Global Challenges in Recreational Fisheries

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 cl