–Output Economics (2nd edn). Oxford University Press, New York. Mackay Consultants (Anon 1989) Economic Importance of Salmon Fishing and Netting in Scotland. Report Prepared for the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Mackay Consultants, Inverness. Moon, N. and Souter, G. (1994) Socio-Economic Review of Angling 1994. Report to the National Rivers Authority, Bristol, R&D Project 501. Radford, A.F., Hatcher, A. and Whitmarsh, D.W. (1991) An Economic Evaluation of Salmon Fisheries in Great Britain. Report Prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources, University of Portsmouth. Riddington, G., Radford, A. and Higgins, P. (2004) An Assessment of the Economic Impact of Water-Related Recreation and Tourism in the Spey Catchment. Report to Scottish Natural Heritage. Schaffer, W.A. (1999) Regional impact Models. In the Web Book of Regional Science. West Virginia University, http://www.rri.wvu.edu/regscooks.htm. Spurgeon, J.P.G., Colarulllo, G., Radford, A. and Tingley, D. (2001) Economic Evaluation of Inland Fisheries: Indirect Values Associated with Fisheries. Final Report to the UK Environment Agency R&D Project Record W2-039/PR/2. Toivonen, A.-L., Appelblad, H., Bengtsson, B., Geertz-Hansen, P., Gudbergsson, G., Kristofersson, D., KyrkjebØ, H., Navrud, S., Roth, E., Tuunainen, P. and Weissglas, G. (2000) Economic Value of Recreational Fisheries in the Nordic Countries. Tema Nord 604. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Toivonen, A.-L., Roth, E., Navrud, S., Gudbergsson, G., Appelblad, H., Bengtsson, B. and Tuunainen, P. (2004) The economic value of recreational fisheries in Nordic countries. Fisheries Management and Ecology II: 1–14. Whelan, B.J. and Marsh, G. (1988) An Economic Evaluation of Irish Angling. Report Prepared for the Central Fisheries Board. The Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin. Willis, K. and Garrod, G. (1991) Valuing open access recreation of inland waterways: on-site recreation surveys and selection effects. Regional Studies 25: 511–524. Willis, K. and Garrod, G. (1999) Angling and recreational values of low-flow alleviation in rivers. Journal of Environmental Management 57: 71–83.
GCRF_10.indd 201
10/3/2007 10:26:55 AM
Chapter 11
Trends and development in catch and release Chapter editor: David Policansky
Abstract Catch and release (C&R) has become widespread among recreational anglers; its biological and socio-economic effects are still being revealed. This chapter discusses some of those effects, including aspects of C&R that are as-yet poorly understood and areas where additional research could be helpful (Section 11.1). Better statistics on recreational angling and information on the factors that lead anglers to practice C&R are particularly important. Two case studies discuss the effectiveness of circle hooks in reducing angling mortality of striped bass in the US Chesapeake Bay and billfishes in south-eastern US Atlantic waters, and one evaluates the effects of C&R angling on Atlantic salmon populations in Europe and eastern North America. The final section on ethical C&R angling in relation to the welfare of fishes provides a discussion of ethical issues surrounding angling, especially C&R, and recommends steps towards more ethical angling practices.
11.1
Overview
David Policansky Catch-and-release (C&R) angling has a long history but only in recent decades has it become a widely used management tool in recreational fishing (Policansky 2002; Radonski 2002; Arlinghaus et al. 2007a), and it is now practised voluntarily by many anglers all over the world. Yet many aspects of C&R still are not well understood. In particular, questions remain about motivations, responses, management effectiveness, economic importance, ethics and other aspects of C&R, several of which are being discussed by managers, anglers, scientists and others. This section focuses on different aspects of C&R. In addition to this introductory 202
GCRF_11.indd 202
10/3/2007 10:29:36 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
203
section, there is a section on the ethics of C&R angling (authored by Arlinghaus) and case studies of Atlantic billfish (Schratwieser), striped bass (Lukacovic and Uphoff) and Atlantic salmon (Thorstad, Naesje, Mawle and Policansky). Releasing captured fish alive must be as old as fishing itself; some fish are unwanted because they are too small to eat, not palatable, because they are too large to manage or for a variety of other possible reasons. Thus, the release of at least some fish alive, that is, C&R, is associated with fishing itself. In more recent times, but still several hundred years ago, regulations began to require the release of fish by prohibiting retention of particular species during particular seasons or of fish smaller than a specified size; for example, there was a closed season for salmon in thirteenth-century Britain (Hickley 1998) and later regulations even required the release of some fish alive (Policansky 2002). Thus, C&R can be incidental, voluntary (the deliberate release of fish that could be legally kept), regulatory (release of fish alive required by or as a consequence of regulations) or total, in which all fish are released alive (Policansky 2002). Ditton (2002) dissects C&R more finely than these broad categories and discusses other aspects of the human dimensions of C&R. The use of C&R as a deliberate management tool has become increasingly widespread, first in freshwaters in the United States and then elsewhere (Barnhart and Roelofs 1977, 1987; Aas et al. 2002; Policansky 2002) and later in marine recreational fisheries (Matlock 2002; Radonski 2002). It has developed its own literature and has recently been reviewed exhaustively (Arlinghaus et al. 2007a). Today, in the early years of the twenty-first century, there is little doubt of the effectiveness of C&R as a management tool in recreational fishing. If anglers are careful, the mortality that results from catching fish and releasing them alive (usually called hooking mortality) is usually less than 5% and can be less than 0.1% (Policansky 2002; Arlinghaus et al. 2007). As a result, a fish population can withstand much higher fishing pressure than one from which fish are taken and kept; anglers are more satisfied; and costly and sometimes harmful management practices of stocking can be avoided. The rise in C&R as a behaviour mode has profoundly changed many aspects of recreational fishing. Today, research has begun on anglers’ opinions of various management regulations, willingness to spend money on fishing trips and gear, motivations, and other attributes of C&R anglers, along with the more obvious advances in our understanding of the effects of C&R on individual fish and on fish populations. Because C&R anglers clearly are not fishing for food or for any other utilitarian purpose, C&R in some places has focused attention on ethical issues more than recreational angling in general has. C&R sometimes leads to specialized tourism and management regimes, just as increasing tourism to formerly remote and seldom-visited places leads to C&R. C&R can exacerbate angler-crowding by allowing fish populations to thrive in the face of increased angling, and has prompted specialized management regimes to deal with it (Policansky 2001).
GCRF_11.indd 203
10/3/2007 10:29:37 AM
204
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Social and economic importance The increase of C&R makes it important to understand its social and economic implications, but understanding these aspects of C&R angling is made difficult by the difficulty of separating C&R angling from other recreational fishing. Recreational fishing as a whole is a very large activity. A partial estimate for only marine recreational fishing, in just the United States, is that more than $76 billion a year was spent in recent years (NMFS 2006a). Indeed, C&R is not necessarily entirely distinct from recreational fishing in general – it is a mode of recreational fishing – and C&R itself is a continuum, ranging from occasional release alive of unwanted or prohibited fish to the intentional release alive of all caught fish. Other factors also hamper our understanding of C&R, despite some new research; they include a general insufficiency of statistics on recreational fishing, a lack of information on what motivates anglers to practice C&R and whether there are associated behavioural differences between anglers who practice C&R and those who do not. A better knowledge of social and economic implications and aspects of C&R would help clarify several important issues of relevance to decision makers and stakeholder groups. It would help us answer several questions, some of which are quite basic. They include the following: z
z z
Where and how much is C&R angling increasing, and where (if anywhere) is it decreasing? Among what angler segments and in what types of fisheries is C&R increasing? What are the opinions and attitudes towards C&R among various angler groups? What are the economic impacts of C&R angling compared to other forms of angling, and what do those economic impacts tell us about the importance of C&R to anglers and to local economies? How do changes (mainly increases) in the amount of C&R angling affect attitudes of the general public towards recreational fishing?
An interesting approach is to look at some individual fisheries that largely depend on C&R, and try to learn more about them. There are some regions (e.g. Alaska’s Bristol Bay) or species (e.g. rainbow trout [Oncorhynchus mykiss] in Bristol Bay (see Chapter 13), bonefish [Albula vulpes] in many subtropical waters and grey mullet [Chelon labrosus, Liza ramada, and Liza auratus] in the United Kingdom [National Mullet Club of the United Kingdom 2006]) that are characterized almost exclusively by C&R angling. For those subsets of C&R angling, it is feasible to estimate C&R expenditures, providing an indication of the economic impacts of C&R and perhaps the importance of C&R to anglers. A few examples follow. The net economic value (consumer surplus) attached to 1 day of total C&R fishing in the Yellowstone National Park (USA) was estimated between US$172 (€130) and $977 (€733), translating into a total economic value of up to $385 (€289) million
GCRF_11.indd 204
10/3/2007 10:29:37 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
205
per year for angling in the park (Kerkvliet et al. 2002). In a different study in Pennsylvania, per-day expenditure and net economic value per trip were found to be higher for C&R trout fishing with tackle restrictions (fly-fishing only) than for various other outdoor recreational opportunities such as wildlife viewing and C&R fishing without tackle restrictions (Shafer et al. 1993). Hickley (no date) reported that so-called coarse anglers (i.e. those fishing for fish other than salmon and trout) in England and Wales spent about £2.2 billion in 1995, or about €3 billion. Hickley further points out that almost all coarse fish are returned to the water after capture, that is, coarse angling is traditionally almost 100% C&R. For marine species, the National Mullet Club of the United Kingdom (2006) estimates that angling for grey mullet, which is largely but not entirely C&R, generates £4.5 million of direct expenditures per year (about €6 million). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2000) reported that the economic value of fishing for bonefish in Florida – almost entirely C&R – is ‘several million dollars’ per year. In addition to bonefishing, fishing for tarpon (Megalops atlanticus) and redfish (red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus) also are largely C&R, both in Florida and in other part of the south-eastern US, where they occur, and have similar economic value to bonefishing, if not greater. Bohnsack et al. (2002) analysed angling expenditures on bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) off Cape Hatteras, USA, and concluded that anglers who released all their fish spent slightly more on their trips and per day of fishing than anglers whose boats kept at least one legal-sized fish. Focused studies like these and others can provide considerable insights into angler motivations and the economic impacts of C&R fishing, both voluntary and that enforced by stringent regulations. Indeed, studying fisheries with stringent regulations that fall short of total C&R also can yield insights about C&R.
Surveys should address C&R angling specifically An important possibility of obtaining more reliable and accurate estimates of the social and economic benefits and other attributes of C&R appears to lie in modifying the many surveys of recreational angling that are performed periodically in many nations around the world. Arlinghaus and Mehner (2004) provided advice on measuring the use value of recreational fishing in surveys in general. The National Research Council (NRC) recommended ways to improve the US National Marine Fisheries Service’s Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, including the gathering of better socio-economic data (NRC 2006) (see also Gentner and Lowther 2002). Many other national or even multinational surveys are conducted; they include England and Wales (Lyons et al. 2002; Drew Associates 2004), Australia’s National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey (Lyle et al. 2002), economic surveys of Alaska sport fishing (Duffield et al. 2002), marine recreational fishing in South Africa (Griffiths and Lamberth 2002), sport fishing in Germany (Steffens and Winkel 2002; Arlinghaus 2004) and economic impact of
GCRF_11.indd 205
10/3/2007 10:29:37 AM
206
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
recreational fisheries (i.e. amount of money generated by anglers and associated businesses) in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) (Toivonen 2002). Aas (2002) provided recommendations on understanding fishing across cultural and national boundaries, including improving scholarly communication across those boundaries. There is enormous potential for improved collection of data and synthesis relative to all aspects of recreational fishing, including C&R, if those surveys are used productively, collaboratively and synthetically. The questions about C&R listed above depend in large part for their answers on the kind of precise and accurate information that welldesigned surveys can provide; those answers are not only of academic interest, but also are important to managers, decision makers and others.
Tournaments and angling tourism Tournament angling has moved towards C&R in recent decades, and is itself a major economic activity in several countries, sometimes with prizes ranging into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, with television shows and sponsorships of manufacturers of boats, motors, fishing tackle, electronics and so on. In some sense, its economic value must be included in estimates of the economic value of C&R, but in other ways tournament fishing is very different. Angling tourism in many areas also is related strongly to C&R, because C&R allows the protection of high-quality angling while also allowing a large number of people to participate (see the section on angling tourism for details). Thus, angling tourism and C&R are intertwined in important ways. There is room for overlapping and coordinated research across these sub-disciplines of recreational angling research, and such research is needed for a proper understanding of recreational fishing.
Ethical issues Perhaps the most difficult issue surrounding C&R is ethics. In recent years, questions about C&R have focused largely on the ethics of the activity, as summarized in this section by Arlinghaus and discussed and reviewed previously by several authors (e.g. Aas et al. 2002; Policansky 2002; Olsen 2003; Arlinghaus et al. 2007a). Indeed, concern about the cruelty to fish of angling is hundreds of years old (Schullery 2006); Lord Byron wrote in Don Juan (1819): And angling, too, that solitary vice, Whatever Izaak Walton sings or says: The quaint, old, cruel coxcomb, in his gullet Should have a hook, and a small trout to pull it.
GCRF_11.indd 206
10/3/2007 10:29:37 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
207
Angling is also regarded by many people as cruel or unethical because the fish are not used for food, but instead are ‘played with’ (e.g. this view is taken by many Alaskan natives, Lyman 2002; Wolfe 2006) or tortured for anglers’ enjoyment. Other ethical arguments concerning C&R fishing are described by Arlinghaus in his section in this chapter, and Olsen (2003) analyses philosophically the question of whether angling is ethically permissible, an analysis that applies especially to C&R. Others argue that releasing is more ethical than not, given an in-depth understanding and recognition of why they fish and what experiences they are seeking. After all, even though some released fish die, most do not, while all retained fish do die. Many people – including me – hold the view that if fish could vocalize pain (i.e. scream), sport fishing would disappear in short order (see Schullery 2006). But they cannot scream, and some anglers conclude that fish cannot feel pain (Arlinghaus et al. 2007a). Fishing is not a simple activity, and neither does it have simple consequences (Hersey 1987). However, Arlinghaus’s section in this chapter does recommend methods for improving the welfare status of caught and released fish, or in other words, doing them as little harm as possible consistent with angling. Such recommendations are entirely appropriate for scientists to make, and following them should make anglers’ wrestling with the ethical issues that much easier.
Conclusion In many respects, the growth of C&R has changed the face of angling and the management of recreational fisheries. In a few cases, it has complicated matters, as, for example, in Germany, where voluntary C&R is prohibited (Arlinghaus et al. 2007a), and in Alaska, where it is not consistent with the cultural mores of many Alaskan natives (Lyman this volume). But in general, C&R has allowed the continued exploitation of natural fish populations without their becoming depleted, and that is the main reason it has grown. Like many other aspects of fishery management, the science of C&R has not kept up with its practical applications, and so there has been some trial and error. But scientific investigations are helping C&R to reach its potential as a management tool, and thoughtful considerations of ethical issues related to angling in general and C&R in particular are providing insight for anglers, managers and the public. This chapter provides illuminating examples of such scientific and ethical investigations. One lesson they illustrate is that the kind of fishing gear used is important. Lukacovic and Uphoff demonstrate clearly that circle hooks reduce hooking mortality in a bait-fishery for striped bass (Morone saxatilis); Schratwieser shows that they do as well for three species of billfish. However, those studies show the importance of learning the details, because while circle hooks decrease hooking efficiency in the striped-bass fishery, they increase hooking efficiency in the billfish fishery.
GCRF_11.indd 207
10/3/2007 10:29:37 AM
208
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
The contributions by Lukacovic and Uphoff (Section 11.2) and by Thorstad et al. (Section 11.4) also illustrate the importance of environmental conditions; both studies report that higher temperatures increase hooking mortality. Once again, the details are important: in the striped-bass fishery, air temperature seems to be more important than water temperature, but water temperature seems to be important for salmon. Finally, all three studies make clear that angling technique also is an important factor in hooking mortality. Many anglers have suspected that, but these studies also make clear what aspects of angling technique are important. Arlinghaus’s contribution on ethics and fish welfare provides concrete and helpful ways for anglers and others to think about these complex issues while not telling them what they should think about them. There is helpful advice on how anglers can be more mindful and protective of the welfare of the fish they C&R. The hope, of course, is that continuing advances in understanding recreational fishing in general and C&R in particular will lead to more practices that are effective in benefiting natural resources and allowing people to benefit from those natural resources as well. The advances described in this chapter move us towards that goal. They also point to the need for future research. As an example, they show that comparing a variety of environmental factors associated with hooking mortality can lead to insights. Thus, we hope that this chapter will not only provide insights but also a stimulus for others to provide new insights through new research.
11.2
Factors affecting C&R mortality of striped bass caught on natural bait in Chesapeake Bay
Rudolph Lukacovic and James H. Uphoff Jr. Striped bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum), are an important recreational and commercial species along the US Atlantic coast, and primary catch has been from Chesapeake Bay (Boreman and Austin 1985; Field 1997). Striped bass were introduced to the Pacific coast of the United States in 1879 and fisheries developed before 1900 (Stevens et al. 1985); they are important recreational species there as well. They also have been introduced into freshwater impoundments throughout the United States (Axon and Whitehurst 1985). A substantial recreational C&R fishery for striped bass has arisen along the Atlantic coast, reflecting their popularity, high population size and the growing popularity of C&R (Diodati and Richards 1996; Matlock 2002). In addition, strict size and creel limits also encourage C&R. Releases accounted for 85% of Atlantic Coast striped-bass recreational catch during 2003. Releases comprised a similar proportion in Maryland’s portion of Chesapeake Bay and accounted for about 31% of the Atlantic total. Recreational regulation of striped bass in Maryland became progressively more restrictive during the 1980s and 1990s to support recovery of the Chesapeake
GCRF_11.indd 208
10/3/2007 10:29:38 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
209
Bay stock after a substantial decline (Field 1997; Tarnowski 1999; Richards and Rago 1999). Management of Chesapeake Bay striped bass is complicated by migration; large, mature ‘trophy’ fish are mainly available during spawning season (April–June) and most recreational fishing is for smaller resident fish (Richards and Rago 1999). After a period of strict size limits, Maryland imposed a moratorium on all harvest from 1985 to 1990 in response to low stock size. Once this moratorium was removed, progressively longer seasons were allowed as stock size grew, but length (457 mm) and creel limits (two fish per angler) were much more restrictive than they had been before the moratorium. Beginning in 1993, a trophy season was allowed. In the late 1990s, Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources began a continuous effort to make anglers aware of fishing techniques, such as chumming, and fishing conditions, such as high temperatures, that seemed to lead to high post-release mortality rates. Education of striped-bass anglers, seasonal prohibitions on fishing when mortality was highest and a quick harvest strategy (creel limit without a length limit) have been proposed to minimize high mortalities of striped bass in freshwater reservoir fisheries (Harrel 1988; Bettoli and Osborne 1998). Catch-and-release fishing for striped bass in Chesapeake Bay occurs under varying environmental conditions – tidal freshwater to 20‰ salinity at water temperatures ranging from about 5°C to more than 30°C. Striped-bass C&R mortality rates are influenced by bait type (artificial or natural) and the temperature in freshwater (Wilde et al. 2000), and hook location, hook type and angler experience in saltwater (Diodati and Richards 1996). The influence of fish size on mortality in freshwater is ambiguous (Wilde et al. 2000) and unexplored in saltwater. Anatomical location of a hook wound is the most important factor in hooking mortality of fish in general, and mortality is high if the wound site includes a vital organ (Muoneke and Childress 1994). Mortality of striped bass was higher in freshwater, possibly reflecting additional osmotic stress (RMC 1990; Diodati and Richards 1996). Water temperature, salinity and fish size were cited as major risk factors when Maryland’s first striped-bass C&R policy was formulated in the early 1990s based on experiments with artificial baits. Natural bait became increasingly popular in Chesapeake Bay, but mortality associated with it had not been described. We conducted experiments during 1996–2000 to describe factors influencing release mortality of striped bass caught on natural bait during the late spring–fall recreational fishery throughout Maryland’s portion of Chesapeake Bay. Our experiments and analyses focused on identifying factors that would aid anglers and managers in choosing behaviours (choice of hook style, fishing technique), seasons and general locations within the bay (salinity regions) that minimized C&R mortality. In addition to standard non-offset J-shaped bait hooks we appraised the potential of non-offset circle hooks to reduce deep-hooking and mortality of released striped bass after recommendations by concerned anglers.
GCRF_11.indd 209
10/3/2007 10:29:38 AM
210
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Methods Nearly 1300 striped bass were used in our experiments during 1996–2000. Striped bass were caught by chumming because it easily provided both deep- and shallow-hooked fish. Charter boats were hired and volunteer anglers (1996–1997, N = 30; 1999, N = 111; 2000, N = 67; 2001, N = 40), representing a cross-section of angling experience, caught striped bass. Hook sizes appropriate for the legal length of striped bass were kept constant on each fishing day but changed as available fish size changed during the season. Only J-hooks were used in 1996 and 1997. J-hooks or similar-sized circle hooks were used on alternate days in experiments during 1999 and 2000. Different areas of the bay were fished to explore the effect of salinity (Table 11.1). Each fish caught was moved to a tank on board a transport vessel after marking general hook location. Striped bass placed in net-pens were observed for 5 days during 1996–1997 and 3 days during 1999–2000. Dead fish and survivors were examined for hook position at removal. During 1996, necropsies were performed on all striped bass that died. After 1996, only deep-hooked dead fish were necropsied. Surface water temperature (°C), air temperature (°C) and salinity (‰) were recorded each fishing day. We calculated annual confidence intervals (95% CI) for mortality and deephooking percentages. Confidence intervals were estimated from the normal distribution approximation of the binomial distribution (proportions converted to percentages; Ott 1977). Logistic regression tested influence of hook location (deep or shallow coded as 1 or 0, respectively), hook type (J-shaped or circle coded as 1 or 0, respectively), total length, maximum air and water temperature, Table 11.1 Estimated coefficients, their standard error (SE), χ2, P and odds ratio of logistic regression analysis of retained factors and mortality or hook location of striped bass caught and released during 1996–2000 estuarine experiments. Variable
Coefficient
SE
χ2
P
Odds ratio
Mortality Total length (mm)
0.00400
0.00104
14.7
0.0001
1.004
Hook location
2.8118
0.2306
148.7
<0.0001
16.640
Air temperature (°C)
0.1076
0.0202
28.4
<0.0001
1.114
0.00699
0.000901
60.2
<0.0001
1.007 3.702
Hook location Total length (mm) Hook type
1.3090
0.2512
27.2
<0.0001
Air temperature (°C)
0.0398
0.0128
9.6
0.0019
1.041
Minimum salinity (‰)
0.0698
0.0223
9.8
0.0018
0.933
Notes: Degrees of freedom were one for each factor. Hook locations in the mortality model were deep (1) or shallow (0). Hook types in the hook location model were standard J-shaped offset (1) or non-offset circle (0).
GCRF_11.indd 210
10/3/2007 10:29:38 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
211
and minimum salinity on mortality and the influence of these same variables (except hook location) on hook location (Proc Logistic; SAS 1995). We selected descriptive statistics for temperature and salinity (maximum and minimum, respectively) that reflected the most stressful daily conditions. Stepwise selection was used to arrive at our final model (SAS 1995; Wright 1998). We specified a relatively large entry criterion (P ≤ 0.20) and retained variables at the default criterion (P ≤ 0.05; SAS 1995). Predicted mortalities generated by the final model were used to classify mortality as low (lowest third), high (greatest third) or moderate (middle third). Seasonal and hook-style trends were determined from this classification scheme for both mortality and hook location analyses. One-half of trials held during 2000 served as a cross-validation data set for the final mortality and hook location models selected by stepwise regression (SAS 1995; Wright 1998). We randomly selected half the trials of both hook styles for our hold-out data set. We constructed a classification table of the hold-out data using the final model and computed the Brier score to summarize the fit (SAS 1995; Wright 1998). Sensitivity (percentage of target group accurately classified), specificity (percentage of non-target group correctly classified), and positive and negative predictive values (percentage classified by model as belonging to the target group that were in the target group and percentage classified by model as belonging to the non-target group that were in the non-target group, respectively) were calculated from the classification table (Wright 1998). During August–October, 2000, and June–July, 2001, we conducted 11 trials (six anglers per trial) to evaluate whether hooking efficiency (fish of any species caught per strike detected) was different for circle and J-hooks.
Results Striped bass ranged from 220 to 930 mm and generally averaged between 315 and 615 mm. Striped bass were larger on average in June and July than in August through October. Deep-hooked striped bass were typically the minority of releases, but accounted for the majority of deaths. All striped bass that died in our experiments did so within 72 h. Post-mortem examinations of dead fish deep-hooked with a J-hook consistently indicated massive internal haemorrhages. Of 104 such fish, 75 (72%) had hooks oriented downwards with damage to the heart or liver. The remainder exhibited profuse internal bleeding without organ damage. A dead fish deep-hooked with a circle hook usually exhibited significant internal hemorrhaging without wounds to organs (9 of 10 examined). We analysed 1129 striped bass in our stepwise logistic regression model of mortality, and reserved 198 for cross-validation. Our analysis of hook location used 1090 and 237 were retained for cross-validation. Independent variables
GCRF_11.indd 211
10/3/2007 10:29:38 AM
212
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
retained as influences on release mortality were fish length, hook location and air temperature; minimum salinity, water temperature and hook type were eliminated (Table 11.1). The levels of significance of variables retained fell at or below 0.001. Percentage of survivals and deaths correctly predicted by the model with retained variables was 89.6%; 10.0% were incorrectly predicted. Maximum rescaled R2 equalled 0.45. Hook location was the greatest influence on release mortality (largest χ2), followed by air temperature and total length. The odds of dying after release were nearly 17 times higher if a striped bass was deep-hooked, 3.5 times greater when air temperature was 40.5°C rather than 10.0°C, and the largest striped bass encountered (930 mm) was about 2.8 times more likely to die than the smallest (220 mm; Table 11.1). Nearly 94% of our hold-out sample was correctly classified for mortality, but the final model predicted all striped bass would live although 6% died. Fish length, hook type, air temperature and minimum salinity were retained as influences on hook location, while maximum water temperature was not (Table 11.1). Levels of significance of variables retained fell at or below 0.0019. Fish length was the greatest influence on hook location, followed by hook style, salinity and air temperature. The largest fish was nearly 5 times more likely to be deep-hooked than the smallest. The odds of being deep-hooked were 3.7 times higher when a J-hook was used instead of a circle hook. Salinity and air temperature had relatively minor effects on the odds of being deep-hooked (Table 11.1). Percentage of hook locations correctly predicted by the model with the retained variables was 78.3% (21.3% were incorrectly predicted). Maximum rescaled R2 equalled 0.25. The final hook location model correctly classified nearly 90.7% of our hold-out sample. Sensitivity to deep-hooking was low (18%), but all shallowhooked striped bass were correctly classified. Low mortality (lowest third of predictions) fell below 3.7%, while high mortality (upper third) occurred above 12.3%. Median predicted release mortality was 2.8% for the low category, 6.2% for moderate, and 26.7% for the high. High mortality was predicted most often during June–July (10 of 17 experiments). Predicted mortality during August–October was almost always moderate to low (14 of 15 experiments). Low to moderate predicted mortalities were evenly distributed between circle hooks and J-hooks (11 and 10 experiments, respectively). J-hooks predominated in high-mortality predictions (9 of 11 experiments). Maximum mortality was predicted to have been about 17% with circle hooks and nearly 47% with J-hooks. The lowest third of predicted deep-hooking percentages fell between 2.3% and 10.3% (median = 5.2%), while the upper third were between 21.3% and 56.0% (median = 30.9%). Median predicted deep-hooking percentage for the moderate category was 13.4%. High deep-hooking percentages predominated in June (5 of 9 June experiments). Deep-hooking was evenly spread from low to high during July, while these percentages were typically moderate to low during August– October (13 of 15 experiments). Low deep-hooking percentages were often
GCRF_11.indd 212
10/3/2007 10:29:38 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
213
predicted for circle hooks (9 of 11 experiments). All ten experiments predicting high deep-hooking featured J-hooks. Maximum predicted deep-hooking percentage was about 17% with circle hooks and nearly 56% with J-hooks. Numbers of strikes were similar between the hook types in 11 hooking efficiency trials – 766 with circle hooks and 714 with J-shaped hooks. Anglers using circle hooks landed 27.4% (SD = 1.6) of fish that struck while anglers using Jshaped hooks landed a significantly higher percentage, 41.4% (SD = 1.8).
Discussion Hook location, fish length and air temperature significantly influenced striped bass C&R mortality in estuarine waters of upper Chesapeake Bay. Hook type, air temperature, salinity and fish length were significant influences on hook location but only hook type and air temperature exerted major influences. Efficiency of circle hooks was significantly lower than J-hooks. Specification or recommendations of hook types, reduced minimum sizes and seasons that minimized C&R when air temperatures were high (June–July) present viable options for managing C&R mortality in estuarine waters of Chesapeake Bay. While our experiments were conducted by chumming with natural baits, we believe that inferences can be made about expected mortality from other fishing techniques by comparing deep-hooking rates. Air temperature was an important influence on mortality, but we did not detect an influence of water temperature. Thompson et al. (2002) implicated air exposure in high mortalities observed in Chesapeake Bay C&R experiments and it was the most important factor related to mortality in Tims Ford Reservoir (Bettoli and Osborne 1998). A posteriori examination of our study results indicated that high mortality occurred often in our experiments when air temperature exceeded water temperature by at least 6°C (7 of 11 trials with high mortality). When mortality was classified as low, this temperature difference never exceeded +6°C and air colder than water was common (8 of 10 low mortality trials). Moderate mortality was associated with few trials with a difference of +6°C or more (1/10) and few negative differences (2/10), but most moderate mortality trials had differences within ranges associated with high or low mortality. Mortality under the salinity range we observed (1.6–17.8‰) was similar to that described for seawater (Diodati and Richards 1996). Mortality of caught and released striped bass was higher in freshwater than brackish or marine experiments (RMC 1990; Diodati and Richards 1996; Wilde et al. 2000). Lethal stress associated with C&R in warm freshwater was mitigated by salinity (>1.5‰) in our estuarine experiments. The final logistic regression model for mortality was successful in identifying factors that could be controlled by management, but was insensitive at predicting which striped bass would die in hold-out samples. Our inability to predict
GCRF_11.indd 213
10/3/2007 10:29:38 AM
214
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
which fish would die likely reflected ignorance of whether a major organ was punctured. Prediction of which fish would be deeply hooked was even poorer and successful prediction may have required detailed information on physiological state and behaviour. Testing may have been complicated by an unanticipated trend of decreasing fish length. Striped bass in the hold-out sample (2000 data) were on average smaller than striped bass in previous years’ experiments and did not represent the full size range observed. High recreational release rates are a dominant feature of striped bass angling along the Atlantic coast. Extensive analyses now exist that describe factors influencing striped bass C&R mortality in freshwater (Wilde et al. 2000), estuaries (this study) and marine waters (Diodati and Richards 1996) and model that incorporates the full range of influences could be a useful refinement. Further, this indicates the importance of species- and gear-specific studies. Schratwieser reports in the following section that circle hooks are more efficient at hooking billfish on both natural and artificial bait than J-hooks, and they also reduce post-release mortality.
11.3
Potential effects of circle hooks on the US recreational Atlantic billfish fishery
Jason Schratwieser The billfish family (Istiophoridae) contains nine species that are found worldwide in tropical and warm temperate waters. Members of the family include marlin, sailfish and spearfish; the broadbill swordfish, Xiphias gladius, belongs to a different family (Xiphiidae). Billfish are targeted globally by a growing number of recreational anglers, and are esteemed as premier game fish because of their large size, physical prowess and elusiveness. Ecologically, they are apex predators in marine ecosystems and are thus rarer than fishes occupying lower trophic levels. Anglers have been targeting billfish since at least the late 1800s, but it was not until the advent of better fishing tackle and boats that they were able to catch larger specimens (Rivken 2005). The first marlin of over 1000 lb (454 kg) was caught off Tahiti in 1930 by famed author and ardent angler Zane Grey (Rivken 2005). Since then, the number of anglers pursuing billfish has grown so much that recreational fishing for billfish now yields significant economic impacts in certain areas of the world. For example, the total annual aggregate impact of the recreational billfish industry in the United States is estimated between US$22.69 million and US$37.82 million, while estimates in Mexico are between $203.95 million and $339.91 million (Ditton and Stoll 2003). Indeed, the recreational value of billfish in some areas may exceed that of the commercial industry. A recent study in New South Wales, Australia reported that the value of recreationally caught striped marlin at over AU$46/kg versus a commercial value of $6/kg (Ernst and Young 2004).
GCRF_11.indd 214
10/3/2007 10:29:39 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
215
The high economic and recreational value of billfish has led increasingly to C&R fishing. But because they are a highly migratory, rare-event species, relatively little is known about post-release survival rates or factors that affect them. Virtually all C&R research on billfish has focused on hook-related injury and comparisons between circle hooks and J-hooks. This case study reviews that literature and provides inferences on the potential effects of circle hooks on the US Atlantic recreational billfish fishery. Billfish in the US’ Atlantic exclusive economic zone (blue marlin, Makaira nigricans; white marlin, Tetrapturus albidus; and sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus) are jointly regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The NMFS is responsible for managing fish stocks in US federal waters, while the ICCAT is an international organization responsible for the conservation and management of highly migratory species (HMS) in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. Recent stock assessments from the ICCAT indicate that billfish stocks are in poor shape. Sailfish are nearly fully exploited in the western Atlantic and possibly overexploited in the eastern Atlantic (ICCAT 2003). Blue marlin have been experiencing overfishing for over a decade and their biomass (BMSY) is estimated at 40% of that at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (ICCAT 2005a). White marlin are by far the most depleted; the 2002 stock assessment indicated that their biomass has been below BMSY for more than two decades (ICCAT 2005b). The two primary sources of mortality for US Atlantic billfish are the commercial pelagic long-line fishery and the directed recreational fishery (NMFS 2006b). The retention or sale of commercially caught billfish by the commercial fleet has been banned since 1988. Therefore, billfish mortality from the long-line fishery is in the form of dead discards. The NMFS (2006b) reports that aggregate commercial discards of blue marlin, white marlin and sailfish have declined between 1999 and 2004 from 210 metric tons (mt) to 68 mt. During this period, mortality associated with commercial discards for blue and white marlin exceeded that for actual recreational landings, while mortality from recreational landings substantially exceeded commercial discards in sailfish. Although the directed recreational fishery is primarily C&R, obtaining reliable landing and release data is much more difficult than for the commercial fishery. Current NMFS regulations require vessel owners to buy an Atlantic HMS angling category permit, and permit holders are required to report any billfish landed; however, compliance with these regulations appears to be limited. Additional catch data come from three separate but overlapping survey instruments, each of which has its own set of limitations (NRC 2006; NMFS 2006b). Overall release rates for recreationally caught billfish range between 74% and 99% (Fisher and Ditton 1992). Ditton and Stoll (2003) summarize predictors for decision to release billfish. However, for some time, both anglers and scientists have known that some of these fish die after release. The degree to which this affects billfish stocks has been difficult to ascertain because only a few studies
GCRF_11.indd 215
10/3/2007 10:29:39 AM
216
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
address species-specific post-release mortality. The large size of billfishes, their relative rarity, and their long-distance travels make it difficult to obtain reliable estimates of post-release mortality. In addition, for each species, angler behaviour, tactics and gear vary, which can affect post-release survival. Mortality associated with hook wounds, especially those deeper than the pharynx, appear to be a primary source of post-release mortality. Prince et al. (2002) compared the performance of circle hooks and J-hooks in terms of hook location and catching efficiency on Atlantic and Pacific sailfish, and reported that significantly more sailfish were hooked in the corner of the jaw using circle hooks (85%) than when using J-hooks (27%). Conversely, J-hooks hooked significantly more fish in the throat or stomach (46%) than did circle hooks (2%). The occurrence of bleeding was also significantly different between hooks, with sailfish caught on J-hooks 21 times more likely to suffer hook-related bleeding than with circle hooks. This was one of the first studies to quantify differences in hook location between circle and J-hooks in billfish. While the scope of the study did not allow for estimates of post-release mortality per se, the prevalence of circle hooks lodging in the fish’s jaw and the lack of associated bleeding provided good inference that circle hooks provide better post-release survival than J-hooks. The study also documented that circle hooks with offset points (i.e. lateral deviation from the hook shank) behaved more like J-hooks and experienced a higher proportion of undesirable hook locations. In addition, this study conclusively documented that circle hooks had hooking percentages (i.e. fish hooked/fish bite) 1.83 times higher than J-hooks. These results are especially significant because many anglers are sceptical about circle hook performance and rely on anecdotal information that they are ineffective at hooking billfish. (As a comparison that indicates the importance of species- and gear-specific studies, Lukacovic and Uphoff report in this section that circle hooks are less efficient at hooking striped bass [Morone saxatilis] on natural bait in Chesapeake Bay than J-hooks, although they also reduce post-release mortality.) As previously mentioned, variation in angling techniques, in addition to hook type, can also influence hooking location. Most fishing with artificial lures entails trolling at relatively high speeds, which somewhat reduces the chances of billfish deeply ingesting the lure and generally results in a higher percentage of fish being hooked in the mouth or jaw. In contrast, fishing with live or dead natural bait usually is accomplished by drifting or slow trolling; the combination of slow speed and natural bait means that billfish can readily consume and ingest baited hooks. In addition, many billfish are hooked deep in the throat or the stomach because anglers employ a technique called a ‘drop back’ when using natural bait. Billfish are ram feeders and often hold large prey/bait partially in their mouths in order to subdue it and position it for swallowing. Because of this, anglers will often ‘drop back’ bait by removing tension from the line by allowing it to come
GCRF_11.indd 216
10/3/2007 10:29:39 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
217
off the reel spool, which in turn allows the fish to consume the bait without detecting tension from the line or hook. Prince et al. (2007) quantified the effect of drop back on the Atlantic sailfish live-bait fishery. Again, their study evaluated hooking performance of J-hooks and circle hooks, but this time drop back (i.e. the amount of time elapsed before engaging the hook) also was introduced as an independent variable. Circle hooks had remarkably consistent catch percentages over the entire range of drop-back intervals tested (0–5, 6–10, 11–15 and >15 s), with the majority of fish (90–94%) hooked in the upper, lower or corner of the jaw. J-hooks also had consistent catch percentages over the first three drop-back categories with only a modest increase in catch percentage with exceedingly long drop backs of >15 s. However, unlike circle hooks, J-hooks experienced a decrease in the percentage of fish hooked in the jaw (43–73%) as drop back increased. Many anglers believe that long drop backs are necessary for high catch performance when fishing for billfish. However, these results demonstrate that long drop backs for both J-hooks and circle hooks are unnecessary, and result in more deep-hooked fish if J-hooks are used. While Prince et al. (2002, 2007) provide conclusive evidence that circle hooks consistently produce less hook-induced trauma than J-hooks, the true difference in post-release survival rates for sailfish caught on circle versus J-hooks is still unknown. Obtaining reliable estimates of post-release survival in billfish has been very difficult because of technological challenges. Conventional tagging studies suffer from low numbers of recaptured fish and tag shedding (Jones and Prince 1998), and acoustic tracking is prone to severe limitations and biases (Graves et al. 2002). Recent advances in pop-up satellite archival tag (PSAT) technology have provided a better tool to monitor the behaviour and post-release survival of billfish. Horodysky and Graves (2005) used PSAT technology to compare post-release mortality of white marlin caught on J-hooks (n = 21) to circle hooks (n = 20). All fish caught on circle hooks were hooked in the corner of the mouth, and only one bled visibly. Only 10 fish caught with J-hooks were caught in the corner of the mouth, with the remainder being deeply hooked with the hook not visible, and nine fish bled visibly. Post-release mortality rates were significantly different, with seven fish caught on J-hooks dying compared to none caught with circle hooks. Results from studies comparing circle hooks and J-hooks using hook location as a proxy for post-release survival (Prince et al. 2002, 2007), as well as studies that have obtained direct estimates of post-release survival for circle and J-hooks (Horodysky and Graves 2005), indicate that circle hooks improve survival of hooked billfish. Indeed, a review of circle-hook literature (Cooke and Suski 2004) concluded that circle hooks reduce hook-induced mortality by approximately 50% over a variety of fresh and saltwater species. However, how do the perceived benefits of circle hooks translate into actual numbers of billfish?
GCRF_11.indd 217
10/3/2007 10:29:39 AM
218
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
There currently are no reliable estimates of sailfish post-release mortality for either circle or J-hooks. However, considering that circle hooks lead to a much lower incidence of gut-hooking (Prince et al. 2002, 2007) and that recreational landings alone (i.e. not including mortality of released fish) average three times higher than commercial discards (NMFS 2006b), it is logical that the increased use of circle hooks could benefit the recreational fishery. In addition, no studies have specifically compared circle and J-hook performance, in terms of hook location, in this species. Using a 11% post-release mortality rate associated with J-hooks (sensu Graves et al. 2002) and assuming that all anglers use J-hooks, the NMFS (2006b) reported that the annual number of blue marlin post-release mortalities ranged between 133 and 495 between 1999 and 2004. Thus, at this time the direct benefit of circle hooks to blue marlin at the population level is unknown. White marlin provide perhaps the best example of how using circle hooks directly affects fish at the population level. Using a 35% post-release mortality estimate (sensu Horodysky and Graves 2005) and assuming all anglers use J-hooks, the NMFS (2006b) estimated between 461 and 1973 white marlin postrelease mortalities per year between 1999 and 2004. Adding post-release mortalities to the number of white marlin landed by recreational anglers revealed that the total annual recreational harvest may be approaching annual discards from the long-line fishery. However, applying a modified estimate for circle hooks from Horodysky and Graves (2005) yielded a 65% reduction in the estimate of white marlin post-release mortalities. Thus, a fishery using only circle hooks could reduce post-release mortalities to between 158 and 676 white marlin annually. Taken collectively, research on most species of Atlantic billfish indicates that circle hooks provide conservation benefits at the individual, and potentially the population, level. Recently, the NMFS Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan implemented the mandatory use of nonoffset circle hooks with natural baits or natural bait/artificial lure combinations for individuals participating in Atlantic billfish tournaments. This regulation will become effective 1 January 2007 and is primarily intended to address the depleted white marlin stock. It is uncertain whether the mandatory use of circle hooks will expand to the entire recreational billfish fishery, or to other fisheries for that matter. What is clear is that to determine their benefits at the population level, additional research is needed on billfish to determine species-specific post-release mortality rates when using J-hooks and circle hooks. In addition, these studies should also investigate how other factors (e.g. angler behaviour, tactics and other gear) influence circle hook performance. Finally, these studies should also attempt to compare the hooking and catching efficiencies of circle and J-hooks, as anglers are unlikely to voluntarily adopt circle hooks if they do not provide comparable catch rates to J-hooks.
GCRF_11.indd 218
10/3/2007 10:29:39 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
219
11.4 The Atlantic salmon C&R story Eva B. Thorstad, Tor F. Næsje, Guy W. Mawle and David Policansky Members of the salmon family, mainly salmon, trout and char, have been important recreational species for centuries. Since the middle of the twentieth century there has been increasing, although not uniform, acceptance of catch-and-release (C&R) fishing for them, most notably for brown (Salmo trutta) and rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) trout, the latter discussed elsewhere in this volume. For Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), which have a long history of being killed when caught, this acceptance has tended to come later. The extent and people’s acceptance of C&R angling for Atlantic salmon vary among countries within the species’ distribution range. C&R angling for Atlantic salmon has the longest history in North America, being advocated as early as the 1880s (Wydoski 1977). A hundred years later, in 1981, the first C&R only fisheries were introduced in some Canadian rivers (Tufts et al. 2000). In eastern Canada, anglers have been required by law to release all Atlantic salmon ≥63 cm since 1984, and are actively encouraged to voluntarily release smaller salmon so as to maintain recreational angling in declining populations. However, within Canada, C&R as a management tool has not been widely accepted in Newfoundland (see Dempson et al. 2002). Interestingly, although the US state of Maine has prohibited all angling for salmon since 2000 for reasons well described by the NRC (2004), it allowed a limited C&R fall season in the Penobscot River for 2006. A recent press release from the Atlantic Salmon Federation (ASF 2006) explains that ‘ASF supports a limited, carefully controlled, C&R fishery for the Penobscot that uses single, barbless hooks. Such a fishery will rekindle the conservation spirit, and support local salmon clubs and other affiliates of ASF’s Maine Council in their work towards clean, free-flowing rivers and healthy fish populations.’ Until the 1990s, few anglers in the United Kingdom released salmon other than kelts or fish close to spawning. Since then C&R has become widely practised and promoted. In recent years, over half the recorded rod catch has been released (Environment Agency 2004; Fisheries Research Services 2004). While most fish are released voluntarily, it has been compulsory since 1999 to release salmon caught before 16 June in England and Wales because of depleted runs of spring salmon. In Norway, there is a traditional culture of fishing and hunting and killing fish for consumption. C&R angling until very recently was not accepted as a management tool to protect declining populations, but in December 2006 a parliamentary report on salmon management indicated a change towards regarding C&R as an important and acceptable tool for salmon management (Norway Ministry of Environment 2006). Even before that, regulatory policy was
GCRF_11.indd 219
10/3/2007 10:29:39 AM
220
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
to close fishing when stocks were below conservation levels, and anglers are required by law to release multi-sea-winter salmon in some of the rivers (for instance when runs of anadromous brown trout are healthy), and the extent of voluntary C&R seems to be increasing in some areas. For example, in the River Alta, which is visited by many foreign anglers, approximately 35% of the captured multi-sea-winter salmon and 15% of the grilse are now being released (Ugedal et al. 2005). In Northwest Russia, recreational fisheries in the Murmansk Province began developing in 1989, with foreign anglers releasing most of their catch. In the Russian River Varzuga, which has one of the largest Atlantic salmon populations in the world, less than 3% of the spawning stock is annually captured by anglers (Ziuganov et al. 1998). The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea receives C&R reports from six countries (Denmark, Canada, Iceland, Russia, UK and USA) (ICES 2006). The proportion of the total catch being released has increased the last decade, and varied between 17% in Iceland and 87% in Russia in 2005. Altogether, 128,000 Atlantic salmon were released in these six countries in 2005, according to these reports.
Effects of C&R Despite the cultural and economic importance of Atlantic salmon angling, effects of C&R have received modest focus in reviews (Muoneke and Childress 1994; Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005). However, currently at least 25 publications cover effects of C&R angling in Atlantic salmon from studies in North America, United Kingdom, Norway, Finland and Russia (based on Ziuganov et al. 1998; Tufts et al. 2000; Dempson et al. 2002; Thorstad et al. 2003; Thorstad et al. 2007). Most of these studies were published after 1994, and most of them were conducted in North America (17 of 25 publications). A summary of the reported results is presented here.
Mortality The C&R mortality in studies of Atlantic salmon has been highly variable, ranging from 0 to 80% (summarized in Dempson et al. 2002; Thorstad et al. 2003). Generally, mortality rates are low (2–8%) when water temperatures are below 18°C (Webb 1998; Whoriskey et al. 2000; Dempson et al. 2002; Thorstad et al. 2003, 2007). From 17°C to 18°C, mortalities start to increase, and are predicted to increase to above 20% from 20°C (Dempson et al. 2002; Thorstad et al. 2003). Wilkie et al. (1996) reported hooking mortalities of 40% at 22°C and 0% at 6°C. However, additional well-designed mortality studies at the higher water temperatures are needed.
GCRF_11.indd 220
10/3/2007 10:29:40 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
221
A few variables other than temperature have been found to affect mortality, even though studies have included variables such as fish size, duration of angling event, handling time, air exposure, bleeding at hook wound and different stages of the return migration (Dempson et al. 2002; Thorstad et al. 2003, 2007). However, a higher mortality was recorded for bright salmon that had recently entered freshwater from the ocean, compared with kelts returning to the ocean after a prolonged period of starvation (Brobbel et al. 1996). Further, high mortalities (73%) were recorded for landlocked Atlantic salmon allowed to swallow worm baits, and worm and fly-hooked salmon generally suffered higher mortality than those caught with hardware lures (Warner 1976, 1979).
Sub-lethal effects For C&R to be successful as a management tool, fish should not only survive C&R, but severe sub-lethal effects should also be avoided to maintain reproductive fitness and production as well as for ethical reasons. Several studies have examined the effects of different variables on the physiological disturbance in Atlantic salmon after C&R (summarized by Tufts et al. 2000). Increased water temperature, air exposure and softness of water, and moderately acidic water, increase the degree of physiological disturbance (Tufts et al. 2000). Further, bright salmon seem to experience larger physiological disturbance than kelts (Tufts et al. 2000). Similarly, grilse seem to suffer more physiological disturbance than multi-sea-winter salmon, even though the duration of angling is shorter than for multi-sea-winter salmon (Booth et al. 1995; Tufts et al. 2000; Thorstad et al. 2003). Hooking in the throat, bleeding at the hook wound, air exposure and increased handling time have also been shown to decrease condition at release, based on appearance of the fish and time gills had to be ventilated before the fish swam off (Thorstad et al. 2003).
Migration patterns Catch-and-release angling is also shown to alter the upriver migration pattern of Atlantic salmon, with unusual delays, downstream movements and erratic movement patterns observed (Webb 1998; Mäkinen et al. 2000; Thorstad et al. 2003, 2007), and may even reduce the migration distance (Tufts et al. 2000). The importance of delays in the upstream migration and erratic movement patterns as a result of C&R is not known, as long as the salmon arrive on the spawning grounds before the spawning season. The distribution of salmon populations within rivers might be affected by alterations in migration behaviour, which is potentially negative for the total production of salmon.
GCRF_11.indd 221
10/3/2007 10:29:40 AM
222
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Population effects Documentation of the correspondence between physiological and behavioural effects and the effects on reproductive fitness and production is lacking in most studies. The few studies so far do not indicate any negative effects by C&R angling on gamete viability, survival of eggs, survival to hatching or first feeding for the fry (Davidson et al. 1994; Booth et al. 1995). Positive population effects of C&R angling are indicated in the River Alta, where the number of spawning redds more than doubled after introduction of compulsory C&R in a section of the river that had reduced population and recruitment after being affected by a hydropower dam (Thorstad et al. 2003). Also in the River Ponoi in Russia, densities of Atlantic salmon juveniles increased after the introduction of C&R angling (Whoriskey et al. 2000).
Recapture of released fish Are the same individuals being captured many times in the C&R fishery? Individual Atlantic salmon seems rarely to be recaptured more than once within the same season (Webb 1998; Whoriskey et al. 2000; Thorstad et al. 2003). Webb (1998) noted that exploitation rates in the Aberdeenshire Dee (approximately 5%) were similar to recapture rates of previously captured Atlantic salmon (8%), implying no avoidance of recapture. In contrast, recapture rates of Atlantic salmon in the River Alta were only 4%, compared with exploitation rates of 50–70%, implying either avoidance of recapture or fish being more prone to being captured during the early upstream migration phase compared with later in the season (Thorstad et al. 2003).
Conclusion Atlantic salmon is one of the better-studied species regarding the effects of C&R angling. Enough information exists to conclude that C&R angling might be a successful management strategy to protect declining populations. Still, additional information would be useful on mortality rates at the higher temperatures, and generally on how it affects reproduction and production. Further, more information on how different environmental factors and angling and handling practices affect survival and reproduction will positively add to the formulating of guidelines for C&R angling to minimize negative effects. There is also a great potential in educating anglers in optimal handling of the fish (Thorstad et al. 2003), and information programmes directed towards anglers, anglers’ organizations and stakeholders are needed.
GCRF_11.indd 222
10/3/2007 10:29:40 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
223
11.5 The challenge of ethical angling: the case of C&R and its relation to fish welfare Robert Arlinghaus Catch-and-release, particularly total C&R, attracts ethical controversy (de Leeuw 1996; Balon 2000; Aas et al. 2002; Policansky 2002; Arlinghaus et al. 2007a) as a practice that unavoidably tests the boundaries between culture and nature, human and non-human, agriculture-dominated urban lifestyles and small-scale rural subsistence lifestyles, essential human needs and recreation, and between compassion and exploitation. At least in central Europe, and probably also elsewhere, anglers should expect an increasing resistance against their pastime, mainly because the whole attitude about human’s interaction with animals is changing slowly but steadily (Manfredo et al. 2003). What is changing in the first place is moral intuitions, and anglers should not be naïve and try to by-pass them (Kunzmann 2004). They challenge us to wonder how humans might forge a better sense of community with animals (fish) and the natural environment in an increasingly industrialized and commercialized world (King 2005). There are three major ethical challenges to C&R. The first comes from the animal liberation and animal rights movement and concerns harming individual sentient beings (Box 11.1). Animal liberation philosophers such as Singer (1990) argue that pain and suffering are moral facts that can not be ignored. If a human practice inflicts pain and suffering on an animal, then the burden of proving that the practice is justifiable must be borne by those who perform it. Regan (1983) argues that practices such as fishing and hunting violate the animals’ inherent value, by treating them as a resource rather than as living, conscious beings. Animal rights and animal liberation philosophers do not believe that pleasure felt by humans is sufficient justification for the pain inflicted on animals or the tanking of an animal’s life (Arlinghaus et al. 2007a). Consequently, any form of C&R would be incompatible with this perspective (Arlinghaus et al. 2007a). Resolving this issue lies outside the research domain as the conflict is associated with radically contrasting world views and value systems held by C&R supporters and those that dislike any form of interaction with animals including fish. The second challenge is more holistic: the moral problem with recreational fishing per se is not harm done directly to the individual animal in the C&R practice, but rather the potential harm done either to the exploited species or to the broader biotic community. Here, is the health of the species, or of the ecosystem, the morally relevant criterion for evaluating angling practices (Rolston 1991)? Thus, recreational angling might be problematic because it interferes with natural processes if exploitation rates and associated mortality levels are high (Cooke and Cowx 2006; Lewin et al. 2006). In this situation, C&R offers a viable option to conserve natural processes and the integrity of exploited species
GCRF_11.indd 223
10/3/2007 10:29:40 AM
Box 11.1
z
z
z
GCRF_11.indd 224
Summary of animal welfare, animal liberation and animal rights philosophies, and their implications for the acceptance of human use of fish.
Broadly speaking, animal welfare is the notion that humans have a moral duty to care for animals and to look critically at how they are used and treated (Dawkins 2006). However, the obligations that animal welfare entails do not originate in a right of the animal (Table 11.2). This is because animals cannot participate either in the human moral or legal culture since they cannot claim rights or fulfil obligations. Animal welfare philosophies generally allow the interaction with and the use of fish (Table 11.2), provided that this does not comprise the health of fish and fish get what they want if held in captivity (Dawkins 2006). Animal liberation, a second concept dealing with the acceptance of human interactions with fish, was developed by Singer (1990). Animals enter the moral theatre because of a common evolutionary ancestry and because they are believed to be capable of suffering; that is, pathocentrism-centred perspectives such as the one put forward by Huntingford et al. (2006) and other authors (e.g. Braithwaite and Huntingford 2004; Sneddon 2006) are the key to understand animal liberation – suffering qualifies animals for equal consideration. According to Singer (1990), there is no doubt that fish can suffer. This has critical consequences for fish and fisheries (Table 11.1). On the strength of Animal Liberation (Singer 1990), it is clear that, for example, every fishing practice is out of the question, particularly recreational fishing and voluntary C&R. The name associated with the animal rights concept is Regan and his book The Case for Animal Rights (Regan 1983). Regan draws a distinction between moral agents and moral patients. Moral agents require a degree of self-consciousness and rationality so that they can understand the concepts involved in moral reasoning. Moral patients such as animals and babies cannot perform moral acts themselves and are on ‘the receiving end of the right and wrong acts of moral agents’ (Regan 1983). Moral agents and moral patients are, however, united in that ‘the principal moral right possessed by all moral agents and patients is the right to respectful treatment’ (Regan 1983). The source of this moral right is the postulate of inherent value (Regan 1983). As regards inherent value, all animals (human and non-human) are equal. In practical terms, this means morally compulsory veganism and the end of all animal use everywhere regardless of consequence. This hails the end of any fishing (Table 11.2; see also Regan [1983], pp. 330–398).
10/3/2007 10:29:40 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
225
Table 11.2 Implications of animal welfare, animal liberation and animal rights concepts for the socially accepted interaction of humans with fish. Animal welfare
Animal liberation
Animal rights
Fish have intrinsic value
No/yes
No
Yes
Fish have rights
No
No
Yes
Duties to fish
Yes
Yes
Yes
Catch, kill and eat
Yes
No
No
Regulatory C&R
Yes
No
No
Voluntary C&R
Yes
No
No
Recreational fishing
Yes
No
No
Fishery management
Yes
No
No
Use of animals (food, work, manufacture, pleasure, science)
Yes
No
No
Source: Modified from Arlinghaus et al. (2007a).
while conserving the opportunities for satisfactory recreational experiences, provided that lethal and sub-lethal impacts associated with any release event are minimized or avoided. A final challenge addresses C&R as a symptom of a dominating attitude towards nature. The angler might be conditioned to perceive animals as objects of his or her passion only in relation to his or her desires, rather than as independently existing living beings. However, life on earth implies predation, death and killing, and the need to fish is embedded in human genes through the evolution of our species (King 2005). One must be willing to engage in predatory activities to have a truly natural existence as a participant of nature. Anything else can be regarded as alienation from nature and a refusal to see nature as it really is (King 2005). In this context, C&R fishing was seen by Evans (2005) as a visible demonstration of the angler’s respect for nature. Recreational fishing, including C&R, could thus be seen as a ritualized hunt that leads to experiences that catch-and-kill does not generate (Evans 2005). Evans (2005) goes further by stating: catch and release fishing can be a part of a practice that does give shape to our lives and to our relationship to the natural world … The practice of catch and release fishing is most properly based on respect for the integrity of ecosystems and populations that are subjected to the pressures of human use and exploitation. Embedded in this practice is a specific respect for the individual fish one attempts to catch and then release. This respect is embodied in the constraints the intent to release the fish puts on the methods and tackle used.
These different and contrasting forms of ethical argument related to C&R fishing underscore the difficulty of any reflection on recreational fishing. Our judgements will ultimately depend on our understanding of exactly how C&R should
GCRF_11.indd 225
10/3/2007 10:29:40 AM
226
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
be perceived within society. It can be perceived as playing with food for no good reason (de Leeuw 1996; Lyman 2002; Wolfe 2006) or as sign of a conservationminded attitude that facilitates sustainable management of recreational fisheries (Aas et al. 2002; Policansky 2002). Questions to be resolved include: Is it a matter of what we do to individual fish or of how angling affects entire assemblages or populations? Should C&R be evaluated separately or should it be seen within a larger context of moral perceptions of all human–animal interactions happening on earth (e.g. intensive animal husbandry, keeping pets in zoos etc.)? Arlinghaus et al. (2007a) point out that C&R is an integral part of recreational angling as a whole, including from an ethical point of view. But clearly insights are to be gained by considering C&R as a distinct mode for some purposes, just as we do for other aspects of recreational angling. The contrasting images of C&R fishing are difficult to avoid and harder still to reconcile. Is C&R a modern management option that fisheries managers need to retain? A sign of a post-modern development of a conservation-minded angler constituency? A necessary practice to conserve immature fish under regulatory catch-and-kill? Is C&R a new form of predator–prey relations, or a distortion of them? Or does C&R simply mean torturing of fish without any good reason? Questions such as these are central to the ethics of C&R. Discussing them would help us understand better what is at stake when it comes to practical policy decisions concerning C&R and when options of fisheries management are debated. Irrespective of this, it is common sense that any C&R fishery should be conducted in a manner that minimizes potential negative influences on the individual fish. A concept that is crucial to understand and address in this respect is animal welfare, which is why this is discussed here.
Fish welfare and C&R Animal welfare, and therefore fish welfare, is as difficult to define as human welfare (Dawkins 1998). Welfare with respect to humans usually means that a person is in good health and that emotions are generally positive or, simply, that he or she is fit and feeling good (Dawkins 2006). Animal welfare science consequently starts with the physical health of the animal, hence the reason why this scientific discipline has its roots in veterinary medicine (Dawkins 2006). However, welfare also implies that animals have positive emotions such as pleasure and contentment or negative ones such as fear, pain and frustration, which humans might label as suffering (Dawkins 2006). Anthropomorphism of human feelings and cognitive and emotional capabilities to fish is considered unhelpful when evaluating fish welfare, inter alia, because of physiological differences between human and nonhumans and the associated difficulty to prove pain perception and suffering with certainty (Rose 2003; Chandroo et al. 2004; Marmeli and Bortolotti 2006). By focusing on pain and suffering in the discussion of fish welfare issues (compare
GCRF_11.indd 226
10/3/2007 10:29:41 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
227
Huntingford et al. 2006), uninformed stakeholders, some politicians and the public at large might mix up animal welfare concepts with pathocentric animal liberation and animal rights philosophies. However, animal welfare, animal liberation and animal rights concepts must be clearly distinguished because each of these originates in a different philosophical domain (Box 11.1); each has different implications for everyday life, the context of our relationships with animals, and for commercial and recreational fishing (Table 11.2). For example, in contrast to animal liberation and animal rights philosophies (Arlinghaus et al. 2007b), animal welfare neither questions the interaction of humans with fish per se in general nor C&R in particular. To work for increased welfare of caught and released fish, it is crucial to keep three types of crucial questions – the symptoms of good and poor welfare, the conscious experience of suffering and the ethical attitudes towards animals – in separate compartments when assessing animal welfare (Dawkins 1998). By focusing on objectively measurable variables such as distress or health impairments, progress towards resolving fish welfare issues would be enhanced and misunderstanding, particularly in wider public, could be mediated. It is already recognized that extensionism (e.g. animal liberation and animal rights), that is, the extension of the moral domain to non-human animals, has already succeeded in changing laws and attitudes and has substantially altered the ways that stakeholders are allowed to interact with fish in some jurisdictions. In Germany and Switzerland, for example, the states have constitutional duties with regard to animals and a recent draft of the European constitution has a clause in it that the rights of animals must be taken into account by member states of the European Union in all their activities. In Germany, one has to have a ‘reasonable reason’ to inflict pain, suffering and damage to an individual animal; typically only fishing for food is acceptable as a good reason for fishing overall (Arlinghaus 2007) and the fish’s ability for pain perception and suffering is, as advocated by Sneddon (2006), often taken for granted unless other evidence is provided. This has had critical consequences for recreational fishing in general, because, for example, C&R fishing of legally unprotected fish (e.g. larger than the minimum size limit) risks public prosecution and a sentence of up to 3 years of jail, according to Clause 17 of the German Animal Protection Act, due to cruelty to animals (Arlinghaus 2007). Many stakeholders may not see a good reason in a recreational activity that involves interaction with animals, particularly if labelled ‘sport’, which is often the case when speaking about extreme forms of C&R, that is, total voluntary C&R or tournament fishing involving C&R. [Arlinghaus et al. (2007a) describe how the term ‘sport’ fishing derives from the word to ‘disport’ or recreate, and not sport as commonly understood in modern usage.] Similarly, in a review on the assessment of the welfare issues associated with aquatic animals, Håstein et al. (2005) stated that, on moral grounds, fishing for subsistence might be acceptable, while recreational fishing (‘angling’) may not be. However, this would mean that practices such as recreational fishing are only acceptable in a full subsistence-like way, and C&R fishing has no place in
GCRF_11.indd 227
10/3/2007 10:29:41 AM
228
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
this regard. With heavy angling pressure, this might lead to massive overfishing through complete catch-and-kill, which in turn would not only affect a single fish but entire populations and ecosystems (Cooke and Cowx 2006; Lewin et al. 2006). Sustainability demands that society find ways to better manage and conserve natural populations, while providing social benefits to society, without questioning the use of fish populations per se (Arlinghaus et al. 2007a). C&R fishing, be it voluntary, mandatory, or both, is a good way to achieve both, but the arguments put forward by Huntingford et al. (2006) and already established in German law prohibit this sustainable management practice. Thereby, it is clear that fish welfare issues influence fisheries management and stock conservation, and thus can substantially alter the outlook of fisheries management in general (Arlinghaus et al. 2007b; Table 11.2).
Some steps towards ethical C&R angling Catch-and-release science supports the contention that fish that are angled and handled properly and efficiently, and released in good condition, are likely to recover rapidly, survive and be recaptured (Arlinghaus et al. 2007a). However, large variation among species occurs, and there are a multitude of factors that influence the outcome of a particular C&R event (Muoneke and Childress 1994; Policansky 2002; Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005). Recognizing that there is immense variation among species, fisheries and environments, there are, however, some general principles that can be applied that are standard practice in many recreational fisheries worldwide. Cooke and Suski (2005), for example, developed a list of generalized guidelines that should be relevant to enhancing the welfare status of fish through reductions in injury, stress and mortality without questioning angling per se or a component of it, C&R angling (compare de Leeuw 1996; Håstein et al. 2005). The list includes, but is not exclusive to, (1) minimizing the duration of the angling event; (2) minimizing or eliminating handling and air exposure; (3) restricting angling at extreme water temperatures; (4) using terminal tackle that reduces injury, stress or mortality (e.g. lures or flies versus organic/live bait, barbless hooks versus barbed hooks, circle hooks versus J-hooks; see contributions by Lukacovic and Uphoff and Schratwieser in this chapter); and (5) avoiding angling during the reproductive period. There are many more ways that anglers can improve welfare of individual fish, and large-scale educational and extension programmes are in place to promote fish welfare practices among anglers. This is very different from simply asserting that recreational angling or C&R compromises the welfare of fish (compare de Leeuw 1996; Huntingford et al. 2006). In fact, the message that needs to be disseminated to anglers is that adopting strategies that reduce injury and stress, and hence increase the chance that the fish will survive to reproduce or be caught in the future, are the same strategies that one would adopt to enhance the welfare status of angled fish. Such a message provides anglers with concrete actions to enhance welfare, rather than
GCRF_11.indd 228
10/3/2007 10:29:41 AM
Trends and development in catch and release Table 11.3
229
Summary of general ways to improve the welfare status of caught and released fish.
Recommendation
Comment
In some species and situations use barbless hooks, circle hooks instead of J-style hooks, short fixed leaders and avoid organic bait in fishing for predators
Promotes shallow-hooking, reduces injury and reduced unhooking times and air exposure
Cut line if deeply hooked
Some studies show that survival is increased by avoiding injurious events to unhook deeply hooked fish
Keep fish under water while unhooking
Avoiding air exposure is beneficial for most species
Use wet hands, avoid contact with sensitive areas (eye, gills) and minimize contact with mucus
Injury rates and the potential for infection reduced
Play fish minimally
The amount of physiological disturbance is reduced
Use knotless net or rubber nets, for some species use devices such as boga grip or hands
Reduces amount of mucus abrasion
Do not release fish in areas with high predator burden
Post release predation by other species might be relevant for some species (e.g. predation of bonefish by sharks)
Do not keep the fish in keep nets if intention is to release
Although holding fish in keep nets or other devices is not necessarily stressful, it is less problematic to immediately release a fish
Raise fish slowly from depth
Also, one strategy would be to avoid fishing in depth entirely. Sometimes techniques such as venting or depth devices can reduce mortality
Avoid angling at high water temperatures
Many studies have found that for temperate fishes, elevated temperature are more harmful
Avoid angling during the reproductive period
Stress during the C&R event can impair reproduction
If many sub-legal fish are caught on a particular location, move to a different angling site
Cumulative mortality will increase with the number of fish caught
Keep deadly injured fish when legal
It makes little sense to release a fish that is deadly injured. If a fish should be harvested, anesthetize it and kill it immediately by disrupting the blood circulation
Notes: These guidelines have emerged from earlier syntheses published by Cooke and Sneddon (2007), Cooke and Suski (2005) and Arlinghaus et al. (2007a). References supporting the contents of the table can be found in the cited work.
simply attacking their activity and further polarizing the animal welfare–fish welfare debate. A summary of concrete recommendations is in Table 11.3. The reader can follow the details behind this recommendations in major syntheses recently published on the topic of C&R (Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005; Cooke and Suski 2005; Cooke and Sneddon 2007; Arlinghaus et al. 2007a).
GCRF_11.indd 229
10/3/2007 10:29:41 AM
230
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
References Aas, Ø. (2002) The next chapter; Multicultural and cross-disciplinary progress in evaluating recreational fisheries. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford. pp. 252–263. Aas, Ø., Thailing, C.E. and Ditton, R.B. (2002) Controversy over catch-and-release recreational fishing in Europe. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 95–106. Arlinghaus, R. (2007) Voluntary catch-and-release can generate conflict within the recreational angling community: a qualitative case study of specialised carp, Cyprinus carpio, angling angling in Germany. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14: 161–171. Arlinghaus, R. and Mehner, T. (2002) Testing the reliability and construct validity of a simple and inexpensive procedure to measure the use value of recreational fishing. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11: 61–64. Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., Lyman, J., Policansky, D., Schwab, A., Suski, C., Sutton, S.G., and Thorstad, E.B. (2007a) Understanding the complexity of catch-and-release in recreational fishing: an integrative synthesis of global knowledge from historical, ethical, social, and biological perspectives. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15: 75–167. Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., Schwab, A. and Couwx, I.G. (2007b). Fish Welfare: a challenge to the feelings-based approach, with implications for recreational fishing. Fish and Fisheries 8: 57–71. ASF (2006) Catch and Release Fishery on the Penobscot Renews Conservation Spirit. Atlantic Salmon Federation, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada (Press release). Available online at: http://www.asf.ca/Communications/2006/09/penob_release.html (accessed 31 October 2006). Axon, J.R. and Whitehurst, D.K. (1985) Striped bass management in lakes with emphasis on management problems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114: 8–11. Balon, E.K. (2000) Defending fishes against recreational fishing: an old problem to be solved in the new millennium. Environmental Biology of Fishes 57: 1–8. Barnhart, R. and Roelofs, T. (Eds) (1977) Catch-and-Release Fishing as a Management Tool. A National Sport Fishing Symposium. California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Barnhart, R. and Roelofs, T. (Eds) (1987) Catch-and-Release Fishing: A Decade of Experience. A National Sport Fishing Symposium. California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Bartholomew, A. and Bohnsack, J.A. (2005) A review of catch-and-release angling mortality with implications for no-take reserves. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 129–154. Bettoli, P.W. and Osborne, R.S. (1998) Hooking mortality and behavior of striped bass following catch-and-release angling. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18: 609–615. Bohnsack, B.L., Ditton, R.B., Stoll, J.R., Chen, R.J., Novak, R. and Smutko, L.S. (2002) The economic impact of the recreational bluefin tuna fishery in Hatteras, North Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 165–176.
GCRF_11.indd 230
10/3/2007 10:29:41 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
231
Booth, R.K., Kieffer, J.D., Davidson, K., Bielak, A.T. and Tufts, B.L. (1995) Effects of late-season catch and release angling on anaerobic metabolism, acid-base status, survival, and gamete viability in wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 283–290. Boreman, J. and Austin, H.M. (1985) Production and harvest of anadromous striped bass stocks along the Atlantic Coast. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114: 3–7. Braithwaite, V.A. and Huntingford, F.A. (2004) Fish and welfare: do fish have the capacity for pain perception and suffering? Animal Welfare 13: S87–S92. Brobbel, M.A., Wilkie, M.P., Davidson, K., Kieffer, J.D., Bielak, A.T. and Tufts, B.L. (1996) Physiological effects of catch and release angling in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) at different stages of freshwater migration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 2036–2043. Chandroo, K.P., Yue, S. and Moccia, R.D (2004) An evaluation of current perspectives on consciousness and pain in fishes. Fish and Fisheries 5: 281–295. Cooke, S.J. and Cowx, I.G. (2006) Contrasting recreational and commercial fishing: searching for common issues to promote unified conservation of fisheries resources and aquatic environments. Biological Conservation 128: 93–108. Cooke, S.J. and Sneddon, L.U. (2007) Animal welfare perspectives on catch-and-release recreational angling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104: 176–198. Cooke, S.J. and Suski, C.D. (2004) Are circle hooks an effective tool for conserving marine and freshwater recreational catch-and-release fisheries? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: 299–326. Cooke, S.J. and Suski, C.D. (2005) Do we need species-specific guidelines for catchand-release recreational angling to effectively conserve diverse fishery resources? Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 1195–1209. Davidson, K., Hayward, J., Hambrook, M., Bielak, A.T. and Sheasgreen, J. (1994) The Effects of Late-Season Angling on Gamete Viability and Early Fry Survival in Atlantic salmon. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1982, pp. 1–12. Dawkins, M. S. (1998) Evolution and animal welfare. Quarterly Review of Biology 73: 1–21. Dawkins, M.S. (2006) A user’s guide to animal welfare science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 77–82. de Leeuw, A.D. (1996) Contemplating the interests of fish: the angler’s challenge. Environmental Ethics 18: 373–390. Dempson, B., Furey, G. and Bloom, M. (2002) Effects of catch and release angling on Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., of the Conne River, Newfoundland. Fisheries Management and Ecology 9: 139–147. Diodati, P.J. and Richards, R.A. (1996) Mortality of striped bass hooked and released in saltwater. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125: 300–307. Ditton, R.B. (2002) A human dimensions perspective on catch-and-release fishing. In: J.A. Lucy and A.L. Studholme (Eds) Catch and Release in Marine Recreational Fisheries. American Fisheries Society Symposium 30. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp. 19–28. Ditton, R.B. and Stoll, J.R. (2003) Social and economic perspective on recreational billfish fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research 54: 545–554.
GCRF_11.indd 231
10/3/2007 10:29:41 AM
232
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Drew Associates (2004) Research into the Economic Contribution of Sea Angling. UK Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Available online at http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/SeaAngling/default.asp. Duffield, J.W., Merritt, M.F. and Neher, C.J. (2002) Valuation and policy in Alaska sport fisheries. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 155–185. Environment Agency (2004) Salmonid and Freshwater Fisheries Statistics for England and Wales, 2004. Environment Agency, Bristol, p. 35. Ernst and Young (2004) Economic Impact of the NSW Striped Marlin Fishery. Report available online at: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/47773/20050217/www.fisheries. nsw.gov.au/rec/pdf/stripedmarlin.pdf Evans, J.C. (2005) With Respect for Nature – Living as Part of the Natural World. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Field, J.D. (1997) Atlantic striped bass management: where did we go right? Fisheries 22: 6–8. Fisher, M.R. and Ditton, R.B. (1992) Characteristics of billfish anglers in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean. Marine Fisheries Review 54(1): 1–6. Fisheries Research Services (2004) Statistical Bulletin – Scottish Salmon and Sea Trout Catches, 2003. Fisheries Series No. Fis/2004/1. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh, p. 29. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2000) Bonefish: Grey Ghosts of the Flats. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, FL. Gentner, B. and Lowther, A. (2002) Evaluating marine sport fisheries in the USA. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 186–206. Graves, J.E., Luckhurst, B.E. and Prince, E.D. (2002) An evaluation of pop-up satellite tags for estimating postrelease survival of blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) from a recreational fishery. Fishery Bulletin 100: 134–142. Griffiths, M.H. and Lamberth, S.J. (2002) Evaluating the marine recreational fishery in South Africa. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 227–251. Harrel, R.M. (1988) Catch-and-release mortality of striped bass caught with artificial lures and baits. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 41: 70–75. Håstein, T., Scarfe, A.D. and Lund, V.L. (2005) Science-based assessment of welfare: aquatic animals. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) 24: 529–547. Hersey, J. (1987) Blues. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. Hickley, P. (1998) Comments concerning a code of conduct of good practice for recreational fishing. In: P. Hickley and H. Tompkins (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic, and Management Aspects. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 299–304 (ch. 38). Hickley, P. (No date) Recreational Fishing in England and Wales. European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. Available online at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/ W0318E/W0318E20.htm, accessed 31 October 2006.
GCRF_11.indd 232
10/3/2007 10:29:41 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
233
Horodysky, A.Z. and Graves, J.E. (2005) Application of pop-up satellite archival tag technology to estimate postrelease survival of white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) caught on circle and straight-shank ‘J’ hooks in the western North Atlantic recreational fishery. Fishery Bulletin 103: 84–96. Huntingford, F.A., Adams, C., Braithwaite, V.A., Kadri, S., Pottinger, T.G., Sandøe, P. and Turnbull, J.F. (2006) Current issues in fish welfare. Journal of Fish Biology 68: 332–372. ICCAT (2003) Executive Summary Report for Sailfish. Report of the biennial period 2002–2003, part 1 (2002), volume 2, ICCAT, Madrid, Spain, pp. 104–114. ICCAT (2005a) Executive Summary Report for Blue Marlin. Report of the biennial period 2004–2005, part 1 (2004), volume 2, ICCAT, Madrid, Spain, pp. 106–113. ICCAT (2005b) Executive Summary Report for White Marlin. Report of the biennial period 2004–2005, part 1 (2004), volume 2, ICCAT, Madrid, Spain, pp. 114–121. ICES (2006) Report of the Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon. ICES CM 2006/ ACFM:23, p. 254. Jones, C.D. and Prince, E.D. (1998) The cooperative tagging center mark-recapture database for Istiophoridae (1954–1995) with an analysis of the west Atlantic ICCAT billfish tagging program. ICCAT Collective Volume of Scientific Papers 47: 311–322. Kerkvliet, J., Nowell, C., Lowe, S. (2002) The economic value of the greater yellowstone’s blue-ribbon fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 418–424. King, R.J.H. (2005) The ethics of hunting. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 392–397. Kunzmann, P. (2004) Die Fischerei und die radikalen Tierschützer. Bayerns Fischerei und Gewässer 1: 26. Lewin, W.-C., Arlinghaus, R. and Mehner, T. (2006) Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational angling: insights for conservation and management. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14: 305–367. Lyle, J.M., Coleman, A.P.M.,West, L., Campbell, D. and Henry, G.W. (2002) New largescale survey methods for evaluating sport fisheries. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 207–226. Lyman, J. (2002) Cultural values and change: catch-and-release in Alaska’s sport fisheries. American Fisheries Society Symposium 30: 29–36. Lyons, J., Hickley, P. and Gledhill, S. (2002) An evaluation of recreational fishing in England and Wales. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 144–155. Mäkinen, T.S., Niemelä, E., Moen, K. and Lindström, R. (2000) Behviour of gill-net and rod-captured Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) during upstream migration and following ratio tagging. Fisheries Research 45, 117–127. Manfredo, M.J., Teel, T.L. and Bright, A.D. (2003) Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8: 287–306. Marmeli, M. and Bortolotti, L. (2006) Animal rights, animal minds, and human mindreading. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 84–89. Matlock, G.C. (2002) Why does marine fishery management now require releasing caught fish? American Fisheries Society Symposium 30: 15–18.
GCRF_11.indd 233
10/3/2007 10:29:42 AM
234
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Ministry of Environment (Norway) (2006) About the Conservation of Wild Atlantic Salmon and the Completion of the System with Designated Wild Salmonid Fjords and Rivers. Report to the Norwegian Parliament; St. prp. nr. 32 (In Norwegian). Muoneke, M.I. and Childress, M.W. (1994) Hooking mortality: a review for recreational fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science 2: 123–156. National Mullet Club [United Kingdom] (2006) The Value of Recreational Angling for Grey Mullet and the Case for Recreational-Only Status. The National Mullet Club [of the United Kingdom]. Available online at www.thenationalmulletclub.org NMFS (2006a) Marine Recreational Fisheries. Available online at http://www.st.nmfs. gov/st1/recreational/New2006.html NMFS (2006b) Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document, p. 1600. NRC (2004) Atlantic Salmon in Maine. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. NRC (2006) Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods. National Academy of Sciences. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p. 187. Olsen, L. (2003) Contemplating the intentions of anglers: the ethicist’s challenge. Environmental Ethics 25: 26–27. Ott, L. (1977) An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Duxbury Press, North Scituate, MA. Policansky, D. (2001) Recreational and commercial fisheries. In J. Burger, E. Ostrom, R.B. Norgaard, D. Policansky and B. Goldstein (Eds) Protecting the Commons: A Framework for Resource Management in the Americas. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 161–173. Policansky, D. (2002) Catch-and-release recreational fishing: a historical perspective. In: T. Pitcher and C. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 74–94. Prince, E.D., Ortiz, M. and Venizelos, A. (2002) A comparison of circle hook and ‘J’ hook performance in recreational catch-and-release fisheries for billfish. American Fisheries Society Symposium 30: 66–79. Prince, E.D., Snodgrass, D., Orbeson, E.S., Hoolihan, J.P., Serafy, J.E. and Schratwieser, J.E. (2007) Circle hooks, ‘J’ hooks, and ‘drop-back’ time: a hook performance study of the south Florida recreational live bait fishery for sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus (Shaw). Fisheries Management and Ecology 14: 173–182. Radonski, G.C. (2002) History and application of catch-and-release fishing: the good, the bad, and the ugly. American Fisheries Society Symposium 30: 3–10. Regan, T. (1983) The Case For Animal Rights. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Richards, R.A. and Rago, P.J. (1999) A case history of effective fishery management: Chesapeake Bay striped bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19: 356–375. Rivken, M. (2005) Big-Game Fishing Headquarters: A History of the IGFA. IGFA Press, Dania Beach, FL. RMC, Inc. (1990) An Evaluation of Angler Induced Mortality of Striped Bass in Maryland. Completion Report (P.L. 89–304, AFC-18–1) to National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, MA.
GCRF_11.indd 234
10/3/2007 10:29:42 AM
Trends and development in catch and release
235
Rolston, H. III. (1991) Environmental ethics: values in and duties to the natural world. In: F.H. Bormann and S.R. Kellert (Eds) Ecology, Economics, Ethics: The Broken Circle. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Rose, J.D. (2003) A critique of the paper: ‘Do fish have nociceptors: Evidence for the evolution of a vertebrate sensory system’. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 270(1520): 1115–1121, 2003 by Sneddon, Braithwaite and Gentle. In: Information Resources on Fish Welfare 1970–2003 (Animal Welfare Information Resources No. 20) (H.E. Erickson, ed.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD, pp. 49–51. SAS Institute (1995) Logistic regression examples using the SAS System. Version 6 (1st edn). Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute. Schullery, P. (2006) If fish could scream. American Angler November/December: 58–59. Shafer, E.L., Carline, R., Guldin, R.W. and Cordell, H.K. (1993) Economic amenity values of wildlife: six case studies in Pennsylvania. Environmental Management 17: 669–682. Singer, P. (1990) Animal Liberation (first published 1972). Avon Books, New York. Sneddon, L.U. (2006) Ethics and welfare: pain perception in fish. Bulletin of the European Association of Fish Pathologists 26: 6–10. Steffens, W. and Winkel, M. (2002) Evaluating recreational fishing in Germany. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 130–136. Stevens, D.E., Kohlhorst, D.W., Miller, L.W. and Kelley, D.W. (1985) The decline of striped bass in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114: 12–30. Tarnowski, M. (1999) A historical background for striped bass landings in Maryland: 1928–1998. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD. Available at http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/mdcomfish/stripedbass/SBFACTrev.htm. Thompson, J.A., Hughes, S.G., May, E.B. and Harrell, R.M. (2002) Effects of catchand-release on physiological responses and acute mortality of striped bass. American Fisheries Society Symposium 30: 139–143. Thorstad, E.B., Næsje, T.F., Fiske, P. and Finstad, B. (2003) Effects of hook and release on Atlantic salmon in the River Alta, northern Norway. Fisheries Research 60: 293–307. Thorstad, E.B., Næsje, T.F. and Leinan, I. (2007) Long-term effects of catch-and-release angling on Atlantic salmon during different stages of return migration. Fisheries Research, 85: 330–334. Toivonen, A.-L. (2002) A survey of the economic value of Nordic recreational fisheries. In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 137–143. Tufts, B.L., Davidson, K. and Bielak, A.T. (2000) Biological implications of ‘catch-andrelease’ angling of Atlantic salmon. In: F.G. Whoriskey and K.E. Whelan (Eds) Managing Wild Atlantic Salmon. Atlantic Salmon Federation, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, pp. 195–225. Ugedal, O., Thorstad, E.B., Næsje, T.F., Saksgård, L., Reinertsen, H.R., Fiske, P., Hvidsten, N.A. and Blom, H.H. (2005) Biologiske undersøkelser i Altaelva 2005. NINA Report 17: 1–52 (In Norwegian).
GCRF_11.indd 235
10/3/2007 10:29:42 AM
236
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Warner, K. (1976) Hooking mortality of landlocked Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, in a hatchery environment. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 3: 365–369. Warner, K. (1979) Mortality of landlocked Atlantic salmon hooked on four types of fishing gear at the hatchery. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 41: 99–102. Webb, J.H. (1998) Catch-and-release: the survival and behaviour of Atlantic salmon angled and returned to the Aberdeenshire Dee, in spring and early summer. Scottish Fisheries Research Report 62: 1–15. Whoriskey, F.G., Prusov, S. and Crabbe, S. (2000) Evaluation of the effects of catchand-release angling on the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) of the Ponoi River, Kola Peninsula, Russian Federation. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 9: 118–125. Wilde, G.R., Muoneke, M.I., Bettoli, P.W., Nelson, K.L. and Hysmith, B.T. (2000) Bait and temperature effects on striped bass hooking mortality in freshwater. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: 810–815. Wilkie, M.P., Davidson, K., Brobbel, M.A., Kieffer, J.D., Booth, R.K., Bielak A.T. and Tufts, B.L. (1996) Physiology and survival of wild Atlantic salmon following angling in warm waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125: 572–580. Wolfe, R. (2006) Playing with Fish and Other Lessons from the Far North. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. Wright, R.E. (1998) Logistic regression. In: L.G. Grimm and P.R.Yarnold (Eds) Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 217–244. Wydoski, R.S. (1977) Relation of hooking mortality and sublethal hooking stress to quality fishery management. In: R.A. Barnhart and T.D. Roelofs (Eds) Catch-andRelease Fishing as a Management Tool. California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Humbolt State University, Arcata, CA, pp. 43–87. Ziuganov, V.V., Beletsky, V.V., Neves, R.J., Tretiakov, V.A., Mikhno, I.V. and Kaliuzhin, S.M. (1998) The Recreational Fishery for Atlantic Salmon and the Ecology of Salmon and Pearl Mussels in the Varzuga River, Northwest Russia. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, p. 84.
GCRF_11.indd 236
10/3/2007 10:29:42 AM
Chapter 12
Competitive fishing Trends, opportunities and challenges Chapter editor: Harold L. Schramm Jr.
Abstract Competitive fishing occurs in most countries with recreational fisheries and can have important positive and negative impacts on fisheries resources. Competitive events range from rather casual events to highly competitive events with large prize pools fished by highly skilled anglers. Target fishes include essentially all popular recreational species, but in some countries may also include abundant fishes with low recreational value. Competitive fishing has evolved to incorporate practices more compatible with sustaining fish stocks. These changes have alleviated much of the concern about effects of tournaments on fish stocks, and yet other biological issues remain. Tournaments create substantial economic opportunity for local communities and the sport-fishing industry. Social issues, such as crowding and user-group conflicts, remain problematic. The growth of tournaments suggests that they can influence present anglers and possibly benefit recruitment of future anglers. Ensuring positive benefits from competitive fishing will require working proactively with the diverse entities involved with and benefiting from competitive fishing. The situation in Germany, where fishing with the primary purpose of competition is illegal, provides a contrast to competitive fishing in other countries and yet, at the same time, supports the importance of stakeholder teams uniting to sustain diverse opportunities.
12.1
Competitive fishing and its role in recreational fisheries management
Harold L. Schramm Jr. and John C. Harrison Introduction Fishing competitions occur, or can be expected to occur, anywhere where recreational fishing is a popular activity. Most fishing competitions concentrate anglers 237
GCRF_12.indd 237
10/3/2007 10:29:04 AM
238
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
at specific sites and specific times and, thus, can potentially affect fish populations and use of multiple-use aquatic resources. Therefore, competitive fishing can create management problems for fisheries agencies. But competitive fishing also provides opportunities to collect biological data, may be a method for manipulating fish assemblages, is a testing ground for new technologies and fish-handling practices, makes fishing more visible and increases people’s awareness of fisheries resources. Hence, competitive fishing also conveys benefits for fisheries management. Fishing competitions span a broad spectrum of types of events; many of those events, and those of concern in this chapter, are organized and conducted by nonprofit fishing clubs or organizations, or privately, for-profit businesses. Participants in these events are often the more avid and skilled anglers (e.g. Loomis and Ditton 1987; Falk et al. 1989; Wilde et al. 1998), who are more likely to be concerned about the quality and management of fisheries resources. In some events, the participants are recognized professional anglers. Collectively, fishing organizations, businesses and avid and highly engaged anglers can have substantial influence on the conservation and management of fisheries resources. Cultures and recreational fishing opportunities differ around the globe, and it is hardly possible to capture the diversity of types and effects of competitive fishing in a few pages. This section provides a brief overview of competitive fishing. Information from Australia and the United States, where competitive fishing is well developed, will be used to explore in greater depth ways that competitive fishing can affect and assist recreational fishing and management of recreational fisheries resources. This information is then used to develop a management model that may be used to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems as competitive fishing develops.
A global overview of competitive fishing The American Fisheries Society Competitive Fishing Committee, a committee formed in the 1980s to provide information about competitive fishing to fisheries managers and administrators, defined competitive fishing as recreational fishing for a prize or an inducement (Schramm et al. 1991). That definition is accurate for the broadest view of competitive fishing. Because the purpose of this section is to assess the effects of competitive fishing on fishery resources and fisheries management, a narrower definition of competitive fishing is in order. Thus, for the purposes here, competitive fishing events will be those that (1) emphasize competition, (2) are usually organized and conducted by public or private organizations (either angler groups or for-profit businesses), (3) usually have an entry fee and (4) award prizes of significant value, either as money, goods or recognition. Competitive fishing is prevalent in Australia, Canada, most EU countries, Japan, New Zealand and the United States. Competitive fishing also probably occurs in
GCRF_12.indd 238
10/3/2007 10:29:05 AM
Competitive fishing
239
other countries that have well-developed recreational fisheries; but these countries were not represented at the fourth World Recreational Fishing Conference, and we were unable to confirm this. The forms of competition range from relatively unstructured events with relatively simple regulations, low to moderate entry fees and participation open to all, to highly organized and highly competitive events, such as invitational events in Australia, match fishing in the European Union and tournaments in North America. Most competitive events target the more popular or more prized sport fishes, but in Europe some forms of competitive fishing target fishes lesser valued by recreational anglers (O’Hara and Williams 1991; Wołos et al. Section 12.2). Nevertheless, in their totality competitive events target essentially all recreational fishes. Some of the most advanced and extreme fishing competitions occur in the United States. Most tournaments target single species [e.g. muskellunge, Esox masquinongy Mitchill, red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus (Linnaeus)] or similar-species groups (e.g. catfishes, Ictaluridae, crappies, Pomoxis spp., black bass, Micropterus spp. and billfishes, Istiophoridae). Competitive events are held for essentially all popular inland and marine sportfish. A single event may pay out more than US$1 million in prize money and entry fees may exceed US$1000 per individual or team. The premier events are organized and conducted by private businesses for whom tournaments are a large portion of their business, and sponsors contribute substantially to the purse in these events. In Australia, premier events target barramundi, Lates calcarifer (Bloch), snapper, Chrysophrys aratus (Schneider), bream, Acanthopagrus australis (Günther), tunas, Scombridae, Australian bass, Macquaria colonorum (Günther), trout, Salmo spp. , Murray cod, Maccullochella peelii peelii (Mitchell) and billfishes. Entry fees per angler or team can be as high as AU$3500 and the prize pool may be as large as AU$100,000. Although conspicuous, these premier events are probably less than 1% of the competitive events. Smaller events are conducted by local or regional tournament organizations, fishing clubs or civic organizations. These events have smaller entry fees and prizes. Nevertheless, tournaments with entry fees exceeding US$100 per person or team and prize pools exceeding US$10,000 are common. Determining, or even accurately estimating, the number of competitive events is difficult. On the basis of a telephone survey of fisheries administrators in all North American jurisdictions, the American Fisheries Society Competitive Fishing Committee reported 13,926 black bass tournaments on inland waters throughout North America and estimated a total of at least 31,000 events of all types in inland and marine water in 1989 (Schramm et al. 1991). Other surveys of competitive fishing in the United States or North America were conducted in 1978 (Shupp 1979), 1983 (Duttweiler 1985), 2000–2001 (Kerr and Kamke (2003) and 2005 (Schramm and Hunt, 2007). Some of these efforts to estimate numbers of competitive events were constrained by inconsistent definitions or interpretations of what constitutes competitive fishing events or types of competitive events (e.g. derbies, tournaments), and all were constrained by the inability of fisheries
GCRF_12.indd 239
10/3/2007 10:29:06 AM
240
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
49
20,000
44
48
20 00
30,000
19 89
Number of events
40,000
49 46
10,000
20 05
19 83
19 78
0
Year of survey Figure 12.1 Estimated number of tournaments in US inland waters. Numbers above the bars are the number of responding fisheries management agencies (Source: Schramm and Hunt 2007).
agencies to fully account for, or in some cases even provide an estimate of, the number of events. Nevertheless, the number of competitive fishing events, at least for those events that are commonly called tournaments (events that have entry fees and award substantial prizes), has increased since 1978 (i.e. when the number of tournaments was first estimated) (Figure 12.1). In Australia it is also difficult to assess the number of tournaments, and no formalized effort has been made to do so. There are about 2000 fishing clubs in Australia, but the number of events held annually by these clubs varies and is not known. In addition, a growing number of private, for-profit entities have established circuit events (tournaments with similar organization conducted by an organization on different bodies of water throughout the fishing season) for a range of species and additional events are conducted in fixed locations. The annual number of tournaments in Australia probably is in the range of 500–1000 events. Accounting for numbers of tournaments is complicated by the cost of obtaining and maintaining records, reliance on self-reporting and a general reticence by anglers and angler organizations to provide information, especially because some fear that the information may be used against them. Reliance on self-reporting, whether mandatory or voluntary, is inescapable because of the large numbers of tournaments. For example, some larger US reservoirs have more than 300 black bass tournaments each year. Night tournaments are frequent in some areas, and these events may be conducted on several nights each week throughout the summer. Clearly, it would be a very labour-intensive and expensive venture to monitor all competitive events or to enforce self-reporting. Some state governments in Australia have attempted to require permits to conduct tournaments, but that has been prevented by anti-competitive legislation (legislation that prevents imposing barriers that may impact the capacity to trade). Permitting could provide useful information such as number of events, number of participants, catch rates, sizes of fish caught, angler expenditures and socioeconomic characteristics of the participants. Some fishing stakeholders recognize the need for an accounting of tournaments in Australia.
GCRF_12.indd 240
10/3/2007 10:29:06 AM
Competitive fishing
241
Evolution of competitive fishing in Australia Many changes have occurred with tournaments over the past 50 years in Australia, and change has accelerated in the last 10–20 years. Historically tournaments ended with daily weigh-ins, in which tournament anglers brought their catch to a central location for weighing and determining rank in the competition. The time and place of the tournament weigh-ins were publicly announced, and often hundreds of people came to watch the exploits of skilled anglers and to see who won the events. While generally accepted by the public in the past, attitudes of anglers and the general public have changed, and there is now an increasing focus on the notion of sustainability of the fish stocks. Other issues that have been identified as potential problems or have been the focus of criticism include selling or auctioning the catch from competitive events, effects of concentrated fishing effort on fish stocks, targeting spawning fish and the survival rates of released fish. The latter has been the subject of an extensive research and development programme over the past 5 years in Australia and has led to some significant improvements in post-release survival rates of tournament-caught fish. Many tournaments in Australia are now catch-and-release events. Some of these events still have weigh-ins, but captured fish are held in suitable livewells throughout the fishing day, weighed alive and released. In other events, fish are weighed or measured and released immediately after they are caught. Some of these events rely on anglers’ honesty; other events employ photographic records of fish length or weight. Some events also involve tagging of the fish for data and research purposes. Fishing tournaments are high-profile events that are popular with a significant number of recreational anglers throughout the country. Because of this, fishing tournaments are very important to the recreational fishing industry nationwide. Most recently, fishing tournaments, particularly larger commercially oriented ones, have come under increasing scrutiny from the government, environmental groups and some parts of the general community. Much of this attention is focused on the real or perceived impact of tournaments on fish stocks, but also is related to other issues such as fish welfare in catch-and-release tournaments and the need to measure social and economic benefits to the local communities where the events are held. Many fisheries managers and fishing advocacy groups believe there is a need for the recreational fishing industry, which benefits from competitive fishing, to take the initiative on fishing competitions and be active in demonstrating sound environmental and socio-economic management of these events. In response to this need, Recfish Australia initiated the development of a National Environmental Assessment of Tournament Fishing (NEATFish) process in 2005. Supported in principle by fishing tournament organizers, recreational fishing organizations and government, NEATFish will use the 1–5 star model used in the accommodation industry to assess the impacts of competitive fishing events
GCRF_12.indd 241
10/3/2007 10:29:06 AM
242
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
on the environmental, social and economic benefits to the local community and public safety. A 1-star rating will denote tournaments with high environmental impact and low socio-economic benefits; tournaments that have negligible or positive environmental impacts and high socio-economic benefits will achieve 4or 5-star ratings. Participation in the accreditation system is voluntary and could be applied to all recreational fishing tournaments held throughout Australia, as well as internationally. Acceptance and implementation of this initiative by the recreational fishing industry would be a clear indication that they believe their events to be environmentally and ecologically sustainable and to deliver positive socio-economic benefits to the community.
Measured problems and benefits of competitive fishing in the United States In their 1989 survey, the American Fisheries Society Competitive Fishing Committee used open-ended questions to identify biological and administrative problems and benefits recognized by North American fisheries agencies (Schramm et al. 1991). The biological problems, in order of decreasing frequency of response, were stimulation of fishing effort, concentration of fishing effort, reduction of fish stocks, increased fish mortality, relocation of fish and fish introductions. Administrative problems were user-group conflicts, impeded access, staff time, boating hazards, waste of fish and legal aspects such as fish possession or sale of fish. The biological benefits, in order of decreasing frequency of response, were obtaining catch statistics, obtaining biological data and fishing derbies to promote catch of underutilized species. Administrative benefits were to promote resource awareness, improve communication with anglers, economic benefits, generate revenue for the agency, demonstrate social and economic benefits for the resource, promote a catch-and-release ethic, encourage public participation and increase agency recognition. Competitive fishing in the United States has changed substantially since the 1980s. Although trout and salmon, Salmonidae, and king mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier), tournaments remain catch-and-kill tournaments, most tournaments for other freshwater and marine species are catch-and-release events. Another significant change is the commercialization of tournaments. Many tournaments are run by for-profit companies and rely heavily on sponsorships to defray costs and contribute to high payouts to participants. Fishing competitions have captured media attention, particularly television and the Internet. To assess fishery management agencies’ current attitudes towards contemporary competitive fishing, Schramm and Hunt (2007) asked fishery agency chief administrators in all US states to rate the effects of inland fishing tournaments on fishery management in their jurisdiction. The survey included 29 problem items and
GCRF_12.indd 242
10/3/2007 10:29:06 AM
Competitive fishing
243
21 benefit items. Unlike the 1989 Competitive Fishing Committee survey, this survey asked respondents to rate the effect of specific impact items and emphasized reporting only realized, rather than perceived, impacts. Factor analysis of the 29 problem items identified six factors (in order of decreasing prevalence as a primary problem): resource overuse, user-group conflicts, cost to agency, non-traditional management model and fish population impacts (Schramm and Hunt 2007). It is clear that social issues were the most prevalent problems. Biological issues, which were the prevalent concern of fishery managers in 1989, were of only minor concern. This reduced concern about biological issues, at least in inland fisheries, may reflect the results of several studies (e.g. Hayes et al. 1995; Allen et al. 2004) that demonstrated little effect of tournaments on target fish populations and, except for salmonid and a few marine-fish contests, the almost universal adoption of catch-and-release formats in tournaments. Most catch-and-kill salmonid tournaments are held on populations maintained by stocking, so harvest is a minor issue. The ‘non-traditional management model’ factor was of intermediate prevalence as a primary problem (Schramm and Hunt 2007). This factor includes new fishery management issues associated with competitive fishing, such as the use of public resources for private financial gain and changing perceptions of the traditional uses of game fishes. These and other items that grouped with the nontraditional management model factor may partially explain why one-third of North American fishery and wildlife professionals consider fishing tournaments an inappropriate use of fishery resources (Muth et al. 1998). The 21 benefit items grouped into four factors (in order of decreasing benefits): enhance management, grow fishing, economic measurement and biological monitoring (Schramm and Hunt 2007). The ‘enhance management’ factor included items such as promoting fishing as a valued activity, promoting positive attitudes towards the fishery agency, establishing better communication with anglers and generating political support for fisheries management. The ‘grow fishing’ factor included items such as promoting awareness of fishery resources and recruiting new anglers. Both of these factors are important to sustaining recreational fishing, a significant concern of fisheries management agencies in the United States and elsewhere. The most prevalent factors – enhance management, grow fishing and economic measurement – generally paralleled managers’ perceptions in the 1980s (Schramm et al. 1991). In contrast, obtaining biological information, which was considered a primary benefit in 1989 (Schramm et al. 1991), was the least important benefit in 2005 (Schramm and Hunt 2007). Promotion of a live-release ethic was an important benefit of competitive fishing recognized in the 1989 survey (Schramm et al. 1991). Although not grouping with other items into a factor, stimulating a live-release ethic among anglers was the third highest-ranking benefit item in the 2005 survey (Schramm and Hunt 2007) and, thus, remained a recognized benefit of competitive fishing.
GCRF_12.indd 243
10/3/2007 10:29:06 AM
244
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Applications and implications Differences in fisheries, cultures and economies preclude using the evolution of competitive fishing in Australia and the United States to forecast trends and effects of competitive fishing in other countries. Nevertheless, the changes in competitive fishing and implications of competitive fishing on fisheries management offer several snapshots of what the future might hold as competitive fishing grows in other locations and how competitive fishing can affect fishery resources and fisheries management. Harvest restrictions Few, if any, recreational fisheries remain in developed countries that are not affected by season limits, length limits, creel or possession limits that restrict harvest. Fishing regulations certainly precede organized competitive fishing, but competitive fishing may have both stimulated regulations and facilitated their acceptance. Although currently challenged in at least one country (Germany; Arlinghaus 2007), anglers have always had the option to release fish. Competitive fishing, by concentrating skilled anglers on single fisheries, demonstrated the intuitive need for catch and release and, at the same time, popularized the concept. The outcome of most competitive events is judged by weight, such as biggest fish or total weight of a maximum number of fish (the ‘tournament limit’), and tournament anglers have a greater interest than non-tournament anglers in catching large fish (Wilde et al. 1998). This likely contributed to angler and manager support for managing not only for high numbers of fish but also for large size of the fish. Providing large fish requires reducing mortality, which is accomplished by harvest restrictions (mandatory catch and release) and voluntary catch and release. Tournaments, in many cases, self-impose larger size limits and smaller bag limits than the regulations imposed by fisheries agencies. Thus, competitive fishing probably contributed to the incentive for harvest restrictions and, by popularizing catch and release, facilitated acceptance and implementation of regulations that restrict harvest. As will be demonstrated below, competitive fishing has the ability to influence anglers. A down side of this influence is overindulgence in catch and release, such that some populations of top carnivores lack sufficient harvest of small fish needed to achieve fast growth and a larger population size structure. This has been documented for black bass in the United States (e.g. Gabelhouse 1987; Martin 1995), but probably pertains to other top-carnivore sport fishes in inland waters as well. The effectiveness of live release or restrictive harvest regulations, such as length limits that require immediate release of fish, depends on high survival of fish after release. A substantial portion of the information about post-release survival of fishes has been gleaned from studies of mortality of tournament-caught fish that generally find relatively high survival (e.g. Muoneke and Childers 1994; Hoffman et al. 1996;
GCRF_12.indd 244
10/3/2007 10:29:06 AM
Competitive fishing
245
Siepker et al. 2007). Further, tournaments can serve as both testing grounds and demonstrations for tackle (e.g. circle hooks) and fish-handling procedures and equipment to increase survival (e.g. Schramm et al. 2006; Cooke and Schramm 2007). Fisheries assessment and monitoring As recognized by North American fisheries managers in 1989 (Schramm et al. 1991) and as recognized at present by at least some fishery managers in Australia, competitive fishing events can provide valuable fishery information at relatively little cost. Many tournaments occur at the same time and same location each year, and measures of catch rate and size structure can be useful for assessing population or stock trends. The decreased recognition of obtaining fishery data as a benefit in the recent US survey (Schramm and Hunt 2007) was unexpected, but may have been related to the type of data sought and its reliability. For example, asking a tournament organization to check for tags or to measure all fish may provide data of questionable accuracy. Conversely, data essential to the tournament that must be collected accurately by the event sponsor, such as number and weight of fish caught by each contestant or team, can be expected to be reliable. Such tournament data can be especially useful for trend analysis. For example, largemouth bass virus caused fish kills of largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides Lacepède, in south-eastern US reservoirs beginning in the 1990s. Anglers complained of declining catch rates, particularly of large bass. Unfortunately, few fisheries data were available to assess the effects of the disease on numbers and size structure of largemouth bass populations. Numerous bass tournaments are held annually on many of these reservoirs and can provide reliable measures of catch rate and size composition. Such data would have been useful for assessing the impact of largemouth bass virus and assessing recovery from the disease. Organized tagging and recapture efforts, particularly for large, pelagic marine fishes and migratory fishes provide important information about fish movement, stock structure, growth rate and survival. Because these fish are widely distributed and captures are relatively rare events, angler participation in tag-recapture programmes contributes substantially to stock assessment and management (e.g. Pepperell 1990; Prince and Brown 1991; Ortiz et al. 2003). Economic issues Competitive fishing emphasises and probably enhances the economic value of fisheries resources. The concentration of anglers and spectators at competitive events visually depicts the popularity of fishing. The economic impact of competitive fishing events can be substantial. In the United States, a major black bass tournament may have a local economic impact of more than US$1 million (Chris Horton, Bass Angler Sportsman Society, personal communication) and cities
GCRF_12.indd 245
10/3/2007 10:29:07 AM
246
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
compete to host these events. Surveys of Australian events indicated 3-day events with 180 anglers inject more than AU$100,000 into local economies. The estimated expenditures from a major marine game-fishing tournament were AU$2.16 million (Pepperell 2002). Because most fisheries are located in rural areas and numerous smaller competitive events occur annually, competitive fishing can be a substantial part of a small town’s economy. The events also provide opportunities to survey anglers to collect information that can be used to document the economic value of recreational fisheries; such information may prove useful as competition for water resources becomes increasingly keen (Schramm and Hunt 2007). Tournaments are important to the sport-fishing industry. Events are often the launching pad for new products and provide an ideal testing ground. For example, lure manufacturers use tournaments to demonstrate the effectiveness of new products. Likewise, boat, rod, reel and marine electronics manufacturers and even sun glasses and sun-protective-clothing distributors use these events to promote their products. Tournaments create promotional opportunities, but they also create the incentive to develop new products and advance technology. Benefits to the sport-fishing industry also accrue to fisheries management and fisheries resources. The sport-fishing industry sector often is a strong supporter of healthy fishery resources. In the United States, excise taxes on some fishing equipment are returned to fisheries management agencies to be used to enhance recreational fishing opportunities. A potentially negative repercussion of the economic value of competitive fishing is when short-term economic gain conflicts with needed fisheries management actions. Forty-four per cent of US fisheries management agencies reported that municipalities or other public agencies had attempted to affect decisions by fisheries management agencies needed to conserve or enhance a fishery resource, to make a fishery resource attractive to tournaments (Schramm and Hunt 2007). Reasons for these divisive activities were not obtained, but economic gain probably was a primary motive. Social issues Most public-access fisheries are multiple-use resources, and competitive fishing events that concentrate anglers at access areas and on the water can be expected to exacerbate crowding issues and elevate the likelihood of conflicts among user groups. Crowding and user-group conflicts have remained a primary tournamentrelated problem for fisheries management agencies (Schramm and Hunt 2007). Crowding and user-groups are also a prevalent and recurring issue in Australian tournaments. All user groups contribute to crowding and conflicts, but competitive fishing seems to draw disproportionate attention. Although crowding and user conflicts are not fishery agency issues per se, much of the fault is directed at fisheries agencies because fishing is involved. Crowding and user-group
GCRF_12.indd 246
10/3/2007 10:29:07 AM
Competitive fishing
247
conflicts may become an even greater issue as the public and the managers weigh the issue of use of public resources for private financial gain. Animal welfare issues have curtailed competitive fishing in Germany, although competitions still occur under the guise of otherwise legal events (Meinelt et al. this volume). Animal welfare and anti-fishing sentiments, at present minor concerns in the United States, are of increasing concern in Australia. Some marine events for large game fish, such as marlin, have transitioned to catch–tag–release events to minimize confrontation. In time, this issue must be addressed. Extensive research has been conducted to estimate post-release survival and evaluate procedures and technologies for minimizing mortality (e.g. Cooke and Schramm 2007); this body of research and development will improve the welfare of tournament-captured fishes and provide scientifically valid information, but managers and stakeholders will still be forced into conflicts over animal welfare issues. Whether animal welfare concerns will stop competitive fishing in its present forms or drastically alter the conduct of competitive fishing events, such as making all events harvest events in which fish are euthanized following strict guidelines, has been debated. Fishing with the primary purpose of competition among anglers is illegal in Germany (Meinelt et al. this volume), and Meinelt et al. (this volume) suggest that this social and legal perspective may spread to other countries. Yet, anglers engage in competitive fishing in other European countries, national and international competitions continue and a substantial number of anglers participate in competitive fishing events in neighboring Poland (Wolos et al. this volume). In the United States competitive fishing is now included in televised sports programming, and Schramm and Hunt (2007) suggest that this will make fishing a more mainstream element of US recreation (see below). The transition to a recognized professional sport, complete with a fan base, may emphasize fishing as a nationally popular recreational activity (Evans Section 12.4, this volume). The power of the media Recruiting new anglers and supporters for healthy aquatic resources can be a significant benefit of competitive fishing. Declining fishing participation rates, and therefore potentially declining support for healthy aquatic resources, are a concern in the United States, Australia and elsewhere. Competitive fishing itself will do little to recruit anglers and aquatic resource supporters, but competitive fishing events attract the media. In the US, several television programmes and numerous Web sites are exclusively about tournament fishing, and competitive fishing is becoming a professional sport. In Australia electronic media coverage for tournament fishing is in its infancy; but tournaments are reported in the printed media, and major events often receive front-page coverage. As the media increasingly includes fishing in sports entertainment programming, fishing gets
GCRF_12.indd 247
10/3/2007 10:29:07 AM
248
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
more exposure and becomes more mainstream entertainment, which, in turn, may attract more participants. An interplay between self-promotion of competitive fishing organizations, substantial payouts in tournaments and media coverage and promotion has led to full-time fishing celebrities. As for any sports icon, these people are influential, and that influence is elevated by the media. Although skilled anglers are often well spoken about fishing techniques, some are poorly informed, or even misinformed, about fishery resources and fisheries management. These anglers and the media can be an asset or a liability. It is essential to work proactively with the competitive fishing organizations, the anglers and the media to ensure that correct information and the right messages are delivered to a vulnerable public.
Conclusions Competitive fishing offers benefits and presents challenges to fisheries management. US fisheries managers uniformly indicated that fishing tournaments, overall, are neither strongly problematic nor strongly beneficial (Schramm and Hunt 2007). Although quantitative measures are lacking for other countries, the benefits and problems identified by US fishery managers generally reflect the situations and attitudes in Australia. While the problems created by tournaments may be fishery management issues, the benefits can be viewed as management tools. Schramm and Hunt (2007) suggest that fishery management benefits can be maximized and problems minimized by working proactively with tournament organizations and the media. They suggest the formation of management teams that would include tournament organizations, the media and other stakeholders affected by competitive fishing (e.g. municipal governments, departments of tourism, local community groups). The progress made towards effective integration of competitive fishing with fisheries management in Australia indicates that sport-fishing interest groups and state and national representative bodies should also be a part of these management teams. These teams would work closely with fisheries management to conduct successful competitive events and, at the same time, conserve and enhance recreational fisheries resources. The media and tournament organizations can be very influential, but fisheries management should expect their support, not fear their opposition. After all, it is a simple reality that without fish there will be no competitive fishing. Nations and societies in which competitive fishing is just beginning to grow may be the fortunate ones. Here, fisheries managers can truly be proactive and reap the benefits of competitive fishing while anticipating and minimizing adverse impacts.
GCRF_12.indd 248
10/3/2007 10:29:07 AM
Competitive fishing
12.2
249
Socio-economic analysis of competitive fishing in Poland
Arkadiusz Wołos, Hanna Mioduszewska and Harold L. Schramm Jr. Introduction Angling fulfils a number of the needs of contemporary people, the most important of which include the needs for stress release, recognition, self-accomplishment and new experiences (Ziemilski 1976). Of these, recognition, self-accomplishment and new experience are central to competitive angling, which contributes to its considerable social significance in Poland. Competition as an important element of angling motivation was reflected in the establishment of structured sport angling in 1933 when the Union of Sport Angling Associations was founded. The Polish Anglers Association (PAA) established after the Second World War acceded to the International Angling Confederation (also known as Confederation Internationale de la Peche Sportive) in 1958 and then, within the Confederation, acceded to the Federation of Sport Float Fishing, Federation of Sport Fly Fishing and Federation of Sport Casting Fishing (Sołśnia 2001). The PAA is also a member of the European Anglers’ Alliance, whose purpose is the development of recreational and sport values of angling, a steady increase in the quality of angling and demonstration of the socioeconomic importance of recreational fishing. Angling competitions in Poland are often divided into age and sex categories, by discipline (casting, float fishing, spinning and fly fishing) and by skill level (local, regional, national and international). Local competitions are specifically intended for all anglers regardless of skill level, whereas the most skilled anglers participate in national and international competitions. Despite the widely accepted social and economic significance of recreational fishing in Poland, there is scant information on the socio-economic aspects of competitive angling. The published literature about competitive fishing in Poland is limited to a few studies that report statistics on frequency and participation and predict future trends (Kusiński 1979; Sołśnia 2001); a thorough assessment of the socio-economic significance of competitive fishing has not been conducted. This study uses data obtained from the PAA and a survey of a subset of anglers fishing in competitive events to better understand the characteristics and economic value of competitive fishing events in Poland.
Material and methods Nationwide surveys of recreational fishing have not been conducted in Poland. In lieu of national statistics, information was obtained from the PAA to assess
GCRF_12.indd 249
10/3/2007 10:29:07 AM
250
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
recent trends in angling participation, numbers of competitive events and participation in competitive events. Information specific to competitive events and anglers fishing in them was obtained from surveys administered to contestants in a national PAA float-fishing event in 2001. Float fishing is a method of fishing that employs long poles that may or may not have a reel; a float attached to the line is used to carefully adjust the depth of the bait. Float fishing is the most popular of several types of fishing practiced in Poland for which there are competitions (Raksimowicz 2002).
Results The number of PAA members declined about 7% from 1998 to 2000 (Table 12.1). Despite a decrease in PAA members, the number of competitive events increased by almost 5% and the number of participants increased by more than 7% during the same time period (Table 12.1). A total of 109 competitive anglers completed most or all of the survey administered to participants in the PAA float-fishing event. Respondents participated in an average of 20.3 (SD = 11.1) events annually; of the events fished by these anglers, 37% were national-level events, 25% were regional events and 22% were local events. The respondents had fished an average of 20 years and 12 years in competitive events. Preferred fishing sites were canals and rivers (Figure 12.2), and preferred fish were roach, Rutilus rutilus (Linnaeus), and bream, Abramis brama (Linnaeus). The survey asked anglers to rate the importance of organizational and environmental factors to their satisfaction with the events. The most important factor was fishing in an event where all sites provide the same chance of producing the winning catch, what event anglers referred to as ‘equal chance’ fishery (Figure 12.3). Of the questions asked, the second-ranking item was fishing at a fishery with abundant fish. Other important factors were related to comfort and convenience. Fairness of judging the outcome of the competition and accommodations were of secondary importance. Prizes were least important compared with anglers’ satisfaction with the event. Table 12.1 Membership in the Polish Anglers Association and participation in competitive events organized by the PAA. Year
Number of members
1998
1999
2000
725,190
699,123
675,604
Total number of competitions
12,701
13,251
13,292
Total number of participants
349,612
376,723
375,759
Source: Data from Cichy and Zawadzki-Dominiak (2002).
GCRF_12.indd 250
10/3/2007 10:29:07 AM
Competitive fishing
251
The direct expenditure of anglers fishing in competitive events was highly variable and averaged €204 per angler per event (Table 12.2). The average value of fishing tackle owned by a competitor at the national level was €3353 with the maximum of €8972. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents had a sponsor that paid part or all the costs of their participation in competitions. The expenditure data was expanded for the eight national float-fishing competitions to estimate annual expenditures in these events. An average of 138 and a total of 1100 anglers participated in these events. With the average expenditure
Canal River Reservoir Lake Cooling reservoir Pond 0
10
20
30
40
Percentage of respondents Figure 12.2 Preferred fishing sites of 109 anglers fishing in a national float-fishing competition in Poland in 2001.
‘Equal chance’ competition Abundant fish Comfortable angling site Transportation to the angling site Transportation to the event site Quick determination of results Lodging Fairness of judging Meals Awards 0
2
4 6 Importance score
8
10
Figure 12.3 Importance of different aspects of a competitive to participant satisfaction with the event. Responses were obtained from 109 anglers fishing in a national float-fishing competition in Poland in 2001. Importance scale ranged from 1 (not at all important) to 10 (extremely important).
GCRF_12.indd 251
10/3/2007 10:29:08 AM
252
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Table 12.2 Expenditures (€) per event for an angler participating in national float-fishing competitions in Poland in 2001 (n = 93). Mean
% Of total
SD
Baits and groundbaits
82.0
40.2
42.7
Meals and accommodation
56.3
27.6
31.7
Transport
53.2
26.1
31.6
12.6
6.1
19.2
204.2
100.0
94.9
Other (e.g. fishing permits) Total
of €204 anglers spent a total of €224,202. Adding the annual equipment depreciation cost (€1102 × 138 = €152,116), the total value of these eight events is €376,318.
Discussion Recreational anglers in Poland prefer to catch pike, Esox lucius Linnaeus, and perch, Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus (Wołos 1994), which are more abundant in waters of lower trophic state. Float-fishing competition anglers appear to prefer more eutrophic canals and rivers. These venues also tend to be more easily accessible, provide better angler conveniences and are more likely to provide the ‘equal chance’ fisheries sought by anglers in competitive events. Rivers and, especially, canals are also popular venues for angling competitions in England (O’Hara and Williams 1991). Although lower trophic-level fish species such as roach and bream are not commonly valued by contemporary anglers (Wołos 1994, 2001), both are preferred by competitive anglers. Similar results have been found in England (O’Hara and Williams 1991). This research did not explore the reasons for species preferences, but it is likely that the stated preference for roach and bream is related to the high abundance of these species in the eutrophic waters considered most suitable for holding competitions. Although it is not clear whether the venue determines the preferred fish or the preferred fish dictates the venue, it is noteworthy that both the places fished and the fish species targeted are not those preferred by non-competitive recreational anglers. The hierarchy of factors influencing angler satisfaction with competitive events indicates that anglers are primarily concerned with fair competition and large catches. Convenient and comfortable access is also important. Amenities peripheral to the actual fishing experience are secondary, and the actual type or value of the prizes awarded is least important. Thus, the competitive dimension appears most important to these anglers. However, only competitive anglers fishing at a high competitive level (a national event) were included in the sample frame. This sampling frame probably contributed to a bias towards anglers highly engaged
GCRF_12.indd 252
10/3/2007 10:29:08 AM
Competitive fishing
253
in competitive fishing. The high percentage of events fished at the higher-level competitions (regional and national events) substantiates the predominance of more advanced competitive anglers in the sample frame. Further research is needed to better reflect the motivations and satisfactions of contestants across the range of competitive events. Although precise the estimates of the number of anglers are not available, Pinter and Wołos (1998) suggested that 1.5–2 million people fished in Poland. The total economic impact of angling in Poland, considering only the values that can be presented in financial measures, is at least €286 million (Wołos 2006). When assessing the overall economic importance of angling, competitive fishing in particular, the creation of jobs in numerous companies producing the angling equipment and accessories, tourist services (event service and organization, transport, catering, accommodations) and companies publishing specialist angling magazines must also be considered. The total employment related to the fishing and related industries in Poland may reach 10,000 people (Wołos 2006). Relatively few anglers fishing in only eight national float-fishing events had direct and amortized equipment expenditures of almost €385,000. Float-fishing is the most popular form of competitive fishing in Poland (Raksimowicz 2002), but national competitions are also held for other types of fishing such as fly fishing. Thus, expenditures in float-fishing competitions are only a portion of expenditures by anglers fishing in national competitions. Anglers who take part only in local or regional competitions and junior competitors generally spend less on the competition participation and equipment, but the number of events and participants is several orders of magnitude greater than the number of national competitions. Although additional statistics are needed, such as precise estimates of the number of anglers and the numbers and expenditures of anglers that participate in competitive events at various levels, it is clear that a substantial number of Polish anglers participate in competitive fishing events and that event-related expenditures are a significant part of total fishing expenditures in Poland. Assuming that the trend in membership in the PAA over only 3 years is indicative of both a longer-term trend in fishing participation and of the angler population as a whole, it is also noteworthy that the number of competitive events and participation in competitive angling appear to be increasing while numbers of anglers are decreasing. The anglers surveyed had fished for an average of 20 years and, therefore, can be considered long-time anglers. Assuming that anglers in Poland fishing in competitive events are among the more avid and dedicated anglers, as suggested by Raksimowicz (2002) and corroborated by research in other countries (e.g. Loomis and Ditton 1987; Wilde et al. 1998), the decline in general fishing participation but increase in competitive fishing is not unprecedented. Comparison of angler statistics in the United States since 1991 indicates a decline in number of anglers but increases in fishing frequency and expenditures, suggesting the angler population, although declining, is comprised of more avid anglers (Schramm and Gerard 2004).
GCRF_12.indd 253
10/3/2007 10:29:08 AM
254
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
In addition to its importance as a component of the recreational fishing opportunities and local and national economies, competitive fishing, like other competitive sports, is part of the social fabric of Poland. More than one-third of the PAA members participate in fishing competitions in Poland. In recent years (1997–2002) Polish anglers have won numerous individual and team medals at European and world championships (Cichy and Zawadzki-Dominiak 2002), and thousands of Polish anglers have considered this a significant accomplishment.
12.3
Legislative treatment and current status of competitive fishing in Germany
Thomas Meinelt, Robert Arlinghaus and K. Jendrusch Introduction Competitive fishing has long been a part of recreational fisheries across the world (Schramm and Harrison this book). For the purpose of this German case study, traditional fishing competitions are events at a particular fishery at one point in time that (1) are organized and conducted by private organizations (mostly angling clubs or associations); (2) allot fishing spots by lottery to contestants who try to catch the highest biomass or the largest (heaviest) fish in a specified time frame; (3) sometimes require entry fees from participants; and (4) award winners prizes either as money, goods or recognition. The most common is the award of a trophy, certificates or fishing tackle. The value of these goods rarely exceeds €1000. The objective of this section is to describe the legal and historical background of traditional competitive fishing in Germany and how the fishing community has adapted to a ban on such events.
Legal background and history of competitive fishing In the Federal Republic of Germany there are 16 different states. Each has its own responsibility for inland fisheries and set of fisheries laws. These laws share many common characteristics, but there are also some differences, particularly regarding how fishing competitions are explicitly treated. Overarching all fishery laws is the German Animal Protection Act (APA), first established in 1972 and revised multiple times thereafter, which governs accepted ways humans interact with animals, including recreational fishing. This law provides the general justification for recreational fishing. In addition, animals experience protection from inhumane treatment according to the German constitution of 2002, indicating the strong influence of animal welfare on recreational fishing (and other animal–human interactions, Arlinghaus 2007).
GCRF_12.indd 254
10/3/2007 10:29:09 AM
Competitive fishing
255
Several clauses of the APA are particularly relevant to competitive fishing. In Clause 1, ‘nobody is allowed to inflict pain, suffering or damages to an animal without a reasonable reason’. Clause 4 states, ‘…the killing of an animal is only permitted by somebody who has the knowledge to appropriately kill that animal without causing avoidable pain and suffering’. As a result of Clause 4, throughout Germany special training and an angling examination are needed for each angler to show the knowledge to appropriately kill a fish (von Lukowicz 1998). Lastly, as stipulated in Clause 17 of the APA, ‘penalisation by prison sentence up to 3 years or by fine will take place if somebody 1) kills a vertebrate without having a reasonable reason or 2b) causes enduring or repeated pain and suffering to a vertebrate’. Hence, according to the APA there must be a reasonable reason for recreational fishing. Reasonable reasons, however, are not specified by the APA. Several court decisions debated critical practices of recreational fishing, including competitive fishing, with relevance to fish welfare and, therefore, helped to clarify what today is unanimously accepted as reasonable reasons for recreational fishing in Germany: (1) fishing with the intent to harvest fish for personal consumption and (2) fishing to meet ecological management objectives such as to improve the state and structure of fish populations or the provision of other cultural ecosystem services such as water quality (Tierschutzbericht 2003). Hence, traditional competitive fishing, whose sole or primary objective has been competition among participants to determine the best angler and a winner, lacks a reasonable reason and, therefore, violates the APA (Jendrush and Niehaus 2007), particularly if voluntary catch and release is involved (Arlinghaus 2007). To avoid confusion, it should be noted that the APA was not enacted in response to critical recreational angling practices. Instead, the general regulations set by the APA were interpreted in the stated ways after angling-critical non-governmental organizations and some public prosecutors instituted legal proceedings against selected recreational fishing practices such as competitive fishing and voluntary catch-and-release fishing. Following the precedent-setting court decisions against traditional competitive fishing in Hamm and Offenbach, Germany (Anonymous 1988; Zemke 1994), prohibition of competitive fishing with the primary objective to determine a winner was enacted into fisheries law in some German states (Braun 2000). However, it is important to realize that not all competitive fishing events are prohibited according to the APA and related fisheries legislation. Particularly, events in which the catch is killed and removed from the system (no catch and release) and that are primarily organized to manage the fish community, such as harvesting overabundant fish stocks, do not currently conflict with the APA, even if the catch is weighed and assessed to determine a winner (Meyer-Ravenstein 1993). This is allowed (or, more properly stated, not forbidden) according to the contemporary interpretation of the APA, because in such situations the fishing has a reasonable primary reason and determining a winner is a subordinate objective of the fishing event (Meyer-Ravenstein 1993). These tolerated events are known
GCRF_12.indd 255
10/3/2007 10:29:09 AM
256
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
today as management fishing (Hegefischen) or companionship fishing (Gemeinschaftsfischen). These terms are used synonymously; for simplicity, the term management fishing will be used hereafter.
Current form and social benefits of accepted fishing competitions in Germany All over Germany, management fishing events that typically have competitive elements associated with them are today allowed, as long as the primary reason for fishing is reasonable. To account for the differences between traditional competitive fishing and management fishing, the German Sport Fishing Association (VDSF), one of the two German umbrella organizations lobbying for recreational fishing, developed criteria of management fishing that were acknowledged officially, hence nationwide, in the most recent report on animal welfare in Germany (Tierschutzbericht 2003). According to these criteria, the catch needs to be killed and utilized, for example, for pet or human nutrition. There should be no continuative character associated with management fishing, that is, winners should not qualify for further events. Further, management fishing must contribute to the management of fish stocks, such as the reduction of overabundant zooplanktivorous fish, which in many cases falls within the realm of the fishing rights holder’s (e.g. an angling club) management responsibility as laid down in fisheries legislation. Hence, any competitive motivation must be secondary to serving the fishing rights holder’s duty for sustainable fisheries management and conservation (reasonable reason for fishing recreationally). This fisheries management duty known as Hegepflicht is the main reason for the replacement of the traditional fishing competition model by what is known today as management fishing. Many different stakeholder groups such as anglers, boaters and swimmers express their dissatisfaction with overabundant zooplanktivorous stocks in eutrophied ecosystems because these stocks can exert high predation pressure on herbivorous zooplankton, which in turn relaxes phytoplankton using top-down control and contributes to decreased water clarity and quality (Mehner et al. 2004). Hence, there is the socially constructed perception that reducing populations of zooplanktivores is one of the primary component of good managerial practice within the generic fishing rights holder’s management duty to improve fish stock structure. In fact, no other stakeholder group can effectively reduce zooplanktivorous fish as the right to catch and harvest these fish in angler-exploited water bodies belongs exclusively to fishing rights holders, for example, angling clubs and associations. Moreover, alternative approaches to improve water quality (e.g. chemical binding and fixation of the in-water phosphorus pool) or seining of zooplanktivorous fish are cost intensive or logistically challenging and therefore rarely pursued in practice on larger scales. Hence, angling clubs and associations regularly organize management
GCRF_12.indd 256
10/3/2007 10:29:09 AM
Competitive fishing
257
fishing events to harvest zooplanktivores because they have a vested interest in contributing to the reduction of zooplanktivorous fish stocks through angling mortality. There is some evidence that the majority of the biomass of zooplanktivorous fish removed from angler-exploited systems is indeed originating from management fishing events. For example, in 2002, 58 metric tons of coarse fish were harvested by members of the German Anglers’ Association (DAV) of Brandenburg, of which 34 tons of fish were harvested in management events (K. Piesker, personal communication). This means that 85% of all harvested zooplanktivorous fish by members of the DAV Brandenburg were caught in management fishing events that fulfilled a dual role in reducing overabundant zooplanktivorous fish and providing opportunity for anglers to experience a competitive environment. It is not known whether this fish harvest significantly reduced the abundance of zooplanktivorous fish and hence had a measurable impact on water quality. Fisheries management theory and practice developed through biomanipulation experiments suggests that harvest of zooplanktivorous fish needs to be substantial to noticeably improve water clarity (Mehner et al. 2004). Research is needed to test the effectiveness of removing zooplanktivorous fish through management fishing in terms of influencing water quality and clarity. Nevertheless, fish harvest contributes to removal of phosphorus fixed in fish biomass from the highly eutrophied water bodies in Germany, and Arlinghaus (2004) estimated that German anglers were net removers of phosphorous from lake and river ecosystems nationwide. By organizing management fishing events, angling clubs and associations also comply with the historic interest in competitive fishing of a specific segment of the angling public in fishing. A nationwide survey of German anglers found that approximately 20% of all organized anglers (anglers that are members of the German Anglers’ Association, DAV, or the VDSF) surveyed preferred management fishing in a competitive environment (management fishing) over other types of fishing (Arlinghaus 2004). In contrast, only 6.6% of non-organized anglers preferred competitive fishing over other types of fishing. Hence, anglers who prefer to fish competitively are most likely those who become club members and most social and economic benefits associated with competitive fishing (see Schramm et al. 1991; Schramm and Harrison, this book for details) as likely to accrue to angling clubs at the local level.
Discussion and future outlook An important aspect of the legal and social legitimatization of what is known as management fishing is that catch and release is not involved, which is in stark contrast to the traditional German fishing competition model where fish were usually released alive after the weighing procedure and holding in keep-nets.
GCRF_12.indd 257
10/3/2007 10:29:09 AM
258
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
However, it is unclear whether the new format of fishing competitions will withstand social, in particular animal-welfare-related pressure in the future. Some public prosecutors, for example, proclaim that any fishing activity with a competitive component is illegal, reasonable reason notwithstanding (unpublished court decision document 2006). This argumentation poses a serious risk to all types of fishing events, including management fishing, in which anglers gather and contrast each other’s level of angling skill. This line of argumentation is relatively recent and was initiated in course of an (unsuccessful) lawsuit against a particular form of management fishing (king fishing) in Hannover (Germany). It remains to be seen whether such legislative perspective will spread throughout Germany. It partly depends on how successful the angling community will be in raising its profile and public acceptance by pointing to the multiple social and economic benefits associated with competitive and management fishing. However, according to the current interpretation of the APA, any anthropocentric (i.e. angling-centred) arguments justifying fishing other than personal consumption of fish and fisheries management are subordinated to the nationwide objective of avoiding fish welfare impairments whenever possible. This severely limits the options fisheries managers have in providing opportunities that match the interest of the angling public (Arlinghaus 2007). To reach compromise solutions, one could argue that provided that fishing competitions are conducted environmentally friendly and by minimizing fish welfare impacts, for example, by applying appropriate gear, handling techniques and weigh-in procedures, there are possibilities to reconcile angling interests with fish welfare issues (Arlinghaus et al. 2007). One can only speculate about reasons why animal welfare thinking was successful in gaining priority over angling interests and practices such as competitive fishing. Retrospectively, one can assume that this success was probably possibly because of four mutually interrelated reasons: (1) strong animal welfare attitudes among the German public, (2) lack of social priority of recreational fishing facilitated by poor political influences of angler associations and clubs, (3) disperse representation of angling interests spatially segregated at a state level and further broken down to independent local angling clubs, and (4) avid roles of a minor number of key people in the process of highlighting the need to incorporate animal welfare issues into local angling practice. Altogether, this has over time shifted the relationship between animal welfare issues and angler interests into a new stable state, in which a proper justification for recreational fishing overall is the prerequisite for being allowed to pursue particular angling activities such as competitive fishing. Proper justification of competitive fishing is currently not achieved through emphasis of the social and economic benefits associated with this activity. In is debatable whether this perspective, which reduces the recreational fishing equation to acceptable fishing = fishing for food (subsistence), is timely in the twenty-first century (compare Arlinghaus et al. 2007), and it is worth noting that many industrialized societies that have developed a radically different attitude towards competitive fishing. It is, for example, currently
GCRF_12.indd 258
10/3/2007 10:29:09 AM
Competitive fishing
259
unthinkable that competitive fishing including catch and release would be refrained from being acceptable practice in the US. Our case study, nevertheless, highlights the importance of animal welfare reasoning in profoundly shaping the socially accepted ways of interacting with fish. This can have important implications for recreational fisheries and fishing-dependent industries.
12.4 From the inside looking out: a tournament organization’s perspective on growing competitive fishing Charlie Evans Founded in 1979 in Gilbertsville, Kentucky, USA, FLW Outdoors is a private corporation that today is the world’s largest fishing tournament organizer. The company serves people who make a living as full-time professional anglers, as well as anglers for whom tournaments are part of a vocational mix and anglers who simply enjoy the thrill of competition and see tournaments as an opportunity to expand and improve their fishing skills. This year the company will provide more than 93,000 anglers an opportunity to compete in 241 tournaments that comprise 12 different tournament circuits targeting black bass, Micropterus spp., walleye, Sander vitreus (Mitchill), red drum (redfish), Sciaenops ocellatus (Linnaeus), king mackerel (kingfish), Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier), and striped bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum). In sum, these tournaments will offer nearly $43 million in awards in 2007 alone. FLW Outdoors is also a media company producing television programming, magazines and a Web site that serve tournament anglers, fishing enthusiasts and would-be anglers alike.
The rise of competitive fishing Organized tournament fishing in the United States dates back to 1959. Today’s professional-level fishing tournaments are different in many respects from the first World Series of Sport Fishing held by Hy Peskin in 1959. Unlike most early tournaments, which were multi-species events, today’s professional tournaments are organized around circuits (a series of similar events governed by a consistent set of rules held at different locations) dedicated to a single species or species group (e.g. black bass). Today’s tournaments have also carved out a significant and growing place in the public psyche, thanks to sustained media coverage on a national, and in many cases, an international stage. This media coverage has helped transform the sport from a regional marketing tool for boat, motor and tackle manufacturers into a marketing juggernaut supporting organizations as large and as diverse as Wal-Mart, Chevrolet, Procter and Gamble, BP and the National Guard.
GCRF_12.indd 259
10/3/2007 10:29:09 AM
260
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
A new era begins Payouts to participants in black bass (hereafter, bass) tournaments increased slowly during the 1970s and 1980s (Table 12.3). By the mid-1990s, premier tournaments awarded first-place anglers US$30,000–50,000 in cash and prizes consisting of boats, motors and fishing tackle. One tournament during this era, the All-American, began awarding its top angler US$100,000 cash. Until 1997, however, the All-American was the exception, not the rule. In June 1997, anglers fishing in the newly formed FLW Tour bass tournament on Lake Minnetonka in Minnesota, USA, competed for a total purse of US$1 million cash, and the winner took home an unprecedented $200,000. Since that tournament just 10 years ago, $100,000 and $200,000 awards have become the norm in top professional bass-fishing events. In 2005 and 2006, the top bass angler in FLW Outdoors’ championship tournament won US$500,000. In 2007 the stakes were even higher in this championship event; the winner earned US$500,000 plus a $500,000 bonus
Table 12.3 Tournament fishing milestones in North America from 1980 to the present.
GCRF_12.indd 260
Year
Event
1980
FLW Outdoors first season; sponsors 12 bass tournaments and awards a total of US$20,000 (approximately €15,200) at each
1984
First $100,000 (€76,000) award presented in professional bass fishing at the All-American tournament
1996
FLW Tour introduced with a total payout of $863,000 (€635) over seven events
1997
Wal-Mart signs on as title sponsor with FLW Outdoors
1998
FLW Tour champion wins $250,000 (€190,000), the largest award in tournament bass fishing at the time
1999
Ranger M1 tournament pays $600,000 (€456) to winner. The award is more than double the largest cash award in the history of tournament bass fishing at the time
2001
FLW Walleye Tour champion receives $400,000, the largest award in the history of tournament walleye fishing
2002
Ranger M1 tournament pays $700,000 (€532,000) to winner, the largest award in the history of tournament bass fishing
2003
FLW Tour champion receives $500,000 (€380,000), which now ranks as the standard first-place championship award in professional bass fishing
2005
FLW Kingfish Tour and FLW Redfish Series introduced. Both circuits offer the largest purses for their species. Championship winners receive $150,000 and $75,000, respectively (€114,000 and €57,000)
2006
FLW Striper Series is introduced as the nation’s first mandatory catch-and-release tournament circuit targeting striped bass. Championship winner receives $50,000 (€38,000)
2007
FLW bass championship tournament (The Forrest Wood Cup) payout increases to $2 (€1.52) million with a top award of $1 (€0.76) million – the largest first-place award in the history of professional bass fishing
10/3/2007 10:29:09 AM
Competitive fishing
261
for fishing from a Ranger boat (Ranger Boats is a large US manufacturer of fishing boats and a primary sponsor of the event) for a total purse of US$1 million. Payouts in professional fishing tournaments are now comparable to the purses in other popular US individual sports (Table 12.4). The accelerated growth in payouts in US bass tournaments since 1997 can be attributed directly to an influx in sponsorship by non-endemic companies, companies with products not specifically linked to fishing. Prior to the introduction of the FLW Tour tournaments in 1996, fishing tournaments were almost entirely sponsored by endemic companies – those with products and services directly tied to fishing, such as boats, motors and tackle. This limited sponsorship base restricted the sport’s growth potential because funds for payouts and promotions were scarce. Today, FLW Outdoors is sponsored by the world’s largest retailer (Wal-Mart), two other top five companies on the Forbes Global 500 list – BP and General Motors – and more than 50 other leading brands. These organizations have tapped into a resource in tournament fishing that delivers a large and loyal consumer group in a way that no other activity can. With more than 44 million people wetting a line every year, fishing is, after all, the true national pastime of the United States. One of the primary innovations drawing non-endemic companies to the sport is the Family Fun Zone – a carnival-like sponsor exposition held in conjunction with weigh-ins at major tournaments. There is no cost for admission to the Family Fun Zone, which houses activities and exhibits such as boat and motor displays, fishing seminars and games that have broad appeal to both adults and children alike. This broad reach and appeal is critical to growing fishing participation. The Family Fun Zone, with its free product samples, contests, and children’s activities in addition to the spectacle of an international television production and the thrill of watching someone win a large sum of money, draws in people who may have never fished before. By engaging anglers and non-anglers alike in such an interactive way, professional tournaments help maintain the sport of fishing as one of the most popular recreational activities in the United States. Table 12.4
Winner’s purse in significant individual sports events in the US, 2007.
Event
GCRF_12.indd 261
Sport
First-place purse (US$)
Daytona 500
Stock car racing
1,500,000
Kentucky Derby
Horse racing
1,450,000
PGA Masters
Golf
1,200,000
US Open
Tennis
1,200,000
FLW Championship (Forrest Wood Cup)
Bass fishing
1,000,000
PBR World Finals
Rodeo, bull riding
1,000,000
PBA Masters
Bowling
AVP Open
Volley ball
100,000 25,000
10/3/2007 10:29:10 AM
262
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Another significant innovation that has helped grow the sport is FLW Outdoors’ policy of category exclusivity. That is to say that a sponsor who supports fishing through FLW Outdoors will not face competition from another sponsor offering similar products. For example, Kellogg’s cereal is the official cereal sponsor of FLW Outdoors, and FLW outdoors will not sell sponsorship to another cereal manufacturer. Therefore, Kellogg’s is able to reach the fishing market through an uncluttered marketing environment. This is a sharp contrast to other professional sports where competing sponsors are often seen side by side. Category exclusivity makes sponsorship more valuable to non-endemic companies, which directly translates into higher payouts in tournaments and increased exposure for the sport as a whole. Today, companies sponsor teams of anglers that compete in tournaments across the nation, fishing from boats displaying corporate logos. By turning bass boats into mobile billboards, both on the water and on the nation’s highways, exposure for the sport, its competitors and its sponsors is greatly increased.
Conservation The growth of professional tournaments has benefited from sponsorship, and the tournaments have, in turn, spurred sales of boats, motors, fishing tackle, tow vehicles and everyday consumer products. But tournaments also increase tourism and focus attention on precious natural resources and the need to protect them, thus elevating the status of fish and wildlife agencies. Tournament organizers and professional anglers know that their livelihoods depend on healthy fish populations, so they are adamant about working with fish and wildlife agencies to protect the resource while also promoting participation in the sport. Tournaments allow fish and wildlife agencies the opportunity to sample large numbers of fish. Tournament organizers work hand in hand with fisheries agencies during tournaments to help ensure that bass and other species continue to thrive. One of the most notable examples of this type of partnership is the widespread practice of catch-and-release fishing in the United States. Prior to the rise in tournament popularity, most recreational anglers harvested their catch. Today, the opposite is true for many species, particularly bass, and tournaments are rightfully credited for supporting and promoting the catch-and-release ethic. Every year large tournament organizers such as FLW Outdoors refine their fishhandling practices to help ensure successful live release of tournament-caught fish. Innovations in use today include an in-water weigh-in system and the use of release boats (large boats with fish-hauling tanks used to transport and distribute fish) where water conditions are not suitable for immediate lakeside release following a weigh-in. Historically, FLW Outdoors has maintained a 98% live-release rate in its bass tournaments. FLW Outdoors is at present participating as a co-operator and funding sponsor to evaluate survival of tournament-caught walleye and to develop methods to
GCRF_12.indd 262
10/3/2007 10:29:10 AM
Competitive fishing
263
improve their survival. Tournament organizers such as FLW Outdoors also help fund agencies like the FishAmerica Foundation whose mission is to help habitat restoration and other projects that contribute to healthy fisheries.
Media exposure Media exposure has played, and will continue to play, an important role in the growth of tournament fishing and fishing participation in general. There are simply too many magazines, television programmes, radio programmes and activities – such as video games and Web sites – competing for one’s time to expect any sport or recreational activity to prosper without a significant media component. For fishing, tournaments fill the media role in a way that no other aspect of the sport can. As a result, the television programme FLW Outdoors is one of the highest rated daytime shows on Fox Sports Net (FSN), a cable television network dedicated to sports programming, which reaches an audience of 80 million households in the United States. FLW Outdoors is also broadcast on the American Forces Network, which reaches more than 800,000 US servicemembers stationed around the world in 177 countries and aboard US navy ships. The programme is also distributed to approximately 429 million households outside the United States through an international broadcasting agreement with Matchroom Sport, which takes the show to Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, China, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, India, Russia, Hungary and the United Kingdom. FLW Outdoors also publishes three distinct versions of FLW Outdoors Magazine eight times a year and produces the FLWOutdoors.com Web site. Each version of FLW Outdoors Magazine has content for either bass anglers, walleye anglers or kingfish, redfish and striped bass anglers – the organization’s tournament species. Content focuses on helping less experienced anglers become better at their craft by explaining techniques used by top professional anglers who fish in the organization’s tournaments. The FLWOutdoors.com Web site is geared to tournament enthusiasts and attracts more than 5 million page views per month, thanks to live streaming video and leaderboards from major events, the nation’s largest fantasy fishing league and a searchable archive of angler accomplishments and photos from every FLW Outdoors event. Tournament organizers such as FLW Outdoors have also been successful in securing mainstream media exposure, as tournament anglers have been featured on the front page of national daily newspapers, such as USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, as well as in popular weekly and monthly magazines including Field & Stream, Sports Illustrated, Time, Forbes, Fortune and Esquire. It is important to note that the last four of these magazines are not traditionally considered sports magazines. Tournament anglers have also been featured on national news networks that reach a broad segment of the US population. Without high-profile,
GCRF_12.indd 263
10/3/2007 10:29:10 AM
264
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
lucrative tournaments sponsored by well-known national companies, these major media outlets would not likely cover fishing.
The future of fishing While tournament fishing in the United States has experienced exceptional growth in the last 10 years, the next 10 years are expected to be just as phenomenal. As awareness continues to grow among the Nation’s youngest anglers so will sponsor investment in the sport, which translates into increased participation in tournaments, and fishing in general, in the future. One key to sustaining this growth is working with fish and wildlife agencies to help ensure healthy fisheries and access to those fisheries by the general public. Tournament anglers are well positioned to work with the agencies in this capacity as they are opinion leaders in the broader fishing community. Technology will also play a key role in the continued growth of professional tournaments both in terms of ways to reach the public and ways to care for fish during events to ensure successful live release.
References Allen, M.S., Rogers, M.W., Myers, R.A. and Bivin, M.W. (2004) Simulated impacts of tournament-associated mortality on largemouth bass fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24: 1252–1261. Anonymous (1988) Tierquälerei beim Wettangeln. Neue Strafrechtszeitschrift 10: 466–467. Arlinghaus, R. (2004) Recreational fisheries in Germany – a social and economic analysis. Berichte des IGB 18: 1–160. Arlinghaus, R. (2007) Voluntary catch-and-release can generate conflict within the recreational angling community: a qualitative case study of specialised carp, Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, angling in Germany. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14: 161–171. Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., Schwab, A. and Cowx, I.G. Fish welfare: a challenge to the feelings-based approach, with implications for recreational fishing. Fish and Fisheries 8 (1): 57–71. Braun, M. (2000) Tierschutz im Fischereirecht. In: G. Keiz (Ed.) Fischerei and Naturschutz. Tierschutz und Fischereiausübung – ökologische Fischhege. Schriftenreihe 2, Verband Deutscher Sportfischer e.V., Offenbach, Germany, pp. 7–15. Cichy, M. and Zawadzki-Dominiak, A. (2002) The Data of Sport Fishing. Polish Anglers Association, Warsaw, Poland (typescript, in Polish). Cooke, S.J. and Schramm, H.L. Jr. (2007) Catch-and-release science and its application to conservation and management of recreational fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14: 73–89. Duttweiler, M.W. (1985) Status of competitive fishing in the United States: trends and state fisheries policies. Fisheries 10(5): 5–7.
GCRF_12.indd 264
10/3/2007 10:29:10 AM
Competitive fishing
265
Falk, J.M., Graefe, A.R. and Ditton, R.B. (1989) Patterns of participation and motivation among saltwater tournament anglers. Fisheries 14(4): 10–17. Gabelhouse, D.W. Jr. (1987) Response of largemouth bass and bluegills to removal of surplus largemouth bass from a Kansas pond. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7: 81–90. Hayes, D.B., Taylor, W.W. and Schramm, H.L. Jr. (1995) Predicting the biological impact of competitive fishing. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 457–472. Hoffman, G.C., Coble, D.W., Frie, R.V., Copes, F.A., Bruch, R.M. and Kamke, K. (1996) Walleye and sauger mortality associated with live-release tournaments on the Lake Winnebago system, Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 364–370. Jendrusch, K. and Niehaus, M. (2007) Ausgewählte Probleme der Angelfischerei, Natur und Recht, in press. Kerr, S.J. and Kamke, K.K. (2003) Competitive fishing in freshwaters of North America: a survey of Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions. Fisheries 28(3): 26–31. Kusiński, L. (1979) Sportfishing. In: Proceedings of the Symposium Recreational Fisheries 2000 Symposium. Polish Anglers Association, pp. 87–93 (in Polish), Warsaw, Poland. Loomis, D.K. and Ditton, R.B. (1987) Analysis of motive and participation differences between saltwater sport and tournament fishermen. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7: 482–487. Martin, C.C. (1995) Evaluation of slot length limits for largemouth bass in two Delaware ponds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 713–719. Mehner, T., Arlinghaus, R., Berg, S. et al. (2004) How to link biomanipulation and sustainable fisheries management: a step-by-step guideline for lakes of the European temperate zone. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11: 261–275. Meyer-Ravenstein, D. (1993) Abfischen von ‘Weißfischen’ unter Wettbewerbsbedingungen. Natur und Recht 4: 152–153. Muoneke, M.I. and Childress, W.M. (1994) Hooking mortality: a review for recreational fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science 2: 123–156. Muth, R.M., Hamilton, D.A., Organ, J.F., Witter, D.J., Mather, M.E. and Daigle, J.J. (1998) The future of wildlife and fisheries policy and management: assessing the attitudes and values of wildlife and fisheries professionals. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63: 604–627. O’Hara, K. and Williams, T.R. (1991) Analysis of catches from the British National Angling Championship. In: I.G. Cowx (Ed.) Catch Effort Sampling Strategies: Their Application in Freshwater Fisheries Management. Fishing New Books, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK, pp. 214–222. Ortiz, M., Prince, E.D., Serafy, J.E. et al. (2003) Global overview of the major constituent-based billfish tagging programs and their results since 1954. Marine and Freshwater Research 54: 489–507. Pepperell, J.G. (1990) Australian Game-Fish Tagging Program, 1971–1987. In: N.C. Parker, A.E. Giorgi, R.C. Heidinger, D.G. Jester, E.D. Prince and G.A. Winans (Eds) Fish Marking Techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp. 765–774.
GCRF_12.indd 265
10/3/2007 10:29:10 AM
266
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Pepperell, J.G. (2002) Regional Economic Impact of the Toyota Sportivo 40th New South Wales Interclub Game Fishing Tournament, Port Stephens 2002. Sydney, Australia: New South Wales Game Fishing Association, p. 2. Pinter, K. and Wołos, A. (1998) Summary report of the symposium topic session on the current status and trends in recreational fisheries: In: P. Hickley and H. Tompkins (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic and Management Aspects. Fishing New Books, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 1–4. Prince, E.E. and Brown, B.B. (1991) Coordination of the ICCAT enhanced research program for billfish. In: D. Guthrie, J.M. Hoenig, M. Holliday et al. (Eds) Creel and Angler Surveys in Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp. 13–18. Raksimowicz, P. (2002) Socio-economic Significance of Sport Angling. MSc thesis. University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Olsztyn, Poland, p. 38 (in Polish). Schramm, H.L. Jr. and Gerard, P.D. (2004) Temporal changes in fishing motivation among fishing club anglers in the United States. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11: 313–321. Schramm, H.L. Jr. and Hunt, K.M. (2007) The impacts of tournament fishing on fisheries management on inland waters in the United States. Fisheries 32: 234–243. Schramm, H.L. Jr., Armstrong, M.L., Funicelli, N.A. et al. (1991) The status of competitive sport fishing in North America. Fisheries 16(3): 4–12. Schramm, H.L. Jr., Walters, A.R., Grizzle, J.M., Beck, B.H., Hanson, L.A. and Rees, S.B. (2006) Effects of live-well conditions on mortality and largemouth bass virus prevalence of largemouth bass caught in summer tournaments. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26: 812–825. Shupp, B.D. (1979) 1978 status of bass fishing tournaments in the United States – a survey of state fisheries management agencies. Fisheries 4(6): 11–19. Siepker M.J., Ostrand, K.G., Cooke, S.J., Philipp, D.P. and Wahl, D.H. (2007) A review of black bass, Micropterus spp., catch-and-release angling effects: implications for conservation and management. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14: 91–101. Sołśnia, R. (2001) Angling sport. In: Proceedings of the Conference Recreational Fisheries – Past–Present–Future. Polish Anglers Association, Warsaw, Poland, pp. 95–98 (in Polish). Tierschutzbericht (2003) Bericht über den Stand der Entwicklung des Tierschutzes. Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, Drucksache 15/723, Bonn, Germany, p. 148. von Lukowicz, M. (1998) Education and training in recreational fisheries in Germany. In: P. Hickley and H. Tompkins (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic and Management Aspects. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 287–293. Wilde, G.R., Reichers, R.K. and Ditton, R.B. (1998) Differences in attitudes, fishing motives, and demographic characteristics between tournament and nontournament black bass anglers in Texas. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18: 422–431. Wołos, A. (1994) Angling as a part of lake fisheries. In: A. Wołos (Ed.) Actual Problems of Lake Fisheries. Wydawnictwo IRS, Olsztyn, Poland, pp. 119–132 (in Polish).
GCRF_12.indd 266
10/3/2007 10:29:10 AM
Competitive fishing
267
Wołos, A. (2001) The role of angling in counteracting the effects of eutrophication. In: A. Wołos (Ed.) Selected Aspects of Fisheries Managmement under the Conditions of Eutrophication Process. Wydawnictwo IRS, Olsztyn, Poland, pp. 32–58 (in Polish). Wołos, A. (2006) Social, economic and ecological importance of recreational fisheries. In: A. Wołos (Ed.) Fisheries, Angling, Sustainable Development. Wydawnictwo IRS, Olsztyn, pp. 57–71 (in Polish). Zemke, P. (1994) Animal protection in game fishing. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenzeitschrift 101: 175–177. Ziemilski, A. (1976) Man in Landscape. Sport i Turystyka, Warsaw, Poland, p. 198 (in Polish).
GCRF_12.indd 267
10/3/2007 10:29:11 AM
Chapter 13
International fishing tourism Past, present and future Trude Borch, Øystein Aas and David Policansky
Abstract Recreational fishing as tourism is, with a few exceptions, largely unstudied both from a recreational fishing research perspective and from a tourism research perspective. This chapter aims at looking at fishing tourism from both sides, trying to establish a platform for more directed research to assist a sustainable development of fishing tourism. Before delving into some relevant parts of recreational fishing research and tourism research, the chapter presents a short outline of the history of fishing tourism and identifies the major elements in the modern fishing tourism industry, along with the different management regimes applied to this nature-based industry. The chapter presents three case studies that illustrate differences in the development and management of fishing tourism and concludes by pointing to future challenges and research needs in securing a sustainable development of fishing tourism.
Introduction – linking recreational fisheries research with tourism research A simple definition of a tourist is a person travelling away from home to stay overnight for leisure purposes (MacCannell 1989). When an angler travels away from home to take part in fishing for recreational purposes, he or she purchases services from a multifaceted tourism industry and may be defined as a fishing tourist (Figure 13.1). In spite of an increase in international travel to take part in recreational activities, and the obvious connection between recreational fishing and tourism, there have been few academic efforts to study recreational fishing from a tourism perspective. Further, despite the large body of research on recreational fishing, much of which is relevant to fishing tourism, it is striking how 268
GCRF_13.indd 268
10/3/2007 10:30:23 AM
International fishing tourism
269
Fishing in area nearby home
Fishing tourism
Competitive fishing Fishing from second homes
Figure 13.1 Conceptual diagram of different forms of recreational fishing in a locality.
little of this research focuses explicitly on recreational fishing as tourism. Some exceptions are Roehl et al. (1993), Holland et al. (1998), Fennell (2000), Ditton et al. (2002), Chen et al. (2003), Borch (2004) and Zwirn et al. (2005). One explanation for this tendency in recreational fisheries research may be that many of these studies are conducted from a management or resource conservation perspective. In addition, studies that focus on the social and economic aspects of the activity often have a ‘public service’ approach, with a tendency to focus on resident anglers, while non-resident fishers are perceived as ‘outsiders’ and even a potential management problem (Ditton et al. 2002). In spite of this, aspects of relevance to fishing tourism are often indirectly or implicitly covered in recreational fishing research. Tourism research takes place in a mixed academic landscape of architecture, urban planning, parks and recreation, forestry and hospitality (Miller 1993; Farrell and Twining-Ward 2004). In spite of its fragmented character, tourism is expanding as an area of scholarship and research (Graburn and Jafari 1991; Lew et al. 2004). Since the 1970s tourism studies and research have had an increasing focus on the relationship between tourism and the natural resources that the activity relies on. However, Garrod and Wilson (2004) claim that there still is a considerable lack of knowledge of the biology of species targeted in tourism and even less knowledge of the effects of tourism upon their long-term health and well-being. While there is substantial research being performed on certain landscape types and species, rainforests, reefs and marine mega fauna such as whales and dolphins, other landscapes and species remain fairly unresearched (Hall and Boyd 2005). There are few in-depth tourism studies focusing on the particularities of fishing tourism. The main purpose of this chapter is to identify links between tourism research and recreational fisheries research that can contribute to an increased understanding of recreational fishing as tourism. But first, let us look at the history of fishing tourism.
GCRF_13.indd 269
10/3/2007 10:30:24 AM
270
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
The history of fishing tourism The history of fishing tourism is closely related to that of recreational fishing. It is also closely linked to the history of tourism in general. Early travel was combined with religious pilgrimages, scientific investigations, geographic exploration, anthropological study, human and resource exploitation and conquest. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, European aristocrats, British gentry and, later, wealthy Americans travelled on leisurely ‘grand tours’ of Europe’s natural and cultural features. With the industrial revolution, the first paid holidays and possibilities for railroad travel created the opportunity for large numbers of people to travel to seaside resorts in Europe (Honey 1999). In the United States, the Reverend William Murray (‘Adirondack Murray’) of Boston published a book Adventures in the Wilderness, extolling the virtues of recreational activities outdoors, and soon thereafter, would-be frontiersmen, including many anglers, crowded specially scheduled trains from the cities to the woods (Schullery 1987). Fabbri (1990) presents tourism as a modern phenomenon and a fundamental aspect of the Industrial Revolution. With paid vacation, shorter work hours, less physically strenuous work and better education, vacationers began to demand relaxation and entertainment as part of their leisure time (Honey 1999). Fishing, over time, became one of many preferred activities for holiday seekers. In the development of modern fishing tourism, some types of fishing, some fish species and some tourist destinations have been more central than others. Probably the greatest influences in defining fishing tourism was the British Empire and the playground it established for ‘sportsmen’ across the world. Foreign lands have had a special power of attraction for the British (Sillanpää 2002). The definitions of ‘sport’ from this era still frame a huge part of the world’s most attractive fishing tourism products. The Australian barramundi (Lates calcarifer), the Mahseers of Asia (genus Tor), or the transfer and establishment of brown trout (Salmo trutta) fisheries in New Zealand, North America or Argentina, all have some linkage to the Victorian period. Later, international angling writers, such as Zane Grey, S. Kip Farrington Jr and Ernest Hemingway, boosted the interest for different types of fishing tourism. While Hemingway lived and fished in the Florida Keys, the Bahamas and in Cuba, Grey fished in Australia and New Zealand, off the California coast, and in Oregon’s rivers. Through his book The Old Man and the Sea, Hemingway introduced the reading public to offshore big-game fishing. However, it has been argued that ocean sport fishing started when Dr Charles Frederick Holder landed a 183 lb (84 kg) bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) on a rod and reel in 1898 at Avalon on Santa Catalina Island, California. This was also the start of the world’s first game-fishing club, complete with the first fishing rules and fishing ethics. The club was The Tuna Club of Avalon, of which Zane Grey was an active member. The American sportsmen Michael Lerner and S. Kip Farrington Jr also made a large contribution to international fishing tourism through their
GCRF_13.indd 270
10/3/2007 10:30:24 AM
International fishing tourism
271
establishment of Wedgeport, Nova Scotia, as an international fishing destination. Lerner discovered the potential for sport fishing for the bluefin tuna in 1935, and advised the local fishermen to ‘clean out [their] lobster boats, fit in a fishing chair and a toilet. Get fishing tackle’ (MacGregor 2003). The discovery of the sport fishing for tuna led to the rapid establishment of a tourist industry in the area (MacGregor 2003).
Fishing tourism today With better transportation systems, especially automobile and commercial airtravel and cheaper long-haul travel, international travel activity has increased tremendously. This development is also spurred by improved communication and information dissemination (Internet), shorter work weeks, increased leisure time and real incomes, earlier retirement age and extended life-expectancy (Smith and Eadington 1992). These different factors lengthen the period during their lives that people can travel as well as in part explain one important development in international travel, that is, the trend towards more frequent and shorter holidays more evenly distributed throughout the year. These factors, in combination with a demand for being active during holidays and travelling away from home to pursue hobbies and leisure interests, explain the increase in naturebased recreational tourism and the increase in international fishing tourism. There is a great variety in the hobbies, interests and recreational activities that people want to take part in whilst on holiday. In fishing tourism this demand for diversity is not only reflected in the demand for change in fishing localities but also in a demand for variety in fishing quality, variety in the size and number of fish and variety in desired species (Chen et al. 2003). When anglers travel away from home to fish, they take with them their national recreational fishing traditions and this adds to the variety in fishing preferences. As providers of fishing experiences have to answer to this variety in demand, international fishing tourism takes many forms. Among the different fishing products and experiences offered around the world, we find fishing from aquaculture ponds, fishing in freshwater (ponds, lakes, rivers and canals) and coastal or ocean fishing. Freshwater fishing tourism may include activities such as trolling from a boat in big lakes, fly-fishing in smaller and bigger streams, bait casting in ponds and match fishing in channels. Ocean or marine fishing tourism includes deep sea fishing, offshore and coastal fishing from boats as well as fishing from the shore. Fishing from a boat may be offered with or without a guide/skipper, depending on regulations and demands from tourists. The possibilities for keeping the catch also depend on the management regulations and traditions. There may be international, national, regional and local management regimes in operation and different rules for domestic and non-domestic anglers as well as for local and non-local anglers. The different management systems regulating the activity of fishing
GCRF_13.indd 271
10/3/2007 10:30:24 AM
272
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
tourists are gear limitations (e.g. barbless hooks only, artificial bait only, flyfishing only), protected species, protected areas, closed periods, fishing licences, bag limits, obligatory catch reports, prohibition on the use of live bait, catch and release (C&R) only and tag and release (all fish released must be tagged). In some destinations fishing tourism is regulated through restrictions on companies offering fishing as an activity to tourists. Among these forms of regulation are company licences/concessions, boat regulations/licences and allocation of fish quotas to tourism operators. In some countries, governments change policies in open areas in favour of fishing tourism when it represents an alternative economic activity in times of declining fish resources (Cheong 2003). Overall it is clear that different forms of regulation restrict the establishment of tourism companies and limit the types of fishing experience that can be offered to tourists, and some of these, likely, also contribute to product quality. Tourists who fish during their leisure time may have purchased a trip or an arrangement focusing only on fishing – that is what we call a specialized fishing trip. In tourism studies this is researched under the label special-interest tourism (Inskeep 1991; Weiler and Hall 1992). Other tourists may have fishing as one of several activities during their holiday, combining fishing with other outdoor recreational activities or with visiting attractions, museums and historic sites and other activities such as shopping or sunbathing. Wight (1996) applies the terminology specialists and generalists to distinguish between these two groups. While most fishing tourism products target specialists, fishing may also be one of several activities offered to generalists as part of a trip. One example of this occurs in Juneau, Alaska, where a small but distinct angling tourism industry has arisen to take cruise-ship passengers for half-day fishing trips by aeroplane (Sheely 2006).1 In some cases, fishing trips are arranged by tour operators in the locality offering the fishing experience. In other cases, tour operators, outside the fishing destination market, sell and arrange the trips. In the case of non-domestic fishing tourists, the trips may be arranged by tour operators in the home country of the tourist or even in a third country. Sometimes tour operators and travel agencies also cooperate. Typically an outbound tour operator (in the home country of the tourist) cooperates with an incoming tour operator (in the destination country) to combine their respective strengths with respect to the market and the product.
The fishing tourism industry Even though tourism is a commercial activity, many important elements of the tourist experience would be ignored by focusing only on commercial aspects. Tourism is only partly commercialized, and many elements that tourists enjoy are free goods. In dealing with fishing tourism, scenery, clean water, tranquillity and cultural assets of places are often free goods (Cheong 2003). Fishing tourism relies on these free goods, as well as on public sector infrastructure such as
GCRF_13.indd 272
10/3/2007 10:30:24 AM
International fishing tourism
273
transportation, ports and harbours, quays, docks and boathouses. Bull (1995) includes public services in what he labels the tourism industry. Delineating the borders of commercial tourism activity is also a challenging task. Leiper (1990) states that it is difficult to talk about only one tourism industry as there are several markets and several industries associated with tourism without them necessarily being defined as belonging to the tourism industry. While companies such as grocery stores and gas stations provide service to tourists, they seldom define themselves as belonging to the tourism industry. Looking at the businesses that provide some kind of service to fishing tourists, the fishing tourism industry includes a number of different sectors. Some businesses are unique to the fishing tourism industry, and others are common to many forms of tourism (Figure 13.2). In defining the complex network of tourism, it is common to sort the different elements into (1) the core tourism industry and (2) related tourism industry. In dealing with fishing tourism, the core is made up by fishing rights holders,2 fishing guides, the charter-boat industry, speciality retail outlets (fishing gear), tour operators specializing in the marketing, organizing, composing and selling of fishing products, the tackle industry, industries providing services in boats, engines, fish finder and security equipment and fishing travel media production (TV, DVD, magazines). Related industries in fishing tourism may include retail stores, gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores, gift shops, transportation companies (boats, aeroplanes, car rentals), accommodation providers, the tourist information sector (visitor centres, tourist information offices, brochures and travel books), and other attractions and activities in the area in question (Bell et al. 1982; Ditton et al. 2002). In analysing the fishing tourism industry it may prove useful to study the level of ‘industrialization’ involved in the activity, ranging from free independent fishing tourism to industrialized/organized fishing tourism. There will be a continuum of the degree of industrialization in fishing tourism. At one end we
Core: fishing-right holders, specialist tour operators and provider of boats, equipment and guiding
Related: accomodation, transportation and other tourist services Natural and cultural assets and public infrastructure Figure 13.2 Core and related elements in the fishing tourism industry.
GCRF_13.indd 273
10/3/2007 10:30:25 AM
274
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
will find the tourists who buy a complete ‘fishing package’ including transport, accommodation, boat rental, guiding and in some cases the renting of fishing and fish finder equipment. At the other end of the continuum we find the free independent fishing tourist who takes care of the fishing arrangements himself (Borch 2004). The possibility for doing so, however, depends on the legal and physical access to fishing in different localities.
Recreational fisheries research of specific relevance to fishing tourism Research on recreational activities is substantial. This is true for recreational fishing as well. In recreational fishing research, economic studies and participation and motivation studies seem to be the areas of highest relevance to fishing tourism.
Economic valuation Economic valuation of fishing and fish resources is often used to secure a viable and sustainable distribution of natural resources amongst different interest-groups. In addition, economic impact studies are often sought by interest-groups as part of justifying access to fish resources. Several methods have been developed to express the value of recreational fishing in monetary terms. Overall, these different methods utilize two basic frameworks. Pollock et al. (1994) label these the ‘net value’ and ‘economic impact’ approaches. These frameworks differ sharply in what they are valuing and to whom this value accrues. When applying the ‘net value’ framework one is aiming at quantifying the overall benefit received by an individual or group from a fish resource. This includes a focus on the costs involved in obtaining the resource or service and the benefits accessed. ‘Economic impact’ approaches in estimating the value of a service or natural resource focus mainly on turnover, expenditures and related variables. The aim of these approaches is to evaluate the impact of expenditure on income generation, employment and overall economic activity in a region. In calculating the economic impact of fishing tourism, the focus is on direct expenditures of fishing tourists and the indirect and induced effects of these expenditures on different levels of the economy. The focus is mostly on non-local anglers. The direct expenditure from fishing tourism is the money fishing tourists spend on licences, transportation, accommodation, boat rental, guiding services, fishing equipment and so on. The indirect effects of these are the economic effects generated as a result of fishing tourism companies purchasing goods and services from other industries. The induced effects are economic effects generated as a result of the increased incomes and taxes from tourist expenditures (Chen et al. 2003). The sum of direct, indirect and induced effects constitutes the total economic impact of fishing tourism.
GCRF_13.indd 274
10/3/2007 10:30:25 AM
International fishing tourism
275
Economic impact studies are the most relevant in dealing with fishing tourism from a commercial point of view. Among others, economic impact studies make it possible to compare industries, and this provides important information to managers and politicians in securing wise distribution of fish resources among different industries. This is especially true in localities where the fishing tourism industry uses or depends on the same fish resources or localities as other industries such as commercial fishing or aquaculture. Many economic impact studies conclude that fishing tourism provides higher long-term economic benefits than the effects generated from traditional commercial fisheries. This generation of added economic effect from natural resources through linking experience to the utilization of natural resources (as is the case with fishing tourism) is in line with the overall perspective in what has been labelled ‘the experience economy’.
Angling participation and motivation studies Participation and motivation studies are important areas of social science research in recreational fisheries. These studies provide essential market information for tourism. Participation studies include studies of the relationship between angling participation and demographic characteristics (age, race and ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status and place of residency) (Fedler and Ditton 2001; Floyd et al. 2006). Motivation studies typically focus on active anglers. In such analyses anglers may be categorized according to age, gender, race, ethnicity or degree of recreational specialization (experience and skills) (Fedler and Ditton 1994; Radomski et al. 2001). Non-resident anglers (tourists) may be further categorized into anglers from outside a specific fishing locality, from outside a region or anglers from another country. Motivation studies conclude that there is a high variation in motivation or preferences along different variables (Bryan 1977; Graefe 1980; Katz 1981; Hunt and Ditton 2002). The variables investigated for different categories of the angling population may be setting preferences (preferred type of water and fishing destination), species preferences (Fisher 1997; Ditton et al. 2002) and importance of fish consumption (Hendee and Bryan 1978; Fedler 1984; Fedler and Ditton 1986; Matlock et al. 1988; Ditton and Fedler 1989; Aas and Kaltenborn 1995). Several studies focusing on the importance of fish consumption conclude that specialist anglers are less concerned with fish retention than other groups (Fedler and Ditton 1986; Matlock et al. 1988; Oh and Ditton 2006) and that less specialized anglers favour liberal harvest regulations (Chipman and Helfrich 1988). Some studies also focus on differences in expenditure pattern (Snepenger and Bowyer 1990) or on differences in the willingness to pay for a fishing of a certain quality in a specific locality. Some studies are longitudinal, focusing on change over time (Snepenger and Ditton 1985; Bengtsson et al. 1991; Aas 1996). All these studies provide essential insight into what anglers seek in a fishing experience. Motivation studies are useful in segmenting tourism markets,
GCRF_13.indd 275
10/3/2007 10:30:25 AM
276
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
developing marketing strategies and fishing products and in the overall planning for the development of fishing tourism destinations. Studies of willingness to pay can also provide important information to tourism operators in their pricing of different fishing services. However, motivation studies are most often designed to advise policy makers and natural-resource managers, not as a way of guiding tourism entrepreneurs in their efforts to increase long-term tourism revenues.
Application of tourism research to fishing tourism Since the 1970s, tourism research has matured, with an emerging focus on the relationship between tourism and the different settings that tourism takes place in and the natural resources that the industry relies on. Below, we briefly review some major approaches to tourism research that are relevant in studying the relationship between recreational fishing as tourism and the natural resources that make the basis for fishing tourism (Figure 13.3).
Nature-based tourism Nature-based tourism is one of the main areas of research in tourism studies and a part of the tourism industry with increasing importance and fast growth (Priskin 2003). The term nature-based tourism is widely applied to tourism in natural settings, tourism that focuses on specific elements of nature (e.g. wildlife viewing), as well as to tourism as part of nature conservation (e.g. tourism development as an integral part of protected-area management). Due to the wide application of the term, it has been argued that most tourism may be defined as nature based (Valentine 1992). Today, the many forms of nature-based tourism are closely linked to an increasing demand for activity in tourism markets (Poon 1993). As a result of this trend, there has been an increased focus on outdoor recreation and sports not only in the tourism industry but also in tourism research
Wildlife tourism Nature-based tourism
Ecotourism
Figure 13.3
GCRF_13.indd 276
Fishing tourism
Rural tourism
Special interest tourism
Conceptualization of different forms of tourism.
10/3/2007 10:30:25 AM
International fishing tourism
277
(Gartner and Lime 2000; Hudson 2003; Ryan 2003; Williams 2003). As recreational tourism today often involves travels of short duration to exercise recreational interests, recreational tourism is linked to a tourism market turned away from one long vacation trip towards several, shorter leisure trips during a year. This trend can also be observed in fishing tourism. This especially is true of the specialist segments, where customers utilize reduced travel/aeroplane costs to take several trips during a year, taking advantage of the different summers in the northern and southern hemispheres, for instance fishing trout in Alaska in August and in Argentina in February. Fishing tourism is definitely a type of naturebased tourism as nature is an important part of the fishing tourism experience, either as the core element in the tourism product or as part of the surroundings of the core experience.
Sustainable tourism and ecotourism With increasing holiday travel during the twentieth century it became clear that mass tourism brings environmental and cultural degradation to some destinations (Honey 1999). These negative impacts include pollution, noise and damage to flora, fauna, cultural monuments and local communities (Dogan 1989; Cohen 1995; Urry 1995; Haralambopoulos and Pizam 1996). Consideration of these impacts led to the introduction of the concept of sustainability to the field of tourism. As in other areas of research, the definition of sustainability varies in tourism research. According to Coccossis (1996) there is a main divide in the sustainability approaches in tourism between, on the one hand, anthropocentric approaches that prioritize the protection of the tourism industry over the protection of the environment and, on the other hand, biocentric approaches that prioritize the protection of the environment over the economy of the tourism industry. There are several examples of anthropocentric management systems that focus on the preservation of fish stocks to sustain the future of recreational fishing (stocking programs, etc.). It can be argued that the only way to acquire a true biocentric sustainability in fishing tourism would be to offer non-consumptive products like the viewing and feeding of fish. Over time, the concept of sustainable tourism has been succeeded by the concept of ecotourism. Ecotourism emerged as a term during the late 1980s and by the 1990s it had become the most fashionable new genre of environmentally and socially responsible travel (Diamantis 1999; Honey 1999). Today, the literature and research on ecotourism is extensive and the label is related to several other terms such as ‘soft tourism’, ‘alternative tourism’, ‘low-impact tourism’ and ‘responsible tourism’. These concepts focus not only on stewardship for nature but also on respect for local communities, on local participation in tourism management, nature ethics as well as on environmental learning (Page and Dowling 2002).
GCRF_13.indd 277
10/3/2007 10:30:26 AM
278
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Ecotourism should be studied as a subset of nature-based tourism (Olindo 1991). Hunting and fishing differ from many other nature-based activities in their obvious consumptive character (Duffus and Dearden 1990). It has been argued that in the case of C&R fishing, the activity is non-consumptive and hence may be defined as ecotourism (Holland et al. 1998, 2000). Critics of this argument point out that even C&R fishing is consumptive because some fish will die after being released (Fennell 2000). So far, the question of whether recreational fishing should be considered ecotourism is not resolved. As Zwirn et al. (2005) diplomatically state: ‘the literature has not clarified the status of angling tourism in regards to ecotourism’. Regional and academic differences also affect conclusions about this question: people trained in natural-resource management tend to accept fishing as ecotourism, while those engaged in ecotourism tend to be more critical of this approach.
Adventure tourism There has been a shift in the ideal holiday from relaxation and rest to more activity-oriented and adventurous travel (Hudson 2003). The term adventure tourism has been defined as ‘a leisure activity that takes place in unusual, exotic or remote or wilderness destinations. Adventure tourism tends to be associated with high levels of activity by the participant, most of it outdoors’ (Millington et al. 2001). Adventure tourism is also associated with uncertainty, risk, challenge, novelty, discovery and contrasting emotions. In some academic works, adventure tourism is defined in ways that make every form of tourism adventure tourism. It is an example of this when Swarbrooke et al. (2003) include spiritual enlightenment in their definition. Swarbrooke and colleagues argue that the concept of adventure is subjective because what is perceived as adventurous by one participant may be commonplace to another. Therefore, scholars make a distinction between soft and hard adventures. Hard-adventure tourism experiences involve strenuous physical activities and typically attract the risk seekers, with activities like rock climbing, heli-skiing and white-water kayaking. Soft experiences aim at non-adrenalin addicts and the family markets (Hudson 2003).2 The thrill and contest of catching fish may be the aspect of recreational fishing legitimizing the application of the term adventure tourism to the activity. It is also obvious that anglers would find aspects such as uncertainty, challenge and contrasting emotions familiar to many fishing experiences. Big-game fishing is physically strenuous, requiring strength and endurance. It also is clear that fishing-tourism products in remote destinations such as Amazonia and Siberia have an aspect of challenge and risk. Walle (1997) demonstrates that tourism activities like birdwatching and fly-fishing are dominated by intuitive or conscious insight and knowledge seeking. Weber (2001), in a review of adventure tourism research, suggests that these activities lack the connotations that the label adventure
GCRF_13.indd 278
10/3/2007 10:30:26 AM
International fishing tourism
279
tourism give to risk and danger and that it is questionable if these activities could be classified as adventure. It may seem that a distinction between soft and hard adventure is necessary if fishing tourism should be categorized as adventure tourism.
Wildlife tourism Although some fishing tourism products are based on farmed or semi-wild fish, most fishing tourism is based on the chase of wild fish. As a result, fishing tourism may fit with yet another field in tourism research and development – wildlife tourism. Much of the wildlife tourism literature is based in the ‘safari’ or ‘viewing’ tradition (Newsome et al. 2005); however, much literature on wildlife tourism also seem to include hunting and fishing in defining wildlife tourism (Swarbrooke et al. 2003). Interestingly, there also seems to be an increasing trend towards experiencing fish by looking at them, sometimes in combination with fishing. Some destinations also include feeding fish as one of their tourism products, as, for example, the famous Robby’s Marina in the Florida Keys, often included in the advertising materials of other tourism businesses as an attraction where tarpon (Megalops atlanticus) can be fed.
Case studies In this section, we look more closely into three cases of fishing tourism, trying to approach them from a fishery management as well as from a tourism perspective.
Case 1: Fishing tourism for rainbow trout in Alaska’s Bristol Bay Alaska’s Bristol Bay region is famous for its fishing and, in particular, for its abundant and very large rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The rainbows are primarily the resident strain, and not the anadromous form called steelhead, although they attain sizes more typical of steelhead than of rainbow trout in most other places. Fish larger than 20 in. (51 cm) are common, and dozens of fish over 30 in. (76 cm) are caught each year. The area has relatively few year-round inhabitants (7611 in 2000, of whom just under 70% are Alaska Natives (Duffield et al. 2006), but there is a well-developed tourist industry in the area that caters primarily to anglers. Although all five species of Pacific salmon (Chinook, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha; coho, Oncorhynchus kisutch; chum, Oncorhynchus keta; sockeye, Oncorhynchus nerka; and pink, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) are abundant, along with Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma), arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), northern pike (Esox lucius) and other species, the prime
GCRF_13.indd 279
10/3/2007 10:30:26 AM
280
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
angling draw of the region is the rainbow trout (Bennett 2000). Many tourists visit the region primarily to fish, but some also take advantage of opportunities to view brown bears (Ursus arctos) and the spectacular scenery (Duffield et al. 2006). The region developed as a tourist destination through the vision of a few angler-entrepreneurs in the 1940s and 1950s who developed lodges specifically to take advantage of the rainbow trout fishery (Bennett 2000). Those lodges needed aeroplanes to transport anglers to and from the lodges from Anchorage or other Alaska cities, to transport the anglers to fishing spots and to bring supplies to the lodges. By the year 2000, there were 40 lodges in the region (as well as others that could be reached by road from places like King Salmon and Dillingham), and there are more today. Most lodges cater to around 16 anglers at a time and range in the quality of their accommodations and other amenities, the degree to which they provide aeroplanes for their anglers to fly to fishing spots in, the degree to which they provide guided versus unguided fishing opportunities, and what is included in the price they charge (e.g. Alaska fishing licence fees, transportation to and from Anchorage, alcoholic beverages and flyouts by aeroplane). Anglers come to Bristol Bay from elsewhere in Alaska, from the rest of North America, and to a smaller degree from outside North America (Duffield et al. 2006). Lodge fees approach $8000 (€6000) per week per angler in some cases, although most lodges also offer shorter and less expensive packages. In addition to the lodge fees, angling tourists usually must pay for transportation to and from Anchorage, for lodging and food in their arrival city, and other accessories. Duffield et al. (2006) provide breakdowns of expenditures on Bristol Bay fishing trips by category of expense and by residents, non-resident Alaskans and non-Alaskans. As a result, spending a week – or even a few days – at a fishing lodge in Bristol Bay requires a substantial financial investment, and often is regarded as ‘a trip of a lifetime’, and for many anglers, it is. Other anglers make return-visits every year. The lodge season typically runs from 8 June, the opening of the trout-fishing season, through September or mid-October. Thus, the lodge owner has about 16–18 weeks to make money from the operation. Lodge operations also require fuel for their planes and boats and electricity, and are probably affected by changes in fuel prices more than many other tourism businesses are. Owners and operators of lodges in Bristol Bay are required to have permits and licences in common with other commercial enterprises, including building inspections, food and liquor licences and any required licences to operate aircraft for hire. They also require an Occupational Business Licence, a business licence from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and guide licences for all employees who guide clients. The state does not limit or regulate the number or placement of lodges, but the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service limit the number of commercial users in and on certain federally managed lands, as do private landowners, who include Alaska Native Corporations in the region (Jason Dye, ADF&G, personal communication, 2007). Some lodge
GCRF_13.indd 280
10/3/2007 10:30:26 AM
International fishing tourism
281
owners are Alaskans, but few, if any, live in Bristol Bay year-round. A very small minority of Bristol Bay lodges are owned or operated by Alaskan Natives. Many lodge owners live outside Alaska during winter, as do many of their guides. The exceptional fishing for rainbow trout has been consciously supported by management decisions. In 1968, ADF&G designated the Lake Iliamna drainage the Bristol Trophy Fish Area, renamed the Bristol Bay Wild Trout Zone in 1978, and established restrictive catch and bag limits. In 1990, the Alaska Rainbow Trout Management Plan ruled out maximum sustained yield and stocking as options for rainbow trout management in the region, focusing instead on conservative management to maintain historical size and age compositions. The plan proposed to provide diverse fishing opportunities by establishing various special management areas, and explicitly acknowledged the importance of the recreational sport-fishing industry. The Alaska Board of Fisheries adopted regulations based on the plan in 1990; they included an expansion of the Wild Trout Zone to include the other drainages of Bristol Bay and the Kuskokwim River from the Aniak River downstream; the establishment of 8 C&R areas; 6 flyfishing only C&R areas; and 11 artificial-lure single-hook only areas. More recently, the official ‘Wild Trout Zone’ designation was repealed, but the conservative management regulations were retained: retention of rainbow trout is prohibited from early June through October, with much of the region closed to all sport fishing from 7 April through 7 June. From 1 November through 7 June, a period when sport fishing is very limited, some retention of rainbow trout is allowed (Jason Dye, personal communication 2006). In general, the guides associated with the fishing lodges in the region are at least as conservative as the regulations, apparently because they recognize that their continued activity depends on their continued stewardship of the resource. As a result of the combination of an exception natural fishery in an area with great scenery, the establishment of many fishing lodges in the region and restrictive fishing regulations with an emphasis on C&R, the Bristol Bay region is a world-famous angling destination. Advertisements for the fishing and for the lodges have appeared in nationally distributed US fishing and outdoor magazines since the late 1950s (Bennett 2000) and many lodges have booths at fishing shows across the United States. In addition, the World Wide Web has internationalized fishing, and the lodges’ advertising brochures are readily accessed from many countries outside North America. Many lodges also have agreements with fishing tourism agencies that make many of their bookings for them, although some depend largely on returning customers and word-of-mouth.
Case 2: Marine fishing tourism in Norway Being a coastal nation, both commercial and recreational fisheries have been important to Norwegians. Norway has also throughout history been an attractive destination for avid recreational fishers from abroad (Klemsdal 1990; Sillanpää 2002).
GCRF_13.indd 281
10/3/2007 10:30:26 AM
282
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
The first fishing tourists visiting the country were the British lords going for salmon in Norwegian rivers. During recent years, however, there has been substantial growth in the number of marine fishing tourists visiting Norway, mainly coming from Germany. The primary market consists of groups of men who buy specialized fishing trips from foreign or Norwegian tour operators and spend about a week in Norway only fishing. European fishing tourists usually travel to Norway by car, although more recently, more tourists are arriving by plane, including specialist fishing charter flights from Germany during summer. Foreign fishing tourists visiting Norway are interested in catching a range of marine species as well as in trophy fishing, preferably for halibut (Hippoglossis hippoglossus), cod (Gadus morhua) and coalfish or saithe (Pollachius virens, called pollock in North America). Marine fishing tourism in Norway is consumptive as most tourists fish to eat fish during their stay as well as to bring some of their catch back home. This fishing is largely unregulated. There is no fishing licence required for saltwater fishing, no minimum size, no bag limits and no closed seasons or areas. The only restrictions on foreign fishing tourists are gear regulations (rod and line only) and a limit of 15 kg of fish that can be taken out of Norway. This rule was just recently established. The season for marine fishing tourism in Norway is long compared with tourism in general. While summer is the main season for tourism operators in peripheral communities overall, many fishing tourism operators have guests from April through September. Most marine fishing tourism in Norway takes place near shore from smaller boats. However, some tourism operators provide larger boat for ocean or deepsea fishing. In most cases both the small and larger boats are equipped with GPS and echo sounders. There are commercial activities developing around the increasing interest in marine recreational fishing in Norway. Today approximately 1000 tourism companies along the Norwegian coast offer a combination of accommodation, boats rental and cleaning and freezer facilities to tourists. Seventy per cent of these companies are family-owned. Together, these companies employ approximately 1246 man-labour years, the majority of these being located in peripheral areas. The largest growth in marine fishing tourism has been in the south and middle parts of the country, while the north of Norway is considered to have the largest potential for growth (Borch 2004). There is large variation in the quality of the fishing facilities offered tourists. There has, however, been a substantial improvement in quality during the recent years. Recently, the Norwegian Hospitality Association has launched a classification programme to improve the quality of the marine fishing tourism industry. With 70% of the companies having been established since 1990, this is a young industry experiencing fast growth (Hallenstvedt and Wulff 2001). Tourism entrepreneurs, in general, welcome the growth in fishing tourism because it lengthens the tourism season and because fishing tourists have a high return rate to their favourite fishing locations. Local authorities in coastal communities regard
GCRF_13.indd 282
10/3/2007 10:30:26 AM
International fishing tourism
283
fishing tourism as an opportunity to utilize fish resources along the Norwegian coast, to use the knowledge and experience that many Norwegians share about fish and fishing and as a possibility to re-use infrastructure such as boats, quays, and buildings that have been underused owing to a decline in the coastal commercial fishing. In spite of this, the marine fishing tourism industry has been met with substantial critique, mainly coming from commercial fisheries interests. The main explanation for this is probably the rapid growth, the consumptive nature of marine fishing tourism and the unresolved management and rights questions for marine recreational fishing. As coastal commercial fisheries interests utilize many of the same fish resources as fishing tourism, further development of marine fishing tourism in Norway depends on a reduced consumptiveness in the activity and on securing the right for tourism operators to utilize fish resources in times of privatization and closing of common fishing grounds. In addition, the future of Norwegian fishing tourism depends on the ability to segment and identify new markets as angling participation in the main market, Germany, may be in decline. The German angling population has been dominated by men living in rural areas. Owing to demographic changes and urbanization, angling participation seems to be going down in Germany (Arlinghaus 2006). If fishery managers and the tourism industry do not succeed in directing the activity towards viable fish resources and viable markets, Norwegian marine fishing tourism will not be sustainable in the long run. In any respect, it is clear that due to the present high consumptive nature of marine fishing tourism in Norway, the activity cannot be considered to be in line with definitions of ecotourism. As fishing tourists visiting Norway are motivated by the good possibilities for catching fish as well as the possibility for enjoying beautiful scenery and natural landscapes, Norwegian fishing tourism is by definition a nature-based tourism activity. As many tourists visiting Norway to fish have recreational fishing as a hobby and they visit Norway only to fish, marine fishing tourism in Norway is also to a large degree a special-interest tourism. The marine fishing tourism offered in Norway is based on wild fish stocks and may, due to this, be defined as a wildlife tourism. In spite of some dimensions of thrill and excitement connected with the struggle of catching trophy fish such as halibut, cod and coalfish, marine fishing tourism in Norway is seldom marketed as adventure tourism.
Case 3: The North-East Atlantic salmon fishing tourism in North-West Russia, Norway and Iceland The Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) has traditionally been viewed as, perhaps, the most exclusive and challenging of all sport fishes. Countries around the Norwegian sea in the North-East Atlantic have been a core area for this species, together with the British Isles and Atlantic Canada. Different from the recent establishment
GCRF_13.indd 283
10/3/2007 10:30:26 AM
284
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
and growth in marine fisheries in Norway, the salmon fishing tourism in these countries is old and dates back to the 1800s. In Norway, the first British tourist anglers (obviously they could be labelled expedition tourists) arrived during the 1820s and soon the number of visitors and the utilization of Norwegian rivers became tremendous. Already around 1850 specific guide books targeted for the British market was published, and during the second half of the century almost every river in the country were leased by British groups, often on a multiple-year basis. In Iceland, the first angling tourists showed up somewhat later, around 1870, but except for that, the pattern is quite similar to that of Norway. The fishing rights in Norway and Iceland are held by the farms owning the land next to the rivers. At first, the lease prices were low, and were generally to pay for the landowner’s loss of catch when they were asked not to use their traditional nets and traps in the river. Owing to the increased competition among tourist anglers (the pressure on Scottish rivers at that time was huge), prices for leases soon became significant. Foreign anglers also found their way to the Czar-governed Russia in the late 1800s, and fishing tourism was established in rivers such as the Ponoi. The Great Britain-based salmon fishing tourism to these countries came to a brutal end because of the First World War and the Russian Revolution in the period 1914–1918. This violent period was followed by the economic depression in the 1920s and 1930s which also influenced this business. After the Second World War, the salmon fishing tourism in these three countries has developed quite differently. In Norway, the exclusively British fishing has to a large degree been replaced by fishing tourism based on a dominating Scandinavian market, mostly of low standard and relatively cheap fishing in a majority of rivers and beats. This fishing is, however, of significant economic importance. There are also rivers and beats hired out to overseas segments. There are some clear and interesting differences from the marine fishing tourism, as the markets targeted are completely different, and almost all salmon fishing is sold directly from landowners to guests. Salmon fishing tourism in Norway has been shown to be very vulnerable to salmon stock changes. Several of Norway’s formerly most attractive salmon rivers have been destroyed or been much reduced in quality, because of different problems, but still there are many very good rivers and the fishing and the revenues from tourism have improved significantly during the 2000s, after a very bad decade in the 1990s. Norway’s salmon fishing tourism is still for a large part consumptive and harvesting significant numbers of salmon, but C&R is slowly being introduced in some rivers and in some segments. In Iceland, salmon fishing is still dominated by overseas segments from the United States and Great Britain. The fishing is organized around fishing lodges and the regulation on the rivers in terms of number of anglers (or ‘rods’, as two anglers often share a rod) and fishing time (season and day) is strict. Iceland did not experience the severe drop in attractiveness that Norway did during the 1980s and 1990s, and this continued attractiveness, together with the high quality of all
GCRF_13.indd 284
10/3/2007 10:30:26 AM
International fishing tourism
285
elements of the fishing experience (e.g. high catch rates based in part on the quality of the guiding, and the high quality of the lodging and dining, and the affluent market being targeted, allows Icelandic salmon fishing to be sold at a much higher average price than in Norway (see also Agnarsson et al. this volume). Icelandic salmon fishing has been consumptive in terms of catching and killing fish, but the stocks have been strong despite of this. However, C&R as a voluntary practice is now spreading fast. Salmon fishing in Russia was reopened to foreign tourists after 1989. The pristine rivers that paradoxically were protected during the Soviet period because of the military interests on the Kola peninsula have since proved to be among the world’s most attractive fishing tourism destinations. Unlike Norway and Iceland, fishing is state owned, and Russian authorities lease out rivers to operators on a contract basis. The operations are for the most part remote wilderness lodges, based on helicopter transportation. Operators are a mix of foreign (American, British and Scandinavian) and domestic companies. The system is highly influenced by fishing tourism operations in North America and Iceland, with strict harvest regulations (C&R/tag and release, barbless hooks, fly-fishing only) and a relatively short season of around 10 weeks, similar in the three countries. The Norwegian salmon tourism has obvious links to what is labelled ‘rural tourism’, because of the close connection between farmers and anglers. The fishing of Iceland, too, has this connection, but the luxury often included in these products also makes it related to ‘Quality Tourism’ (Jennings and Nickerson 2006). The Russian products are very similar to those of Alaska, and labels like wildlife tourism and even expedition tourism are relevant.
Discussion This review points to the circumstantial way that the tourism literature reflects on fishing tourism and the way that fishery researchers have been divided in their approach to fishing as tourism, resulting in an implicit investigation of fishing tourism. Fish resources have been and will be an important resource for humans in the future. Today, fishing tourism is developing into an important industry and in some locations it may prove to be more sustainable and profitable than the traditional commercial fisheries that it sometimes replaces. In other places, fishing tourism is an embedded part of the overall tourism development. One major explanation for this is the increased demand for multiple-activity holidays, bringing in a new type of customers to the fishing tourism industry. Most probably the strong economic growth in, for instance, large parts of Asia will provide new, large markets to the fishing tourism industry. To support a sustainable, sound and profitable fishing tourism that also relates well to the rest of the tourism sector and other groups with stakes in the utilization of fish stocks, there is a need for strengthening the research efforts on fishing tourism.
GCRF_13.indd 285
10/3/2007 10:30:27 AM
286
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
A primary need in the study of fishing tourism is to design studies that take into account the research basis available both in recreational fishing research and tourism research. For example, there is a need to acquire better knowledge of the industry itself, how it is organized, what characterizes the products, what constitutes a successful entrepreneur, how the value chain in fishing tourism operates and how fishing tourism relates to other products and services in the overall tourism industry. In addition, it is important to study the relationship between fishing tourism operators and other stakeholders in fisheries. In conflicts between different interest-groups and in government efforts to secure a viable distribution of fish resources, there is a need for better knowledge of the economic impacts from fishing tourism and for research that assists managers and stakeholders in developing management plans addressing the challenges of multiple use of fish resources. The recognition of tourism as an industry and as a topic worthy of study by economics has been slowed down by the fact that the tourism sector is primarily a collection of service-based activities spread across a variety of industrial classifications and consumer expenditure categories that generally are not grouped together (Eadington 1991).
The future – possibilities and challenges for the fishing tourism industry There is an increasing demand for high-quality nature-based recreational activities in international travel markets. However, modern tourists demand quality and the future development of fishing products must focus on quality fishing, good fishing facilities, easy access to fishing localities through effective transportation as well as on quality booking systems, making it simple to plan and book fishing holidays. Our review of fishing tourism indicates that a large proportion of the fishing products offered have specialist anglers as their customers. To be able to grow and develop, it is probably necessary to target the generalist market as well, and to do this, it may be necessary to offer a greater diversity of products. In this there is a possibility that fishing tourism operators develop nonconsumptive activities such as fish viewing and swimming/snorkelling with fish. As many of the fishing tourism services in international markets are small scale, quality is crucial to secure viable and profitable fishing tourism companies. For some rural/peripheral areas, nature-based tourism may be the only future commercial activity, and if managed in a proper way, nature-based tourism may be less extractive and environmentally disruptive than other naturebased commercial activities such as commercial fishing, aquaculture, forestry, mining, agriculture and so on. To ensure that developers prioritize the most sustainable commercial activities, it is important that the focus is directed not only on maximizing economic revenue in the short term. It is also crucial that the industry and its managers include a constant evaluation of the resource situation
GCRF_13.indd 286
10/3/2007 10:30:27 AM
International fishing tourism
287
and the sustainable management of fish stocks and their environments. Therefore, the fishing tourism industry must be proactive in management and research discussions. In evaluating the state of fish stocks and their environment, there is also a need to study and take into account the effects of present and future climate change (Jennings 2004; Higham and Hall 2005). In many countries, lack of available statistics and a sound knowledge-base on recreational fishing coupled with a low public awareness about the activity makes it challenging to decide on management systems to secure sustainability and to solve conflicts. The unstable structure of the fishing tourism industry, lack of research and statistics on recreational fishing as tourism as well as the lack of cooperation with other types of tourism, makes fishing tourism still a fragile industry.
Notes 1 Such activity products are part of a general trend in cruise tourism. As the average age of cruise tourists declines and the number of family travellers increases, the demand for activities, both on board and ashore, is going up. 2 See also Adventure Tourism, Tourism Queensland, 2003.
References Aas, Ø. (1996). Recreational fishing in Norway trends 1970–1993 and geographic variation. Fisheries Management and Ecology 3: 107–118. Aas, Ø. and Kaltenborn, B.P. (1995) Consumptive orientation of anglers in Engerdal, Norway. Environmental Management 19(5): 751–761. Arlinghaus, R. (2006) Understanding recreational angling participation in Germany: preparing for demographic change. Human Dimensions and Wildlife 11: 229–240. Bell, F.W., Sorensen, P.E. and Leeworthy,V.R. (1982) The economic impact and valuation of saltwater recreational fisheries in Florida. SGR. F. S. G. C. Program. Florida Seagrant College, Gainesville, FL. Bengtsson, B., Norling, I. and Pierrou, U. (1991) National survey data on sportsfishing, economics and environmental changes in Sweden. American Fisheries Society Symposium 12: 74–83. Bennett, B. (2000) Rods and Wings: A History of the Fishing Lodge Business in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Publication Consultants, Anchorage, AK. Borch, T. (2004) Sustainable management of marine fishing tourism. Some lessons from Norway. Tourism in Marine Environments 1(1): 49–57. Bryan, H. (1977) Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the case of trout fishermen. 9(3): 174–187. Bull, A. (1995) The Economics of Travel and Tourism. Longman, Melbourne. Chen, R.J., Hunt, K.M. and Ditton, R.B. (2003) Estimating the economic impact of a trophy largemouth bass fishery: issues and applications. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 835–844.
GCRF_13.indd 287
10/3/2007 10:30:27 AM
288
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Cheong, S.-M. (2003) Privatizing tendencies: fishing communities and tourism in Korea. Marine Policy 27(1): 23–29. Chipman, B.D. and Helfrich, L.A. (1988) Recreational specializations and motivations of Virginia river anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8: 390–398. Coccossis, H. (1996) Tourism and sustainability: perspectives and implications. In: G. Priestley, K. Gerda, J. Arwel and H. Coccossis (Eds) Sustainable Tourism – European Experiences. CAB International, Wallingford. Cohen, E. (1995) Contemporary tourism – trends and challenges. Sustainable authenticity or contrived post-modernity? In: R. Butler and D. Pearce (Eds) Changes in Tourism: People, Places and Processes. Routledge, London. Diamantis, D. (1999) The concept of ecotourism: evolution and trends. Current Issues in Tourism 2(2): 93–122. Ditton, R.B. and Fedler, A.J. (1989) Importance of fish consumption to sport fishermen – a reply. Fisheries 14(4): 4–6. Ditton, R.B., Holland, S.M. and Anderson, D.K. (2002) Recreational fishing as tourism. Fisheries 27(3): 17–24. Dogan, H.Z. (1989) Forms of adjustment. Sociocultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 16: 216–236. Duffield, J., Patterson, D. Neher, C. and Goldsmith, O.S. (2006) Economics of Wild Salmon Watersheds. Trout Unlimited Alaska, Bristol Bay, Alaska. Duffus, D.A. and Dearden, P. (1990) Nonconsumptive wildlife-oriented recreation – a conceptual-framework. Biological Conservation 53(3): 213–231. Eadington, W.R. and Redman, M. (1991) Economics and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18: 41–56. Fabbri, P. (1990) Recreational Uses of Coastal Areas. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Farrell, B.H. and Twining-Ward, L. (2004) Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31(2): 274–295. Fedler, A.J. (1984) Elements of motivation and satisfaction in the marine recreational fishing experience. In: R. Stroud (Ed.) Marine Recreational Fisheries. National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Savannah, pp. 75–83. Fedler, A.J. and Ditton, R.B. (1986) A Framework for understanding the consumptive orientation of recreational fishermen. Environmental Management 10(2): 221–227. Fedler, A.J. and Ditton, R.B. (1994) Understanding angler motivations in fisheries management. Fisheries 19(4): 6–13. Fedler, A.J. and Ditton, R.B. (2001) Dropping out and dropping in: a study of factors for changing recreational fishing participation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21(2): 283–292. Fennell, D.A. (2000) Ecotourism on trial – the case of billfish angling as ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(4): 341–353. Fisher, M.R. (1997) Segmentation of the angler population by catch preference, participation, and experience: a management-oriented application of recreational specialization. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 1–10. Floyd, M., Lorraine, N., Lee, I., Lee, J.H. and Scott, D. (2006) Social stratification in recreational fishing participation: research and policy implications. Leisure Sciences 28(4): 351–368.
GCRF_13.indd 288
10/3/2007 10:30:27 AM
International fishing tourism
289
Garrod, B. and Wilson, J.C. (2004) Nature on the edge? Marine ecotourism in peripheral coastal areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12(2): 95–120. Gartner, W.C. and Lime, D.W. (Eds) (2000) Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure and Tourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford. Graburn, N.H.H. and Jafari, J. (1991) Tourism social-science. Annals of Tourism Research 18(1): 1–11. Graefe, A.R. (1980) The Relationship between Level of Participation and Selected Aspects of Specialization in Recreational Fishing. Texas A&M University, College Station. Hall, C.M. and Boyd, S. (Eds) (2005) Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Development or Disaster? Aspects of Tourism. Channel View Publications, Clevedon. Hallenstvedt, A. and Wulff, I. (2001) Fisk som agn: utenlandsk turistfiske i Norge. Rapport fra et fellesprosjekt, Norges fiskarlag og Norges turistråd. N. C. o. F. Science. University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 67 s. Haralambopoulos, N. and Pizam, A. (1996) Perceived impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 23(3): 503–526. Hendee, J.C. and Bryan, H. (1978) Social Benefits of Fish and Wildlife Conservation. The 58th Annual Conference of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, San Diego. Higham, J. and Hall, C.M. (2005) Tourism, Recreation and Climate Change. Channel View Publications, Clevedon. Holland, S.M., Ditton, R.B. and Graefe, A.R. (1998) An ecotourism perspective on billfish fisheries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(2): 97–116. Holland, S.M., Ditton, R.B. and Graefe, A.R. (2000) A response to ecotourism on trial: the case of billfish angling as ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(4): 346–351. Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development. Who Owns Paradise? Island Press, Washington, D.C. Hudson, S. (Ed.) (2003) Sport and Adventure Tourism. The Haworth Hospitality Press, New York. Hunt, K.M. and Ditton, R.B. (2002) Freshwater fishing participation patterns of racial and ethnic groups in Texas. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22(1): 52–65. Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism planning. An integrated and sustainable development approach. Van Norstrand Reinhold, New York. Jennings, G. and Nickerson, N.P. (2006) Quality Tourism Experiences. Elsevier, Oxford. Jennings, S. (2004) Coastal tourism and shoreline management. Annals of Tourism Research 31(4): 899–922. Katz, M. (1981) An assessment of intra-group differences in conservation attitudes and environmentalism as a function of activity involvement among fly fishermen. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Klemsdal, T. (1990) The recreational use of the Norwegian coast. In: P. Fabbri (Ed.) Recreational Uses of Coastal Areas. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dortrecht. Leiper, N. (1990) Tourism systems. An interdisciplinary perspective. Occasional Papers. Department of Management. Systems. Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Lew, A.A., Hall, C.M. and Williams, A.M. (2004) A Companion to Tourism. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
GCRF_13.indd 289
10/3/2007 10:30:27 AM
290
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
MacCannell, D. (1989) The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. Schocken Books, New York. MacGregor, T. (2003) Landing the big one. Legion Magazine (March/April). Matlock, G.C., Saul, G.E. and Bryan, D.E. (1988). Importance of fish consumption to sports fishermen. Fisheries 12: 25–26. Miller, M.L. (1993) The rise of coastal and marine tourism. Ocean and Coastal Management 20(3): 181–199. Millington, K., Locke, T. and Bryan, D.E. (2001) Occational studies: adventure travels. Travel and Tourism Analyst 4(1): 65–92. Newsome, D., Dowling, R.K. and Moore, S.A. (2005) Wildlife Tourism. Channel View Publications, Clevedon. Oh, C.-O. and Ditton, R.B. (2006) Using recreational specialization to understand multiattribute management preferences. Leisure Sciences 28: 369–384. Olindo, P. (1991) The old man of nature tourism: Kenya. In: T. Whelan (Ed.) Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Page, S. and Dowling, R.K. (2002) Ecotourism. Pearson Education, Harlow. Pollock, K., Jones, C.M. and Brown, T.L. (1994) Angler survey methods and their application in fisheries management. Special Publication. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Poon, A. (1993) Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. CAB International, Wallingford. Priskin, J. (2003) Characteristics and perceptions of coastal and wildflower nature-based tourists in the central coast region of Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11: 499–528. Radomski, P.J., Grant, G.C., Jacobson, P.C. and Cook, M.F. (2001) Visions for recreational fishing regulations. Fisheries 26(5): 7–18. Roehl, W.S., Ditton, R.B., Holland, S.M. and Purdue, R.R. (1993) Developing new tourism products: sports fishing in the south-east United States. Tourism Management 14(4): 279–288. Ryan, C. (2003) Recreational Tourism: Demands and Impacts. Channel View Publications, Clevedon. Schullery, P. (1987) American Fly Fishing: A History. Lyons and Burford, New York. Sheely, T.W. (2006) The new flight fishers: half-day escapes to wilderness angling. Fish Alaska Magazine December: 32–39. Sillanpää, P. (2002) The Scandinavian Sporting Tour: A Case Study in Geographical Imagology. ETOUR, Östersund, Sweden. Smith, V.L. and Eadington, W.R. (1992) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA. Snepenger, D.J. and Bowyer, R.T. (1990) Differences among nonresident tourists making consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of Alaskan wildlife. Arctic 43(3): 262–266. Snepenger, D.J. and Ditton, R.B. (1985) A longitudinal analysis of nationwide hunting and fishing indicators 1955–1980. Leisure Sciences 7: 297–319. Swarbrooke, J., Beard, C., Leckie, C. and Pomfret, G. (2003) Adventure Tourism: The New Frontier. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Urry, J. (1995) Consuming Places. Routledge, London. Valentine, P.S. (1992) Review. Nature-based tourism. In: B. Weilerand and C.M. Hall (Eds) Special Interest Tourism. Belhaven Press, London, pp. 105–127.
GCRF_13.indd 290
10/3/2007 10:30:28 AM
International fishing tourism
291
Walle, A. (1997) Pursuing risk or insight. Marketing adventures. Annals of Tourism Research 28: 360–377. Weber, K. (2001) Outdoor adventure tourism: a review of research approaches. Annals of Tourism Research 28(2): 360–377. Weiler, B. and Hall, C.M. (1992) Special Interest Tourism. Belhaven Press, London. Wight, P. (1996) North American ecotourists: market profile and trip characteristics. Journal of Travel Research 34: 2–10. Williams, S. (2003) Tourism and Recreation. Prentice-Hall, Harlow. Zwirn, M., Pinski, M. and Rahr, G. (2005). Angling ecotourism: issues, guidelines and experiences from Kamchatka. Journal of Ecotourism 4(1): 16–31.
GCRF_13.indd 291
10/3/2007 10:30:28 AM
Chapter 14
Subsistence versus sport Cultural conflict on the frontiers of fishing Jonathan Lyman
Abstract Fundamental differences in culture between anglers and subsistence fishers may result in unresolved conflicts between competing resource users. In recent years Western culture has evidenced a hunger for both interaction with remnant indigenous societies and exploitation by sportsmen of indigenous people’s aquatic resources. Until recently, few persons attempted to find a neutral path for cultural survival and economic development involving these differing world views and practices. Many subsistence cultures are being overwhelmed by the West, and anglers sometimes find themselves unwelcome among indigenous peoples who fish. Today, however, individuals and agencies are making conscious efforts to respond in culturally appropriate ways. Efforts exist worldwide to preserve the values of indigenous peoples while providing support for individuals and communities hoping to benefit from contact with Western society. For the angler concerned with cultural impacts on native peoples, understanding the roots of these differences is important to better assess roles in change as well as to make choices appropriate to the wilderness angling experience.
Roots of culture and archetype Roderick Haig-Brown wrote in his daughter’s copy of Fisherman’s Winter When you travel do it with wide open eyes, not as a stranger but as a friend. Remember that a country is not merely land, but the people who live in the land. Know them and feel with them, love their land with them, on their special terms with it nearly as you can. You may not succeed, but if you are content to try much less, you might as well stay home. (Haig-Brown 1996) 292
GCRF_14.indd 292
10/3/2007 10:31:01 AM
Subsistence versus sport
293
To fully appreciate fishing in a foreign land one must attempt to understand the people who rely upon the fish sought. Without such an attempt at understanding, the angler’s experience is limited to fishing in another pretty place, living just another big fish story. Understanding of cultures must begin with a basic knowledge of why fly fishing has become the chosen sport for many travellers and how sport fishing reflects who anglers are to the indigenous peoples of the world. In choosing to practice what may appear an ethically questionable pursuit (Lyman and Long 2002), the angler has the opportunity to interact with peoples often in a wholly new fashion, allowing both sides to gain far more from such travels. For any hope of enlightenment from our fishing, we must begin with why we fish: we must understand our own cultural story. The story of fishing by humans began over a hundred thousand years ago in Africa. As small family groups of hunter-gatherers, hardly more than scavengers, humankind took advantage of the most easily obtained foodstuffs. We remained opportunists for tens of thousands of years, taking what we found and were able to kill as food. The classic understanding of a subsistence society is that it makes use of the most readily available resources that it can harvest with the least amount of energy. Early humans undoubtedly took advantage of riparian resources, including fish, in their seasonal round of hunting and gathering. Until approximately 10,000 bc, humankind survived in small, hunter-gather groups. The need for mobility as well as limited availability of foods established the limits on numbers of clan or family members for these opportunistic scavengers and early hunters (Reader 1997). Remnant populations such as the Hadzabe bushmen of the scrublands near dry Lake Eyasi in Tanzania are perhaps the peoples living most like our ancestors from just 400 generations ago. The modern Masai of Tanzania near Ngorongoro still live in small family-oriented groups. They move their bomas of sticks, cow dung and mud as the fates and governments allow, slowly evolving into settled units, choosing what they may from the meta-culture while preserving the essential story of who they are. These modern semi-nomadic dryland peoples reflect part of human’s earliest ancestry in Africa. However, a different story for humankind was evolving at the same time. That story was associated with riparian and littoral areas worldwide. During the Holocene Wet Period, 12,000–10,000 bc, as the last great glacial epoch ended, the continent of Africa was inundated with water. As temperatures climbed, great lakes appeared on the Sahara, inland seas formed across the continent and Africa’s mega-fauna died. Humankind had relied upon these species as food for tens of thousands of years. Many human groups learned to survive by taking advantage of developing riparian resources. What this period must have looked like continent-wide is perhaps best still realized in the lakes region of the Great Rift Valley. As Roland Oliver explained in The African Experience It was not only the fish which multiplied, but hippo and crocodile, waterfowl, rodents and freshwater mollusks. To anyone who has observed the teeming birdlife of the
GCRF_14.indd 293
10/3/2007 10:31:02 AM
294
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Rift Valley lakes…the riches of the aquatic biomass needs no emphasis. For men to exploit these riches, a lot of equipment was necessary–rafts, boats, weirs, traps, harpoons, nets, hooks, lines and sinkers–too much to be moved around from one base to another every week or every month… It was probably the first way of life in human history to permit settlements of a hundred people or more (Oliver 1999)
He goes on to explain the evolution of human culture from small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers to larger numbers of settled peoples practising ‘deliberate cultivation’ as having begun with the first groups to widely exploit riparian resources. Oliver (1999) develops a hypothesis that these earliest fishing societies led to agriculture; greater concepts of culture and language; and the success of humans as a social species. The topography of the Great Rift Valley, with its riparian food resources, had always acted as a corridor for people to move from their evolution in the heart of the African Continent to the rest of the world (Pavitt 2001). Other corridors, also associated with aquatic resources, helped to move humans around the world. From the miracle of anadromy associated with the great rivers of the world to the wealth of foods of littoral societies, fish and fishing continues to be a primary food stuff of indigenous peoples worldwide. It is these essential resources that anglers often seek in their questing for new fishing venues and memorable experiences. Ten-thousand years ago, in contrast to the emerging aquatic-foods-based societies, those wandering peoples fortunate enough to avoid the necessity of settling in larger groups evolved, or rather failed to evolve socially, until they found a different common framework for their lives. The origins of Western values lie in Celtic cultural traditions from 6000 bc (Herm 1976). These values were shaped by the mobility provided by the horse. Having successfully domesticated the horse on the steppes of Russia, now highly mobile wandering Eurasian tribes settled at the mouth of the Volga River and evolved a story of humans wholly different from that of the social cultures arising from their association with water-born foods. These became the early Celtic peoples, who developed the basis of Western civilization. Their myths and stories represent a continuance of the earliest hero stories that sustained humans on their original journey as hunters and gatherers into the world from Africa (Scheub 2000). The fortuitous alignment of horse-based Western tribes on an east–west axis of Asia and Europe (Diamond 1997) allowed for domestication of wildlife, emergence of common cereal grain-based agriculture and evolution of populations – both human and animal – resistant to pathogens that would soon decimate other indigenous peoples and their resources. I believe it was the Celtic culture, common to the peoples of Europe for thousands of years, that developed the wandering-hero myth from a tale told out of Africa to the fundamental archetype of Western culture. The wandering hero appears in Western thought in many guises (Campbell 1949; Graves 1966; Frazer 1981). From his earliest beginnings in African storytelling to our quest to go to the moon, it is the hero saga that continues to inform
GCRF_14.indd 294
10/3/2007 10:31:02 AM
Subsistence versus sport
295
modern humankind. The questing hero remains a device for organizing our vision of the world today. Television, movies, literature and the Internet still are replete with aspects of the Western hero as the central figure defining who we are. That our culture fails to complete the hero saga remains our shortcoming. The myth as defined by Joseph Campbell involves the hero’s return to his society with the full knowledge of his mortality. The summary myths of Africa follow this model, as do those of most settled peoples of the world. It is in Western thought that the hero never must complete his task of understanding, accepting and becoming mortal. Specific to angling, it is the Western culture’s version of the hero on his endless quest that shapes sport fishing to this day. From classical times, the story of Persius and Andromeda has all of the elements of our modern hero myth. Persius wins the winged white horse Pegasus in one adventure, sees the most beautiful woman in the world about to be consumed by a sea monster, rescues the maiden and, after returning her to her family, flies/ rides away on another quest. This fragment of the complete hero story morphs into that of the repeatedly martyred Saint George in the Balkins, which arrives in Rome concurrent with the rise of Christianity (Riches 2005). Saint George is not associated with the dragon until near the time of the Norman conquest of England, where the white and red dragons are still symbols for the earlier English and the Welsh peoples. Saint George and the dragon becomes the essential story of the patron Saint of England. This modification of the central myth of humankind informs the concept of chivalry, which arises in the middle ages: medieval knights on continuing quest, saving fair maidens from dragons and black knights. The hero completing one task upon another, continuing from adventure to adventure, suffering no consequence for his actions, gives us Western society in all of its glory, and shame, today. In the Western world, the hero is still bent upon the conquest of nature as a fundamental part of his archetype. Such unending conquests did, however, require a continuingly new, unoccupied by humans, flatearth to succeed. The hero story, morphed into the uniquely American myth of ‘the cowboy rides away’, soon enough ran up against the finite, round nature of the world. Even so, there is hope. As one popular character on the Public Broadcasting ‘Red-Green Show’ opines, ‘I’m a man, I can change, if I have to, I guess’ (PBS Red Green). After the US Civil War (1865) Americans learned of a different role for wilderness. The rebirth of the fledgling conservation movement in America by 1867 was accompanied by the belief in nature as a healing balm for the wounds of war and the industrial revolution. From that time onwards Americans have turned to nature to heal (Lyman 2007). As nature as a source of renewal became more important in the US national story, the harvest of fish excess to angler’s needs was discouraged as a method of conservation (Norris 1864). The elevation of catch and release to a religion by many fly fishers is part of this cultural story. There is an earlier and very different story in the evolution of angling, however, which is equally important to today’s conflicts with indigenous societies.
GCRF_14.indd 295
10/3/2007 10:31:02 AM
296
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
The sport of fishing finds its roots in European chivalric hunting traditions from the Middle Ages (McDonald 1963). Forces that impacted European cultures shaped emerging visions of the hero archetype. Spain’s close ties to the Roman Empire provided a classic vision of life and literature (Hoffmann 1997). In Germany, the conflict with nature to claim tillable land from fens and bogs created a society focused on competition with nature (Blackbourn 2006). In the British Isles and Scandinavia, the reliance on food resources from the sea led to the early privatization of salmon waters in the Middle Ages. To this day, Spain continues the Roman tradition of flowing waters open to all, sport in Germany implies competition and in Scandinavia sport fishing has often equalled the pleasurable taking of food. Meanwhile, in England, the first labour laws (1351 ad), set in place after the plague, limited access to wildlife to those who did not need it as food (Lyman 2007). In England, between 1700 and 1840, the acts of Enclosure rearranged patterns of land ownership. As interest in angling grew in the early 1800s, the Acts were used to privatize riparian rights and remove the public’s right to fish most flowing waters (Herd 2003). Access to these waters became a premium reserved for the moneyed classes. Some of these fish were concurrently elevated in status to that of game fish to meet another need of the British upper and middle classes. In the decades following the American and French Revolutions (1790–1810) England’s King George III, fearing revolution himself, returned to a chivalric model for behaviour for British gentlemen to instil strength of purpose in the British nobility (Girouard 1981). George III intentionally turned to the heroic ideals of chivalry shaped by Saint George and the Welsh (Celtic) stories of an earlier age. Arthurian legend was developed, expanded and promulgated by the romantic writers of the early ninteenth century. This model served the Empire as a code of behaviour for upper-class Englishmen sent out to rule their emerging colonial world of the ninteenth century. Sport fishing for trout, salmon and other game fishes was made part of the gentleman’s tradition by raising the status of the fish found in privatized flowing waters. Game fishes, now the valued adversaries of the well-to-do, became the sporting equal of the moneyed class. Because America’s cultural roots for sport are deeply intertwined with those of England (Schullery 1987), the class consciousness of fly fishing infected the elite of American angling in the ninteenth century as well. The perceived elitism of fly fishers remains the source of much continuing conflict with other anglers and indigenous peoples worldwide (Lyman 2007).
The impact of archetype today For the Western fly fisher, there is much more to his fishing experience than the harvest of fish. As the motto of the Federation of Fly Fishers contends, ‘the least important part of fly fishing is catching fish.’ In many subsistence societies, the
GCRF_14.indd 296
10/3/2007 10:31:02 AM
Subsistence versus sport
297
capture, harvest and treatment of fishes is integral to the culture itself. Indigenous peoples surviving on the margins of the developing world are today being assaulted by well-to-do anglers bent upon fulfilling the terms of their version of the Western cultural archetype. This conflict is not simply over fish: it is a clash over access to essential resources. It also involves relationships between individuals in different cultures. Whereas the individual and his quest is the theme of the Western archetype, in many subsistence cultures the actions of the individual must conform to the cultural norm to assure the continued strength of the society. While subsistence activities provide a marginal existence in much of the world, this is not universally so. For some peoples, subsistence provides a spiritually fulfilling and culturally significant core defining who they are. The taking of wild foods; the gathering of roots, plants and berries; the killing of game; the harvest of fish provide much more than a bothersome, difficult or marginal existence. Subsistence often remains a rich, wholesome way of life (Lyman 2002). The continuing importance of fish, in terms of foods, culture and religious practice, to remnant riparian and littoral populations worldwide is threatened by forces much greater than sport fishing. Industrial tourism, pollution from mining and petroleum activity, fish farming and commercial fishing represent much greater threats to healthy populations of fish and fish habitat than the occasional intrusion of sport anglers (Pearson 2006). But because the sport angler directly targets the same fishes that indigenous people may harvest, the angler’s impact can sometimes symbolize the much greater impacts of other intrusions. Riparian peoples often have fish and fishing as only a part of their yearly round of food gathering, but in those instances where anadromous fishes bring the wealth of the oceans food resources to native populations, societies may form thousands of miles inland, which are significantly dependent upon the annual cycle of returning fishes (Lyman 1989, 2002). Native peoples living from the mouth of the Columbia to the Snake River basin in the Pacific Northwest, a 1000 miles inland, undertook tremendous annual harvesting of salmon before contact with the Western world. These annual harvest were equal to the years of highest commercial harvest during the first decades of the twentieth century. That the ‘four H’s’ of excessive commercial Harvest, Habitat loss, inappropriate Hatchery production and Hydropower have been widely implicated in the severe declines and endangerment of the north-west US salmon fisheries provides an excellent example of the forces ranged against both subsistence fishers and sport anglers alike (Taylor 1999). The significance of anadromous fishes, like the Pacific salmon, in the common history of humankind has been largely ignored. Many anadromous species feed many of the people of the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific. The hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) shad still accounts for 40% of the total fish landings in Bangladesh. It is one of four anadromous shad species relied upon from Africa to Southeast Asia. Many species of Pacific salmon and the American shad (Alosa sapidissima)
GCRF_14.indd 297
10/3/2007 10:31:02 AM
298
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
are found in the waters of the Pacific Coast of America. In the North Atlantic, anadromous brown trout (Salmo trutta), Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) remain crucial food and sport resources. The anadromous food resources of the world’s abundant oceans have always provided significant foodstuffs to humankind. Less than 150 years ago humans across the globe thought the annual bounty of anadromous fishes were the gift of a beneficent god, sent to feed chosen peoples. While the story of anadromy has been researched extensively from the fishes’ perspective, its importance to humans as a shaper of global human societies remains largely under-reported. In native Alaskan villages, as in much of the world, the gift of anadromy was equated with native spiritual beliefs. Specific cultural taboos were associated with fishing. Punishments for showing disrespect to essential food implied that those food resources might find their way to a different reality, where they could remain unless the infraction was in some way set right (Lyman 2002). Some Alaska elders still maintain that playing with one’s food or removing salmon from the water before releasing them is indefensible. One legend maintains that disrespect towards salmon will be communicated to the old woman of the sea and she will not send sufficient fish the next year. Biologist and many anglers today quickly discount the belief that salmon are a gift from the sea, but the idea that anadromous fishes were sent by god as miraculous food for all humankind appears to have been nearly universal until the biological mechanics of sea-run freshwater fishes were fully explained in the middle years of theninteenth century. The ‘providentialist canard’ of anadromy continues even today in America in the form of a widespread belief that General Washington’s troops at Valley Forge were saved by a miraculous run of shad in the winter of 1778 (McPhee 2002). It is easy for modern visitors to smile at tales of village elders that relate the gift of fishes from the old woman of the sea and the essential keeping of taboos surrounding the harvest of those fishes to assure their annual return. What is wholly missing in such casual responses is that the modern angler’s ancestors probably held essentially the same belief about similar species of fish just a hundred years ago.
A question of respect How respect is shown to fish lies near the core of perceived conflicts between anglers and subsistence harvesters today. As indicated earlier, concepts of respect are based upon the elements of one’s cultural perspective. The obligation Roderick Haig-Brown placed on questing anglers, then, is to seek ways to appreciate and respect native peoples and their traditions while sharing what we can of our different perspective. Many examples exist of our failure to accomplish this.
GCRF_14.indd 298
10/3/2007 10:31:03 AM
Subsistence versus sport
299
But some efforts are on worldwide to change this, to alter the experience of each culture of the other, to reach past the limits of our uncommon stories. During the Cold War, the Saami peoples of the northern Kola Peninsula in Russia were simply moved off their fishing rivers by the Soviet Union. Some of those rivers were given over to sport fish operators after huge changes and the opening of the borders between east and west Europe in 1989. Andrey Volitnikof, now a freelance writer living in Seattle, USA, was the representative of an American company that organized some of these early camps. He explained that the Saami are the most peaceful of people: they share all they have (Volitnikof personal communication). For Volitnikof, efforts to hire Saami were confounded by cultural issues as complex as the sharing of resources and work ethics not compatible with those in Western culture. It is only in recent years that the Russian Saami peoples have been able to exert any sense of unity with the greater Saami community in Norway, Finland and Sweden. ‘Even so, lacking measures for political or legal implementation, the rights of the Saami have largely been ignored…’ (Took 2004). In spite of his experience, possibly because of it, Volitnikof has come to believe that three things are necessary before the Saami people will succeed in the sport-fishing economy: the Saami must become partners in the management of their resources, they must see that the jobs they can take are meaningful and worthwhile and they must have education available to them that teaches the skills necessary to dealing with the Western society while being valued as representatives of their people and their land. The Sian Kaan Biosphere Reserve sits astride Ascension Bay, south of Cancun on the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. This fly-fishing haven is served by several costly lodges, with anglers seeking bonefish (Albula vulpes), permit (Trachinotus falcatus) and tarpon (Megalops atlanticus) in the 1.2 million acres of the reserve. Mexico has successfully integrated members from the indigenous community of Punta Allen into these operations by requiring that local sport fish and ecotourism guides be hired by all visitors. Those native people who seek to become guides must undergo months of training in biology, boating safety, first aid, small engine repair and fly fishing (Lyman 2007). To date, few Alaskan natives are employed as fishing guides in rural areas. Even so, guests in many lodges voice that having a well-paid, trained native person as their guide provides them far more from their fishing experience than just fish. Other lodge owners confirm that their best guides are indigenous persons who can also teach clients about biology, natural history and culture. Several businesses in Alaska are determined to train and employ native peoples in skills specific to the angling industry. Tikchik Narrows Lodge, in Southwest Alaska, has a policy of seeking local persons from the native community for various positions. The village of Nikolski owns the only lodge on Umnak Island, where village corporation members hold the jobs (Lyman 2002). Many areas of Alaska now share a degree of co-operation in the management of fisheries resources between state authorities and native communities. In addition,
GCRF_14.indd 299
10/3/2007 10:31:03 AM
300
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
native peoples have exerted control over their fish resources through the Federal Subsistence Management Program for Alaska. Also, and hardly minor in its role, the ADF&G has staff hired specifically to work with rural schools to teach aquatic science. Such visits build bridges of understanding between agency staff and native communities, with growing interest in learning to fly fish being a common occurrence among villagers. The greatest difference between countries where indigenous concerns have not been met and Alaska may be the political and economic success of Alaskan native peoples. The settlement of the issue of native land claims in Alaska in 1971 created patterns of landownership and economic opportunity for native peoples, which are still shaping Alaska today. As Native corporations have diversified their portfolios to include tourism, some indigenous people are embracing fishing and ecotourism, while others choose to take only what they need from the Western world. Greater economic and political status and a resource base that includes many of the best fishing rivers in the state have empowered native peoples in their fisheries. The degree of control Alaska’s native people have over their fish and wildlife resources is still an issue in Alaska, but local communities are engaged in defining their relationship with the outside world. These examples from Russia, Mexico and Alaska represent only three of the many such efforts to find ways to allow both the angler on his quest and indigenous peoples to survive and live off the waters. Ours is a world where more and more people demand access to remote fishing resources while fewer and fewer indigenous peoples can survive without jobs, cash and resources from the greater economy. Efforts are underway worldwide to survey, understand and resolve these issues. Also, littoral native peoples around the world are banding together, demanding rights over their essential fisheries (UN 2001).
The angler’s obligation What then is the obligation of modern anglers to those cultures they visit or impact with their sport? There appears to be no uniform way forward through which indigenous peoples may choose to maintain their traditions and access to food resources while benefiting from Western society’s intrusions. But as human population expands, as more of us crowd into urban areas, our need for contact with both the natural world and indigenous peoples also grows. For members of a society with its quest for adventure as a cultural archetype, we must seek respectful ways forward that serve both the sport angler and the subsistence user in a world of diminishing fish resources. The failure to date of the meta-society toward indigenous populations worldwide is reflected in its casual treatment of the needs of littoral and riparian people visa vie their fisheries. In recent years, however, emerging political power has allowed many native peoples to insist on enforcement of their rights as an obligation of the greater political will.
GCRF_14.indd 300
10/3/2007 10:31:03 AM
Subsistence versus sport
301
How can the wandering angler choose correctly when seeking a ‘wilderness’ experience, a guide or a lodge? There are tools that serve just this purpose for the conscious consumer. First, use the World Wide Web to research what opportunities and issues exist. A single inquiry using ‘Saami fishing’ produced ten pages of sites on Google. Go to potential lodge sites on the Web and look for partnerships with local peoples or native corporations. In Africa, tourist services associated with indigenous people often advertise such partnerships clearly on their Web pages. Second, once you have narrowed your list of potential lodges or operators, ask who their guides are and where they live. Ask for references and call with questions about the guides. And be specific about the fishing experience you seek. Sufficient examples of successful integrations between cultures exist that we can say what seems to work between fishing cultures. Efforts by government, non-government organizations, businesses and individuals to provide economic development opportunities to members of local societies are more likely to succeed if they allow for local political control, co-operative management of resources (including locally established limits on harvest and human interactions) and support for educational opportunities. Those opportunities must provide training sufficient to emerging economic opportunities while stressing respect between cultures. Native societies will choose their path forward based on their values and needs. It is the role of both government and anglers to respect those decisions and provide support for appropriate levels of interaction.
References Blackbourn, D. (2006) The Conquest of Nature. Jonathan Cape, London. Campbell, J. (1949) The Hero of a Thousand Faces. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Diamond, J. (1997) Guns, Germs and Steel. W.W. Norton and Co, New York. Frazer, J. (1981) The Golden Bough. Avenel Books, New York. Girouard, M. (1981) The Return to Camelot. Yale University Press, London. Graves, R. (1966) The White Goddess. McGraw-Hill, Toronto. Haig-Brown, V. (1996) To Know A River. Lyons and Burford, New York. Herd, A. (2003) The Fly. Medlar Press, Ellesmere. Herm, G. (1976) The Celts. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Hoffmann, R.C. (1997) Fishers’ Craft and Lettered Art. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Lyman, J. (1989) Return of the King. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. Lyman, J. (2002) Cultural values and change. In: J. Lucy and A. Studholme (Eds). Catch and Release in Marine Recreational Fisheries. AFS Symposium 30. Bethesda, MD. Lyman, J. (2007) Release (unpublished manuscript). Lyman, J. and Long, N. (2002) Alaska’s Wild Salmon. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK.
GCRF_14.indd 301
10/3/2007 10:31:03 AM
302
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
McDonald, J. (1963) The Origins of Angling. Lyons and Burford, New York. McPhee, J. (2002) Founding Fish. Ferrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York. Norris, T. (1864) The American Angler’s Book (1864 edn) Derrydale Press, Lyon, MS. Oliver, R. (1999) The African Experience. Phoenix Press, London. Pavitt, N. (2001) Africa’s Great Rift Valley. Harry N. Abrams, New York. PBS Red Green. Available online at: http://www.pbs.org/redgreen Pearson, M. (2006) Littoral society: the concept and the problems. In: History Cooperative, Seascapes Conference Proceedings, Available online at: http://www.historycooperative.org/proceedingss/seascapes/pearson.html Reader, J. (1997) Africa. New York Vintage Books Edition, London. Riches, S. (2005) St George, Hero, Martyr and Myth. Sutton Publishing, Gloucestershire. Scheub, H. (2000) A Dictionary of African Mythology. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Schullery, P. (1987) American Fly Fishing. Nick Lyons Books, New York. Taylor, III J. (1999) Making Salmon. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Took, R. (2004) Running With Reindeer. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. UN (2001) Atlas of The Oceans, Ethical Issues. Available online at: http://www.oceanatlas.org
GCRF_14.indd 302
10/3/2007 10:31:03 AM
Chapter 15
Recruiting new anglers Driving forces, constraints and examples of success Richard Wightman, Stephen Sutton, Bruce E. Matthews, Kirk Gillis, Jonathan Colman and Jan-Rune Samuelsen
Abstract We examine why fishery managers could be more proactive in increasing participation in angling, irrespective of local trends in participation. A brief review shows that, in addition to the significant personal benefits from going fishing, there can be important benefits to broader society and the environment. A similarly brief review of the barriers preventing some people from going fishing shows similarities between countries, but also a level of difference that dictates local market information and tailored programmes in addressing them to be necessary. From the three case studies featured we found that locally configured programmes are effective in delivering increased recruitment, cultural integration and social inclusion. However, it is also clear that, to maximize the benefits accruing, there is a need for fisheries researchers and managers to integrate their fish- and fishingbased knowledge with that from socially facing sciences.
Part I
Background
While profit might lead commercial interests to encourage more people to take up fishing (syn. angling), it is perhaps less obvious why public sector fishery managers and regulators should do the same. Why should there be concern if fewer, or a lower proportion of, people are going fishing in many places (Ditton et al. in Chapter 1) or that there is unsatisfied demand? Is it important? People can go fishing easily if they wish – can’t they? Some might argue that, with widespread concern about the status of many fish stocks and aquatic communities, reducing recreational pressure might be welcomed as a contribution to improving fish population and aquatic habitat sustainability. 303
GCRF_15.indd 303
10/3/2007 10:32:09 AM
304
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Fisheries managers are becoming concerned about falling recruitment, but they are not alone – many other sports and outdoor leisure activities share the trend. For example, figures for participation in most outdoor activities in the United Kingdom (Sport England 2006, Natural England 2006), New Zealand (SPARK 2001) and the United States of America (Harris poll 2004) show decline, especially among young people. Simultaneously, as social and environmental pressures on fishing and fisheries increase, there is a need to better understand the specific benefits that fishing brings to individuals, society and the environment. For managers, increasing angling participation will, if their results and consequent benefits are promoted effectively, increase the status and societal recognition of their work. Thus, it might help better protect their fisheries. Consequently, there are sound management reasons to promote angling to a wider market, irrespective of current local or global trends in participation. In this chapter, our purpose is to address major barriers to recreational fishing, examine mechanisms for recruitment and to present and assess three different recruitment programmes from the Unites States of America, Norway and Great Britain. By doing this we aim to inspire other managers to work to increase both participation in angling and the wider social and environmental benefits accruing as a consequence. The definition of a recreational fisherman depends upon where you are standing. For a public sector administrator it might equate to a licence buyer. For a representative body or club it might be a member. For a politician or lobbyist, an angler might be simply anyone who thinks that they are one, whether they are active or not. Practically speaking, for most managers, increasing participation will revolve around the following: z z z z
z
getting existing anglers to fish more often or in a wider variety of locations – so increasing benefits and likelihood of them continuing to fish motivating lapsed anglers to return – by removing the issues that caused them to stop getting new people to go fishing – increasing the total benefits generated increasing the number of people who consider themselves as anglers or potential anglers (even if they are inactive) – thereby increasing awareness and support developing wider public awareness and support for angling.
To achieve any of these aims involves an appreciation of the potential market and the constraints operating on it. Most people will experience some constraint on their leisure activity ( Iso-Ahola and Mannell 1985), which, if they cannot (Jackson et al. 1993), or are not sufficiently motivated to overcome, may cause them to abandon a pursuit or sport (Backman 1991). Likewise, the perception of constraints might if strong enough prevent potential recruits participating.
GCRF_15.indd 304
10/3/2007 10:32:09 AM
Recruiting new anglers
305
So, identifying and removing constraints faced can be an important aspect of increasing recruitment to any activity, including angling. Personal constraints fall into three categories: structural (those directly interfering with participation such as cost, available time, family commitments and fishing access), interpersonal and intrapersonal. Individuals and groups will face differing severity and combinations of these categories, according to their own circumstances. Many factors have been found to influence the presence of constraints among active leisure participants including demographic variables such as age, income and gender. However, their effects do not seem to be consistent across populations (Godbey 1985; Thomas and Peterson 1993). For example, although many studies indicate that female anglers face more or different constraints than male anglers (Searle and Jackson 1985; Raymore et al. 1993; Thomas and Peterson 1993), Sutton (2007) found active female anglers to be less likely to report being constrained in their preferred level of activity. Anglers whose principal motivation was catching fish or relaxation might have a stronger perception of general or specific constraints than fishers who placed lower emphasis on these motives (Sutton 2007). Research shows structural constraints are often the most important to active anglers (Ritter et al. 1992; Aas1995; Fedler and Ditton 2001; Sutton 2007) – they are also the ones most easily addressed by fishery managers and so are the most studied. However, inter- and intrapersonal constraints also affect participation among this group (Ritter et al. 1992; Fedler and Ditton 2001). Most active anglers experience constraints on their level of participation. For example, 75–80% of Texas anglers fish less often than they would like (Ditton and Hunt 1996; Anderson and Ditton 2004) as do 70% of anglers in Queensland, Australia (Sutton 2007). Active anglers have been studied most as they are accessible and are of immediate interest to fisheries managers whose primary objective will be to prevent them lapsing from fishing. Inactive anglers have some awareness of angling as they have fished at one time or another but have stopped fishing because of non-negotiable structural and/or personal constraints (Fedler and Ditton 2001). In the interim it is possible that these constraints may have been removed, lessened or changed in nature. Motivation might be stronger again. Thus, inactive anglers are a very important group for recruitment programmes. Investigations into why anglers have become inactive, and what might motivate them to become active once more showed that in Texas, USA, women were more likely to drop out than men and dropouts generally perceived lower benefits than those who stayed active (Fedler and Ditton 2001). Structural constraints are the most commonly reported reasons for stopping fishing, although inter- and intrapersonal constraints are also significant factors (Table 15.1). Non-anglers are the largest market segment, and yet we know least about them in terms of attitudes, desires and constraints around angling. Theory on leisure
GCRF_15.indd 305
10/3/2007 10:32:09 AM
GCRF_15.indd 306
10/3/2007 10:32:10 AM
United Kingdom (England and Wales)
Australia (Queensland)
Resource and regulation issues (14%)
More time (28%) Better fishing (15%) Someone to fish with (15%)
Loss of interest (15%) Poor fishing (14%) No one to fish with (7%)
Potential re-starters = 40% Someone to go with (34%) Knowing where to go locally (21%) Better access locally (19%)
No one to fish with (38%) Not knowing where/how to go fishing (23%) Not enough fish (20%) No gear to use (16%)
Better access 10%
Potential re-starters = 50%
No time (27%)
Health (13%)
Boat issues (13%)
Potential re-starters = 76% Not studied
No time (46%)
United States (Texas)
Improvements that would help re-start
Reasons for stopping fishing (%)
Comparison of three studies of lapsed or inactive anglers.
Country
Table 15.1
Simpson and Mawle (2002, 2005)
Sutton (unpublished)
Fedler and Ditton (2001)
Source
Recruiting new anglers
307
constraints suggests that non-anglers can be divided into three possible groups related to recruitment potential into angling. First, there are those individuals who have chosen not to be interested in fishing, for a variety of reasons (Jackson 1990). Second, there are people whose intrapersonal constraints have led to them not forming a positive view of fishing, though they are not necessarily opposed to the idea of fishing. Landells (2004) found that in the United Kingdom 53% of non-anglers surveyed had simply never thought of going fishing – it was not on their list of possibilities. It is possible that by providing better and targeted information, antecedent intrapersonal constraints around fishing, such as ignorance of the benefits, norms and self-perceived lack of skill, could be addressed (Jackson 1990). Finally, there are people who have formed a preference for fishing but have been unable to negotiate through their constraints (Jackson et al. 1993). Their constraints might be similar in nature to lapsed anglers and so they might respond to similar recruitment initiatives. This knowledge of the different kinds of barriers, and the way they act, is essential for managers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who wish to recruit anglers. Unless they understand this, and how different actions and initiatives will affect and hopefully remove barriers, such initiatives are likely to fail. However, there is little point in understanding barriers to participation and acting (spending public funds) on them unless there are clear outcomes to be gained. A growing body of evidence shows that time spent exercising in greenspaces benefits the individual by lifting mood, self-esteem and general physical and mental health and, consequently, benefits to the community (Pretty et al. 2005). There is an axiomatic appreciation of the specific attraction that waterspace possesses for people, including elevated property values. Much of the evidence available relates to general conservation and green exercise interests. Relatively little work specific to angling has yet been done. However, Pretty et al. (2006) showed fishing to be equally the most powerful of ten outdoor activities studied, in increasing people’s sense of mood, well-being and self-esteem. Active participation in angling, hunting and other similar ‘wilderness’ activities, before the age of 11, can lead to positive and lasting behavioural changes with regard to the environment. Moreover, if the activity was organized alone, rather than as a group, benefits were even more marked. Passive, educational experiences – especially if group organized – tended to produce only changes in attitude (Wells and Lekies 2006). In urbanized countries, angling is perhaps the most practical active outdoor sport for bringing aspects of this valuable wilderness experience into urban environments. The case studies in Part II evidence that potential and show that, properly organized, fishing can make a cost-effective tool for helping address urban social issues – as well as providing the mass recreation and environmental experiences we are more familiar with.
GCRF_15.indd 307
10/3/2007 10:32:10 AM
308
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Part II Three case studies The motivation for, and benefits from, managers raising the profile of angling and helping more people to go fishing have been outlined above, but for many the pressing issues will be around operational delivery. Can these results and benefits be gained in a predictable and cost-effective manner? The following three case studies outline examples of a range of programmes that have tested the theory in the United States of America, Norway and the United Kingdom. They are not the only initiatives, but do describe a wide range of target groups, approaches and results.
Case 1:
The Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, USA – angler and boater recruitment and retention
Background Concern about fishing participation trends in the United States led to the 1998 development of the National Outreach and Communications Plan (Plan), a comprehensive effort to grow participation in boating, fishing and aquatic resources stewardship in the US. Developed by the Sportfishing and Boating Partnership Council (Council), a federally chartered group that advises the US Secretary of the Interior on matters pertaining to boating and fishing; the plan was funded by allocating $36 million from the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund over a 5-year period. Subsequently, in 2005 additional funding was allocated amounting to approximately $11 million annually through 2009. The Council established the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation (RBFF) as a separate not-for-profit entity to carry out the Plan. RBFF’s activities began in mid-1999, when the first staff member was hired and work began. The RBFF has implemented a best practices, research-based integrated marketing and grassroots model to increase participation in recreational fishing and boating. In brief, it is based on innovation–adoption theory (Purdy et al. 1985; Enck et al. 1996), focusing on a continuum that includes z z z z
‘Awareness/interest’ (I am aware of this activity and its benefits to me; I have an interest in participating) ‘Trial’ (I am trying or intend to try this activity, I know where to begin) ‘Continuation’ (my involvement in this activity meets my needs and I intend to continue to grow in my participation) ‘Adoption’ (I participate regularly in this activity – it is really part of who I am).
RBFF’s direct efforts to increase participation in recreational fishing and boating focus on the first two stages of the innovation–adoption process. By increasing
GCRF_15.indd 308
10/3/2007 10:32:10 AM
Recruiting new anglers
309
awareness/interest and generating positive trial experiences, more people enter the adoption pipeline. From there, RBFF works as a catalyst to enable local partnerships among resource management agencies and the fishing and boating industries to engage these people and continuing them through the participation pipeline. By serving their needs at the grassroots level, ensuring positive threshold experiences as well as access to the resource, equipment, guides/mentors and social support, continuation and adoption is more likely to occur. An analysis of several state agency fishing licence databases has shown that many states average approximately 50% fishing licence renewal rate each year. Net licence sales remain relatively flat or experience only slight declines year to year because previously lapsed anglers re-engage and purchase a fishing licence after a brief hiatus. RBFF refers to this as ‘licence churn’. To most efficiently affect a national net growth in participation, RBFF targets its marketing efforts to these lapsed and occasional anglers. z z
A lapsed angler is a person having fished as an adult but not in the past 2 years and would consider fishing. An occasional angler is a person having fished one to two times in the past 2 years but not more than two times in the past year.
There are approximately 34.5 million lapsed and occasional adult anglers in the United States. Defining the target by participation avidity produces an ethnic and gender diverse target segment with prior exposure to recreational fishing and boating. Awareness and interest The RBFF employs national advertising and public relations strategies to efficiently reach this large and diverse target audience. The Take Me Fishing™ national advertising and public relations campaign was launched in March 2001. The primary purpose of the campaign is to increase awareness and interest in recreational fishing and boating by positioning them as top-of-mind leisure activities for true connection to family, friends and the natural world. Specifically, the Take Me Fishing advertising creatively addresses the number one constraint to participation, perceived lack of time, by elevating the familial benefits achieved by spending quality family time fishing together (Figure 15.1). Annual evaluations of RBFF advertising efforts have shown the following: z z
annual target audience increases in awareness and interest improved perceptions of recreational fishing and boating as family leisure activities.
A critical element of the advertising strategy is the adoption of RBFF advertising materials by stakeholders in their own marketing and communication efforts.
GCRF_15.indd 309
10/3/2007 10:32:10 AM
Figure 15.1 Example of an advertisement from the ‘Take Me Fishing’ campaign. (Source: Arlinghaus and Mehner 2003. Reprinted by permission of the American Fisheries Society.)
GCRF_15.indd 310
10/3/2007 10:32:10 AM
Recruiting new anglers
311
This greatly increases the reach and frequency of the Take Me Fishing message than could otherwise occur. Since 2001, these materials have generated nearly $16 million in stakeholder usage. The RBFF also works closely with state natural resource agencies to implement direct marketing strategies. These efforts often utilize data mining techniques to analyse the fishing licence database and predict those licence holders most likely to lapse. Direct marketing materials are designed to reflect the Take Me Fishing advertising campaign and are then delivered to specific target audiences with relevant messaging such as ‘remember to buy your fishing licence’. Most participating states have generated a positive return on their investment and sold more fishing licences as a result. To better understand motivations and constraints to participation among minority population segments, the RBFF completed the research study ‘African American and Hispanic Participation In and Attitudes towards Recreational Boating and Fishing’ in January 2002. This led to a partnership effort with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to increase Hispanic participation in recreational fishing. The partnership involved numerous community organizations that serve the Hispanic population in the Houston area. Local partners held community events in the spring and summer of 2006 to provide positive threshold fishing experiences with opportunities for ongoing participation. This is a long-term effort still in its beginning stages, and the RBFF and TPWD expect it will produce valuable understanding of how to effectively engage a rapidly growing population segment in recreational fishing. Trial The TakeMeFishing.org Web site is the primary call to action for all advertising and public relations efforts. Its primary objective is to translate consumer awareness and interest in fishing and boating into trial experiences. This is accomplished by reducing two primary barriers to participation, knowledge of how and where to boat and fish, by demonstrating that participation is easy and locally accessible. The site averages more than 750,000 unique visitors each year. Annual evaluations of the Take Me Fishing advertising campaign revealed that the advertisements also resonated well with current enthusiasts. Many avid and passionate anglers believe that fishing is a noble activity, and one that should be preserved for future generations. Many expressed interest in actively participating in the Take Me Fishing initiative. To enable their involvement, RBFF launched the Anglers’ Legacy initiative in July 2006. Anglers’ Legacy targets an estimated 7.5 million avid anglers that fish at least 20 times a year. Through PSA placements, media coverage, pro and celebrity angler endorsement and industry involvement, Anglers’ Legacy is building and facilitating a community of avid anglers that pledge to share their passion by taking someone they know fishing. The fishing and boating media have
GCRF_15.indd 311
10/3/2007 10:32:11 AM
312
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
shown exceptional support for the programme. In the first year of the programme and at no charge to RBFF: z z z
55 leading publications ran 95 full-page Anglers’ Legacy PSAs more than 200 pro and celebrity anglers endorsed the programme dozens of radio and TV programmes began delivering the Anglers’ Legacy message organically in their programme content.
Evaluation of the Anglers’ Legacy initiative has shown that Anglers’ Legacy is having a significant impact. In a survey of more than 700 avid anglers, 37% reported seeing an Anglers’ Legacy PSA. Of those that have seen an Anglers’ Legacy PSA, 31% reported that they took someone fishing as a result of seeing the PSA. Of those that took someone fishing z z z
72% took them fishing from a boat 62% purchased a fishing licence for the trip 57% purchased tackle for the trip.
Drawing from marketing, outreach and education in a best practices framework, RBFF supports its stakeholders in grassroots efforts that provide successful threshold experiences. Passing on the traditions and legacy of fishing is a deeply personal, individual experience which can be supported and influenced by awareness-generating activity such as the Take Me Fishing and Anglers’ Legacy media campaigns. Ultimately, continuation and adoption still requires someone putting a rod into the hands of another, with a willingness to serve as a mentor. Often occurring in a family context, recent social changes have made families less of a factor in this process. In addition to the family-centric messages of the Take Me Fishing advertising, RBFF seeks to enable surrogate or alternate family members to become participants in this process. By empowering local service providers (educators, leisure services professionals, youth professional, churches and community groups) and avid anglers to team with others in the fishing and boating community interested in passing on the legacy, RBFF hopes to create a far more effective local coordination of effort. Examples of tools created to engage local stakeholders in recruitment and retention efforts include Best practices in fishing, boating and aquatic stewardship education. An interactive tool for planning, developing and evaluating education programmes. Includes a trainers guide to help aquatic educators conduct workshops with staff and volunteers. Passport programme. A turn-key six-station programme that introduces kids and families with little or no previous experience to recreational fishing and boating. Event planning kit. A step-by-step guide to planning, promoting, and hosting successful fishing, boating and aquatic stewardship events.
GCRF_15.indd 312
10/3/2007 10:32:11 AM
Recruiting new anglers
313
The RBFF also pursues strategic partnerships with organizations that are particularly well suited to provide trial experiences and ongoing education opportunities. No one organization can accomplish it all. Facilitating partnerships at all levels, bringing the individual strengths of each organization together to use best practices approaches and create communities of practice among professionals across the US, will advance the recruitment and retention agenda far more effectively than any one organization could do alone. Some of RBFF’s strategic partnerships include: National physical education grants programme. Titled ‘Physh Ed’, this programme is a partnership between the RBFF, the Future Fisherman Foundation and the National Association of Sports Physical Education. Physh Ed provides direct funding to physical education teachers to design and implement fishing and boating curricula for 11- to 15-year-old students. Evaluation of the programme has shown that participating students are significantly more likely to continue participation on their own and that these students demonstrate a heightened awareness and concern for aquatic resource issues. National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) Community Fishing and Boating Grants Programme. On the basis of the experience gained through Physh Ed in a formal education setting, RBFF expanded its community-based partnerships to include community/municipal parks and recreation programmes that provide access to fishing and boating opportunities. Grants are provided to non-formal educators and service providers to enable them to build sustainable programming that facilitates instruction and ongoing participation. Conclusion Through research, trial and error, the RBFF has learned much about increasing participation in recreational fishing and boating. Based on this experience and extensive programme evaluation, RBFF believes that the boating and fishing community can have the greatest impact on recruitment/retention trends by: (1)
(2) (3)
Marshalling resources and creating collaborative community-based efforts that leverage effective national communication strategies and directing increased public awareness and interest in fishing and boating towards local best-practices-based efforts that facilitate positive threshold experiences. Building communities of practice among programme providers that share resources, ideas and experiences to further adaptation of best practices. Focusing often-competitive industry efforts on a shared recruitment/retention agenda and elevating the discussion to the greater benefits of collaboration rather than competing for an ever-decreasing market share.
For more information on the RBFF, its programmes and related research, please visit www.RBFF.org, www.TakeMeFishing.org and www.AnglersLegacy.org.
GCRF_15.indd 313
10/3/2007 10:32:11 AM
314
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Case 2
Integration, cultural exchange and fishing for everyone in Norway
Recreational fishing is very popular in Norway, and more than half the country’s population reports fishing each year (Aas 1997). Many immigrants arriving in a new country are unaware of potential activities. Frustration may arise from boredom and lack of social interaction and activation. There can be difficulties for many immigrants to integrate and/or interact with their new society and environment. This may be especially true for immigrants arriving from warmer regions of the world with considerably different cultures and natural environments. Fishing is a multi-rewarding event. One can experience the outdoors, exercise, gather food, relax, interact with others and much more. Importantly, recreational fishing can also provide an attractive arena for immigrants to learn and experience nature and a new culture. Unfortunately, barriers often exist that make entering into new outdoor activities such as fishing difficult. These challenges come in addition to the major challenges of entering the new culture, such as religion, language, tradition and local customs. The aim of our project was to introduce fishing to newly established immigrants and get them started on their own rewarding, recreational fishing career in Norway. In this way, they may be helped to integrate more into society, so bringing benefits to themselves and their new community. Our two main and equal goals were to recruit immigrants as anglers and integrate them in Norwegian society through fishing. The project has been carried out by the Norwegian Hunter and Angler Association in cooperation with the tackle company Elbe Normark. Financial support was gained from Akershus County Council, and their funds directed towards immigrants. Methods First contact was established on the telephone or emails and networks were built amongst authorities and NGOs working with immigrants. Groups were then invited for fishing trips on the Oslo Fjord. Approximately 5 hour long fishing trips were planned, usually in the middle of the day. Group leaders from the different organizations were advised that there should be no more than 10 participants per instructor, with additional instructors if the participants were younger. All fishing gear was provided: equipment, boats and so on. After meeting the group and making proper introductions, participants were instructed in a number of angling details before fishing together. (1) Angling theory: Instructors introduced the participants to basic fishing equipment and concepts applicable to the local surroundings and fishing possibilities. This includes what fish are available, how to choose a
GCRF_15.indd 314
10/3/2007 10:32:11 AM
Recruiting new anglers
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
315
‘good’ fishing spot, what equipment is most relevant, when it is good to fish for the relevant species in the area in particular seasons, etc. Local laws and regulations and common practices were also presented and discussed. Equipment: Instructors reviewed step-by-step how to rig your fishing rod, knots for attaching hooks or bait, choosing lures or bait, and other equipment. Different rods and reels were exhibited and the main components of these were explained. Fishing techniques: Instructors taught participants how to cast and retrieve their lines, jig, troll, fish deep or high, fast or slow, all depending on the situation. Learning to cast is always fun. Fishing: The participants fish, fish, and fish … . The best way to learn is by doing! They fished from shore and boat, and practiced jigging and casting and learned how to retrieve the various lures and baits. They also exchanged between bottom fishing and pelagic fishing, and learned how to vary speed, depth and the lure’s motion during retrieval. Preparing the catch: Participants learned to clean and prepare some or all of their catch (usually on a barbeque or open fire). For the various fish species, stomach contents were examined and basic fish biology and ecology was discussed. How to store the catch in a refrigerator or freezer for future use was also explained. Fortunately, all fish in Norway are edible.
Fishing in marine systems is free in Norway and no licence is necessary. The fact that no ‘paper work’ or financial investment (other than fishing gear) is required is an important factor for those in challenging economic situations, which is often the case for newly arriving immigrants. More importantly, the project offers the participants the opportunity to learn and be involved in something fun. The participants receive a positive feeling as a result of their fishing trip. Thus, through this project we promote z z z z z z z
a meeting place for many in new surroundings positive interactions in a challenging life-situation building understanding and common goals less frustration and improved livelihoods hands-on activity experiencing nature and harvesting food cultural exchange/local knowledge.
This was a relatively inexpensive and easily organized project with limited financial aid and motivated cooperating partners. We used relatively robust rods (c.2.5 m/7 ft and 5–30 g) with metal line rings (ceramic rings break too easy with inexperienced anglers). We usually had an excess of five lures per participant,
GCRF_15.indd 315
10/3/2007 10:32:11 AM
316
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
but encouraged and taught them how to avoid snagging the bottom and losing their lure. We also switch between spoons/jigs and hook and bait. In addition, we purchased swimming vests for use in the boat and a few teaching accessories. The running costs were mostly for boat use, grill charcoal, aluminium foil (for grilling the catch of the day), etc. The participants were responsible for bringing the day’s food and drink and personal clothing for the weather. Most of the work for those involved (leaders, including the professionals that come together with their group) was done in connection with the leaders’ jobs in recreational fishing (the Angling Association) or health/social institutions and clubs. Thus, salary specifically for this project was held at a minimum, even though the amount of hours combined for all the leaders for one 5-h trip could exceed 30 work hours. We used private boats (the instructor’s boat and/or Elbe Normark’s company boat) with minimum cost to the project. Results The project began in 2002 and is still going on. We have also been invited to expand into new cities and countries. As of 2006, over 400 participants from 30 countries, including both sexes and ages from 4–82 years have participated, with the majority of participants between 10 and 25 years old. Many individual participants or groups ordered their own fishing rods and equipment. Through the instructors, 47 sets of reels and rods have been purchased by individuals and 90 sets have been purchased by organizations. This indicates that we are establishing an interest in and motivation for recreational fishing amongst several of our participants. Importantly, this likely provides benefits to both the participants and the new society they are entering. We have not conducted any systematic evaluation of this programme, and the results presented below are gathered through conversations with participants. Our anecdotal results indicate that as much as about 75% of participants carry on fishing after the course. Those who had fished before also showed more interest, and the majority of them enrolled for more than one course, compared with non-anglers, where about 50% did so. This implies that, for existing anglers, the course was largely a means of learning how to continue their sport in a new country. For the non-anglers, the course was completely new, and although they showed a lower rate, the results are very encouraging. The general public response has been good and there has been much positive coverage in the media. Conclusion This project has been successful in meeting its objectives in helping introduce more immigrants to one of Norway’s most popular sports – angling. Thus, this may also help them assimilate into their new community more quickly. All groups
GCRF_15.indd 316
10/3/2007 10:32:12 AM
Recruiting new anglers
317
show strong post-scheme participation, but those with previous angling experience show the best results. The approach should be feasible in any country and for almost any type of group. The most important requirement is having a couple of motivated instructors who know how to take a group of amateurs out fishing and have a good time. It is also interesting, as it builds relations between the fishing sector (NGOs, managers, businesses) and social/health sector.
Case 3:
Increasing the benefits from more people, from more backgrounds, going fishing in England.
Introduction The Environment Agency (EA) has a legal duty to maintain, improve and develop freshwater fisheries. Direct government funding for the fisheries service is declining, throwing more reliance on income earned from rod-fishing licences. Increasing participation is vital to us but a number of surveys show a backdrop of declining participation across most sports. However, our 2006 data show that there are several million more people who are already motivated to go fishing but do not. For example, 19% of 12–16-year olds have fished recently and 15% more say they want to try – the principal barriers they face are identified earlier in this chapter. Increasing angling participation In 2006 EA produced ‘Angling in 2015’, a strategic plan for promoting angling and developing its social benefits. The key aspects of this plan are z z z
z z z
address known barriers to participation and retention in the existing latent market protect and develop angling opportunity close to population centres promote angling and its established benefits widely { develop new markets { increase public awareness and support { increase political awareness and support – local and national wherever possible work through others, help develop capacity with angling administrators and supporting bodies help increase diversity in angling – especially among women, people with disability and ethnic groups support developing angling as a tool for social inclusion – high cost–benefit ratios.
Our associated work programme elements show strong resonance with the RBFF approach outlined in study 1. Principal work areas include angling participation
GCRF_15.indd 317
10/3/2007 10:32:12 AM
318
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
projects that aim to help more people, who are already motivated, get into fishing. Angling club and coach development supports these events and aims to increase retention. Angling promotion work markets the importance of angling to society including influencing local and national decision and policy makers to establish a view that accessible water-space for angling and other recreation is an important feature of community infrastructure (Pinch and Munt 2002). We also aim to put angling in the mind of the millions of people who have never thought of doing it – the largest, but most difficult to reach, new market. Fisheries improvement and creation supports all our work by protecting and improving angling opportunity close to people’s homes. Our aim is to introduce 30,000 people to fishing each year and over 5 years increase rod licence sales by 10%. Angling for social inclusion While the potential market for new or returning anglers is considerable, so is the potential for angling to benefit wider society. In common with many other countries, the United Kingdom has increasing social and youth issues associated with urbanization and sedentary lifestyles. Reflecting this, and angling’s known popularity with young people, EA’s primary duty to maintain, improve and develop freshwater fisheries was recently augmented by a requirement to do this in way that enhances the social and economic benefits from fishing. Thus, for the first time a clear policy link was made between fish, fishing and society. Here, in contrast to our other work, we are not seeking to generate large numbers of new anglers. Instead, we are supporting projects that use angling as a tool to help return some of our most disadvantaged and troubled young people to mainstream society. Alternatively, we are helping those who seek to improve quality of life for some of our most disadvantaged citizens. Recruitment and income generation from licence sales are secondary benefits. The number of students is necessarily low. However, social and political impact is reciprocally high as the projects directly address areas of deep public concern, including anti-social behaviour, youth crime, substance abuse and social exclusion through disability or other disadvantage. The socially relevant arguments developed by these projects have been crucial in gaining a higher profile for angling, including at the highest political level. Get Hooked on Fishing (GHOF) uses angling to help young disaffected and excluded people known to be at risk of criminalization. Half of UK crime is youth crime and juveniles make up one-fifth of offenders, and often it is a handful of antisocial individuals who account for the majority of the problems that communities experience (Coopers and Lybrand 1994). I don’t know what it is about fishing, but this lad supposedly had ADHD. A nightmare most of the time. Goes fishing, he sits there for four hours without catching anything and doesn’t move. He has to be practically dragged away and can’t wait to go again. (Social worker in Brown 2006)
GCRF_15.indd 318
10/3/2007 10:32:12 AM
Recruiting new anglers
319
Costs are as much as £350 per person per year, but this compares favourably with >£120,000 per person, if sent to a youth prison. A GHOF scheme repays the tax-payer if only one person every 3 years (or about 1 in 300 students) is saved from prison, [this contrasts with the general break-even point of between 1 in 5 and 1 in 14 participants for this type of work – Coopers and Lybrand (1994)]. But the results are better than that. Macgill and Bradley-Nicholson (2001) showed that among the first 380 students there has been no post-scheme offending, complaints of anti-social behaviour fell by 70%, school attendance rose by the same amount and educational achievements also improved, sometimes dramatically. At first I thought what the hell do I want to do that for, it’s boring: but after the first time, I couldn’t wait to go back. (GHOF student, in Brown 2006)
EA (2007, in preparation) revealed softer benefits, that is, the children were happier, at home and at school, because they had more friends. And basing a project around a local park pond provided many spin-off benefits to the local community, which was recognized when the scheme won £50,000 by national televised public vote. Ten projects are now established, collectively helping over 2000 young people each year, covering some of the most socially and economically deprived parts of the country. A key factor is to use appropriate role models to lead the scheme. Angling skills are a secondary issue and so ordinarily qualified angling coaches are not good enough. The leader needs to be able to empathize, engage and build respect with the young people in their care while maintaining an assertive authority. On meeting the project leaders it immediately becomes obvious why they are successful, but also that people like them are few and far between. In fact, next to funding, the availability of these approachable, yet assertive, role models – normally male, even for female participants – is the factor most limiting to growth and success of the project. Peer coaching is a touchstone for the project. Some of each year’s intake is trained to be a coach or mentor for the next group. So, they get a sense of value and status, It feels good when you catch a fish. You think, I really did that, then you coach another kid to catch fish … they catch a fish because you coached them and that feels even better. (Teenage coach, in Brown 2006)
and the new group is coached by someone who can relate to them through age and culture but has something valuable to offer – fishing skills. One of the lads was brilliant giving out the healthy and safety advice to the others and he was only 13. He basically said ‘you can lark around on the bank if you want, but if you do, you’re in danger of drowning but more importantly you won’t catch any bloody fish’. The others listened to that. (GHOF student, in Brown 2006)
GCRF_15.indd 319
10/3/2007 10:32:12 AM
320
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
For certain groups – such as adolescent young males – angling does seem to be particularly effective in helping address underlying issues in their lives. There are no independently established explanations for this, but there are many views and opinions (and for many social services professionals, that it works so well is enough). The next phase is to undertake research to quantify and understand these aspects better and then to promote them widely and expand the scheme in priority locations.
Part III
Discussion
A major outcome from this review is that there can be sound social, economic and environmental justifications for investing to increase participation in angling. And, just as importantly, managers are able to influence the market to encourage that participation, provided they understand the constraints acting on target groups. The review and case studies show that a locally tailored approach is required to increasing participation – one size does not fit all. Research on leisure constraints provides insight into the reasons why active anglers cease fishing, why inactive anglers and non-anglers do not participate and what might encourage inactive anglers and nonanglers to take up fishing. Effective recruitment and retention strategies must be formulated based on sound knowledge of the constraints on recreational fishing and how these vary across different segments of the population. Programmes that do not remove or reduce important constraints or give individuals the skills to negotiate through them are unlikely to significantly increase participation rates. With sound information on fishing constraints, managers can identify and target specific groups known to have low participation rates (e.g. females). Then they can target those that are most likely to be receptive to recruitment efforts (e.g. recent fishing dropouts and non-anglers who desire participation but are affected by negotiable constraints), and design programmes that help the fishing and non-fishing public overcome many of the constraints they face. In the RBFF study, a deep appreciation of constraints, market forces and people’s aspirations, coupled with substantial budgets and political support, have been used to create extensive programmes that are effective in recruiting and increasingly retaining new anglers. Similarly structured initiatives, but tailored to the local market, in England are beginning to achieve similar results in introducing people to angling and a wider awareness-raising. Norway’s use of angling to help integrate immigrants while recruiting new anglers is equally imaginative, and has a much lower cost base and is not to the same extent based on research, but shows great clarity of purpose because it obviously addresses important access constraints. Their scheme is a carefully constructed application of Izaak Walton’s ‘brotherhood of the angle’, using common interests to overcome wider social barriers. This principle is taken a step further, in terms of degree, in the English study that shows how effective angling
GCRF_15.indd 320
10/3/2007 10:32:12 AM
Recruiting new anglers
321
can be in helping excluded anti-social individuals, and hence their communities. This example also gives a clue to how influencers and decision makers, with no interest in the sport, can be moved emotionally to better value ‘going fishing’. A hidden hand by government or other overt authority is an important theme, common to all three featured studies. In the US the scheme is funded by a federal tax, but delivered by an NGO, likewise in Norway. In England, although the work is initiated and supported by a national government agency and funded from fishing licence income, participants see only local faces. Interestingly, the projects also help build contact between natural resource agencies and social welfare/health agencies. Researching this chapter revealed many axioms, snippets of information, and common understanding about angling’s roles and why people participate, but no heavyweight reviews of recreational fishing’s place in society or an individual’s well-being. Growing numbers of studies are mapping out the benefits of ‘green exercise’, showing, for example, that jogging in a green environment produces significantly lower blood pressure than the same effort in a gym. Yet, despite angling’s popularity, only one or two studies have considered it in a social or medical context. It is also true that few, if any, studies have examined angling in an urban or suburban context, although it is in these locations that added value to quality of life could be highest. Fisheries interests have studied barriers to fishing, and these are being acted upon in some examples, but little work has been done to evaluate the positive side of the equation, that is, what are people’s soft spots that can be actively marketed to, so generating new interest in fishing. For example, Rohde (2006) showed a powerful link between the hunger of young children for cool new experiences (and their skill in negotiating for them when motivated) and guilt complexes among their thirty-something parents who both work full time and who search for quality time with their children. Angling should be well placed to exploit this situation – as a sport that all ages and physical abilities can participate in with roughly equal chances of success, and with demonstrably strong positive effect on mood, well-being and self-esteem. But, how many fisheries officers systematically use this type of information to stimulate new market interest and public support? It is self-evident, possibly too much so, that because so many people in so many places go fishing by choice, and generate so much economic activity, they get something positive out of it. But, precisely how do people benefit? What would people lose if the opportunity to fish were taken away? This detailed knowledge of the precise nature and relative scale of the social benefits is essential, because ultimately it is these human and political factors that will determine societies’ and politician’s attitudes to recreational fishing. Fisheries researchers could support managers by gaining the same depth of knowledge of the relationships between fishing and individual and social wellbeing that they have already for fish populations and their habitats. Achieving this
GCRF_15.indd 321
10/3/2007 10:32:12 AM
322
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
requires collaboration with those from social and environmental learning sectors. It might also require a shift in outlook that values individual observational vignettes alongside the more familiar, harder, statistically robust data. Nowhere is this clearer than in the social inclusion case study where the personal observations are as compelling as the out-turn statistics, more so in influencing attitudes among non-specialists such as politicians.
References Aas, O. (1995) Constraints on sportfishing and effect of management actions to increase participation rates in fishing. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 631–638. Aas, O. (1997) Recreational fishing in Norway: trends 1970–1993 and geographic variation. Fisheries Management and Ecology 3: 107–118. Anderson, D.K. and Ditton, R.B. (2004) Demographics, participation, attitudes, and management preferences of Texas anglers. Human Dimensions of Fisheries Research Laboratory Technical Document HD-624. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. Arlinghaus, R. and Mehner, T. (2003) Management preferences of urban anglers: Habitat rehabilitation versus other options. Fisheries 28:10–17. Backman, S.J. (1991) An investigation of the relationship between activity loyalty and perceived constraints. Journal of Leisure Research 23: 332–344. Brown, A. (2006) Getting Hooked – Get Hooked on Fishing, Angling and Youth Inclusion. Substance Research Report for Get Hooked on Fishing, Countryside Agency and Home Office, p. 46. Coopers and Lybrand (1994). Preventative strategy for young people in trouble. Consultant’s report to HM Government Home Office. Ditton, R.B. and Hunt, K.M. (1996) Demographics, participation, attitudes, management preferences, and trip expenditures of Texas anglers. Human Dimensions of Fisheries Research Laboratory Technical Document HD-605. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. Enck, J.W., Mattfeld, G.W. and Decker, D.J. (1996) Retaining likely dropouts from hunting: New York’s apprentice hunter program. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 61: 358–366. Environment Agency (2007) Angling for social inclusion – an assessment of Get Hooked on Fishing, Bournville. Project case study, due to be published in 2007 (in preparation). Fedler, A.J. and Ditton, R.B. (2001) Dropping out and dropping in: a study of factors for changing recreational fishing participation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21: 283–292. Godbey, G. (1985) Non use of public leisure services: a model. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 3: 1–12. Harris poll (2004). Different Leisure Activities’ Popularity Rise and Fall, But Reading, TV Watching and Family Time Still Top the List of Favorites. Harris interactive www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll Iso-Ahola, S.E. and Mannell, R.C. (1985) Social and psychological constraints on leisure. In: M.G. Wade (Ed.) Constraints on Leisure. Thomas Books, Springfield, IL, pp. 111–151.
GCRF_15.indd 322
10/3/2007 10:32:12 AM
Recruiting new anglers
323
Jackson, E.L. (1990) Variations in the desire to begin a leisure activity: evidence of antecedent constraints? Journal of Leisure Research 22: 55–70. Jackson, E.L., Crawford, D.W. and Godbey, G. (1993) Negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences 15: 1–11. Landells, R. (2004) Attitudes to angling among Black and Minority Ethnic communities in England. Sco20099/SR. Environment Agency, Bristol. Macgill, E. and Bradley-Nicholson, E. (2001) Get Hooked on Fishing: An Evaluation. Durham University Department of Social Policy, unpublished review for HM Government Home Office. Natural England (2006) English leisure visits. Report of the 2005 survey. Natural England survey report, p. 85. Available at www.naturalengland.org.uk Pinch, P. and Munt, I. (2002) Blue Belts: An agenda for ‘Waterspace’ planning in the UK. Planning Practice and Research 17(2): 159–174. Pretty, J., Hine, R. and Peacock, J. (2006) Green Exercise: the benefits of activities in green places. The Biologist 53(3): 143–146. Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Sellens, J. and Griffin, M. (2005) The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 15(5): 319–337. Purdy, K.G., Decker, D.J. and Brown, T.L. (1985) New York’s 1978 Hunter Training Course Participants: The Importance of Social-Psychological Influences in Hunting from 1978–1984. HDRU Publ. No. 85 (7). Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, p.127. Raymore, L., Godbey, G., Crawford, D. and Von Eye, A. (1993) Nature and processes of leisure constraints: an empirical test. Leisure Sciences 15: 99–113. Ritter, C., Ditton, R.B. and Riechers R.K. (1992) Constraints to sport fishing: implications for fisheries management. Fisheries 17: 16–19. Rohde, C. (2006) Global Cool Hunt 4. Available at www.signsofthetime.nl Searle, M.S. and Jackson E.L. (1985) Recreation non-participation and barriers to recreation participation among would-be participants. Leisure Sciences 7: 227–249. Simpson, D. and Mawle, G.W. (2002) Public attitudes to angling. R&D Technical Report W2-060/TR ISBN 1 86192 346 4. Simpson, D. and Mawle, G.W. (2005) Public Attitudes to Angling 2005. Environment Agency, Bristol, p. 60. SPARK (2001) Trends in participation in sport and active leisure 1997–2001. Sport in New Zealand Publication, p. 54. Sport England (2006) Participation in sport in Great Britain, Trends for 1987 to 2002. Sport England Publication, p. 18. Available at www.sportengland.org Sutton, S.G. (2007) Constraints on recreational fishing participation in Queensland, Australia. Fisheries 32: 73–83. Thomas, C.L. and Peterson, T.A. (1993) Becoming an outdoors-woman. Women in Natural Resources 15: 16–21. Wells, N.M. and Lekies, K.S. (2006) Nature and life course: pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environments 16(1): 1–24.
GCRF_15.indd 323
10/3/2007 10:32:13 AM
Chapter 16
The role of non-government organizations in recreational fisheries management Challenges, responsibilities and possibilities John C. Harrison and Jason Schratwieser
Abstract Recreational fishing non-government organizations (NGOs) come in many forms and play a vital role in recreational fishing. Some are species-specific while others have a broader focus. This chapter provides comment on some of the wide variety of tasks that recreational fishing NGOs are involved in including resource allocation, leadership, data, resources (human and financial), codes of practice (COPs), radical elements, protected areas, habitat, participation rates and fisheries management. Many of these issues are evident in all countries with different levels of impact. While the structure and focus of NGOs are quite variable there remain key issues that have a common thread for all – education, conservation and representation.
Introduction Recreational fishing is an old sport, perhaps dating as far back as ancient Egypt (Pitcher and Hollingworth 2002). Since then it has metamorphosed from a subsistence activity to one that is performed, in many instances, for sheer enjoyment. Currently, in developed nations, participation rates range between 2% and 20%, while some Scandinavian countries report upwards of 50% participation. Recreational fishing is also big business. In the United States alone, it is responsible for $41.5 billion in retail sales, $116 billion in overall economic output, $7.3 billion in state and federal taxes and over 1 million jobs (American Sportfishing Association 2002). The European Anglers Alliance reports that recreational angling in Europe generates between US$10.2 and US$12.8 billion 324
GCRF_16.indd 324
10/3/2007 10:32:56 AM
Role of NGOs in recreational fisheries management
325
each year. In Australia a conservative estimate of annual expenditure on services and items that was attributed to recreational fishing was AU$1.8 billion (Henry and Lyle 2003). Owing to the paucity of reliable data, it is very difficult to determine global recreational fishing participation rates. Anecdotally, it is thought that some countries are experiencing declining rates while others are stable or increasing. While there is no overall trend for participation, in many places, recreational fishing activity is increasing and at the same time wielding an ever larger economic impact. There are, however, multiple threats and challenges that need to be addressed. While recreational fishing as a sport has grown over centuries, so has commercial fishing and the world’s demand for fish. In 2003, over 90.3 million tons of fish were caught in global fisheries and it is estimated that global fish consumption will rise by 25% by the year 2030 (FAO 2004). This has led to overfishing of many fish stocks that are recreationally important. In addition, many fisheries are data-deficient, with scientists unable to accurately assess stock status (Pew Oceans Commission 2003). Habitat degradation from development and pollution combined with unsustainable fishing practices imperils the very fish that recreational fishers so revere. While some anglers are aware of these threats, many do not completely understand the magnitude at which these impact fisheries. Further, many are also unaware of the impact that recreational fishing itself has on fish stocks. Angling organizations (here termed non-governmental organizations or NGOs) have been in existence since at least the 1730s (Struna 1996) and come in many forms. Some organizations are recognized by government and they perform roles as peak bodies, national associations, species based, marine or freshwater focused, regional or state based and so on. Recreational fishing organizations have many purposes including, but certainly not limited to, education and awareness, acclimatization, tournament organizing and management, research and development, enhancing fishing, conservation initiatives, enhancing participation, lobbying and advocacy and maintenance of records. Examples of the groups around the world and the year they were established include: American Fisheries Society (1870) Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers (1871) UK Salmon and Trout Association (1903) Rand Piscatorial Association (South Africa) (1912) International Game Fish Association (1939) New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council (1957) Barbados Game Fishing Association (1961) Canadian Wildlife Federation (1962) Japan Game Fish Association (1979) European Fishing Tackle Trade Association (1981)
GCRF_16.indd 325
10/3/2007 10:32:57 AM
326
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Industry Confederation Inc (Recfish Australia) (1983) Australian Fishing Tackle Association (1984) Sport Fishing Association (Singapore) (1996) European Anglers Alliance (1996). That being said, most recreational organizations fall into at least one of these three broad categories: education, conservation and representation. There are essentially three distinct groups of NGOs within recreational fishing. The associations or organizations representing the tackle trade (manufacturing, wholesale, retail, etc.), the group representing the fishers (club, non-club, species specific, freshwater/marine) and the group representing the professionals (scientist, managers, etc.) involved in recreational fishing. All of the groups have specific goals that are usually determined by their constituency, and while there is some cooperation on issues of mutual concern because of the wide spectrum of their respective objectives most NGOs pursue different agendas. It is prudent to note that most of the effort and initiatives developed by all the NGOs are aimed in some way at improving recreational fishing. Fishing organizations typically benefit anglers by providing a forum to discuss their sport, collegiality, and the potential to engage in grassroots conservation efforts that help improve their fisheries. However, these are also very useful mechanisms for involving anglers in fisheries research and management. Cooperative fisheries research and management involves input and involvement of user groups, and doing so can increase compliance and support of management decisions (Mikalson and Jentoft 2001; Born and Stairs 2003; Schratwieser 2006). Recently, the concept of co-management has become more prevalent despite challenges associated with balancing different stakeholder groups with diverse backgrounds (Sutinen and Johnston 2003; Jentoft 2005). Properly implemented cooperative research can generate stakeholder buy-in, improve compliance with management decisions and serve to perpetuate a working relationship between stakeholders and management (Schratwieser 2006). There is an increasing realization around the world that if the recreational fishing interests (NGOs) are to have some control over its destiny, it must take charge of the direction of the issues facing its future. This chapter concentrates on the group representing the fishers and examines and attempts to explore the main issues facing these NGOs in their pursuit of meaningful participation in the role of fisheries management and how they can and should contribute and improve the processes.
Resource allocation between commercial and recreational fishing While both recreational and commercial fishing may have similar characteristics such as harvest of fish for consumption and tangible economic values, they are
GCRF_16.indd 326
10/3/2007 10:32:57 AM
Role of NGOs in recreational fisheries management
327
in essence quite different on a number of levels. Most fisheries that are commercial or have a commercial component are managed based on the concept of maximum sustainable yield, which is the largest average catch that can be taken continuously from a stock. However, over time this typically truncates a stock’s size/age distribution, resulting in smaller fish. Conversely, many recreational fishers practice voluntary catch and release, and some recreational fisheries (e.g. tarpon, bonefish, cyprinids and billfish) are almost entirely catch and release. Thus, allocation conflicts inevitably erupt because recreational anglers often place more value in catching larger fish rather than being able to physically harvest a large volume of fish. Historically, allocation issues have not typically favoured recreational anglers. The reasons for this are simple. First, the commercial fishing industry is generally much better organized and better represented at the management and political levels. The management agencies were essentially established to manage commercial fisheries and have tended to have a bias towards the commercial or subsistence sector. In addition, the economic value of commercial fisheries is much easier to quantify than that of recreational fisheries. Taken together, these factors have established systems that traditionally have handled commercial fisheries, and often tip the scales in favour of commercial fishers. In contrast, in some fisheries that are strictly recreational, fisheries scientists and managers are working closely with the recreational community. In Florida, USA, for example, a number of fisheries (e.g. snook and redfish) are managed exclusively for recreational use. In this case, managers are actively soliciting input from recreational anglers as to how they want their fishery to perform. That is, they want to know if recreational anglers desire the ability to harvest large numbers of fish or a fishery with large numbers of trophy-sized fish. After getting consensus from anglers, management then presents options (i.e. bag limits, size limits and closed seasons) that will ultimately attain the desired goal. Most NGOs have witnessed or are aware of examples of overfishing by commercial interests. The need for the recreational sector to secure access to viable stocks in order to ensure that the future of recreational fishing is the driving force behind many NGOs. The challenge for NGOs is to be better prepared for the everincreasing debate over resource allocation. The following sections of this chapter identify some of the areas where there are opportunities for improvement.
Better data, better fisheries Recreational fishing NGOs are an underutilized means of improving data on recreational fisheries. It is an immutable truth; you cannot properly manage any fishery without good data. Unfortunately many recreational fisheries are data deficient in terms of participation, socio-economic benefits and catch. Fisheries-dependent catch data are especially important in managing fisheries; yet these data are sorely lacking for the recreational sector compared to commercial.
GCRF_16.indd 327
10/3/2007 10:32:57 AM
328
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Unlike the commercial sector, recreational fishers are typically not required to report landings, and statistical surveys designed to query anglers about their catch are sometimes inefficient at collecting information (NRC 2006). And the high cost of comprehensive collection surveys is quite often rejected by government and its agencies. Recreational fishing NGOs can help improve this situation by increasingly working with fisheries scientists and managers to improve data collection (NRC 2006). In addition, fishing groups should promote the development of recreational fishing licences that provide management with a known sampling universe from which to collect data. Fishing licences also benefit anglers and management by providing participation data. These data, in turn, can be used by economists to conduct socio-economic analyses of recreational fisheries. Allocation issues between recreational and commercial anglers are all too often decided on the basis on economic impact, and having better economic data on recreational fisheries can undoubtedly improve the outcome of these issues. Recreational fishing NGOs have the ability to play an active and integral role in this regard by commissioning economists to conduct economic and human dimension research on fisheries. While we are seeing more and more cooperative research between NGOs and fisheries scientists, there is still room for considerable improvement.
Moving resources and roles from government to NGOs The reliance on the government agencies for management of recreational fisheries resources has, in many cases, not been as successful as it could be. Greater responsibility should be placed on the recreational sector to be part of the management process. This is happening gradually with Management Advisory Committees or the like, now having recreational sector representation. Even with the growing trend of incorporating anglers in fisheries management, effectively soliciting their input presents its own set of challenges. For example, recreational anglers are often apprehensive about providing information for fisheries management. The reasons for this can vary, but generally stem from a history of poor communication and distrust. In addition, fisheries management may find the process of identifying and contacting individual stakeholders difficult and inefficient (Schratwieser 2006). Recreational fishing NGOs can improve this process by acting as a liaison between fisheries management and anglers, whereby they help facilitate cooperative management in several ways. First, they provide management with a single contact and source of communication to stakeholders. Additionally, fishing organizations that have staff or members with experience in biology and/or fisheries management can also facilitate communication between management and stakeholders by disseminating technical information in a more comprehensible fashion.
GCRF_16.indd 328
10/3/2007 10:32:57 AM
Role of NGOs in recreational fisheries management
329
NGOs are better suited to identifying stakeholders that would best aid the research in question. They can also aid in publicizing results of cooperative research, which can further cultivate relations between stakeholders and management for future cooperative efforts (Schratwieser 2006). In another chapter in this book, Schratwieser reviews the benefits of fishing with circle hooks for billfish. One of the research studies highlighted in that chapter (Prince et al. 2006) was the result of cooperative research between professional anglers and fisheries management facilitated by the International Game Fish Association. The objective of the study was to compare different hooks to determine which provided the best chances of post release survival for Atlantic sailfish and to see how this varied for different drop-back times, or the time given for the fish to eat the bait before engaging the hook. Statistically evaluating three different hook types over four drop-back categories necessitated that data be collected from a considerable number of sailfish. Like other istiophorids, sailfish are considered rare-event species and require specialized equipment and techniques to capture in appreciable numbers. Typically this would pose a problem to fisheries biologists collecting the data. However, by working with a recreational fishing organization and involving professional anglers, the study was able to collect data on over 2000 sailfish. The benefit of involving a recreational fishing organization in this study was actually twofold. First, recreational anglers supplied a sample size large enough to statistically demonstrate that circle hooks benefit sailfish over a variety of drop backs and have catch performance similar to J-hooks. In addition, because the study used the best charter captains and sailfish anglers in south Florida, the studies results are much more likely to be accepted by recreational anglers because the data were collected by their peers. Because of the growing trend of involving stakeholders in the management process, recreational angling groups can play a pivotal role in coordinating input from recreational anglers. Fisheries management should take a more proactive approach in working with fishing NGOs to supply appropriate individuals to participate in advisory capacities. Globally, there is a trend in most society sectors to move tasks and decisions from a central to a local, and from public to private stakeholders. This is also the case in recreational fishing management (see Salmi et al. this volume). This creates an opportunity in many countries for the NGOs to take over or to cooperate through improved partnerships in roles and tasks traditionally held by government agencies to the NGOs. In many cases NGOs have a creditable name and reputation and so they could deliver to the wider recreational fishing community services such as education and awareness of rules and regulations, monitoring and data collection (and analysis), strategic direction for research, development and extension and a range of other services. Through this divestiture, providing resources accompany the handover, NGOs would be able to provide a more cost-effective delivery and relieve the
GCRF_16.indd 329
10/3/2007 10:32:57 AM
330
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
governments of this function while setting up the NGOs for the future. This partnership approach will also lead to greater cooperation between private stakeholder groups and government. This process is a continuum moving from just consultation with the sector to empowerment where the sector takes on the responsibility for the issues. This is seen as an important evolutionary process by NGOs whereby they can see a real and relevant role for activities, which in turn delivers to their constituency. Obviously, there are big differences between regions and countries; so to what extent such ‘governance’ processes have evolved, or will evolve, will vary accordingly. Consequently, more contact and cooperation between recreational fishing NGOs across nations and continents can provide important concepts.
Stakeholder-driven change – encouraging responsibility With many groups around the world, some extreme in their nature, threatening the very fabric or continuation of recreational fishing, there is a growing trend by recreational fishing advocacy groups and NGOs to be positive in their approach of self-determining the future. This includes development and adoption of COPs, research and promotion of best practices, environmental assessment of tournaments, angler education clinics, driving the review of bag, size and possession limits and so on. In today’s world, recreational fishing is under increasing pressure to promote sustainable and ethical fishing practices, and fishing competitions, by virtue of their high profile, must be used to promote such practices wherever possible, including techniques for releasing fish when appropriate. The roles and responsibilities of these initiatives lie squarely with the advocacy groups, fishing organizations or NGOs as they are, or should be, driving the change within recreational fishing. Failure to provide leadership may render the recreational fishing community vulnerable to radical minority groups who view recreational angling as unethical. In some areas, these groups have been of concern for NGOs for at least 25 years but, luckily, have had limited influence on policy and the image most people have of recreational fishing. However, NGOs cannot rest on their laurels and must continually be looking forward, taking responsibility and driving change.
COPs – ethical angling Many fishing groups – fishing clubs, associations, state or province parent bodies, national umbrella confederations – have developed COPs to guide and direct their respective members in the ways of ethical angling or acceptable behavioural attitudes towards their recreation and sport. These codes have been around for decades in some cases and others more recent.
GCRF_16.indd 330
10/3/2007 10:32:58 AM
Role of NGOs in recreational fisheries management
331
The rationale for codes is simply to ensure that angling groups are seen to be doing the right thing by the environment, the fish, other users and so on. It is the responsibility of the recreational fishing NGOs to lead the way and not have government-imposed regulations in relation to COPs. In addition, the adoption of ethical COPs also demonstrates to individuals outside of the fishing community that recreational anglers are responsible stewards of the environment. Some codes have evolved to be more than just an ethical code with best practices being researched and promoted as part of the ethos of angling. This includes fish-friendly tackle – barbless hooks, knotless landing nets, circle hooks – whose use is encouraged particularly where extensive catch and release dominates. Non-governmental organizations have an important role in promoting the codes and encouraging the adoption of best practices within recreational fishing. The challenge is to keep pace with the increasing pressure being applied by groups that are opposed to recreational and sport fishing and apply that pressure through political avenues. Also, as anglers travel more and more to distant places, the need for an international COP is increasingly obvious, which will assist anglers coming from one part of the world with one type of jurisdiction and tradition and doing wrong in another (see Cowx and Arlinghaus this volume).
Animal welfare – threats of radical groups Recreational fishing has been subject to criticism from a range of organizations that have openly condemned the practice of fishing. It is through these groups that pressure has resulted in the practice of catch and release in Germany being challenged (Arlinghaus in press). The use of live bait has been condemned by some animal rights groups in Australia and, with live baiting also banned in Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, it is an issue that the NGOs need to be active on and, where appropriate, defend its use. There are some countries where the inability to use live finfish as bait is not an issue, and this regulation has been readily accepted because of concerns such as the possible translocation and unwanted distribution of species that could have a negative impact on fish stocks. Catch-and-release fishing is one area where NGOs need to be proactive in developing and promoting the best practices that are known for angling. Whether it is release techniques, knotless nets, circle hooks or any other initiative, these can be used as a way of showing that the anglers practicing catch and release are doing so with good science supporting the methods.
Minimizing the impact of the introduction of protected areas In some countries there has been a strong move towards aquatic protected areas for the purpose of conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat. The trend
GCRF_16.indd 331
10/3/2007 10:32:58 AM
332
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
for more tracts of water to be ‘locked up’ and declared no-fishing zones (NFZ) have and will continue to be the bane of recreational fishers and NGOs. Ultimately, NGOs should support initiatives that benefits, both anglers and fish, as the sport of angling suffers when too much emphasis is placed on one or the other. They should stand behind initiatives predicated on the best available science focused on clear objectives with demonstrative results. In many ways, NFZs are simply another fisheries management tool, but they are not a panacea for good fisheries management. As is the case with traditional fisheries management tools (e.g. size and bag limits, closed seasons, etc.), the efficacy of NFZs is a function of the intended objective and the science behind it. That said, the recreational fishing community should not support the implementation of NFZs without clear objectives resulting in a net improvement to fish stocks that will ultimately benefit resource users. Yet, in situations where depleted stocks cannot be rebuilt with the use of traditional fisheries management tools, NGOs and the recreational fishing community should be receptive to the implementation of well-designed NFZs in an effort to protect and rebuild ailing stocks. The truth is that no-take zones are already in existence, with more planned each year. Thus, a key role of NGOs is to be engaged in this process and help minimize the impact. Most recreational fishers will be the first to step forward and support the need for conservation of the very resource that they wish to pursue. But there needs to be a balance of protection and continued access. There are many examples of where the recreational fishing NGOs have led the call for protection zones and have arranged public meetings to garner support and suggestions for the best way forward. For example, in Canada it was NGOs that pushed for conservation zones for rockfish, and there are now more than 100 sites dedicated as such. Some see environmentalist groups as a grave threat to the continuation of recreational fishing. However, sometimes strategic partnerships can be formed with environmental groups to address a common issue. For example, the same long line that causes by-catch of recreationally important billfish and sharks also indiscriminately kills endangered seabirds and turtles. In cases like this, partnering with other groups, particularly those outside of the fishing community, can result in a better outcome. In addition, it also demonstrates to other organizations that the recreational community is devoted to long-term sustainability of aquatic resources. It simply makes good sense to develop partnerships in situations where the goals are like. Therefore, the real test facing many NGOs is to lead the debate in this process and ensure that minimal impact results from the final outcome. How this is done will vary from country to country, but one thing is certain – unless the NGOs get a united voice and an agreed position to take to the decision-making bodies, the fate of recreational fishing will be determined by others and not recreational anglers.
GCRF_16.indd 332
10/3/2007 10:32:58 AM
Role of NGOs in recreational fisheries management
333
Habitat restoration – wetlands, estuaries, bays and so on – a paradigm shift in attitude needed In many countries large tracts of habitat for aquatic life has been destroyed or modified to such an extent that it has a reduced carrying capacity for fish. NGOs need to work with governments and other NGOs to encourage restoration programmes and to promote and encourage landholders to manage aquatic habitats properly. It could be argued that too much focus has gone into managing the fishery and not on the habitat. Indeed, in many cases the quality of aquatic habitat may be the limiting factor in fish productivity. There needs to be a shift in the philosophical mindset of the wider community in general, and maybe also among angling NGOs as to why wetlands are important and what they do – the environmental services they perform from water quality, bird nesting, fish production and so on. Landowners could be paid for a stewardship role to grow fish that will be recruited into the wider environment outside of the wetlands. The NGOs can and should assist this process by supporting these types of initiatives (Harrison 2002).
Increasing the participation rates of women and children In several countries there has been a decline in participation rates for fishing (Ditton et al. this book). There are a number of reasons for this decline, including general social and demographic changes as well as changes in access and resources. Fishing clinics or recruitment programmes designed for beginners or people wanting to learn how to fish are often run by NGOs and are an active way to increase participation. Fishing clinics are a good means of introducing people, both young and old, to the pastime of fishing. In addition, they are also unique opportunities to teach anglers about the importance of healthy fish stocks and habitats. Some NGOs have been conducting these clinics for years and have reliable accredited courses that cover all the necessary basics to allow people to learn to fish. It can be argued that, if youth and women can be encouraged to take up fishing then a family atmosphere is created that can greatly assist to maintain participation rates. Some innovation is needed and there are examples of how participation trends can be influenced. In Canada (British Columbia) they have a ‘Family Fishing Weekend’, where the government waives all licence requirements and NGOs and community groups put on fishing events to teach youngsters to fish. Another is the Fishing Tackle Loaner Programme (USA) that was instituted in the United States by the Sport Fishing Institute. Children can go to the local
GCRF_16.indd 333
10/3/2007 10:32:58 AM
334
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
library and take out a fishing rod and terminal tackle just as they would a book. When they return the gear, they get to keep the terminal tackle. More resources will be needed by NGOs in the years ahead to, at worst, maintain participation rates but the overall objective should be focused on increasing the numbers.
Removing the financial constraints and improving the capacity For many NGOs or associations, often the most difficult task is securing a reliable and untied financial stream to progress the needs of the NGOs in the recreational fishing sector. This has been overcome to some degree through hypothecating revenues from licences and taxes back into the recreational sector within some countries. However one of the possible dilemmas with these directed funds is that agencies can begin to depend on them for operational purposes because governments tend to cut their budgets to mirror the income coming in from the special funds, even though these were not meant for that purpose. Other revenue sources come from memberships, sponsorships, individuals, trusts and some government programmes or projects. However, certainty of financial resources is somewhat difficult for many NGOs and this is one of the pressing challenges they face. Financial security allows for long-term planning and with this comes a range of other flow-on benefits. These include the ability to attract and retain services from either volunteers or paid staff, the capacity to attract expertise for board/ committee positions, capacity to effectively research and prepare submissions on the range of issues dealt with, and the capacity to promote the work that NGOs do and the results of their efforts. Success breeds success, and financial certainty is an essential step in ensuring continuing success. The test for all NGOs is to find that security. Some states/ nations have already in place a range of initiatives while others are embarking on this process. Some NGOs will need to explore options like encouraging recreational fishing licencing, levies on fishing tackle, lotteries, broadening membership, fee for service agreements with governments and others, philanthropic trusts, project specific funding from governments, partnerships with governments and so on. The key is, once the financial constraints are removed, the NGOs are the better placed to assist in achieving the results that all the governments are striving to achieve – sustainable enjoyable recreational fishing. Again, this is an area with a huge potential for learning between NGOs in different countries.
GCRF_16.indd 334
10/3/2007 10:32:58 AM
Role of NGOs in recreational fisheries management
335
Leadership – finding the next generation With the bulk of people who occupy positions within the NGOs or advocacy groups being volunteers, there is a continuing challenge these groups face in the role of succession planning or finding the next wave of leaders. The need to have new people coming along to take up the cudgels is one of the most important tasks that NGOs face, not just within recreational fishing. While some are in positions where they can offer career paths most of the groups struggle because of poor resourcing or a lack of capacity amongst their ranks to encourage new people or indeed to dedicate the time to find and nurture new prospects. This lack of resources is a ‘catch 22’ situation in that somehow the groups must dedicate time and effort to ensure the viability of their organizations future. Without the people to take the helm in the years ahead the work that the advocacy groups and NGOs do may be lost.
Conclusion: work together! The recreational fishing community is considerably fragmented by angling interests. For example, on a large scale, there may be little interaction between freshwater and saltwater anglers or NGOs. On a smaller scale, bass anglers may not interact with carp anglers and barramundi anglers may not interact with marlin anglers. The end result is a very large participant base that is divided and often unfocused. There is too often the perception that recreational fishing NGOs compete with one another for financial support and membership. Ultimately, however, longterm conservation of recreational fisheries demands that anglers and angling groups work together because they bear a larger conservation impact collectively than independently. More dialogue is needed between angling groups to address common threats and challenges. By working together NGOs have the ability to better influence fisheries management and have more control over the fate of recreational fisheries. The challenges, responsibilities and possibilities for NGOs are substantial and vary from country to country. But there are core issues facing all. Whether it be increasing participation, a greater role in fisheries management through empowerment, habitat improvement, collaboration within the recreational sector, minimizing the impact of protected areas, COPs, better data, leadership, succession planning or the myriad of other issues confronting the recreational fishing sector, there is one thing for certain – the need for efficient and well-managed NGOs will always be there. The government cannot do the work for us. We need to have effective, influential and adequately resourced organizations to secure the future of recreational fishing.
GCRF_16.indd 335
10/3/2007 10:32:58 AM
336
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Part of the solution may be the establishment of a global umbrella organization that provides the opportunity for NGOs to share information and establish processes for moving forward and assisting each other. This concept was the subject of a workshop in Darwin in 2002 during the third World Recreational Fishing Conference and discussed again at the fourth; however, there has been little progress. Given the needs for recreational fishing discussed in this chapter and others throughout this volume, it may be time to explore the benefits and challenges associated with the establishment of such a body.
References American Sportfishing Association (2002) Sportfishing in America. Available online at: http://www.asafishing.org/asa/images/statistics/participation/sportfishing_america/ fish_eco_impact.pdf Born, S.M. and Stairs, G.S. (2003) An overview of salmonid fisheries planning by state agencies in the United States. Fisheries 28(11): 15–25. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2004) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA). Available online at: http://www.fao.org/ DOCREP/007/y5600e/y5600e00.htm Harrison, J.C. (2002) World Congress on Aquatic Protected Areas Proceedings (August 2002) J.P. Beumer, A. Grant and D.C. Smith (Eds), p. 10. Henry, G.W. and Lyle, J.M. (Eds) (2003) National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey (Australia) July 2003. Jentoft, S. (2005) Social science in fisheries management: a risk assessment. In: T.J. Pitcher, J.B. Hart and D. Pauly (Eds) Reinventing Fisheries Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 177–184. Mikalsen, K.H. and Jentoft, S. (2001) From user-groups to stakeholders? The public interest in fisheries management. Marine Policy 25: 281–292. NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Pew Oceans Commission (2003) America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. A Report to the Nation. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA. Pitcher, T.J. and Hollingworth, C.E. (2002) Fishing for fun: where’s the catch? In: T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 1–16. Prince, E.D, Snodgrass, D., Orbeson, E.S., Hoolihan, J.P., Serafy, J.E. and Schratwieser, J.E. Circle hooks, ‘J’ hooks, and ‘drop-back’ time: a hook performance study of the south Florida recreational live bait fishery for sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus (Shaw). Fisheries Management and Ecology (in press). Schratwieser, J.E. (2006) Integrating cooperative research and management: perspectives from a recreational fishing organization. In: A.N. Read and T.W. Hartly (Eds) Partnerships for a Common Purpose: Cooperative Fisheries Research and Management. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 52, Bethesda, MD, pp. 223–225.
GCRF_16.indd 336
10/3/2007 10:32:58 AM
Role of NGOs in recreational fisheries management
337
Struna, N.L. (1996) People of Prowess: Sport, Leisure and Labour in Early AngloAmerica. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. Sutinen, J.G. and Johnston, R.J. (2003) Angling management organizations: integrating the recreational sector into fishery management. Marine Policy 27: 471–487.
GCRF_16.indd 337
10/3/2007 10:32:58 AM
Chapter 17
Recreational fisheries in the twenty-first century Towards a code of conduct Ian G. Cowx and Robert Arlinghaus
Abstract Recreational fisheries are important in terms of income and jobs in regional and national economies, provision of social, cultural, physiological and psychological benefits for the practitioners, food security and biological impact on fish stocks. Yet no universally accepted code of conduct exists for the practice and management of the activity. The present chapter discusses fundamental issues critical for sustainable recreational fisheries management and practice. It is not the intention of this chapter to formulate a final code of conduct. This would require active involvement of all stakeholders, including practitioners, managers and policy makers. Instead, the aim of this chapter is to suggest that components of a code of conduct might ensure that recreational fisheries are conducted in a sustainable manner to maximize the environmental, social and economic benefits while minimizing potential negative impacts.
Introduction It is now well established that the recreational fisheries sector is important in terms of employment, income generation in regional and national economies, food security in selected countries (e.g. Eastern Europe, IUCN 2004), and through provision of various social, cultural, physiological and psychological benefits to practitioners (Arlinghaus et al. 2002; Cowx 2002b). In the United States of America, there are 34.1 million participants in recreational fishing spending in excess of US$35.6 billion on equipment, transportation and lodging, and other expenses associated with their activity (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). Within the European Union, there are more than 3000 companies (manufacturers, and wholesalers) trading in recreational fishing tackle, representing 60,000 jobs.1 338
GCRF_17.indd 338
10/3/2007 10:33:36 AM
Recreational fisheries in the twenty-first century
339
The combined annual turnover of these companies is over €5 billion. The European Fishing Tackle Trade Association estimated that total expenditure by recreational fishers in Europe on their hobby and related lodging and transportation is in excess of €25 billion annually. However, this is probably a vast underestimation because of lack of reliable and accurate data for many European countries. In Germany, for example, the direct and indirect expenditure by anglers in 2002 amounted to an annual financial turnover of €5.2 billion, with 52,000 jobs directly or indirectly dependent on this expenditure (see Section 2.5 by Arlinghaus Chapter 2, this volume). By comparison, the total value of commercial fishery import and export products by the 25 countries in the European Union in 2003 was estimated at respectively €24 and €13 billion, and employment in the commercial fishery sector in Europe was estimated at 746,000 persons.2 However, in addition to various benefits of recreational fishing to society, impacts on fish stocks are increasingly being documented on a global scale (Arlinghaus et al. 2002; Post et al. 2002; Cooke and Cowx 2004, 2006; Lewin et al. 2006; Lewin et al. Chapter 4, this volume). These socio-economic figures along with the potential of recreational fishing to impact negatively on fish and fisheries have led many governmental jurisdictions to pay increasing attention to recreational fisheries. However, it is somewhat incongruous that there is no universal code of practice or code of conduct for sustainable development specifically for recreational fishing within a framework that is tailored to modern societal needs and demands. By contrast, there are codes of conduct for commercial fishing (FAO 1995), European Coastal Zones3 and recreational activities such as golfing4 that have been successful in raising awareness of important issues, which in turn influenced behaviour of practitioners, legislation and management. A universal code of conduct for recreational fishing is particularly important because the activity is undergoing considerable change, sometimes for the worse, and action is urgently needed (Arlinghaus et al. 2002, 2007a; Cooke and Cowx 2004, 2006; Lewin et al. 2006). For example, over time the goal of recreational fisheries management in many industrialized countries has shifted from a focus on maximizing harvest or metrics of angling quality (e.g. total angler satisfaction) to incorporate fish biodiversity and conservation issues, protection of fish stocks, harmonization of conflicting stakeholder demands and incorporation of fish welfare considerations (Figure 17.1; see Arlinghaus et al. 2002, 2007a; Arlinghaus 2005, 2006 for example). This change in management focus has induced considerable change in traditional management practices from traditional regulatory management actions through fishery enhancement practices (e.g. stocking) towards habitat-orientated actions as a general trend worldwide (Figure 17.1). It should also be noted, however, that in most developing countries and in some less populated developed nations where the fisheries are exploited by people primarily for food and where stakeholder conflicts and anthropogenic alterations are minimal, recreational fisheries remains orientated towards maximizing catches and harvest.
GCRF_17.indd 339
10/3/2007 10:33:37 AM
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Number of users
340
Recreational fisheries, waterbased recreation
Society: Conservation, fish welfare
Fish production and commercial fisheries
Degree of industrialisation and anthropogenic impact Management measures
Fishery regulations (targeting fishery) Stock enhancement (targeting fish stock) Rehabilitation (targeting ecosystem)
Figure 17.1 Schematic presentation of the life cycle of inland fisheries (modified after Arlinghaus et al. 2002) and the dominant measures to address issues of concern. With increasing degree of industrialization and associated anthropogenic influences, commercial fishing importance decreases, while the importance of recreational fishing increases. Ultimately, stakeholders other than fisheries, conceptually society as a whole, demand that fishing shall contribute to conservation and that fishing practices shall address fish welfare issues.
This chapter examines the need for a common code of conduct for recreational fisheries through an analysis of the constraints, threats and potential problems inherent within the sector, and identifies major aspects that should be included within the code to ensure sustainable development of recreational fisheries. It is not the intention of this paper to formulate a final code because this requires the active involvement of all stakeholders, including practitioners, managers and policy makers. Instead, the aim is to suggest components of a code of conduct that might ensure recreational fisheries and fishing are conducted in a sustainable manner to maximize the environmental, social and economic benefits, while minimizing potential negative impacts and stakeholder conflicts. Our hope is that this can spark a further debate and process that can eventually lead to the development, agreement and establishment of such a code.
Recreational fisheries: threats and impacts A wide array of factors threatens fish and fisheries in general, and recreational fisheries specifically, but anthropogenic disturbance seems to underlie the decline of many fish species (see Cowx 2002a for review). The main perturbations can be broken down into: species introductions and translocations, impoundment of
GCRF_17.indd 340
10/3/2007 10:33:37 AM
Recreational fisheries in the twenty-first century
341
rivers (dams and weirs, water abstraction and water transfer schemes), water quality deterioration (pollution, eutrophication, acidification), habitat degradation and fragmentation (channelization and land-use change, mineral extraction) and overexploitation. These problems seem to be universal. Although many issues are being addressed in developed countries through environmental legislation, the rate of progress in reversing the impacts is slow. This is largely because the cost of rehabilitation programmes or seeking alternative solutions to the demands on water resources, which underlies many of the problems, is prohibitive. In the developing world, where financial resources are limited, continued deterioration of the aquatic environment remains. Of these key threats, water resource development schemes are particularly insidious because the economic value of such schemes outweighs recreational fisheries benefits in many cases. Despite the problems facing fish and fisheries, it is widely accepted that there is a need to protect the environment and biodiversity, including fish. This is evident from the numerous international conventions and directives (e.g. Bern and Washington Conventions, EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EEC, 2000, IUCN Red List) that underpin biodiversity protection, promulgated through Agenda 21 of the Rio Convention. This international recognition, which has filtered into the political arena, should be used to promote recreational fisheries, because anglers can be considered guardians of the environment and have direct interest in protecting fish stocks and species diversity (see, however, comments on stock enhancement). Fisheries management activities, for example, maintain and improve habitat on behalf of anglers, with the knock-on benefit that what is good for fish is invariably good for all other wildlife. However, it should also be recognized that the activities undertaken in the name of improving the conditions for angling are frequently conducted without due regard of the possible detrimental effects of the actions (Cowx and Gerdeaux 2004). Two activities are of particular concern, that is, stock enhancement through stocking when this leads to introduction of new species or genotypes not native to the recipient ecosystem or when stocked fish interfere with wild fish to the detriment of natural recruitment, and habitat management when practices such as shoreline development to accommodate access for the angler modifies essential habitat for the fish. Additionally, impacts can occur due to excessive harvest mortality, selective angling mortality, litter, groundbaiting, and disturbance of the environment and wildlife from, for example, gaining access to the water or boat noise. Other issues arise from concerns over fish welfare, especially in relation to handling and playing of fish, holding of fish in keep nets and livewells, and catch-and-release fishing practices. The interested reader can find exhaustive reviews on these issues in the literature (Muoneke and Childress 1994; Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005; Cooke and Cowx 2004, 2006; Lewin et al. 2006; Arlinghaus et al. 2007b). All of these issues nevertheless deserve to be included
GCRF_17.indd 341
10/3/2007 10:33:37 AM
342
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
and addressed in an international code of conduct to guide environmentally friendly sustainable recreational fisheries practices in the future.
Justification for a code of conduct of recreational fisheries The FAO (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) states in its introduction that ‘Fisheries, including aquaculture, provide a vital source of food, employment, recreation, trade and economic well being for people throughout the world, both for present and future generations and should therefore be conducted in a responsible manner’. The CCRF, however, does not address specific recreational fisheries issues and focuses on articles directed at nations and their fisheries management policy. Nevertheless, it is clear from the preceding that the recreational fisheries sector is important in social, economic, biological and food security terms. Many countries and organizations recognize the growing importance of the recreational fishing sector. For example, several regions see recreational fishing tourism replacing less sustainable and less profitable primary industries such as agriculture or commercial fishing. If recreational fisheries are not to become overexploited or degraded, as with commercial fisheries, an international code of conduct for recreational fisheries is considered essential for addressing the needs for more sustainable fishing practices and an agreed standard for recreational fishing. This is more so because of the huge popularity of recreational fishing, which can also potentially contribute to the destruction of vital fish habitats or harm fish populations through stocking and harvest mortality (see Cooke and Cowx 2004, 2006; Lewin et al. 2006). Also, a global code of conduct would help avoid the problems with conflicting angling practices, such as removal of catch in catch-and-release fisheries that are becoming prevalent as more and more fishers move across national borders, either as tourists or migrants. A common code should reduce misunderstandings by providing a unifying perspective. The overall objective should be to support the responsible use of aquatic resources, ensuring that present and future generations can enjoy and further develop the recreational benefits of these aquatic resources. Furthermore, several international conferences (e.g. Hickley and Tompkins 1998; Pitcher and Hollingworth 2002), and international organizations, agencies and angling bodies (e.g. FAO–EIFAC, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations–European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission; EAA, European Anglers’ Association; and IUCN, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) have highlighted the need for a code of conduct for recreational fisheries as an international policy document. It is important to recognize, despite considerable environmental and cultural differences, that the millions of recreational fishers worldwide face similar issues and concerns. Moreover, an international code would reduce the need for national, provincial and local authorities to develop their own code as they could use and adapt
GCRF_17.indd 342
10/3/2007 10:33:37 AM
Recreational fisheries in the twenty-first century
343
an international code that sets a minimum standard to their local needs and circumstances. As many recreational fishers participate on a casual basis, it is important that they can find some guidance on what practices are acceptable from both national and international perspectives. An international code of conduct would provide the guiding principles for those who are involved in recreational fisheries and for those who would develop more specific codes of conduct locally or regionally. Hence, with a universal code of conduct, we envisage a policy document that complements nation-specific legislation and regional-specific best-practice guidelines and fishing regulations that exist worldwide. It should serve as a framework that describes the minimum standards of environmentally friendly, ethically permissible and, depending on local situations, socially acceptable recreational fishing. It should discuss and clarify the most important issues critical for sustainable recreational fisheries management and practice. Although many of the issues to be included in the code are already addressed through national fisheries legislation and regional fisheries management regulations in many countries, an international code can help in making these approaches more coherent globally. The code cannot have a legally binding character on a global scale, but such a code can have a major impact through the voluntary adherence to the minimum standards set in the document or by serving as a universally accepted policy document guiding local regulations and education campaigns. For example, it can play an influential role in guiding fishing practices from local to international domains (Figure 17.2). This is important because anglers must recognize that they are integral in the management of the resources they exploit, and must adopt practices that are not in conflict with animal welfare and conservation lobbyists if they are to maintain their pastoral image of protecting and maintaining the aquatic environment in society. In this context it is important that anglers behave in a manner commensurate with protecting the environment and treating their catch in a humane way. Such a code will, therefore, be primarily useful for policy makers, representatives of angler associations, unions and clubs, the angling industry, local and regional fisheries managers and applied fisheries scientists to serve as a communication tool for best practices for individual anglers and angler groups and local recreational fisheries management. It may also help to raise awareness of recreational fishing for policy makers traditionally focusing on commercial fishing (e.g. European Commission).
Framework for a code of conduct for recreational fisheries Although protocols and procedures are available to address many of the issues raised above, these need to be collated into a format that is understandable by all practitioners and interested parties. A good example, what is possibly the most comprehensive code of practice available to date is the Australian National Code
GCRF_17.indd 343
10/3/2007 10:33:37 AM
344
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Code of conduct International agreements and conventions
National animal welfare legislation
National fisheries legislation
National environmental legislation
Code of conduct Regional fisheries Regulations
Code of conduct
Local fisheries Management, angler behaviour, conflicts
Figure 17.2 Schematic outline of areas where the international code of conduct for Recreational Fisheries can serve as a guideline for best recreational fishing and fisheries management practices. Areas are indicated by the thick black arrow. Although a code of conduct might theoretically also directly influence national fisheries legislation, we feel that such influence might primarily arise through international conventions or regional stakeholder pressure.
of Practice for Recreational and Sport Fishing (Recfish Australia 1996). This document highlights the key issues and practices to ensure angling is carried out in a manner acceptable to the sector and society in general. It also highlights the need for the code to be written in a sympathetic manner that anglers, managers and planners can refer to and assist in their decision-making processes. The following components could form the framework for a universal Code of Conduct, which should provide guidelines for both the practice and management of recreational fisheries. They are broken down into z z z z z
fish and fishing fisheries and habitat-related issues interactions between users safety legislation and regulations.
Fish and fishing Fish welfare is an important component of any code. Good treatment and handling of fish is critical because it not only reflects the relationship anglers have for their quarry but also how they respect nature and living organisms (Arlinghaus
GCRF_17.indd 344
10/3/2007 10:33:37 AM
Recreational fisheries in the twenty-first century
345
et al. 2007a). The code should provide guidelines to ensure that only tackle appropriate (and legal) for the size and type of fish is used, that fish are retrieved quickly and handled correctly on capture, and that holding facilities (keep nets and livewells) are appropriate for maximizing the chances of survival of fish to be returned to the water after the fishing event. It is imperative that instructions are given on how to release fish after capture or humanely kill them. Avoiding practices such as leaving fish flopping around on the ground, lying exposed to sunlight or being killed and dumped on the shore should be emphasized. A code must also emphasize cultural issues surrounding differences by which various cultures view specific angling practices, such as catch-and-release fishing. For example, catch-and-release fishing is incompatible with the value systems of many indigenous people and recreational anglers have to be made aware of these issues. Guidance on good fishing practices, such as always being in attendance of the fishing gear, issues associated with excessive groundbaiting (Arlinghaus and Niesar 2005) and how to minimize disturbance to wildlife, in addition to taking home all litter and discarded tackle (see later), and using ‘fish friendly’ tackle (e.g. knotless landing-nets, circle hooks), should also be provided in the code.
Fisheries resources As mentioned previously, recreational fisheries can have a major impact on fisheries resources, both in terms of intense and selective exploitation and manipulation of the stock to enhance the fishing experience. The code of conduct must address both issues. Intense fishing pressure, potentially contributing to overexploitation, is common in some recreational fisheries [see Cooke and Cowx (2006) and Lewin et al. (2006) for exhaustive examples], and there is information available on the effects and efficiency of common regulatory measures such as minimum length limits. In particular, the roles of catch-and-release, close seasons and closed areas, conservation areas, harvest regulations, gear restrictions and access restrictions, which are common tools to reduce exploitation pressures in commercial fisheries, should be highlighted. Reference should be made to the limitations and advantages of each intervention to ensure application of the correct measures to the fishery in question. However, an important point to stress in any code is the careful return of excessive catches (especially where bag limits on catch exist), unwanted or threatened species to the water. Stock enhancement is a much used and frequently abused fisheries management activity (Cowx 1994). This is because the social and economic value of recreational fishing is high and environmental issues are sometimes ignored (Cowx 2002b). Reversing these philosophies is going to be a major challenge, but must
GCRF_17.indd 345
10/3/2007 10:33:38 AM
346
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
be given high priority within any code of conduct. The code must play a pivotal role in providing strategies to minimize, or preferably prevent the deleterious effects of stock enhancement activities (Cowx 1998a, 2002a). EIFAC (1998), Cowx (1999) and ICES (2005) have provided protocols and guidelines for this purpose, and these can be adapted for the Code. This will require a risk-assessmentbased approach for fisheries enhancement activities (with legislation and regulations strengthened to relate to the potential risk of the management interventions) highlighting acceptable and less acceptable stock enhancement practices. For example, whereas stocking a recreationally valuable fish species into a small isolated water body lacking natural recruitment, such as a pond, is technically a viable option in many countries, stocking the same species in great numbers into a naturally reproducing population that provides acceptable fishing returns would be unacceptable because it potentially poses a risk to the wild stock (Hickley et al. 2004). One issue that has gained prominence in recent years is the impact of selective fishing on fish population structure. Whilst it is difficult to provide precise guidance on the ways to address the problems, because they are intrinsically linked with fishing, anglers and managers should be made aware of the potential causes and effects through the code.
Habitat Guidelines related to habitat could orientate around three aspects: improvement for fishing, disturbance and degradation arising from recreational fisheries activities and protection of wildlife. The code should cover all three aspects. When improving or enhancing fisheries, the code should make anglers and managers aware of the fragility and environmental diversity of riparian and aquatic vegetation and how these provide food, shelter and important breeding and nursery areas for many fish species and wildlife. Guidance on methods to improve the fishery whilst protecting wildlife and ecosystem functions and services is also important. Reference to the appropriate manuals and books (e.g. Cowx and Welcomme 1998) on the subject will be necessary to address all components, but the code must offer guiding principles to promote awareness of the issues. Mechanisms to prevent pollution from angling litter and consumables, and reduce disturbance from bait-digging, boat noise and wash, anchor and wading damage, and gaining access to the fishery need to be highlighted in the code. This should include simple solutions from taking litter home or disposing of it in an appropriate manner to increasing awareness of the problems created by destruction of habitat caused by trampling and the knock-on effects on wildlife. Reference to the various countryside codes that exist may offer guidance here.
GCRF_17.indd 346
10/3/2007 10:33:38 AM
Recreational fisheries in the twenty-first century
347
Recreational anglers are key guardians of the aquatic environment and they have a responsibility to protect and report pollution problems to the relevant authorities. The code must encourage them to report pollution incidents and discharges, stranded or dead aquatic animals and protected species, damage to vegetation or stream damage, for example, sedimentation, declining water quality, algal blooms and the occurrence of invasive species.
Interactions between users An issue that needs attention within the code is harmonization of conflicts between fisheries and wildlife conservation groups, for example, those protecting birds (Cowx 1998b, 2003; Arlinghaus 2005). The solution probably lies in the optimization of resource allocation of the fish stocks to satisfy both groups. Essentially, sufficient fish must be available to satisfy the demands of the anglers/fishers in terms of catching success whilst allowing the birds and other wildlife to coexist. As previously indicated, the problem arises because the fish stocks are often inadequate to meet the recreational fishing needs. Cowx (2003) suggested three mechanisms to ameliorate the problems: (1) addressing overexploitation of the fish stocks that may exist; (2) rehabilitation or habitat improvement to reinstate spawning and nursery areas, and provide optimal conditions for growth and survival of fish (Cowx and Welcomme 1998) and (3) reduce foraging opportunities for the birds, for example, through the use of fish refuges (Defra 2006). Cowx (2003) also explicitly indicated that stock enhancement is not an overarching mechanism to achieve optimal resource allocation because stocked fish tend to be naïve and prone to predation, and should only be considered as a last option. These approaches should be inherent within the code as guiding principles for optimal utilization of the aquatic resources for all user groups, in addition to resolving the issues especially with fish-eating birds. It is only through strategies such as this that the conflicts inherent within the recreational fisheries sector will be resolved. It must be recognized that angling goes beyond the interaction between the participant and the fish and its environment. Interactions between people are a fundamental component of enhancing the enjoyment and pleasure gained from recreational fishing. People interact in many ways, both during the angling experience but also between groups exploiting the aquatic environment in different ways. Anglers must be aware of these interactions and act accordingly. Anglers must also have due respect for the fishing experience of their fellows and behave in a manner that does not interfere with that experience. This could involve making undue noise, disrupting the fishing capability of the fellow angler or degrading the habitat. Anglers must also be aware of the needs of other users such as walkers, canoeists and conservation groups, as must these groups
GCRF_17.indd 347
10/3/2007 10:33:38 AM
348
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
have an awareness of the needs of anglers. Voluntary codes of conduct and memoranda of understanding (MoU) exist between these groups in several countries, allowing access to shared waters but laying down rules to avoid conflict. The MoUs are particularly important because they reflect active dialogue between user groups and agreement to respect each other’s activities. Lessons learnt from these codes and MoUs can benefit the proposed code of conduct for recreational fishing. Beyond the interactions with and between user groups, anglers must have respect for managers, officials, rights holders and peers. These people have a role to maintain the quality of the recreational fishing and it is their duty to ensure that the anglers adhere to the rules and regulations. Without such enforcement, the quality of the fishery is likely to deteriorate. Thus, when anglers are challenged to produce the correct certification or license, or to prove they are following the regulations, they should do so in a manner that is commensurate with the request. The code should stress this point strongly. Landowners or those that have traditional fishing rights should be given similar respect. Permissions should be obtained from the riparian owners and traditional countryside practices that avoid interfering with, harming or harassing crops, livestock or wildlife must be followed. Recognition should also be given of the cultural and spiritual attachment indigenous people feel for their fish, land and water.
Safety Operating near water has inherent risks and playing it safe while fishing is good common sense. The code of conduct must stress the potential risks associated with fishing and provide simple guidelines to minimize these risks. These include taking due care while trying to catch a fish; observing and understanding boating regulations; keeping a safe distance from shore-based anglers, jetties, swimmers and other boats and particularly being aware of the dangers surrounding the environment being fished, for example, wave actions and currents, submerged hazards or eroding river banks. Naturally, the code of conduct should encourage the use of relevant safety equipment.
Legislation and regulations Most jurisdictions have well-established regulations to manage the fisheries, protect fish stocks and fish habitat and prevent illegal fishing activities. While such regulations have worked in many cases, some have failed, in part due to lack of enforcement and inadequate monitoring resources (Post et al. 2002). It is important that the fishing community does not ignore activities that threaten
GCRF_17.indd 348
10/3/2007 10:33:38 AM
Recreational fisheries in the twenty-first century
349
the fisheries and damage the reputation of responsible fishers. Consequently, the code must stress the importance of: z z z z
fishing licensing and permit requirements keeping up to date with regulations and observing them acquainting themselves with gear and catch restrictions, including close seasons and closed areas reporting poaching, theft and illegal fishing to the relevant authorities.
In this context, it is important to recognize that cultural differences and lack of awareness of national regulations may lead to local conflicts over access and fishing practices between owners, anglers and indigenous peoples with rights to fish. The code should raise awareness of these potential conflicts as a precursor to managing recreational fisheries in a global market.
Considerations for the future Provision of a code of conduct will provide many advantages to the recreational fisheries sector including z z z z z z z z z z z
improved understanding of impacts of recreational fisheries assessment of and potential resolution of conflicts between sectors and user groups identification of issues of conservation concern a focus for viable dialogue, at global, regional, national and local level offering a platform for exchange of experiences and the identification of best practices and behaviour raising awareness among relevant actors and stakeholders within the recreational fishing community promotion of traditional management measures promotion of low risk and sustainable enhancement measures promotion of benefits of angling in society promotion of integrated aquatic resource management or ecosystem-based management promotion of environmentally and socially friendly behaviour of anglers.
Such a code can have a dual role in influencing international fisheries management through its incorporation into international agreements and conventions, and national and local fisheries management through its influence on regional fisheries and angler behaviour (Figure 17.2). The best way to achieve this aim is delivering a code agreed upon by international bodies such as EIFAC and international and national angler associations such as EAA through regional and local angler bodies and clubs. These efforts would capitalize on the long-term self-interests of anglers as guardians of the environment.
GCRF_17.indd 349
10/3/2007 10:33:38 AM
350
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
This would create spin-over benefits for conservation in general. Anglers are excellent ambassadors to promote the fish cause. More opportunity needs to be made of anglers’ willingness to support environmental and conservation campaigns because the general public often has poor awareness of the issues and problems facing freshwater fish (Cowx 2002a). Similarly, fishing clubs and organizations should be encouraged to promote protection of fisheries and front environmental lobbying of potentially damaging development projects. In addition, recreational fishing is an excellent opportunity to support urban regeneration through enhancement of degraded waters. This has major social benefits, including increasing employment opportunities (Hickley et al. 2004). Consequently, a code should exploit these opportunities by providing procedures and mechanisms to ensure recreational fishing is operated in a sustainable manner. Increasing pressures on aquatic resources dictate that recreational fisheries can no longer be treated in isolation and an integrated approach to aquatic resource management is required (Cowx 1998b; Arlinghaus and Cowx Chapter 3, this volume). Fishing opportunities are being constantly eroded, not only by exploitation of fish directly but mainly through degradation of their habitat. However, the demands for sustainability have put emphasis on the need to manage exploited resources. Consequently, conflicts between these various interests must be resolved by involving all stakeholders in the management process. This can be achieved through integrated aquatic resource planning and management (Cowx 1998b). Aquatic resource management plans, at both the national and multinational scale, will support this process but the profile of recreational fisheries needs promoting and better integrating into the planning process. A code of conduct can be an important platform for the recreational fishing sector in its dialogue with other major users and interests in aquatic resources. However, to be viable, a code of conduct must be adopted by the recreational angling practitioners and must evolve as new issues and conflicts arise. Consequently, it is recommended that the Code of Conduct for Recreational Fisheries is institutionalized as an annex to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995) and is adopted by member states of FAO and by international angler associations such as the EAA. This will give the code the recognition it deserves and a focal point for governments and agencies. It will also provide the necessary infrastructure for development and updating of the code on a timely basis.
Notes 1 http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/contributions_post/22european_anglers.pdf 2 http://www.fao.org/figis/servlet/static?xml=FIDI_STAT_org.xmlanddom= organdxp_nav=3,1,1 3 http://www.coastalguide.org/code/index.html 4 ttp://www.gao.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/1261/la_id/1.htm
GCRF_17.indd 350
10/3/2007 10:33:39 AM
Recreational fisheries in the twenty-first century
351
References Arlinghaus, R. (2005) A conceptual framework to identify and understand conflicts in recreational fisheries systems, with implications for sustainable management. Aquatic Resources, Culture and Development 1: 145–174. Arlinghaus, R. (2006) Overcoming human obstacles to conservation of recreational fishery resources, with emphasis on central Europe. Environmental Conservation 33: 46–59. Arlinghaus, R. and Niesar, M. (2005) Nutrient digestibility of angling groundbaits for carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) and implications of groundbaiting for recreational fisheries management. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12: 91–97. Arlinghaus, R., Mehner, T. and Cowx, I.G. (2002) Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialised countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish and Fisheries 3: 261–316. Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., Schwab, A. and Cowx, I.G. (2007a) Fish Welfare: a challenge to the feelings-based approach, with implications for recreational fishing. Fish and Fisheries 8: 57–71. Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., Lyman, J.et al. (2007b) Understanding the complexity of catch-and-release in recreational fishing: an integrative synthesis of global knowledge from historical, ethical, social, and biological perspectives. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15: 75–167. Bartholomew, A. and Bohnsack, J.A. (2005) A review of catch-and-release angling mortality with implications for no-take reserves. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 129–154. Cooke, S.J. and Cowx, I.G. (2004) Considering recreational fisheries impacts in global fish crises. Bioscience 54: 857–859. Cooke, S.J. and Cowx, I.G. (2006) Contrasting recreational and commercial fishing: searching for common issues to promote unified conservation of fisheries resources and aquatic environments. Biological Conservation 128: 93–108. Cowx, I.G. (1994) Stocking strategies. Fisheries Management and Ecology 1: 15–30. Cowx, I.G. (1998a) Stocking strategies: issues and options for future enhancement programmes. In: I.G. Cowx (Ed.) Stocking and Introduction of Fish. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 3–13. Cowx, I.G. (1998b) Aquatic resource management planning for resolution of fisheries management issues. In: P. Hickley and H. Tompkins (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic and Management Aspects. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 97–105. Cowx, I.G. (1999) An appraisal of stocking strategies in the light of developing country constraints. Fisheries Management and Ecology 6: 21–34. Cowx, I.G. (2002a) Analysis of threats to freshwater fish conservation: past and present challenges. In: M.J. Collares-Pereira, I.G. Cowx and M.M. Coelho (Eds) Conservation of Freshwater Fish: Options for the Future. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 201–220. Cowx, I.G. (2002b) Recreational fisheries. In: P.J.B. Hart and J Reynolds (Eds) The Fisheries Handbook. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 367–390. Cowx, I.G. (2003) Managing the issues between fisheries and fish-eating birds: optimising the use of shared resources. In: I.G. Cowx (Ed.) Interactions between Fish and
GCRF_17.indd 351
10/3/2007 10:33:39 AM
352
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
Birds: Implications for Management. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 361–372. Cowx, I.G. and Gerdeaux, D. (2004) The effects of fisheries management practices on freshwater ecosystems. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11: 145–152. Cowx, I.G. and Welcomme, R.L. (Eds) (1998) Rehabilitation of Rivers for Fish. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, p. 204. Defra (2006) Protecting Your Fishery from Cormorants. FACT (previously Moran Committee) advisory booklet updated and available from website (www.defra.gov.uk/ wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/reports/Management_Booklet_mar06.pdf). EIFAC (1998) Codes of Practice and Manual of Procedures for Consideration of Introductions and Transfers of Marine and Freshwater Organisms. EIFAC/FAO, Rome, p. 8. FAO (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome, p. 41. Hickley, P. and Tompkins, H. (Eds) (1998) Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic and Management Aspects. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, p. 310. Hickley, P., Arlinghaus, R., Tyner, R., Aprahamian, M., Parry, K. and Carter, M. (2004) Rehabilitation of urban lake fisheries for angling by managing habitat: general overview and case studies from England and Wales. Ecohydrology and Hydrology 4: 365–378. ICES (2005) ICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms (http://www.ices.dk/pubs/Miscellaneous/ICESCodeofPractice.pdf). IUCN (2004) Freshwater Fisheries in Central and Eastern Europe: The Challenge of Sustainability. IUCN, Warsaw, p. 96. Lewin, W.-C., Arlinghaus, R. and Mehner, T. (2006) Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational angling: insights for conservation and management. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14: 305–367. Muoneke, M.I. and Childress, W.M. (1994) Hooking mortality: a review for recreational fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science 2: 123–156. Pitcher, T.J. and Hollingworth, C.E. (Eds) (2002) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, p. 270. Post, J.R., Sullivan, M., Cox, S. et al.(2002) Canada’s recreational fishery: the invisible collapse? Fisheries 27(1): 6–17. Recfish Australia (1996) The National Code of Practice for Recreational and Sport Fishing. http://www.recfish.com.au/best_practice/national_code.html (accessed 27 December 2006). US Fish and Wildlife Service (2001) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and WildlifeAssociated Recreation, p. 170. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/ FHW01.pdf (accessed 3 January 2007).
GCRF_17.indd 352
10/3/2007 10:33:39 AM
Chapter 18
Epilogue Benchmarking global recreational fishing Øystein Aas and Harold L. Schramm, Jr.
Abstract This closing chapter identifies the challenges to developing and sustaining recreational fishing. Fishable waters, intersector conflicts over resource use and environmental ignorance are highlighted as key challenges. How the recreational fishing community handles these challenges will significantly influence the future of recreational fishing worldwide. Suggested approaches to overcoming these challenges are advocacy for water quality and access, wise allocation and education and dedication to conservation of fish stocks and habitat. A major and intriguing barrier to progress is to understand and build on the diversity inherent in this leisure activity and the management of it, and, at the same time, foster increased unity and cooperation among stakeholders. Increased learning and sharing across cultures, continents and stakeholder groups are needed to build a stronger recreational fishing sector and more sustainable practices around the globe.
Introduction Recreational fishing takes many forms and its status and importance – biologically, economically and socially – varies geographically and culturally throughout the world. Fisheries are most often managed at national and local (state, province, territory) scales. Given that recreational fishing is ‘place-based’, is there a need for a global perspective? We submit that the answer is clearly ‘yes’. The reality of a global climate and a global economy are now apparent, and both significantly affect fishery resources and their recreational use. Possibly a more unified voice representing recreational fishing or fishery resources in general can have more influence in deliberations about issues as large as global climate change and global economy. But even within the narrower geographical and 353
GCRF_18.indd 353
10/3/2007 10:34:17 AM
354
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
political realms in which contemporary fisheries management is practiced, as dictated by legislated responsibilities and management authorities, there are common principles that guide sustainable recreational fisheries management independent of social norms, types of fishing and the fishery resources they exploit. Sharing of problems and solutions across different fishery systems, cultures, political systems and levels of economic development can only be beneficial. Thus, the purpose of this concluding chapter is to highlight several issues that affect sustaining and enhancing recreational fishing worldwide. We then offer suggestions for approaches that we think may help build more sustainable recreational fishing opportunities worldwide. There are a multitude of issues that challenge the conservation and management of fisheries resources. Anything that affects fishes and their habitats is relevant to recreational fishing, but these issues are explored in depth elsewhere. Here we focus on issues of particular relevance to the recreational use of fishery resources. Based on presentations and discussions at the fourth World Recreational Fishing Conference, major challenges to recreational fishing include water for fish and anglers, resource allocation among fishing sectors and environmental awareness. Also apparent from the conference were some impediments within the recreational fishing sector that prevent or interfere with achieving effective solutions to major challenges to recreational fishing.
Water for fish and anglers The greatest challenge for recreational fisheries may be the issue of sufficient accessible waters that support recreational fishing opportunities. Freshwater is a limited resource in much of the world, and the interests of recreational fishing are typically secondary to other needs for water such as drinking, agriculture, industry and energy production. Competition for freshwater can only increase as the world’s population increases. While degradation and loss of water resources attractive for recreational fishing continues in most regions, there are also opposite trends. Severe pollution problems such as acid rain that affected recreational fishing for decades have been alleviated in some places and reduced in others, and advanced wastewater treatment technologies have reversed cultural eutrophication of many water bodies. Bans on the use of persistent toxic chemicals have reduced fish kills and the frequency of fish consumption advisories. Largescale habitat restoration projects including dam removals and de-channelization are being launched in North America and Europe. While many developing countries continue to struggle with increasing problems related to pollution and industrial development, these countries are experiencing economic growth that creates an increased interest in water-based recreation, which in turn promotes development of laws and institutions that better protect environmental interests (or so we would hope).
GCRF_18.indd 354
10/3/2007 10:34:17 AM
Epilogue
355
Ocean waters are also finite, but unlike freshwaters are not considered limiting resources to the same extent. Yet, from a fisheries perspective there is ample evidence that marine resources are diminishing. As vast as the oceans are, anthropogenic wastes ranging from agricultural nutrients to endocrine disrupters are affecting fish and marine food webs. Essential habitats are diminishing as estuaries are being consumed for development and productive hard-bottom habitats are being destroyed, in some cases by the same fishers that benefit from them. These changes are not only affecting populations of many fish species, but they are also affecting important habitats where people fish. In some countries, particularly those in Europe, there appears to be a tendency, both in marine and freshwater environments, to move away from public ownership and multiple use to private ownership or tightly controlled single use. Examples of this are less restricted commercial fishing, dedicated use of water for energy production and water supply and areas as marine protected areas designated exclusively for conservation. Recreational fishing is an interest often compatible with those of others. Although conflicts often arise that constrain recreational fishing opportunities, there are numerous examples, particularly in North America, of flexibility among interests to accommodate recreational fishing needs.
Fishery allocation After decades of debate, it is clear that fishing can overharvest fish, sometimes to the point of population collapse. Overharvesting is not limited to commercial fisheries. Recreational fishing in freshwater systems can quickly alter the quality of the fishery (i.e. growth-overfishing), and copious regulations (i.e. harvest restrictions) have been implemented, tested and enforced to prevent overharvest. Fisheries science has vastly improved in the last few decades and provided a sounder basis for management. Yet many depleted stocks have not rebounded and declining stocks often continue to decline. While the science is imperfect and numerous data gaps exist, management often is driven by social and economic needs and political will. Several chapters in this book emphasize social, cultural and economic values of recreational fishing. These data are commonly used to fight for allocation, which usually translates into recreational versus commercial or subsistence fisheries. Is this a wise use of the data and a strategic approach? The decision to continue or close a commercial or subsistence fishery is a social welfare issue, and often is little influenced by biological and economic data per se. Might recreational fishery interests be better served by first determining sustainable yield of the fish stocks (i.e. information that is important to all use sectors) and then letting decision makers (including stakeholders for recreational fishing) consider economic and social concerns in determining allocations? Might recreational
GCRF_18.indd 355
10/3/2007 10:34:17 AM
356
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
interests be better served in some instances by working with commercial or subsistence fisheries instead of against them?
Environmental ignorance (and arrogance) A fundamental failure to recognize the importance of healthy ecosystems and the ecological services they provide is another of the overall challenges facing recreational fisheries. As a group, anglers are among the first to argue in favour of the need to protect and enhance fish stocks and their ecosystems. But recreational fishing and fulfilling the demands of recreational anglers can have significant negative effects on fish stocks and their environments. For example, overharvesting is a result from recreational harvest in several places, and managers are frequently confronted with demands for stocking under the anglers’ presumption that more fish or a ‘better fish’, often a non-native strain or species, will improve fishing. How should recreational fishing stakeholders approach the conservation sector? Conservation organizations include a wide variety of groups dealing with a broad range of issues that are growing more diverse each day. Some recreational fishing organizations consider themselves conservation organizations. Other angler groups are less concerned with conservation and focus more, for instance, on competitions and the right to fish. Some issues easily elicit the mutual support of conservation organizations and diverse angler organizations such as stopping pollution and combating overfishing. Other issues are more likely to create conflicts between angler-based and conservation organizations, such as the establishment of marine protected areas when these might limit or prohibit angling possibilities. There are even issues that create fierce conflicts among angling organizations, such as stream anglers demanding dam removal while lake anglers fight to save the impoundment.
Impediments to advancing recreational fisheries Acknowledging the value and importance of recreational fishing Decades of research on several continents have documented the multiple social and economic benefits recreational fishing creates. These benefits include a constituency motivated to engage in resource management and conservation, creation of jobs and revenue for local and national economies. Recreational fishing facilitates connection to the outdoors and natural resources, which takes on added importance in an increasingly urbanized world, and we hear ‘heart warming’ stories about how fishing helps immigrants integrate into new cultures or youths overcome behavioural problems. Yet recreational fishing still struggles to be heard in the allocation processes. Is this possibly because the first word in
GCRF_18.indd 356
10/3/2007 10:34:18 AM
Epilogue
357
recreational fishing is recreation, and no one yet has made a strong enough case for the importance of recreation?
Paradigm blindness The phenomenon of paradigm blindness relates to almost every stakeholder involved in recreational fishing, for instance, between fishing organizations and academic institutions, or between private businesses and government agencies. And it also exists between different disciplines, such as, between experts from the natural sciences and the social sciences. Further, it seems to exist between continents and also between countries, sometimes even between neighboring countries. A central goal for establishing the World Recreational Fishing Conference as a meeting place has been to reduce the inherited paradigm blindness across sectors in the recreational fishing community. It sounds banal, but only by meeting and listening to each other can we make progress, gain more understanding and learn from each other. While a meeting like the World Recreational Fishing Conference creates a forum for exchange of information among all recreational fishing stakeholders – anglers and angler organizations, fishery managers and administrators, the sportfishing industry and fishery researchers – and a chance to overcome paradigm blindness, it does not guarantee it. The conferences and the opportunity to participate are widely announced, but attendance is voluntary. Although the steering committee worked hard to identify important and stimulating topics for presentations at the meeting, the committee faced a stark reality faced by all technical conference planners: who would attend and participate? All stakeholders – anglers and angler organizations, the sport-fishing industry (including the media), fisheries managers and administrators and fisheries researchers – have much to share and much to gain by listening to each other. Unfortunately, typically only the researchers get credit for giving presentations at important meetings. The other stakeholders participate in meetings generally out of generosity and dedication to a brighter future. Although the conference was a collection of viewpoints from all stakeholders, one could argue that the anglers and the angling non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the sport-fishing industry, and the fisheries managers and administrators were under-represented, while researchers were overrepresented. The imbalance of stakeholders who contributed to this book further substantiates this reality – it is dominated by researchers at academic institutions. Good research is vital to effective recreational fisheries management (we confess that we both are researchers at universities), but we would hope that the recreational fishing community does not want the paradigms of fishery researchers leading recreational fisheries efforts. Somehow we need to encourage the under-represented stakeholders to come to the forums to share their issues and experiences and their problems and solutions. And equally, if not more importantly, we need stronger representation of lesser developed
GCRF_18.indd 357
10/3/2007 10:34:18 AM
358
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
countries where recreational fisheries are in their infancy. It is clear, and very commonplace, that the conference and the perspectives presented in this book are dominated by contributions from countries with well-developed recreational fisheries, most often developed countries. There is considerable pluralism among countries, stakeholder groups and individuals in their approach to, practice and understanding of recreational fishing. There are different traditions, world views and behaviours, which are also linked to the characteristics of the waters and fish resources available at different places. Therefore, there is no single management template that can be used globally for recreational fishing, and yet there are significant benefits to be gained by sharing information across countries, regions, cultures and practices. Managers and scientists must learn to consider and appreciate cultural differences as readily as they accept the reality of physical and biological diversity. On the other hand, cultural reasons must not be used as an excuse for harmful practices or behaviours.
Animal welfare This is a complex and perplexing issue (or collection of issues) that can significantly affect recreational fishing. The complexity begins with the often unclear or misconstrued distinction between animal welfare and animal rights.1 The complexity of animal welfare and animal rights issues can also be attributed to its roots in both philosophy and biology, the diverse cultures in which recreational fishing is practised and the evolution of fishing from harvest to recreation, which has been further exacerbated by the growing practice of catch and release. In our view, the perplexity is whether animal welfare/animal rights concerns actually represent a perpetuating and progressive shift in how people view their relationships with other animals or whether these non-traditional views of a segment of society are simply sufficiently provocative to repeatedly elicit discourse and remain contemporary. Given the changes in society’s relations to animals in the late modernity, it is intriguing to observe the continued strong participation in hunting and, especially, angling in urbanized countries. Considering how human sentiments towards animals have changed, it would be likely to expect recreational fishing to have a stronger decline in the last two decades. Instead, recreational fishers are neither marginalized socially nor insignificant numerically. They are spread over space and across socio-economic groups and make up large proportions. Interestingly, it seems the strongest proponents and the strongest critics of angling both come from quite similar middle-class segments. Instead of making a point out of the great divide between animal rights movements and angling movements, it might be equally right to view these groups as different forms of environmentalism. Nevertheless, there are conflicts between angling organizations and animal welfare proponents, and some spokespersons from the angling community fear that
GCRF_18.indd 358
10/3/2007 10:34:18 AM
Epilogue
359
animal rights organizations represent the biggest threat to recreational fishing. Despite this purported fear, the recreational angling community has neither come to consensus on the issue nor how to address it. Some angler organizations see catch and release as a solution, while in at least one country (Germany) recreational fishing satisfies animal welfare concerns only when the fish are appropriately euthanized and harvested.
Main approaches to overcoming challenges A viable and strong recreational fishing community is an important factor in the struggle for sustainable aquatic ecosystems in terms of ecology as well as economy. Recreational fishing interests can provide approaches, solutions and support for the conservation and wise use of fisheries resources. However, there is no agreed-upon or defined role for these recreational fishing interests. In this regard, we offer several considerations for ways that recreational fishing can be more effective in conserving fishery resources while sustaining or enhancing recreational fishing opportunities.
Communicate better! A challenge working with recreational fishing internationally is to digest and acknowledge the diverse and varied practices that occur world wide and at the same time learn from each other and strengthen the global recreational fishing community. We often have been ineffective in communicating both the needs and benefits of recreational fishing to governments that make decisions about natural resources. Many fishery resources are multi-jurisdictional. While benefits are to be gained from global thinking, politics are typically local – national and state or provincial. Fisheries systems are complicated and not readily understood by those who make political decisions. We must develop simple and consistent messages, while accommodating geographic and cultural differences in fisheries, to help ensure equitable consideration of recreational fisheries opportunities.
Management institutions specifically addressing recreation must be strengthened It still remains to establish sound and sustainable management frameworks for recreational fishing for many regions of the world. While the fishing rights and opportunities might differ among regions and countries, most countries have agencies with authority to manage recreational fisheries. The authorities granted to these agencies and the legal and fiscal means to execute them differ, as do the traditions inherited within the different agencies. Not surprisingly, some
GCRF_18.indd 359
10/3/2007 10:34:18 AM
360
Global challenges in recreational fisheries
developing countries struggle to establish a minimum of legal and administrative capacity for conservation and management of their fishery resources, and this pertains to countries with well-established and those with not-so-well-established recreational fisheries. Although there are ample fisheries examples of the cliché ‘history repeats itself’, it is hoped that these countries will avoid many of the mistakes already made in other countries and, at the same time, keep and enhance their own special character and valuable traditions. Indeed, this is one of the driving forces behind the World Recreational Fishing Conferences.
Science-based management: from top-down to cooperative Many ask for a more science-based recreational fishery management, and it is easy to agree to this. Severe obstacles to effective management exist because of the lack of appropriate and sound information about recreational fisheries. Many experts ask for better monitoring of anglers and their harvest, as well as improved measures or indexes of the benefits created by angling. Because of this, researchers and managers in many countries, developed and developing countries alike, request licence-based angler registers to more effectively gather such information. It is important to strengthen our knowledge, but we should not gather data just to have data. Rigorous data-gathering efforts and registers must be used in systematic management programmes, and not just in producing reports that will eventually gather dust on somebody’s desk. It is important in our struggle to strengthen the scientific basis for sound recreational fishery management that we do so in such a manner that we do not increase the often conflict-triggering top-down approach to management. The Western scientific approach is more subject to challenge now than in the past. Strengthening science and quantitative management should therefore be supplemented by efforts not only to inform but also to involve stakeholders. Fully involving stakeholders in management (co-management) may also lead to incorporating other knowledge frameworks into fishery management. This could include the use of different types of local knowledge. Although some argue that this could lead to less certainty and predictability in science-based models and replace current management by more diverse and less hegemonic approaches to management and decision making, there are many examples of successful co-management of fisheries resources.
A future for recreational fishing A wider array of people than ever before is interested in recreational fisheries management policy formation. Many expect to participate in allocation decision making. No longer can the ideas of a small number of individuals and the institutions they
GCRF_18.indd 360
10/3/2007 10:34:18 AM
Epilogue
361
created control and decide on important topics in recreational fishing, which was maybe the situation up to the 1960s in developed countries. This increases the challenges in recreational fisheries management. Globalization adds to the complexity of management, calling for more cooperation at the international level. Unfortunately, recreational fishing organizations tend to be rather unidimensional and sometimes have tunnel vision; most are centred on a single species group. This applies to organizations at all levels, private as well as governmentestablished and authoritative institutions. Some care about bass, but do not rally around trout issues. Others focus on billfish, but do not engage in sharks, just to give some examples. If we look away from species or species groups, we will find similar walls between groups of stakeholders. What is lacking is a forum that discusses and represents healthy fishery resources and sustainable recreational fishing for all species, which is able to consider the fair allocation of water and fishing opportunity without bias, and has enough knowledge of fishery systems to make decisions that benefit anglers without compromising the conservation of aquatic resources. Because of the unidimensionality of contemporary international recreational organizations, international meeting places and institutions must be strengthened. While the WRFC meetings are highly informal, other forums could respond more formally. For example, mutual benefits could result if international statutory management organizations involved in managing important recreational fish species in international water cooperated better. Organizations such as the International Commission for Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) and the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) all work with species or species groups of huge recreational importance. Yet there is limited cooperation among them. It remains to be seen if these authoritative international fishery management organizations try to coalesce their efforts and become more engaged in recreational fisheries, for instance in a coordinated effort and support of the WRFC series. We strongly believe that the international recreational fishing sector would benefit from stronger collaboration of all fisheries organizations.
Note 1 Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., Schwab, A. and Cowx, I.G. (2007) Fish welfare: a challenge to the feelings-based approach, with implications for recreational fishing. Fish and Fisheries 8: 1–15.
GCRF_18.indd 361
10/3/2007 10:34:18 AM
Index
Albula vulpes, 204, 299 Alosa sapidissima, 297 American shad, see Alosa sapidissima angler expenditures, 28, 151, 188–97, 240 angler motivation, 16, 31, 202–5, 249–56 angler surplus, 170–83 animal welfare, 224–9, 247, 254–9, 331–2, 358–9 archetypes, 292–300 Arctic charr, see Salvelinus alpinus Arctic grayling, see Thymallus arcticus Atlantic cod, see Gadus morhua Atlantic salmon, see Salmo salar Australia, 13–17, 93–110, 154, 241–2 Australian barramundi, see Lates calcarifer best practices, 308–13, 330–1, 343, 349 bioeconomic models, 3, 171–83 biological equilibrium, 171 biological impacts, 75–92 black marlin, see Maikara indica bluefin tuna, see Thunnus thynnus bonefish, see Albula vulpes broadbill swordfish, see Xiphias gladius brown trout, see Salmo trutta carp, see Cyprinus carpio catch and release animal welfare, 331, 358–9 economic impact, 204–5 ethical angling, 223–6, 330–1 fish welfare, 208–29, 241–58 mortality of striped bass, 208–14 survival, 212–29, 241–7, 262–3, 329, 345 tourism, 203–6 trends and development, 202–36, 237–66 China, 9–12, 18–21 choice models, 161–6 cod, see Gadus morhua code of conduct, 338–52 commercial fishing, 76–80, 97–8, 111–27, 326–7, 339–43 competitive fishing, 237–67 Coryphaena spp., 156 cultural traditions, 144, 294 Cynoscion nebulosus, 156 Cyprinus carpio, 8, 20, 82, 156
developed nations, 5, 9, 339 developing nations, 11 Dicentrarchus labrax, 40, 111–29 Dolly Varden char, see Salvelinus malma dolphin fish, see Coryphaena spp. EAF, see ecosystem approach to fisheries economic impact angling, 188–200, 253 catch and release, 204–5 competition fishing, 245 fishing tourism, 274–5 of MPA, 98–103 species substitution, 163 ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF), 58–74, 100 employment, 188–96, 338–50 Esox lucius, 23, 57, 80, 138, 252, 279 ethical angling, 8, 202, 223, 330 European grayling, see Thymallus thymallus European sea bass, see Dicentrarchus labrax exploitation, 75–92, 207–26, 341–50 Finland, 9–11, 21–5, 135–46 fishing tourism, 268–87 flounder, see Platichtys flesus Gadus morhua, 27, 80, 111, 282 Germany, 11, 69, 254–66, 283 halibut, see Hippoglossis hippoglossus harvest restrictions, 244, 355 hilsa shad, see Tenualosa ilisha Hippoglossis hippoglossus, 49, 282, 283 Iceland, 188–201, 206, 220, 283–5 Indo-Pacific sailfish, see Istiophorus platypterus international perspective, 5–55, 268–91 Istiophorus platypterus, 38, 215 king mackerel, see Scomberomorus cavalla Lates calcarifer, 239, 270 Lithuania, 9–11, 30–4 Maikara indica, 38 Malaysia, 9–12, 34–9 management challenges, 93–110, 111–29, 138–9
363
GCRF_IDX.indd 363
10/3/2007 10:36:39 AM
364
Index
management regimes, 123, 170–87, 203 marine protected areas (MPAs), 93–110, 35–6 marine recreational fisheries, 93–110, 203 media exposure, 263–4, 309–13 power, 247–8 Megalops atlanticus, 205, 279, 299 Morone saxatilis, 207, 208, 216, 259 motivation, 16, 31, 202–5, 249–56 MPAs, see marine protected areas myopic landowners, 180 Netherlands, 9–11, 39–43 NGOs, see non-government organizations non-government organizations (NGOs), 307, 314, 317, 324–37 Nordic countries, 130–47, 206 northern pike, see Esox lucius Oncorhynchus mykiss, 191, 204, 219, 279 open-access fisheries, 67–8, 84, 94–7 permit, see Trachinotus falcatus permit price, 170–86, 197, 198 pisciculture, 31–4 Platichtys flesus, 40, 140
sailfish, see Istiophorus platypterus Salmo salar, 23, 80, 126, 143, 171, 191, 219, 283, 298 Salmo trutta, 23, 126, 141, 164, 191, 219, 270, 298 Salvelinus alpinus, 298 Salvelinus malma, 279 Sciaenops ocellatus, 156, 205, 239 science-based management, 360 Scomberomorus cavalla, 156, 242, 259 Scotland, 117, 171, 188–201 spotted seatrout, see Cynoscion nebulosus striped bass, see Morone saxatilis subsistence versus sport, 292–302 substitution, 150–69, 188–200 Sweden, 9–11, 43–6, 135–7 tarpon, see Megalops atlanticus Tenualosa ilisha, 297 Tetrapturus albidus, 48, 215–18 threats and impacts, 340–2 Thunnus thynnus, 99, 205, 270–1 Thymallus arcticus, 279 Thymallus thymallus, 164 tourism, see fishing tourism Trachinotus falcatus, 299 trends of recreational fisheries, 33, 97–106, 150–69 United States of America (USA), 47–52
rainbow trout, see Oncorhynchus mykiss recruitment, 237, 303–23, 333 redfish (red drum), see Sciaenops ocellatus restoration, 333 role of competitive fishing, 237–48
GCRF_IDX.indd 364
white marlin, see Tetrapturus albidus women and children, 333 Xiphias gladius, 39, 214
10/3/2007 10:36:40 AM