A Model-Based Evaluation of Active Management of Recreational Fishing Effort

Abstract

Recreational fisheries are increasingly faced with the dilemma of “too many people chasing too few fish.” Active management of angler effort promises relief from the pressures of overcrowding and declines in angling quality. In this paper, we develop a regional‐scale model of recreational fishery dynamics to evaluate how active effort management policies might affect the cumulative value taken over many fisheries. The model incorporates linear increases in satisfaction per angler‐day with increases in catch rate to represent demand, declines in catch rate with increasing effort to represent supply limitations, and angler movement among open‐access fisheries to represent the presence of uncontrolled, open‐access alternatives to effort‐managed fisheries. The management control variables were the proportion of fisheries managed under effort control (Pm) and the proportion of open‐access effort allowed on managed lakes (Pe). Unmanaged lakes remained open access. Policies that maximized total regional value favored effort management for all combinations of Pm and Pe. The total increases in value over open‐access conditions were greatest under conditions of high demand and low effort movement. When effort movement and demand for improved quality were both high, a large proportion (>50%) of fisheries needed to be included under effort control to offset the value losses on open‐access fisheries. Because effort management offers promise for creating above‐average fishing opportunities, managers should carefully consider regional‐scale impacts and the potential demand for high‐quality, low‐effort angling opportunities.

Decline in angler use despite increased catch rates: Anglers’ response to the implementation of a total catch-and-release regulation

“…In addition, summer catch rates of bull trout from voluntary creel cards (1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003) were found to increase with fish density. It is often assumed that there is a positive relationship between catch rates and fish abundance (e.g., Beard et al, 2003;Cox et al, 2003;Post et al, 2003), and our results validate this assumption for bull trout.…”

“…However, the decline in angler effort by 90%, suggests regulation changes may have impacted some anglers' perceptions about the quality (i.e., reduced harvest potential) of the Lower Kananaskis Lake fishery, deterring them from fishing after restrictive regulations were implemented. Thus, our study shows that it may be overly simplistic to assume that angler use is directly related to catch-related aspects of a fishery alone (e.g., Cox et al, 2003;Post et al, 2003). If anglers are interested in using bait and harvesting fish, they may not take advantage of high catch rates that might result under restrictive regulations, and may become disgruntled (Sullivan, 2003).…”

“…In the case of Lower Kananaskis Lake, it is hypothesized that the significantly lower angler effort in 2002 than 1992 was due, in part, to some anglers choosing not to fish on this lake in 2002 because the zeroharvest regulation and bait ban limited their ability to harvest fish. Thus, equating catch rates alone with fishery "quality" and in turn angler-effort responses, as has sometimes been assumed in fisheries models (e.g., Cox et al, 2003;Post et al, 2003), might be overly simplistic, and could result in misleading predictions about the numerical response of anglers to regulatory or other changes in the fishery (Johnston et al, 2010;Hunt et al, in press). However, by altering angler behaviour independent of catch (Beard et al, 2003;, stringent harvest regulations may also indirectly control harvest .…”

“…It is often assumed that angler catch rates are positively related to fish abundance (e.g., Beard et al, 2003;Cox et al, 2003;Post et al, 2003), but this is often not validated. The bull trout fishery on Lower Kananaskis Lake provided an opportunity to evaluate how regulation changes influenced catch-related fishery quality and angler behaviour, because information was available from two winter creel surveys -one conducted just prior to regulation changes in 1992 and one conducted a decade later in 2002, after the bull trout population had rebuilt.…”

An assessment of recreational fishery harvest policies for Murray cod in southeast Australia

“…Fishing effort responses to changes in regulations will likely vary with the value anglers place on harvesting fish relative to higher catch rates of fish they must release. Future studies could evaluate model predictions of angler catch by evaluating how fishing effort would change after regulations were enacted (e.g., Beard et al, 2003;Cox et al, 2003;Fayram and Schmalz, 2006), which would be useful for managing open-access recreational fisheries .…”