Recreational Fisheries

ISSN 1020-5292
FAO
TECHNICAL
GUIDELINES FOR
RESPONSIBLE
FISHERIES
13
RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
Cover illustration: Emanuela D’Antoni
FAO
TECHNICAL
GUIDELINES FOR
RESPONSIBLE
FISHERIES
13
RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2012
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information
product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning
the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The
mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not
these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or
recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not
mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO.
ISBN 978-92-5-107214-1
All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material

in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of
charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes,
including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to
reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning
rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to copyright@fao.org or
to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office of Knowledge
Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153
Rome, Italy.
© FAO 2012
iii
PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
T
hese technical guidelines have been prepared by Robert Arlinghaus
(Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries [IGB] and
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany), Steven J. Cooke (Carleton
University, Canada) and Brett M. Johnson (Colorado State University, the
United States of America) under the coordination of Raymon van Anrooy
(FAO, Subregional Office for Central Asia, now at the Subregional Office for
the Caribbean). Their production has been supported by Devin Bartley and
Blaise Kuemlangan from FAO.
The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (the Code), owing
to its history, is focused on marine capture fisheries, with some coverage of
aquaculture. Recreational fisheries issues, while implicit, are not specifically
addressed, and many of the provisions in the Code are not well aligned to
the sector’s requirements. The FAO Resolution 4/95 adopting the Code on
31 October 1995 requested FAO inter alia to elaborate appropriate technical
guidelines in support of the implementation of the Code in collaboration with
members and interested relevant organizations. The only previous FAO-related
document that directly targets recreational fisheries issues is the EIFAC Code of
Practice for Recreational Fisheries of the European Inland Fisheries Advisory
Commission (EIFAC). These Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries:
Recreational Fisheries (TGRF) are based on the Code, embrace the EIFAC
Code of Practice for Recreational Fisheries, and overall fill an important gap
by explicitly dealing with the salient issues faced by recreational fisheries
inland and marine ecosystems.
Initial discussions leading to the preparation of these Guidelines took place:
at an International EIFAC Workshop on a Code of Practice for Recreational
Fisheries on 5–6 November 2007, in Bilthoven, the Netherlands; at the
Twenty-fifth Session of EIFAC, 21–28 May 2008, in Antalya, Turkey, held in
conjunction with the EIFAC Symposium on Interactions between Economic
and Ecological Objectives of Inland Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
and Aquaculture; at the FAO Regional Workshop on Recreational Fisheries in
Central Asia, 14–16 September 2009, in Issyk Kul, Kyrgyzstan; and at the FAO
Workshop on Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach in Inland Fisheries,
held 7–10 December 2010, in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. After
completion of a first draft by Robert Arlinghaus, Steven J. Cooke and Brett
M. Johnson, an FAO Expert Consultation on the Technical Guidelines for
iv
Responsible Fisheries: Recreational Fisheries was convened on 5–6 August

2011 in Berlin, Germany, under the auspices of FAO staff consisting of
Raymon van Anrooy, Devin Bartley, Blaise Kuemlangan, Karine Erikstein
and Cana Salur. This was in conjunction with the Sixth World Recreational
Fishing Conference, held 1–4 August 2011 at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
The Consultation was hosted by the Department of Biology and Ecology of
Fishes of the IGB in Berlin, Germany, and was organized by Raymon van
Anrooy and Cana Salur (FAO), and Robert Arlinghaus and Leonore Osswald
(IGB). The Consultation was attended by ten international experts (Ian Cowx,
Michel Dedual, Jan Kappel, Robert Kramer, Katia de Meirelles Felizola
Freire, Mucai Muchiri, Warren Potts, Claudia Stella Beltran Turriago, Roy
Stein, and Joko Tamura), three resource persons (Robert Arlinghaus, Steven
J. Cooke, Brett M. Johnson) and six observers (Andy Danylchuk, Russell
Dunn, Phil Hickley, Tom Ratfican, Jason Schratwieser, and Matti Sipponen).
These people collectively represented a wide range of recreational fisheries
expertise, experience and geographical areas, including Africa, Asia and the
Pacific, Europe, Latin America and North America.
The initial drafts of the guidelines and all subsequent revisions were prepared
by Robert Arlinghaus, Steven J. Cooke and Brett M. Johnson. Phil Hickley
edited the final draft and Eva-Maria Cyrus provided editorial assistance with
the reference list. Drafts were commented by the above-mentioned experts,
and Devin Bartley, Blaise Kuemlangan and Raymon van Anrooy provided
editorial assistance in finalizing the manuscript. Sean Landsman and Andy
Danylchuk provided the photographs for Figure 16. Core project funding was
provided by FAO. Further funding was received by Robert Arlinghaus through
the project Besatzfisch (www.besatz-fisch.de, funding period 2010–13, grant
No. 01UU0907) granted by the Federal German Ministry for Education and
Research in the Social-ecological Research programme. Steven J. Cooke
was further supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Ontario
Ministry of Research and Innovation, Carleton University, and the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
v
FAO.
Recreational fisheries.
FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 13.
Rome, FAO. 2012. 176 pp.
ABSTRACT
Recreational fishing is defined as fishing of aquatic animals (mainly fish)
that do not constitute the individual’s primary resource to meet basic
nutritional needs and are not generally sold or otherwise traded on export,
domestic or black markets. Recreational fishing constitutes the dominant
use of wild fish stocks in all freshwaters of industrialized countries, and it
is prominent in many coastal ecosystems. The importance of recreational
fisheries is increasing rapidly in many transitional economies. The present
Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries are focused on recreational
fisheries and describe strategies to promote environmentally sustainable
and socially responsible management of such fisheries. To this end, the
document details policy, management and behavioural recommendations
for sustainable recreational fisheries that are an increasingly important
component of global fisheries. Specifically, the Guidelines translate the
relevant provisions of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
into specific advice for recreational fisheries. The concept of aquatic
stewardship is introduced as an overarching ethical framework needed to
achieve ecologically sustainable recreational fisheries on a global scale.
Within this normative mindset, the adaptive management philosophy
based on quantifiable and transparent objectives and continuous learning
and feedback loops is proposed along with the acknowledgement of
principles such as the ecosystem approach and the precautionary approach.
Detailed sections on policy and institutional frameworks (tailored towards
policy-makers), recreational fisheries management actions and strategies
(tailored towards fisheries managers), recreational fisheries practices
(tailored towards individual recreational fishers) and recreational fisheries
research (tailored to researchers and managers) provide tangible advice for
responsible recreational fisheries. The special considerations necessary for
recreational fisheries in developing countries and economies in transition
are acknowledged. Adherence to the guidelines and recommendations
presented in the present document will enable policy-makers, managers
and the entire recreational fisheries sector to orient recreational fisheries
towards maintaining or achieving sustainability.
vii
CONTENTS
Preparation of this document iii

Abstract v
Contents vii
Acronyms and abbreviations ix
Background x
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Definitions 2
1.2 Global trends of recreational fisheries 4
1.3 Types and benefits of recreational fisheries 7
1.4 Biological issues of recreational fisheries 9
1.5 Objectives and target audience of guidelines 10
1.6 A guide to the use of the guidelines and relation to other FAO
documents 11
2. Normative framework for responsible recreational fisheries 15

2.1 A general overview 15
2.2 Towards aquatic stewardship 17
3. Management framework for sustainable recreational fisheries 23

3.1 Overview on adaptive management 24
3.2 Adaptive management with structured decision-making 30
3.3 Adaptive management and the precautionary and ecosystem
approach 32
3.4 Conclusions 34
4. Policy and institutional frameworks 37

4.1 Governance structures 38
4.2 Access, rules, compliance and enforcement 39
4.3 Internal policies and procedures 41
4.4 Funding and licensing 42
4.5 Design principles for sustainable management 43
4.6 Conclusions 44
5. Recreational fisheries management 45

5.1 Background 45
5.2 The management purview 46
viii
5.3 The fishery management process 47

5.4 Matching management to objectives 59
6. Recreational fishing practices 79

6.1 Safety 79
6.2 Sale and trade of aquatic animals, particularly fish 80
6.3 Use of harvested aquatic animals, particularly fish 81
6.4 Tackle, gear and fishing techniques 82
6.5 Litter and pollution 82
6.6 Environmental and wildlife disturbance 85
6.7 Environmental monitoring and reporting 87
6.8 Baiting and collection and transfer of live bait organisms 87
6.9 Illegal release and transfer of fish 89
6.10 Fish welfare in relation to capture, retention, kill and
catch-and-release 90
7. Information, knowledge sharing and research 101

7.1 Information and knowledge sharing 101
7.2 Research 107
8. Particularities of developing countries and economies in

transition 111
9. Implementation of the guidelines 117

9.1 The role of different bodies and stakeholder groups in
implementation 118
References 123
Glossary and definitions 151
Annex – Recommended guidelines by specific area of

recreational fisheries governance and management 157
ix
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AM adaptive management
Code FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
CoP EIFAC Code of Practice for Recreational Fisheries
COFI FAO Committee on Fisheries
EAF ecosystem approach to fisheries
EEZ exclusive economic zone
EIFAC European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (former name)
MSY maximum sustainable yield
NGO non-governmental organization
PA precautionary approach
RFB regional fishery body
RFMO regional fisheries management organization
SDM structured decision-making
STK stakeholder and traditional knowledge
TGRF Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries
x
BACKGROUND
1. From ancient times, fishing from oceans, lakes and rivers has been a
major source of food, a provider of employment and other economic benefits
for humanity. Ocean productivity seemed particularly unlimited. However,
with increased knowledge and the dynamic development of fisheries and
aquaculture, it was realized that living aquatic resources, although renewable,
are not infinite and need to be properly managed, if their contribution to the
nutritional, economic and social well-being of the growing world’s population
was to be sustained.
2. However, for nearly three decades, because of the dramatic increase of

pollution, abusive fishing techniques worldwide, and illegal, unreported and
unregulated fishing, catches and landings have been shrinking and fish stocks
declining, often at alarming rates.
3. Stock depletion has negative implications for food security and economic
development and reduces social welfare in countries around the world, especially
those relying on fish as their main source of animal protein and income such as
subsistence fishers in developing countries. Living aquatic resources need to be
properly managed, if their benefits to society are to be sustainable.
4. Sustainability of societal benefits requires a recovery of depleted stocks

and maintenance of the still-healthy ones, through sound management. In this
regard, the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
in 1982 was instrumental. The law provides a new framework for the better
management of marine resources. The new legal regime of the oceans gave
coastal States rights and responsibilities for the management and use of fishery
resources within the areas of their national jurisdiction, which embrace some
90 percent of the world’s marine fisheries.
5. In recent years, world fisheries have become dynamically developing

sectors of the food industry, and many States have striven to take advantage
of their new opportunities by investing in modern fishing fleets and processing
factories in response to growing international demand for fish and fishery
products. It became clear, however, that many fisheries resources could not
sustain an often uncontrolled increase of exploitation. Overexploitation of
xi
important fish stocks, modifications of ecosystems, significant economic

losses, and international conflicts on management and fish trade still threaten
the long-term sustainability of fisheries and the contribution of fisheries to
food supply.
6. In light of this situation, while recognizing that the recovery of depleted

stocks is still urgent and avoiding depleting still-healthy stocks as important,
FAO Member States have expressed the need to further develop aquaculture as
the only immediate way to bridge the gap between the dipping capture fisheries
output and the increasing world demand for seafood.
7. Indeed, in the last three decades, aquaculture has recorded a significant

and most rapid growth among the food-producing sectors and has developed
into a globally robust and vital industry. However, aquaculture also has been
shown at times to carry the potential to cause significant environmentally and
socially adverse impacts.
8. Thus, the Nineteenth Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries

(COFI), held in March 1991, recommended that new approaches to fisheries
and aquaculture management embracing conservation and environmental, as
well as social and economic, considerations were urgently needed. FAO was
asked to develop the concept of responsible fisheries and elaborate a Code of
Conduct to foster its application.
9. Subsequently, the Government of Mexico, in collaboration with FAO,

organized an International Conference on Responsible Fishing in Cancún
in May 1992. The Declaration of Cancún, endorsed at that Conference, was
brought to the attention of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992, which supported
the preparation of a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The FAO
Technical Consultation on High Seas Fishing, held in September 1992, further
recommended the elaboration of a code to address the issues regarding high
seas fisheries.
10. The One Hundred and Second Session of the FAO Council, held in
November 1992, discussed the elaboration of the Code, recommending that
priority be given to high seas issues and requested that proposals for the Code
be presented to the 1993 session of the Committee on Fisheries.
xii
11. The twentieth session of COFI, held in March 1993, examined in

general the proposed framework and content for such a Code, including
the elaboration of guidelines, and endorsed a time frame for the further
elaboration of the Code. It also requested FAO to prepare, on a “fast track”
basis, as part of the Code, proposals to prevent reflagging of fishing vessels
which affect conservation and management measures on the high seas. This
resulted in the FAO Conference, at its Twenty-seventh Session in November
1993, adopting the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International
Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High
Seas, which, according to FAO Conference Resolution 15/93, forms an
integral part of the Code. It was also recognized and confirmed that issues of
responsible aquaculture development and aquaculture sustainability should
be addressed in the formulation process so that these be appropriately covered
in the envisaged Code.
12. This implicit recognition of the importance of governance in aquaculture

is underlined in Article 9.1.1 of the Code, which requires states to “establish,
maintain and develop an appropriate legal and administrative framework to
facilitate the development of responsible aquaculture”. In addition, at the
beginning of the new millennium, there is growing recognition of the significant
potential for the use of ocean and coastal waters for mariculture expansion. The
outstanding issue in this area is that, unlike in capture fisheries, the existing
applicable principles of public international law and treaty provisions provide
little guidance on the conduct of aquaculture operations in these waters. Yet,
experts agree that most of the future aquaculture expansion will occur in the
seas and oceans, certainly further offshore, perhaps even as far as the high
seas. The regulatory vacuum for aquaculture in the high seas would have to be
addressed should aquaculture operations expand there.
13. The Code was formulated so as to be interpreted and applied in conformity

with the relevant rules of international law, as reflected in the 10 December
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Code is also in
line with the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of this Law,
namely the 1995 Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. It is equally in line with, inter alia, the 1992
Declaration of Cancún and the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, in particular Chapter 17 of Agenda 21.
xiii
14. The development of the Code was carried out by FAO in consultation and
collaboration with relevant United Nations Agencies and other international
organizations, including non-governmental organizations.
15. The Code of Conduct consists of five introductory articles: Nature

and scope; Objectives; Relationship with other international instruments;
Implementation, monitoring and updating; and Special requirements of
developing countries. These introductory articles are followed by an article
on General principles, which precedes the six thematic articles on Fisheries
management, Fishing operations, Aquaculture development, Integration
of fisheries into coastal area management, Post-harvest practices and trade,
and Fisheries research. As already mentioned, the Agreement to Promote
Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by
Fishing Vessels on the High Seas forms an integral part of the Code.
16. The Code is voluntary. However, certain parts of it are based on relevant
rules of international law, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. In capture fisheries, the Code also
contains provisions that may be or have already been given binding effect
by means of other obligatory legal instruments amongst the Parties, such as
the Agreement to Promote Compliance with Conservation and Management
Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, 1993. In aquaculture, the
provisions of the Code implicitly encourage participatory governance of
the sector, which extends from industry self-regulation, to co-management
of the sector by industry representatives and government regulators and to
community partnerships. Compliance is self or enforced by peer pressure, with
industry organizations having the ability to exclude those who do not comply
and governments only checking periodically.
17. The Twenty-eighth Session of the Conference in Resolution 4/95 adopted

the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries on 31 October 1995. The
same Resolution requested FAO inter alia to elaborate appropriate technical
guidelines in support of the implementation of the Code in collaboration with
members and interested relevant organizations.
18. The expanding role and increasing contribution of aquaculture to economic

growth, social welfare as well as global food security was recognized and
reiterated at international levels such as the 1995 FAO/Japan Conference
xiv
on the Contribution of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Food Security, the 1996

World Food Summit, the 1999 Ministerial Meeting on Fisheries, the 2000 FAO/
NACA [Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia and the Pacific] Conference
on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium and its Bangkok Declaration and
Strategy, and most recently, the 2009 World Summit on Food Security.
19. The application of the ecosystem approach to fisheries and aquaculture as

strategies for the development of the sector contributes to the implementation
of the provisions of the Code, thereby enforcing the technical, ecological,
economic and social sustainability of the industry.
1
1. Introduction
R
ecreational fisheries constitute the dominant or sole user of many wild
freshwater fish stocks in most industrialized countries (Arlinghaus,
Mehner and Cowx, 2002). However, the prevalence of recreational
fisheries is not confined to freshwaters and is present in 76 percent of the world’s
exclusive economic zones (EEZs) (Mora et al., 2009). Some coastal marine
stocks in more industrialized nations are exclusively exploited for recreation,
or intensive coexploitation for commercial and recreational purposes occurs
(Ihde et al., 2011). Overall, there is a growing recognition of the immense
economic, sociocultural and ecological importance of recreational fishing as a
significant component of global capture fisheries (Pawson, Glenn and Padda,
2008; Mora et al., 2009; Ihde et al., 2011).
Recreational fisheries involve millions of people globally, generating billions
of US dollars in economically developed countries, and, in addition, they are
emerging as a social and economic factor in many economies in transition
(e.g. Argentina, Brazil, China, India) and some developing countries (FAO,
2010). On average, across countries with reliable statistics, the participation
rate in recreational fishing by the total population in a given country is 10.6 ±
6.1 percent (SD) (Arlinghaus and Cooke, 2009). In light of this estimate, about
140 million recreational fishers are present in three of the most industrialized
continents alone, North America, Europe and Oceania. Extrapolating to the
global level is more difficult because of a paucity of information on participation
rates for recreational fishing in less developed/wealthy countries, but a rough
estimate is a maximum of 700 million recreational fishers worldwide (Cooke
and Cowx, 2004).
In many industrialized countries where public wealth increase coincides with
changes in consumer demand, habitat loss, overexploitation and the emergence
of service sectors as alternatives to primary industries, the intensity and
attractiveness of commercial capture fisheries typically declines. Recreational
fishing then emerges as the dominant use of wild fish stocks, particularly in
inland fisheries (Arlinghaus, Mehner and Cowx, 2002). Because recreational
fishing can be as intensive as commercial operations, and because potentially
unsustainable management actions can be associated with the development of
recreational fisheries, e.g. release of non-native fish to establish new fisheries
(Johnson, Arlinghaus and Martinez, 2009), a number of sustainability and
2 Recreational fisheries
biodiversity conservation issues have emerged (Cowx, Arlinghaus and Cooke,

2010). The two conditions expounded so far – high and increasing socio-
economic and ecological significance – justify a need for guidance on how to
orient the sector towards biological sustainability on an international level. In
addition, guidelines for recreational fisheries management are needed in light
of the potential for fisheries resource allocation conflicts among commercial
fisheries, artisanal/subsistence fisheries, and other users of fish and water and
recreational fisheries.
This document provides the needed guidance to orient recreational
fisheries towards sustainable pathways in light of the FAO Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries (the Code) (FAO, 1995) in general, and the EIFAC
Code of Practice for Recreational Fisheries (CoP) in particular (EIFAC,
2008), and should be particularly useful for countries lacking experience
in recreational fisheries development and management. It might also make
existing approaches more coherent within experienced nations and regions.
These Guidelines are directed at the core recreational fisheries sector meaning
all people, organizations and actors with direct involvement in fishery resource
use and fisheries management, e.g. fisheries policy, governance, management
bodies, representatives of recreational fishers stakeholders, recreational fishers,
and to some degree the recreational gear industry and recreational fishing
media. The document relates to stock assessment, fisheries management and
recreational fisheries practice and does not focus on best practices in business
or industry.
1.1 Definitions
An individual’s motivation to fish differs in recreational as compared with
commercial or subsistence fisheries. Personal objectives, incentives and
rewards sought in the pursuit of fishing are useful to demarcate the various
types of fisheries. Recreational fishers fish for many reasons, but not primarily
to secure survival and generate resources to meet essential, nutritional needs.
Recreational fishing is thus defined as fishing of aquatic animals (mainly fish)
that do not constitute the individual’s primary resource to meet basic nutritional
needs and are not generally sold or otherwise traded on export, domestic or
black markets (EIFAC, 2008; see Mike and Cowx, 1986 for exceptions where
recreational fishers sell surpluses to offset costs). In contrast, commercial and
subsistence fisheries are primarily directed towards the livelihood of the fisher
(and family), with fishing contributing substantially to meeting nutritional
needs of the individual.
Introduction 3
While the difference between commercial and recreational capture

fisheries may be obvious, the issue becomes more difficult in the case of
subsistence fisheries. It is acknowledged that the unambiguous demarcation
between recreational fisheries and subsistence fisheries is impossible because
many recreational fishers, even in wealthy countries, have strong subsistence-
like incentives to harvest fish (Macinko and Schumann, 2007). However, the
perspective of individual fishing protagonists using fishing activity to generate
resources for their livelihood does differentiate between recreational fisheries
and subsistence fisheries. Moreover, as a rule, recreational fishers have the
financial capacity to substitute the fishing products by other products to meet
nutritional needs and secure protein intake and survival. However, the fact that
recreational fishing does not contribute substantially to generating resources
for survival of the fisher does not mean that there is no economic activity
associated with recreational fisheries. In fact, the spill-over economic effects
associated with recreational fishing create a multibillion-dollar industry that
supports economic activity and livelihoods for many (Arlinghaus, Mehner and
Cowx, 2002).
Globally, angling is by far the most common recreational fishing technique,
which is why recreational fishing is often used synonymously with angling
(Arlinghaus et al., 2007a). However, in some countries, recreational fishers
use gear such as spears, bows and arrows, rifles, traps and gillnets (Arlinghaus
and Cooke, 2009). Accordingly, in this document, recreational fishing will be
used as the standard term, and only where the specific context requires will
angling or angler be referred to. In addition, although recreational fishing can
target aquatic organisms other than finfish (e.g. lobster and crabs), the term fish
is used in the document to mean aquatic animals. The recreational fisheries
sector is defined as the entire network of stakeholders involved in or fully or
partly dependent on recreational fisheries. Included, among others, are fisheries
ministries and agencies (local, national, and international including regional
fisheries organizations and bodies), managers, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs, e.g. umbrella angling associations and clubs), anglers, non-angling
recreational fishers, tackle shops and tackle manufacturers, bait suppliers,
charter-boat industry, recreational boat builders and chandlery suppliers, marina
operators, specialized angling and fishing media, recreational fishing tourism
and other related business and organizations, as well as all other enterprises
supporting recreational fisheries such as aquaculture operations that produce
stocking material or fishery owners that sell angling permits for their waters.
A range of other stakeholders and managerial regimes are not included in this
definition even though they may run or advocate activities and developments
that have a direct impact on recreational fishing quality and the recreational
fisheries sector’s viability and growth potential (e.g. hydropower generation,
water management, irrigation, commercial fisheries, nature conservation
groups). In the following, they will be referred to as “external sectors”, as
appropriate. More definitions can be found in the glossary at the end of this
document
1.2 Global trends in recreational fisheries

Although of high importance globally, relative to commercial and subsistence
fisheries, the relevance of recreational fisheries varies according to country.
Broadly speaking, recreational fishing activity increases with the economic
development of societies because people can afford to spend time fishing for
leisure rather than fishing to secure nutrient input or survival. Although the
use of coastal, and sometimes offshore, marine fish stocks by recreational
fisheries also develops with a society’s economic development, the shift from
subsistence to commercial and, finally, to an often exclusive recreational use of
wild fish stocks is particularly pervasive in inland fisheries (Figure 1).
According to FAO (2010), an almost linear increase in recreational fishing
interest in a society is expected to occur with its economic development.
However, in reality, infinite growth of recreational fisheries (Figure 1) is not
to be expected. Specific for inland fisheries, for example, the “life cycle” of
fisheries introduced by Smith (1986) and further developed by Arlinghaus,
Mehner and Cowx. (2002) and Cowx, Arlinghaus and Cooke (2010) predicts a
levelling off of or even decline in recreational fishing growth after an initial rise
with economic development of societies. According to this model, a maximum
recreational fishing participation is expected to occur in an intermediate phase of
economic development (industrialization) (Figure 2), after which recreational
fishing interest again declines with urbanization and modernization. Before this
eventual decline, likely to be caused by now-urbanized people losing contact
with and interest in fish and wildlife, a rapid rise in freshwater recreational
fishing interest coupled with a decline in subsistence or commercial is to be
expected in all countries that experience explosive economic development.
Indeed, many countries in transitional economies in Asia, Latin America and
Africa are currently experiencing fast-growing recreational fisheries (FAO,
2010; Welcomme et al., 2010), and in many regions (e.g. southern Pantanal of
Brazil) catches by recreational fisheries have surpassed those by commercial
fishers (Catella, 2006). This is due to the fact that, with economic development,
Introduction 5
Figure 1
Predicted shifts in the main type of inland fishing in relation to economic
development of a society
Evolution of inland fisheries
Recreational fishing
Professional fishing
Subsistence fishing
Activity
Development
Note: The depicted situation is thought of as a prototypical trend across much of the world.
Source: FAO (2010).
subsistence fisheries transform into, or are replaced by, more leisure-based

forms of fishing and/or because in some developing countries recreational
fishing tourism has become a locally and regionally important activity (Mike
and Cowx, 1986; Potts et al., 2009; Everard and Kataria, 2011).
Because recreational fisheries increase with economic development of
societies, many today are in pervasively anthropogenically altered habitats
and ecosystems that are affected by a range of impacts unrelated to fishing
(Arlinghaus, Mehner and Cowx, 2002). Such fisheries are characterized by
multiuse patterns and a long history of habitat change in conjunction with coastal
zone management, flood control, damming, channelization, pollution, water
abstraction, overfishing by commercial harvesting, etc. Moreover, recreational
fisheries are often not a top sociocultural priority in many contemporary
societies, which makes it difficult to attract funding for the development and
management of recreational fisheries resources. The situation is different in
less-developed countries, where subsistence and commercial fisheries are
usually dominant and strongly influence the management and development
Figure 2
A sketch of the life cycle of inland fisheries
Fish conservation and

welfare concerns
Fish used for

recreation
Number of users
Fish used as food by

commercial/subsistence
fisheries
Economic development of a given society
MANAGEMENT Fishery regulations (targeting fishery)

MEASURES
Stock enhancement (targeting fish stock)
Rehabilitation (targeting ecosystem)
Note: The number of “users” involves all stakeholders of aquatic ecosystems (direct and
indirect).
Source: Modified from Cowx, Arlinghaus and Cooke (2010).
of recreational fisheries. However, recreational fisheries rarely operate in a

vacuum and, thus, must take a range of stakeholders, activities and interest
into account during development. The strong effects of non-fishery on aquatic
ecosystems, particularly in freshwaters of industrialized countries, not only
affect the quality of many recreational fisheries but motivates conservation and
fish welfare concerns by the wider society (Arlinghaus et al., 2009a) (Figure 2).
One consequence of rising societal demands for conservation of wild living
resources and the avoidance of biodiversity impacts (Cowx, Arlinghaus and
Cooke, 2010) is that recreational fisheries must today be managed using
integrated (i.e. across various sectors) policies involving a range of tools,
including habitat management approaches, in addition to the more traditionally
employed harvest regulations, effort controls, fish stocking or closed seasons
(Chapter 5).
Introduction 7
1.3 Types and benefits of recreational fisheries

Recreational fishing takes many forms and formats, from the fisheries
for naturally recruited wild fish stocks in lakes, rivers and coastal areas, to
the stocking-enhanced fisheries in natural or artificial waterbodies, which
culminates in artificial, purely put-and-take-operated high-intensity fisheries
that can be found in small impoundments or ponds and in more urban areas
(Cowx, 2002). Not only do the types of fishery differ dramatically within
and across countries, but so do the types of recreational fishers, leaving little
room for an adequate generalization. The various dimensions are those such
as orientation of the catch (harvest all to total catch-and-release), gear choice
(from handlining to long-distance motorized boat fishing with modern echo-
sounder technology, from organic bait to advanced artificial baits such as fly),
type of fishing (bottom, float, casting, trawling, fly fishing) and destination
(resident fishing close to home in urban ponds or small lakes to long-distance
angling tourism holidays abroad in offshore or remote, unexploited areas).
Some fishers specialize temporarily or over time on species and techniques.
Angler specialization theory by Bryan (1977) provides a framework to describe
the diversity of fishing styles from the “general to the particular” distinguishing
the occasional fisher from the avid, specialized angler whose lifestyle revolves
around fishing. As a general rule, as commitment to the activity increases,
consumptive orientation declines and the importance of size of fish increases.
In line with this, Beardmore et al. (2011) recently provided a motivational
clustering of recreational fishers in Germany describing less-committed
anglers as consumptive, social and nature/relaxation-oriented anglers, while
the more committed types include trophy and non-trophy challenge-oriented
anglers, which may involve the desire to seek records and other rewards (e.g.
fishing competitions). There is also a strong cultural influence on how the
harvest desire of anglers shifts with specialization and commitment levels.
For example, in Germany, even highly committed anglers may maintain
a strong harvest interest (Dorow et al., 2010) although, as a rule, alongside
commitment the propensity for catch-and-release fishing increases. Overall,
globally, about 60 percent of all captured fish are estimated to be released in
recreational angling which translates into billions of individual fish (Cooke
and Cowx, 2004).
The fact that there are hundreds of millions of people participating in
recreational fishing in inland, coastal and marine fisheries worldwide suggests
that there are many associated benefits to the individual that collectively also
influence society positively (Weithman, 1999; Arlinghaus, Mehner and Cowx,
2002; Parkkila et al., 2010). One of the most obvious is the employment fed
by recreational fishing expenditure, which can constitute a multibillion-dollar
industry in some countries. For marine recreational fishing only, Cisneros-
Montemajor and Sumaila (2010) estimated that, globally, a minimum of
58 million anglers generate a total of US$40 billion, supporting more than
954 000 jobs. However, given the lack of reliable statistics from many countries
of the world and the omission of freshwater fisheries, this could well be a
considerable underestimate.
Benefits of recreational fishing extend beyond employment and include the
social and cultural domains. For example, recreational fisheries as a provisioning
service give households a resource for food. However, there are also many
less-tangible cultural ecosystem services, including recreation, environmental
education, social cohesion and the enjoyment of aesthetic pleasures during
fishing. Moreover, recreational fisheries motivate a sizable fraction of society to
maintain and enhance such ecosystem services and the recreational experience
they support through fisheries management and sometimes legal actions
(Parkkila et al., 2010). The value of recreational fishing for conservation of
aquatic systems in general has a simple economic root; recreational fishers have
a vested interest in preserving or enhancing the resources they depend on. There
is ample evidence that recreational fishers work proactively to conserve, and
where possible enhance, aquatic biodiversity, either directly, e.g. by stocking
of native fish, or indirectly through habitat management and other fisheries
management actions, often financed by recreational fishing licence money
(Granek et al., 2008). There is also evidence that anglers are instrumental in
shaping pro-environmental legislation and combating environmental harm
through legal action (Bate, 2001; Kirchhofer, 2002). In addition, in some
countries (e.g. Nicaragua, Costa Rica), recreational fisheries have promulgated
regulations that constrain commercial fisheries and allocate important fisheries
(e.g. billfish) exclusively to recreational fishing. Such regulations may involve
restrictive regulations on harvest or even demand total catch-and-release,
which may alleviate fishing pressure on stocks (but see Coggins et al., 2007).
There can be a downside to well-meant recreational fisheries management
actions, such as release of fish carrying diseases or non-native genes, strongly
and sometimes irreversibly affecting aquatic biodiversity (Laikre et al., 2010;
van Poorten et al., 2011) and the ecosystem (Eby et al., 2006). In addition,
recreational fishing can negatively affect stocks (Post et al., 2002; Lewin,
Arlinghaus and Mehner, 2006). Production of these Guidelines for responsible
and sustainable recreational fisheries is thus further justified.
Introduction 9
1.4 Biological issues of recreational fisheries

Unintended consequences of capture fisheries, including habitat destruction,
incidental mortality of non-target species, shifts in population structure and
demographics, and changes in the function and structure of ecosystems,
are being increasingly recognized (Welcomme, 2001; Worm et al., 2009).
Recreational fishing can also induce similar changes in fish communities
and aquatic ecosystems through actions such as excessive harvest mortality,
selective mortality, unwanted catch-and-release mortality, injury and disease
transmission, illegal release of non-native genotypes, introduction of non-
native species, stocking, litter, ground-baiting, and disturbance of the
environment and wildlife from, for example, gaining access to the water or
boat noise (Chapter 6 and Post et al., 2002; Cooke and Cowx, 2004, 2006;
Lewin, Arlinghaus and Mehner, 2006). Such impacts provide potential for
particularly troublesome issues such as genetic change in fish stocks, which
may result from recreational fishing-induced mortality (Cooke and Cowx,
2006; Philipp et al., 2009; Matsumura, Arlinghaus and Dieckmann, 2011), or
from detrimental actions, especially stocking of native, hatchery-reared fish
and introduction of non-native species or genotypes, or transfer of fish or
diseases across catchments (Lewin, McPhee and Arlinghaus, 2008; Johnson,
Arlinghaus and Martinez, 2009; Laikre et al., 2010).
Historically, recreational fisheries managers have focused on measures that
manipulate the interaction between a pool of recreational fishers and a single
targeted fish population using tools such as size-based harvest limits, daily
bag limits, quotas, buy-out of commercial fishing and stock enhancements.
However, it is now recognized that recreational exploitation of key components
of a food web (e.g. the top predators) (Post et al., 2002; Roth et al., 2007,
2010), sometimes facilitated by recreational fishing-induced alterations of
key habitat features (e.g. removal of dead woody debris in lakes [Carpenter
and Brock, 2004]; altered nutrient cycling owing to stocking of large number
of benthivorous fish in lakes [Eby et al., 2006]), and deliberate or accidental
release of non-native fish (Johnson, Arlinghaus and Martinez, 2009), can have
important ecological and evolutionary consequences for entire communities
and ecosystems that extend the target fish stock (Walters and Kitchell, 2001;
Lewin, Arlinghaus and Mehner, 2006). Moreover, beyond the direct effects
on target species, the selective exploitation of keystone species such as top
predators may be responsible for the successful invasion by non-native species
once a threshold exploitation rate is crossed that when looked at in isolation
is biologically sustainable for the exploited species (Roth et al., 2010).
Therefore, responsible recreational fisheries management must consider the

broader impacts of fishing on the ecosystem as a whole, taking ecosystem
traits, food webs and biodiversity across genetic, species and population
levels into account. Tackling this issue may demand an ecosystem approach to
recreational fisheries in some instances (Chapters 3 and 6).
That said, many declines in wild fish stocks are only partly due to recreational
fishing or its management practices. In particular, in freshwater ecosystems,
non-fishing related 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 (Arlinghaus, Mehner and Cowx, 2002).
Consequently, in most areas of the world, the principal impacts on fish stocks
do not originate from the fishery itself but from outside the fishery (Cowx,
Arlinghaus and Cooke, 2010). In addition to ecological impacts, social conflicts
occur in recreational fisheries, e.g. between nature preservation and fisheries
interests, or among commercial and recreational sectors.
1.5 Objectives and target audience of guidelines

The objective of the present Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries:
Recreational Fisheries (TGRF) is to provide guidance on responsible
recreational fisheries conforming to the generic principles outlined in the Code
(FAO, 1995) in order to help the international fisheries community develop or
maintain sustainable recreational fisheries. The objectives are:
• to describe an ethical and managerial framework along with associated
best fisheries practice and management principles, guidelines and
strategies for responsible recreational fisheries, always in accordance
with relevant national and regional legislation and international law;
• to serve as a guiding instrument of reference in establishing or
improving national institutional and policy frameworks required to
exercise responsible management of recreational fisheries;
• to promote international exchange of knowledge and experiences
on recreational fisheries, on their management and sustainable
development;
• to facilitate and promote cooperation among fisheries bodies, NGOs
and individual stakeholders in the conservation, management and
development of recreational fisheries resources, including the aquatic
ecosystems of which they are an intrinsic part;
Introduction 11
• to promote recreational fisheries in the long term by outlining and

facilitating best practices within the sector for long-term sustainability,
and for the responsible use of all ecological services generated by
aquatic ecosystems and aquatic organisms;
• to promote research into recreational fisheries as well as on associated
aquatic ecosystems and the relevant environmental factors that
influence recreational fisheries.
The Guidelines are tailored particularly towards policy and management
decision-makers, and all stakeholders involved in developing and implementing
policy and technical interventions relevant to recreational fisheries. The
Guidelines will also be of use to all representatives of the recreational fisheries
sector and their NGOs, environmental organizations, and academic and
scientific institutions, and all entities, parties, organizations and individuals
that are concerned with, or directly or indirectly affect or depend on, aquatic
ecosystems, recreational fisheries resources and recreational fishing activity.
This includes human activities that support recreational fisheries, such as
aquaculture production of fish for stocking, the manufacture of gear, the tourism
industry, the media, as well as fisheries management and research. In some
sections, the individual recreational fisher will find pertinent information on
how to improve fisheries practices (Chapter 6). The overall focus of the present
TGRF is on the core recreational fisheries sector and recreational fisheries
resource use and management. Accordingly, these best practice guidelines are
tailored to fisheries practice, assessments and management and, thus, do not
overtly deal with the supply (e.g. gear) and demand (e.g. marketing) chains in
the recreational fisheries sector.
1.6 A guide to the use of the Guidelines and relation to

other FAO documents
This TGRF document is structured in separate chapters, each fulfilling a
separate purpose and having a slightly different audience (Figure 3).
Content moves from the general to the particular, emphasizing generic
guidance for sustainable recreational fisheries and then tailoring such to
regional and local situations. Figure 3 shows the theme of each chapter, its
content, and its target audience. Because all management and policy decisions
are influenced by values and social choices, it was deemed necessary to
outline initially one possible normative framework that corresponds with the
contemporary zeitgeist and the provisions of the Code, before later outlining in
a “how to” approach the more specific management recommendations directed
Figure 3
An overview of the Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries:
Recreational Fisheries, including chapter titles, major content of each
chapter and target audience
Chapter Content Audience

Introduces aquatic stewardship as
Ethical Framework normative framework for sustainble All
recreational fisheries
Introduces adaptive management

Management Philosophy and structured decision-making as Managers
managerial philosophy
Policy/Institutional Frameworks
Discusses important elements of a Policy makers
functioning policy framework
Recreational Fisheries Outlines decision-frameworks to

operational fisheries management
Managers
Management
Gives recomendation for responsibe
recreational-fishing practices, Fishers
Recreational Fisheries including those related to addressing
Practices fish welfare issues
Provides guidance how to generate

new knowledge to direct
Researchers
Information and Research
sustainable recreational fisheries & managers
Developing countries Special guidance for developing

countries is provided Policy makers
Implementation Provides guidance how to

implement the Guidelines All
at policy-makers, managers, individual recreational fishers and research

workers. The level of detail in the more technical substance-oriented chapters
is commensurate with the need to remain useful for the many recreational
fisheries worldwide. Many management decisions are context-specific, so
the more procedural aspects have been emphasized. The chapter devoted
to developing countries is in recognition of recreational fishing being most
prevalent in the more wealthy countries and that generic advice was needed on
how to take advantage of recreational fisheries to complement subsistence and
commercial fisheries.
At the end of the document, the Annex lists all the recommended guidelines
for each specific area of recreational fisheries governance and management.
Introduction 13
While these Technical Guidelines orient the Code towards recreational

fisheries and the particular practices and management demands, other FAO
Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries are relevant for in-depth
consideration of aspects that pertain to recreational fisheries but cannot be
dealt with in detail here. Box 1 provides a summary of relevant work.
Box 1
Overview of FAO Technical Guidelines of relevance to recreational
fisheries
Many recreational fisheries operate based on extraction of fish from natural

fish stocks without stock enhancement or coexploit wild-living organisms
alongside commercial/subsistence fisheries (e.g. many coastal areas). Such
situations mirror unconstrained (marine) capture fisheries in that they do not
seek to manipulate the stock other than by removal of fish. Here, in addition
to consulting the Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries: Recreational
Fisheries (TGRF), readers should refer to the provisions of:
• FAO. 1997. Fisheries management. FAO Technical Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries No. 4. Rome. 82 pp.
• FAO. 2003. Fisheries management. 2. The ecosystem approach to
fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 4,
Suppl. 2. Rome. 112 pp.
• FAO. 2009. Fisheries management. 2. The ecosystem approach to
fisheries. 2.2 The human dimensions of the ecosystem approach to
fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries
No. 4, Suppl. 2, Add. 2. Rome. 88 pp.
Many recreational fisheries that are stock-enhanced share similarities to
extensive aquaculture systems and occur as inland stillwater fisheries. Here, in
addition to consulting the TGRF, readers should refer to the provisions of:
• FAO. 1996. Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species
introductions. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 2.
Rome. 54 pp.
• FAO. 1997. Aquaculture development. FAO Technical Guidelines for
• FAO. 1997. Inland fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible
Fisheries No. 6. Rome. 36 pp.
(Box Cont.)
• FAO. 2008. Aquaculture development. 3. Genetic resource management.
FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 5, Suppl. 3.
Rome. 125 pp.
Recreational fisheries are particularly relevant in freshwater ecosystems in
industrialized countries. These are characterized by multiuse patterns and, in
addition to fish capture, suffer a range of activities not related to fisheries related
that affect aquatic ecosystems. To address these issues, interested readers are
directed to:
• FAO. 1997. Inland fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible
• FAO. 2008. Inland fisheries. 1. Rehabilitation of inland waters for fisheries.
The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries No’s, Suppl. 1. Rome. 122 pp.
15
2. Normative framework for

responsible recreational fisheries
2.1 A general overview
T
o provide recommendations on recreational fisheries within the TGRF it
was necessary to use an explicit normative (or ethical) framework because
all decisions on fisheries have implications for human beings or aspects
that they value (e.g. fish stocks, biodiversity). Therefore, all fisheries management
has a strong moral dimension. Fisheries ethics deals with the values, rules, duties
and virtues of relevance to both human well-being and ecosystems, providing a
critical moral compass on which subsequent goals, management objectives and
management measures are to be based (FAO, 2005a; see Chapter 5 for details
on objectives). Because social values and norms continuously change, the
guiding ethical framework will also change over time, reflecting the mindset of a
contemporary society or culture. The ethical framework followed in the present
document follows key normative statements in the Code (FAO, 1995), viz.:
• “…users of living aquatic resources should conserve aquatic
ecosystems. The right to fish carries with it the obligation to do so
in a responsible manner so as to ensure effective conservation and
management of the living aquatic resources” (Article 6.1);
• “Fisheries management should promote the maintenance of the
quality, diversity and availability of fishery resources in sufficient
quantities for present and future generations in the context of
food security, poverty alleviation and sustainable development”
(Article 6.2)
• “States should … ensure that decision-making processes are
transparent and achieve timely solutions to urgent matters. States, in
accordance with appropriate procedures, should facilitate consultation
and the effective participation of … interested organizations in
decision-making with respect to the development of laws and policies
related to fisheries management, development, international lending
and aid” (Article 6.13).
When transferred to recreational fisheries, these articles call for building
and implementing governance and management strategies that represent
all stakeholders and their potentially diverse views in decision-making to
maximize socio-economic benefits and engage in actions and behaviours that

are ecologically sustainable by avoiding overfishing and maintaining aquatic
biodiversity at all levels (Arlinghaus, Mehner and Cowx, 2002). Put differently,
the guiding norm of sustainable management as suggested in the ethical
framework of the Code entails biological, social and economic dimensions along
with an appropriate policy and institutional structures (Chapter 4) conducive to
achieving sustainability (Arlinghaus, 2006a). In this context, a popular view,
shared by the TGRF, is that recreational fisheries are biologically sustainable if
irreversible or costly change to wild exploited fish populations is avoided and the
structure and function of aquatic habitats and the ecological services delivered
by them to recreational fisheries and other stakeholders are conserved (Cowx,
Arlinghaus and Cooke, 2010). This includes the supporting and regulating
services generated by fish (Holmund and Hammer, 1999). Contingent on
meeting these biological conservation goals, the social and economic benefits
of recreational fisheries resource use should be maximized to achieve socio-
economic sustainability, often a parallel process, as an overfished stock can
negatively affect fishing quality (Johnston, Arlinghaus and Dieckmann, 2010).
Other social and cultural dimensions may also be relevant and affect final
policy choices, e.g. issues of distributional justice and equity (Welcomme,
2001), when debating access to and allocation of resources to potentially
competing fishery types (e.g. commercial, subsistence and recreational fisheries).
However, as the social and economic realities are so diverse across the globe in
various localities and fisheries, it is considered impossible to suggest generally
applicable social and economic objectives to be followed by all recreational
fisheries worldwide. Ultimately, it is the decision of local, regional and national
decision-makers how to weight the utilities of different fisheries forms and types
of fishers in the light of fundamental trade-offs inherent in all recreational fisheries
management. For example, it is generally impossible to maximize both harvest
(yield) and number of trophy fish in a stock (García-Asorey et al., 2011), so it
might be impossible to maximize the quality of fishing experiences for trophy
and more harvest-oriented fishers in the same fishery. It is advisable to accept
trade-offs and work around them by taking a broad-based view of single fisheries
being a nested component of an overall set of multiple fisheries in a landscape
or a coastal area, and to manage such using suitable compromise solutions (Hunt
et al., 2011). What is important is that any normative framework based on the
sustainability paradigm will demand difficult choices to be made. These should
be explicit because the choice of social and economic criteria for management
will strongly affect which regulations and actions are considered socially and
Normative framework for responsible recreational fisheries 17
economically “optimal” (see, for example, the result of a recreational fisheries

model by Johnston, Arlinghaus and Dieckmann [2010]).
Notwithstanding the difficult issue of deciding which social, cultural and
economic criteria to include in a normative framework, a common denominator
for all recreational management worldwide is the biological component,
including overfishing and changes to aquatic biodiversity. Therefore,
sustainable recreational fisheries management is based on an approach that is
risk-averse to environmental impact (see Chapter 3 for details). In this context,
recreational fisheries are conceptualized as a subsystem of the overarching
ecological life-support system. There are a few exceptions to this, particularly
in recreational fisheries that depend almost entirely on external inputs, do not
interact with other stakeholders strongly and do not exploit self-reproduction
stocks. Such an exception might be artificially created, e.g. high-intensity put-
and-take recreational fisheries in semi-urban environments (North, 2002),
which need not be judged against strict criteria of biological sustainability
but instead emphasize social and economic sustainability more strongly (e.g.
Hickley and Chare, 2004).
Achieving sustainability in recreational fisheries, and in capture fisheries
in general, will almost always involve the management and conservation of
the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional
change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction
of human needs for present and future generations (FAO, 1997a). Such a
process conserves natural resources, is environmentally non-degrading,
technologically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable
(FAO, 1995). Because many recreational fisheries are strongly affected by
stakeholders and actions outside recreational fisheries (e.g. habitat loss in
engineered rivers, overexploitation by commercial fisheries), sustainability
of recreational fisheries will be facilitated by integrated management plans
and depends on cross-sectoral interactions (Cowx, 1998). One important
caveat is the need to address the low sociopolitical priority that recreational
fisheries experience in some countries (Arlinghaus, Mehner and Cowx, 2002),
which may even result in access constraints (e.g. in nature conservation areas,
Arlinghaus [2005, 2006a]) and the disregard of the legitimate interest of
recreational fisheries in water management decision-making.
2.2 Towards aquatic stewardship

Promoting sustainable recreational fisheries not only demands their integration
into overarching decision-making affecting aquatic ecosystems and water,
but also depends on the internalization of a suitable moral compass guiding

thought and action within the recreational fisheries sector. The zeitgeist that
best aligns with a number of challenging issues characterized by coupled
social-ecological systems such as recreational fisheries is the concept of aquatic
stewardship (Figure 4). Aquatic stewardship, or environmental stewardship as
more generally developed by Chapin, Kofina and Folke (2009) and Chapin
et al. (2010), constitutes an action-oriented normative framework to foster the
social-ecological sustainability of natural resource use. The central goal of a
stewardship approach for the management and governance actors is to achieve
sustainability by maintaining the capacity of aquatic ecosystems to provide the
full range of services that benefit society (or part of it, e.g. recreational fisheries).
This is contingent on sustaining and enhancing the integrity and diversity of
ecosystems as well as fostering the adaptive capacity and well-being of the
social system to be able to deal with complex adaptive systems. From the
perspective of each individual actor or fisher in recreational fisheries, aquatic
stewardship constitutes the moral obligation to care for aquatic environments,
and the actions undertaken to provide that care (Knuth and Siemer, 2007). This
includes care for habitats and the exploited fish populations and also the care
for each individual fish that is captured. (Chapter 6, and Cooke and Sneddon,
2007). Because diversity provides the raw material on which selection and
future innovation are based, both in the human and the non-human world, its
maintenance across all levels is key to the aquatic stewardship framework.
The proposed framework of aquatic stewardship is an explicit strategy to
respond to and shape social-ecological systems, such as recreational fisheries,
under conditions of uncertainty and change, both ecologically and socially, to
sustain the supply and opportunities for use of ecosystem services to support
human well-being (Chapin, Kofina and Folke, 2009; Chapin et al., 2010). This
requires not only appropriate individual actions by recreational fishers, but also
a radical shift in how management of recreational fisheries, and indeed fisheries
in general, is perceived (Chapter 3 and 5). The framework of traditional stock
management, often with ill-defined objectives, such as maximum sustainable
yield (MSY) (Larkin, 1977), or a rigid approach to ecosystem management, is
complemented by emphasis on multiple objectives and precautionary, adaptive
and flexible (Chapter 3) management of critical, low turnover rate variables.
These critical variables involve spawning habitat, genotypic diversity,
biodiversity, human value diversity, institutional diversity, and the feedbacks
between social and natural systems. These variables might be slow in turnover,
but they are the key ingredients determining the future trajectory of a social-
Figure 4
Schematic diagram showing the evolution of renewable
resource-management regimes observed in many Western nations
Aquatic stewardship
Sustainability
Ecosystem management
Single-objective, steady-
Overfishing state management (MSY)
Time of exploitation of a fish stock
Notes: Dashed arrows show opportunities for developing nations to “leapfrog” from current
management directly based on single objective, “steady-state” management (such as
maximum sustainable yield [MSY]) to ecosystem stewardship. The dark-to-light gradient
represents the probability of increased sustainability.
Source: Modified from Chapin et al. (2010).
ecological system and, therefore, require particular management attention

(Figure 4, Biggs, Carpenter and Brock, 2009; Carpenter et al., 2011).
Critical slow variables are important in contemporary recreational fisheries
management because they determine system thresholds and regime shifts
(Carpenter et al., 2011). From many ecosystems and recreational fisheries
(e.g. Persson et al. 2007), it is known that abrupt, sudden shifts in system
states are possible once critical thresholds are reached, many of which are
affected by exploitation or fisheries management strategies such as stocking
(Box 2). The critical states are usually not known and difficult for a fisheries
manager to predict because changes in critical slow variables tend not to induce
marked impacts over a large range of the variable, and thus tend to go initially
unnoticed for a long time. Therefore, managers and recreational fishers tend to
Box 2
Alternative stable states and regime shifts in recreational fisheries
There is a range of examples of unexpected system shifts in recreational

fisheries. Such patterns are to be expected as a result of strongly species-
selective and size-selective exploitation of top predators in complex food webs
(e.g. Brock and Carpenter, 2007; Persson et al., 2007; Biggs, Carpenter and
Brock, 2009). In particular, when such exploitation of top predators merges with
recreational-fishing-induced alterations of critical slow habitat variables such
as dead woody debris in lakes, sudden system shifts between states with and
without abundant large-sized top predators may occur. Carpenter et al. (2011)
found that the addition of top predators to a lake via stocking, with stocking
rates being the critical slow variable of interest, may similarly yield a shift in the
fish community composition and the size structure of stocked top predators,
potentially leading to a regime shift towards a loss of prey fish and a dominance
of top predators. Another example is the critical slow variable spawning habitat,
which when eroded may not substantially affect adult population size until a
certain threshold is reached after which impacts are severe (Minns et al., 1996).
Finally, the slowly changing variable of the relative fitness of stocked non-native
genotypes versus wild recruits might effect a sudden replacement of the wild
stock by the non-native genotypes. For example, a stocking model by van
Poorten et al. (2011) showed that, once a certain relative fitness threshold of
stocked fish has been crossed, continuous stocking may result in the loss of wild
gene pools in light of the potential for existence of two alternative states – one
with and one without the existence of wild genotypes. Overall, paying attention
to thresholds and regime shifts and the underlying critical slow variables and
feedbacks inducing such shifts is important in the aquatic stewardship norm,
in turn motivating recreational fisheries management to adopt precautionary
approaches and an ecosystem perspective.
be unresponsive to changes in critical slow variables until it is too late and the
system has flipped into a potentially stable alternative state. Such abrupt but
often stable changes include loss of top predators, the establishment of stocked
genotypes and replacement of wild fish, the spread of an undesired non-native
fish or the stable change in a regulatory environment (Arlinghaus, 2007; Brock
and Carpenter, 2007, Biggs, Carpenter and Brock, 2009; Horan et al., 2011).
Another critical aspect of the framework is the focus on managing

(positive or negative) feedbacks between recreational fishers and fish stocks
in addition to more traditional metrics such as optimal social yield (Johnston,
Arlinghaus and Dieckmann, 2010) or other objectives. Negative (amplifying)
feedbacks may, for example, result in ever-increasing stocking levels to meet
every-increasing angler expectations (Johnson and Staggs, 1992) that may in
turn prove catastrophic for recreationally exploited fish stocks (van Poorten
et al., 2011). Aquatic stewardship would then call upon the management of the
feedback loop rather than MSY or other management objectives per se, e.g. by
education of anglers in realistic expectations, by reducing the responsiveness
of managers to angler dissatisfaction or by altered incentives. Positive
(stabilizing) feedback loops are also possible, e.g. when anglers remain
attracted to poor-catch fisheries because of desirable aspects other than catch.
However, while these stabilizing feedback loops might increase stability, they
are not necessarily desirable and need to be managed. For example, inverse
density-dependent catchability – a depensatory mechanism (Post et al., 2002,
2008) – may interact with unresponsive recreational fishing effort to cause
widespread collapse of recreationally exploited fish stocks across a landscape
(Hunt et al., 2011).
To conclude, the ethical framework of aquatic stewardship strives towards
sustainable and responsible recreational fisheries, acknowledging multiple
objectives that may be region-specific or locality-specific contingent on
implementation of actions and strategies that maintain and improve the biotic
communities and the aquatic ecosystems of which humans are a part (sensu
Leopold [1949]). To facilitate this, the action-oriented framework has the
following core areas and principles:
• a focus on adaptation and flexibility in management processes and the
building of adaptive management capacity (Chapter 3);
• avoidance of narrowly focused management objectives and reference
points such as MSY (Figure 2.1);
• a focus on the management of resiliency of the coupled social-
ecological system and its critical feedbacks and variables while
maintaining the full range of biological, stakeholder and institutional
diversity;
• incorporation of the interests of multiple stakeholders and their
knowledge in the planning of management interventions and fisheries-
management decision-making;
• emphasis on each individual’s fisher and actor contribution to

ecological sustainability by adhering to pro-environmental behaviours.
In this context, the aquatic stewardship framework embraces both the
precautionary and the ecosystem approaches (Chapter 3) and targets actions
that foster the diversity of future options by conserving biotic integrity rather
than a single presumed, usually unrealistic optimum (e.g. MSY). Managing
the diversity at all levels will provide system resilience in the face of unknown
futures and possible sudden disturbances to the recreational fisheries system
(Chapin, Kofina and Folke, 2009). Therefore, uncertainty and change become
expected features of aquatic ecosystem stewardship rather than impediments
to management actions (Chapin et al., 2010).
23
3. Management framework for

sustainable recreational fisheries
W
ith aquatic stewardship for sustainability as the key normative
framework governing recreational fisheries (Chapter 2), a guiding
framework is now needed for “day-to-day” management as developed
in more detail in Chapters 5 and 6. Given pervasive uncertainties stemming from
a range of non-linear interactions between recreational fishers and fish stocks
(Carpenter and Brock, 2004; Biggs, Carpenter and Brock, 2009; Hunt et al.,
2011), the focus is on adaptive management (AM) and structured decision-
making as the core rigorous management process. This is in turn a nested
element of, and affected by, overarching key fisheries management principles
such as the ecosystem approach and the precautionary approach (PA; Figure 5).
Uncertainty in recreational fisheries is pervasive, including productivity
and size of stocks, importance of genetic diversity, impacts of alien species,
behaviour of recreational fishers, expectations of various fisher types, stock
condition in relation to management objectives and reference points, levels
and distribution of fishing mortality, future climate and species invasions, and
a range of social and economic drivers. The following process and principles
tackle this uncertainty and enable robust decisions to help implement the
overarching normative framework of aquatic stewardship. Because one source
of pervasive uncertainty is the biological impact of recreational fishing or
fisheries management (e.g. release of hatchery fish) on the ecosystem and
biodiversity, an AM approach also constitutes a means to respond to the
demands of the risk-averse ecosystem approach (FAO, 2003; Arlinghaus and
Cowx, 2008) to fisheries and the PA (FAO, 1996). Moreover, AM is at the
core of the normative framework of aquatic stewardship by acknowledging
multiple objectives and sources of knowledge, multiple ecological services of
interest, the critical importance of feedback and key system variables, and the
need for continuous learning and adaptation to change to iteratively approach
an “optimal” management solution in the long term.
Figure 5 visualizes the nested structure of management principles affecting
the core management process of AM and is unfolded from the inside (i.e. AM
and structured decision-making) and can then be modified by ecosystem and
precautionary approaches to match local and regional conditions.
Figure 5
The nested structure of management principles affecting the core
management process of adaptive management
Ecosystem approach
Normative framework that addresses key social –
ecological feedbacks and promotes system sustainability
Precautionary approach
Management principle that acknowledges
environmental risks to prevent irreversible harm
to ecosystems and stocks
Management process
Explicit in objectives, open, inclusive and
encompassing of all stakeholder desires
Adaptive management
Learning through monitoring of
management interventions
Structured
decision-making
Rigorous framework for
stakeholder input and choosing
management options
Notes: The core management process of adaptive management (AM) in recreational

fisheries management is perceived as nested in, and being affected by, overarching
management principles (PA), which are in turn derived from the guiding normative
frameworks of the ecosystem approach and aquatic stewardship. Core elements of
each component are given inside each box. The dotted line visualizes the flexibility and
context-dependence of the prevailing normative. By contrast, the suggested management
process of decision-making is less open to change, and, similarly, the underlying risk-
averse approach to avoid irreversible loss to ecosystem structure and function will prevail
in the light of pervasive data uncertainties that characterize many of today’s recreational
fisheries. Note that AM can mean either passive or active AM.
3.1 Overview on adaptive management

Adaptive management constitutes a strategic management approach to
sustainable fisheries management, which is designed to confront pervasive
uncertainties and social and ecological risks associated either with exploitation
Management framework for sustainable recreational fisheries 25
Figure 6
Adaptive management of recreational fisheries
Stakeholde
r inv
olv
em
en
Define the t
problem
Identify
Adjust objectives
Str
ion uc
tat
Formulate
tur
and adap
Evaluate evaluation
ed d
Adaptive criteria
ecis
Management
io
ing
Estimate
Monitor
n ma outcomes
rn
a kin
Le g
Evaluate
Implement tradeoffs
Decide
nt
me
olve
inv
Stakeholder
Notes: Adaptive management of renewable natural resources such as fish is a formalized

iterative process that acknowledges uncertainty and achieves management objectives
by increasing system knowledge through monitoring, feedback and revision of objectives
and means to achieve objectives. Integral to it are both a decision component and an
opportunity to learn. Structured decision-making (grey circles) is an organized and
transparent approach to the decision process for identifying and evaluating alternatives and
justifying complex decisions. However, structured decision-making does not necessitate
the iteration and consequential higher-order learning (white circles) inherent in adaptive
management.
Source: Modified from Allen et al. (2011).
or management actions supporting recreational fisheries (and other natural

resource use) (Figure 6). The conceptual underpinnings for AM are simple
although practical implementation may be challenging in terms of financial and
human resources and the time needed to secure a successful project (Walters,
2007). However, it is not advocated to engage in rigorous, experimental active
AM in all recreational fisheries. Instead, there are many less-demanding
forms of passive AM that seem suitable for recreational fisheries management

worldwide. In particular, the circular, rigorous, open and inclusive management
process that AM advocates is of core importance for successful fisheries
management, and this process may be implemented with a range of data
sources, often qualitative, and is therefore much less resource-heavy than first
appears.
The reason why engagement in some form of AM is advocated for
recreational fisheries is simple. There will always be inherent uncertainty
and unpredictability in the dynamics and behaviour of complex social-
ecological systems such as recreational fisheries, e.g. as a result of non-linear
interactions among mobile, heterogeneous recreational fishers and spatially
structured fish populations in light of natural stochasticity in fish recruitment,
yet management decisions must still be made. However, precisely because of
the context dependence, complexity and unpredictability of many ecological
and social-ecological processes in fisheries, the outcome of any management
action can rarely be predicted with certainty, motivating variants of AM for
natural resource management (Williams, 2011a, 2011b). The strength of AM is
in the recognition and confrontation of uncertainties by emphasizing learning
through management intervention and observing the reaction of the fishery
(i.e. system) to any intervention (Walters and Hilborn, 1978; Walters, 1986).
Adaptive management has thus been characterized as “learning by doing”,
informed “trial-and-error” management or “experimental management”. It is
proposed here simply as a cyclic process-oriented approach to recreational
fisheries management that follows a rigorous procedure of objective setting in
dialogue with relevant stakeholders, initial policy and/or management action
choice, evaluation of likely effects of these management choices in light of
risk aversion to ecological or socio-economic impacts, decision on a policy or
tool, subsequent management action implementation and, most importantly,
monitoring of social and ecological outcomes, which then may lead to modified
objectives in the future (Figure 6).
While quantitative monitoring data are desirable in the evaluation feedback
loop, it is advocated to use all available data and experiences in the adaptive
process, which can involve qualitative data in data-poor situations or in
recreational fisheries that are too small in scope or value to justify a major
stock-assessment exercise. Any data source and experience may be helpful in
AM as a tool to evaluate responses and successes, so the lack of quantitative
data or experts should not devalue the process itself. The important point for all
recreational fisheries is that good fisheries management practice necessitates
a cyclic, open, inclusive process to management in light of previously agreed,

explicit and operational fisheries objectives that are derived based on the
overarching normative frameworks of the ecosystem approach and aquatic
stewardship, and ideally in consultation with stakeholders (Chapter 5).
However, in many recreational fisheries, no such rigorous process of planning
is followed, which increases the likelihood of mismanagement. Therefore, it is
proposed that some variant of AM should be implemented in all recreational
fisheries management systems, ranging from the small angling club exploiting
an urban fishery to the coastal marine fisheries for large top predators that
operate jointly with commercial fisheries. Although there will be differences in
data quality and quantity, number of stakeholders to be considered, resources,
time investment in the process, frequency and periods of updates, and the
procedures and funding needed to put AM into practice, the general philosophy
will be similar – management actions are decided upon following a cyclic,
open, inclusive approach in light of objectives and considering overarching
management principles (e.g. ecosystem approach). This will ultimately
improve both the understanding of how the system works and the quality of the
fishery, to in turn improve future management actions in the light of potentially
revised goals and objectives.
The core idea of AM is thus to identify iteratively and over time an
“optimal” management portfolio in the light of objectives, because a priori
identification of this mix is usually impossible or confronted by scientific
uncertainty, stakeholder distrust or disagreement about proper actions and
their effects. Where this is the case, only a whole-system “experiment” can
provide an answer. In essence, what is tested or explored in AM is the effect
of management intervention on recreational fisheries and adjacent system
components by monitoring outcomes on system variables (e.g. fish, angler
welfare) and evaluating results in terms of objectives.
It is important to realize that AM comes in many variants and need not be
strictly experimental in the sense of a replicated scientific experiment where
one would treat, for example, entire fisheries as sampling units and assign
treatments (e.g. harvest regulations or stocking rates of varying degree) to
test their effects in the social, economic and biological domains. In fact, most
applications of AM are much less rigorous and less controlled and replicated
for practical reasons (e.g. lack of funding of subsequent monitoring activities,
lack of time to invest into the process, or political inability of managers to
push systems to extremes; Walters, 2007). However, even non-replicated case
studies are preferred to unmonitored and unplanned actions because such so-
called passive AM still helps to understand the impact of actions and to learn
how the system “works” (Figure 7; Williams, 2011a, 2011b).
Active AM (Walters, 1986) is more advanced and involves deliberate testing
of alternative methods and management interventions at the scale of replicated
whole-system experiments. Such an approach involves hypotheses about the
system in response to some management intervention and the subsequent
testing of its effects at field levels. Owing to its experimental focus, active AM
is more rigorous than passive AM, which is a “try something, and if it does not
work try something else” approach with ad hoc revision of strategy through
time (Figure 7; Williams, 2011a, 2011b). Where funding and human-resource
Figure 7
Types of adaptive management
Active, experimental adaptive management
Implement Successful
Option (A)
Develop Implement
Partly Compare
Management Implement Management
succesful outcomes
Option Option (B) Option (A)
Implement Unsuccessful
Option (C)
Increasing degree of inference

Continue
Step-wise passive adaptive Successful Management
management Option (A)
Develop Implement
Management Management
Option Option (A)
Discontinue Implement
Unsuccessful Management Management
Option (B) Option (B)
Continue
Trial-and-error passive adaptive Successful Management
management
Option
Develop Implement
Management Management
Option Option
Unsuccessful
Passive adaptive management with no closed feedback
Develop Implement
Management Management See what
Option Option happens
Note: The learning and degree of information gain (inference) possible among approaches
to recreational fisheries management varies, increasing from little or none in passive
adaptive management to much in the active adaptive management approach.
Source: Modified from Allen et al. (2011).
limitations constrain experimental AM, the most commonly applied strategy

for recreational fisheries will probably be some variant of passive AM.
The time, financial and political limitations and challenges of AM need to
be recognized. Any AM that involves time-consuming stakeholder processes,
contested management decisions, computer model building/analyses, and field
testing of alternatives will not be a viable option for understaffed recreational
fisheries management systems. For example, for small recreational fisheries
governed by clubs and associations, the monitoring needs and expertise for
active AM would be prohibitive. However, passive AM may still be possible,
e.g. in water-rich landscapes where hundreds or thousands of lakes are to
be managed in light of uncertainties. Here, a region-based or space-based
monitoring scheme could still be preferred to a lack of monitoring, in particular
when wanting to manage fisheries from a “landscape” perspective where lakes
and rivers are connected by mobile recreational fishers. Under these conditions,
the management of individual lakes and rivers may not be advisable (Lester
et al., 2003; Post et al., 2008; Hunt et al., 2011) and some form of “regional
monitoring” is needed to identify optimal management solutions tailored to
the landscape (usually based on geoclimactic features that underlie biological
processes, e.g. an ecoregion) or management unit. Such an approach may not be
experimental in the spirit of active AM, but instead be a version of passive AM
by testing a range of previously agreed strategies in a more ad hoc version.
Passive AM comes in three variants, as outlined in Figure 7. Similar to
active AM, passive AM focuses on predefined, mutually agreed fishery
objectives and envisages learning about the system dynamics as a useful but
unintended by-product of decision-making (Walters, 1986). What is learned
from passive AM will be less than from active AM, but similarly lower are the
needs for expertise and resource, which increases its suitability for recreational
fisheries and means that it can be implemented by the smallest angling club.
Active AM differs from passive AM based on trial and error by the structure
used in decision-making, which involves the articulation of quantifiable
objectives, identification of management alternatives, predictions of
management consequences based on explicit recognition of key uncertainties,
implementation of the most probable actions and monitoring of field data
to determine what worked best in reality at the scale of entire fisheries or
ecosystems (Walters, 1986). Based on the outcome, the best management
approach can then be identified and pursued further (Figure 7). Thus, in active
AM, learning through ad hoc trial and error is replaced by learning by careful
design and testing (Walters, 1997). For example, discussion among stakeholders
about the best way to manage a range of lakes for a given target species might
lead to conflict. Active AM would use a model-based analysis to build several
hypothesis about how the system would probably react to certain management
variants, and, after identifying the most successful alternative (given previously
defined objectives), allocate treatments (e.g. variants of stocking or size limits)
to sampling units (e.g. lakes) to test effects under real conditions. Then,
intensive monitoring of system variables (e.g. catches, relative abundance)
would be used to test which variant performed best and what other expected
or unexpected impacts occurred (e.g. biodiversity impacts). Monitoring of the
response of the system to the various actions would then provide insights for
revising the quantitative or qualitative models of the system (learning) and
subsequent decision-making (adaptation) (Figures 6 and 7).
Such active AM increases the ability of managers and stakeholders to learn
about the outcomes of various management regimes, but there are daunting
tasks involved with successful projects (e.g. financial resources for long-term
monitoring on large spatial scales). Moreover, active AM projects require a
range of types of expertise (e.g. modelling, experimental design, statistics, field
research), which usually limits its applicability in fisheries practice (Walters,
1997, 2007). Nevertheless, engaging in some sort of flexible, adaptive strategy,
including variants of the passive trial-and-error approaches in Figure 7,
is always advisable as this will promote locality-specific approaches that
work “pretty well” in the long term (analogously to the “pretty good yield”
perspective by Hilborn [2010] for commercial fisheries).
3.2 Adaptive management with structured decision-making

Ideally, AM, no matter which variant, should be combined with structured
decision-making (SDM; Box 3). Central to the success of the SDM process
in recreational fisheries management (Irwin et al., 2011) is the requirement
to articulate fundamental (long-term desired outcomes) and operational (i.e.,
quantifiable) objectives clearly, acknowledge uncertainty explicitly, and
respond transparently to all stakeholder interests in the decision process, even
if this delays decision-making – the process thus also helps consensus building
and conflict management. Structured decision-making can be conducted using
quantitative tools (e.g. models of fish populations and the interaction with
recreational fishers) as exemplified by the case study of Irwin et al. (2011)
or by qualitative means (e.g. conceptual maps of how the system variables
interact with each other) to identify plausible management alternatives in light
of objectives.
Box 3
Adaptive management with structured decision-making
Management options are usually multifaceted, and any given action will probably
have environmental, social and economic implications. Stakeholders may have
conflicting views about goals for the fishery and the means to achieve them.
Thus, choosing a course of action can be a daunting task. Adaptive management
with structured decision-making (SDM) is a process well suited to complex
environmental problems (Kendall, 2001; Irwin et al., 2011). This process can
help policy-makers, managers and stakeholders think clearly about the system,
entertain multiple objectives, evaluate trade-offs between actions, and decide
what action to implement. When the process is combined with modelling and
multiple sources of uncertainty, a management strategy evaluation framework
can follow, which outlines a set of plausible management tools with their
associated costs and benefits resulting in trade-offs. Irwin et al. (2011) outline
an SDM approach applied to various inland and marine recreational fisheries in
the United States of America.
In most fishery management situations, decisions are made with considerable
uncertainty. Adaptive management explicitly captures uncertainty and allows
for multiple working hypotheses (e.g. alternative models for the system and its
response to management). Management strategies should evolve as knowledge
and experience are gained. Thus, actions need to be adjusted as new information
becomes available. Adaptive management is an iterative form of SDM that
promotes learning to reduce uncertainty and improve management outcomes.
Structured decision-making:
• is a rigorous framework for identifying and evaluating alternatives, and
then making choices in complex situations (Hammond, Keeney and
Raifa, 1999);
• can transform command and control structures from top-down
designation of problems and imposition of management solutions to a
more pluralistic approach in which stakeholders play a formal role;
• requires explicit, objective quantification of the problem and solutions
but also provides a rigorous means to incorporate subjective information
(e.g. stakeholder values, expert opinion);
• increases transparency of management knowledge and decision-making,
recognizes alternative views of problems and solutions, and provides
for accountability and learning when decisions do not produce desired
outcomes;
• is a suitable procedural approach to fisheries management decision-
making in recreational fisheries and can ideally be combined with
adaptive management.
A structured approach to decision-making in recreational fisheries is suitable

for the implementation of AM by promoting stakeholder involvement in the
setting of objectives, discussion of plausible alternative tools and evaluation
criteria, and evaluation of alternatives. The goal is careful identification of
agreed management alternatives. These may then be tested in the virtual world
of a computer (management strategy evaluation, e.g. Mapstone et al. [2008])
or be tested in real recreational fisheries using some variants of AM (Figures 6
and 7). The progress can be combined and a subset of tools be implemented
in reality as a proof of the modelling predictions. Generally, AM is enhanced
where SDM is done in collaboration with the full spectrum of stakeholders,
whereupon the suite of potential management actions becomes richer and
stakeholders may be more supportive of management actions when they were
part of their choice and development (Irwin et al., 2011).
3.3 Adaptive management and the precautionary and

ecosystem approaches
Adaptive management with SDM depends on the identification of various
potentially suitable management directions and tools to be considered and
possibly tested for their effects. This involves difficult decisions as to which
management tools to consider in principle and which evaluative criteria to
use to prescreen suitable tools. Here, some general principles of risk-averse
environmental management, in particular the PA and the ecosystem approach to
fisheries (EAF; Figure 5), are to be considered as important principles framing
management decision-making in recreational fisheries. These principles
have been found useful in fisheries management in general, and are similarly
relevant to recreational fisheries in the light of potential negative consequences
of exploitation and selected management tools (e.g. release of unsuitable fish
via stocking) for aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems (see Chapter 1).
The explicit consideration of precautionary approaches and the ecosystem
approach in AM in this context is ultimately motivated by the normative
framework of the ecosystem approach and aquatic stewardship as elaborated
above and summarized in Figure 5. In this context, the EAF is characterized 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
ecosystems” (FAO, 2003). Thus, it is conceptually equivalent to the aquatic
stewardship norm in Chapter 2. According to FAO (2003), the EAF shall:
• manage fisheries so as to limit their impact 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;
• avoid changes that are not potentially reversible within 2–3 decades or
correct them promptly without delay if technically feasible.
To move forward specifically in the AM of recreational fisheries, the first
step is to accept that ecosystem-level impacts are possible through recreational
fishing, rather than discounting such effects as has happened in the past
(Arlinghaus, 2006a). Then, rather than focus on target species only, a broader
ecosystem outlook is needed, and this ecosystem perspective should then
be used in the routine assessment and evaluation of alternative management
options, including risk analysis in the cycle of AM prior to initiating action
(Chapter 5). The EAF principle thus supplements the narrow, “piscicentric”
perspective on a single target species or a single fishery that is still prevalent
in places (Arlinghaus and Cowx, 2008). In some situations, however, a purely
target-species-directed perspective may be needed for practical reasons and
to meet stakeholder demands, and this will not be an issue as long as planned
interventions have no wider ecosystem-level effects. Overall, the EAF is to be
viewed as a principle to account for ecosystem processes in the formulation of
fisheries management measures (Sissenwine and Murawaski, 2004). Thus, the
EAF emphasizes an evolution of fisheries management rather than a revolution
as is sometimes perceived (Mace, 2004; Rice, 2011).
Where knowledge about system dynamics is insufficient, as is often the case
in small inland recreational fisheries scattered over hundreds of lakes and rivers
(Post et al., 2002; Arlinghaus, 2006a), the EAF also calls for precautionary
recreational fishery management measures that minimize ecological risks in
light of recreational fisher responses that are dynamic and difficult to predict
(Arlinghaus and Cowx, 2008). Thus, the so-called precautionary approach1
1
The precautionary approach is not to be confused with the precautionary principle
originally emanating from environmental law and policy. The latter emphasizes that any
risk is “too much” and often results in delay or even constraint on any fisheries management
decisions. The precautionary approach argues in favour of taking environmental risk into
account and basing decisions with risks in mind (Peterman, 2004). Relatedly, the absence of
data should not be a reason for postponing actions provided these actions have a reasonable
likelihood of success. These actions are to be chosen precautionarily and commensurate with
the potential for ecological impact. Thus the precautionary approach should not be misused
as a tool against management.
(PA) is proposed as a final guiding principle of AM processes in recreational

fisheries; it will affect the management tools considered in structured decision-
making (Figure 5). The PA “exercises prudent foresight to avoid unacceptable
or undesirable situations, taking into account that changes in fisheries systems
are only slowly reversible, difficult to control, not well understood, and subject
to change in the environment and human values” (FAO, 1996). A key point to
understand is that, if faced with considerable uncertainty and risks, and if it is
not clear which action to choose, actions should be chosen to give priority to
conserving the biological productivity over the long term rather than satisfying
short-term economic or social demands (Peterman, 2004). This can involve
setting safety margins in relation to clearly articulated limit or target reference
points in terms of, say, how much fishing mortality or effort to tolerate or how
strong a decline in fish biomass to accept (e.g. spawning biomass in relation
to virgin stock size). All activities that strongly modify food webs, e.g. by
selectively removing keystone species and therefore predation control, by
strongly altering the size and age structure of stocks (which alters predation
pressure and enhances variability in recruitment [van Kooten et al., 2010;
Hsieh et al., 2010]) or by altering nutrient cycling or predation pressure through
bottom-up or top-down processes (Lathrop et al., 2002), are to be thoroughly
reviewed and the risks and costs and benefits properly valued (Francis et al.,
2007) in the SDM process in the AM cycle. Usually, in the face of trade-offs
between social and economic benefits, the EAF and the PA will thus affect the
AM planning process by determining “risk-averse” objectives and the choice
and evaluation of principally useful management strategies (Garcia, 1994;
Fenichel et al., 2008), in turn motivating the carefully evaluated choice of
actions that promise no strong effect or modification of the ecosystem (e.g.
release of non-native genotypes).
3.4 Conclusions
Adaptive management constitutes a suitable management process for
recreational fisheries. It is particularly useful where the system to be managed
exhibits high controllability (e.g. the management body can determine
management actions for all relevant fisheries, and the systems are reasonably
closed, e.g. lakes) but uncertainty about outcomes of particular management
actions is high (e.g. whether stocking really enhances fisheries) (Allen and
Gunderson, 2011). There are some situations where recreational fisheries is
either not important enough socio-economically or politically and the system
to be managed is open (e.g. ocean). Still, the core idea of the proposed adaptive,
35
iterative management process is valid even under these situations (although

its implementation will be more difficult) by forcing decision-makers to
express objectives, plausible management tools and evaluate their effects after
implementation.
Thus, with few exceptions, it seems that, for every recreational fishery,
appreciation of the general management philosophy of AM using an SDM
framework could be helpful and may indeed be implemented with a range
of simple participatory (to identify objectives and strategy decisions) and
monitoring (assessment of outcomes) tools in light of principles of the EAF
and the PA. For example, in smaller angling clubs in central Europe that lack
the scientific expertise or human resources to engage in sophisticated fishery-
independent monitoring of fisheries management actions, passive AM may
well be conducted using recreational fisher diaries, as long as people provide
sound data about catches and sizes of catch. This can be promoted by good
interpersonal communication skills and an inclusive management process
based on mutual understanding about the need to monitor key variables of
the fishery (Chapter 5). This helps managers and stakeholders collaborate
and choose risk-averse management actions despite uncertainties about the
system, with a view to agreement on actions that reduce future uncertainties
while maximizing learning, system knowledge and benefits to the recreational
fishers.
37
4. Policy and institutional frameworks
C
oherent and effective fishery management requires an appropriate policy
and institutional framework that usually involves fisheries laws and
regulations as well as organizations or community-derived alternative
structures that fulfil important roles in the governance and management of
fisheries. Because recreational fisheries are complex social-ecological systems,
the purview of “management organizations” (those persons or organizations
with the authority to make management decisions about the fishery) includes
oversight of the ecological system and a variety of human interactions
with the biota and the environment, with a view to avoiding undesirable
ecological impacts and optimizing socio-economic benefits. “Managers”
are broadly defined and, depending on property rights, may be: (i) the State
(e.g. government fisheries agencies); (ii) organizations such as fishing clubs;
or (iii) communities with strong ties to the fishery. In many economically
developed nations, pure community-based management systems are rare, and
management organizations of the latter two types cooperate with government
managers to some degree, although there is large variance across the world
(Daedlow, Beard and Arlinghaus, 2011). Stakeholders are diverse and may
have conflicting interests, so policy should provide the means for development
of a framework of fishing-rights and management institutions. Moreover,
appropriate mechanisms for gathering input and managing conflicts within
and among user groups are needed if recreational fisheries management is to
succeed (Chapter 5). Management organizations must have sufficient authority
to enact regulations for the development, management and conservation of
recreational fishery resources under their stewardship.
To encourage compliance with regulations, management organizations
must not only enforce them but also educate stakeholders, and there must be
adequate network links to the various managers of the ecosystem, e.g. water
managers and fisheries managers. Sufficient funding is required to execute
management, outreach, monitoring and enforcement responsibilities. Because
recreational fishery management has societal benefits (e.g. economic value,
environmental conservation), such funding is often provided by both user groups
and the general public. However, many management bodies are understaffed
and can only fulfil their most rudimentary obligations related to monitoring of
recreational fish stocks and rule compliance (Arlinghaus, 2006a).
4.1 Governance structures

Structure and function of the governance framework must be clearly delineated
to ensure transparency and to promote among stakeholders both trust in decisions
and respect for authority. Three common approaches to governance of natural
resources affect authority, access, and privileges or rights to catch or manage
fish: (i) State control; (ii) private control; and (iii) community-based control
(e.g. control by a group of people) (Table 1). Historically, inland recreational
fisheries in many countries (e.g. the United States of America, Canada,
Australia) and most coastal and marine fisheries have been managed under
the first model, with government assuming full management authority over the
fish and fisheries in the public’s trust. Governmental organizations may use
independent boards or commissions to review agency policy and act as arbiters
of disputes between agencies and stakeholders. Many small-scale commercial,
artisanal and subsistence fisheries worldwide and some recreational fisheries
in countries such as Germany (Daedlow, Beard and Arlinghaus, 2011), Austria
and the Netherlands (Arlinghaus, Mehner and Cowx, 2002) are managed under
the second model, whereby a subset of users holds access and management
rights to the resource, sometimes assisted by governmental agencies enforcing
fisheries laws. In these situations, private fisheries user groups (e.g. fishing
clubs) are responsible for managing their waterbodies provided that actions
agree with a general legal framework designed by the state fisheries agencies
that in turn enforce legal regulations. In Finland, statutory fishery associations
represent the actual owners of waters, i.e. shareholders associations for areas
held in common by a registered village (Sipponen and Valkeajärvi, 2002). This
joint possession of private waters is also found in Sweden.
Community-based management (Ostrom, 1990), in which resource-
based communities have primary responsibility for management, has been
advocated in recent years as one means to improve fisheries management
(Gutierrez, Hilborn and Defeo, 2011). Organizational structure varies greatly
across communities, and many members and subgroups may play a role in
management, hence, identifying “the manager” may be difficult. Regardless
of the governance structure and the fishing rights in place, some roles of state
control may still be needed, such as setting overall environmental policy and
regulations that apply to recreational fishers and the rest of society. For this
reason, private control and community-based management arrangements are
often forms of comanagement, wherein the resource is managed cooperatively
with the government.
Policy and institutional frameworks 39
TABLE 1
Three common forms of governance of natural resources and some features of each
State control Community-based Private control
Manager Government agencies Community or Rights holder
and their employees tribal members,
paid staff, councils,
fishers, fishing and
tourism business
representatives
Sometimes in conjunction with State that
protects public interests and enforces laws
(“comanagement”)
Access and Open or provision of Dictated by Dictated by rights holder
withdrawal fishing rights (may community
require licensing)
Features Prevents conflicts Captures local Thought to promote
of interest in knowledge stewardship of resource,
management but science-based
decisions management difficult
Management and Costs dispersed May be better tailored
monitoring can be from agency to local to local conditions than
coordinated across communities broad-scale government
management units control, potentially more
economically efficient
“Blueprint approach” Can prioritize Has not always resulted

fails to tailor stakeholder in better stewardship of
management to local opinions over resource
context objective data
Users may become Delayed decision- Conservation of
disenfranchised making biodiversity or other
societal goals potentially
de-emphasized
Note: In many cases, the governance system possesses attributes of more than one form of
governance.
Source: Derived from Daedlow, Beard and Arlinghaus (2011).
4.2 Access, rules, compliance and enforcement

A legal framework for recreational fisheries is usually needed in order to
vest rights, identify parties holding rights, determine agents responsible for
management, set fees and licensing requirements, and develop regulations
governing the protection, promotion, management and use of the resource.
The authorities responsible for enforcement of regulations and penalties

for non-compliance must also be established. In the case of transboundary
stocks, straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks that are fished by two or
more management organizations, the authorities should cooperate to develop
consistent and effective policies for conservation and for management of the
stocks and fishers.
Fisheries management organizations require sufficient funding and
authority to enact policy in order to ensure that the fundamental goals of
fishery management are achieved: (i) conservation of biodiversity; (ii)
biologically sustainable use of its components; and (iii) equitable sharing of
benefits among diverse stakeholders (Chapter 2; Welcomme, 2001). More
specifically, management organizations should adopt policies to protect and
promote access to recreational fisheries, and for the sustainable development,
conservation and management of recreational fishing and fishery resources
(EIFAC, 2008, Article 6). Actions on the land (e.g. development, grazing,
mining, agriculture) usually have direct impacts on aquatic ecosystems, yet
fisheries management organizations in many countries have very limited
power to control terrestrial factors. Moreover, other water interests (e.g.
hydropower, irrigation, navigation) and commercial fisheries may possess
higher use priority than do recreational fisheries. Therefore, it is essential
that recreational fishery managers cooperate with other authorities, and vice
versa, to ensure that environmental regulations provide adequate protection
for fished ecosystems and that fishery management practices are compatible
with other uses of the environment. Such cooperation also reduces conflict and
duplication of regulations. Policies must be regularly reviewed and updated
with input from recreational fishers and other stakeholders.
Fishing regulations should be developed with active participation of
stakeholders to improve compliance and integrate traditional ecological
knowledge. While stakeholder input is essential for setting goals and
objectives for the fishery, it is usually the management organization that has
the system knowledge and technical capability to determine the appropriate
strategy to achieve the stated goals, and to identify the regulatory options to
implement the strategy. Once managers have identified potential options for
management, stakeholders can and should provide input on their preferences,
or alternatively the management authority can decide on the best strategy to
meet multiple stakeholder preferences. The management organization should
provide a mechanism for managing any resulting conflicts between fishery
or environmental policy and the interests of recreational fishers and other
stakeholders. Independent review boards and government officials can provide

recourse when stakeholders believe that their interests are not being considered
fairly or management organizations believe that their mandate is compromised
by other governmental action.
Ideally, recreational fisheries would be managed on an individualized
basis with the regulatory scheme tailored to system characteristics derived
from creel surveys and stock assessments (Chapter 5). However, government
management organizations often lack the monitoring resources or the rationale
to obtain detailed information on all the fisheries within their jurisdictions
(Pereira and Hansen, 2003), and, in many situations, fishers move among many
fisheries. Therefore, individual fisheries are connected to other fisheries, and
an action in one system will have consequences elsewhere, for example, owing
to effort shifts with regulatory changes (Hunt et al., 2011). Thus, regulations
may be applied categorically, with classes of waters in a fisheries “landscape”
or management area receiving a given management regime based on shared
fishing and ecological characteristics (Chapter 5; Lester et al., 2003). Because
fishing regulations by their nature involve users, regulatory schemes must be
a compromise of ecological, economic and social objectives; ideally, meeting
social objectives also preserves the fish stock biologically (Johnston, Arlinghaus
and Dieckmann, 2010). Overly complex rules that change frequently and are
too system-specific are difficult to justify and to communicate, and they may
thus be disregarded. The management organization should promote compliance
with fisheries and environmental regulations by involving stakeholders in
rule development and by making them aware of rules, their justification, and
sanctions for violations (EIFAC, 2008, Article 7). Management organizations
should provide the mechanisms and the means for monitoring compliance and
for enforcing regulations, but, regardless of the governance system, recreational
fishers must share the responsibility for compliance by informing themselves
and their fellows, and by self-policing (Ostrom, 1990, 2005).
4.3 Internal policies and procedures

Management should develop internal policies and procedures to ensure the
safety, efficiency, effectiveness and integrity of its members and the organization.
Policies and procedures are needed to: establish roles and responsibilities
of members; promote ethical behaviour, e.g. fiscal responsibility, ethical
treatment of animals, responsible conduct of research; provide for safety
and welfare of employees; provide stakeholder involvement and conflict
management procedures; establish employment and supervisory practices;
recommend and standardize sampling methods; establish data collection

and archival procedures; establish procedures for fishing rule development
and promulgation; provide outreach and education policies; and establish
best practices for stocking, habitat and other management approaches. The
management organization should provide training to ensure that members
understand policies and procedures. The organization should regularly review
and update policies and procedures to remain consistent with laws, regulations
and prevailing public and professional attitudes.
4.4 Funding and licensing

The management organization should base decisions not only on stakeholder
input but also on the best available scientific information. Hence, the manager
must have adequate funding or networks with researchers to gather this
information. In the United States of America, where fishery management is a
function of the government, funding for fish and wildlife management has come
from a combination of licence sales and user fees, sometimes supplemented by
excise taxes on fishing-related and hunting-related purchases and general fund
revenue (Prukop and Regan, 2005; Ballweber and Schramm, 2010). Funding
for management in private control systems could come from membership
dues, user fees; and in community-based systems, from local taxes and user
fees. Because fishery management can have societal benefits, the use of some
general tax revenue can probably be justified in all management systems.
Licensing of recreational fishers may be contested by the fisher public
but has three important advantages: (i) a potential funding stream to support
management activities; (ii) a mechanism for limiting access or use of a fishery
if needed to ensure biological sustainability; and (iii) the means to account
for, characterize and study the primary users of recreational fishery resources.
Licensing need not be fee-based in order to be useful. In most jurisdictions,
recreational fishing is considered a privilege and the licence for which may
be revoked for violation of fishing or other environmental regulations. For
these reasons, it can be advantageous to require licensing through the
management body in all types of management systems, with the potential
fee being commensurate with functions provided by the management. Fees
for licences can also vary according to social considerations, with reduced
costs for residents, children, elderly, and military personnel. Licences are often
available for daily, weekly and annual durations. Many state agencies have
optional surcharges on licences in the form of fees or stamps that allow special
privileges, e.g. for harvest of restricted species, use of special gear, or access
to limited-entry fisheries. In the absence of licensing, in private control and

community-based management systems, user fees could be developed with
similar considerations to support the costs of management.
4.5 Design principles for sustainable management

Regardless of the governance system, adherence to some fundamental
organizational principles has been shown to promote effective institutions, both
formal (e.g. fisheries law) and informal (based on voluntary behaviour), and
overall sustainable resource management. Ostrom (1990) identifies principles
for the design of management institutions and governance of common pool
resources, including fisheries, that facilitate sustainable use (Daedlow, Beard
and Arlinghaus, 2011). These include:
• Clearly defined boundaries – the resource, users and their access rights
are explicitly defined.
• Right to self-determination – the rights of stakeholders to organize
and establish institutions (including regulations) for long-term
sustainability are recognized by higher authorities.
• Collective choice arrangements –- stakeholders are involved in the
decision-making process, promoting development of locally relevant
policy that enhances legitimacy of the management authority and
compliance by stakeholders.
• Effective monitoring – the resource and its users are monitored,
preferably by monitors that are stakeholders of the resource being
monitored.
• Graduated sanctions – sanctions are needed to encourage stakeholders
to follow the rules. Users who violate rules and risk the sustainability
of the system should receive sanctions that are proportional to the
severity of the offence.
• Mechanisms for conflict management – conflict is inevitable in
fisheries, within management organizations, among stakeholders and
between management organizations and stakeholders. The means to
manage conflict effectively and rapidly is required.
Ostrom’s typology was initially developed for community-based governance
systems, but the message is more general. Thus, incorporating these principles
increases the likelihood that the policy and institutional framework facilitates
sustainable recreational fisheries, whether they are under state control, under
private control, or community-based management systems.
4.6 Conclusions
A well-defined institutional framework that meets the design principles
outlined above is needed for sustainable management of recreational fisheries
to identify the resource, its users and their rights, and the manner in which
the system will be managed. A variety of governance structures have been
employed (state control, private control, and community-based management).
All management organizations need to solicit stakeholder input in decision-
making, adopt adequate policies and regulations to conserve the resource,
protect and regulate users’ rights, and effectively monitor and enforce policies
and regulations. Funding mechanisms must be in place to support these
and other duties of the management organization. Regardless of the exact
governance system in place, sustainability of resource management should be
enhanced if fundamental design principles are recognized and incorporated
into the structure of the system.
45
5. Recreational fisheries management
5.1 Background
T
his chapter presents concepts, issues and approaches relevant to the
management of recreational fisheries, regardless of the habitat (inland
or marine) or geographic region. This chapter is directed at the fisheries
manager and fisheries management in its broadest sense, in contrast to
Chapter 6, which is tailored to the individual recreational fisher. One objective
of Chapter 5 is to assist developing nations and economies in transition that
may lack a history of recreational fisheries management. Recreational fishery
management shares some fundamental tenets with commercial and subsistence
fishery management so the reader should also consult other FAO guidance
summarized in Box 1, and A Fishery Manager’s Guidebook (Cochrane and
Garcia, 2009).
Fisheries management is the process by which sound information is used to
achieve management goals by directing actions at the three components of the
fishery system: (i) the habitat, which usually transcends the aquatic–terrestrial
interface; (ii) the biota, including but not limited to the target fish population;
and (iii) the humans directly and indirectly involved in the fishery (Nielsen,
1993). The primary goals of fisheries management should be consistent with
those in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2011): (i) conservation
of biodiversity; (ii) biologically sustainable use of its components; and (iii)
equitable sharing of benefits among diverse stakeholders (Welcomme, 2001)
Details on the normative framework used here are in Chapter 2. Commercial,
subsistence and recreational fisheries management share these fundamental
goals, but those associated with recreational fisheries can be more diverse
and difficult to quantify. For example, benefits to be gained from recreational
fisheries may include food but this is secondary to other outputs from the fishery
such as psychological and physiological aspects of the fishing experience
(Fedler and Ditton, 1994; Weithman, 1999). Thus, the first challenge for the
recreational fishery manager is to understand stakeholder attitudes and values.
While overfishing of commercial fish stocks has been widely publicized
(FAO, 2010; Worm et al., 2009), recreational fishing also has the potential
for detrimental impacts (Chapter 1). Recreational fishing itself is becoming
widely recognized as a potent ecological force, capable of having significant
impacts on fish populations (Post et al., 2002; Cooke and Cowx, 2006; Lewin,
Arlinghaus and Mehner, 2006), trophic interactions (Walters and Kitchell,

2001), and ecosystem services (Eby et al., 2006; Jørgensen et al., 2007;
Crowder et al., 2008). Thus, the manager should recognize that the authority
to manipulate and channel recreational fishing is also a potent ecological force
that can be harnessed to achieve desirable ecological changes, while preserving
and ideally enhancing the social and economic benefits recreational fishing
provides to society at large.
Management authorities in developing countries should anticipate that with
industrialization and agricultural modernization the relative importance and
value of recreational fishing is likely to increase compared with other uses of
aquatic ecosystems such as aquaculture and commercial fishing (Arlinghaus,
Mehner and Cowx, 2002). Much of the advice in this chapter derives from
experience in developed nations. Developing nations may have different
management goals and stakeholder desires, particular to their own social and
cultural context (Chapter 9; Sanderson, 1995). However, the natural science
that underlies assessment and management is universal.
An important challenge to recreational fisheries management is achieving
an appropriate balance between actions that provide for recreational fisher
desires without compromising the benefits that other stakeholders may wish to
enjoy from the system, today and in the future. Because humans vary greatly
in how they value recreational fisheries and the benefits they obtain from them,
involving stakeholders in goal-setting and decision-making is necessary order
to ensure legitimacy of management. The entire process of recreational fishery
management should employ an objective, transparent, science-based approach
to achieving management goals, as outlined in Chapter 3 and below.
5.2 The management purview

Historically, fishery management has used a “single-species” approach in
which stakeholder desires and management objectives are focused on a single,
economically and recreationally valuable species. In this approach, management
actions may be directed at other species (e.g. predators or competitors) because
of their influence on the focus species, or on the habitat, but the indicators of
success are defined in terms of desirable change in the focus species. Because
recreational fishers are selective in the species that they exploit and these
species are often top predators (Donaldson et al., 2011), fishing and fishery
management can have cascading effects on other species and ecosystem
processes (e.g. herbivory, nutrient cycling) (Roth et al., 2007, 2010). Managers
must be aware of the roles of recreational species and the interdependences that
Recreational fisheries management 47
link them to other members of the ecosystem. For example, management that
seeks to enhance the abundance of a recreationally important species needs
to do so within the constraints of the system (e.g. productivity, sustainability
of prey populations). Growing imperilment of species, global environmental
change, and the need to conduct fishing and fishery management in a sustainable
fashion dictate a broader ecosystem-oriented purview of recreational fishery
management, which includes the social and economic components of the
coupled social-ecological system (Arlinghaus, Johnson and Wolter, 2008).
Increasingly, the need to consider other species, the structure and function
of the entire ecosystem, and the relationships among fish and fishers on the
landscape (Hunt et al., 2011) is being recognized. This “ecosystem approach”
to fisheries management (Chapter 3; FAO, 2003) provides guideposts for
managers (and fishers) to conduct their activities in a way that minimizes
environmental impacts and sustains socio-economic benefits without
compromising ecosystem integrity. It is clear that recreational fishers will
continue to favour particular species, and managers will continue to need a deep
understanding of the dynamics of exploited populations. The long tradition
of the single-species approach in renewable resource management provides
managers with theory and tools for understanding and manipulating vital rates
of recreationally valuable species. However, this expertise must be tempered
by a keen awareness of the species and processes that sustain the focus species
and affect the outcomes of management (Figure 8). This chapter considers
the single-species approach a “necessary but insufficient” purview that should
be complemented with a more ecologically realistic system view and a more
environmentally responsible perspective for management objectives in the
light of social and economic drivers (e.g. fishing effort) that affect objectives
and fishing impacts.
5.3 The fishery management process

Fishery management is challenging because managers operate at the intersection
of ecological and social-psychological, sociological, economic and political
realms. Diverse human desires for the resource and uncertainty about the
ecological and social systems, both of which are dynamic and interact with
each other (Fulton et al., 2011), can make choosing a course of action difficult.
Traditionally, agencies have used a variety of approaches to make management
decisions, emphasizing politics, conventional wisdom, or best available data
(Johnson, 1999). Managers of recreational fisheries need better tools for coping
with diverse objectives, complexity and uncertainty in the decision-making
Figure 8
Concept diagram showing relationships between the single-species
approach to stock assessment and a more ecosystem-oriented
perspective
ECOSYSTEM
SOCIETY
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
FISHERS
PREY PREDATORS
HABITAT
CHANGE
STOCK HARVEST STOCK
IMMIGRATION EMIGRATION
MORTALITY
NATURAL
GROWTH
PREDATORS STOCK PREY
REPRODUCTION
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Notes: In this view, population dynamics of the target stock and other species in the
ecosystem are interpretable from an understanding of functional linkages in the system,
including interactions that span the soft boundary between the terrestrial and aquatic
realms. This view also recognizes that fisheries are social-ecological systems, with the
social system being a nested component of the overarching life-supporting ecological
system. In this context, the way that population status and management actions are judged
in light of objectives is socially constructed and affected by societal preferences.
process, and strongly coupled interactions of recreational fishers and fish stocks
(e.g. Hunt et al., 2011). Structured decision-making (Chapter 3) in an adaptive
management framework is a systematic process developed for finding optimal
solutions in complex situations (Hammond, Keeney and Raifa, 1999; Kendall,
2001). As such, SDM can be a very useful underlying framework for the fishery
management process. The method provides a pluralistic approach in which
stakeholders play a formal role, subjective information (values, opinions) is
rigorously incorporated, and knowledge and decisions are transparent to all.

While management provides an opportunity to learn about the system and
how it responds to humans, many problems persist despite years of attention.
Learning and improving management can be facilitated by following SDM
with explicit evaluation of outcomes and adjustment of the management in a
cyclic fashion, in an AM process (Chapter 3).
As shown in Figure 9, the process of recreational fishery management
involves:
1. characterizing the system;
2. assessing the fishery;
3. setting goals and objectives;
4. choosing and implementing a course of action;
5. monitoring, evaluation and adjustment.
Explicit specification and documentation is required at each step. The
development of a fishery management plan (Table 2) can provide a framework
for identifying problems, stakeholder desires, goals and objectives; and for
Figure 9
The recreational fishery management process formulated for structured
decision-making and adaptive management
Assess
Adaptive •Characterize the system Structured
•Define the unit of management
management decision making
•Define management problem
Evaluate, Adjust Objectives

• Evaluate success •Gather stakeholder input
• Learn •Resolve conflicts
• Adjust management actions •Set objectives, reference points
Implement, Monitor Alternatives

• Implement management plan •Identify options, risks
• Conduct outreach, education •Construct models, uncertainties
• Measure outcomes •Predict outcomes, tradeoffs
Decide
• Choose management action
• Design monitoring plan
• Complete management plan
Table 2
General elements of a recreational fishery management plan
Plan element Description
1. Characterize the Characterize: (i) the fishery: background, history, status,
system types of fishers and their preferences; (ii) the geographic and
legal setting: environmental characteristics, socio-economic
and political factors, laws; and (iii) the ecosystem – food
web, sensitive species, system productivity. Identify threats
to fishery and potential for habitat modification that has
impacts on stocks. Identify potential limiting factors (biological,
physicochemical).
2. Goals and Gather stakeholder input, resolve conflicts, and set
objectives measurable objectives, including establishment of reference
points and performance indicators, and indicators of
ecosystem status.
3. Strategies Define the management actions necessary to achieve goals
and objectives and set a timeline for implementation. Predict
outcomes for the fishery and indirect effects on the ecosystem.
4. Monitoring Monitoring required and reference points, performance
indicators. Enforcement and outreach plan.
5. Financial The cost of implementing the plan, including monitoring and
responsibilities enforcement. Methods for having users and beneficiaries pay
a portion of management costs.
proposing management remedies and expected outcomes. The plan should be

as short and simple as possible (Hindson et al., 2005), updated regularly, and
well publicized in order to promote transparency of decisions and trust among
stakeholders.
5.3.1 Characterizing the system

Characterizing the system involves understanding the type of fishery, the
setting, the types of users and the stocks to be managed (Table 2). The impact
of fishing on a species cannot be determined without knowledge of stock
(population) structure. Thus, explicitly defining the stock (Ihssen et al., 1981;
Dizon et al., 1992; Hilborn and Walters, 1992) or evolutionarily significant unit
(Vogler and DeSalle, 1994) that is the target of the fishery and of management
actions is an essential first step. In fisheries sustained by natural reproduction,
the management unit should usually be the population of interbreeding
individuals. When ambiguous, as in mixed stock fisheries, tagging or marking
can be used to discriminate stocks, or an eclectic approach to stock delineation
employing genetic, morphomeristic, behavioural, and ecological information

may be employed (Behnke, 1992; Vogler and DeSalle, 1994).
Stock delineation can be challenging when the species being managed is
highly migratory or has a transjurisdictional range, as is the case for many marine
fisheries. In such cases, stocks are often defined by pragmatic criteria (spatial
distribution relative to jurisdictional boundaries). However, an eco-evolutionary
(Carroll et al., 2007) perspective is required in order to ensure that fishing and
its management preserve the integrity of the population and sustain benefits to
humans. Protecting the genetic and functional diversity of fish populations, akin
to a financial portfolio (Schindler et al., 2010), can stabilize their response to
environmental change and thereby protect future yields to recreational fisheries.
Maintaining such a portfolio may require that some stocks are managed at lower
exploitation rates than others and that no stocks are viewed as expendable as
their loss may reduce the overall viability of the species.
5.3.2 Assessing the fishery

Knowledge of the current status of a fishery is necessary before management
goals and objectives can be chosen (Hilborn and Walters, 1992; King, 2007).
In addition to information on the fish, recreational fishery managers require
demographic (human), social and economic (stakeholders) and ecological
(environment) information to evaluate the status of a fishery, and environmental
constraints and opportunities for improvement. Managers can be informed
about the state of a fishery by recreational fisher opinions and through their
own sampling and observations. While local knowledge of recreational fishers
is essential to a complete understanding of the system and current stakeholder
satisfaction, attitudes and preferences, choosing and evaluating management
actions also requires information obtained from scientifically valid sampling
programmes (Mackinson and Nottestad, 1998).
Assessment methods will depend on the environment and species of
interest, but in general: (i) stock assessment seeks information on vital rates
of populations and their eco-evolutionary characteristics (FAO, 2006; King,
2007; Guy and Brown, 2007); (ii) creel surveys seek information about
recreational fisher catch, harvest and effort, which should be supplemented by
human-dimension information on satisfaction and preferences (Pollock, Jones
and Brown, 1994; NRC, 2006); and (iii) ecosystem surveillance monitors the
status of the ecosystem.
The ultimate goal of stock assessment is to understand the processes
that drive the stock’s dynamics and its current state in relation to reference
points and performance metrics. To this end, information about fishing

effort and mortality, including cryptic (delayed) mortality (Coggins et al.,
2007) associated with catch-and-release is needed. In cases where managers
lack the capacity to assess fish population vital rates (e.g. growth, mortality,
recruitment) using fish population and fishery surveys, managers should adopt
a precautionary approach until such information gathering becomes possible
and use information from similar ecosystems. Even where assessment capacity
is not limiting, the manager may need to rely on inference or back-calculation
approaches (e.g. modelling, virtual population analysis; Hilborn and Walters,
1992). Creel surveys (Pollock, Jones and Brown, 1994) are primarily directed
at quantifying recreational fisher-related factors and human dimensions
(e.g. information on preferences and satisfaction) but the manager may also
generate data for economic impact analysis (e.g. Ditton and Hunt, 2001) and
obtain samples from the fishers’ catch that contribute to stock assessment. For
example, fish caught by recreational fishers can be sampled for growth and
diet information, and fishers may be asked about expenditure or willingness
to pay as a measure of social importance. In fisheries subject to recreational,
subsistence and commercial fishing, catch and harvest data must be available
from each to account fully for fishing mortality. Monitoring ecosystem status is
an enormous task, so managers may wish to develop indicators that can inform
them about condition of the ecosystem and sustainability of their management
actions (Rice, 2003; Cury and Christensen, 2005; Kwak and Freeman, 2010).
The Trophic State Index for lakes (Carlson, 1977), the Index of Biotic Integrity
for streams (Karr, 1981), biomass ratios (Medley et al., 2009), and abundance
of sentinel species (Beeby, 2001) are examples of useful metrics for ecosystem
surveillance. Despite the importance of monitoring, it is unrealistic to assume
that such information will be available for all recreational fisheries as many
smaller systems may not justify routine stock assessments (Table 3). A broad-
based survey sampling approach may then be the best strategy based on suitable
stratification of fisheries in space and time (Lester et al., 2003).
Together, the various information sources allow the manager to assess
present status both biologically and socially, and identify problems, constraints
and opportunities for improvement through a management manipulation
(Figure 10). By definition, stock assessment is a single-species approach,
but there is widespread agreement that the indirect effects of manipulating
the fisher–fish relationship should be considered in both inland and marine
ecosystems (Cooke and Cowx, 2004; Coleman et al., 2004; Crowder et al.,
2008).
Table 3
Fishery assessment procedures, graduated for the amount of sampling and
analysis capacity available
Sampling resources
Recommended assessment procedures
Equipment Labour Expertise
Minimal Minimal Minimal Mandatory self-reporting: effort, catch,
harvest and size of each species caught
(time series of fishery characteristics)
Minimal Adequate Minimal Conduct creel survey of catch, harvest,
effort, fisher preferences and values;
sample recreational catch: count,
measure, weigh. Compute mean size,
plot size distribution of catch and body
condition vs size. Compute satisfaction
scores for user satisfaction and study
expectations for future developments.
Minimal Adequate Adequate Conduct creel survey (statistically based
estimates of catch, harvest, effort; fisher
preferences etc.); sample stock and
recreational catch: count, measure, weigh
(body condition); extract ageing structures
(age/growth); compute age composition
of population, infer recruitment and
mortality. Compute satisfaction of users.
Ecosystem: track simple indicators of
system structure and function.
Adequate Adequate Adequate Thorough stock assessment and
ecosystem surveillance. The stock and
fishery: scientific sampling, creel survey,
complete description of demographics of
target population and fisher population;
population modelling of management
scenarios. Ecosystem: track multiple
indicators of ecosystem structure and
function, status of sensitive species,
indirect effects of fishery management
on non-target organisms (e.g. trophic
analysis with bioenergetics modelling).
Managers should be prepared for indirect effects of changes in recreational

fisher effort and harvest or discard mortality (catch-and-release) brought
about through altered regulations (Beard et al., 2011; Johnston, Arlinghaus
and Dieckmann, 2010). Because of eco-evolutionary feedback and trophic
Figure 10
How fish and recreational fisher survey data are used
YES
NO
YES Are
ecosystem Creel Is fishery NO
objectives survey meeting
sustained? objectives ?
ECOSYSTEM
Ecosystem R M Perform Evaluate
surveillance
G Stock F
management
manipulation
management
options
Is stock NO
Stock
assessment meeting
objectives ?
YES
Notes: The solid lines show the traditional process by which fish and recreational fisher
survey data are used to assess the status of a fishery and identify appropriate management
prescriptions; the dashed lines indicate the incorporation of ecosystem considerations in
fishery management. Here, the “stock” is defined as the fish population of interest (Hilborn
and Walters, 1992); its dynamics are governed by inputs of recruitment (R) and growth (G)
and outputs of natural mortality (M) and fishing mortality (F).
relationships, any alteration of the target population’s biomass or size structure

can have implications for other trophic levels and even water quality in extreme
situations (e.g. Lathrop et al., 2002). Understanding how fishing regulations
might affect trophic relations can be evaluated using projections from a
population model combined with a bioenergetics model to translate expected
changes in the target population into predictions of consumptive demand and
potential impacts on prey populations by the target population (Johnson et al.,
1992; Johnson and Martinez, 1995). More generally, Ecopath with Ecosim
(Christensen and Walters, 2004) can be used to explore the ecosystem effects
of fishing and fishery management.
Managers should also recognize that recreational fishers are likely to respond
to changes in fishing conditions within a system (Johnson and Carpenter,
1994) but also to alternative fisheries across the landscape (Lester et al., 2003;
Post et al., 2008). This behavioural response of fishers to alterations in the
ecosystem or the management component should be considered in regulation

planning to avoid misguided management advice and “surprise” (Johnston,
Arlinghaus and Dieckmann, 2010). Integrated modelling that links biological
and human dimensions models (e.g. Carpenter and Brock 2004; Hunt et al.,
2011) may prove useful for predicting performance of a fishery under alternative
management regimes, and is particularly relevant when expanding the
purview beyond the target species and to include socio-economic dimensions.
Addressing the heterogeneity of recreational fisher preferences is a challenge
but is necessary in order to understand the trade-offs that will differentially
affect various fisher types (Dorow et al., 2010). For example, it is usually
impossible to please harvest-oriented fishers (by maximizing yield of a stock)
and trophy-fish-oriented fishers (by maximizing the number of large fish) of a
given species jointly in one fishery, and a diversity of fisheries may be needed
in a fisheries “landscape”.
Integrating information from fish stocks, ecosystems and recreational
fishers provides for a more holistic and realistic conceptual model for fisheries
and fishery management. Management actions are never final, and recreational
fishery management is a continuous process requiring periodic re-evaluation,
adjusted objectives (Chapter 3) and regular assessment of outcomes. The
frequency of repeat surveys needed to inform fisheries is correlated with
the intensity of management (+), value or importance of the resource (+),
lifespan of fishes (-), time scale of environmental variation (-), and intensity of
stakeholder conflicts surrounding a given fishery (+).
5.3.3 Setting goals and objectives

Clear and explicit goals and objectives are essential for effective management
and are required in order to evaluate management outcomes. Goals are central
to the overarching normative framework to guide the long-term development
of the fishery (Chapter 2). Appropriate goals may include: (i) maintaining
ecological integrity and protecting natural systems for present and future
generations in the face of exploitation; and (ii) maintaining and improving the
quality of the fishing experience (Baker et al., 1993). Goals and objectives will
be highly dependent upon stakeholder attitudes and values but the fundamental
goals of fishery management should always apply, e.g. avoiding overfishing
and optimizing socio-economic benefits (Chapter 2). Specific objectives
should be operationally defined as part of the adaptive management process
(Chapter 3).
While managers may believe that they know what is best for the fishery,
choosing from among competing objectives requires that any value judgment
be based on a societal, consensus-based choice in the light of ecological
constraints and possibilities. The recreational fishery manager should always
consider sociological, biological and ecological aspects:
• What do stakeholders want?
• What can the target population provide?
• What can the ecosystem sustain?
Stakeholder desires must be compatible with demographic or environmental
constraints on the target fish population and with ecosystem sustainability,
but within these bounds socio-economic objectives can strongly influence
the direction of management (Johnston, Arlinghaus and Dieckmann, 2010).
Thus, open discussion and disclosure of objectives is fundamental for fisheries
management if a transparent and accepted process is to be achieved.
Unlike commercial fisheries, where yield (profit) optimization is a common
objective of fisheries management, recreational fisheries generally strive to
optimize relatively intangible benefits such as recreational fisher satisfaction
and its multidimensional catch and non-catch components (Fedler and Ditton,
1994). Opinions about what constitutes a satisfying fishing experience also
vary widely in recreational fishers (Arlinghaus, 2006b; Beardmore et al.,
2011), creating heterogeneity in expectations that complicates establishment
of objectives. Collectively, recreational fishers may wish to maximize catch
rate, harvest, number and size of trophy fish, or ease and convenience of
fishing (Hunt, 2005) while perhaps minimizing their exposure to contaminants
in the fish they catch to eat. They may also desire a diversity of recreational
fishing opportunities, including the chance to catch wild or unusual fish, use
more challenging methods, or enjoy a relatively natural setting. Some fishers
may be purely non-catch oriented (Beardmore et al., 2011). Serving the
heterogeneity of fisher types may only be possible by managing for a diversity
of fishing experience over broad spatial scales (Johnston, Arlinghaus and
Dieckmann,. 2010). In addition to meeting recreational fisher desires while
avoiding undesirable impacts on ecosystems, managers can also manipulate
fisheries in a fashion that affects water quality through food web effects (e.g.
biomanipulation; Lathrop et al., 2002) or otherwise emphasizes ecosystem
services (e.g. increase predation on exotic species).
In reality, multiple objectives guide almost any fisheries management
decision, and these objectives may be directed at people or the fish stock
or even involve stakeholder desires outside the fisheries sector (e.g. water
quality). Ultimately, managers must work cooperatively with a spectrum of

stakeholders, not only recreational fishers, to choose appropriate broad-based
goals and operational objectives. However, there will always be potential for
disagreement. Fisheries managers must recognize that: (i) some activities may
be of higher social priority than recreational fishing; (ii) values of recreational
anglers and managers may differ from those of other stakeholders; and (iii)
the sector should respect values, customs and objectives of other stakeholders
(EIFAC, 2008, Article 10). If necessary, conflict management techniques
(Daniels and Walker, 2001; FAO, 2005b) should be applied to reach a mutually
acceptable solution.
5.3.4 Choosing and implementing a course of action

Equipped with knowledge and objectives, the next task is to choose a course
of action to achieve the specified desires for the fishery. In some instances,
no management actions will occur, but this is also a legitimate management
choice (Arlinghaus, 2006a). However, given increasing human domination of
the biosphere, this choice can carry potentially irreversible consequences for
the fish stock, ecosystem, and human welfare, so some form of management
action will be implemented in most fisheries.
Whereas in most commercial capture fisheries the stock is maintained
through regulation of harvest, recreational fishery managers have a diverse
array of tools and approaches to manipulate fisheries (Welcomme, 2001;
Hubert and Quist, 2010). In general, these tools have clearly defined purposes
and target the three primary components of the fishery system, namely, habitat,
biota, and recreational fishers (Nielsen, 1993; Cowx, 2002), and a thorough
understanding of their scientific basis is needed before an appropriate course
of action can be chosen. In many countries, e.g. the United States of America,
recreational fishery managers have university training, even college degrees in
fishery biology and management. Where higher education is not practical, short
courses and workshops can assist managers’ understanding. This is the case in
Germany, where fisheries managers are elected from the angler constituency
and then trained in the fundamentals of fisheries management, albeit not
comparable with a university degree that for example many fisheries managers
hold in the United States of America (Daedlow, Beard and Arlinghaus, 2011).
Choice of a management action must be justifiable on technical grounds but,
also, it must be sensible from economic and social standpoints. For example,
what are the costs of a change in management for the agency and for the
resource users in terms of potential welfare loss? Who must bear these costs,
are they justified, what are the financial trade-offs, and are the benefits shared
equitably among stakeholders? Socio-economic evaluation of recreational
fishing is usually more challenging than for commercial fishing (see Parkkila
et al. [2010] for a methods overview). Whereas the benefits of commercial
fishing can be readily valued by society’s willingness to purchase the fish
product, the benefits experienced by each individual recreational fisher (e.g.
satisfaction while fishing) are not revealed by market mechanisms. However,
modern economic evaluation tools such as contingent valuation (Loomis and
Walsh, 1997) or discrete choice modelling (Dorow et al., 2010) are available
to quantify the utility function of various recreational fisher types, which may
then be used to quantify marginal benefits generated by regulatory changes or
changes to the fish stock (Massey, Newbold and Gentner, 2006). Economic
assessment may be particularly important where recreational and commercial
fishers share the same resource and a basis for allocation is needed (Edwards,
1991).
When a management strategy has been selected, then necessary regulation
changes should be pursued and a plan for monitoring and enforcement of the
programme should be developed. Compliance can be improved with effective
outreach such that stakeholders understand the rationale (Arlinghaus, 2004).
At this stage, the fishery management plan can be disseminated to stakeholders
for their feedback and be modified accordingly.
5.3.5 Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring is an essential component of the AM cycle to enable learning from
individual management actions whether active or passive AM is employed
(Chapter 3). Managers should always thoroughly document their actions and
results whatever the level of activity. Statistically valid sampling designs are
required in order to obtain reliable information on fish population responses
(Hansen, Beard and Hayes, 2007; Noble, Austen and Pegg, 2007), recreational
fisher catch and effort (Pollock, Jones and Brown, 1994; NRC, 2006), and
recreational fisher attitudes, preferences and values (Ditton and Hunt, 2001).
In many cases, managers will need training to enhance their understanding
of study design, sampling methods, data analysis and inference before they
can be expected to conduct meaningful monitoring projects. However, where
this is impractical, qualitative information can still contribute to learning from
experience.
To be most useful, monitoring and evaluation studies should adhere
to standardized sampling and database protocols (Bonar and Hubert, 2002;
Kubečka et al., 2009). Fisheries may take years to respond to some management
actions, necessitating consistent sampling methods over time to allow for a full
evaluation of the action. In developing nations where a historical record of
fisheries investigations is not available, managers must rely on contemporary
surveys as their knowledge base. Standardization of sampling methods allows
managers to begin building a foundation of comparable data immediately.
Globalization dictates that managers share data increasingly widely.
Standardization of routinely used sampling gear (e.g. gillnets, electrofishing)
at a continental or global scale would improve communication among
nations (Bonar, Hubert and Willis, 2009) and would be useful for addressing
management questions at large geographic scales (e.g. effects of climate
change, invasive species). To assess the global impact of the recreational
fishing sector and to elevate recreational fishing as a conservation concern,
fundamental information on fishing participation, compliance and harvest rates
are needed. However, these data are currently scarce or unavailable for most
recreational fisheries (Cooke and Cowx, 2004) and the situation needs to be
improved.
Evaluation of the outcome of a fishery management action is necessary in
order to determine whether goals and objectives have been achieved. However,
enforcement of regulations must accompany any change in management if
outcomes are to be properly interpreted. Evaluation of effectiveness is required
to learn about system behaviour and to allow managers to refine management
strategies (AM, Chapter 3).
Because recreational fishers can have significant ecological impacts
(Chapter 1; Cooke and Cowx, 2004; Lewin, Arlinghaus and Mehner, 2006),
it follows that fishery management actions that regulate effects of recreational
fishers are powerful ecological tools and it is important to assess effects of
management action on the host ecosystem. Tracking ecosystem indicators
provides a means to detect and understand the broader implications of
management actions targeting a particular fisher–fish interaction (Kwak and
Freeman, 2010). However, in order to avoid unintended ecosystem impacts
monitoring methods should be chosen that minimize adverse effects on the
environment and the stock, and the bycatch of non-target organisms.
5.4 Matching management to objectives

Collectively, recreational fishers may desire conflicting, inappropriate or
unattainable fishery attributes. For example, some recreational fishers would
like to maximize harvest of a desirable food fish, others would like to maximize
the size structure of a piscivorous trophy fish that preys upon the other species
(Johnson and Martinez, 2000) and yet others desire species that are not native
or not suited to local environmental conditions. The responsible manager must
understand stakeholder desires, optimize where possible and educate where
not. Thus, an appropriate compromise for the first scenario could be to increase
overall harvest of the piscivorous species to sustain the prey population but
to protect the largest, trophy-size class of the predator with slot regulations
(Arlinghaus, Matsumura and Dieckmann, 2010; García-Asorey et al., 2011).
Recreational-fisher wishes might also be accommodated by managing across
systems, emphasizing trophy fish in some and food fish in others. Where
recreational-fisher desires cannot be granted owing to environmental or eco-
evolutionary considerations the manager needs to educate the fishers and
provide a more sustainable alternative by enhancing the fishery by other means
(Figure 11 and Table 4).
Recreational fishers commonly desire improvements in the catch rate,
size of catch, and opportunity for harvest in a fishery. The manager must
investigate reported inadequacies and implement an appropriate course of
action (Table 4). Figure 11 presents a simple decision tree to identify which
general management strategy may prove useful given the biological properties
of the target population. While deciding on an appropriate regulation depends
on the natural mortality and growth rate of the fish, final decisions will also
depend on the recreational fishers’ expectations and values. In some cases,
there may be several approaches to achieve an end and others that would be
contraindicated. Overall, the recreational fishery manager should accept and
espouse three general principles: (i) recreational fishers are a multifaceted
group with diverse expectations and motivations; (ii) ecological constraints
can dictate what management strategies can or should be applied; and (iii)
regardless of stakeholder desires, economic, social or biological constraints
preclude some management strategies. The final decision will depend on socio-
economic trade-offs within the biological realities.
5.4.1 Habitat management

Habitat management focuses on protecting, modifying, mitigating and restoring
aspects of the biological, chemical and physical environment. Goals range from
enhancement of habitat to increase the abundance of a particular recreational
species to actions aimed at protecting or restoring ecological integrity of the
system (Table 5). Managers should be alert to potential environmental problems
created or aggravated by recreational fishing (Table 6; Chapter 6). Fostering
environmentally responsible behaviour among recreational fishers complies

with the aquatic stewardship principle (Chapter 2).
Figure 11
Generalized decision tree for recreational fishery managers
LOW Fishing HIGH

mortality?
HIGH Natural LOW

HIGH Natural LOW mortality?
mortality?
5. Enhance HIGH LOW
1. Encourage LOW HIGH Growth rate?
Growth habitat
harvest, enhance
habitat rate?
6. Enhance
HIGH LOW 2. habitat
Recruitment? Monitor
Harvest limits less useful

3. Encourage 4. Enhance
harvest habitat
Harvest limits not useful
HIGH LOW
Recruitment?
Carrying capacity, Carrying capacity,

Legend indirect effects indirect effects
Decision point/
population status query
Evaluate additional 7. Harvest 8. Habitat,
information stocking,
limits harvest limits
Suggested
management action Harvest limits useful
Notes: An implicit assumption is that the management objective is to increase size

and abundance of the target species within ecological limits of the system. When
fishing mortality is low (1–4), harvest regulations would not be useful, rather, it may be
advantageous to encourage harvest to alleviate problems with density-dependent growth
or natural mortality (1, 3). When fishing mortality is high but natural mortality is also high
(5) or growth is low (6), habitat improvements rather than harvest restrictions would be
indicated. The manager stands to make the greatest improvements to the fishery with
harvest regulations when fishing mortality is high, natural mortality is low, and growth is
high (7, 8). Under these conditions, harvest limits can increase biomass and size structure
of the target population; hence, an assessment of system carrying capacity and potential
indirect effects of the change on non-target species should be performed.
Table 4
Common complaints of recreational fishers about the fish stock and suggested
management actions to remedy the situation
Complaint Evidence Diagnosis Suggested remedies (Tables)
Not enough Creel survey: Low catchability: Educate anglers: catch rate
fish low CPUE1 temporary boom not always indicative of fish
in prey of fished abundance
species
Low catchability: Install fish aggregating devices
fish dispersed
Sampling: Low abundance: Improve habitat (5)
low CPUE, insufficient Protect spawners
abundance recruitment Stock target species (8)
Low abundance: Improve habitat (4)
excessive natural Suppress predators (6)
mortality Alternative target species (8)
Low abundance: Size, bag and effort limits (9,
excessive fishing 10)
mortality/too many Stock target species
recreational fishers
Fish too Creel survey: Slow growth Improve habitat (5)
small size in catch Enhance prey (7)
Sampling: size Suppress competitors (7)
in catch Encourage harvest (9, 10)
Excessive natural Improve habitat (5)
mortality Alternative target species (8)
Growth overfishing Size, bag and effort limits (9,
10)
Stock target species
Fish too Creel survey: Slow growth Improve habitat (5)
thin body condition Enhance prey (7)
Sampling: Encourage harvest (9, 10)
body condition
Unsuitable Improve habitat (5)
environment Alternative target species (8)
Any of the Historical Unrealistic Educate recreational fishers:
above record expectations, provide access to historical
inaccurate data
recollection of past
fishing success
Table 4 (Cont.)
Complaint Evidence Diagnosis Suggested remedies (Tables)
Not the Species not Species not native Educate recreational fishers,
right kind of present in to locale Alternative target species (8)
fish catch
Environmental Improve habitat (5)
constraints Stock target species (8)
Alternative target species (8)
1
CPUE = catch per unit of effort.
Notes: In some cases, there will be multiple complaints caused by interacting factors; in these
situations, effective remedies may be more limited (Figure 11). It is possible that problems with
a target species are such that the manager needs to emphasize other species and educate
recreational fishers about ecological constraints that preclude catering to some recreational
fisher desires. Numbers in parentheses refer to tables in these Guidelines with more detailed
information about remedies.
Table 5
Examples of management actions targeting habitat that may benefit recreational
fish populations and their ecosystems
Strategy/goal Explanation
Protect habitat Mitigation and restoration are costly; preventing habitat change by
education, regulations and enforcement should be a high priority
Restore Install fish passage structures or remove dams to alleviate
connectivity barriers to fish movement and restore metapopulation dynamics
Nutrient Contain point and non-point sources of excess nutrients in the
abatement watershed (often phosphorus and nitrogen)
Nutrient Phosphorus and nitrogen additions to enhance fish production
supplementation or to compensate for cultural oligotrophication
Reduce Contain point and non-point sources of contaminants in the
contaminants watershed (e.g. nitrates, metals, pesticides)
Liming Addition of calcium carbonate (limestone, calcite) to neutralize
acidified waters
Aeration Increase dissolved oxygen concentration through physical
means to prevent die-offs and undesirable chemical dynamics in
hypoxic waters (e.g. dissolution of phosphorus and manganese,
and mercury methylation)
Mitigate thermal Cooling-water effluent from power plants can cause harmful
pollution abrupt temperature changes when discharged into waterbodies
Manage turbidity Soil runoff from the watershed, mixing by boats, and bioturbation
by fish can all increase turbidity, limiting photosynthesis and
increasing surface temperature
Table 5 (Cont.)
Strategy/goal Explanation
Manipulate flow/ Mimic natural water level/flow fluctuations in regulated waters;
water level reservoir drawdowns can reduce reproduction of undesirable
species
Restore wetlands/ Inland and coastal wetlands provide many ecosystem services
estuaries including water purification and fish production
Restore Fish benefit from large woody debris in littoral zones of lentic
shoreline/riparian systems; excluding livestock protects riparian areas and reduces
zones bank erosion of lotic systems
Improve Spawning substrates, spawning channels, river channel
spawning habitat modification for fish and shellfish reproduction
Supplement Fish aggregating devices, artificial reefs
structure
Note: As with other management tools the effectiveness of habitat management will vary by
site, ecosystem and scope of the habitat improvement scheme.
Table 6
Examples of regulations that managers can use to target environmental problems
that may be aggravated by recreational fishers and their activities
Target Regulation purpose
Anchoring Prohibit anchoring over sensitive substrata (e.g. coral reefs);
provide permanent mooring buoys for recreational fishers
Baiting Regulate use of chum, groundbait and other recreational fish
attractants with potential to pollute waterbodies
Biosecurity rules Implement regulations and protocols to prevent the intentional
and accidental introduction of invasive, pathogenic or parasitic
organisms including from the release of bait
Boat noise and Engine horsepower and speed limits to minimize conflicts with
wake other water users
Boat discharge Regulate emissions from boat motors, release of grey and black
water into waterways
Boat strike Restrict boat operations when collisions may have significant
effects on fish and wildlife populations
Bycatch and Regulate fishing to minimize incidental catch and mortality of
discards non-target species, undersized fish, and sensitive species
Disposal of fish Prohibit in waterways to reduce aesthetic concerns and disease
waste transmission
Table 6 (Cont.)
Target Regulation purpose
Disposal of Prohibit littering and provide trash collection receptacles;
garbage, tackle encourage recycling of fishing line and other fishing-related
materials
Disturbance to Restrict shore and boat fishing when there is potential for
wildlife disturbance of breeding, nesting or rearing of wildlife
Habitat Regulate recreational use of disruptive fishing gear (e.g.
disturbance shellfish dredges, rakes; trawls) to protect benthic habitats
Harvest of bait Regulate to prevent depletion of bait organism populations,
habitat damage
Stocking Require permits for importation, transportation and stocking of
aquatic organisms
Introduction of Prohibit introduction of invasive species; conduct risk analysis
non-natives and thorough review before considering any introduction
Tackle and Mitigate for tackle that is potentially damaging to fish or other
methods wildlife (e.g. by use of non-toxic weights and barbless hooks)
Transport of live Prohibit transport without a permit to discourage illegal transfer
fish of fish and aquatic hitch-hikers among waters
Trophic cascades Prevent overharvest of keystone species, apical predators to
prevent undesirable food web consequences
Habitat protection is a powerful tool for promoting healthy fisheries but

it is not always practical. Notwithstanding widespread benefits for fished
populations and the ecosystem, complete restoration of human-altered habitats
(e.g. engineered rivers in more developed nations) is not often feasible. Human
impacts to watersheds, and hence to inland and coastal waters, are often
pervasive and irreversible. The fishery manager rarely has authority to control
potentially harmful activities on the land such as unsustainable logging, mining,
agriculture and development. The manager’s task is then to be an advocate for
the aquatic environment, protect to the extent possible and then find ways to
mitigate or compensate for habitat alteration, such as direct manipulation as
described below.
5.4.2 Biotic manipulations

Manipulations of biota often involve the enhancement of desirable fishes and
the suppression of undesirable ones (Table 7). Managers may conduct the
manipulations themselves, through stocking or physical removal (e.g. Rose and
Moen, 1953) or enlist the aid of recreational fishers by implementing mandatory
Table 7
Examples of management actions targeting biota
Biotic manipulation Purpose
Stocking Release of cultured or translocated fish to create or supplement
populations of desirable fishes (see Table 8)
Biomanipulation Stock, protect fishes as agents of biomanipulation to improve
water clarity; compromises between recreational fishing and
water quality goals are required
Enhance prey Release of aquatic organisms or otherwise supplement prey
resources and enhance growth of fishes
Suppress Physical removal by managers (e.g. netting, electrofishing)
detrimental fishes or recreational fishers (e.g. with liberal harvest regulations,
bounties, contests); targets may or may not be recreational
species
Selective removal Reduce biomass of overabundant cohorts of recreational
species to reduce interspecific and intraspecific competition
Renovation/ Chemical piscicides to remove all fish from a waterbody when
reclamation undesirable species cannot be removed by other means
Manage aquatic Physical removal, biological control (e.g. grass carp, milfoil
plants weevil), herbicides; often directed at invasive species; introduce
beneficial plants, e.g. kelp
kill regulations to suppress undesirable fish. In North America and elsewhere,

the desirability of species has evolved from a highly utilitarian position of
favouring species that have pure recreational value and gastronomic appeal to
one related to the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem function (Eby
et al., 2006). Regardless, fishery management practices must be ecologically
sustainable and derive socio-economic benefits from the fishery.
Stocking plays a prominent role in recreational fishery management
worldwide (Cowx, 1998; Nickum et al., 2004). The practice has many
objectives (Table 8) and includes the transfer of wild fish between waterbodies,
the release of cultured fishes, and the introduction of non-native species.
Managers may wish to stock cultured fish to restore a wild population decimated
by an environmental catastrophe (restoration), to maintain or supplement a
population to mitigate for an unresolved limitation on natural recruitment
(maintenance/mitigation), or to increase the fishable stock above natural levels
(enhancement). Where still legally allowed, non-native fish (or genotypes) might
be introduced to diversify and enhance the socio-economic value of a fishery.
Although such action may attract fishers as advocates for protecting aquatic
Table 8
Major types of stocking programmes used in recreational fishery management
Type Definition/objectives Duration Origin of
stocking material
1. Restoration Release of cultured fish to Temporary Indigenous
restore a population after
a limiting factor has been
ameliorated
2. Mitigation Release of cultured fish to Permanent Indigenous
compensate for reductions in
wild stock caused by unresolved
environmental inadequacy
and overfishing (includes
maintenance)
3. Enhancement Release of cultured fish to Temporary, Indigenous
augment a population’s natural permanent
supply of recruits
4. Introduction Release of non-native fish to Temporary Non-indigenous
create a new, self-sustaining
fishery (the release of non-
native genotypes of a native
species across catchments
could also be considered an
introduction)
5. Put-take Release of cultured juveniles Permanent Indigenous, non-
for immediate catch or catch indigenous
at a larger size (includes sea
ranching, put–grow–take)
6. Trophic Release of predators or prey Temporary, Indigenous, non-
to manipulate food web for permanent indigenous
the benefit of recreational fish
stocks
Note: The first three types involve stocking cultured fish on top of a natural (indigenous)
population of the same species.
Sources: Cowx (1998), Bell et al. (2008).
habitat (e.g. Trout Unlimited in North America, trout anglers in New Zealand),
it can be harmful to the ecosystem and other organisms (Goldschmidt, Witte
and Wanink, 1993; Eby et al., 2006;). In some cases, cultured fish, either native
or non-native, are stocked for the express purpose of contributing to the catch
and are not expected to be self-sustaining (e.g. put-and-take or put–grow–take
type stocking, sea ranching; stocked fish may be sterile or otherwise unlikely
Figure 12
Decision tree for selecting an appropriate stocking strategy
13
me me
Note: See Figure 13 for procedures for planning and implementing a stocking programme.
Source: Modified from Cowx (1994).
to reproduce). Finally, managers may stock piscivores or prey to manipulate a

food web for the benefit of the recreational fishery or other stakeholders (e.g.
biomanipulation; Mehner et al. [2004]).
Managers considering a stocking programme should first evaluate whether
stocking is actually an option (Figure 12), and then decide whether it is feasible
and appropriate on eco-evolutionary and fiscal grounds (Figure 13). Given
that stocking does not alleviate biological limits on the productivity of the
ecosystem, habitat improvement or harvest regulations could be more cost-
effective and less risky to ecological integrity (Rogers et al., 2010). Where
these approaches fail, stocking may be a suitable alternative for improving the
Figure 13
Procedures for planning and implementing a stocking programme once
objectives have been identified
1. Restoration 2. Mitigation 3. Enhancement 4. Introduction 5. Put-take 6. Trophic
Determine age/stage of Determine age/size of

recruitment bottleneck fish for stocking
Determine carrying capacity
Determine optimal stocking density
Identify source of fish for stocking
NO Disease, NO
Local adaptations parasite-free? Risk analysis (4)
Sensitive species Sensitive species
Fishing effort YES YES Fishing effort (4, 5)
Cost and feasibility Cost and feasibility
NO Compatible NO
with native
stocks?
YES YES
Release
Evaluate stocking
programme
Notes: Procedures for planning and implementing a stocking programme once objectives
(1–6) have been identified. Solid arrows represent considerations relevant to stocking
cultured fish on top of a natural population of the same species (restoration, mitigation,
or enhancement). Dashed arrows represent considerations for stocking that may involve
non-native species (after risk analysis) and does not involve rehabilitation of a native fish
population, per se. The manager should anticipate recreational fisher response to stocking
and its potential collateral effects on native fish populations.
fishery. However, in order for stocking to be successful, it is essential that the

manager:
1. understands the status of the fishery and the condition of the habitat;
2. has clear management objectives;
3. selects a stocking strategy appropriate to the objectives;
4. considers ecological factors controlling survival of stocked fish;
5. evaluates eco-evolutionary risks to resident species;

6. anticipates recreational-fisher response to stocking and its potential
collateral effects on native fish populations,
7. predicts the benefit–cost ratio and feasibility of the programme;
8. evaluates outcomes of the stocking programme.
Historically, items 3–5 and 8 have proved to be the most neglected and
problematic. Stocking unquestionably supports substantial recreational fishing
opportunity worldwide. However, the practice is commonly seen as a panacea
for a multitude of fishery inadequacies, it is often unsuccessful (or its additive
effects on top of natural recruits unknown), and it can be ecologically and
genetically harmful (van Poorten et al., 2011). In addition, advances in fish
culture, providing the means to produce vast numbers of fish for stocking,
provide further incentives to stock. Understanding, and preventing, the
deleterious effects of stocking on fisheries and ecosystems while exploiting its
potential for positive outcomes is becoming increasingly important (Lorenzen,
Leber and Blankenship, 2011).
Stocking hatchery-reared fish is often viewed as an efficient means of
restoring extirpated populations. A common management response to large-
scale environmental damage that impairs or prevents recruitment of wild
populations is to build hatcheries (e.g. 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill). When
the stocking objective is restoration, managers should consider very carefully
the genetic implications of using cultured fish as founders of populations.
Even where cultured progeny of wild broodstock are used, the genetic
composition and fitness of hatchery-reared juveniles can be quite different
than that of wild juveniles. Managers should ensure that best practices (FAO,
2008a) are adhered to when hatchery reared fish are produced for restoration
stocking.
Stocking to supplement a wild population (enhancement or mitigation) has
some particular risks and challenges. Where natural reproduction is present,
but deemed inadequate, stocking may be harmful to the wild population. For
example, large-scale hatchery supplementation of Pacific salmon on the west
coast of North America attracted fishing effort that increased exploitation rate
on natural stocks and compromised local adaptations (Hilborn, 1992). Stocked
fish may compete with wild fish, reducing growth and size structure of the
population as a whole, diminishing the benefits of stocking. The cumulative
effect of stocked and wild fish could also be harmful to sensitive species in the
ecosystem (e.g. excessive predation; Eby et al. [2006]). Similarly, managers
stocking piscivorous recreational fish to reduce abundance of undesirable prey
species should consider collateral predation on desirable recreational species

or sensitive species.
Practically speaking, stocked fish could be constrained by the same life-
history bottleneck that may be limiting the wild population. Unless this aspect
of the ecosystem is understood and the stocked fish are raised to a size that
is beyond this bottleneck, the manager should not expect stocking to be
effective (e.g. Donovan, Stein and White, 1997), but raising hatchery fish
to an appropriate size can be very expensive (Johnson and Martinez, 2000).
Maintaining a population entirely with stocking (maintenance, put–take)
should be viewed as a long-term commitment because recreational fishers will
expect such a fishery to be perpetuated. Similarly, when stocking to manipulate
food webs, benefits may be transitory unless stocking is continued.
Introducing non-native fishes or prey has a long history in recreational
fishery management, but these practices are now widely recognized as
environmentally risky and have been discontinued by most management
agencies in many industrialized countries (Rahel, 2004). In some countries,
such as the United States of America, fishery managers today are devoting
considerable time and resources to the removal, containment and suppression
of non-native fishes stocked to create new recreational fisheries (Johnson,
Arlinghaus and Martinez, 2009). In some other countries (e.g. some in Latin
America and South America), socio-economically important fisheries for non-
native salmonids exemplify the trade-offs between changing natural ecosystems
via non-natives and economic benefits stemming from them. However, to some
degree, non-native introductions are a legacy from when such introductions
were perceived as generally positive. Today, managers contemplating the
deployment of a non-native species should take into account the potentially
catastrophic effects (Eby et al. 2006) and that any subsequent eradication may
be unfeasible or too costly (Vander Zanden et al., 2010). Managers should thus
adhere to professional codes of practice for introductions (AFS, 1986; Turner,
1988; Bartley, 2005; ICES, 2005). Where under pressure from recreational
fishers to introduce new species and this is found to be inadvisable, the manager
should educate the fishers about environmental sustainability of management
practices, and provide more sustainable options with existing species wherever
possible. Deterring unauthorized stocking should be a management priority
(Johnson, Arlinghaus and Martinez, 2009).
Managers should evaluate success of stocking programmes whenever
technically possible. However, given the pervasiveness and costs of the tool,
there is a paucity of studies carefully evaluating the outcomes of stocking
projects (but see Stroud, 1986; Schramm and Piper, 1995; Nickum et al. 2004),
and there are very few controlled, replicated studies analysing additive effects
of stocking (Hilborn, 1992). Therefore, the success of many stocking strategies
cannot be predicted. As a minimum, managers should know whether stocking
objectives are being achieved and, therefore, whether continued stocking is
justified. A critical need for such evaluations is the ability to distinguish stocked
fish from wild ones. Managers may believe that stocking is enhancing a fishery,
but in cases where wild fish are present this is not an obvious conclusion.
However, there is an array of methods to distinguish hatchery fish from wild
fish, including fin-clipping, tagging, chemical marking, stable isotope ratios,
and genetic analysis.
5.4.3 Harvest regulations

Many techniques are used to manage recreational fishers and the fish–angler
interaction (Table 9). Regulations are often categorized as either input controls
(regulating the amount and manner of fishing) or output controls (regulating
the fate of the catch), but can also be indirect, using information and outreach
to influence human behaviour. While effort restrictions (e.g. limited entry) are
relatively rare in recreational fisheries as compared with commercial fisheries
(Cox and Walters, 2002), recreational fishery managers can still manipulate
the intensity of fishing by, for example, requiring licences and fees or avoiding
the development of access roads and boat ramps to constrain participation.
Moreover, gear restrictions are frequently used to reduce the efficiency
of recreational fishing without controlling the amount of effort. While the
provision of user conveniences such as boat landings and fish-cleaning stations
may please recreational fishers, managers should anticipate any impacts that
increased use of the fishery might bring.
An understanding of the life history of recreational fish and the effort
response by fishers to altered regulations is necessary if harvest regulations are
to be effective and achieve their objectives. Regulations applied to one life stage
or at a particular locale may be ineffective if the target species is migratory. For
example, anadromous fishes and adfluvial fishes may be targeted by different
groups of fishers and at different intensities across the species’ home range.
Inadequate regulations at any location may jeopardize fishery sustainability
for all anglers.
Bag and size limits and annual quotas have several purposes but, generally,
they are used to limit fishing mortality. Daily bag limits are the most common
output control in recreational fisheries (Isermann and Paukert, 2010). These
Table 9
Management actions and regulations targeting recreational fishers and interactions
between fish and recreational fishers
Control type Explanation and examples
Input controls
Licensing, fees Fees based on duration of licence, species, recreational
fisher residency, recreational fisher status (e.g. youth,
elderly, military, student, native, tourist)
Gear restrictions Hook and line, hook type, artificial vs bait
Method restrictions Motor trolling; attractants: ground baiting, artificial light,
scents
Closed times, seasons Spawning period, aggregations, stressful environmental
conditions
Closed areas Spawning areas, aggregations, refuges, marine protected
areas
Fishing contests Minimize conflicts with other users; can be employed to
encourage harvest of overabundant or undesirable species
User conveniences Provision of boat landings, fishing piers, fish-cleaning
stations may attract recreational fishers
Effort restrictions Limited entry, number of rods/lures/lines
Output controls
Length limits Limit size of fish retained (minimum, maximum, open or
closed slot limits, ‘one over X’ limits)
Bag limits Limit number of fish retained; daily or annually, and in
possession with tags and stamps as variants for particular
sizes
Sale of fish Prohibit commercialization of recreational fish species
Harvest restrictions Restrict based on wild vs hatchery, conservation status
Fish holding Prohibit to reduce sorting, stress, translocation
Harvest mandates, Encourage harvest of overabundant or undesirable species
bounties
Note: In general, input controls regulate the amount and manner of fishing and output controls
regulate the fate of the catch.
rules affect the per capita (recreational fisher) harvest rate, but because access
to many recreational fisheries is unlimited, not necessarily the total harvest from
the fishery (Radomski et al., 2001). Daily bag limits affect harvest expectations
and thus fisher behaviour (Beard et al., 2011). However, unless bag limits are
very restrictive, potentially displacing effort or severely limiting the take, they
will not reduce harvest mortality sustainably because few recreational fishers
actually catch the daily limit. Effort controls and size limits on harvesting
may be more effective for reducing fishing mortality, and bag limits would
then allow more recreational fishers to participate and “share the benefits”.
Effort can be controlled by limiting licence sales, and harvest quotas can be
implemented with season-long bag limits (e.g. punch cards or harvest tags).
Catch-and-release rules can increase recreational fisher use without depleting
the fish population, unless hooking mortality becomes excessive (Chapter 6;
Coggins et al., 2007), in which case method restrictions might be needed to
maximize survival of released fish.
Length-based harvest limits are another common form of output control
in recreational fisheries (Table 10). By tailoring size restrictions to match fish
population characteristics and level of fishing effort in the light of objectives,
the manager can use fishing as a means to manipulate fish population structure.
Individual growth rates can increase and productivity can be enhanced by
targeting fishing mortality on overabundant size-classes, and recruitment can
be improved by protecting age- and size-classes with the most successful
progeny (Venturelli, Shuter and Murphy, 2009; Arlinghaus, Matsumura and
Dieckmann, 2010). In order for a minimum-size limit to be effective, it is
necessary that protected fish have rapid growth and low natural mortality
to allow them to recruit to the vulnerable population. Minimum-size limits
can also be set above the size at maturation to allow fish to spawn prior to
being vulnerable to harvest. Although many fisheries are routinely managed
based on minimum-size limits, there is a range of other tools (e.g. harvest slot
length limits) that may offer better results under certain conditions (Table 10).
Particularly when trophy fish are to be maintained, minimum-size limits will
not perform well at high fishing effort intensities (Pierce, 2010; Garcia-Asorey
et al., 2011). Generally, size limits that disregard fish population demographics
and ecosystem characteristics can be counterproductive (Johnson and Martinez,
1995).
Many recreational fishers are unclear about the applicability of harvest
regulations. Under the implicit assumption that recreational fishers would
like more fish and larger fish, the regulations that can best achieve these goals
are not only constrained by the characteristics of the fish population and the
fishery but by angler preferences that can affect the range of socially optimal
regulations (Johnston, Arlinghaus and Dieckmann, 2010). Usually, the level
of size-specific fishing mortality interacts with the natural mortality, growth
Table 10
Five common size-based harvest regulations for managing recreational fisheries,
and the associated vulnerability to harvest, management objectives and
demographic conditions necessary for the tool to be effective
Size (total Fish that must be Management Demographic
length) limit type released objectives conditions
Minimum Fish smaller than Conserve recruits; Low recruitment, rapid
the size limit produce larger fish growth, low M
for reproduction and
harvest
Maximum Fish larger than Reduce abundance High recruitment, slow
the size limit and competition growth, moderate M
among small fish;
maintain trophies and
fecund large spawners
Open slot Fish above Protect young recruits Low recruitment,
and below an and spawners; rapid growth, low M;
intermediate maintain yield and particularly useful
size class CPUE; protect large, when size-dependent
(combination of fecund spawners, maternal influences
minimum-size maintain trophies affect recruitment and
and maximum- when fishing could
size limits) deplete the spawning
stock
Closed slot Fish within an Reduce abundance High recruitment, slow
intermediate size and competition; allow growth, high M
class harvest of large fish
Total catch-and- All fish Improve CPUE and Little interest in
release size, maintain stock harvest by fishers,
in “natural” condition, high F; sensitive stock;
consumption high contamination
prohibitions
Note: F = fishing mortality; M = natural mortality; CPUE = catch per unit of effort.
rate and recruitment rate of the fished population to determine a regulatory

regime that achieves predefined management objectives. In the light of diverse
objectives, the choice of optimal harvest regulations for recreational fisheries or
for a combined exploitation of commercial and recreational fisheries will thus
be fishery-specific and site-specific and may only be generalized in relation to
the decision trees presented in these Guidelines document (Figure 14, Tables 9
and 10).
Figure 14
Decision tree for selecting appropriate size and bag limits based on the
intensity of fishing, target fish population’s demographic characteristics
and recreational fisher desires
HIGH Fishing LOW

mortality?
2. Limits HIGH Natural 1. Limits

not useful mortality? not useful
LOW
LOW NO 6. Bag
Growth? Density-dependent
growth? limits
HIGH YES
NO
3. Closed HIGH Recruitment?
Will fishers 7. Limits
slot harvest small not useful
fish?
LOW YES
4. Minimum, NO Maternal Harvest of big NO

influence? 8. Maximum
C&R fish desired?
YES YES
5. Open slot, 9. Closed
C&R slot
Notes: When fishing mortality is low (1), harvest restrictions would not provide any benefit.
If natural mortality is high (2), then deferring harvest will not result in more large fish. The
manager can expect size and bag limits to have the greatest impact on the number of large
fish when fishing pressure is high, fish grow quickly and experience low natural mortality (3,
4, 5). When growth is slow, size limits may be useful for reducing density-dependent growth
depression by channelling harvest onto overabundant size classes (8, 9). In cases where
demographics of the stock are completely unknown, bag limits (6) should be established
as a precaution against overharvest. Maternal influence means size-dependent influences
of females on recruitment stemming from fecundity or egg quality influences. C&R = total
mandatory catch-and-release.
Basic recommendations can still be given assuming that a fishery is solely

exploited by recreational fisheries (Figure 14, Tables 9 and 10). Where the
fishing mortality rate is low, limiting it further will not be beneficial. Protective
size limits that defer harvest will also have little benefit if growth is slow and
natural mortality is high, because few fish will survive to reach the harvestable
size. When growth is slow, specifically tailored size-based harvest limits may
be useful for reducing density-dependent growth depression by channelling
harvest onto overabundant size classes. In general, the manager can expect size
and daily bag limits to have the greatest impact on the number of large fish to
be conserved in the stock when fishing pressure is high, fish grow quickly and
experience low natural mortality. Thus, under these conditions, when regulations
defer harvest to a larger size, the abundance of fish in that size class will be
higher than if natural mortality and growth were less favourable. When fishing
pressure is great enough to truncate size and age structure severely, open slot
length limits may be superior for conservation and enhancing fishery quality
in fast-growing top predator species that may be recruitment limited at low
spawning stock sizes (Arlinghaus, Matsumura and Dieckmann, 2010). When
natural mortality and growth favour deferred harvest strategies, the recruitment
dynamics of the stock and the objectives of the fishery will ultimately dictate
the particular size regulation to apply. For example, where recruitment is high,
a closed slot limit would be appropriate, but where recruitment is low and size-
dependent, maternal influences (fecundity and egg quality) are important for
securing future recruitment; then, an open slot limit or total catch-and-release
might be called for to protect the most influential spawners. Open slot limits
may be a good compromise for maintaining a high harvest (in numbers) as well
as protecting trophy-sized fish in populations with fast growth, low natural
mortality and limited recruitment at low spawner abundance (Venturelli,
Shuter and Murphy, 2009; García-Asorey et al., 2011). Simulation modelling
can predict how a given population will respond to various harvest limits and
suggest the optimal choice before testing it in real life.
There are also opportunities for recreational fishers to adopt conservation-
minded measures voluntarily to help support regulations, perhaps even making
regulations superfluous. For example, in some fisheries, people voluntarily
release all the fish captured (Arlinghaus, 2007), obviating the need for a
very restrictive harvest policy. Alternatively, “unexpected” behaviour may
render some regulations ineffective, for example, where people refrain from
harvesting small fish under a protected slot regulation aimed at reducing
density-dependent competition (Pierce and Tomcko, 1998).
In order to reduce the information burden and increase ease of
communication and acceptability by fishers, regulations should not be too
complex or too system-specific. Usually, more novel regulations are initially
resisted unless the benefits become obvious. Therefore, regulatory planning
must involve a thorough understanding of the human dimensions of the fishery.
Managers should be aware of voluntary behaviour that arises from proper

education and outreach thereby sustaining fisheries using a “softer approach”
to resource stewardship. Such an approach could be particularly effective in
developing countries where formal management capacity and enforcement are
lacking. Where voluntary behaviour is not enough, Walker, Foote and Sullivan
(2007) provide examples of enforcement needs to ensure rule compliance in
recreational fisheries.
Application of harvest regulations provides the means to improve the
fishery for recreational fishers. However, it is also an opportunity to learn about
the system and improve management in the future. In some cases, regulations
may not produce the desired effects so it is important for managers to follow
up regulation changes with fishery evaluation (Figures 9 and 10).
79
6. Recreational fishing practices
T
his chapter considers recreational fishing practices of the individual
recreational fisher. The focus is on the activities and behaviour of
individuals as affecting their safety, gear selection, use of aquatic
resources and the impacts that their fishing has on the environment and on
individual aquatic animals, particularly fish. In some cases, behavioural choice
is voluntary and it is for the recreational fisher to decide whether or not to act
in a way to minimize impacts on habitats or individual fish. In other cases,
policies or laws exist but the recreational fishers still have to decide the extent
to which they will comply with such regulations. There can be consequences
of recreational fishing, including direct impacts on fish populations and both
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Chapter 1), and the issue of fish welfare
is receiving increasing public attention (Arlinghaus et al., 2009a). However,
by following simple guidelines, these potential negative consequences can be
minimized and often eliminated. The following sections provide details on the
issues, scientific basis and context for guidance and the guidelines themselves.
Although the guidelines are related to the individual behaviour of the recreational
fisher, there are various channels for their promotion. Examples include formal
regulation and informally based voluntary behaviour, which may be stimulated
by guidance, outreach and education from NGOs, recreational fishing clubs
and associations or fisheries management bodies and agencies.
6.1 Safety
The safety of recreational fishers, other stakeholders and their property is of
paramount importance and, consequently, many jurisdictions have developed a
suite of safety regulations, most of which pertain to boat safety. Regulations can
dictate the need for certain pieces of safety gear including signalling devices,
paddles, anchor, buoyant heaving lines, first-aid kit, fire extinguisher, and life
jackets. There is also a growing trend towards the licensing of pleasure-craft
operators.
Commercial fishing is regarded as one of the most dangerous occupations
in the world, and there is a large body of literature detailing aspects of
occupational health and safety (e.g. , Kite-Powell and Talley, 2001). A similar
body of literature does not exist for recreational fishing, possibly because of its
leisure-time focus that reduces governmental and industry-based safety input.
However, each year, many hundreds of recreational fishers die, with almost all
deaths directly attributable to drowning. Following appropriate fishing industry
regulations and best practice for boat safety and for working on or around
water would reduce safety concerns in recreational fisheries. The single largest
factor that could minimize deaths is the use of life jackets. Recreational fishers
can injure themselves and others by careless use of gear (e.g. hooks penetrating
parts of the body). Wearing sunglasses can help to shield the eyes from hook
injuries, and a pair of sidecutters sharp enough to cut through a hook can be
useful for removing embedded hooks. Learning how to handle aquatic animals
that are likely to be encountered can also help with fisher safety (while also
helping to maintain the welfare status of the fish). A well-stocked first-aid kit
should always be carried.
With recreational fishing being an outdoor activity, there is potential for
exposure to harmful ultraviolet radiation, and cover by clothing, hat and/
or sunscreen is essential to reduce risk of skin cancer. In some regions, the
correct choice of clothing is critical to either stay warm (e.g. ice fishing) or to
minimize exposure to biting insects. Consumption of aquatic animals can also
be a safety concern in some locations. For example, biotoxins such as ciguatera
exist in some coastal marine regions in recreationally harvested species, which
can cause gastrointestinal and neurological issues (Ting and Brown, 2001).
Other toxic substances (heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, etc.) can
enter the aquatic food chain, so aquatic animal consumption advisories exist in
some regions (Fiore et al., 1989). Research has revealed that many recreational
fishers are unaware of fish consumption advisories or tend to ignore them,
which is a significant concern (Ramos and Crain, 2001), particularly in urban
fisheries. Of concern is the fact that such advisories do not exist in some
countries, which does not mean that aquatic animals are safe to eat, but simply
that research or monitoring are lacking.
6.2 Sale and trade of aquatic animals, particularly fish

A tenet of recreational fishing by definition is that fisheries protein is
generally not sold or otherwise traded on domestic, export or black markets
(Chapter 1; EIFAC, 2008; Arlinghaus and Cooke, 2009). Doing so bridges
the divide between commercial, subsistence and recreational fishing. In many
jurisdictions, it is thus illegal for recreational fishers to catch fish and then sell
them following capture. In commercial fisheries, the selling of fish product
is usually subjected to a variety of inspections and rules intended to protect
consumer health or fisheries management, including stock assessment. Such
Recreational fishing practices 81
a situation does not exist for fish that are captured by recreational fishers and
then sold or traded. There is no general scientific issue questioning trade in
recreational fish, e.g. to offset costs (e.g. Mike and Cowx, 1986), other than
if allowed it could lead to the “industrialization” of recreational fishing and
thus to overharvest. However, in many countries, there are legal and tax-
based regulations supporting a clear demarcation between recreational and
commercial, sale-oriented fishing. Moreover, any sale by recreational fishing
will compete with commercial fisheries and thus disadvantage those fishers
who are generating resources for livelihood. Therefore, the sale and trade of
fish in recreational fisheries should be confined to those rare exceptions where
national law on fisheries is still in development. Currently, there is no simple
means of identifying whether a fish appearing in the market place was captured
by the recreational sector or the commercial sector, which limits the ability to
determine compliance with regulations in countries where the sale of fish by
recreational fishers is already formally banned.
6.3 Use of harvested aquatic animals, particularly fish

When fishing, recreational fishers have the potential to voluntarily either
release or harvest the aquatic animals that they capture. Only a few jurisdictions
entirely ban the release of legal-sized fish (Arlinghaus, 2007). Although there
is emphasis on voluntary total catch-and-release among a large segment of the
more avid recreational fishing community in some countries such as the United
States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (Arlinghaus et al., 2007a), most recreational fishers worldwide, even
the most specialized ones, practice selective harvest, evaluating their catch
based on a variety of factors (e.g. fish size, species, food value, amount of food
at home, conservation concerns, management regulations) to decide whether
they will release or harvest an individual fish. Cultural and legal norms vary
widely, such that in some regions voluntary release rates are very low while in
other regions release rates are high and many approach 100 percent of captured
fish in some specialized fisheries (Arlinghaus and Cooke, 2009). Recreational
fishers, as commercial fishers, do have the potential to overharvest fish, leading
to population declines (Post et al., 2002). As such, independent of whether
harvest regulations exist, recreational fishers should harvest only as many
aquatic animals are immediately needed. This is particularly sensible for a
practice conducted during leisure time that supplements household diets with
fish protein but is not essential for survival. Similarly, for ethical reasons,
when a fish is harvested, it should be used efficiently and not wasted. Some
jurisdictions have regulations to this effect. Similarly, for ethical and fisheries-
conservation reasons, everything possible should be done to minimize bycatch
mortality (Coggins et al., 2007). Fish that are to be kept should be handled
and stored in such a way that preserves the quality of the flesh. When fish are
cleaned, this should be done at a proper fish-cleaning station, and entrails or
whole dead fish should not be left in the environment to cause odours, disease
and attraction of potentially problematic wildlife.
6.4 Tackle, gear and fishing techniques

Recreational fishers have a large array of fishing gear and techniques to choose
from. Indeed, although most people think of rod and line as the primary tool of
recreational fishers, others use a spear, bow, rifle, trap, or gillnet (Arlinghaus
and Cooke, 2009). Whatever gear and method is used, it is important to ensure
that it is consistent with various regulatory requirements and also minimizes
welfare impacts on individual fish (see below). Moreover, it is expected that
in most recreational fisheries gear will be tended (e.g. checking nets and
traps frequently, not using too many rods) in order to minimize its impact on
non-target species. Indeed, in some developed countries, these concepts are
incorporated into various regulatory instruments by for example limiting the
number of rods an individual angler can use at a given time. Also relevant to
fishing tackle is the potential for environmental pollution (see Section 6.5).
6.5 Litter and pollution

Although issues of litter and pollution are relevant to managers (Table 6), these
guidelines are directed mostly towards the fishers and the industry.
Similar to commercial fisheries, the recreational sector can generate
litter and pollution, and many non-fishers associate recreational fishing with
unpleasant littering of shorelines in heavily used fisheries. Litter from bait
containers, tackle packaging, etc. has the potential to harm animals and is
generally not compatible with natural environments and their aesthetic appeal.
Areas frequented by recreational fishers can have more litter compared with
low-intensity sites (e.g. O’Toole, Hanson and Cooke, 2009). Human-created
waste that has deliberately or accidentally become afloat in a lake, sea, ocean or
waterway is now an increasing global issue. Garbage in the ocean accumulates
in swirling seas of debris, mainly because of an increase in non-biodegradable
plastic. The largest of these garbage swills is in the North Pacific Ocean and
is known as the Pacific Gyre, or The Great Garbage Patch. While this large
accumulation is not much of an issue of recreational fisheries, fishers should
be aware that bringing unnecessary plastic containers that are easily lost or
washed away by water can contribute to this global issue. Anthropogenic debris
along shorelines and in adjacent waterbodies can have a negative impact on the
environment (Cryer, Corbett and Winterbotham, 1987; Radomski et al., 2006).
Loss of fishing gear (e.g. line, lures, hooks, lead weights) can affect both the
substratum in which it is deposited and the wildlife present in the area (Forbes,
1986; Lewin, Arlinghaus and Mehner, 2006). The ability of abandoned, lost
or otherwise discarded fishing gear to continue to fish (often referred to as
“ghost fishing”) has detrimental impacts on fish stocks and potential impacts
on endangered species and benthic environments (Macfadyen, Huntington
and Cappell, 2009), although this issue is mainly confined to large-scale
commercial fishing operations.
Although rarely quantified, fishing line and hooks can become entangled in
a variety of wildlife species including birds, marine mammals, and turtles (e.g.
Nemoz, Cadi and Thienpont, 2004). When line is ingested or when animals
become entangled, it can result in injury or mortality (e.g. Franson et al., 2003).
Cryer, Corbett and Winterbotham (1987) estimated that up to 13.7 m of fishing
line was lost per recreational fisher on an annual basis, and Forbes (1986) found
that the average length of line discarded around a small, coarse fishery lake
was 56 cm. While most research on the effects of lost fishing gear has occurred
in freshwater systems, fishing hooks and line also can damage sensitive sessile
marine invertebrates (i.e. coral habitats) although the proportion of hook-and-
line gear attributable to commercial versus recreational fishing is unknown. In
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, lost hook-and-line fishing gear
accounted for 87 percent of all fishing debris encountered and was responsible
for 84 percent of impacts (i.e. tissue abrasion, partial individual mortality,
colony mortality) to sponges and benthic cnidarians, albeit the overall damage
caused by lost gear being minor at < 0.5 percent of total invertebrate density
(Chiappone et al., 2005). In Asia, coral colonies entangled with fishing line
were consistently in poorer condition, had higher rates of mortality, and larger
proportions of dead or damaged coral (Yoshikawa and Asoh, 2004). Similar
recreational fishing impacts were reported for cauliflower coral (Pocillopora
meandrina) by Asoh et al. (2004).
Lead deposition can also pose a hazard to wildlife, especially to birds
that ingest small stones and grit in order to aid digestion, although the effects
tend to be quite localized. Lost lead fishing tackle is not readily released into
aquatic and terrestrial systems under most environmental conditions, although
under some circumstances pieces of lead can weather and erode, yielding free
dissolved lead, precipitates, and chemical species that complex with inorganic
and organic matter (reviewed in Rattner et al. [2008]). Lead has a very slow
dissolution rate and a high stability in sediment, leading to ingestion by
waterfowl, which subsequently suffer the effects of lead poisoning (Cryer et al.,
1987; Donaldson et al., 2003; Scheuhammer et al., 2003). Jacks, Bystroem
and Johansson (2001) estimated that in Swedish Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
fisheries, up to 200 tonnes of lead fishing sinkers are lost in river mouths. In
littoral regions of the waters of South Wales, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, 24–190 sinkers/m2 were found (Cryer, Corbett
and Winterbotham, 1987). Lead poisoning in birds may result in lethal and
sublethal effects, including decreases in body weight, reproductive stress, and
anaemia (Scheuhammer and Norris, 1995; Kendall et al., 1996). Educational
efforts by governments and environmental organizations have been successful
in promoting the use of alternatives to lead weights. In the long term, it is
desirable to move away from lead fishing tackle, although it has been suggested
that this should be driven by consumer demand and the industry rather than
regulatory agencies (Rattner et al., 2008).
An emerging issue is related to the accidental loss or intentional discarding
of soft plastic lures into waterbodies. Research has revealed that soft plastic
lures often swell in water and can be consumed by fish. The fish are unable to
digest the lures, and these block the digestive tract and can lead to starvation
(Danner, Chacko and Brautigam, 2009).
Any efforts to minimize the accidental or intentional deposition of litter
would be beneficial both for the environment and for the public image of
recreational fisheries. In some jurisdictions, angling clubs are highly active in
cleaning up the environment and have regular meetings to remove voluntarily
waste and litter left by others, both fishers and non-fishery users. In addition,
there is a need for the development of more biodegradable and environmentally
friendly products and packaging. Provision of refuse containers at popular
fishing sites or access points could also assist with reducing the deposition of
litter.
Combustion engines of boat traffic in rivers, lakes, and along the coastline,
emit inorganic and organic compounds (mostly hydrocarbons) into the water
and into the air near the surface, which can be toxic to aquatic animals. In
marine ecosystems, such emissions can contribute to the surface microlayer,
and the toxic substances on the air–water interface can significantly affect the
survival and development of early life-history stages of marine fishes and other
surface-dwelling organisms (Kocan et al., 1987). Although it is not possible to
quantify the effects of boat traffic linked exclusively to recreational fishing, it

is likely to be substantial, and Lewin, Arlinghaus and Mehner (2006) conclude
that there could be negative effects on the aquatic environment or fish stocks,
with the effect dependent upon motor type, travelling speed, bottom structure
of the ecosystem, and slope of the shoreline.
6.6 Environmental and wildlife disturbance

Areas that experience high fishing effort may also be subjected to considerable
shoreline changes as a result of human activity, which can lead to a cascade of
deleterious changes in both the terrestrial and aquatic environments. Increased
foot traffic from recreational fishers reaching access points could potentially
lead to removal of vegetation (Mueller et al., 2003), loss of plant diversity (Ros
et al., 2004), soil compaction (Andrés-Abellán et al., 2005), and erosion; factors
that have rarely been studied in the context of recreational fishing (Cooke and
Cowx, 2006; Lewin, Arlinghaus and Mehner, 2006) but are known in terms
of hiking and camping impacts (Cole, 2004). In turn, as riparian vegetation
is important in providing overhead cover and shade for fish, and also for
anchoring soil, riparian disturbance may lead to increased shoreline erosion
as well as decreased habitat complexity (Delong and Brusven, 1991; Schindler
and Scheuerell, 2002). Soil compaction increases soil density and reduces its
porosity (Lei, 2004), further contributing to erosional processes, surface runoff
into nearby watersheds, and water quality degradation (Kozlowski, 1999).
O’Toole, Hanson and Cooke (2009) found that the percentage of barren area and
soil compaction were greater in areas of high level of activities by recreational
fishers compared with areas that experienced relatively low recreational fishing.
In addition, terrestrial and aquatic macrophyte density, height and diversity
were lower in areas with high levels of recreational fishing.
Recreational fishing, although essentially a quiet and often solitary activity,
can disturb wildlife. Commonly, waterfowl and coastal and wetland birds,
many of which are now rare, are liable to disturbance if access to waters
or shoreline is uncontrolled (Cryer et al., 1987). Most damage is done at
nesting time when birds are disrupted or prevented from gaining access to
their nests (Maitland, 1995). There are also many mammals commonly found
associated with the rivers and lakes, most of which are shy and sensitive to
disturbance, e.g. otters (Lutra lutra), and prefer secure places to rear their
young (Jefferies, 1987). Closed seasons or protected areas are designed to
minimize these impacts, but problems still persist, although it is clear that
also other recreationists will induce similar impacts and that wildlife can also
become accustomed to disturbances by humans without any measurable long-

term impact. Recreational fishers wading in streams can also damage aquatic
habitats. For example, Roberts and White (1992) reported that anglers wading
on trout eggs and pre-emergent fry resulted in mortality as high as 96 percent.
In addition, recreational-fisher activity can also affect the production of
invertebrates that can serve as important food sources for fish. For example,
Mueller et al. (2003) reported that dragonfly fauna were negatively affected
by bank trampling caused by recreational fishing activity in a Hungarian river.
This problem is exacerbated where recreational fishers modify bankside and
littoral zone vegetation to gain access to fishing sites because its removal in
lakes is known to affect predator–prey relationships, food webs and fish growth
(Roth et al., 2007). Intertidal fauna and turtle nests are probably also affected
by recreational fishers driving to their fishing spots by the beach. Smith and
Murray (2005) reported that recreational fisher foot traffic combined with the
collection of mussels (Mytilus californianus) for bait may reduce cover for
mussels and create mussel-free gaps.
The intense, but spatially restricted, nature of recreational fisheries can
result in alteration of localized habitats from increased boat traffic, particularly
in near-shore and inland environments (Bellan and Bellan-Santini, 2001).
Sargent et al. (1995) documented that more than 6 percent of seagrass beds in
Florida exhibited damage caused by propellers, representing some 70 000 ha.
Although both commercial and recreational fishery boats can scar seagrass,
95 percent of boats registered in Florida are recreational (not that all engage
in recreational fishing), and it is these boats that typically operate in shallow,
near-shore environments. In addition to damage from propellers, anchors
also have the potential to damage sensitive habitats such as reefs. Noise
from recreational fishing vessels can, but ought not to (Klefoth, Kobler and
Arlinghaus, 2011), disturb fish and affect their distribution and energy budget.
In the Adriatic Sea, noise from the passage of outboard boat engines resulted
in behavioural alterations in gobies (Gobiidae; Costantini and Spoto, 2002). In
small inland waterways or near-shore areas, vessels can also generate waves
that erode shorelines, suspend sediment, and may disturb fish, especially where
movements are excessive and uncontrolled (Pygott, O’Hara and Eaton, 1990;
Mosisch and Arthington, 1998; Wolter and Arlinghaus, 2003). This can lead
to collapse of banks, loss of riparian vegetation, and, on a more subtle level,
change in littoral water temperatures, which directly affects juvenile growth and
recruitment (Hodgson and Eaton, 2000). When boats are trailered and moved
between catchments or systems, there is also the potential for the introduction
of non-native organisms such as invertebrates (e.g. zebra mussels) and aquatic

macrophytes. Overall, however, these impacts will be localized and regionally
confined and, thus, can be addressed through regulation or education.
6.7 Environmental monitoring and reporting

Most natural-resource agencies lack sufficient staff to be able to provide the
level of monitoring and surveillance needed to identify “real-time” problems
with aquatic ecosystems. Given the number of recreational fishers, they serve
as an important group of frontline observers when it comes to documenting
aquatic animal kills, instances of pollution, and the presence of non-native
species. Indeed, this is regarded as one of the benefits of recreational fishing.
However, recreational fishers must not only observe but also report their findings
to relevant authorities in a timely manner. A common limitation is that fishers
or other members of the public are unsure as to how such information should
be reported, thus there is a need for clear mechanisms to facilitate reporting.
As key resource stakeholders, recreational fishers are well positioned to benefit
from participation in environmental monitoring and reporting, and they do so
effectively in many areas (Bate, 2001; Granek et al., 2008).
6.8 Baiting and collection and transfer of live bait

organisms
Use of live and organic baits in recreational fishing has the potential to
generate a number of environmental problems. These range from the
intentional deposition of various organic materials in the water to attract fish
(which releases nutrient and potentially toxic substances [Rapp et al., 2008])
to the harvest of various vertebrates and invertebrates that are used for bait,
as well as potential consequences induced by the animals being introduced
into a new environment. In some recreational fisheries, ground-baiting (with
cereals, maggots or other baits) or chumming, the process of distributing bait
in water to attract fish, is common in both freshwater and marine environments.
Where used excessively, it can lead to deterioration in water quality (Cryer
and Edwards, 1987), increased phosphorus loading (Edwards and Fouracre,
1983; Niesar et al., 2004), and substantial reduction in benthic fauna (Cryer
and Edwards, 1987). Comparatively, there is much more known about ground-
baiting in freshwater systems than chumming in marine systems.
Collection of bait can also cause problems, and as the absolute number
of recreational fishers worldwide increases, so will the demand for live bait.
Some studies on marine coastal habitats have shown that digging for bait can
influence the littoral fauna (Beukema, 1995) as well as the abundance and
size structure of harvested benthic organisms (e.g. Cryer et al., 1987). Some
of the harvested bait species play an important role in structuring the bottom
communities, such that there can be systems-level consequences (Wynberg and
Branch, 1997; Shepherd and Boates, 1999). The bait digging or pumping and
the associated trampling can cause considerable disturbance to the sediment
and affect sensitive taxa (Skilleter et al., 2005). Litvak and Mandrak (1993)
reviewed the baitfish industry in Canada and the United States of America and
conservatively estimated it to be worth US$1 billion annually. The authors
identified a number of problems experienced by the systems where baitfish
harvest occurred. In Ontario, Canada, they revealed that 15 baitfish species
were listed as vulnerable or threatened. Also of concern can be the disturbance
of habitats and interaction with non-target species during collection of baitfish.
Some jurisdictions restrict gear types and seasons in order to minimize impacts
of bait collection on aquatic ecosystems.
A significant concern associated with use of live bait is the potential for the
introduction of non-native species (Johnson, Arlinghaus and Martinez, 2009).
A survey of the characteristics of the bait industry in 1992 in six north-central
states in the United States of America revealed that all retail dealers purchased
bait, and 16 percent reported harvesting some bait (Meroneka, Copesa and
Coble, 1997). Most bait came from within the state of sale, but 15 percent
of retail dealers and 34 percent of wholesale dealers reported purchasing bait
outside the state. In another study (Ludwig and Leitch, 1996), a survey of bait
vendors, bait samples from retail locations, vendor interviews, a creel survey,
and a literature review, were used to estimate the potential for recreational
fishers in North Dakota and Minnesota (in the United States of America) to
contribute to the dispersal of non-indigenous fish from the Mississippi River
basin into the Hudson Bay basin. They estimated that the probability of a single
recreational fisher on a single fishing day in the Hudson Bay basin releasing
live bait from the Mississippi River basin to be 1.2/100. The authors suggest
that drastic policy measures would have to be undertaken to reduce recreational
fishers’ potential for contributing to the dispersal of aquatic species. Litvak and
Mandrak (1993) examined bait dealer tanks in Ontario, Canada, and found
that 18 of the 28 fish species found in the tanks were potentially used outside
their known ranges. Freshwater crayfish are also believed to be introduced by
recreational fishers. In a 2008 survey of United States and Canadian fisheries
agencies, 49 percent of respondents reported aquatic resource problems that
were believed to have been caused by bait-bucket introductions of alien
crayfishes (DiStefano, Litvan and Horner, 2009). Visits to bait shops revealed
sales of illegal and invasive alien crayfishes by bait shop proprietors who could
not identify the species they were selling. Non-native earthworm populations
are often found near lakes, and it has been suggested that recreational fishers
discarding unwanted bait are a vector for the establishment of new populations.
It was determined that all the bait stores surveyed sold known invasive species,
and 44 percent of recreational fishers who purchase bait dispose of unwanted
bait on land or in trash, thus suggesting that the bait trade and disposal of
worms is a major source of earthworm introductions (Keller et al., 2007).
Font and Lloret (2011) studied recreational shore fishing along the coast of the
marine reserve of Cap de Creus (northwest Mediterranean) and determined that
43 percent of the baits used by the shore recreational fishers were live, non-
native species (mostly polychaetes), emphasizing the increasing environmental
risks arising from the use of exotic marine baits, which constitute a potential and
unregulated vector of introduction of non-native species in the Mediterranean.
Other introductions occur indirectly through recreational fisher activities, for
example, the transfer of aquatic zooplankton through attachment to fishing
lines (Jacobs and MacIsaac, 2007), the transfer of algae through attachment to
waders, or fishes when released from bait buckets (see below for details).
In recognition of the problems identified above, particularly with respect to
bait-bucket transfers, regulatory agencies, particularly in North America, have
enacted regulations to limit the season and quantity of baitfish harvest more
effectively, to limit species that can be harvested, to minimize interstate and
interwatershed transport, and to require that recreational fishers do not release
bait alive. These regulatory actions have been coupled with outreach and
education activities that have targeted bait harvesters, dealers and recreational
fishers in order to maximize compliance.
6.9 Illegal release and transfer of fish

Similar to the above undesirable transfer of non-teleost organisms, the
introduction or transfer of non-native fish species or genotypes and associated
pathogens by recreational fishers has the potential to alter fundamentally the
structure and function of recipient fish populations, and potentially entire
aquatic ecosystems (Cowx, 1994; Lewin, McPhee and Arlinghaus, 2008;
Johnson, Arlinghaus and Martinez, 2009). While the issue of management-
decided introductions has been covered in Chapter 5, the issue extends to each
individual recreational fisher who transfers fish among waterbodies in the
process of fishing, as bait or intentionally, but usually illegally, to establish
populations of desired species. This can have devastating impacts on local fish
communities, e.g. the establishment of European wels catfish (Silurus glanis)
in Spain was driven by an angler introducing the species to establish it for
recreational exploitation. Many more examples of illegal transfer of fish by
recreational fishers exist worldwide (Cambray, 2003). Although authorized
stocking of sport and forage fishes is a common reason for fish introductions,
the unauthorized illegal introduction by individual fishers is now a major reason
for the spread of non-native fishes (Rahel, 2004). Mechanisms to prevent illegal
transfer and introductions of fish include a combination of education as well as
the development and strict enforcement of regulations (with large penalties in
keeping with the severity of the offence).
6.10 Fish welfare in relation to capture, retention, kill

and catch-and-release
A contentious issue in some countries is the well-being (or welfare) of individual
fish and how this welfare might be compromised in the process of recreational
fishing with various types of gear (Huntingford et al., 2006; Arlinghaus et al.,
2007b). The concept of fish welfare is relevant independent of the question
of whether fish can suffer or feel pain in the process of being captured by
recreational fishers because fish will experience a stress reaction to any form
of capture, fight and handling (Rose, 2007). Therefore, from a pragmatic fish
welfare perspective that considers recreational fishing to be a legitimate human
activity (Arlinghaus et al., 2009a), any actions that minimize or even avoid
stressful situations for a fish in the process of capture, kill or catch-and-release
are preferred (Cooke and Sneddon, 2007).
Fish welfare issues always deal with the individual fish, not with population
impacts (Arlinghaus et al., 2007b, 2009a), and attempts should be made to
maximize chances of survival if fish are released, or to minimize discomfort
prior to and during slaughtering of the fish. The subsequent discussion focuses
on fish captured by rod and line (i.e. angled) because angling is the most
common form of recreational fishing. Although angling is often the least
stressful form of catching a fish compared with other gear types, there are
still fish welfare issues that demand consideration. Other gear types used by
recreational fishers offer little scope for improvement in fish welfare because
the fish is usually mortally wounded (e.g. spear fishing) or dead at harvest
(e.g. gillnetting) and thus are unlikely to be released. Best practices for non-
angling gear types relate primarily to when it is appropriate to use them, the
need to abide by local regulations, and how to kill fish in a responsible manner.
Guidelines related to these aspects thus apply generally, while all others are
confined to angling.
By its nature, hooking or otherwise catching a fish with recreational fishing
gear necessarily causes some level of stress response by, and some injury to, an
individual fish that cannot be avoided (Cooke and Sneddon, 2007). Although
most stress induced by angling can be compensated for by the fish during its
recovery, the entire process from hooking to when the fish is released offers
opportunities for angler behaviour to increase the chance that a released fish
recovers quickly with no fitness impairment (Figure 15). Any judgement as to
how strongly fishing practices, including holding fish in keepnets or similar,
influence the welfare of individual fish is contingent on how fish welfare is
defined and what a given stakeholder group tolerates. Appropriate behaviour
of recreational fishers in all areas of a catch event (Figure 15) is critical for
all because it reflects a high moral standard of recreational fishers towards
their quarry. This benefits the image of recreational fishers, increases fish flesh
quality (e.g. when fish are rapidly killed after capture), and increases recovery
and survival of fish that are released, helping maintain fish populations by
fish being unharmed and resuming normal behaviour with no fitness impacts.
Thus, although consideration of fish welfare is sometimes perceived as a
threat by some recreational fishers and fisheries managers, accounting for it is
common sense, ultimately benefiting individual fish, fishers and potentially the
entire fish population and fishery (Cooke and Sneddon, 2007). There is little
argument against engaging in behaviour that minimizes the stress response of
fish to fishing provided that fish welfare arguments are not misused as moral
arguments against fishing, as happens in certain arenas (Arlinghaus et al.,
2009a).
Defining fish welfare in a manner that is objective, useful and not threatening
to recreational fisheries on moral grounds has proved elusive and has generated
considerable debate. In the EIFAC Code of Practice for Recreational Fisheries
(EIFAC, 2008) a feelings-based approach to fish welfare that focuses on currently
immeasurable “unpleasant mental states” of fish (Huntingford et al., 2006) was
found to be unsuitable based on arguments presented in detail in Arlinghaus
et al. (2007b, 2009a). As a consequence, a function-based definition of fish
welfare based on objectively measurable indicators of impaired fish welfare
(e.g. physiology, behaviour) is preferred (Arlinghaus et al. 2007b, 2009a)
and is thus adopted in this document. Consequently, “good welfare means
an individual fish is in good health, with its biological systems functioning
properly and with no impairment of fitness” (EIFAC, 2008). Against this, it can
be judged how recreational fishing may improve fish welfare, acknowledging

that some impacts need to be accepted (e.g. hooking a fish).
Figure 15
Overview of various sources of impacts on fish in the context of catch-
and-release angling
Angling Potential Possible

activity disturbance outcome
Fish Hooked Tissue damage Injury
Mortality
Exhaustion
Fish fought Water temperature Injury
Predation attempt Sublethal stress
Decompression Mortality
Fish landed
Scale/Slime Removal
- Handling Injury
Air Exposure
Disease/Fungus
- Hook removal Tissue damage Sublethal stress
Scale removal Mortality
- Retention??
Hypoxia/temperature
Confinement
Release Predation Injury
Mortality
Injury
Cumulative disturbance Disease/fungus
Sublethal stress
?
?
?
? Fitness impact
Mortality
Recovery
- No fitness effects
- No disease Target for
- Minimal injury Catch-and-
Catch-and-release
- Minimal sublethal stress angling
Survival
Notes: Welfare is not explicitly listed as an impact as all of the potential impacts listed can
be considered to be related to fish welfare. In the context of “potential disturbance”, factors
such as temperature and hypoxia are moderating factors. Although the focus is on fish
caught using rod and line, this framework is also generally relevant to fish caught by other
recreational gear types.
Source: From Arlinghaus et al. (2007a).
A number of techniques and handling practices promote improved welfare

of recreationally captured fish (Arlinghaus et al., 2007a, 2007b), whereas
others potentially impair fish welfare. Accordingly, the recommendations
for best practices that follow address fisher behaviour and techniques for
minimizing fish welfare impairment. Most recreational fishers are interested in
adopting gear choices and behaviour that facilitate survival of fish that are to
be released or that maintain flesh quality in fish that are to be harvested, thus,
there is ample scope to combine outreach, education and formal regulation. An
inherent challenge in attempting to generate best practices for maintaining the
welfare status of caught fish is the fact that there is substantial variation in how
different species and even stocks respond to capture and handling.
Cooke and Suski (2005) provided an extensive overview of this challenge
in the context of catch-and-release (mandatory or voluntary) and essentially
asked the question as to the extent to which generalizations can be developed
that apply across a broad range of recreational fisheries. Substantial interspecific
variation in behaviour, physiology, ecology and morphology exist within
fish and other aquatic organisms. Similarly, species of fish vary in terms of
sensitivity to different stressors, including those associated with catch-and-
release (Muoneke and Childress, 1994). Interestingly, similar levels of variation
in response to catch-and-release are also evident among congenerics. Finally,
within species, some researchers have revealed that fish respond differently to
stressors (and experience differential release mortality) at different life-history
stages (Brobbel et al., 1995), among stocks (Nelson, Tang and Boutilier,
1994), by fish size (within the same species [Meals and Miranda, 1994]) and
by sex (Hanson et al., 2008). These examples illustrate how a guideline that
is appropriate for one species will not always be appropriate for others and,
indeed, what is appropriate for an individual species in one location or at a
particular life stage, may also be inappropriate for the same species at other
locations/times. The generalities that are provided in this document represent
the extent to which reliance can be placed on deriving generic information
from the catch-and-release studies conducted to date and applying it to other
fish and fisheries. The ultimate goal for research-based recommendation,
tailored locally and regionally, is to develop and refine the general guidelines
presented below for the successful release of most fish, and then develop a
suite of specific guidelines for individual species or types of fisheries (e.g.
tournaments, deep-water fishes). Those interested in this topic are directed to a
number of syntheses including Muoneke and Childress (1991), Bartholomew
and Bohnsack (2005), Cooke and Suski (2005), Cooke and Sneddon (2007),
Cooke and Wilde (2007), Arlinghaus et al. (2007a), and Hühn and Arlinghaus
(2011).
Table 11 summarizes the scientific basis and context for the generic
guidelines. It focuses on catch-and-release as this is a standard practice in most
recreational fisheries, either being a by-product of harvest regulations or due to
Table 11
Factors influencing fish welfare (including stress, injury and survival) during catch-
and-release recreational fishing
Factors Summary of scientific literature Generalization
Gear
Barbed vs – Use of barbless hooks may reduce the amount – Barbless hooks
barbless of time required to remove the hook (Cooke preferred over barbed
hook et al., 2001; Meka, 2004), which may reduce hooks in some
mortality (Bartholomew and Bohnsack, 2005; situations
see Schill and Scarpella [1997] for a study where
the higher survival was not reported)
– Use of barbless hooks reduces tissue damage at
the point of hook entry (e.g. Cooke et al., 2001;
Meka, 2004)
J hook vs – For J hooks, the point is parallel to the shank – When fishing
circle hook whereas for circle hooks the point is typically at passively with organic
least at a 45° angle to the shank baits, circle hooks are
– Circle hooks favour shallow hooking and favourable because
relatively few instances of deep hooking, and of the reduced
mortality rates are on average 50 percent less instances of deep
when circle hooks are used (Cooke and Suski, hooking, but landing
2004) rates might be
– Small differences in circle hook configuration negatively affected
(e.g. degree of offset) can obfuscate the benefits
of circle hooks (Prince, Ortiz and Venizelos,
2002)
Single vs – Muoneke and Childress (1994) reported that – No general
treble hook single hooks tend to be more deeply ingested recommendation
than treble hooks; deep hooking is the single possible
most important factor of mortality after release – Does not appear to
– In a meta-analysis of salmonids, Taylor and be an important factor
White (1992) failed to demonstrate a difference aside from the fact
in mortality between these two hook types, that one hook point
and Hühn and Arlinghaus (2011) did not find a theoretically should
relationship between hook type and mortality be easier to remove
– Effects will finally depend on how mouth and result in less
morphology, fishing technique and hook size injury
interact to determine shallow hooking
Table 11 (Cont.)
Hook size – Among conventional hook types, the relationship – Smaller hook sizes
between hook size, fish size, and hook preferred, unless they
performance has varied widely among studies result in deep hooking
(Muoneke and Childress, 1994) – Very fishery-specific
– Larger hooks catch larger fish (Alós et al., 2008)
– The larger the hook, the greater the injury (Rapp,
Cooke and Arlinghaus, 2008)
Bait/lure – Artificial lures or flies tend to hook shallower – Lures and flies tend
type with less opportunity for damage to vital organs to have less likelihood
(Muoneke and Childress, 1994) than organic baits of
– Organic baits, including live bait, are typically deep hooking
ingested deeper than artificial lures, resulting
in more time required to remove hooks and a
greater potential for mortality (Siewert and Cave,
1990; Cooke et al., 2001; Arlinghaus et al., 2008)
– Studies of flies vs lures and baits have been
consistent in that flies tend to be less injurious
and have a lower chance of causing mortality
(Meka, 2004)
Practices
Fighting – The duration of an actual angling event – Anglers should
time experienced by a fish correlates positively with attempt to land fish
the magnitude of physiological disturbance as rapidly as possible
(Gustaveson, Wydowski and Wedemeyer, 1991; to minimize the
Kieffer et al., 1995) duration of exercise
– Meka (2004) determined that experienced and the concomitant
anglers took longer to land fish than novices physiological
because they tended to capture larger disturbances; in
individuals and thus factors such as fish size addition, fishing
and angler experience can affect the duration of gear (e.g. line, rods)
angling and subsequent physiological responses should match the size
(Meka and McCormick, 2005) of targeted fish
Landing – Use of landing nets can cause scale loss and – When landing fish
methods other injuries, but this seems to depend on the it is preferable to
species and this issue has been poorly studied minimize dermal
– In general, more abrasive net materials tend injury by using wet
to cause more damage than softer knotless or hands and if a net
rubber materials (Barthel et al., 2003) is required, it should
– Anything that reduces slime loss or injury to the be made of a fish-
fish is useful such as using wet hands friendly material (e.g.
rubber nets)
– Lip-gripping devices work well on some species
but on others they can cause severe injury
(Danylchuk et al., 2008)
Table 11 (Cont.)
Air – Air exposure occurs after capture when anglers – Whenever possible,
exposure remove hooks, weigh and measure fish, and/or anglers should
hold fish for photographs eliminate air exposure
– During exposure to air, gill lamellae collapse by handling fish that
leading to adhesion of the gill filaments (Boutilier, are to be released in
1990), which causes several major physiological the water
changes
– Fish exposed to air typically experience greater
acid/base disturbance than those fish that were
exercised but not exposed to air (Ferguson and
Tufts, 1992)
– Extended exposure to air eventually results in
permanent tissue damage beyond some timing
threshold
– Mortality rates can also be increased by
exposing fish to air (Ferguson and Tufts, 1992),
but many species are resilient to even extended
air exposure (Arlinghaus et al., 2009b)
Hook – Survival rates are higher for deeply hooked fish – It is usually better to
removal when the line is cut and the hook left in place cut the line on deeply
than when the hook is removed (e.g. Jordan and hooked fish
Woodward, 1994)
– There are still negative consequences of leaving
hooks in place (Borucinska, Martin and Skomal,
2001; Borucinska et al., 2002), so the optimal
strategy is to avoid deep hooking
Retention – Catch-and-release angling sometimes involves – If fish are to be
the retention of fish for a period (usually hours) retained it should be
prior to release as anglers assess whether they for as short a period
will harvest individuals or in competitive events as possible and
when fish are retained for later enumeration at should be in sufficient
a weigh-in water that is similar to
– Studies suggest that retention is stressful ambient conditions
to fish, but if provided with adequate water – Retention gear
quality, mortality and sublethal disturbances are should not be
minimized (reviewed in Cooke and Wilde, 2007) abrasive to mucus
– Artificially cooling water or supersaturating
holding environments with oxygen is
counterproductive (Suski et al., 2006)
– Some forms of retention including wire fish
baskets and stringers cause severe injuries and
should not be used (Cooke and Hogle, 2000)
– Nylon keepnets seem to cause little injury and
fish tend to recover during retention (Pottinger,
1997, 1998)
Table 11 (Cont.)
Environment
Water – In species for which data exist across a gradient – Caution should be
temperature of water temperatures, angling at extreme water exercised when
temperatures (especially high) is correlated with angling for fish during
increased physiological disturbances and the very warm water
probability of mortality (reviewed in Cooke and conditions
Suski, 2005) – Where possible,
– Catch-and-release angling at extremely cold other stressors (e.g.
water temperatures has also been suggested air exposure, fight
as potentially challenging to fish but there is little duration) should then
research on this topic be minimized
Depth and – When brought to the surface rapidly, the gasses – When fish are
barotrauma in swimbladders particularly of physoclistous observed to
fish rapidly expand to the point that the fish are be exhibiting
unable to achieve neutral buoyancy, maintain barotraumas, it is
equilibrium, and may even have their stomachs prudent to relocate
protruding from their mouths or anus (because to shallower habitats
of the expanded swimbladder pushing out the and not release fish
viscera; Burns and Restrepo, 2002) – There are a number
– Different species respond to capture at depth of tools available
differently and each also has its own threshold to anglers to
regarding which depths are problematic. Water recompress fish with
depth of several metres may cause problems in barotraumas although
some species (e.g. walleye) they should only be
– One obvious, but draconian, option for anglers to used after training in
avoid these problems is to not fish in deep waters proper techniques
– An alternative solution can involve anglers and if legally allowed
venting the swimbladder with a needle to
release the gas and enable the fish to swim
back to depth (Keniry et al., 1996; Collins et al.,
1999; Kerr, 2001, Burns and Restrepo, 2002);
however, some research has revealed that
venting does not reduce mortality (Wilde, 2009)
Predators – The habitat where fish are released influences – If predators are
exposure to predators and can result in mortality abundant it may be
during the fight and after release (e.g. Cooke prudent to relocate to
and Philipp, 2004) other locations and
– Attempts to release fish closer to cover failed to release the fish there
reduce mortality in one study (Danylchuk et al.,
2007)
– Fish that lose equilibrium have been shown to
be more likely to be attacked by predators post-
release (Danylchuk et al., 2007)
Notes: The factors presented in terms of gear, practices and environment focus largely on fish
captured by rod and line (i.e. angled). Release may involve undersized (mandatory release) or
voluntarily released fish.
voluntary choice. In addition, some information on holding effects is included

as this practice is also common in many recreational fisheries, either in keep-
nets, live-wells or other devices. Figure 16 shows a “how to” schematic for a
fish-friendly catch-and-release event.
In many situations, the fish is not released but harvested, especially when
using gear such as nets or spears. For angled fish, flesh quality is improved if
the fight time is kept to a minimum and the fish is rapidly killed after capture,
if possible prior to dehooking. Davie and Kopf (2006) summarized the most
important aspects related to killing fish rapidly, which is a legal norm in some
countries, e.g. Germany. In particular, a fish that is to be retained should be
killed rapidly, e.g. by a sharp blow on the head (percussive stunning) or with
a sharpened object such as a pick (i.e. called Iki jime in Japan), and then bleed
out the fish. Such a rapid kill will also reduce the stress level of the fish and
increase flesh quality (Arlinghaus et al., 2009a). The ability in recreational
fishing to take care of individual captured fish, also in the process of rapid kill,
represents a major difference to commercial fisheries (e.g. fish dying slowly
due to hypoxia after trawling or in gillnets) and allows recreational fisheries
to reduce the amount of harm induced to the absolute minimum. Therefore,
recreational fishers should be educated in behaviour that makes people engage
in rapid kill procedures rather than letting fish suffocate slowly. Globally,
the best practices for killing fish may differ by region; hence, managers and
policy-makers should take existing traditions into consideration while making
country/regional guidelines, discussing the issues with local and/or regional
stakeholders.
Figure 16
Overview of generalized best practices for catch-and-release of fish by
rod and line
101
7. Information, knowledge sharing and

research
I
nformation, knowledge sharing and research are essential elements of
fisheries management independent of fishing sector. Particularly relevant is
the idea of education and capacity building within the recreational fishing
community and among recreational fisheries managers so as to be prepared
to solve past and future sustainability issues. This is particularly important
given the many community-based management systems that exist worldwide
in recreational fisheries, where expert assistance by trained personnel is
limited (e.g. central Europe [Arlinghaus, 2006a]). Moving such systems
towards sustainability depends on aquatic stewardship by stakeholders and
solid networks of knowledge. This requires good information sharing within
networks of fishing clubs and recreational fisheries, and between agencies and
fishing bodies locally and regionally. This section deals first with information
and knowledge sharing and then identifies research needs for recreational
fisheries.
7.1 Information and knowledge sharing

Information must be exchanged and shared among various actors internal and
external to the recreational fishing sector in order to reduce conflict, promote
sustainable fishing practices and obtain the interdisciplinary information
needed to assess adequately the state of fisheries and implement strategies
intended to maintain or rehabilitate them. Indeed, many of the problems facing
fisheries are multisectoral and problem solving necessitates formal and informal
alliances and coalitions. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly important for
resource managers to involve most, if not all, stakeholders in discussions about
management policies as a way to solicit constituency support, to facilitate rule
compliance and to conserve and manage the resource base effectively (Krueger
and Decker, 1999; Plummer and Fitzgibbon, 2004). Unlike in many fields
of scientific endeavour, stakeholder and traditional knowledge (STK) is an
essential source of information and regarded as relevant for both recreational
fisheries research and management (Fraser et al., 2006). Nonetheless, there are
still challenges with respect to how to balance different forms of information.
In particular, fisheries managers face complex situations in which policy may
be viewed and accepted differently by multiple stakeholder groups, such
as recreational and commercial fishers, fisheries researchers, and the local

community itself. Each group can have contrasting attitudes and opinions
regarding the accepted future use and development of aquatic resources. The
resulting disconnects among the stakeholder groups can lead to inappropriate
implementation of management activities (Miranda and Frese, 1991) and lack
of compliance with policy (and in some cases deceit [Sullivan, 2002]), and
can be perceived as weaknesses within the sector, leaving it vulnerable to
attack from outside groups (e.g. the animal rights movement, Arlinghaus et al.,
2007a, 2007b). Conversely, information sharing and communication within
and among stakeholder groups has the potential to further understanding and
alleviate conflict. In order to incorporate stakeholder information effectively,
it is essential to understand the biases associated with different information
sources and their reliability. Sound management should always be based on the
best available information, and if possible, scientific methods should be used to
generate this knowledge, which can then be supplemented and complemented
by STK and local experiences.
Information and knowledge sharing among various stakeholders in fisheries
is covered in detail in the FAO Technical Guidelines on Information and
Knowledge Sharing (FAO, 2009) and the “Strategy for improving information
on status and trends of capture fisheries” (approved by the FAO Committee
on Fisheries). These technical guidelines were produced in response to the
recognition that a lack of essential information is often major constraint to
the implementation of responsible fisheries. Without the essential information
upon which to pursue research, make informed decisions and benefit from
the lessons learned by stakeholders in similar situations, implementation of
the documents such as the Code or the present Guidelines will continue to be
constrained. At the international level, the FAO guidelines (FAO, 2009) aim
to foster a better understanding of the issues involved in all types of fisheries
in order to ensure that stakeholders obtain the essential information they need.
The focus is on six key components of information exchange that are highly
relevant to the recreational fisheries sector, namely: sustainability of a fishery,
best scientific evidence on current topics, participation and cooperation,
objectivity and transparency, timeliness, and flexibility.
The technical guidelines on recreational fisheries presented here will help
to ensure that stakeholders have access to the general information needed
to achieve responsible and sustainable recreational fisheries. However, it is
acknowledged that more specific local and regional advice is also needed,
e.g. on species of interest in a given locality. When FAO developed the initial
Information, knowledge sharing and research 103
guidelines on information and knowledge sharing, they were not intended to

be specific to the recreational sector but they are equally relevant here and
include:
• Capacity building in economies in transition and developing
countries – Recreational fisheries occur around the globe and there
is a need for capacity building in developing countries to enable
fisheries managers to ensure sustainable recreational fisheries and the
interaction of subsistence, commercial and a growing recreational
fishing sector. Moreover, as developing countries become more
industrialized and/or recognize the importance of recreational
fisheries, it is expected that recreational fishing activity will increase,
further emphasizing the need for capacity within the management
community. Non-governmental organizations, government agencies
in developed countries and international bodies (e.g. FAO) have the
potential to play a role in developing capacity for recreational fisheries
assessment and management in the developing world.
• Development of long-term stable and peer-reviewed arrangements
for the provision and exchange of information within and among
countries – There are few formal mechanisms for the global
dissemination and exchange of recreational fisheries information.
Most information sharing from government and the scientific
community is based on the scientific literature and is largely restricted
to developed countries. Angling-related NGOs have the potential to
play an important role in establishing mechanisms for the exchange
of information and these arrangements exist in a number of countries
(e.g. Lake Taupo, New Zealand, has a time series of angler-collected
data on salmonids since the 1890s). The angling media is also a
powerful mechanism and it already operates online, television and
print sources, some of which are particularly good at generating
dialogue between the recreational fishers and the scientific and
management community.
• Sustaining data collection and global information systems – As
with any data collection and information system, it is essential that
mechanisms and safeguards exist to ensure that data are available
and archived for use. There is a pertinent information need within
countries to invest into routine data collection systems for recreational
fisheries (Beard et al., 2011). However, there is not a culture or
history of considering recreational fisheries data to be as important
as commercial fishing data. There is a need for greater emphasis on

both the collection of recreational fisheries data and their sharing with
bodies such as FAO, and appropriate strategies for collecting reliable
data need to be explored.
• Expanding the scope of information on status and trends of regional
or national fisheries, including the need to incorporate ecosystem
considerations into fisheries management – There is scope for
increasing the monitoring and reporting on the status and trends in
recreational fisheries. Also needed are success stories illustrating how
ecosystem management can be operationalized when most harvest
regulations tend to focus on single species. One issue that needs to be
resolved is how to address the language barriers that typically exist in
local and regional case studies.
• Greater participation in working groups in assessing the status and
trends of fisheries and greater international visibility of recreational
fisheries – Working group models are used to address recreational
fishing issues, and they can play a strong role by involving multiple
stakeholders, particularly for larger systems adjacent to multiple
countries or in marine environments. The International Union for
Conservation of Nature has recently used a working group model to
explore the status of several key recreational species (i.e. bonefish
and tarpon) and, in some jurisdictions (particularly North America),
regional fisheries management councils exist that are able to seek
stakeholder perspectives on management priorities and strategies
related to the recreational sector. In Ontario, Canada, the provincial
natural resource agency operates more than 20 such councils (called
Fisheries Management Zone Councils). They include 12–15 members
of the community such as fishing guides, recreational fishers, tourist
operators, bait fishers, commercial fishers and academics. The
councils provide advice and input to the Government on management
priorities and strategies. Although only initiated in 2007, the councils
have already successfully addressed a number of controversial
issues related to recreational fisheries. Also in North America, the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission represents a similar entity where
stakeholders play an important role but do not usurp the authority of
the management agency. Similar multistakeholder advisory groups
exist elsewhere (although not at that scale). Where they do not
exist, their implementation would be a useful means of engaging
recreational fishers in fisheries management. It is important to accept

the integration of recreational fisheries into commissions that are
more traditionally oriented towards commercial fisheries and where
coexploitation occurs (e.g. Regional Fisheries Management Councils
of the European Union).
Another major challenge to be overcome is the exchange and translation
of knowledge into action nationally or regionally. It is well documented that
transitions in recreational fisher behaviour can often be facilitated through
education, outreach and awareness (Arlinghaus et al., 2007b). As such,
effective communication is critical for regulatory agencies or NGOs to
encourage behavioural change (Gray and Jordan, 2010). However, in many
areas of the world, there is a disconnection between science, management
and practitioners. In addition, there are different rewards systems, some of
which reduce communication. For example, university-based scientists receive
reward from peer-reviewed publications and may have little incentive or
resources to communicate and share knowledge in other formats to be of use
for management. Moreover, the science capacity in many areas is not enough
to fulfil the information needs to tackle recreational fisheries management
issues, not least because explosive development of recreational fisheries is
relatively recent in some countries (Beard et al., 2011). However, even in this
situation, recreational fisheries research results or other forms of knowledge
(e.g. practical experiences) should be shared with stakeholders using clear
language and concise communication approaches that match the needs of the
stakeholders. Equally relevant is knowledge sharing among agencies within
countries, among countries, among fishing clubs and among anglers because
each local experience can be relevant in solving pertinent issues elsewhere.
The fishing media and outreach by fisheries agencies or NGOs (e.g. angler
associations) play a critical role in that they have the ability to disseminate
information effectively to a variety of stakeholders, but new forms and formats
of across-agency and country communication would be highly beneficial.
Currently, there are major challenges even for the developed nations. For
example, international travel is an issue for agency employees in many countries,
such that information sharing on recreational fisheries in different countries or
states is severely curtailed. This is a major impediment to progress.
Thus, determining the best way to use existing communication sources to
disseminate information to recreational fishers remains a challenge in terms of
infrastructure, unifying frameworks and language barriers. Some media outlets
such as In-Fisherman Inc. in the United States of America employ editors
with scientific training and also routinely solicit and/or co-author content
from fisheries scientists and summarize findings from relevant peer-reviewed
sources. Newer forms of knowledge dissemination are offered through the
Internet and social networking sites. Angling-related websites are common
and there are a variety of discussion boards, blogs and social network pages
related to recreational fisheries and responsible fishing. Most such sites are
operated independent of governments (either by individuals, NGOs or fishing
clubs); hence, while the Internet is a solution it is also a problem because much
information is no longer subjected to peer review and may cause confusion
and conflict.
One mechanism for international exchange is attendance of the World
Recreational Fishing Conferences, but these tend to be tailored towards science,
and country-level managers often have issues with travel to international
meetings. Generally, there is too little international exchange of knowledge
in recreational fisheries, despite sometimes the same species being managed
(e.g. pike, Esox lucius, in both North America and Europe), and the exchange
is even smaller when it comes to management–science interfaces. A global
communication platform on the Internet to improve information on recreational
fisheries would be highly advisable, but it needs funding to be functional.
In the long term, objective communication of both the socio-economic and
ecological benefits, as well as the potentially negative impacts, of recreational
fisheries practices would strengthen the sector and encourage critical debate
to further benefit the fish, the environment and those that enjoy recreational
fishing or are dependent on its associated commercial activities.
Some jurisdictions have developed recreational fisher education
programmes that are institutionalized as part of the licensing process
(Andrews, 2007). In others, such as Germany, anglers need to take a 30hour
course in order to obtain a licence (Arlinghaus, 2007). However, more
commonly, the education of recreational fishers (e.g. regarding fish welfare-
friendly angling practices) is done via outreach by government agencies,
recreational fishing associations and clubs (Siemer and Knuth, 2001), or by
word of mouth within fisher groups. These programmes and practices also
generate awareness of recreational fishing and help to recruit new fishers
(particularly young people and women).
In some jurisdictions, there is increasing interest in promoting awareness
and educating recreational fishers rather than imposing regulations, but how
best to do this is a major research need. Recreational fishers have diverse
preferences and attitudes (Arlinghaus, 2006b); hence, understanding how and
where fishers and stakeholders acquire and use information about responsible
recreational fishing will play a central role in crafting effective conservation
and management strategies.
7.2 Research
Contemporary models of fisheries management require information from
a variety of sources (e.g. STK, research, monitoring and stock assessment)
to support decision-making (see Chapters 3 and 5). Effective management
of recreational fisheries, whether or not jointly exploited by other sectors,
requires an understanding of the features and dynamics of targeted fish stocks
and the associated social-ecological system dynamics (Arlinghaus, Johnson
and Wolter, 2008a). Currently, recreational fisheries research is either absent or
underdeveloped, and existing approaches are mainly biological in orientation,
somewhat limiting the usefulness of research. In some cases, research on
recreational fisheries has adopted a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary approach, recognizing that incorporation of the social and
economic sciences is needed in order to embrace fully the dynamics and
features characterizing recreational fisheries as social-ecological systems
(e.g. Massey, Newbold and Gentner, 2006; Hunt et al., 2011). In short, if
recreational fisheries research is to understand fully the system dynamics, it
must extend beyond the traditional fisheries biology and integrate the social
and economic sciences (Ditton, 2004; Arlinghaus, 2005). Nonetheless, studies
of biological or social science phenomena in isolation can still provide essential
building blocks for more integrated understanding (Chapter 5). A basis for
rapid biological assessments of the sustainability of recreational fisheries is
needed (Beard et al., 2011) because it is impossible for any country to have, or
be willing to invest in, the necessary resources for a complete assessment of
recreationally exploited stocks similar to that for high-profile marine fisheries
such as for cod (Gadus morhua). Moreover, the research capacities in many
countries are slim or only developing, partly because studies on recreational
fisheries were often considered of low social priority (given its leisure focus).
This needs to change if the sector wants to develop sustainably, and the call is
for policy-makers and decision-makers to respond.
Specific research needs vary regionally and through time, but there are
some research foci that seem relevant generally. These include descriptive
information to judge the developments of fisheries, such as monitoring
participation and landings using both fishery dependent and independent
surveys of fish populations and catch, and more elaborate analytical tasks
such as developing integrative fisheries models that incorporate salient

social–ecological feedbacks, biological parameters of exploited stocks, and
recreational fisher behaviour in the light of social and economic objectives
(also known as bioeconomics models [Johnston, Arlinghaus and Dieckmann,
2010]). In this context, a basic research need relates to better understanding
human behavioural responses and the heterogeneous preferences and objectives
of those involved in recreational fisheries alongside economic cost–benefit
analyses (Parkkila et al., 2010). An improved integrated understanding of
the long-term benefits and costs of stocking and other traditional regulations
compared with other policy options is also needed (Beard et al., 2011), as
is policy analysis of allocations across potentially competing fishing sectors.
Generally, all recreational fisheries research should adhere to the standards of
science and be able to withstand the scrutiny of peer review as the foundation for
modern dissemination of scientific knowledge. However, it has to be accepted
that some developing countries lack an appropriate research infrastructure.
This, combined with a need to invest funds in combating hunger and poverty,
will limit the implementation of this ideal situation.
In addition to novel management-oriented research, a basic first step in any
fisheries assessment is descriptive work to characterize the scope and magnitude
of recreational fisheries on a global and national scale in relation to other
fisheries (Welcomme, 2001). Most jurisdictions do not adequately monitor or
report recreational fisheries participation, catch and harvest, which impedes the
ability to generate accurate fisheries statistics. The use of a landscape approach to
estimate production using characteristics of waterbodies should be a priority as
an important first step towards a broad indication of potential catches from each
region (Beard et al., 2011). In addition, longitudinal panel research may provide
an improvement over expensive creel surveys in order to monitor catches, effort
and harvest for the recreational sector. In general, successful implementation of
fisheries management programmes relies on the development of broad-based
monitoring schemes. These should collect pertinent data on the habitat, fishery
and fish stocks to ensure that progress towards management goals and objectives
can be documented (Chapters 3 and 5).
Because recreational fisheries do not operate in isolation, it is also
necessary for each jurisdiction to have fisheries organizations and agencies
that routinely monitor and assess stocks and stressors such as land-use change,
climate change, habitat alteration, invasive species, and overexploitation
by other forms of fishing. Indeed, managing recreational fisheries without
understanding the wider aquatic ecosystem framework and its influence on fish
population dynamics and community assemblages is problematic and could

result in misguided management initiatives (Lester et al., 2003) rather than
the desired sustainable trajectory. At a more “fish-centric” level, important
future research topics should relate to understanding more fully the impact
of recreational fisheries exploitation, the interaction of fish and fishers, fish
welfare, sustainable harvest regulations, stocking and habitat management.
Cutting-edge research has to take a whole-lake or perspective and replicate
“interventions” in space and time to analyse some of the outstanding questions,
e.g. how fishers distribute in space, whether stocking provides additive effects,
and whether regulations have any measurable impact in the long term. It is
equally essential to improve knowledge about hooking mortality in the wild
by tracking the fate of fish that are caught and released as well as to study the
potential for evolutionary consequences of selective harvest. It is unreasonable
to assume that catch-and-release studies can be conducted on every species.
Hence, there is a need to develop generalized tools and strategies that are
effective across a wide range of species and systems (Cooke and Suski, 2005).
There are also opportunities for collaborative research with the commercial
sector given that many of the stressors and injuries arising from fishing are
similar in both sectors (Cooke and Cowx, 2006).
In terms of knowledge generation in academia, recreational fisheries
research is, by definition, applied research, and therefore must not be conducted
in isolation from the real world. Engagement of stakeholders in research is
important but challenges are inherent where there are attempts to involve them
in identifying research priorities, in executing partnership research and in
transferring knowledge among members of the recreational fishing community.
Engaging recreational fishers and other stakeholders in collaborative structured
research, e.g. recreational fisher diary programmes, citizen science with respect
to monitoring fish habitat (Granek et al., 2008; Silvertown, 2009; Danylchuk
et al., 2011), is important provided that the data are collected in a standardized
manner (Lester et al., 2003) and stored in a database that is both accurate and
accessible.
Only by interaction between managers, recreational fishers and researchers
can research questions be adequately formulated (see Stein and Krueger
[2006] for example; also see above for information on information and
knowledge transfer) although a degree of independence from stakeholders
does need to be maintained. Several studies have identified that typically there
are inconsistencies with respect to research priorities, which reflects different
perceived goals of different stakeholders (Hasler et al., 2011). Connelly, Brown
and Knuth (2000) reported that opinions of fisheries managers and recreational
fishers were similar on a number of management-related issues, although
differing attitudes among managers and recreational fishers were found for a
range of issues, including agency performance, fish consumption advisories,
necessity to protect endangered fish species, and access issues. Differences
in opinions and attitudes also occur among fisheries researchers and among
managers within an organization’s staff (Knuth et al., 1995). Therefore, there
is a need both to characterize the level of heterogeneity within and among
user groups and to evaluate different strategies for incorporating different
perspectives and building consensus where possible. Understanding how to
“market” and implement different management scenarios, fishing opportunities
or best practices and/or gear innovations could also benefit from structured
research activity as would studies on effective enforcement.
For all research activities, completed studies should be published in a
timely fashion and data made available, subject to intellectual property and
confidentiality being respected. If possible, results should be published to
allow dissemination of the information internationally, but local and regional
research reports are equally important for the information needs of local end
users. Fishery research results should be shared with stakeholders using clear
language and concise communication approaches that match the needs of the
stakeholders.
111
8. Particularities of developing
countries and economies in transition
A
s detailed in Chapter 1 and in line with the “life cycle of fisheries”
(Smith, 1986), recreational fisheries growth is expected to be particularly
strong in economies in transition owing to the increasing wealth of their
societies This often will involve resident recreational fisheries that complement
commercial and/or subsistence fisheries in marine and inland fisheries, and the
challenge is to develop them sustainably. The situation is different in developing
countries that have a traditionally strong focus on subsistence, artisanal and
commercial fisheries. Here, the development of recreational fisheries may
initially be based on foreign tourism. This creates different challenges to the
“evolution” of resident recreational fisheries in economies in transition that
“naturally” develop with prosperity, sometimes even replacing commercial
fisheries, at least in freshwater fisheries. However, it is still important to provide
the policy and governance structures that facilitate sustainable exploitation
and recreational fisheries growth (Chapter 4). By contrast, in developing
countries with few alternative employment opportunities, recreational fishing
by residents may not be important or affordable, with people instead fishing
for subsistence, but foreign tourism-based recreational fisheries may provide
much needed incomes and support jobs locally (e.g. billfish recreational
fishing in Kenya). Under these situations, the promotion of recreational
fisheries at the expense of or in conjunction with commercial fisheries may
be economically wise because recreational fisheries usually provide additional
income and also indirectly facilitate resource-conservation activities (e.g. Mike
and Cowx, 1986; Everard and Kataria, 2011). While the specifics differ, the
general policy, licensing and regulation process for both resident and tourism-
based recreational fisheries will share similarities. Similarly, whatever the
type of fishery, all capture fisheries should aim for maximum and equitably
distributed economic and social benefits for the entire capture fisheries sector,
while minimizing cultural conflict and ecological impacts from, for example,
the angling tourism industry, changed market demands, economic and social
forces associated with industrialization, and the rise of alternative employment
opportunities.
Under the particular conditions of developing countries and economies
in transition, two types of conflict are possible: objectives and allocation.
Regarding objectives, while commercial and subsistence fisheries focus on

maximized yield for food security and income, many recreational fisheries,
especially tourism-based ones, might seek to provide trophy fish or other
special fishing experiences. A fish stock cannot usually be jointly managed
for both maximized physical yield and number of trophy fish (García-Asorey
et al., 2011). A possible solution might be allocation of various fishing grounds
to different purposes, provided that employment and food security for local
people are not compromised (Leslie et al., 2009).
Regarding the emerging issue of allocation, any allocation decision is
difficult and usually contested. There are multiple social, economic and
cultural dimensions that the decision-maker has to include in trade-offs. In
developing countries, it is especially important to consider issues of equity
and food security from an ethical perspective. In industrialized countries, the
issue of allocation can be resolved by maximizing the welfare of resource use
for society as a whole independent of any particular sector. In this context,
the utility (welfare) of a fish captured by recreational fisheries (as typically
measured by the willingness of a recreational fisher to pay to fish, i.e. consumer
surplus) is often higher than the utility generated by the same fish in commercial
food markets (as measured by the willingness of consumers to purchase the
product, and the subsequently generated producer surplus) (Parkkila et al.,
2010). Thus, economic arguments based on maximized welfare produced by
fish may motivate the allocation of selected fish stocks to recreational fisheries
or joint exploitation of stocks (Edwards, 1991). In countries where food
security is at stake, a welfare-based allocation decision might not be preferred;
instead, an allocation based on economic impact as modified by objectives
based on equity and food security might be pursued. This economic analysis
tool is not concerned with the well-being of recreational fisheries in the pursuit
of fish relative to the value of fish when traded through “consumer lenses”
in commercial markets. Rather, it is concerned with the economic effects of
fishing expenditure in job markets (which is a cost to recreational fishers, and
thus reduces their well-being or may be used a minimal estimate of value of
fishing to recreational fishers, see Parkkila et al. [2010] for details). The result
of such a perspective may usually favour joint exploitation by both resident
and tourism-based recreational fisheries. In particular situations, development
of a recreational fishing tourism-based subsector may be worthwhile for some
developing countries and generate important economic resources, although
these will usually accrue in sectors outside the traditional fisheries sectors (e.g.
hotels, transport, bait industry).
Particularities of developing countries and economies in transition 113
From an ethical perspective, allocation of fish to recreational fisheries

and the recreational use of selected fishing grounds or stocks in developing
countries by tourist fishing should be promoted, provided that local and regional
fishing communities become economically better placed than previously, and
that access to resources by the poorest is not constrained. To support this, FAO
has articulated to favour interests of subsistence and possibly commercial
fisheries in developing countries over alternative uses of fish stocks, given the
importance of fish in food security. For example, in the Code (FAO, 1995), it
says “States should appropriately protect the rights of fishers and fishworkers,
particularly those engaged in subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fisheries, to
a secure and just livelihood, as well as preferential access, where appropriate,
to traditional fishing grounds and resources in the waters under their national
jurisdiction”. Indeed a major component of ethical fisheries, according to FAO
(2005a), is to acknowledge the meeting of essential human interests related to
three main categories:
• Welfare – People need basic goods to survive and care for their
offspring, and these are usually fish-protein-based in many developing
countries.
• Freedom – People seek to regulate their own affairs and realize their
life plans in accordance with their own or culturally defined values
(and development of recreational fisheries may interfere with this
desire).
• Justice – People need to find ways to share social benefits and burdens
and facilitate peaceful coexistence (which may become important when
fishing tourism operators are developed using investments and funds
external to the developing country where the tourism is developed).
Thus, decision-makers are asked to value carefully the basic interests
of subsistence fisheries with more prosperous resident and non-resident
recreational fisheries, and maintain access to resources and work for equal
distribution of economic benefits associated with local recreational fisheries.
In many situations, commercial and/or subsistence fisheries and recreational
fisheries can work together to create mutual benefits, e.g. in marine fishing
tournaments, fee-based inland fishing, and fishing in estuaries, bays and
lagoons. Commercial fisheries may develop services and ecotourism, and teach
the foreign fishing tourist aspects of culture and responsible, community-based
fisheries management. Although not likely to be a large market everywhere,
these activities may help realign developing countries with foreign cultures
and improve mutual acceptance and understanding. It is then important to
consider whether revenue will be accrued locally in the community or whether

development will result in economic gains elsewhere, e.g. in the tourism sector
abroad. Decisions should be taken that result in a net gain for a given region
when fish resources are allocated towards recreational fisheries and taken away
from subsistence and commercial fisheries. This may involve investments in
infrastructure to host significant fishing tourism, and potential changes to fishing
practices to meet the aspirations of foreign tourists (e.g. catch-and-release of
large fish). In this context, commercial fishers in economies in transition may
develop into service providers, e.g. accommodation and guiding. To facilitate
a potential shift, developing nations and economies in transition should pay
particular attention to developing institutions and governance structures
that are able to deal with the variety of recreational fisheries, both in inland
and marine waters, in particular in the light of potential for coexploitation.
Such development necessitates training of fishers and the development of
infrastructure and networks that promote international travel, accommodation,
bait, local touristic goods and guiding, some of which can be taken over by
subsistence fisheries. Fish stocks must be reasonable healthy to offer tourists
an attractive fishing opportunity. In these situations, development of fishing
tourism may also be highly beneficial for conservation of fish if fishing tourism
development promotes incentives to reduce destructive fishing methods and
overexploitation. To facilitate this development, education programmes are
needed to familiarize the local people with the desires and demands of foreign
tourists, and this might entail a careful communication strategy to prepare
local fishers to engage in alternative income-generation activities that are more
“service-oriented” than traditional ones that are oriented to catch, harvest
and sale. This challenge to develop the infrastructure needed to transform a
location into a popular tourist destination will not appeal to all. Because of the
possible mismatch between recreational, subsistence and commercial target
fish, differential regulations to protect the stock may be needed. However,
many tourist recreational fisheries engage in catch-and-release fishing, and this
practice may conflict with traditional perspectives on the legitimate use of fish;
hence, such cultural aspects must be taken into account. This again demands
education and information campaigns to develop sustainable angling tourism
that results in net benefits for local communities and avoids conflicts.
Given the limited experience with recreational fisheries management in
many developing countries, and also the societal priorities they face, creating
appropriate institutions and governance might be difficult. Overcoming this
challenge may demand close collaboration between actors and stakeholders,
Particularities of developing countries and economies in transition 115
potentially aided by expertise from countries with greater experience in

managing aquatic ecosystems and recreational fisheries. This expertise could
be tapped through capacity building of fisheries managers elsewhere to then
help establish and steer the organizational and institutional frameworks for
managing these “evolving” fisheries, while taking account of local customs.
Development of recreational fisheries may in turn provide environmental
benefits by establishment of a political force interested in habitat and fish
stock protection, reduction of destructive fishing practices, etc. However, the
environmental risks associated with recreational fisheries development, e.g.
spread of non-native fish introduced illegally, should be properly weighed.
Ideally, before initiating action to increase recreational fisheries at the expense
of other fishery types, an economic feasibility study should be conducted to
look at their current status, growth potential, likely economic impacts and
within-country sectoral effects as well as the social impacts on subsistence
fisheries and their alternative employment opportunities.
There are other particular challenges that developing nations face when
developing recreational fisheries. With a history of combating hunger and
poverty, developing nations could experience potentially pervasive cultural
and value conflicts between usually wealthier members of society who like to
fish for recreation and those traditionally engaged in commercial or subsistence
fisheries. Combating hunger and poverty should always be a priority and, thus,
commercial and subsistence fishing might receive preferential allocation in
the very poor countries where poverty and food security are dominant societal
issues. However, what should drive decisions for fish stock allocation in the
long term is the combined societal welfare created by decisions in the light
of economic, social and environmental trade-offs. This might also favour the
development of recreational fishing. For example, in some coastal areas of
the United States of America, it has been realized that the economic gains
from allocating stocks to recreational fisheries are higher than the economic
benefits created by using the stocks commercially (Ihde et al., 2011). States,
nations and regions should therefore properly value the benefits and costs of
various uses of fish stocks, such that economically and socially acceptable
decisions can be taken that involve recreational fisheries interests in waters
jointly exploited with other fishery types. However, if recreational fisheries
development is uncertain, priority should remain with subsistence or artisanal
fisheries as a food security “safety net” for developing nations (Berkes et al.,
2001). In turn, these fisheries may reduce harvest of particularly charismatic
species that are then preferentially targeted by, for example, tourist fishers.
As emphasized above, economies in transition can be classified as

intermediate between developing countries and the more industrialized
world. It is these countries that are currently experiencing the greatest rise
in resident recreational fisheries, as with increasing prosperity subsistence
fisheries transform into more leisure-type fisheries, e.g. in South America and
Asia. Decision-makers need to ensure that this development is sustainable,
and, therefore, the TGRF should be followed. In particular, there is a need for
development of appropriate governance frameworks that integrate recreational
fisheries in the overall fisheries policy and carefully balance recreational,
subsistence and commercial fisheries using an appropriate regulatory mix
without over-regulating recreational fisheries unnecessarily.
117
9. Implementation of the Guidelines
T
hese Technical Guidelines for responsible recreational fisheries are
targeted at the entire recreational fisheries sector: policy-makers;
representatives of angler associations, unions and clubs; recreational
fishers; the recreational fishing industry at large; local and regional fisheries
managers; and fisheries scientists. Because the Guidelines were not developed
for a specific user group, the implementation strategies will vary. Moreover,
given cultural, social, political, governance and economic differences around
the globe, the implementation strategies will need to be cognizant of such
diversity and flexible in their application. For example, some inland European
fisheries are subject to private property rights whereas in the Americas and
Australia fisheries tend to be public. It will be easier to reach most North
American fisheries agencies than the thousands of independent management
bodies (usually angling clubs) in central Europe. Transboundary fisheries
issues, management structures, diverse organizations with vested interests and
a diversity of instruments and funding streams in various countries further
complicate the implementation of the technical guidelines.
Nonetheless, to be viable, the TGRF must be adopted by the international
community and be further developed as new issues and conflicts arise. Failure
to adopt at the international level would mean that the TGRF would probably
be received and implemented only on a regional or local basis. In reality,
the TGRF need to be adopted by a variety of bodies ranging from local to
international. Beyond governments, the TGRF would ideally be used by
regional and international angler and industry alliances such as the European
Anglers Association, RecFish Australia, International Game Fish Association,
and the American Sportfishing Association. This would give the TGRF the
recognition they deserve and make them a focal point for governments, agencies
and international policy-makers. In addition, there are some activities that can
take place more immediately. For example, any stakeholder responsible for
governance or management of recreational fishing could voluntarily endorse
the TGRF and use and modify them to suit local or regional needs. To this
end, the TGRF should be actively promoted to increase the extent and speed
of uptake. In addition, translation of the TGRF into various languages would
improve implementation.
The various stakeholder groups will probably implement the TGRF in

different ways. Accordingly, an overview of the potential role of different
bodies and stakeholder groups in implementation of the TGRF is provided
below, as is a list of generic recommendations. The implementation list is not
exhaustive but it is desired that all interested parties will collectively use a
variety of creative means to implement and further the spirit of the TGRF.
9.1 The role of different bodies and stakeholder groups

in implementation
9.1.1 National States and related state and provincial agencies
The primary fisheries management and regulatory agencies are a combination
of national (e.g. Bahamas Division of Marine Resources, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Environment Agency of England and Wales) and state and/or provincial
governments (e.g. Illinois Department of Natural Resources). These types of
agencies are typically responsible for enacting policy, ensuring compliance,
managing fisheries, collecting data and conducting research in support of their
missions. Given that in some regions such agencies are supported largely by
fishing licence sales, some agencies also expend resources on encouraging
participation in recreational fisheries (e.g. “take a child fishing” events,
public service announcements) and in providing and/or enhancing fishing
opportunities (e.g. put–grow–take fisheries, installation of fishing platforms).
In many regions, there is jurisdictional overlap between state/provincial and
federal agencies. In such cases, there are typically agreements in place to specify
which aspects of recreational fisheries research and management fall under
their purview. In that respect, federal agencies often focus on broad legislation
(e.g. habitat protection) and broad-scale research while state/provincial
agencies tend to focus more on day-to-day management activities (e.g.
fisheries assessment, enforcement, outreach). Federal agencies also typically
become involved when it is necessary to participate in regional fishery bodies
(RFBs), including regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs)
and other international cooperative mechanisms. The range of capacity and
responsibility within agencies varies widely, particularly between developed
and developing countries. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, there is little in the
way of recreational fisheries management, resource monitoring or research.
Many natural-resource agencies employ education and communication experts
that are able to develop outreach materials and deliver programming related
to fisheries and natural resources. Specific examples of the role national and
regional agencies should play in the implementation of the TGRF include:
Implementation of the Guidelines 119
• using the TGRF to craft a code of conduct for their organization and
then adopting and embracing the content;
• working to further the practices that will strengthen and sustain
recreational fisheries by ensuring that their core mission is aligned
with the TGRF;
• integrating the provisions of the TGRF in fisheries management
decision-making and fisheries management processes nationally and
regionally;
• cooperating and integrating programmes with other organizations and
entities to further the TGRF across states and nations;
• using the TGRF as one means to develop a certification scheme for
sustainable recreational fisheries;
• developing outreach, education and awareness materials of various
formats that can be used to disseminate information within and
beyond their agency and to stakeholders;
• influencing national policy to strengthen recreational fisheries based
on the TGRF.
9.1.2 Regional fishery bodies and regional fisheries management

organizations
Given that many fisheries and fisheries management issues transcend
jurisdictional boundaries (either state/province or federal), RFBs are often
established to manage fisheries or to provide a platform for managerial
processes. They typically address issues in international waters but are also
set up for large freshwater lakes or rivers that transcend international borders.
Usually, RFBs comprise government appointees from member jurisdictions
but may host representatives from NGOs. In a commercial context and where
an RFMO is established, these bodies may have the mandate to set and allocate
quotas for the fish stocks under their management within the boundaries set
out in their conventions, and thus are of relevance for recreational fisheries
if stocks are also targeted by them. They are also responsible for enforcing
quotas through control, monitoring and surveillance activities. The RFBs
related to recreational fishing are no different in that they work largely on
the development of coordinated management policies. Some RFBs directly
manage fisheries while others serve in more of an advisory capacity. The
responsibilities of RFBs have been outlined in various international agreements
such as the Code (FAO, 1995).
Often, RFBs engage in, fund and/or coordinate research activities. Outreach
and education activities are used by RFBs to engage other stakeholders, in
particular fishers (recreational and otherwise). In marine environments, RFBs
are typically more focused on commercial fisheries issues and management
mandates (e.g. the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission, International Commission for the Conservation
of Atlantic Tunas, and North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization2)
and given the challenges with international fisheries management, these
RFMOs are quite large and complex. An RFB can also be established by two
countries (e.g. the Pacific Salmon Commission and the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission between Canada and the United States of America) and across
states/provinces within a country (e.g. the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Council in the United States of America). Those RFBs that deal with inland
fisheries, such as the Mekong River Commission, often have mandates that
can extend to include water management. Similar to national States and related
state/provincial governments, RFBs have the potential to play a strong role in
the implementation of the TGRF by integrating the perspectives and interests
of recreational fisheries into large-scale fisheries management. Moreover,
given the fact that many of the marine RFBs have already adopted the Code,
the TGRF could be easily embraced and incorporated into how RFBs and
RFMOs operate. Specific examples of the role of RFBs and RFMOs in the
implementation of the TGRF are similar to the above and include:
• using the TGRF to guide fisheries management decision-making that
affects recreational fisheries;
• integrating and coordinating fisheries management decisions;
• providing a platform for working with member states/provinces/
countries to develop and implement management practices that will
strengthen and sustain recreational fisheries;
beyond their organization;
2
The FAO Web site provides a complete list of regional fishery bodies:
www.fao.org/fishery/rfb/search/en
Implementation of the Guidelines 121
• using the TGRF to revise the traditional focus on commercial fisheries

recognizing that RFBs are important players affecting recreational
fisheries;
• supporting research and management activities financially.
9.1.3 Non-governmental organizations

A broad range of NGOs involved with the recreational fisheries sectors exists,
including clubs, associations and special interest groups that act at a variety of
spatial scales (e.g. a specific waterbody, region, watershed) and with diverse
foci (e.g. species-specific, gear-specific). The missions of these organizations
vary widely and usually include several different foci such as the improvement
of fishing success, exchange of information on gear types, fish biology or
techniques, socializing, conservation and restoration, citizen science and
monitoring, fundraising to support research activities, and advocacy for access
to fish and fisheries management activities. Some organizations are rooted in
business (i.e. industry associations interested in ensuring the future of fishing
and fishing opportunities) while others are charitable organizations where the
fish and fishing serve as a backdrop for conservation (e.g. Trout Unlimited).
In central Europe, clubs and angler associations are leaseholders of fisheries
and then are responsible for the day-to-day management of fisheries. What
is common across these groups is that they each have a role to play in the
implementation of the TGRF. Specific examples of their potential role in
implementation include:
• using the TGRF as a roadmap for fisheries management decisions;
• using the TGRF as an information source for lobbying and conflict
resolution;
• encouraging industry associations to work with their members to
ensure that innovations in gear and services are consistent with TGRF
principles;
• debating within their own organizations the research needs for
recreational fisheries and sharing information with other entities and
stakeholders;
beyond their group;
• advocating activities needed to ensure that government agencies

responsible for fisheries management are aware of the TGRF and
embrace the contents;
• recognizing that NGOs are important players in recreational fisheries
management and science and that they have the ability to contribute to
formulating fisheries objectives and developing strategies to achieve
them;
• fundraising to support various initiatives including those listed above.
9.1.4 Individual recreational fishers

At the core of the recreational fishing community are the recreational fishers –
about 400–600 million individuals worldwide (Chapter 1). Given the strong
interaction of fishers with the environment, they have an important role to play
in the implementation of the TGRF, in particular the guidelines in Chapter 6.
Some components of the guidelines, such as those that focus on responsible
fishing practices, are particularly geared towards the individual actor. Specific
examples of the potential role of anglers in implementation include:
• reading and embracing the TGRF and relevant codes of conduct that
deal with recreational fisheries practices;
• adopting responsible and stewardship fishing practices consistent with
the TGRF;
• working with other recreational fishers to form organized groups
to share information, to educate other recreational fishers, and to
lobby, advocate and engage management bodies on topics related to
recreational fishing;
• embracing and accepting outreach, education and awareness materials;
• recognizing that they are important players in recreational fisheries
management and science, that there are opportunities for ensuring
that their voice is heard, and that they have the ability to contribute to
formulating fisheries objectives and developing strategies to achieve
them;
• recognizing that they have the ability to contribute to the generation of
new knowledge and collection of fisheries data that will be essential
for understanding global trends in fisheries.
123
References
Allen, C.R. & Gunderson, L.H. 2011. Pathology and failure in the design
and implementation of adaptive management. Journal of Environmental
Management, 92: 1379–1385.
Allen, C.R., Fontaine, J.J., Pope, K.L. & Garmestani, A.S. 2011. Adaptive
management for a turbulent future. Journal of Environmental Management,
92: 1339–1345.
Alós, J., Palmer, M., Grau, A.M. & Deudero, S. 2008. Effects of hook size
and barbless hooks on hooking injury, catch per unit effort, and fish size
in a mixed-species recreational fishery in the western Mediterranean Sea.
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 899-905.
American Fisheries Society (AFS). 1986. Policy statement on introduced
aquatic species [online]. Bethesda, USA. [Cited 14 June 2012]. http://
fisheries.org/docs/policy_statements/policy_15f.pdf
Andres-Abellan, M., Del Alamo, J.B., Landete-Castillejos, T., Lopez-
Serrano, F.R., Garcia-Morote, F.A. & Del Cerro-Barja, A. 2005. Impacts
of visitors on soil and vegetation of the recreational area “Nacimiento del
Rio Mundo” (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 101(1–3): 55–67.
Andrews, E. 2007. Fostering aquatic stewardship with the help of best
education practices. In B.A. Knuth & W.F. Siemer, eds. Aquatic stewardship
education in theory and practice, pp. 25–32. Bethesda, USA, American
Fisheries Society.
Arlinghaus, R. 2004. A human dimensions approach towards sustainable
recreational fisheries management. London, Turnshare Ltd. 400 pp.
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. 2006a. Overcoming human obstacles to conservation
of recreational fishery resources, with emphasis on central Europe.
Environmental Conservation, 33: 46–59.
Arlinghaus, R. 2006b. On the apparently striking disconnect between
motivation and satisfaction in recreational fishing: the case of catch
orientation of German anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management, 26: 592–605.
Arlinghaus, R. 2007. Voluntary catch-and-release can generate conflict within

the recreational angling community: a qualitative case study of specialised
carp, Cyprinus carpio, angling in Germany. Fisheries Management and
Ecology, 14: 161–171.
Arlinghaus, R. & Cooke, S.J. 2009. Recreational fisheries: socioeconomic
importance, conservation issues and management challenges. In B. Dickson,
J. Hutton & W.M. Adams, eds. Recreational hunting, conservation and
rural livelihoods: science and practice, pp. 39–58. Oxford, UK, Blackwell
Publishing.
Arlinghaus, R. & Cowx, I.G. 2008. Meaning and relevance of the ecosystem
approach to recreational fisheries management: emphasis on the human
dimension. In Ø. Aas, R. Arlinghaus, R.B. Ditton, D. Policansky &
H.L. Schramm Jr, eds. Global challenges in recreational fisheries, pp. 56–
74. Oxford, UK, Blackwell Science.
Arlinghaus, R., Mehner, T. & 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., Policansky, D., Schwab, A.,
Suski, C.D., Sutton, S.G. & Thorstad, E.B. 2007a. Understanding the
complexity of catch-and-release in recreational fishing: an integrative
synthesis of global knowledge from historical, ethical, social, and biological
perspectives. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 15: 75–167.
Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., Schwab, A. & Cowx, I.G. 2007b. Fish welfare: a
challenge of the feelings-based approach, with implications for recreational
fishing. Fish and Fisheries, 8: 57-71.
Arlinghaus, R., Johnson, B.M., & Wolter, C. 2008. The past, present and
future role of limnology in freshwater fisheries science. International
Review of Hydrobiology, 93: 541–549.
Arlinghaus, R., Klefoth, T., Kobler, A. & Cooke, S.J. 2008. Size-selectivity,
capture efficiency, injury, handling time and determinants of initial hooking
mortality of angled northern pike (Esox lucius L.): the influence of bait type
and size. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 28: 123–134.
Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S.J., Schwab, A. & Cowx, I.G. 2009a. Contrasting
pragmatic and suffering-centred approaches to fish welfare in recreational
fishing. Journal of Fish Biology, 75: 2448–2463.
Arlinghaus, R., Klefoth, T., Cooke, S.J., Gingerich, A. & Suski C.J. 2009b.
Physiological and behavioural consequences of catch-and-release angling
on northern pike (Esox lucius). Fisheries Research, 97: 223–233.
References 125
Arlinghaus, R., Matsumura, S. & Diekmann. U. 2010. The conservation

and fishery benefits of protecting large pike (Esox lucius L.) by harvest
regulations in recreational fishing. Biological Conservation, 143: 1444–
1459.
Asoh, K., Yoshikawa, T., Kosaki, R. & Marschall, E.A. 2004. Damage to
cauliflower coral by monofilament fishing lines in Hawaii. Conservation
Biology, 18: 1645–1650.
Baker, J.P., Olem, H., Creager, C.S., Marcus, M.D., & Parkhurst, B.R.
1993. Fish and fisheries management in lakes and reservoirs. EPA-
841-R-93-002. Washington, DC, Terrene Institute and US EPA.
Ballweber, J.A. & Schramm, Jr, H.L. 2010. The legal process and fisheries
management. In W.A. Hubert & M.C. Quist, eds. Inland fisheries
management in North America. pp. 107–132. Bethesda, USA, American
Fisheries Society.
Barthel, B.L., Cooke, S.J., Suski, C.D. & Philipp, D.P. 2003. Effects of
landing net mesh type on injury and mortality in a freshwater recreational
fishery. Fisheries Research, 63: 275–282.
Bartholomew, A. & 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(1–2): 129–154.
Bartley, D. 2005. Fisheries and aquaculture topics. Codes of practice. In: FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. [Cited 14 June
2012]. www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14782/en
Bate, R. 2001. Saving our streams: the role of the Anglers´ Conservation
Association in protecting English and Welsh rivers. London, The Institute
of Economic Affairs and Profile Books. 128 pp.
Beard, T.D., Arlinghaus, R., Bartley, D., Cooke, S.J., de Silva, S., McIntyre,
P. & Cowx, I.G. 2011. Ecosystem approach to inland fisheries: research
needs and implementation strategies. Biology Letters, 7: 481–483.
Beardmore, B., Haider, W., Hunt, L. & Arlinghaus, R. 2011. The importance
of trip context for determining primary angler motivations: are more
specialized anglers more catch-oriented than previously believed? North
American Journal of Fisheries Management, 31: 861–879.
Beeby, A. 2001. What do sentinels stand for? Environmental Pollution, 112:
285–298.
Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. AFS Monograph
6. Bethesda, USA, American Fisheries Society. 275 pp.
Bell, J.D., Leber, K.M., Blankenship, H.L., Loneragan, N.R. & Masuda,
R. 2008. A new era for restocking, stock enhancement and sea ranching of
coastal fisheries resources. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 16: 1–8.
Bellan, G.L. & Bellan-Santini, D.R. 2001. A review of littoral tourism, sport
and leisure activities: consequences on marine flora and fauna. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 11: 325–333.
Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac, R. & Pomeroy. R. 2001.
Managing small-scale fisheries: alternative directions and methods.
Ottawa, International Development Research Centre. 308 pp.
Beukema, J.J. 1995. Long-term effects of mechanical harvesting of lugworms
Arenicola marina on the zoobenthic community of a tidal flat in the Wadden
Sea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 33: 219–227.
Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R. & Brock, W.A. 2009. Turning back from the brink:
Detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 106: 826–831.
Bonar, S.A. & Hubert, W.A. 2002. Standard sampling of inland fish: benefits,
challenges, and a call for action. Fisheries, 27: 10–16.
Bonar, S.A., Hubert, W.A. & Willis, D.W., eds. 2009. Standard methods for
sampling North American freshwater fishes. Bethesda, USA, American
Fisheries Society. 335 pp.
Borucinska, J., Martin, J., & Skomal, G. 2001. Peritonitis and pericarditis
associated with gastric perforation by a retained fishing hook in a blue
shark. J. Aquat. Anim. Health, 13: 347–354.
Borucinska, J., Kohler, N., Natanson, L. & Skomal, G. 2002. Pathology
associated with retained fishing hooks in blue sharks, Prionace glauca (L.),
with implications for their conservation. J. Fish. Dis., 25: 515–521.
Boutilier R.G. 1990. Control and co-ordination of gas exchange in bimodal
breathers. In R.G. Boutilier, ed. Advances in comparative and environmental
physiology 6. Vertebrate gas exchange: from environment to cell. pp. 280–
346. New York, USA, Springer-Verlag.
Brobbel, M.A., Wilkie, M.P., Davidson, K., Kieffer, J.D., Bielak, A.T. &
Tufts, B.L. 1995. Physiological effects of catch and release angling in
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) at different stages of freshwater migration.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53: 2036–2043.
Brock, W.A. & Carpenter, S.R. 2007. Panaceas and diversification of
environmental policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA, 104: 15206–15211.
References 127
Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the

case of trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 9: 174–187.
Burns, K.M. & Restrepo, V. 2002. Survival of reef fish after rapid
depressurization: Field and laboratory studies. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp., 30:
148–151
Cambray, J.A. 2003. Impact of indigenous species biodiversity caused by the
globalisation of alien recreational freshwater fisheries. Hydrobiologia, 500:
217–230.
Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and
Oceanography, 22: 361–369.
Carpenter, S.R. & Brock, W.A. 2004: Spatial complexity, resilience and
policy diversity: fishing on lake-rich landscapes. Ecology and Society, 9: 8
[online]. [Cited 14 June 2012]. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art8
Carpenter, S.R., Cole, J.J., Pace, M.L., Batt, R., Brock, W.A., Cline, T.,
Coloso, J., Hodgson, J.R., Kitchell, J.F., Seekell, D.A., Smith, L. &
Weidel, B. 2011. Early warnings of regime shifts: a whole-ecosystem
experiment. Science, 332: 1079–1082.
Carroll, S.P., Hendry, A.P., Reznick, D.N. & Fox, C.W. 2007. Evolution on
ecological time-scales. Functional Ecology, 21: 387–393.
Catella, A.C. 2006. Turismo de pesca no Pantanal Sul: desafios e oportunidades.
In M.A. Rotta, H.S.e. Luna & W.A. Weis. eds. Ecoturismo no Pantanal, pp.
56–69. Corumbá, Embrapa.
Chapin, F.S. III, Kofina, F.S. & Folke, C., eds. 2009 Principles of ecosystem
stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing
world. Berlin, Springer.
Chapin, F.S. III, Carpenter, S.R., Kofinas, G.P., Folke, C., Abel, N.,
Clark, W.C., Olsson, P., Stafford Smith, D.M., Walker, B., Young, O.R.,
Berkes, F., Biggs, R., Grove, J.M., Naylor, R.L., Pinkerton, E.,
Steffen, W. & Swanson, F.J. 2010. Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability
strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
25: 241–249.
Chiappone, M., Dienes, H., Swanson, D.W. & Miller, S.L. 2005. Impacts
of lost fishing gear on coral reef sessile invertebrates in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary. Biological Conservation, 121: 221–230.
Christensen, V., & Walters, C.J. 2004. Ecopath with Ecosim: methods,
capabilities and limitations. Ecological Modelling, 172: 109–139.
Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M. & Sumaila, U.R. 2010. A global estimate of

benefits from ecosystem-base marine recreation: potential impacts and
implications for management. Journal of Bioeconomics, 12: 245–268.
Cochrane, K.L. & Garcia, S.M., eds. 2009. A fishery manager’s guidebook.
Second edition. Rome, Wiley-Blackwell and FAO.
Coggins Jr., L.C., Catalano, M.J., Allen, M.S., Pine III, W.E. & Walters,
C.J. 2007. Effects of cryptic mortality and the hidden costs of length limits
in fishery management. Fish and Fisheries, 8: 196–210.
Cole, D.N. 2004. Environmental impacts of outdoor recreation in wildlands. In
M. Manfredo, J. Vaske, D. Field, P. Brown & B. Bruyere, eds. Society and
resource management: a summary of knowledge, pp. 107–116. Jefferson
City, Modern Litho.
Coleman, F.C., Figueira, W.F., Ueland, J.S. & Crowder, L.B. 2004. The
impact of United States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations.
Science, 305: 1958–1960.
Collins, M.R., McGovern, J.C., Sedberry, G.R., Meister, H.S.m & Pardieck,
R. 1999. Swim bladder deflation in black sea bass and vermilion snapper:
potential for increasing postrelease survival. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage.,
19: 828–832.
Connelly, N.A., Brown, T.L. & Knuth, B.A. 2000. Do anglers and fishery
professionals think alike? Fisheries, 25(2): 21–25.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2011. Article 1. Objectives. In:
Convention on Biological Diversity [online]. Montreal, Canada. [Cited
14 June 2012]. www.cbd.int/.
Cooke, S.J. & Cowx, I.G. 2004. The role of recreational fisheries in global
fish crises. BioScience, 54: 857–859.
Cooke, S.J. & 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. & Hogle, W.J. 2000. Effects of retention gear on the injury and
short-term mortality of adult smallmouth bass. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage.,
20: 1033–1039.
Cooke, S.J. & Philipp, D.P. 2004. Behavior and mortality of caught-and-
released bonefish (Albula spp.) in Bahamian waters with implications for a
sustainable recreational fishery. Biol. Conserv., 118: 599–607.
References 129
Cooke, S.J. & Sneddon, L.U. 2007. Animal welfare perspectives on catch-
and-release recreational angling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 104:
176–198.
Cooke, S.J. & Suski, C.D. 2004. Are circle hooks effective tools for conserving
freshwater and marine recreational catch-and-release fisheries? Aquat.
Conserv. Mar. Freshwater. Ecosystems., 14: 299–326.
Cooke, S.J. & Suski, C.D. 2005. Do we need species-specific guidelines
for catch-and-release recreational angling to conserve diverse fishery
resources? Biodiversity Conserv., 14: 1195–1209.
Cooke, S.J. & Wilde, G.R. 2007. The fate of fish released by recreational
anglers. In S.J. Kennelly, ed. By-catch reduction in the world’s fisheries,
pp. 181–234. New York, USA, Springer.
Cooke, S.J., Philipp, D.P., Dunmall, K.M. & Schreer, J.F. 2001. The influence
of terminal tackle on injury, handling time, and cardiac disturbance of rock
bass. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage., 21: 333–342.
Costantini, M. & Spoto, M. 2002. Assessment of man-made underwater noise
impact on a population of gobids in a marine protected area. Bioacoustics,
13: 95.
Cowx, I.G. 1994. Stocking strategies. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 1:
15–30.
Cowx, I.G., ed. 1998. Stocking and introduction of fish. Oxford, UK, Blackwell
Science, Fishing News Books. 456 pp.
Cowx, I. G. 2002. Recreational fishing. In P. Hart & J. Reynolds, eds.
Handbook of fish biology and fisheries. Volume 2, pp. 367–390. London,
Blackwell Science.
Cowx, I.G., Arlinghaus, R. & Cooke, S.J. 2010. Harmonizing recreational
fisheries and conservation objectives for aquatic biodiversity in inland
waters. Journal of Fish Biology, 76: 2194–2215.
Cox, S.P. & Walters, C. 2002. Maintaining quality in recreational fisheries:
how success breeds failure in management of open-access sport fisheries.
In T.J. Pitcher & C.E. Hollingworth, eds. Recreational fisheries: ecological,
economic and social evaluation, pp. 107–119. Oxford, UK, Blackwell
Science.
Crowder, L.B., Hazen, E.L., Avissar, N., Bjorkland, R., Latanich, C. &
Ogburn, M.B. 2008. The impacts of fisheries on marine ecosystems and
the transition to ecosystem-based management. Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution & Systematics, 39: 259–278.
Cryer, M. & Edwards, R.W. 1987. The impact of angler ground bait on
benthic invertebrates and sediment respiration in a shallow eutrophic
reservoir. Environmental Pollution, 46: 137–150.
Cryer, M., Corbett, J.J. & Winterbotham, M.D. 1987. The deposition of
hazardous litter by anglers at coastal and inland fisheries in South Wales.
Journal of Environmental Management, 25: 125–135.
Cryer, M., Linley, N.W., Ward, R.M., Stratford, J.O. & Randerson, P.F.
1987. Disturbance of overwintering wildfowl by anglers at two reservoir
sites in South Wales. Bird Study, 34: 191–199.
Cury, P.A. & Christensen, V. 2005. Quantitative ecosystem indicators for
fisheries management – Introduction. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62:
405–411.
Daedlow, K., Beard, T.D. Jr. & Arlinghaus, R. 2011. A property rights-based
view on management of inland recreational fisheries: contrasting common
and public fishing rights regimes in Germany and the United States.
American Fisheries Society Symposium, 75: 13–38.
Daniels, S.E. & Walker, G.B. 2001. Working through environmental conflict:
the collaborative learning approach. Praeger Publishers.
Danner, G.R., Chacko, J. & Brautigam, F. 2009. Voluntary ingestion of
soft plastic fishing lures affects brook trout growth in the laboratory. North
Danylchuk, A.J., Adams, A., Cooke, S.J. & Suski, C.D. 2008. An evaluation
of the injury and short-term survival of bonefish (Albula spp.) as influenced
by a mechanical lip-gripping device used by recreational anglers. Fisheries
Research, 93: 248–252.
Danylchuk, A.J., Cooke, S.J., Suski, C.D., Goldberg, T.L., Petersen, J.D.,
& Danylchuk, S.E. 2011. Involving recreational anglers in developing
best handling practices for catch-and-release fishing of bonefish (Albula
spp): a model for citizen science in an aquatic setting. American Fisheries
Society Symposium, 75: 95–111.
Danylchuk, S.E., Danylchuk, A.J., Cooke, S.J., Goldberg, T.L.,
Koppelman, J. & Philipp, D.P. 2007. Effects of recreational angling on
the post-release behavior and predation of bonefish Albula vulpes): the role
of equilibrium status at the time of release. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology, 346: 127–133.
Davie, P.S. & Kopf, R.K. 2006. Physiology, behaviour and welfare of fish
during recreational fishing and after release. New Zealand Veterinary
Journal, 54: 161–172.
References 131
Delong, M.D. & Brusven, M.A. 1991. Classification and spatial mapping of
riparian habitat with applications toward management of streams impacted
by nonpoint source pollution. Environmental Management, 15(4): 565–
571.
DiStefano, R.J., Litvan, M.E. & Horner, P.T. 2009. The bait industry as a
potential vector for alien crayfish introductions: Problem recognition by
fisheries agencies and a Missouri evaluation. Fisheries, 34: 587–597.
Ditton, R.B. 2004. Human dimensions of fisheries. In M.J. Manfredo,
J.J. Vaske, B.L. Bruyere, D.R. Field & P.J. Brown, eds. Society and natural
resources: a summary of knowledge prepared for the 10th International
Symposium on Society and Resource Management, pp. 199–208. Jefferson,
USA, Modern Litho.
Ditton, R.B. & Hunt, K.M. 2001. Combining creel intercept and mail survey
methods to understand the human dimensions of local freshwater fisheries.
Fisheries Management and Ecology, 8: 295–301.
Dizon, A.E., Lockyer, C., Perrin, W.F., Demaster, D.P. & Sisson, J. 1992.
Rethinking the stock concept – a phylogenetic approach. Conservation
Biology, 6: 24–36.
Donaldson, G., Scheuhammer, A.M., Money, S.L. & Kirk, D.A. 2003. Lead
fishing sinkers and jigs in Canada: Review of their use patterns and toxic
impacts on wildlife. Occasional Paper No. 108. Ottawa, Canadian Wildlife
Service.
Donaldson, M.R., O’Connor, C.M., Thompson, L.A., Gingerich, A.J.,
Danylchuk, S.E., Duplain, R.R. & Cooke, S.J. 2011. Contrasting global
game fish and non-game fish species. Fisheries, 36: 385–397.
Donovan, N.S., Stein, R.A. & White, M.M. 1997. Enhancing percid stocking
success by understanding age-0 piscivore-prey interactions in reservoirs.
Ecological Applications, 7: 1311–1329.
Dorow, M., Beardmore, B., Haider, W. & Arlinghaus, R. 2010. Winners
and losers of conservation policies for European eel, Anguilla anguilla:
an economic welfare analysis for differently specialised anglers. Fisheries
Management and Ecology, 17: 106–125.
Eby, L.A., Roach, W.J., Crowder, L.B. & Stanford, J.A. 2006. Effects of
stocking-up freshwater food webs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21:
576–584.
Edwards, S.F. 1991. A critique of three “economics” arguments commonly
used to influence fishery allocations. North American Journal of Fisheries
Edwards, R.W. & Fouracre, V.A. 1983. Is the banning of ground baiting
in reservoirs justified? In: Proceedings of the Third British Freshwater
Fisheries Conference, University of Liverpool, pp. 89–94.
European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC). 2008. EIFAC
code of practice for recreational fisheries. EIFAC Occasional Paper 42.
Rome, FAO. 45 pp.
Everard, M. & Kataria, G. 2011. Recreational angling markets to advance
the conservation of a reach of the Western Ramganga River, India. Aquatic
FAO. 1995. FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome. 41 pp.
FAO. 1996. Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species
introductions. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 2.
Rome. 54 pp.
FAO. 1997a. Inland fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible
FAO. 1997b. Aquaculture development. FAO Technical Guidelines for
FAO. 1997c. Fisheries management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible
FAO. 1999. Review of the state of world fisheries resources: inland fisheries.
FAO Fisheries Circular No. 942. Rome. 53 pp
FAO. 2003. Fisheries Management. 2: The ecosystem approach to fisheries.
Rome. 112 pp.
FAO. 2005a. Ethical issues in fisheries. FAO Ethics Series No. 4. Rome. 39 pp.
FAO. 2005b. Negotiation and mediation techniques for natural resource
management. FAO Rome. 230 pp.
FAO. 2006. Stock assessment for fishery management. A framework guide to the
stock assessment tools of the Fisheries Management Science Programme.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 487. Rome. 261 pp.
FAO. 2008a. Aquaculture development. 3. Genetic resource management.
Rome. 143 pp.
FAO. 2008b. Inland Fisheries. 1. Rehabilitation of inland waters for fisheries.
The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries No’s, Suppl. 1. Rome. 136 pp.
FAO. 2009. Information and knowledge sharing. FAO Technical Guidelines
for Responsible Fisheries No. 12. Rome. 97 pp.
References 133
FAO. 2010. The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. Rome.
197 pp.
Fedler, A.J. & Ditton, R.B. 1994. Understanding angler motivations in
fisheries management. Fisheries, 19(4): 6–13.
Fenichel, E.P., Tsao, J.I., Jones, M.L. & Hickling, G.J. 2008. Real options
for precautionary fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries, 9: 121–137.
Ferguson, R.A. & Tufts, B.L. 1992. Physiological effects of brief air
exposure in exhaustively exercised rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss):
implications for “catch and release” fisheries. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 49: 1157–1162.
Fiore, B.J., Anderson, H.A., Hanrahan, L.P., Olson, L.C. & Sonzogni,
W.C. 1989. Sport fish consumption and body burden levels of chlorinated
hydrocarbons: a study of Wisconsin anglers. Archives on Environmental
Health, 44: 82–88.
Font, T. & Lloret, J. 2011. Biological implications of recreational shore
angling and harvest in a marine reserve: the case of Cape Creus. Aquatic
Forbes, I.J. 1986. The quantity of lead shot, nylon fishing line and other litter
discarded at a coarse fishing lake. Biological Conservation, 38: 21–34.
Francis, R.C., Hixon, M.A., Clarke, M.E., Murawski, S.A, Ralston, S. 2007.
Ten commandments for ecosystem-based fisheries scientists. Fisheries, 32:
217–233.
Franson, J.C., Hansen, S.P., Creekmore, T.E., Brand, C.J., Evers, D.C.,
Duerr, A.E. & DeStefano, S. 2003. Lead fishing weights and other fishing
tackle in selected waterbirds. Waterbirds, 26: 345–352
Fraser, D.J., Coon, T., Prince, M.R., Dion., R., & Bernatchez, L. 2006.
Integrating traditional and evolutionary knowledge in biodiversity
conservation: a population level case study. Ecology and Society, 11: 4
Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D.M, Smith, D.C. & van Putten, I.E. 2011. Human
behaviour: key source of uncertainty in fisheries management. Fish and
Fisheries, 12: 2–17.
Garcia, S.M. 1994. The precautionary principle: its implications in capture
fisheries management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 22: 99–125.
García-Asorey, M.I., Escati-Peñaloza, G., Parma, A.M. & Pascual, M.A.
2011. Conflicting objectives in trophy trout recreational fisheries: evaluating
trade-offs using an individual-based model. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, 68: 1892–1904.
Goldschmidt, T., Witte, F. & Wanink, J. 1993. Cascading effects of the

introduced Nile perch on the detritivorous phytoplanktivorous species in
the sublittoral areas of Lake Victoria. Conservation Biology, 7: 686–700.
Granek, E.F., Madin, E.M.P., Brown, M.A., Figueira, W., Cameron, D.S.,
Hogan, Z., Kristianson, G., De Villiers, P., Williams, J.E., Post, J.,
Zahn, S. & Arlinghaus, R. 2008. Engaging recreational fishers in
management and conservation: global case studies. Conservation Biology,
22: 1125–1134.
Gray, S.A. & Jordan, R. 2010. Ecosystem-based angling: incorporating
recreational anglers into ecosystem-based management. Human Dimensions
of Wildlife, 15: 233–246.
Gustaveson, A.W., Wydowski, R.S. & Wedemeyer, G.A. 1991. Physiological
response of largemouth bass to angling stress. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 120:
629–636.
Gutierrez, N.L., Hilborn, R. & Defeo, O. 2011. Leadership, social capital
and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature, 470: 386–389.
Guy, C.S. & Brown, M.L., eds. 2007. Analysis and interpretation of freshwater
fisheries data. Bethesda, USA, American Fisheries Society.
Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L. & Raifa, H. 1999. Smart choices: a practical
guide to making better decisions. Boston, USA, Harvard Business School
Press.
Hansen, M.J., Beard, Jr., T.D. & Hayes, D.B. 2007. Sampling and experimental
design. In C.S. Guy & M.L. Brown, eds. Analysis and interpretation of
freshwater fisheries data, pp. 51–120. Bethesda, USA, American Fisheries
Society.
Hanson, K.C., Gravel, M.A., Graham, A., Shoji, A. & Cooke, S.J. 2008.
Intersexual variation in fisheries research and management: When does sex
matter? Reviews in Fisheries Science, 18: 421–436.
Hasler, C.T., Colotelo, A.H., Rapp, T., Jamieson, E., Bellehumeur, K.,
Arlinghaus, R. & Cooke, S.J. 2011. Opinions of fisheries researchers,
managers, and anglers towards recreational fishing issues: an exploratory
analysis for North America. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 75:
51–74.
Hickley, P. & Chare, S. 2004. Fisheries for non-native species in England and
Wales: angling or the environment? Fisheries Management and Ecology,
11: 203–212.
Hilborn, R. 1992. Hatcheries and the future of salmon in the Northwest.
References 135
Hilborn, R. 2010. Pretty good yield and exploited fishes. Marine Policy, 34:
193–196.
Hilborn, R. & Walters, C.J. 1992. Quantitative fish stock assessment. New
York, USA, Chapman & Hall. 570 pp.
Hindson, J., Hogarth, D.D., Krishna, M., Mees, C.C. & O’Neill, C. 2005.
How to manage a fishery: A simple guide to writing a fishery management
plan. London, Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG).
Hodgson, B.P. & Eaton, J.W. 2000. Provision for juvenile stages of coarse
fish in river rehabilitation projects. In I.G. Cowx, ed. Management and
ecology of river fisheries, pp. 318–328. Oxford, UK, Blackwell Science,
Fishing News Books.
Holmlund, C.M. & Hammer, M. 1999. Ecosystem services generated by fish
populations. Ecological Economics, 29: 253–268.
Horan, R.D., Fenichel, E.P., Drury, K.L.S. & Lodge, D.M. 2011. Managing
ecological thresholds in coupled environmental-human systems.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 108: 7333–
7338.
Hsieh, C.H., Yamauchi, A., Nakazawa, T. & Wang, W.F. 2010. Fishing
effects on age and spatial structures undermine population stability of
fishes. Aquatic Sciences, 72: 165–178.
Hubert, W.A. & Quist, M.C., eds. 2010. Inland fisheries management in
North America. Bethesda, USA, American Fisheries Society.
Hühn, D. & Arlinghaus, R. 2011. Determinants of hooking mortality
in freshwater recreational fisheries: a quantitative meta-analysis. In
T.D. Beard Jr, R. Arlinghaus & S.G. Sutton, eds. The angler in the
environment: social, economic, biological and ethical dimensions.
Proceedings from the fifth world recreational fishing conference, pp. 141–
170. AFS Symposium 75. Bethesda, USA, American Fisheries Society.
Hunt, L.M. 2005. Choice models and recreational fishing site choice: insights
and future opportunities. Hum. Dimens. Wildl., 10: 153–172.
Hunt, L.M., Arlinghaus, R., Lester, N. & Kushneriuk, R. 2011. The effects
of regional angling effort, angler behavior, and harvesting efficiency on
landscape patterns of overfishing. Ecological Applications, 21: 2555–
2575.
Huntingford, F.A., Adams, C., Braithwaite, V.A., Kadri, S., Pottinger,
T.G., Sandøe, P. & Turnbull, J.F. 2006. Current issues in fish welfare.
Journal of Fish Biology, 68: 332–372.
Ihde, J.F., Wilberg, M.J., Loewensteiner, D.A., Secor, D.H. & Miller, T.J.
2011. The increasing importance of marine recreational fishing in the US:
challenges for management. Fisheries Research, 108: 268–276.
Ihssen, P.E., Booke, H.E., Casselman, J.M., McGlade, J.M., Payne, N.R. &
Utter, F.M. 1981. Stock identification: materials and methods. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38: 1838–55.
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). 2005. ICES
Code of practice on the introductions and transfers of marine organisms.
30 pp.
Irwin, B.J., Wilberg, M.J., Jones, M.L. & Bence, J.R. 2011. Applying
structured decision making to recreational fisheries management. Fisheries,
36: 113–122.
Isermann, D. & Paukert, C.P. 2010. Regulating harvest. In W.A. Hubert &
M.C. Quist, eds. Inland fisheries management in North America, pp. 185–
212. Third edition. Bethesda, USA, American Fisheries Society.
Jacks, G., Bystroem, M. & Johansson, L. 2001. Lead emissions from lost
fishing sinkers. Boreal Environment Research, 6: 231–236.
Jacobs, M. & MacIsaac, H.J. 2007. Fouling of fishing line by the waterflea
Cercopagis pengoi: a mechanism of human-mediated dispersal.
Hydrobiologica, 583: 119–126.
Jefferies, D.J. 1987. The effects of angling interests on otters, with particular
reference to disturbance. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology Symposium, 19:
23–30.
Jin, D., Kite-Powell, H.L. & Talley, W.K. 2001. The safety of commercial
fishing: determinants of vessel total losses and injuries. Journal of Safety
Research, 32: 209–228.
Johnson, B.L. 1999. The role of adaptive management as an operational
approach for resource management agencies. Conservation Ecology, 3(2):
8 [online]. [Cited 14 June 2012]. www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art8/
Johnson, B.M. & Carpenter, S.R. 1994. Functional and numerical responses:
a framework for fish-angler interactions? Ecological Applications, 4: 808–
821.
Johnson, B.M. & Martinez, P.J. 1995. Selecting harvest regulations for
recreational fisheries: opportunities for research/management cooperation.
Fisheries, 20(10): 22–29.
Johnson, B.M. & Martinez, P.J. 2000. Trophic economics of lake trout
management in reservoirs of differing productivity. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management, 20: 115–131.
References 137
Johnson, B.M. & Staggs, M.D. 1992. The fishery. In J.F. Kitchell, ed. Food
web management: a case study of Lake Mendota, Wisconsin, pp. 353–376.
New York, USA, Springer-Verlag.
Johnston, F.D., Arlinghaus, R. & Dieckmann, U. 2010. Diversity and
complexity of angler behaviour drive socially optimal input and output
regulations in a bioeconomic recreational-fisheries model. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 67: 1507–1531.
Johnson, B.M., Arlinghaus, R. & Martinez, P.J. 2009. Are we doing all we
can to stem the tide of illegal fish stocking? Fisheries, 34(8): 389–394.
Johnson, B.M., Stewart, R.S., Gilbert, S.J., Luecke, C. & Kitchell, J.F.
1992. Forecasting the effects of gamefish stocking and harvest regulations
on the planktivore community in a eutrophic lake. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management, 12: 797–807.
Jordan, S.R. & Woodward, A.G. 1994. Survival of hook-caught red drum.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, 46: 337–344.
Jørgensen, C., Enberg, K., Dunlop, E., Arlinghaus, R., Boukal, D.S.,
Brander, K., Ernande, B., Gårdmark, A., Johnston, F., Matsumura, S.,
Pardoe, H., Raab, K., Silva, A., Vainikka, A., Dieckmann, U., Heino, M.
& Rijnsdorp, A.D. 2007. Managing evolving fish stocks. Science, 318:
1247–1248.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities.
Keller, R.P., Cox, A.N., Van Loon, C., Lodge, D.M., Herborg, L.M. &
Rothlisberger, J. 2007. From bait shops to forest floor: earthworm use and
disposal by anglers. American Midland Naturalist, 158: 321–328.
Kendall, R.J., Lacher, T.E., Bunck, C., Daniel, B., Driver, C., Grue, C.E.,
Leighton, F., Stansley, W., Watanabe, P.G. & Whitworth, M. 1996. An
ecological risk assessment of lead shot exposure in non-waterfowl avian
species: upland game birds and raptors. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, 15(1): 4–20
Kendall, W.L. 2001. Using models to facilitate complex decisions. In
T.M. Shenk & A.B. Franklin, eds. Modeling in natural resource management,
pp. 147–170. Washington, DC, Island Press.
Keniry, M.J., Brofka, W.A., Horns, W.H., & Marsden, J.E. 1996. Effects of
decompression and puncturing the gas bladder on survival of tagged yellow
perch. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16: 201–206.
Kerr, S.J. 2001. A review of “fizzing” – a technique for swim bladder deflation.
Peterborough, Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Kieffer, J.D., Kubacki, M.R., Phelan, F.J.S., Philipp, D.P. & Tufts, B.L.
1995. Effects of catch-and-release angling on nesting male smallmouth
bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 124: 70–76.
King, M.A. 2007. Fisheries biology, assessment and management. Oxford,
UK, Blackwell Publishing.
Kirchhofer, A. 2002. The role of legislation, institutions and policy making
in fish conservation in Switzerland: past, present and future challenges. In
M.J. Collares-Pereira, I.G. Cowx & M.M. Coelho, eds. Conservation of
freshwater fish: options for the future, pp. 389–401. Oxford, UK. Blackwell
Science, Fishing News Books.
Klefoth, T., Kobler, A., & Arlinghaus, R. 2011. Behavioural and fitness
consequences of direct and indirect non-lethal disturbances in a catch-and-
release northern pike (Esox lucius) fishery. Knowledge and Management
of Aquatic Ecosystems, 403 [online]. [Cited 14 June 2012]. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1051/kmae/2011072
Knuth, B.A. & Siemer, W.F., eds. 2007. Aquatic stewardship education in
theory and practice. AFS Symposium 55. Bethesda, USA, American
Fisheries Society.
Knuth, B.A., Lerner, S., Connelly, N.A., & Gigliotti, L. 1995. Fishery
and environmental managers’ attitudes about and support for lake trout
rehabilitation in the Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research,
21(Suppl. 1): 185–197.
Kocan, R.M., v Westernhagen, H., Landolt, M.L. & Furstenberg, G. 1987.
Toxicity of sea-surface microlayer: II. Effects of hexane extract on Baltic
herring (Clupea harengus) and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) embryos.
Marine Environmental Research, 23: 291–305.
Kozlowski, T.T. 1999. Soil compaction and growth of woody plants.
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 14: 596–619.
Krueger, C.C. & Decker, D.J. 1999. The process of fisheries management.
In C.C. Kohler & W.A. Hubert, eds. Inland fisheries management in North
America, pp. 31–59. Second edition. Bethesda, USA, American Fisheries
Society.
Kubečka, J., Hohausová, E., Matena, J., Peterka, J., Amarasinghe, U.S.,
Bonar, S.A., Hateley, J., Hickley, P., Suuronen, P., Tereschenko, V.,
Welcomme, R. & Winfield I.J. 2009. The true picture of a lake or reservoir
fish stock: a review of needs and progress. Fisheries Research, 96: 1–5.
References 139
Kwak, T.J. & Freeman, M.C. 2010. Assessment and management of

ecological integrity. In W.A. Hubert & M.C. Quist, eds. Inland fisheries
management in North America, pp. 353–394. Bethesda, USA, American
Fisheries Society.
Laikre, L., Schwartz, M.K., Waples, R.S., Ryman, N., Group, T.G.W.,
GeM Working Group. 2010. Compromising genetic diversity in the wild:
Unmonitored large-scale release of plants and animals. Trends Ecol. Evol.,
25: 520–529.
Larkin, P.A. 1977 An epitaph for the concept of maximum sustained yield.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 1: 1–11.
Lathrop, R.C., Johnson, B.M., Johnson, T.B., Vogelsang, M.T., Carpenter,
S.R., Hrabik, T.R., Kitchell, J.F., Magnuson, J.J., Rudstam, L.G.
& Stewart, R.S. 2002. Stocking piscivores to improve fishing and
water clarity: a synthesis of the Lake Mendota biomanipulation project.
Freshwater Biology, 47: 2410–2424.
Lei, S.A. 2004. Soil compaction from human trampling, biking, and off-road
motor vehicle activity in a blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima) shrubland.
Western North American Naturalist, 64: 125–130
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There.
Oxford University Press. 240 pp.
Leslie, H.M., Schlüter, M., Cudney-Bueno, R. & Levin, S.A. 2009. Modeling
responses of coupled social-ecological systems of the Gulf of California to
anthropogenic and natural perturbations. Ecological Research, 24: 505–
519.
Lester, N.P., Marshall, T.R., Armstrong, K., Dunlop, W.I. & Ritchie, B.
2003. A broad-based approach to management of Ontario’s recreational
fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23: 1312–
1328.
Lewin, W.C., Arlinghaus, R. & Mehner, T. 2006. Documented and potential
biological impacts of recreational fishing: Insights for management and
conservation. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 14: 305–367.
Lewin, W.C., McPhee, D. & Arlinghaus, R. 2008. Biological impacts of
recreational fishing resulting from exploitation, stocking and introduction.
In Ø. Aas, ed. Global challenges in recreational fisheries, pp. 75–92.
Oxford, UK, Blackwell Science.
Litvak, M.K. & Mandrak, N.E. 1993. Ecology of freshwater baitfish use in
Canada and the United States. Fisheries, 18: 6–13.
Loomis, J. & Walsh, R.G. 1997. Recreation economic decisions: comparing

benefits and costs. Second edition. State College, USA, Venture
Publishing.
Lorenzen, K., Leber, K.M. & Blankenship, H.L. 2010. Responsible approach
to marine stock enhancement: An update. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 18:
189–210.
Ludwig, H.R. Jr & Leitch, J.A. 1996. Interbasin transfer of aquatic biota via
anglers’ bait buckets. Fisheries, 21: 14–18.
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.
Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T. & Cappell, R. 2009. Abandoned, lost or
otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies
No. 185. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 523. Rome,
UNEP/FAO. 115 pp.
Macinko, S. & Schumann, S. 2007. Searching for subsistence: in the field in
pursuit of an elusive concept in small-scale fisheries. Fisheries, 32: 592–
600.
Mackinson, S. & Nottestad, L. 1998. Combining local and scientific
knowledge. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 8: 481–490.
Maitland, P.S. 1995. Ecological impact of angling. In D.M. Harper &
A.D.J. Ferguson, eds. The ecological basis for river management, pp. 443–
452. Chichester, UK, J. Wiley & Sons.
Mapstone, B.D., Little, L.R., Punt, A.E., Davies, C.R., Smith, A.D.M.,
Pantus, F., McDonald, D., Williams, A.J. & Jones, A. 2008. Management
strategy evaluation for line fishing in the Great Barrier Reef: balancing
conservation and multi-sector fishery objectives. Fisheries Research, 94:
315–329.
Massey, M., Newbold, S. & Gentner, B. 2006. Valuing water quality changes
using a bioeconomic model of a coastal recreational fishery. Environmental
Economics and Management, 52(1): 482–500.
Matsumura, S., Arlinghaus, R. & Dieckmann, U. 2011. Assessing
evolutionary consequences of size-selective recreational fishing on multiple
life-history traits, with an application to northern pike (Esox lucius).
Evolutionary Ecology, 25: 711–735.
Meals, K.O. & Miranda, L.E. 1994. Size-related mortality of tournament-
caught largemouth bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management,
14: 460–463.
References 141
Medley, P., Cheung, W., Fulton, B. & Minte-Vera, C. 2009. Multispecies

and ecosystem indicators, and biomass-fleet dynamics stock assessment:
an initial evaluation. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1045.
Rome, FAO. 28 pp.
Mehner, T., Arlinghaus, R., Berg, S., Dörner, H., Jacobsen, L., Kasprzak,
P., Koschel, R., Schulze, T., Skov, C., Wolter, C. & Wysujack, K. 2004.
How to link biomanipulation and sustainable fisheries management: a
step-by-step guideline for lakes of the European temperate zone. Fisheries
Meka, J.M. 2004. The influence of hook type, angler experience, and fish size
on injury rates and the duration of capture in an Alaskan catch-and-release
rainbow trout fishery. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage., 24: 1309–1321.
Meka, J.M. & McCormick, S.D. 2005. Physiological response of wild rainbow
trout to angling: impact of angling duration, fish size, body condition, and
temperature. Fish. Res., 72: 311–322.
Meroneka, T.G., Copesa, F.A. & Coble, D.W. 1997. A survey of the bait
industry in the North-Central region of the United States. North American
Mike, A. & Cowx, I.G. 1986. A preliminary appraisal of the contribution of
recreational fishing to the fisheries sector in north-west Trinidad. Fisheries
Minns, C.K., Randall, R.G., Moore, J.E. & Cairns, V.W. 1996. A model
simulating the impact of habitat supply limits on northern pike, Esox lucius,
in Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 53(Suppl. 1):
20–34.
Miranda, L.E. & Frese, W. 1991. Can fishery scientists predict angler
preferences? American Fisheries Society Symposium, 12: 375–379.
Mora, C., Myers, R.A, Cool, M., Libralato, S., Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, R.U.,
Zeller, D., Watson, R., Gaston, K.J. & Worm, B. 2009. Management
effectiveness of the world’s marine fisheries. PLoS Biology, 7(6): e1000131
[online]. [Cited 14 June 2012]. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131
Mosisch, T.D. & Arthington, A.H. 1998. The impacts of power boating and
water skiing on lakes and reservoirs. Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and
Mueller, Z., Jakab, T., Toth, A., Devai, G., Szallassy, N., Kiss, B. & Horvath,
R. 2003. Effect of sports fisherman activities on dragonfly assemblages on a
Hungarian river floodplain. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12: 167–179.
Muoneke, M.I. & Childress, W.M. 1994. Hooking mortality: a review for
recreational fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 2: 123–156.
National Research Council (NRC). 2006. A review of recreational fisheries
survey methods. Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences.
Nelson, J.A., Tang, Y. & Boutilier, R.G. 1994. Differences in exercise
physiology between two Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) populations from
different environments. Physiological Zoology, 67: 330–354.
Nemoz, M., Cadi, A. & Thienpont, S. 2004. Effects of recreational fishing on
survival in an Emys orbicularis population. Biologia, 59: 185–189.
Nickum, M.J., Mazik, P.M., Nickum, J.G. & MacKinlay, D.D., eds. 2004.
Propagated fish in resource management. AFS Symposium 44. Bethesda,
USA, American Fisheries Society.
Nielsen, L.A. 1993. History of inland fisheries management in North America.
In C.C. Kohler & W.A. Hubert, eds. Inland fisheries management in North
America, pp. 3–32. Bethesda, USA, American Fisheries Society.
Niesar, M., Arlinghaus, R., Bennert, B. & Menhar, T. 2004. Coupling insights
from a carp, Cyprinus carpio, angler survey with feeding experiments to
evaluate composition, quality and phosphorus input of ground bait in coarse
fishing. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 11: 225–236.
Noble, R.L., Austen, D.J. & Pegg, M.A. 2007. Fisheries management study
design considerations. In C.S. Guy & M.L. Brown, eds. Analysis and
interpretation of freshwater fisheries data, pp. 31–49. Bethesda, USA,
American Fisheries Society.
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, pp. 284–298. Oxford, UK, Blackwell Science,.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for
collective action. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, USA,
Princeton University Press. 355 pp.
O’Toole, A.C., Hanson, K.C. & Cooke, S.J. 2009. The effect of shoreline
recreational angling activities on aquatic and riparian habitat within an
urban environment: implications for conservation and management.
Environmental Management, 44: 324–334.
Parkkila, K., Arlinghaus, R., Artell, J., Gentner, B., Haider, W., Aas, Ø.,
Barton, D., Roth, E. & Sipponen, M. 2010. Methodologies for assessing
socio-economic benefits of European inland recreational fisheries. EIFAC
Occasional Paper No. 46. Ankara, FAO. 112 pp.
References 143
Pawson, M.G., Glenn, H. & Padda, G. 2008. The definition of marine

recreational fishing in Europe. Fisheries Research, 32: 339–350.
Pereira, D.L. & Hansen, M.J. 2003. A perspective on challenges to
recreational fisheries management: summary of the symposium on active
management of recreational fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management, 23: 1367–1373.
Persson, L., Armundsen, P.A., de Roos, A.M., Klemetsen, A., Knudsen,
R. & Primicerio, R. 2007. Culling prey promotes predator recovery –
alternative states in a whole-lake experiment. Science, 316: 1743–1746.
Peterman, R.M. 2004. An overview of the precautionary approach in fisheries
and some suggested extensions. In B.C.P. Fallaugher & L. Wood, eds.
Proceedings of the World Summit on Salmon Vancouver, June 2003,
pp. 233–240. Vancouver, Canada.
Philipp, D.P., Cooke, S.J., Claussen, J.E., Koppelman, J.B., Suski, C.D. &
Burkett, D.P. 2009. Selection for vulnerability to angling in largemouth
bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 138: 189–199.
Pierce, R.B. 2010. Long term evaluations of length limit regulations for northern
pike in Minnesota. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 30:
412–432.
Pierce, R.B. & Tomcko, C.M. 1998. Angler noncompliance with slot length
limits for northern pike in five small Minnesota lakes. N. Am. J. Fish.
Manage., 18: 720–724.
Plummer, H.R. & FitzGibbon, J.E. 2004. Co-management of natural
resources: a proposed framework. Journal of Environmental Management,
33(6): 876–885.
Pollock, K.H., Jones, C.M. & Brown, T.L. 1994. Angler survey methods and
their applications in fisheries management. AFS Special Publication 25.
Bethesda, USA, American Fisheries Society.
Post, J.R., Sullivan, M., Cox, S., Lester, N.P., Walters, C.J., Parkinson,
E.A., Paul, A.J., Jackson, L. & Shuter, B.J. 2002. Canada’s recreational
fishery: the invisible collapse? Fisheries, 27(1): 6–17.
Post, J.R., Persson, L., Parkinson, E.A. & van Kooten, T. 2008. Angler
numerical response across landscapes and the collapse of freshwater
fisheries. Ecological Applications, 18: 1038–1049.
Pottinger, T.G. 1997. Changes in water quality within anglers’ keepnets during
the confinement of fish. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 4: 341–354.
Pottinger, T.G. 1998. Changes in blood cortisol, glucose and lactate in carp
retained in anglers’ keepnets. Journal of Fish Biology, 53: 728–742.
Potts, W.M., Childs, A.R., Sauer, W.H.H. & Duarte, A.D.C. 2009.
Characteristics and economic contribution of a developing recreational
fishery in southern Angola. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 16: 14–
20.
Prince, E.D, Ortiz, M. & Venizelos, A. 2002. A comparison of circle hook
and “J” hook performance in recreational catch-and-release fisheries for
billfish. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 30: 66–79.
Prukop, J. & Regan, R.J. 2005. The value of the North American Model of
wildlife conservation – an International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies position. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33: 374–377.
Pygott, J.R. O’Hara, K., Eaton, J.W. 1990. Fish community structure
and management in navigated British canals. In W.L.T. van Densen,
B. Steinmetz & R.H. Hughes, eds. Management of freshwater fisheries.
Wageningen, Netherlands, Pudoc.
Radomski, P., Heinrich, T., Jones, T., Rivers, P. & Talmage, P. 2006.
Estimates of tackle loss for five Minnesota walleye fisheries. North
Radomski, P.J., Grant, G.C., Jacobson, P.C. & Cook, M.F. 2001. Visions
for recreational fishing regulations. Fisheries, 26(5): 7–18.
Rahel, F.J. 2004. Unauthorized fish introductions: fisheries management of
the people, for the people, or by the people? American Fisheries Society
Symposium, 44: 431–443.
Ramos, A.M. & Crain, E.F. 2001. Potential health risks of recreational fishing
in New York City. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 1: 252–255.
Rapp, T., Cooke, S.J. & Arlinghaus, R. 2008. Conservation and exploitation
of specialized fisheries resources: the importance of hook size in recreational
angling for trophy common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Fisheries Research,
94: 79–83.
Rapp, T., Meinelt, T., Krüger, A. & Arlinghaus R. 2008. Acute toxicity of
preservative chemicals in organic baits used for carp, Cyprinus carpio,
recreational fishing. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 15: 163–166.
Rattner, B.A., Franson, J.C., Sheffied, S.R., Goddard, C.I., Leonard,
N.J., Stange, D. & Wingate, P.J. 2008. Sources and implications of lead
ammunition and fishing tackle on natural resources. Technical Review 08-
01. Bethesda, USA, American Fisheries Society & Wildlife Society.
Rice, J. 2003. Environmental health indicators. Ocean and Coastal
References 145
Rice, J. 2011. Managing fisheries well: delivering the promises of an ecosystem

approach. Fish and Fisheries, 12: 209–231.
Roberts, B.C. & White, R.G. 1992. Effects of angler wading on survival
of trout eggs and pre-emergent fry. North American Journal of Fisheries
Rogers, M.R, Allen, M.S., Brown, P., Hunt, T., Fulton, W. & Ingram, B. 2010.
A simulation model to explore the relative efficacy of stock enhancement
versus harvest regulations for fishery sustainability. Ecological Modelling,
221: 919–926.
Ros, M., Garcia, C., Hernandez, T., Andres, M. & Barja, A. 2004. Short-
term effects of human trampling on vegetation and soil microbial activity.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 35: 1591–1603.
Rose, E.T. & Moen, T. 1953. The increase in game-fish populations in East
Okoboji Lake, Iowa, following intensive removal of rough fish. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society, 82: 104–114.
Rose, J.D. 2007. Anthropomorphism and the ‘mental welfare’ of fishes.
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 75: 139–154.
Roth, B.M., Kaplan, I.C., Sass, G.G., Johnson, P.T., Marburg, A.E.,
Yannarell, A.C., Kavlicek, T.D., Willis, T.V., Turner, M.G. &
Carpenter, S.R. 2007. Linking terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems: the role
of woody habitat in lake food webs. Ecological Modelling, 203: 439–452.
Roth, B.M., Hrabik, T.R., Solomon, C.T., Mercado-Silva, N. & Kitchell,
J.F. 2010. A simulation of food-web interactions leading to rainbow smelt
Osmerus mordax dominance in Sparkling Lake, Wisconsin. Journal of Fish
Biology, 77: 1379–1405.
Sanderson, S.E. 1995. Ten theses on the promise and problems of creative
ecosystem management in developing countries. In L.H. Gunderson,
C.S. Holling & S.S. Light, eds. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of
ecosystems and institutions, pp. 375–390. New York, USA, Columbia
University Press.
Sargent, F.J., Leary, T.J., Crewz, D.W. & Kruer, C.R. 1995. Scarring of
Florida’s seagrasses: assessment and management options. Florida Marine
Research Institute Technical Reports TR-1. St. Petersburg, USA, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
Scheuhammer, A.M. & Norris, S.L. 1995. A review of the environmental
impacts of lead shotshell ammunition and lead fishing weights in Canada.
Occasional Paper No. 88. Ottawa, Canadian Wildlife Service.
Scheuhammer, A.M., Money, S.L., Kirk, D.A. & Donaldson, G. 2003. Lead
fishing sinkers and jigs in Canada: Review of their use patterns and toxic
impacts on wildlife. Occasional Paper No. 108. Ottawa, Canadian Wildlife
Service.
Schill, D.J. & Scarpella, R.L. 1997. Barbed hook restrictions in catch-and-
release trout fisheries: a social issue. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage., 17: 873–
881.
Schindler, D.E. & Scheuerell, M.D. 2002. Habitat coupling in lake ecosystems.
Oikos, 98: 177–189.
Schindler, D.E., Hilborn, R., Chasco, B., Boatright, C.P., Quinn, T.P.,
Rogers, L.A. & Webster, M.S. 2010. Population diversity and the portfolio
effect in an exploited species. Nature, 465: 609–612.
Schramm, H. L., Jr. & Piper, R. G. 1995. Uses and effects of cultured fishes
in aquatic
ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Shepherd, P.C.F. & Boates, J.S. 1999. Effects of a commercial baitworm
harvest on semipalmated sandpipers and their prey in the Bay of Fundy
Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve. Conservation Biology, 13: 347–356.
Siemer, W. & Knuth, B. 2001 Effects of fishing education programs on
antecedents of responsible environmental behaviours. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 32(4): 23–29.
Siewert, H.F. & Cave, J.B. 1990. Survival of released bluegill, Lepomis
macrochirus, caught on artificial flies, worms, and spinner lures. Journal of
Freshwater Ecology, 5: 407–411.
Silvertown, J. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 24: 467–471.
Sipponen, M. & Valkeajärvi, P. 2002. The manageability of inland fisheries
for Lake Päijänne, Finland: the case of co-management and self-regulation.
Arch. Hydrobiol. Spec. Issues Advanc. Limnol., 57: 589–600.
Sissenwine, M. & Murawski, S. 2004. Moving beyond ‘intelligent thinkering’:
advancing an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress
Series, 274: 291–295.
Skilleter, G.A., Cameron, B., Zharikov, Y. & Mcphee, D.P. 2005. Effects of
harvesting callianassid (ghost) shrimps on subtropical benthic communities.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 320: 133–158.
Smith, C.L. 1986. The life cycle of fisheries. Fisheries, 11(4): 20–25.
References 147
Smith, J.R. & Murray, S.N. 2005. The effects of experimental bait collection
and trampling on a Mytilus californianus mussel bed in southern California.
Marine Biology, 147: 699–706.
Stein, R.A. & Krueger, C.C. 2006. Cooperative research in the Great Lakes:
exploring characteristics of success. In A.N. Read & T.W. Hartley, eds.
Partnerships for a common purpose: cooperative fisheries research and
management, pp. 169–171. AFS Symposium 52. Bethesda, USA American
Fisheries Society.
Stroud, R.H. 1986. Fish Culture in Fisheries Management. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.
Sullivan, M.G. 2002 The illegal harvest of walleye protected by size limits
in Alberta. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 22: 1058–
1068.
Suski, C.D., Killen, S.S., Kieffer, J.D. & Tufts, B.L. 2006. The influence
of environmental temperature and oxygen concentration on the recovery
of largemouth bass from exercise: implications for live-release angling
tournaments. Journal of Fish Biology, 68: 120–136.
Taylor, M.J. & White K.R. 1992. A meta-analysis of hooking mortality of
nonanadromous trout. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage., 12: 760–767.
Ting, J., & Brown, A. 2001. Ciguatera poisoning: a global issue with common
management problems. European Journal of Emergency Medicine, 8: 295–
300.
Turner, G.E. 1988. Codes of practice and manual of procedures for
consideration of introductions and transfers of marine and freshwater
organisms. EIFAC/CECPI Occasional Paper No. 23. Rome, FAO. 44 pp.
Van Kooten, T., Andersson, J., Byström, P., Persson, L. & de Roos, A.M.
2010. Size at hatching determines population dynamics and response to
harvesting in cannibalistic fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 67: 401–416.
Van Poorten, B.T., Arlinghaus, R., Daedlow, K. & Haertel-Borer, S.S. 2011.
Social-ecological interactions, management panaceas, and the future of
wild fish populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of the United
States of America, 108: 12554–12559.
Vander Zanden, M.J., Hansen, G.J.A., Higgins, S.N., & Komis, M.S. 2010.
A pound of prevention, plus a pound of cure: early detection and eradication
of invasive species in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes
Research, 36: 199–205.
Venturelli, P.A., Shuter, B.J. & Murphy, C.A. 2009. Evidence for harvest-
induced maternal influences on the reproductive rates of fish populations.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276: 919–924.
Vogler, A.P. & DeSalle, R. 1994. Diagnosing units of conservation management.
Conservation Biology, 8: 354–363.
Walker, J.R., Foote, L. & Sullivan, M.G. 2007. Effectiveness of enforcement
to deter illegal angling harvest of northern pike in Alberta. North American
Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York,
USA, MacMillan. 374 pp.
Walters, C.J. & Kitchell, J.F. 2001. Cultivation/depensation effects on
juvenile survival and recruitment: implications for the theory of fishing.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58: 39–50.
Walters, C.J. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal
ecosystems. Conservation Ecology, 1(2): 1 [online]. [Cited 14 June 2012].
www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1
Walters, C.J. 2007. Is adaptive management helping to solve fisheries
problems? Ambio, 36: 304–307.
Walters, C.J. & Hilborn, R. 1978. Ecological optimization and adaptive
management. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 9: 157–188.
Weithman, A.S. 1999. Socioeconomic benefits of fisheries. In C.C. Kohler &
W.A. Hubert, eds. Inland fisheries management in North America, pp. 193–
213. Second edition. Bethesda, USA, American Fisheries Society.
Welcomme, R.L. 2001. Inland fisheries: ecology and management. Oxford,
UK, Blackwell Science, Fishing News Books.
Welcomme, R.L., Cowx, I.G., Coates, D., Béné, C., Funge-Smith, S.,
Halls, A. & Lorenzen, K. 2010 Inland capture fisheries. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. B, 1554: 2881–2896.
Wilde, G.R. 2009. Does venting promote survival of released fish? Fisheries,
34: 20–28.
Williams, B.K. 2011a. Adaptive management of natural resources – framework
and issues. Journal of Environmental Management, 92: 1346–1353.
Williams, B.K. 2011b. Passive and active adaptive management: approaches
and an example. Journal of Environmental Management, 92: 1371–1378.
Wolter, C. & Arlinghaus, R. 2003. Navigation impacts on freshwater fish
assemblages: the ecological relevance of swimming performance. Reviews
in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 13: 63–89.
References 149
Worm, B., Hilborn, R., Baum, J.K., Branch, T.A., Collie, J.S., Costello, C.,
Fogarty, M.J., Fulton, E.A., Hutchings, J.A., Jennings, S., Jensen, O.P.,
Lotze, H.K., Mace, P.M., McClanahan, T.R., Minto, C., Palumbi, S.R.,
Parma, A., Ricard, D., Rosenberg, A.A., Watson, R. & Zeller, D. 2009.
Rebuilding global fisheries. Science, 325: 578–585.
Wynberg, R.P. & Branch, G.M. 1997. Trampling associated with bait-
collection for sandprawns Callianassa kraussi Stebbing: effects on the biota
of an intertidal sandflat. Environmental Conservation, 24: 139–148.
Yoshikawa, T. & Asoh, K. 2004. Entanglement of monofilament fishing lines
and coral death. Biological Conservation, 117: 557–560.
151
Glossary and definitions
The following definitions were taking from EIFAC (2008), modified by

Cochrane and Garcia (2009), Chapin, Kofina and Folke (2009) and Chapin
et al. (2010). Some specific ones for recreational fisheries were developed by
the authors.
Adaptive capacity: capacity of social-ecological systems (such as recreational

fisheries), including both their human and ecological components, to respond
to, create and shape variability and change in the state of the system.
Adaptive management: the management process of modifying policies and
actions in light of evaluation of the success/failure of past actions related
to previously defined, operational objectives. Adaptive management may
be pursued passively or actively. Active adaptive management refers to the
deliberate approach of choosing interventions as to maximize learning and
insights into a complex system’s reaction to that interventions (e.g. treating
management as experiments).
Aquatic biodiversity: the diversity of aquatic organisms at all levels (genetic,
species, communities and populations).
Bag limit: number of fish that may be retained by an individual over a specified
time interval.
Best practice: planning, organization, managerial and/or operational
practices that have proved successful in particular circumstances in one
or more regions in the field and that can have both specific and universal
applicability.
Catch-and-release: the process of capturing a fish, usually by angling, and
releasing it alive. Catch-and-release ranges from legally required mandatory
release of protected sizes and species to voluntary catch-and-release of fish
that could have been retained.
Comanagement (Cooperative management): a process of management
in which government shares power with resource users, with each given
specific rights and responsibilities relating to information and decision-
making. A partnership arrangement in which government, the community
of local resources users (fishers), external agents (non-governmental
organizations, research institutions) and sometimes other fisheries and
coastal stakeholders (boat owners, fish traders, credit agencies or money
lenders, tourism industry, etc.) share the responsibility and authority for
decision-making over the management of a fishery (Berkes et al., 2001).
Community-based management: a form of comanagement where a central
role for management is delegated to a community and where Government
would usually have a minor role.
Creel survey: a survey approach in which recreational fishers are intercepted
on-site and data on catches, harvest, effort and social and economic
information collected. Creel refers to a woven basket in which recreational
fishers may store fish.
Commercial fisheries: fisheries whose primary aim is to generate resources
to meet nutritional (i.e. essential) human needs; in both full-time and part-
time commercial fisheries, fish and other aquatic organisms are sold on
domestic and export markets. Commercial fisheries include fisheries that
supply feed to the aquaculture and agriculture sectors and raw material to
other industrial sectors (e.g. the biomedical sector).
Ecosystem approach to fisheries: an ecosystem approach to fisheries
strives to balance diverse societal objectives by taking into account the
knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human components
of ecosystems and their interactions, then applying an integrated approach
to fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries.
Ecological services: ecological services are all services humans derive
from aquatic ecosystems and fish stocks. They comprise four categories:
supporting (e.g. nutrient cycling), regulating (e.g. water quality),
provisioning (e.g. fish yield, recreational fishing experience) and cultural
(e.g. existence value, spiritual and education dimension) services.
Environmental stewardship: environmental stewardship involves the wise
and sustainable use of natural resources. It can be defined as the moral
obligation to care for aquatic environments and the actions undertaken to
provide that care and is a strategy to respond to and shape social-ecological
systems under conditions of uncertainty and change to sustain the supply
and opportunities for use of ecosystem services to support human well-
being. This means that recreational fisheries stakeholders strive to maintain,
enhance and protect fish populations and aquatic ecosystems. Any kind of
damage to aquatic biodiversity and aquatic ecosystems is to be avoided and
where it, for whatever reasons, occurs it should be managed with the best
resources available.
Exploitation rate: the rate of removals of fish out of a stock in a specified time
period. The exploitation rate may or may not involve by-catch or fish that
die after release.
Fish welfare: good welfare means that an individual fish is in good health,
with its biological systems functioning properly and with no impairment
of fitness.
Ground-bait: bait scattered on the fishing site to attract fish.
Harvest regulation: a fishing regulation that specifies what fish may be
harvested (caught and kept) from a fishery, e.g. minimum size or daily bag
limits.
Hook bait: bait that is attached to a hook, as opposed to ground-bait.
Input control: fishing regulations that limit the manner and amount of fishing
allowed.
Institutions: the humanly devised constraints that structure human interactions
(rules, laws, constitutions), informal constraints (norms of behaviour,
conventions, self-imposed codes of conduct) and their enforcement
characteristics.
Introduction: species or races of fish and other aquatic organisms that are
intentionally or accidentally transported and released by humans into
an aquatic environment outside their natural range set by biogeographic
barriers.
Live bait: use of live invertebrates (e.g. crayfish), vertebrates (typically teleost
fish) and worms and maggots as bait in recreational fishing.
Management organization: those persons or groups with the authority to
make management decisions about the fishery.
Maternal effects: effects of the phenotype of a female on the phenotype of
her offspring.
Maximum size limit: a regulation in recreational fisheries where fish exceeding
the size limit are to be released alive.
Minimum size limit: a regulation in recreational fisheries where fish below
the size limit are to be released alive.
Output control: fishing regulations that limit the disposition of fish caught.
Precautionary approach: a term used in fisheries management to denote
prudent foresight to avoid unacceptable or undesirable situations in the face
of uncertainty, taking into account that some changes in fisheries systems
are only slowly reversible, difficult to control, not well understood and
subject to change in the environment and human values.
Recreational fisheries sector: the entire network of stakeholders involved

in or fully or partly dependent on recreational fisheries including, among
others. fisheries ministries and agencies, managers, non-governmental
organizations (e.g. umbrella fishing associations and clubs), recreational
fishers, tackle shops and tackle manufacturers, bait suppliers, charter-
boating industry, recreational boat builders and chandlery suppliers,
marina operators and specialized angling and fishing media, recreational
fishing tourism and other related business and organizations as well as all
other enterprises supporting recreational fisheries including aquaculture
operations that produce stocking material or commercial fishing enterprises
that sell angling tickets on their waters. A range of other stakeholders and
managerial regimes are not included in this definition although they may
run or advocate activities and developments that have a direct impact on
the recreational fishing quality and the recreational fisheries sector, the
sector’s viability and growth potential (e.g. hydropower generation, water
management, irrigation).
Recreational fishing: fishing of aquatic animals that do not constitute
the individual’s primary resource to meet nutritional needs and are not
generally sold or otherwise traded on export, domestic or black markets.
The unambiguous demarcation between pure recreational fisheries and
pure subsistence fisheries is often difficult. However, using fishing activity
to generate resources for livelihood marks a clear tipping point between
recreational fisheries and subsistence fisheries. Globally, angling is by far
the most common recreational fishing technique, which is why recreational
fishing is often used synonymously with angling.
Recreational fishing effort: the amount of recreational fishing with gear of a
specific type used on the fishing grounds over a given time span, typically
normalized per area fished.
Recreational fishing mortality: the part of the total mortality rate acting on a
fish stock that is due to recreational fishing.
Recreational fishing quality: a subjective evaluation by a recreational fisher
of the perceived fulfilment of the needs that the fishing experience was
supposed to provide.
Resilience: capacity of a social-ecological system to absorb a spectrum of
disturbances and to sustain and develop its fundamental function, structure,
identify and feedbacks as a result of recovery or reorganization in a new
context.
Recruitment: fish of a given age that are produced by a spawning stock.
Stakeholder: any person or legal entity (e.g. non-governmental organization)

with an explicit or implicit interest (or stake) in an issue.
Size limit: a fishing regulation in which the fate of fish caught is determined
by their size (usually length).
Slot limit: size-based fishing regulation in which only intermediate sized fish
may be kept (open or protected slot) or must be released (closed or inverse
slot).
Stock: a term used for the entire or a component of a fish population that is
under consideration by management actions.
Stock assessment: the process of assessing the status of a fish stock to derive
some management response in case certain criteria (reference points) are
achieved.
Stocking: the release of cultured or wild caught aquatic organisms into the
wild.
Structured decision-making: the structured process of arriving at a
management response in light of objectives and trade-offs.
Subsistence fisheries: fishing for aquatic animals that contribute substantially
to meeting an individual’s nutritional needs. In pure subsistence fisheries,
fishing products are not traded on formal domestic or export markets but
are consumed personally or within a close network of family and friends.
Pure subsistence fisheries sustain a basic level of livelihood and constitute
a culturally significant food-producing and distributing activity.
Sustainability: the management and conservation of the natural resource
base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in
such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction
of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable
development concerns land, water, plant and animal genetic resources and
is environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, economically
viable, and socially acceptable. The three pillars of sustainability are social,
economic, ecological, while the institutional dimensions is thought to
facilitate the emergence of the sustainability triangle.
Transfers: species or races of fish and other aquatic organisms that are
intentionally or accidentally transported and released by humans into an
aquatic environment within their natural range but from which they were
previously absent.
Transformability: the capacity to reconceptualize and create a fundamentally
new system with different characteristics (e.g. a tourism-dominated fisheries
system originally dominated by resident recreational fishers).
Utility: an economic term describing the capacity of individuals or societies

to meet their own needs. The needs, and hence the utilities, desired by
recreational fishers of often multi-dimensional involving multiple aspects,
some of which are catch-dependent and others are non-catch dependent
(e.g. aesthetic quality of a fishery).
Vulnerability: degree to which a system is likely to experience harm owing
to exposure and sensitivity to a specified hazard or stress and its adaptive
capacity to responds to that stress.
Zeitgeist: encompasses the cultural, intellectual, moral, ethical, spiritual and
political climate within a nation or specific groups, along with the general
sociocultural mood within an era.
157
Annex
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
Normative framework for responsible recreational fisheries

• Sustainability constitutes a suitable normative goal for recreational
fisheries, which involves context-dependent biological, social,
economic and institutional dimensions, and its implementation as a
broad fisheries management goal is recommended.
• All management decisions in recreational fisheries are to be taken in
light of an explicit normative framework guiding thought and action.
A common denominator for all recreational fisheries is biological
sustainability, but every normative framework must involve locally-
or regionally-tailored social and economic criteria. Decision-makers
and managers should disclose their normative framework and consider
stakeholder values in its articulation.
• In light of the multiuse patterns of aquatic ecosystems in which many
recreational fisheries operate, decision-makers in charge of management
of water and aquatic ecosystems and their supporting terrestrial habitats
should ensure that recreational fisheries interests, including the need
to conserve fisheries resources and supporting habitats, are taken into
account in management decisions; recreational fisheries stakeholders
should be integrated into all decision-making processes that affect
aquatic ecosystems.
• Relevant international, national and regional administrations, fishing
rights holders and other parties and persons that own or are responsible
for fisheries resources should consider recreational fisheries, and
subsequently protect, promote and encourage access to recreational
fisheries and its quality while ensuring exploitation is sustainable and
that potentially conflicting societal demands are taken into account in
integrated management plans.
• Recreational fisheries are best viewed as a subsystem of the overarching
ecological system. Therefore, conservation of the structure and function
of aquatic ecosystems, fish populations and biodiversity constitute
a prerequisite for maximizing the social and economic benefits of

recreational fisheries through appropriate management interventions.
• Aquatic stewardship provides an action-oriented framework to sustain
recreational fisheries in the face of uncertainty and change and the
complex, usually non-linear interactions between fishers and fish
stocks. This applies at all levels of recreational fisheries (governance,
management, managers, individual fisher behaviour) and involves:
– moving away from single objectives (such as maximum sustainable
yield) to the management of multiple objectives in line with
prevailing local and regional conditions;
– engaging in a range of pro-environmental behaviours whenever
interacting with aquatic ecosystems and their associated natural
resources to ensure long-term use, conservation, management
and development of such ecosystems for present and future
generations;
– maintaining biological diversity within and among fish populations,
including habitat diversity, genetic diversity and size- and age-class
diversity, and maintaining diversity and flexibility at all levels,
socially and institutionally;
– maximizing the quality of recreational fisheries for as many different
fisher types as possible in light of the need to maintain ecological
integrity in more natural fisheries;
– building and promotion of leadership, knowledge networks and the
adaptive capacity of all involved in recreational fisheries so as to be
empowered to react to unexpected developments, uncertainty and
change;
– paying particular attention to critical slow variables, thresholds,
alternative stable states and positive and negative feedbacks among
recreational fishers, management and fish stocks.
Adaptive management framework for sustainable recreational fisheries

• The following principles are conducive to achieving sustainable
recreational fisheries:
– responsibility – responsibility to use resources in an ecologically
sustainable, economically efficient and socially just way though
internalization of the aquatic stewardship framework;
– precaution – the need to take uncertainty about potentially
irreversible impact into account by erring on the side of caution; the
Annex 159
level of precaution exercised should be commensurate to the risk of

long-lasting, undesirable outcomes and the benefits expected for a
given action (e.g. stock enhancement);
– ecosystem perspective – the need to develop a holistic perspective
rather than a focus on a single target species, considering the
interactions of land use, other non-fishery activities, access to
resources, habitat diversity, water quality and, ultimately, recreational
fishing quality;
– monitoring and adaptation – continuously monitoring social,
economic and ecological variables because they are dynamic and
have some level of uncertainty, and adjusting actions and strategies
based on new knowledge;
– participation – the importance of full stakeholder participation in
the formulation and implementation of decisions about fisheries
resources;
– full cost allocation – the need to identify and allocate all internal and
external costs and benefits (social and ecological) of alternative uses
of resources, e.g. the need to account for unintended consequences of
own actions on third parties and other stakeholders (externalities);
– multilevel governance and scale-matching– the sharing of decision-
making power across multiple levels of organization to take
advantage of knowledge networks and to achieve matching of scales
of management. This is particularly relevant where local recreational
fisheries depend on human actions in other sectors or within a
catchment, requiring integration across sectors and bureaucracies
whenever possible and technically and socially feasible.
• In light of the above principles, adaptive management in its various
forms, from passive to deliberate active adaptive management, is
a suitable management process in recreational fisheries to deal with
irreproducible uncertainties about the proper management actions
to take and reach robust solutions to deal with uncertainties and the
potential for ecosystem-level effects.
• Adaptive management, no matter whether passive or active, will be
enhanced using structured decision-making processes, which increases
stakeholder buy-in and acceptability of proposed solution.
• Sustainable recreational fisheries depend on continuous learning loops
that emanate from evaluation of previously agreed and measurable
objectives after implementation of action strategies. Therefore,
identification of measurable objectives and continued revision of

objectives based on new information should be conducted whenever
possible and be the basis of adaptive management.
• To facilitate adaptive management, the installation of some form of
monitoring processes to regularly assess key system variables (e.g.
catch, composition of catch, effort, human satisfaction) is needed in
order to supplement qualitative insights with empirical data. To this
end, investment into an adequate monitoring capacity involving funding
and trained staff is essential. This involves capacity building for smaller
recreational fisheries communities that are not linked to an overarching
management body.
• In adaptive management applied to recreational fisheries, social,
economic and ecological data and indicators are to be measured and
monitored.
• Where possible and feasible, testing of management approaches in the
field may be combined with model-based analyses using an iterative
approach where models are modified in light of new information from
field-based assessments.
• The highest degree of information gain about the effects of management
actions on the coupled social-ecological system of recreational fisheries
can be generated from active adaptive management. Such an approach
is preferred where large uncertainties are to be reduced and stakeholder
conflicts are pervasive about which management direction to take.
However, in many smaller recreational fisheries, this experimental
approach will not be practical owing to expertise or financial limitations.
In such cases, passive adaptive management is still recommended.
Policy and institutional frameworks

• Structure and function of the governance framework must be clearly
delineated to ensure transparency and trust in decisions, and respect
for authority.
• An appropriate legal framework should establish parties holding
property rights, agents responsible for management, and regulations
governing the use of the resource.
• Authorities responsible for enforcement of regulations and graduated
penalties for non-compliance must be established.
• Management organizations need the power to ensure that the
fundamental goals of fishery management are achieved.
Annex 161
• Management organizations should promulgate regulations necessary to

develop, conserve and enhance fishery resources and their environment,
and should promote compliance with regulations through shared rule-
making, outreach, monitoring and enforcement, with recreational
fishers sharing responsibility through self-policing.
• Regulations should be developed in a collective choice arrangement
with stakeholders, including recreational fishers and other interested
parties.
• Mechanisms should be in place to manage conflicts among stakeholders,
the fishery management organization and other management
authorities.
• Regulations should be clear, uncomplicated, well publicized, and
reviewed periodically.
• The management organization should develop policies and procedures
to ensure the safety, efficiency, effectiveness and integrity of its
members and the organization.
• The organization’s policies and procedures should be reviewed and
updated regularly.
• Funding mechanisms need to be identified to support management:
– Fee-based licensing provides funding but fee-free licensing is also
a mechanism for limiting fishery access, and identifying primary
stakeholders.
– User fees (and surcharges on licences) may be useful for managing
special circumstances (restricted access, fishing methods, or
species).
• Recreational fishing should be considered a privilege; the management
authority should be able to revoke the licence of anglers who commit
serious violations of fishing or other environmental regulations.
The unit of management

• The unit of management must be specified before status of the fishery
can be assessed or management can be prescribed.
• Stocks should be defined by eco-evolutionary criteria (genetic,
morphomeristic, behavioural, and ecological traits) to ensure that
fishing and its management preserves the integrity of the population
and sustains benefits to humans.
• Managers should strive to maintain a diverse “portfolio” of fish stocks

of a given species as insurance against unexpected environmental
fluctuations.
Assessment of the fishery

• Present status of the fishery in socio-economic and biological terms
should be determined and used to identify potential problems or
constraints and opportunities to improve the fishery prior to choosing
management objectives.
• Managers should integrate information from local knowledge, stock
assessment surveys, creel surveys and complementary human dimension
surveys, and ecosystem surveillance to characterize the present status
of the fishery.
• Integrated modelling of the biological and social system can be used
to evaluate the relative status of the fishery compared with alternative
system states that could be achieved through management.
• Modelling can be used to expand the management purview beyond the
traditional single-species view. Potential management actions should
also be evaluated with respect to their effects on the ecosystem in the
light of fisher behavioural responses to any management intervention.
• Integrating information from fish stocks, ecosystems and the social and
economic aspects of fisheries provides for a more holistic and predictive
conceptual model for fisheries and fishery management.
• Recreational fisheries require periodic reassessment.
Management goals and objectives

• The fundamental goals of fisheries management apply to all recreational
fisheries: (i) conservation of biodiversity; (ii) biologically sustainable
use of its components; and (iii) equitable sharing of benefits and
optimization of the socio-economic benefits fishing provides to society
at large.
• Recreational fishery management should maintain and improve the
quality of the fishing experience (a socio-economic objective) while
maintaining ecological integrity and protecting natural systems
(a biological and conservation objective) for present and future
generations.
• Managers must explicitly state clear fishery-specific goals (e.g. increase
satisfaction of coastal recreational fishers) and quantifiable objectives
Annex 163
(e.g. achieve X fish per angler per hour, mean size of catch ≥ Y cm) as
part of an adaptive management framework.
• Selecting goals and objectives should be a societal choice, not
an administrative one; goals and objectives should be developed
cooperatively with a spectrum of stakeholders, not only recreational
fishers, and reflect heterogeneous benefits sought by various stakeholders
and fisher groups while avoiding undesirable biological impacts on
natural fish stocks.
• When goal and objective setting is contentious, conflict management
techniques should be used to reach mutually acceptable solutions.
Implementation of management strategies

• Managers should recognize that taking no action is in fact a management
choice that must be monitored and evaluated regularly.
• Managers must have an understanding of the fishery’s status and
constraints, combined with accurate knowledge of stakeholder goals
and objectives before choosing a management strategy.
• Managers should know how the multitude of recreational fishery
management tools and approaches operate and when to use them.
• When higher education coursework is impractical, short courses and
workshops can provide the fundamentals.
• An economic analysis (e.g. benefit–cost) should be conducted to compare
management alternatives. The benefits of recreational fisheries should
be measured using appropriate non-market evaluation techniques and
not by expenditure alone.
• When planning is completed, the fishery management plan should
be disseminated so stakeholders understand the project’s goals and
rationale and can provide comments on the plan and its revision.
• After choosing a course of action that is most likely to meet objectives,
the manager should initiate regulation changes and develop a plan
for monitoring and enforcement and supplement these activities with
education and outreach.
Monitoring and evaluation of actions

• Management authorities should strive to maximize learning from
management actions using all possible forms of monitoring and
evaluation. Evaluating the outcome of a management action is required
in order to learn about system behaviour to promote more informed and

effective management in the future.
• Adaptive management, an iterative form of structured decision-
making, provides a method to maximize learning from management
manipulations. In this context, evaluating the outcome of a management
action is necessary in order to determine whether goals and objectives
are being achieved.
• Management authorities should provide training for managers in the
fundamentals of study design, basic data analysis and inference.
• Survey and monitoring methods, both biological and socio-economic,
should be standardized to ensure data comparability across projects and
through time.
• Standardized methods should be as simple as possible to facilitate
adoption and adherence to protocols, and field crews must be trained in
the use of the methods.
• Managers should be required to document thoroughly their management
actions and results obtained. Standardization of data reporting is also
required.
• Information gathered from monitoring and evaluation efforts should be
validated, compiled into centralized databases and shared with other
experts and interested stakeholders.
• Enforcement of regulations is required if management outcomes are to
be interpreted correctly.
• Managers should monitor ecosystem indicators to detect and understand
the broader implications of management actions.
• Sampling methods should be chosen to minimize adverse effects on the
environment and the stock, and bycatch of non-target organisms.
Matching management to objectives

• Three general principles apply to the selection of a management
strategy: (i) recreational fishers are a heterogeneous group with diverse
expectations; (ii) ecological constraints (e.g. evolutionary history,
environmental conditions, existing fish assemblage) can dictate what
management strategies can or should be applied; and (iii) regardless of
stakeholder desires, constraints preclude some management strategies.
• The duty of the responsible manager is to understand stakeholder
desires and then optimize when it is biologically possible and educate
when it is not.
Annex 165
• The manager must investigate reported inadequacies in the fishery and

choose an appropriate course of action to achieve objectives for the
fishery.
• A decision tree can be useful for identifying particular habitat or fishery-
oriented actions, depending on the issue and the biological properties
(growth and natural mortality) of the stock.
Habitat conservation
• Habitat protection and enhancement are powerful tools for promoting
healthy fisheries and should be employed wherever possible.
• Managers should be alert to potential environmental problems created
or aggravated by recreational fishers and their activities.
• Managers should foster environmentally responsible behaviour among
recreational fishers to protect the environment and reduce societal
objections to recreational fishing.
Stocking
• Stocking is not a panacea, is often unsuccessful, and can be ecologically
harmful.
• Managers considering a stocking programme should first evaluate
whether stocking would be an effective remedy for fishery ills and then
decide whether stocking is feasible and appropriate on eco-evolutionary
and fiscal grounds.
• Habitat improvement or appropriate harvest regulations could be more
cost-effective and less risky than stocking to ecological integrity of the
system.
• It is essential that managers have clear and appropriate objectives,
consider ecological factors that influence survival of stocked fish and
their impacts on the ecosystem, and evaluate outcomes.
• Managers should minimize inadvertent impacts to fitness of stocks by
adhering to best practices when hatchery reared fish are produced for
restoration or enhancement stocking.
• Managers should be cognizant of trophic considerations that affect
success and acceptability of stocking: predation on recruits, increased
consumptive demand, competition for food, depletion of prey, and
effects on sensitive species.
• Managers contemplating the introduction of non-native species

or genotypes should consider the option carefully and adhere to
professional codes of practice because effects of fish introductions can
be severe and irreversible.
• Where introducing a non-native fish or genotype is inadvisable,
managers must educate anglers about the need for environmental
sustainability of management practices, and provide more sustainable
options.
• Given the ease with which non-native fish may be introduced without
management approval and the potential for permanent, unmitigable
harm, deterring unauthorized stocking should be a management
priority.
• Managers should regularly evaluate success of stocking programmes,
with respect to achievement of management objectives, cost-
effectiveness, and undesirable consequences.
Harvest regulations
• Effective use of harvest regulations allows the manager to use
recreational fishing as a tool to manipulate fish population structure,
increasing its productivity and utility to recreational fishers.
• Size-based harvest limits and bag limits (daily, weekly, monthly or
seasonal) can improve recreational fisheries, but only when consistent
with the fish population’s demography, recreational-fisher desires and
level of exploitation.
• The recreational fishery manager should acquire the necessary biological
and fishery information before appropriate harvest regulations can be
identified:
– fishing mortality rate (or exploitation rate or fishing effort from creel
survey);
– natural mortality rate (catch curve, maximum age, von Bertalanffy
approaches);
– size-specific growth rate (hard parts, tagging, size-frequency
methods);
– recruitment (catch curve, population age structure, catch per unit of
effort of juveniles);
– recreational-fisher utility, willingness to harvest fish of various
sizes, and comply with regulations.
Annex 167
• Ideally, managers should forecast potential effects of various regulations

using simulation modelling prior to regulation implementation.
• Managers should follow up regulation changes with evaluation,
including methods such as stock assessment, creel surveys including
user satisfaction criteria, and ecosystem surveillance.
• Safety
• Each recreational fisher should be aware of, and comply with, local and
national safety rules, health advisories and regulations, and where such
directives do not exist, consider voluntary actions that will increase the
safety of all participants.
• Governments and NGOs should develop safety guidelines and material
to educate recreational fishers about safety practices related to this
activity, including safe consumption.
Sale and trade of fish

• Selling or otherwise trading fish or other aquatic products harvested
during the pursuit of recreational fishing is discouraged in order to
demarcate clear boundaries between recreational and commercial or
subsistence fisheries, unless the occasional trade or sell of recreationally
captured fish is conducted to offset fishing costs and where it is explicitly
allowed in a given jurisdiction, and provided that this does not interfere
with interests of commercial or subsistence fisheries;
• It is recommended that indicator systems be developed to distinguish
between fish captured from the recreational and commercial sectors as
a means of evaluating and ensuring compliance with regulations.
Use of harvested aquatic animals

• Recreational fishers should not take more aquatic organisms than
immediately needed to supplement the diet of their own household
or within their network of relatives and friends; other aquatic animals
should be released alive in agreement with national and regional
legislation, needs and local customs, while maximizing the opportunity
for survival.
• Recreational fishers should preserve the quality of aquatic animals that
are removed for consumption such as by putting them on ice, immediate
removing and disposing of the entrails, quick storage in freezers or early
consumption; dead fish should not be left in the environment.
Fishing gear
• Each recreational fisher should always use fishing tackle and methods
that comply with national regulations or where regulations fail to exist,
use no more than can be tended and observed simultaneously by the
recreational fisher.
• Fishing gear should not be left unattended, with the exception of
techniques that are designed to be fished passively without continuous
oversight (e.g. gillnetting, traps).
Litter and pollution

• Each recreational fisher should:
– not litter the environment; it is best not to bring potential litter
material to the water and to pack all equipment, bait and food in
recyclable container;
– if feasible, remove litter left by other people and leave the fishing
location litter-free; always bring a container to collect litter at the
fishing site.
– should minimize the use of lead weights on the fishing line and use
alternatives to lead where possible and when appropriate.
• The tackle industry should explore the development of biodegradable
fishing tackle and lines made from materials that do not cause potential
negative consequences to human or aquatic ecosystem health.
• Governments should work collaboratively with the fishing industry and
provide incentives to develop environmentally benign fishing gear.
• Governments or bodies that own or manage lands used for recreational
fishing (e.g. boat ramps, parking lots, harbours) should provide refuse
facilities for the disposal of fishing-related litter.
Disturbance of environment and wildlife

– avoid damage to riparian vegetation caused by accessing the fishing
location, construction of fishing sites, piers, removal of woody
debris, trampling or felling of fuelwood;
– avoid disturbance or possible disturbance to wildlife, in particular
avoid fishing near nesting birds and avoid using hook bait that might
be ingested by waterfowl;
Annex 169
– minimize boat travel, speed, noise and boat wash when these may
disturb and potentially damage fish, riparian vegetation, seagrass
beds, coral reefs, waterfowl and other water users;
– anchor boats only in areas that are not environmentally sensitive;
– avoid wading in streams, lakes and coastal habitats during the
reproductive periods of fish and other aquatic wildlife;
– thoroughly clean boats, trailers and other fishing gear (e.g. waders),
disinfecting as appropriate, when moving from one catchment/
system to the next in order to minimize potential of spreading non-
native species.
• Government agencies and NGOs should educate recreational anglers
about the sources of disturbance to the environment and wildlife,
including the provision of best practices to avoid or minimize negative
consequences.
Reporting observed environmental problems

• Each recreational fisher should immediately report pollution incidences,
distressed or dead fish/animals, the presence of unusual and non-native
species, and other environmental impacts/observations to the relevant
authorities.
• Government agencies and other entities responsible for aquatic
environments should provide clear mechanisms by which recreational
fishers are able to report environmental problems or infractions.
Baiting and collection of bait

– moderate the amount of chum and ground-bait introduced
to waterbodies and not use potentially toxic chemicals (e.g.
preservatives, colouring agents) in ground-bait and hook bait;
– use bait, particularly live bait, only in agreement with local or national
regulations, and use aquatic organisms only in the waterbody from
which these were collected; never transfer aquatic live bait from one
waterbody to another.
• When collecting bait, each recreational fisher as well as the bait harvest
industry should adopt environmentally friendly practices to minimize
disturbance to habitats and the environment (e.g. backfill holes on the
foreshore that are dug in the process of bait collection).
• Bait harvesters or growers, dealers and, where bait regulations exist,

governments should ensure that species being sold are legal and
appropriate for use in a given area.
• Governments and NGOs should develop outreach and education
materials related to sustainable bait harvest and use for recreational
fishers and the bait industry.
Illegal transfer of fish by recreational fishers

• Individual recreational fishers shall never stock, introduce or transfer
live fish or other aquatic organisms within or between catchments
without permission from the authorities. This applies particularly to
non-native organisms and may also apply to non-native genotypes of a
native species transferred across catchments.
• Incidences of illegal transfer of fish should be reported immediately to
the relevant authorities.
• Governments should establish rigorous and visible penalties to combat
illegal transfer of non-native fish or genotypes by recreational fishers.
• Governments should work together with NGOs to develop outreach
materials and popularize successful condemnations of illegal stocking
across countries and regions. A zero tolerance policy is advisable given
the ecological impacts that can result from the successful establishment
of a non-native fish species from just a few individuals of that species
illegally introduced by recreational fishers.
Fish welfare
• All recreational fishers and the recreational fishing sector as a whole
should recognize that their behaviour and gear choices have the potential
to influence the outcome of a fishing event for the fish. Thus, behaviour
and gear should be adopted that are most likely to yield outcomes that
are as positive as possible.
• Recreational fishers who use nets, spears or other techniques not
involving rod and line should consult guidelines for commercial
fisheries where those gear types are commonly used. In general,
however, recreational fishers using those gear types do not release fish;
therefore, the most relevant guidelines relate to handling and killing
fish.
Annex 171
• Each recreational fisher should use tackle and gear that is appropriate
for the size and type of fish or other aquatic organism targeted. In
recreational fishing, tackle and gear should be chosen in a way that:
– minimizes landing duration where possible, recognizing that landing
a fish prematurely can also lead to fish injury or drop-offs;
– minimizes injury during handling;
– avoids hooking outside the mouth region if possible;
– allows safe landing.
• After landing a fish, it is to be restrained gently but firmly to control it
during unhooking; and the fish is to be killed immediately after landing
if it is to be harvested, by an appropriate method such as a sharp blow
to the cranium and then exsanguination (bleeding-out).
• If fish are to be held alive after capture, devices should be used that
provide sufficient space and water quality and keep the fish for the
shortest time possible.
• Practices should be developed and promoted that cause the least
physical, physiological and behavioural impact on fish if they are
to be assessed (e.g. weighed) and released after capture, as in some
recreational fishing competitions and tournaments.
• Fish and other organisms that are to be released after capture should
be released in the best condition possible and only if legal according to
national and regional legislation. Specifically, in recreational angling.
this entails:
– obtaining, reading and observing regionally available best practice
catch-and-release guidelines;
– using appropriate landing devices to avoid mucus loss and damage
to the skin and other fish organs;
– carrying and using appropriate unhooking devices such as pliers,
forceps, side-cutters;
– assessing the size of fish and taking photos while keeping it under
water, if possible;
– avoiding extended periods of air exposure, preferably unhooking
the fish in the water and touching fish only with wet hands;
– avoiding touching the fish’s gills and eyes while unhooking;
– never squeezing a fish or using unnecessary force while
unhooking;
– releasing deeply hooked fish by cutting the line and only if survival
is likely;
– not releasing fish that show signs of impaired function or severe

injury;
– using validated and legal techniques to increase chances of survival
when fish show signs of barotraumas;
– avoiding fishing when the intention is to catch-and-release fish in
situations that are known to substantially reduce the chances of
post-release survival (e.g. for some species, a particularly high or
low water temperature, or deep water);
– avoiding catch-and-release of fish during their reproductive period
unless deemed sustainable at the population level by management
agencies;
– reviving fish before release by moving water over the fish’s gills
(i.e. using figure-eight pattern) if necessary;
– releasing fish as quickly as possible by placing them gently into the
water;
– being alert to the presence of predators and moving to an alternate
location if released fish are being eaten by predators;
– monitoring the condition of fish at time of release to determine if
they have been handled to the point that they have lost equilibrium –
if that occurs, future fisher behaviour should be modified to reduce
stress on fish such that they are likely to be able to maintain
equilibrium at time of release.
Information and knowledge sharing

• Promote awareness of various documents and guidelines including the
TGRF to encourage responsible recreational fisheries through targeted
information, education, and training of recreational fishers, managers,
policy-makers and other stakeholders, and facilitate translations.
• Increase international exchange of knowledge and the information
transfer from science to management by developing international
platforms for exchange of knowledge and international conferences,
meeting and working groups on recreational fisheries.
• Facilitate interaction among fisheries management staff in governmental
agencies so that they can connect across state and national boundaries,
e.g. by attending international conferences on recreational fisheries.
• Publicize and make available all relevant recreational fishing
information, research results and salient conservation and management
Annex 173
measures. This holds across the entire recreational fishing sectors from
small clubs to management agencies.
• Ensure that laws, regulations and policies governing their implementation
are effectively disseminated and explained in plain language.
• Ensure that local fishing communities and individual fishers are involved
and are aware of policy formulation and the associated implementation,
enforcement and evaluation process, while facilitating awareness and
implementation of the TGRF.
• Objectively and routinely communicate recent advances in recreational
fisheries science, management and conservation both within the sector
and with external actors using appropriate instruments including
awareness and education programmes, and provide incentives for
university-based academic staff to publish locally and regionally.
• Improve information on recreational fishing by collecting data on catch
per species (lowest possible taxonomic level), type of gear, etc. and
have member countries submit these data to central bodies such as the
FAO.
• Improve ability to assign recreationally related fish production (e.g.
baitfish production, fish for stocking) to the recreational fisheries
sector in global fisheries assessment, and routinely include recreational
fisheries assessments alongside production estimates at the global
scale.
• Make effort towards and invest in recruiting new recreational fishers,
especially young people and children, instilling a sense of environmental
stewardship with new recruits.
Research
• Given the data-poor situation in terms of recreational fisheries,
research should support policy decision-making and the integration of
recreational fisheries into aquatic ecosystem management practices (e.g.
using economic valuation of recreational fisheries as one stakeholder of
fish populations).
• Recreational fisheries will need to adopt a multidisciplinary,
interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research approach to problem
solving.
• Adequate resources, including research facilities and trained staff,
should be provided for recreational fishery research programmes. These
programmes should receive financial support from public sources and
from a variety of self-sustaining funding mechanisms, such as user-pay

initiatives and cost-recovery mechanisms. Alternative funding models
to assist with supporting fisheries research are needed, particularly in
developing countries.
• Capacity building is essential to ensuring that fishery research
programmes are effective. States and relevant international organizations
with the ability to provide capacity-building support should work
towards provision of resources to developing countries’ fishery research
programmes, such as technical training.
• Research must use robust and accurate data collection and analysis
strategies that incorporate appropriate standardized methods.
• Recreational fisheries organizations and agencies should monitor and
assess the stocks and fisheries under their jurisdiction, including the
impact of ecosystem changes resulting from land use, urbanization,
climate change, habitat alteration, and other anthropogenic sources.
• Researchers should encourage recreational fishers to contribute actively
to the monitoring of fish populations by reporting relevant data and
other observations to fisheries managers and researchers. Relatedly,
it is necessary to study different approaches to data collection and
to understand fully the biases and limitations in data reported by
recreational fishers.
• Recreational fisheries research should include an understanding of
the social, economic, marketing and institutional factors affecting
recreational fishers and fisheries, and focus on feedbacks on fisher–fish
as key components of the dynamics of the system.
• Recreational fisheries research results should be used to establish
management objectives, reference points, and performance criteria and
to formulate and update management plans. Fisheries research results
should be used as the baseline for development of adaptive management
approaches, and outputs of research are essential for evaluation of
management effectiveness.
• Given the limited financial and human resources available, recreational
fisheries research efforts may need to focus on a subset of fisheries.
Where recreational and commercial fisheries coexploit the same fish
stocks, collaborative research should be established.
Annex 175
Particular issues for developing nations and economies in transition

• Sustainable recreational fisheries development in developing nations
and economies in transition will be promoted by the installation of the
appropriate institutional frameworks (including organizational ones) to
guide development and management of the sector.
• Training of decision-makers in modern recreational fisheries policy and
management may help the transition.
• Where recreational fisheries exploit the same waters as commercial or
subsistence fisheries in developing nations, priority should be given
to combating hunger and poverty. The sustainable management of the
joint capture fisheries sector and any resulting conflicts between the
sectors should be minimized.
• Recreational fisheries in economies in transition should be developed
jointly with commercial fisheries. Both fisheries should be managed
such that the combined exploitation is sustainable, economic benefits
maximized and social impacts on the poorest fishing communities
minimized.
• Where recreational fisheries in developing countries or economies in
transition involve not only resident fishers but also tourists, the tourism
sector should make sure that economic benefits are accrued specifically
to the local communities and the regional economy (e.g. transportation,
accommodation, fish processing, bait), and the local communities
should be proactively involved prior to taking decisions on tourism
development.
• Development of the recreational fisheries sector should take due account
of the potential for conflict on moral grounds emerging from different
perspectives as to the acceptable use of fish, particularly in light of the
dichotomy between fishing for food versus fishing as a leisure pursuit.
• To make appropriate allocation decisions, economic cost–benefit
analysis and social impact studies are recommended in order to
account for impacts – economic (jobs), value (changes to consumer
and producer surpluses) and social (e.g. altered access, employment,
number of people involved, changes to cultural identity) – induced by
altered scenarios in relation to livelihood.
• Many of the “decisions” as to whether or not to develop resident
recreational fisheries will occur naturally in relation to changes in the
economic prosperity and wealth of a given country. However, decision-
makers should be prepared to have policy and institutional frameworks

in place in order to help the sector move on a sustainable trajectory.
Implementation of the Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries:

Recreational Fisheries
• The Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries: Recreational
Fisheries (TGRF) or the most salient chapters of the publication
containing them should be adopted by the international community and
all relevant stakeholders in the recreational fisheries sector.
• The TGRF are not intended to be a “static document” but rather to be
further developed and revised as new issues, opportunities, conflicts
and knowledge arise; any adaptation to local and regional conditions to
meet specific challenges is strongly advised.
• Implementation strategies will vary among sectors, but some general
strategies include:
– using the TGRF to craft an organization-specific code-of-conduct
and then adopting and embracing the content;
– using the TGRF as a basis to develop a sustainability certification
scheme to certify fisheries management activities regionally and
locally;
– working with other stakeholders to develop and implement
management practices that will strengthen and sustain recreational
fisheries in light of the provisions in the TGRF;
– developing and/or embracing outreach, education and awareness
materials of various formats related to the TGRF;
– adopting or encouraging responsible and ethical fishing practices
consistent with the TGRF;
– supporting research and management activities financially or via
participation in the process that aligns with the TGRF.
These Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries are focused on recreational
fisheries and describe strategies to promote environmentally sustainable and socially
responsible management of such fisheries. To this end, the document details policy,
management and behavioural recommendations for sustainable recreational fisheries
that are an increasingly important component of global fisheries. Specifically, the
Guidelines translate the relevant provisions of the FAO Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries into specific advice for recreational fisheries. The concept of
aquatic stewardship is introduced as an overarching ethical framework needed to
achieve ecologically sustainable recreational fisheries on a global scale. Within this
normative mindset, the adaptive management philosophy based on quantifiable and
transparent objectives and continuous learning and feedback loops is proposed along
with the acknowledgement of principles such as the ecosystem approach and the
precautionary approach. Adherence to the guidelines and recommendations presented
in this document will enable policy-makers, managers and the entire recreational
fisheries sector to orient recreational fisheries towards maintaining
or achieving sustainability.
ISBN 978-92-5-107214-1 ISSN 1020-5292
9 7 8 9 2 5 1 0 7 2 1 4 1
I2708E/1/04.12

Recreational Fisheries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recreational Fisheries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recreational Fisheries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main principles and approaches discussed in the document?

What are the main principles and approaches discussed in the document?

What recommendations are provided for sustainable management of recreational fisheries?

What recommendations are provided for sustainable management of recreational fisheries?

ISSN 1020-5292

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material

PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT

Responsible Fisheries: Recreational Fisheries was convened on 5–6 August

Preparation of this document iii

2. Normative framework for responsible recreational fisheries 15

3. Management framework for sustainable recreational fisheries 23

4. Policy and institutional frameworks 37

5. Recreational fisheries management 45

5.3 The fishery management process 47

6. Recreational fishing practices 79

7. Information, knowledge sharing and research 101

8. Particularities of developing countries and economies in

9. Implementation of the guidelines 117

Glossary and definitions 151

Annex – Recommended guidelines by specific area of

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

2. However, for nearly three decades, because of the dramatic increase of

4. Sustainability of societal benefits requires a recovery of depleted stocks

5. In recent years, world fisheries have become dynamically developing

important fish stocks, modifications of ecosystems, significant economic

6. In light of this situation, while recognizing that the recovery of depleted

7. Indeed, in the last three decades, aquaculture has recorded a significant

8. Thus, the Nineteenth Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries

9. Subsequently, the Government of Mexico, in collaboration with FAO,

11. The twentieth session of COFI, held in March 1993, examined in

12. This implicit recognition of the importance of governance in aquaculture

13. The Code was formulated so as to be interpreted and applied in conformity

15. The Code of Conduct consists of five introductory articles: Nature

17. The Twenty-eighth Session of the Conference in Resolution 4/95 adopted

18. The expanding role and increasing contribution of aquaculture to economic

on the Contribution of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Food Security, the 1996

19. The application of the ecosystem approach to fisheries and aquaculture as

biodiversity conservation issues have emerged (Cowx, Arlinghaus and Cooke,

While the difference between commercial and recreational capture

1.2 Global trends in recreational fisheries

subsistence fisheries transform into, or are replaced by, more leisure-based

Fish conservation and

Fish used for

Fish used as food by

Economic development of a given society

MANAGEMENT Fishery regulations (targeting fishery)

of recreational fisheries. However, recreational fisheries rarely operate in a

1.3 Types and benefits of recreational fisheries

1.4 Biological issues of recreational fisheries

Therefore, responsible recreational fisheries management must consider the

1.5 Objectives and target audience of guidelines

• to promote recreational fisheries in the long term by outlining and

1.6 A guide to the use of the Guidelines and relation to

Chapter Content Audience

Introduces adaptive management

Recreational Fisheries Outlines decision-frameworks to

Provides guidance how to generate

Developing countries Special guidance for developing