Trends and Developments in Catch and Release

Policansky, David

doi:10.1002/9780470697597.ch11

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This might be an important explanation why positive sanctions are reported more often that negative sanctioning both among those who are most release prone and those who are most keep oriented. The arguments related to subsistence (waste of food) and to animal welfare have been key issues in the European discourse about the appropriateness of C&R (Aas et al 2002;Arlinghaus et al 2007;Policansky 2008). When assessing these findings, it is important to bear in mind that it was legal to harvest some salmon, while at the same time, voluntary C&R was encouraged by the local river management body.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Qualitative approaches including analyses of traditional media as well as modern social media discourses could add insights about sanctions in angling and thereby supplement traditional survey research (Policansky 2008). Qualitative approaches including analyses of traditional media as well as modern social media discourses could add insights about sanctions in angling and thereby supplement traditional survey research (Policansky 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of social norms and informal sanctions in catch‐and‐release angling

Stensland

Aas

2014

Fisheries Management Eco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on norms and informal sanctions of catch‐and‐release angling and their implications for fishery management. A Web‐based questionnaire of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., anglers in the Lakselva River, Norway, yielded 656 answers (response rate 68 %). Anglers were segmented into four subgroups: catch and release, keeper, something else, trophy angler. In all groups, the reward (positive feeling) was high and punishment was low for releasing a large salmon as expressed by the intensity of self‐sanctions. All groups saw keeping a large salmon mostly as a rewarding experience, although the C&R and trophy segments reported less rewards and more ‘punishment’ for keeping. There is evidence for both a medium strength C&R norm and a weak keep norm in this fishery, receiving different ascriptions between angler groups. The results help understand angler group conflicts and explain how angling behaviour is formed, thereby helping management agencies achieving angler satisfaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of social norms and informal sanctions in catch‐and‐release angling

Stensland

Aas

2014

Fisheries Management Eco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A growing body of literature recognises that numerous benefits accrue from including stakeholders in fisheries management decisions using formal participatory processes (Johnson & Martinez 1995;Hatcher et al 2000;Kennelly & Broadhurst 2002;Waterton & Ellis 2006;Granek et al 2008;Policanski 2008;Ihde et al 2011;McPhee 2011;Stenekes & Sahlqvist 2011). However, there is little systematic application of scientific knowledge about the factors promoting public participation or other deliberative processes in natural resource management (Schusler et al 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communication between scientists, fishery managers and recreational fishers: lessons learned from a comparative analysis of international case studies

Dedual¹,

Sagué²,

Arlinghaus

et al. 2013

Fisheries Management Eco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The management of recreational fisheries benefits from good collaboration between scientists, managers and recreational fishers. However, the level of collaboration largely depends on the levels of effective communication among the different stakeholders. This paper presents the views of scientists, managers and fishers concerning the quality of communication in eleven case studies of recreational fisheries. Case studies were synthesised and common reasons why communication did not always flow as intended were identified. The prevalent barriers to good communication, and therefore collaboration included a lack of rigorous scientific information transfer from scientists to fishers and managers, a fear from fishers that management actions will limit fishing opportunities, pre‐existing antagonism between commercial and recreational fisheries, and fishers' suspicion of science. Overcoming these issues is paramount to improve collaboration and participatory processes that help lead to robust, well‐accepted management actions.

show abstract

“…In some European countries such as the UK, C&R has a long tradition in freshwater fisheries, and its practice has spread to other European countries over the last few decades (Aas et al, 2002;Policansky, 2002Policansky, , 2008Arlinghaus et al, 2007). However, public opinion and ethical acceptance of C&R (particularly voluntary C&R) vary considerably between and within European states, leading to controversy and public debates in some countries (Aas et al,2002;Salmi and Ratamäki, 2011;Arlinghaus et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unexpectedly high catch-and-release rates in European marine recreational fisheries: implications for science and management

Ferter

Weltersbach

Strehlow

et al. 2013

ICES Journal of Marine Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While catch-and-release (C&R) is a well-known practice in several European freshwater recreational fisheries, studies on the magnitude and impact of this practice in European marine recreational fisheries are limited. To provide an overview of the practice and magnitude of C&R among marine recreational anglers in Europe, the existing knowledge of C&R and its potential associated release mortality was collected and summarized. The present study revealed that in several European countries over half of the total recreational catch is released by marine anglers. High release proportions of . 60% were found for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), pollack (Pollachius pollachius), and sea trout (Salmo trutta) in at least one of the studied European countries. In the case of the German recreational Baltic Sea cod fishery, release proportions varied considerably between years, presumably tracking a strong year class of undersized fish. Reasons for release varied between countries and species, and included legal restrictions (e.g. minimum landing sizes and daily bag limits) and voluntary C&R. Considering the magnitude of C&R practice among European marine recreational anglers, post-release mortalities of released fish may need to be accounted for in estimated fishing mortalities. However, as the survival rates of European marine species are mostly unknown, there is a need to conduct post-release survival studies and to identify factors affecting post-release survival. Such studies could also assist in developing species-specific, best-practice guidelines to minimize the impacts of C&R on released marine fish in Europe.

show abstract

Trends and Developments in Catch and Release

Cited by 12 publications

References 54 publications

The role of social norms and informal sanctions in catch‐and‐release angling

The role of social norms and informal sanctions in catch‐and‐release angling

Communication between scientists, fishery managers and recreational fishers: lessons learned from a comparative analysis of international case studies

Unexpectedly high catch-and-release rates in European marine recreational fisheries: implications for science and management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About