UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Evaluating the Benefits of Recreational Fisheries Pitcher, Tony J. 1999

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Pitcher_Tony_Evaluating_benefits_recreational_1999.pdf [ 4.42MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0348126.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0348126-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0348126-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0348126-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0348126-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0348126-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0348126-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0348126-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0348126.ris

Full Text

!"#$%&'#&$!(&)*'&!+&$&,'-%!+&./'*$!!0111!!!2/345&!6!!!7458&'!9!!!!!!!:;,34,*#)<!*%&!=&)&>#*$!/>!+&-'&,*#/),3!"#$%&'#&$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?@@7!001ABC696!"#$%&'#&$!(&)*'&D!E)#;&'$#*F!/>!='#*#$%!(/3458#,D!(,),G,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?@@7!001ABC696!!:;,34,*#)<!*%&!=&)&>#*$!/>!+&-'&,*#/),3!"#$%&'#&$!!"#$%&'#&$!!(&)*'&!!+&$&,'-%!!+&./'*$!0111!!!2/345&!!6!!!7458&'!!9!                      edited by  Tony J. Pitcher        published by   The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia  2204 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C., Canada 1998   ISSN 1198-6727 ! EVALUATING THE BENEFITS OF  RECREATIONAL FISHING     Papers, Discussion and Issues: a Conference held at the UBC Fisheries Center June 1999    Edited by  Tony J. Pitcher             Fisheries  Centre  Research  Reports  1999   Volume  7   Number  2Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 2 EVALUATING THE BENEFITS OF  RECREATIONAL FISHING   CONTENTS   Page  Acknowledgements and Sponsors ...........................................................................................4 Directors Foreword ..................................................................................................................5  KEYNOTE PAPERS Evaluating Recreational Fishing: Managing Perceptions and/or Reality  Bob Kearney ..........................................................................................................9  Are recreational fisheries sustainable in multiple aquatic resource user situations?   I.G. Cowx ...............................................................................................................15  Maintaining quality in recreational fisheries: how success breeds failure   in management of open-access sport fisheries  Carl Walters and Sean Cox ....................................................................................22  An economic model of recreational and commercial fishers  Ussif Rashid Sumaila ............................................................................................30  DISCUSSION & PERSPECTIVES Allocation Issues: a discussion.....................................................................................36 Components of Value in Recreational Fisheries: a discussion ....................................39 Recreational Fisheries:  an open discussion ................................................................42 Perspectives from the Keynote Speakers .....................................................................44  CONTRIBUTED PAPERS Status and trends in recreational marine fisheries in Kenya  Pamela Abuodha ...................................................................................................46  Relationships between recreational angling and native salmonids in Alberta:   a historical perspective  M. Kerry Brewin ....................................................................................................51  Low consumptive angler behaviour and preferred management strategies:   the case of sport fishing in British Columbia’s tidal waters  Barbara Calvert and Peter Williams......................................................................58  Marine Recreational Fisheries in South Africa: Status and Challenges  A.C. Cockcroft, M.H. Griffiths and R.J.Q. Tarr.....................................................64  FISHCOUNT: An innovative design for the collection of recreational fishing data  Anne P.M. Coleman and Laurie West ...................................................................71  Evaluating catch-and-release angling practices from the fish’s   Steven J. Cooke, Jason F. Schreer, and R. Scott McKinley...................................78   Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 3 The resource management connection to recreational fishing policies and programs  Martin F. Golden................................................................................................... 88  Using revealed and stated preferences for estimating the benefits of   recreational fisheries regulations  Amy Gautam and Robert Hicks............................................................................ 92  Recreational fishery response to rebuilding and reallocation of the   barramundi (Lates calcarifer) stocks in Australia’s Northern Territory  R K Griffin and C.J. Walters ................................................................................. 101  Linking Water Quality Improvements to Recreational Fishing Values:   The Case of Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass  Douglas W. Lipton and Robert Hicks................................................................... 105  Recreational Fishing in England and Wales  Jim Lyons, Lawrence Talks and Phil Hickley....................................................... 111  Economic Value of Northern Alaska Sport Fisheries and the Influence of   Management on Stated Trip Frequency  Margaret F. Merritt, John Duffield and Chris Neher ........................................... 119  Economic Benefits and Value of a Localized and Seasonal Walleye Fishery  Christopher J. O’Bara ........................................................................................... 124  Current status and socioeconomic aspects of recreational fisheries in Germany  W. Steffens and M. Winkel ................................................................................... 130  Regional economic impact assessments of recreational fisheries:   a case study of the marine party and charter boat service industry in Maine  Scott R. Steinback ................................................................................................. 134  Marine recreational fishing participation in the northeast, U. S. 2000 - 2025  Eric Thunberg ....................................................................................................... 143  Measuring total economic value of recreational fishery in the Scandinavian countries  Anna-Liisa Toivonen, Pekka Tuunainen, Ståle Navrud,   Eva Roth, Bo Bengtsson and Gudni Gudbergsson ............................................... 150  Curtis Coast, Central Queensland recreational fishers:   importance, impact and involvement  Michael Walker ..................................................................................................... 154  PAPERS IN ABSTRACT    Abstracts and questions from other papers delivered at the conference ................................ 161  LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................... 167    Edited by Tony J. Pitcher 169  pages © Fisheries Centre, UBC, 1999 Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 4 EVALUATING THE BENEFITS OF  RECREATIONAL FISHING   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  &  SPONSORS  The idea that a conference on the benefits of recreational fishing should be held originates from discussions between Joelle Row, Cape Town, South Africa, John Harrison from Northern Territories, Australia and Tony Pitcher from Vancouver. Planning and the search for funding started in 1997.  It is hoped that this meeting will form the first of a series, and a second meeting is planned for Darwin, Australia in 2002.  Tony Pitcher, Sean Cox, Eric Parkinson and Gunna Weingartner served on the local planning committee for this conference, which was very capably organised by the Fisheries Centre's Events Officer, Gundula Weingartner.  Conference facilities were provided by the Faculty of Graduate Studies and the Zoology Department of the University of British Columbia.  In addition, many of the Fisheries Centre graduate students freely gave of their time and enthusiasm to make the symposium a  success. In particular we are grateful to Alistair Beattie who assembled the papers, and Amy Poon and Trevor Hutton who acted as Rapporteurs  and produced their report to a tight deadline after the meeting.   The Fisheries Centre wishes to express its gratitude and thanks to the following sponsors, whose financial assistance supported the conference and the publication of this Research Report.     South African Deep Sea Angling Association       Ministry of Fisheries, Government of British Columbia                               National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Government     Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 5 Directors Foreword  Fishing for Fun, Food and Profit  Recreational fishing can be defined as catch-ing fish for fun.  Added to the fun, there may be auxiliary benefits such as profit, food, and exercise. But the fun part is mandatory.   Fun is what fishers will pay for. Although, as we will see, what is perceived as fun may seem a little perverse in some cases, the task of evaluating the benefits of sport fishing, the theme of this conference, is confounded by the problem of enumerating these diverse auxiliary benefits. Simply deciding on the units to be employed to measure the bene-fits is not trivial, as there is far more to this than economics and money. Who benefits and who pays? The accounting process raises problems of definitions and crosses disciplinary boundaries.   Fishing for fun turns out to have a history as long as human civilisation itself. Moreover, this history illustrates most of the problems with which we grapple with in this confer-ence.  The first known image of pole, hook and line fishing dates back to the tomb of two wealthy Egyptian manicurists from around 4000BP, although such fishing may have been primarily for food. But it certainly looks fun, and, when it was painted this Middle Kingdom mural reflected a fashion of recalling the gentle domestic ethic of the Old Kingdom in Egyptian history.   A thousand years later, we find a more ur-bane Egypt, where fishing for fun has be-come the preserve of a rich and powerful elite. Fish were kept in large stone tanks and nobles, seated in comfortable chairs, caught them on rod and line, possibly with  insects as bait. Constructing and maintaining such arrangements would have provided quite a boost for the local economy. Fun, food, and power drove this recreational fishing.  As opposed to hunting, which was given di-vine sanction by Artemis (the original Greek version of the Roman goddess Diana,  who is bet-ter known to us today) and a pack of lesser Greek hunting deities, the ancient Greeks regarded fishing as a lowly Figure 1. Egyptian painted mural of rod, hook and pole fishing from the tomb of one of the Pharaoh’s manicurists, Knumhotep, from Beni Hasan, Middle Kingdom, 4000 BP.  Fun, food or profit? Figure 2. Egyptian noble sport fishing tilapia, from tomb of Nebwenef, a High Priest under Ramses the Great, Thebes, 3290 BP. As well as looking like a lot of fun, and reflecting the immense power of the rich in maintaining such resources, this image also has religious significance, since, long before Christians employed a fish logo, tilapia were an Egyptian symbol of rebirth. Figure 3. Greek boy (and an octopus) having fun fish-ing with a rod and line. Ambrosios,  Greece, 2480 BP.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 6 occupation fit only for slaves and children. This means the slaves and kids likely had all the fun.  For the rest it must have been just food and profit, although once you have got-ten them, keeping all those kids and slaves actually doing something useful all day could be reckoned a benefit.  The Romans, who conquered the Greeks, but then adopted Greek culture as fashion-able, had a similar attitude. Fishing was an important area of commerce and cuisine, but not regarded as fun, at least among the literate elite who have left us records of their culture. Many coastal cities, such as the ill-fated Pompeii, specialised in fishing and ex-ported aromatic fish sauce, but there seem to be no records of anyone fishing for fun. Maybe for people used to divesting the en-tire Mediterranean basin of its large carni-vore fauna in order to set them to eat crimi-nals and Christians, mere sport fishing did not provide quite the same level of enter-tainment.  There are indeed many cultures that regard fishing for fun as distinctly odd, if not sacri-legious. For example, First Nation groups on the coat of BC have a hard time coming to terms with sport fisheries for salmon, since their ethics specifically exclude harming creatures other than for food, and you are certainly not supposed to have fun doing such things (e.g. Jones and Williams-Davidson 1999).  This finds an echo in the more puritan wing of the European preser-vationist movement, who regard sport fish-ing as a form of fish torture. In the confer-ence, recreational fishers were urged to take the potential power of such lobby groups very  seriously.   Sometimes the ‘fun’ aspect of recreational fishing can be hard to recognise as such by the uninitiated. In the middle ages this point was amusingly discussed in a “Dialogue be-tween a Hunter and a Fisher”, published by Fernando Basurto in Spain  in 1539.   Fisher:  .…  fishing has great advantages over hunting for the reasons I have given you; for the pre-eminence of the soul, not to mention the  health of the body.  Hunter: Fisher, you know a lot, you tell me good things in praise of your fishing, and be-cause I accept them as such it could be that you will convert me. Figure 4. Roman pole, hook and line fishers from North Africa, mosaic, Sousse, 1950 BP. What a diver-sity of fish! Food and profit for sure, but fun only forthese boys, while Mom and Dad were likely engaged ingorier recreation.  Figure 5. Recreational fishing in the middle ages of Europe could be expensive and cold. This pole, hook and line fisher having fun near Köln in Germany is well wrapped. Likely thats food too, in the pail. 450 BP. Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 7  Fisher: Sir, persistence kills the stag. Do not fail to believe me …. the calm you will bring by practising my activity and leaving yours, which is warlike .... and unhealthy for the body…  Hunter: Everything you have said is well taken, but I beg you to tell me how your health is.  Fisher: Why do you ask?  Hunter: Do you not know why? Because I see you very relaxed sitting in this dampness, and I think you must have a pain in the gut, or other pains which enter into human bodies when it gets cold.   Fisher:  Sir, you do not know what you say, for accustomed pain preserves the passion of the patient.  When one starts to use the arms they tire and hurt, but once they have been used the fatigue lessens.  …..  the start of a voyage causes sea sickness but once the first fury has passed it leaves the patient with hun-ger. …. after I began to enjoy this human glory, the laborious feelings were banished, and there was no pain from sitting, especially when the fish are biting, for then there is no thirst nor hunger nor heat nor cold. ...what other activity can take it place?  The hunter goes onto complain that fishing is not good for what are nowadays called relationships, to which the fisher replies that it does not matter because fishing:   … by immediate pleasure, makes one forget all that is absent.  Here, echoes of the martyr ethic, the indi-vidualist, and the chauvinist are found in our wet and bedraggled sport fisher defend-ing his sport against ‘military’ hunting.   One recurrent theme in recreational fishing, proving the fishing is for fun axiom, is that it costs far more to catch the fish than they can possibly be worth as marketed com-modities. Again we can find a Medieval  ex-ample, published in a treatise on how to catch fish by Jacob Köbel in Germany in 1493, where expensive culinary ingredients are used to prepare bait to catch trout or grayling:   Take a black chicken and yolks of three eggs and a pea sized amount of saffron. Then take the chicken and make a hole in it and press all the listed material into it and sew the hole up again. Then place the chicken in a pile of horses manure for three of four days and as many weeks as it takes the chicken to become rotten. Then you will find little yellow worms in it. Put these on the hook each time and keep the others in a little closed box. Thus you will experience marvels.   The same author promises that  “great mar-vels” will come to fishers who smear hands, shins, front and back with a mash of cam-phor, wheat flour, heron grease, crushed heron bone and olive oil. Remember, this is fun!  In the middles ages freshwater fish (e.g.  pike, carp) were introduced to Britain for both food and fun. Indeed, until very re-cently, fish introductions have been a major part of sport fishing around the world that has brought northern hemisphere sal-monids to such unlikely habitats as the highlands of East Africa, Australia and South America.  The benefits and costs of such introductions are a challenge to evalu-ate.   And so, in summary, three principal types of benefits arise from recreational fisheries: economic benefits, which are desired but generally poorly measured; ecological bene-fits that have only recently been recognised; and social benefits that are rarely valued.  The principal needs of recreational fisheries are, first, to obtain more accurate, detailed evaluation of direct and indirect economic impacts; secondly, to get more accurate, de-tailed evaluation of socio-economic impacts; and thirdly, to implement adaptive man-agement plans using information gathered by sport fishers, thereby bridging the gap to fishery scientists. The principal requests of Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 8 recreational fisheries are to receive equita-ble treatment with commercial and other sectors (native, artisanal); and a recognition of the conservation benefits of catch and re-lease, bag limit compliance and the scientific benefits from well- managed data records and tag returns.   This Fisheries Centre Research Report de-rives from a conference held at the Fisheries Centre from June 1st to 4th 1999. The three aims of the meeting were:  • To enumerate and evaluate the benefits of sport fisheries; • To identify and focus on desirable eco-nomic social and ecological features; • To make the case for full recognition of sport fisheries as an important sector in the world’s fishing industry.   At the conference, 4 Keynote and 32 con-tributed papers were presented, of which 22 were submitted for editing and publication in this volume. The Keynote papers are pre-sented first, followed by edited discussions from three sessions that focussed on differ-ent aspects of the conference theme and brief perspectives on the issues raised at the meeting by the four Keynote speakers.  Con-tributed papers come next, accompanied by questions asked after each paper that have been recorded and edited by Rapporteurs. A few papers submitted only in abstract con-clude the volume. Papers in this volume have been formatted and edited, but not peer-reviewed.   Fisheries Centre Research Reports pub-lishes results of research work carried out, or workshops held, at the UBC Fisheries Centre. The series focusses on multidiscipli-nary problems in fisheries management, and aims to provide a synoptic overview of the foundations, themes and prospects of cur-rent research. Fisheries Centre Research Reports are distributed to appropriate workshop participants or project partners, and are recorded in Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts. A full list appears on the Fisheries Centre's Web site, htpp:// fisheries.com. Copies are available on re-quest for a modest cost-recovery charge.   Tony J. Pitcher Professor of Fisheries Director, UBC Fisheries Centre  References  Basurto, F. (1539) Dialogo que agora se hazia ... [Dia-logue between a hunter and a fisher …]  Zaragoza: G. Coci. [English translation by Adrian Schubert, Thomas V. Cohen, and Richard Hoffman]. Brewer, D.J. and Freidman, R.F (1989) Fish and fish-ing in ancient Egypt. American University in Cairo Press,  Cairo, 109pp. Donati, A. and Pasin, P. (1997) Pesca e Pescatori nell’ antichita. Arte, Milan, 179pp. Hoffmann, R.C. (1999) Fishers’ craft and lettered art: tracts on fishing from the end of the middle ages. University of Toronto Press, 403pp. Jones, R. and Williams-Davidson, T-L. (1999) Apply-ing Haida ethics in today’s fishery. In Coward, H., Ommer, R. and Pitcher, T.J. (eds). Just Fish: the ethics of Canadian fisheries. Institute of Social and Economic Research Press, St John's, Newfound-land, (in press). Köbel, J. (1493) Die kunst wie man fisch und vögel fahren soll.  [How to catch fish and birds]. Heidel-berg. [English translation Richard C. Hoffman].             Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 9   Keynote  Papers    Evaluating Recreational Fishing: Managing Perceptions  and/or Reality  Bob Kearney University of Canberra, Australia    In politics perception is reality. This bold state-ment is unreferenced but I am not claiming origi-nality. The sentiment has been expressed in many political speeches and political commentaries. It is presented here as a ‘truism’, or popular percep-tion, rather than a referenced scientific ‘fact’. Tru-isms should not be confused with the truth. In-deed many regard the role of the latter in politics as highly questionable.  Reality dictates that fisheries management be ac-cepted as a political issue. The final fisheries management decisions on matters of substance are normally made by politicians. I am reminded that the last time I gave an address to a confer-ence in this part of the world (I hope Canadians will accept that to antipodeans Seattle is in this part of the world), I concluded “if you want to be fisheries managers then put your money where your mouth is: resign and run for office” (Kear-ney, 1989). That conference was on the manage-ment of the world’s commercial fisheries, but it is my contention, not merely my perception, that politicians are also the ultimate managers of rec-reational fisheries. It should also be noted that the power of perception is not limited to politics, for example as acknowledged on ABC TV on 19/5/99, “In investment perception rules reality” (The 7.30 Report, 1999).  In preparing this paper on evaluating recreational fishing I have, naturally, taken guidance from the conference organisers who, in the flyer announc-ing the conference, stated “…the considerable so-cial, economic and ecological benefits that recrea-tional fisheries provide have not always been fully recognized” (The Fisheries Centre, 1998). Most anglers agree that angling, and the angling com-munity, have for too long been deprived of justly deserved recognition. How has this truism come about?   One of the primary reasons why the benefits of recreational fishing have not been fully recog-nised, at least in Australia, is that assessment of recreational fisheries has in the main, not been sufficiently scientifically rigorous. Australia suf-fered for too long from seriously inadequate sci-entific discipline in the assessments of virtually all aspects of recreational fishing. When compiling the presentation I gave to a 1994 conference on recreational fishing in Australia (Recreational Fishing: what’s the catch? Hancock, 1995) I could find only two Australian papers on recreational fishing that were actually published in recognised scientific journals (Kearney, 1995a). Popular magazines and even the grey literature provided an abundance of opinions and created or fuelled many perceptions, but peer-reviewed assessments were most obvious by their absence. Advocacy completely dominated quality research even within institutions that could have been expected to produce unbiased science. Most of the govern-ment researchers responsible for recreational fisheries assessments were avid anglers or had affiliations with angling groups. Government as-sessments of commercial fisheries were not simi-larly afflicted. While the situation has improved since 1994 the problem still exists.  “The goal of this conference will be to furnish the basis for full recognition of sport fisheries as an important sector of the world’s fishing indus-try…by providing full recognition of social, eco-nomic and ecological benefits that recreational fishing provides” (The Fisheries Centre, 1998).   I will argue that the values of recreational fishing are broader than simply being part of the world’s fishing industry. In doing so, and in pursuing the second goal, let me start by providing my personal perceptions of the social, economic and ecological benefits of recreational fishing.   Reasons why I value recreational fishing include, not in priority order: sport (including the chal-lenge, the contest etc.), camaraderie, exercise, recreation, solace, mental relaxation, appreciation of nature, understanding the environment and supreme quality food. I cannot put these in prior-ity order because my priorities change. Some-times I need a break and wish to be alone, some-times I want to be with friends and sometimes I am almost desperate for some really fresh fish. My priorities have also changed with phases of my life. I admit that as I have grown older I do things a little more deliberately and more fully appreci-ate the moment, or the surroundings. But two things change little: I almost always go fishing for pleasure, and I (almost always) enjoy it im-mensely. Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 10   I started fishing when I was three and still value it greatly. But do I value it as much as Frank Filipic, who gave his life for the cause.1 It is also notewor-thy that Mr Filipic’s last words as he stepped into the lake to try to land a giant catfish were “now I’ve got him”. Oh, the power of perception! Unfor-tunately quite a few Australians lose their lives pursuing the benefits of recreational fishing; nine from rock fishing alone in the last year (1997/98) for which statistics are available (Surf Life Saving Association of Australia, 1999 pers. com.). Many of us value fishing immensely but would hope that we were never put to the test as to whether we valued it with our life.   In researching personal perceptions for this paper I canvassed the opinions of many colleagues. One, a north American, whom I knew was seriously committed to angling, replied that he found it very difficult to put a scale of value on fishing, but clearly it was of importance as it had already cost him three marriages.   When evaluating benefits on scales larger than individuals many groupings could be used. I have accepted Australian state or national perspectives as providing contrast to individual perceptions. I have selected the state of Victoria for most exam-ples. But before considering combined opinions of recreational fishers it is first necessary to define who are recreational fishers.                                         1 ‘Ljubljana: A passionate angler drowned trying to reel in a giant fish, the Slovenian news agency STA reported yester-day.’ We are a diverse group. When managing us gov-ernments generally assume that we include the following categories: • unlicensed professionals (shamateurs) • accumulators, who use fish as food or for bar-ter • competitors, including those to whom the capture of more fish than others is primary • hunters, motivated by the chase and the kill • sportspersons, to whom the challenge, the skill, the odds, the adrenalin rush and the sat-isfaction of a job well done are important, but so is a feed of fish • recreational enthusiasts, to whom the outing is most important but for whom a feed of fish is still a prize • social fishers, to whom the camaraderie and fellowship are most important • adventurers, who like the hunter savour the chase, but not the kill, and who release their catch • lovers of open space, who if they do have a line in the water, do so purely to justify being outdoors (from Kearney, 1995a).  Individual views of the social benefits of fishing will clearly vary between categories, as will the broader community’s view of the social acceptability, or value, of the activity.   How many anglers are there? Numerous surveys since 1984 have estimated that collectively we encompass approximately 30% of the Australian population (PA Management Consultants, 1984, VIFTA 1997). However, the most recent publica-tion from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the official custodian of Australian ‘facts’, lists par-ticipation at only 4.8%, (Table 1). This appears to be a serious underestimate but I quote it here as an example of the paucity of agreed data on rec-reational fisheries. Again, the lack of peer review confirms the difficulty with aligning perception with the truth.  What are the economic benefits of fishing? Clearly these will vary between individuals included in the array of categories provided above. Those nearest the top of the list may well derive more direct economic returns from the sale or barter of fish. Those nearest the bottom may argue they receive little, if any, economic benefit. My per-sonal perception of the economic benefits include: a source of supreme quality food, an alternative to other forms of sport and recreation for which I must also pay, and an efficient way of disposing of money. Not quite as efficient as feeding dollar bills through a paper shredder, but right up there. I have several friends who regard the purchase of fishing tackle as the extension of recreational fish- Activity # of par-ticipants (x 1000) Participa-tion rate (%) Swimming 1,628.8 12.3 Aerobics/fitness 1,379.2 10.4 Golf 1,116.2 8.4 Tennis 937.8 7.1 Fishing 641.5 4.8 Cycling 626.0 4.7 Tenpin bowling 438.0 3.3 Billiards/snooker/pool 373.1 2.8 Netball  339.8 2.6 Squash/racquetball 321.2 2.4  Table 1.  Sports and physical activities with the most participants(a) (includes organised and non-organised participation). From Australian Bureau of Statistics 20/10/98. (a) Relates to participation by persons aged 18 years and over during 12 months prior to interview in 1997-98. Ex-cludes non-organized running, jogging or walking.  Percentage of the civilian population aged 18 years and over.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 11   ing to recreational shopping. How many anglers do you know who have more gear than they are ever likely to use? How many of us have the same problem in tackle stores that kids have in candy stores?  It is doubtful that the average angler considers fishing as an economic means of obtaining a feed of fish. Uncles (1997) gives a pertinent reason why: “using the latest estimates of recreational fishing catches (and expenditure) in Victorian waters, this represents approximately $200 spent per kilogram of fish caught and kept”. This should not come as a surprise, if the common perception that less than 10 percent of anglers are responsi-ble for more than 90% of the total take is correct.  The regional or national economic benefits of rec-reational fishing are hotly debated at the present time. Again Uncles, 1997 study is pertinent; “Re-sults from the study indicate that in the last year an estimated $1.037 billion was spent on recrea-tional fishing activities in Victoria (including both capital and current or per-trip expenditure)” (Un-cles, 1997). Senator Shane Murphy has stated that the industry is worth $5 billion a year to Australia as a whole (Murphy, 1998). Expenditure in Aus-tralia is of the order of $5 billion annually but whether or not this should be valued as an eco-nomic benefit is later discussed.  Ecological benefits are, as usual, difficult to quan-tify. My perception of how angling aids individual contributions to fisheries ecology includes an in-creased understanding by anglers of the variabil-ity and complexities of ecosystems (e.g., seasonal-ity, lunar influence, predator-prey relationships, density dependence and the need for understand-ing of the impact of externalities such as pollution and El Niño). Angling often constitutes intensive or extensive fieldwork. The resulting increased understanding could be assumed to lead to heightened responsibility and concern for factors such as pollution from plastic bags and discarded fishing line, to concern over, and action against, introduced species such as carp and willow trees, and generally increased awareness of issues such as global warming and climate change.  Opinions on regional or national ecological bene-fits vary considerably. Most relate to the percep-tion that recreational fishing is more benign than commercial exploitation. Examples of this asser-tion (perception) include “imposing lower risks of overfishing fish populations” (The Fisheries Cen-tre, 1998), “more than 90% of the fish caught in Melbourne’s bays are caught in nets which do great harm to fish stocks and marine vegetation” (VIFTA, 1997) and “…because the nets that they use catch more than they’re intended to and they take up, they scoop up everything, rather than just the primary target” (Kennett, 1998). Most Austra-lians support the truism (perception) that recrea-tional fishing must be more environmentally friendly than ruthless use of nets by unprincipled commercial fishers. Even if nets aren’t that bad environmentally anglers see them as not sporting, and only the privileged few are allowed to use them.  Let’s then reconsider some of the more popular perceptions of recreational and commercial fish-eries, and do so in pursuit of full recognition of the social, economic and ecological benefits. Firstly the personal social issues, I strongly sup-port the assertion that the social benefits of re-sponsible recreational fishing are indeed great. The obvious benefits to the individual flow over to society and contribute to a balanced and con-tented community. But in totalling these benefits society should not overlook the negatives, such as the loss of life by rock fishers in Australia.  The personal economic benefits of recreational fishing are largely a matter of individual decision. Does the amount of money spent in pursuit of one’s sport, hobby or recreation need justifica-tion? If you believe that the purchase of a $1,000 fly rod or a $1 million game-fishing boat is a good investment then who am I to argue? If you have spare money, why not spend it on what you enjoy? If you don’t spend it on fishing will you spend it more wisely? I would be surprised that if you didn’t spend it on fishing you would not spend it at all. But if you do spend it on fishing is that in the national interest?  Assessment of the national economic benefits of recreational fishing is somewhat more conten-tious. Comparison with commercial fishing is again common. The Victorian fishing tackle asso-ciation claimed that the commercial fisheries in that State’s bays and inlets were worth approxi-mately $3.4 million per year and employed ap-proximately 100 people (VIFTA 1997). A subse-quent, broader evaluation by consultant econo-mists concluded that ‘ the combined output of fishers and processors is estimated to be $51.7 million. Direct employment in commercial fishing is 273 people. Taking into account all inter-related employment, there were 715 full time equivalent jobs (Kinhill 1997). Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 12   In his review of the relative merits of commercial fisheries output and recreational fishers expendi-ture of approximately $1 billion in Victoria annu-ally, Hundloe concluded “In summary, the reve-nues argument suggests that the more one spends on something, notwithstanding how wasteful, the better off one is. This is fundamentally nonsense. The less one spends in resources to gain some-thing one wants, the better off one is” (Hundloe 1997).  Hundloe then compared the assessed output of the relevant commercial fisheries with a contin-gent valuation estimate of the willingness of the average Victorian angler to pay for an extra fish and related this to resource allocation between recreational and commercial fishers. He con-cluded that “if any change of the status quo was to be adopted, it should not involve a significant shift (for any species) from one group (recrea-tional or commercial) to another. There are not necessarily major net economic benefits from a major shift” (Hundloe 1997).It is also noteworthy that in Uncles determination of the $1 billion ex-penditure on recreational fisheries, he gave the breakdown as indicated in Table 2.   It is most significant that the major component (83.4%) of this expenditure is made up of boats, 4 wheel drive vehicles, and related expenses, and fishing equipment an additional 12%. As no 4 wheel drives or outboard motors are manufac-tured in Australia and most fishing rods, reels and lines are also imported, it is probable that some-where near 80% of the expenditure on recrea-tional fishing in Victoria is on imports. If one wished to provoke debate one could ask whether Australia’s balance of payments can afford cur-rent recreational fishing practice.  It is accepted that countries that manufacture the majority of their own fishing gear and equipment could well value recreational fishing totally differ-ently. They may even go so far as to take into ac-count the importance of their own recreational fisheries for facilitating the export of products to countries like Australia.  Uncles also suggest that ‘if there was no recrea-tional fishing sector in Victoria, it is estimated that the total amount of income distributed to Victorian households would fall by approximately $830 million per annum” (Uncles 1997). Victori-ans have a reputation for being Australia’s most avid sports fans. It seems most unlikely that Vic-torians would be incapable of finding other forms of sport, recreation or leisure and would revert to hiding the $830 million under their beds, or adopting the afore-mentioned option of feeding it through the paper shredder.  The ecological benefits of any form of fishing are difficult to value. As mentioned above recrea-tional lobbyists espoused that commercial fishing in Victoria’s bays and inlets was the source of much evil. Consultants employed by the Victorian Co-management Council to review the status of fisheries in the State’s bays and inlets concluded:  • “The data presented…indicates that recrea-tional catches are similar to commercial catches for the three main species.” • “The impact of recreational fishing on the mortality of juvenile fish is likely to be similar to that of commercial fishing.” • “On the basis of scientific research and obser-vations, it is considered that haul seine nets have a minimal impact on the seagrass areas and seabed.” • “Recreational fishing activities may result in impacts to habitats of fisheries value and fish stocks (excluding fishing mortality) from proc-esses involving: • damage to seagrass beds from anchors and propellers; • impacts associated with litter (especially bait wrappers) and lost fishing tackle; and, • water quality effects relating to outboard mo-tors” (WBM 1997). • In my own review of the WBM reports and other available evidence I concluded that: • ‘The available evidence does not suggest that excessive commercial fishing pressure has   Item of  Expenditure % of recorded expenditure  Purpose of trip  Allocation to fishing  Fishing tackle, bait  0.7  Any  100 per cent Travel, accommodation, fuel, food and drink, hire fees 2.7 Mainly fishing 100 per cent Travel, accommodation, fuel, food and drink, hire fees 1.1 Other pur-poses, some fishing 50 per cent Fishing equipment and specialised clothing 12.0 Any 100 per cent Boats, 4-wheel drives and related expenses 83.4  Weighted by re-spondent’s estimate of use for fishing  Table 2.  Allocation of recorded expenditure items as fishing. Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 13   caused significant declines in the underlying fish populations.’ • ‘Environmental degradation and introduced species have been linked with most of the re-ported declines in Victorian bay and inlet fish resources. There is little doubt that environ-mental issues pose far more serious threats to the fisheries of Victoria’s bays and inlets than do current commercial or recreational fishing practices’ (Kearney 1997).  In my conclusions to the 1994 Australian Confer-ence on Recreational Fishing: What’s the catch? I stressed that of the many major parties with an interest in fisheries resource management, listed below, recreational and commercial fishers ar-guably had most in common; the long-term sus-tainability of the resource and management which supports maximum yields are paramount to both. Serious conflict between the two groups seems counter-productive. My final words on this were “Much of the conflict that is currently topical re-sults from wrong perceptions. Most of the conflict can only be resolved with appropriate information on the real issues and education of all parties in-volved. Consultation and education are the ways of the future, not confrontation” (Kearney 1995b).   Parties with an interest in recreational fisheries management  • The legal custodians of the resource (mostly governments) • Traditional or aboriginal users of the resource • Observers • Developers • Polluters • Seafood wholesalers • Seafood retailers • Restaurateurs • Tourism organisers • Tourists • Consumers of seafood • Aquaculturists • Individual public figures • Politicians • Recreational fishers • Commercial fishers  In concluding at this Conference, how would I summarize my perceptions of ‘the considerable social, economic and ecological benefits of recrea-tional fisheries’ (The Fisheries Centre, 1998). Let me summarize the benefits and problems, of these three categories in reverse order: Any activity in which 20-30% of the population participates ten times a year must have ecological impacts; par-ticularly when the activity involves targeting living organisms. It is my perception that with full un-derstanding of the real impacts, as could be pro-vided by quality, unbiased research and appropri-ate management, the negative aspects can be con-tained.  On the positive side, I am reminded on my com-ments at a 1994 conference on Conserving Biodi-versity, “The strong support for taking maximum, but sustainable yields from our oceans, estuaries, rivers and lakes, expressed by the many commer-cial and recreational fishers, has already led to the conservation of several of our most fragile fish nursery areas, such as mangrove swamps and sea-grass beds” and furthermore, “This same group of increasingly conservation-conscious profit-takers, i.e. the fishing community, represent one of the greatest potential forces for the conservation of aquatic biodiversity” (Kearney 1995c). Anglers can become an even greater force for long-term resource sustainability. Particularly as environ-mental degradation constitutes the major threats to most of our inshore fisheries.  I believe that in Australia the major economic benefits of recreational fishing are associated with tourism and decentralization. I would be most cautious of arguing for increased involvement in management on the basis of expenditure.  The social benefits, more specifically personal satisfaction, are why I am a devotee of recrea-tional fishing. I do not like to dwell on the nega-tive social issues; broken marriages, neglected children, smelly clothes, sand in the double bed or the strong odour or rum on the breath. We all know that such trivia are more than compensated for by the benefits of sport, exercise, relaxation etc. listed earlier. On a more serious note, I do strongly believe it is the social benefits of recrea-tional fishing, both individual and community, which represent the future. I also believe that ac-curate description of the pros and cons of recrea-tional fishing is an essential pre-requisite for good management, including future development.  I accept that it is the right, perhaps even the re-sponsibility, of lobbyists to argue for actions that satisfy their clients short-term objectives, and that these short-term interests may be furthered by championing some biased perceptions. However, we live, and fish, in a world where sustainability and long-term resource security are, at last, work-ing their way up the political agendas in more and more countries. I believe that in such a world the long-term interests of recreational fishers will be best served by more openly acknowledging the difference between advocacy and science, concen-trating on the latter and moving perceptions closer to reality than they traditionally have been. Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 14   References  ABS 1998. Participation in Sport and Physical Activities, 1997-98. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Hancock, D.A. (Ed.), 1995. Recreational fishing: what’s the catch? Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop Proceedings, Canberra 30-31 August 1994. Australian Society for Fish Biology, Canberra. Hundloe, T. 1997. Report to the Victorian Fisheries Co-Management Council on the Allocation of Fish Between Commercial and Recreational Fishers. 32 pp. Victorian Fisheries Co-Management Council, Melbourne. Kearney, R.E. 1989. Does extended jurisdiction enable us to do better in fisheries management? pp 273-281 in Man-agement of World Fisheries: Implications of Extended Coastal State Jurisdiction: E.L. Miles (Ed.). University of Washington Press. Kearney, R.E. 1995a. Keynote address. Recreational fishing: what’s the catch? pp10-23 In: Hancock, D.A. (Ed.), 1995. Recreational fishing: what’s the catch? Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop Proceedings, Can-berra 30-31 August 1994. Australian Society for Fish Bi-ology, Canberra. Kearney, R.E. 1995b. Summing up: Recreational fisheries: what’s the catch? pp 251-256 In: Hancock, D.A. (Ed.), 1995. Recreational fishing: what’s the catch? Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop Proceedings, Can-berra 30-31 August 1994. Australian Society for Fish Bi-ology, Canberra. Kearney, R.E. 1995c. Biodiversity and fisheries management: the implications of extracting maximum yields from in-teractive ecosystems. pp 300-305 In: Conserving Biodi-versity: Threats and Solutions. Bradstock et al.(Eds). Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia. Kearney, R.E. 1997. Report to the Fisheries Co-Management Council on the Review of Management of Victoria’s Bay and Inlet Scalefish Fisheries. 18pp. Victorian Fisheries Co-Management Council, Melbourne. Kennett, J. 1998. Extracts of Interview with the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, 21/5/98. Media Monitors Victo-ria Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Kinhill 1997. Socioeconomic impacts of future management options for scalefish in Victoria’s Bays and Inlets. Murphy 1998. Senator Calls for Unity. p.1. The Australian Sportfisher, Summer 1998. PA Management Consultants 1984. National Survey of Par-ticipation in Recreational Fishing. Report No. 1. The Australian Recreational Fishing Confederation, Mel-bourne. 51pp. Kinhill Economics, Canberra. The Fisheries Centre, 1998. Evaluating the Benefits of Recrea-tional Fishing; Call for Papers. The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia. The 7:30 Report, 1999. Australian Broadcasting Commission, Sydney. Uncles 1997. Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing in Victoria, 53 pp. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. VIFTA 1997. Submission to ban net fishing in Port Phillip Bay and Western Port, January 1997. Victorian Fishing Tackle Association, Melbourne. WBM 1997. Review of Scalefish Fishing Practices in Victoria’s Bays and Inlets. WBM Oceanics Australia, Brisbane.   Questions and Discussion  Douglas Lipton:  Why isn’t commercial fishing resulting in over-fishing of fish resources?  What kind of attitude exists that allows such a situation and are there any quota restrictions in place?   Bob Kearney:  These are fairly small commercial fisher-ies with limited numbers of licenses.  It is simply not economical to increase commercial fishing effort fur-ther and exploit the stocks any harder.  No quotas are in place for commercial fishers and the rules for anglers do not really restrict total catches.  Ian Cowx:  What are the dis-benefits of recreational fishing, especially carp fishing?  Bob Kearney: A major dis-benefit is the translocation of species.  Carp are regarded nationally as a pest but they are favoured by some anglers who deliberately increase their distribution.  Other aquatic fauna and flora, such as weeds have also been widely translocated, even over the Great Dividing Range.  No-one is sure whether an-glers are responsible.  Tony Pitcher: You mentioned the idea that spending money on fishing is not good for the economy.  Can you comment?  Bob Kearney:  I didn’t say that; I said that in Australia, expenditure is great and it affects the economy, but I refuse to believe that Victorians will not be spending their money on something else (for example, football) if they don’t spend it on fishing.  Margaret Merritt :  In Alaska, we have a third set of fishers who catch fish for food (subsistence fisher); and they have their own set of regulations and allocations and priorities. Does Victoria have a classification called subsistence fishers and if so, where do they fit in the scenario of fishing conflicts?  Bob Kearney:  Strictly speaking, it is illegal to catch fish as bartering items, but people do it.  Also, it used to be that people who went over the limit with their catches could get away with it if they claimed that they needed the fish to feed their starving families, etc.  It’s changed a lot in the past 25 years, though.  The accumulation of large quantities of fish is now frowned upon very seri-ously.    Eric Thunberg:  It was illegal to use rod and reel to fish until a proposal was made to change this rule.  Will this blur the line between angling and subsistence fishers?  Bob Kearney: There is a difference between the law and social “rules”.  Management is largely influenced by what society will accept.  It is no longer acceptable for recreational fishers to take a boatload of fish.  The law has not changed as much as social attitudes have.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 15   Are recreational fisheries  sustainable in multiple aquatic  resource user situations?  Ian G. Cowx International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull,  United Kingdom    Abstract  Recreational fisheries involve both subsistence fishing, where the catch is consumed, and leisure fishing, where the fish are returned live to the wa-ter. Both types of recreational fishing are ex-tremely important activities but in recent years have under gone major, often adverse, changes. These are related to numerous anthropogenic per-turbations, such as pollution, eutrophication, acidification, afforestation, river engineering works and hydropower development, which have resulted in a shift in the status of the fisheries and a general decline in the yield. In these circum-stances fisheries are usually not considered of sufficiently high priority or value and thus suffer in the face of economically and socially higher priorities, e.g. agriculture, hydroelectric power production or flood prevention. Perhaps the greatest, short-term problems arise from conflict with other local user groups, especially commer-cial fishermen, other water-based recreational activities, and those involved with the wider as-pects of conservation.   If recreational fishing is to be maintained or de-veloped in the future, it is essential that the sub-sector is managed on a sustainable basis, with due regard being given to other aquatic resource us-ers. In addition the importance of recreational fisheries needs to the local and national economy needs to be evaluated in economic terms. This paper examines mechanisms by which recrea-tional fishing can be managed on a sustainable basis, and highlights the importance economic valuation to defend the position sub-sector in aquatic resource development schemes.    Introduction  Recreational fisheries involve both subsistence fishing, where the catch is consumed, and leisure fishing, where the fish are returned live to the wa-ter. Both types of recreational fishing are ex-tremely important leisure and subsistence activi-ties, but are also valuable resources contributing significantly to national economies. This is high-lighted by the following summary statistics.  • Amongst 22 European countries there are an estimated 21.3 million anglers, with an esti-mated expenditure on recreational fishing in 10 of the countries in Western Europe where data were available, in excess of $US 10 billion (Cowx 1998b). • In the USA, 29.9 million anglers paid $US 447 million for fishing licences in 1996, down from $US 30.4 million in 1995 (Anon, 1997). • In 1996, 18% of the population 16 years year of age and older, i.e. 35 million persons, ex-erted 514 million angler-days in fresh waters expending $US 38.0 billion (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997) • In Canada, 4.2 million anglers exerted 55.5 million days and caught over 254 million fishes while spending $US 5.1 billion of which $US 3.4 was directly associated with the sport in 1995. Of these fishes some 113 million were retained (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, 1998). • Retained marine recreational catch from USA sounds, estuaries and bays amounted to more than 30,000t in 1996 (Fisheries Statistics Di-vision, 1997).  • It is estimated that total recreational catch worldwide is of the order of 2 million t, and represents an important source of animal pro-tein in many developing countries (Coates, 1995).  Despite the importance of recreational fisheries worldwide, there is a perception that natural fish-eries have under gone major, often adverse, changes. These are related to on-going restructur-ing in post-socialist countries, changing relation-ships between commercial and recreational fish-ermen, deficiencies and confusion in fisheries leg-islation, administration and access to waters.   The resources are also subject to numerous an-thropogenic perturbations, such as pollution, eu-trophication, acidification, afforestation, river engineering works, and hydropower development, which have resulted in a shift in the status of the fisheries and a general decline in the yield. As a consequence, fisheries that are sustained through stock enhancement strategies (Cowx, 1998a) are replacing natural fisheries. Furthermore anglers are moving towards intensively stocked fisheries because the quality of sport based on natural fish-eries is considered to be inadequate. If this situa-tion is not to deteriorate further the reasons be-hind the general demise of the stocks needs to be identified and mechanisms to ameliorate prob-lems and enhance the fisheries are required. This paper examines some of the issues and problems Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 16  facing recreational fisheries, with specific refer-ence to Western Europe, and offers a mechanism for addressing the problem. This will be examined through the use of two case studies that illustrate some of the problems facing inland fisheries.  Case studies  1. Wimbleball reservoir pump storage scheme on the River Exe, England  Increasing demand for water supply in Southwest England has resulted in the promotion and con-struction of Wimbleball Pumped Storage Scheme. The reservoir is a strategic reservoir that regulates flows in the River Haddeo, a tributary in the headwaters of the River Exe. The scheme was de-signed to pump water from the main River Exe into the reservoir during periods of high discharge and release them back to the river for subsequent abstraction further downstream during periods of low flow (Sambrook and Cowx 2000).  The original design of the scheme proposed by the consultant engineers had little consideration for the fisheries of the river, and in particular showed disregard for the main angling species, Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). The sole objective was to ensure maximum utilization of the water re-sources, regardless of the impact it would have on the environment. By careful examination of the catch records and further strategic studies on the movements of salmon using acoustic tracking methods, it was possible to identify the flow char-acteristics essential for the maintenance of the fishery. Basically these results showed that certain river discharges were required to stimulate the upstream migration of adults and allow them to negotiate natural and man-made obstructions in the river. The original operating scheme had no regard for these requirements and would have impeded the upstream migration of fish except in the late autumn, thus reducing the number of fish available to be caught. In addition, the economic importance of the salmon fishery to the local economy was stressed, although no true valuation was available.  Armed with this information, it was possible to argue with the planners for the protection of flow characteristics at certain times of the year to en-sure the upstream movements of salmon and pro-tect the fishery from almost certain collapse. The scheme was redesigned around the flow needs for fisheries and protected the early stages of any flood which would encourage the upstream migration of the migratory salmonids.  2. River Ouse Groundwater Augmentation scheme  As a consequence of severe droughts conditions experienced in the North of England in the late 1980s and early 1990s several schemes were put forward to increase the supply of potable water. One scheme proposed by the local water company to meet demands in the West Yorkshire conurba-tion of Leeds and Bradford, was to increase ab-straction of water from the River Ouse in York-shire from the current maximum of 68 tcmd (thousand cubic metres per day) to 99 tcmd. This was under the proviso that at river flows of <1000 tcmd, the water company could only abstract a maximum of 68 tcmd unless the river was aug-mented by groundwater at a rate of 1.4 times the abstraction in excess of 68 tcmd. It was estimated that augmentation would be required for up to 330 days, although more typically around 240 days, in drought years (e.g. 1989, 1990 and 1991).   Many concerns were expressed about the scheme, especially in relations to environmental issues, particularly with respect to poor water quality and reduced water temperature caused by pumping groundwater into the river. These were summarily dismissed by the original environmental impact assessment, which was based little scientific evi-dence. Indeed it was suggested the river fisheries would benefit from the increased discharge dur-ing the low flow periods. The decision led to heavy criticism from the angling fraternity, and resulted in a rapid reappraisal of the scheme and its poten-tial impact on the fish and fisheries. New studies were carried out assess the status of the fish stocks and fisheries, to model the affect of pump-ing groundwater (constant temperature of 10°C) into the river on ambient water temperature, and the implications this would have on the fish popu-lation ecology (Cowx, 1992, 1999). Fortunately, there were long term data series on angler catches, cyprinid fry growth, water temperature and water quality for the river.  The salient points from the revised EIA were as follows.  • Little difference was found in the dissolved nitrogen levels in the borehole water and that of the receiving stream. The dissolved oxygen concentration of the borehole water was con-siderably lower than the water in the receiving stream, but this quickly equilibrated, either through dilution by existing river water or physical agitation • Simulation of surface water temperatures un-der augmented flow suggested water tempera-ture reductions would be negligible (<0.6°C) Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 17   in the main stream of the River Ouse. Of greater interest to the fisheries, however, was the cumulative change in degree days resulting from flow augmentation during the summer months, June, July and August. Under a typi-cal drought regime, the scheme would operate between for 150 and 240 days per year rising to over 330 in extreme droughts. The results of the mixing model indicated that the opera-tion of the augmentation scheme would reduce the degree day total by approximately 200 for a severe drought year.   • The River Ouse supported a top quality coarse fishery based on period strong year classes within the fish populations. These dominant year classes supported the fishery for 5-8 years or until the next strong year class developed. It was also apparent that the development of strong year classes was linked to hot summers. This link was proven by modelling fry length in September against number of degree days over 12°C in the period June-September each year. A strong positive correlation was found between the mean fry length in September and the number of degree days, and this was mani-fest in strong year classes of fish in hot sum-mers typically associated with drought years.   Consequently, it was likely that groundwater pumping would reduce the ambient water tem-perature by up to 200 degree days per year and suppress the formation of strong year classes on which the fishery depends.   The upshot of the revised EIA was the withdrawal of the scheme by the water company. This out-come has subsequently been vindicated in a simi-lar situation where the release of cold hypolimnial water from a reservoir in North East England has suppressed the growth of the coarse fish popula-tions and lead to a collapse in the fishery (K. O’Hara, personnel communication).  This study demonstrates how easy it is for a major water resource scheme to override environmental issues to meet demands for potable water. If the anglers had not been persistent in their objections the fishery could have been ruined.  Issues associated with management of rec-reational fisheries  These examples demonstrate the low regard which recreational fisheries holds in the multiple resource user environment. Often little or no con-sideration is given to the fish and fisheries in de-velopment proposals. There are a number of rea-sons for the poor representation that are, in part, illustrated by the case studies.  Status of the fish stocks.  Figure 1.   Summary of inputs to aquatic resource management. AQUATIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Recreation Conservation Water  Quality Flood defence Agricultural development Fisheries Planning de-velopment Biology Navigation Pollution prevention Water re-sources Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 18   All too often the status of the fish stocks is poorly understood. This is because the mechanisms for assessing fish stock dynamics in fresh waters, and rivers in particular, are poorly developed (Cowx 1996b). Consequently, there is often weak scien-tific data on which to base a sound judgement on the conservation of the fisheries resources. The upshot is that too little is known about the role of the fisheries in the overall ecosystem dynamics and they are neglected in any evaluation.  Catch information  Recreational fishermen, despite being encouraged to do so, rarely help themselves to understand the problems associated with their sport/leisure activity. They fail to monitor their catches so they have no baseline data against which to argue for a decline or change in quality of the fishing. Conse-quently, there is an absence of sound catch infor-mation to elucidate the impact of major water resource development schemes. Perhaps the ex-ception to this are statutory returns under licence as is required for migratory salmonids in the UK (e.g. Bunt, 1991; Churchward and Hickley, 1991). The benefit of these catch returns was clearly shown in the Wimbleball Reservoir Pump Storage scheme (Sambrook and Cowx, 2000).  Conservation status of the fisheries  Fisheries generally attract little attention from the conservation perspective because the fish are rarely seen. Perhaps the exception to this is the salmon that has been used successfully to pro-mote fishery rehabilitation schemes in degraded rivers, e.g. the River Thames.  Traditional management  Recreational and commercial freshwater fisheries have been traditional managed in isolation from plan other aquatic resource users. Management initiatives have often been based on interpreting information on the fish stocks and reacting to shifts in availability or quality of exploitation (Cowx 1996a, 1998b). Thus, when subjected to a diverse range of impacts there is generally a loss of amenity because the value of the fisheries is ill-defined and not considered a high priority in any consultation process. This is born out by the pau-city of information on the economic value of such fisheries (e.g. Radford 1984; Whelan and Whelan, 1986; Anon, 1989), although is now being ad-dressed throughout the developed world. Not-withstanding, even where economic value of the resource has been determined it can be inaccurate because it is based on the wrong criteria. For ex-ample, in the recent Axford enquiry into water resource development on the River Kennet in southern England, the value of the fishery was considered to be under-estimated by an order of magnitude because it was based on transference of costs of fishing on reservoirs (K.T. O’Grady, personnel communication).  Awareness of anglers and developer / planners  Conflict between user groups will remain a prob-lem as demand for water, disposal of effluents and provision of leisure amenities continues to in-crease. This is primarily because each sub-sector fails to recognise the impacts of their activities on other users.  Management of recreational fisheries in multiple resource user situations  Recreational fisheries represent an extremely im-portant commodity that is under threat from many sources. To overcome the problems there are a number of tactics that can be employed to support fishery interests.  First there is a need to recognise the role of fisher-ies in a wider multiple resource user environment (Fig. 1). It is naive to believe that fisheries issues will stem development, thus fisheries must be in-tegrated into an overall framework for the optimal use of the aquatic resource base.  Second, an evaluation of the current and future conflicts, both real and perceived, between fisher-ies and other user groups is needed. This can most easily be achieved using matrix analyses such as those used in environmental impact as-sessments (Cowx, 1998b). Two types of matrices can be developed. The first looks at direct impact between the user groups and the magnitude of the conflict can be subjectively assessed based on ex-pert opinion. This will identify the users who are creating the greatest impact or conflict. It is these uses that will require the greatest focus in any conflict resolution.  The second matrix defines the impact of each ac-tivity on various aspects of the fishery per se. A subjective assessment can again be used, but if scientific data are available they should support the evaluation. This approach is akin to a scope-ing study for an environmental impact assess-ment and identifies the key issues to be ad-dressed. It may also show where mitigating action is required to conserve the fisheries.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 19   Third, it is essential to provide an economic as-sessment of the fishery. There are various direct (financial and cost benefit analysis; e.g. Kennedy and Crozier, 1997) and indirect (travel cost method, hedonic pricing and contingency valua-tion analysis; e.g. Baker and Pierce 1996; Postle and Moore) methods of undertaking this ap-praisal which should be implemented. However, it should be recognised that the output may fall well short of the true value because the methods used are often fisher-ies specific and do not consider the upstream of economic value in terms of aesthetic and conservation value or the downstream value associated with the service sectors.  Once this information is available, value is a useful tool for arguing the case of fisheries. However, it must be recognised that it is not the only tool to be used because the eco-nomic benefit of a major water resource scheme will far out weigh the fisheries value.  Harmonization of the various users groups requires careful or-chestration. This can be best achieved through an inte-grated planning and management strategy whereby all the stake-holders are involved in the decision making proc-ess. The objective of the this strategy must be to promote the sustainable use of the water body to yield the greatest benefit to the present popula-tion whilst maintaining the potential of the water body to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations, in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of the wa-ter body and their value for wildlife. That is, it should be akin to the FAO code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which targets sustainable development (FAO 1995).  The approach must be interactive, allowing wider issues than those related to a single activity, in this case recreational fisheries, to be taken into account during the decision making process. It should also evaluate the likely effect of a particu-lar development activity upon the environment and other activities. In this process fisheries should be well represented and armed with all the appropriate information to quantify potential im-pact.  In view of the high de-gree of inter-dependence between activities, in developing the management plan it is necessary to explore the wide range of uses and issues (problems and conflicts with and between user groups) within the system itself (Fig. 1). The first step in the process from a fish-eries perspective, how-ever, is identification of the objectives of the fishery sector or recrea-tional fishery sub-sector within the region or na-tionally. It is pointless trying to argue the posi-tion of fisheries if the objectives have not been clearly set. This intrinsi-cally moves the existing approach to recreational fishing from being issue driven towards empha-sis on forward planning. Once the objectives have been established it is necessary to de-termine the current status of the fishery. Traditional fishery evaluation methods can be applied but equal attention should focus on the socio-economic aspects. In reviewing the aquatic system as whole the current status of the fishery should be compared to the objectives. This will make it possible to identify the issues and conflicts between user groups using the matrix methods described earlier and through local con-sultation. From this it will be possible to identify development options and future projects. During this phase it is essential that the boundaries of the resource area in question are well defined. Simple delimitation into catchments or zones of a river is not necessarily adequate. In many situations activi-ties taking place up or downstream, or in adjacent catchments may have an influence on the man-Pressure groupsWatercompaniesLocalGovernmentIndustryAgricultureLeisuregroupsWater resourcesPressure groupsFisheriesEcology andRecreationFlood defenceRESOLUTION OF CONFLICTSAND ISSUESDRAFT PLANCONSULTATIONFINAL PLANFORMULATION OF ACTIONSCOMPARE STATUS WITHOBJECTIVESIDENTIFY ISSUES AFFECTING THEFISHERY BOTH DIRECTLY ANDINDIRECTLYIDENTIFY FISHERYOBJECTIVES.REVIEW STATUS OF FISHERIES ANDOTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES Figure 2. Process of formulating and implementing aquaticresource management plans Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 20  agement zone in question. Consequently, the plans should be formulated on local issues but take a wider perspective at the catchment and re-gional/national level. This analysis can be used to attempt to resolve the problems by aggregating the relevant aspects into a multi-functional and multi-use plan (Fig. 2).  Options to overcome the shortfalls are generated and presented in the draft management plan. It is critical that issues relating to existing and potential user groups are identified otherwise conflicts be-tween user groups cannot be resolved in a satisfac-tory manner. The requirements of each user-group, in terms of demand on the aquatic resources and standards for water quality, must be addressed at this stage. To assist in the resolution of conflicts it will be necessary to identify an independent con-sultant or trust to chair the discussion. However, overall management of the resources should be devolved to the user groups, provided that each user is fairly represented in the management group.  Once the management plan has been formulated, and adequate consultation has been made with Government departments, institutions, user-groups, industry and the public, it will be possible to draw up action plans for the future development of the resources (Fig. 3). When considering formu-lation of the action plans it is critical that the goals set are achievable, the costs of the action and who pays are identified, and finally the action represents value for money or has considerable non-tangible benefit. This can only be done if clear agreement over the issues is made between the various user groups. Clear priorities for the main problems and conflicts should emerge, with a statement of the consequences of the proposed actions. At this point the conflicts between user-groups can be resolved, and a compromise be drawn up which will have the minimum impact for all concerned. Persuading those responsible for action and arriving at the proper key issues is more likely to be successful using the aquatic resource management planning methodology than a purely prescriptive one, since it focuses upon all of the relevant points and on what can be justified and implemented.   Once the potential development projects have been formulated it will be necessary to implement the proposals. This may prove to be another source of conflict because there is a clear need to establish who is willing to pay for the development, and at what cost. Often a development proposal will have some impacts, which should have been identified by this juncture. Those gaining from the develop-ment should pay mitigation and rehabilitation costs to minimise and impact. If necessary the mitigation costs can be internalised and transferred to the end user. For example, it has been proposed that the tourist industry pay for the mitigation costs of the Alqueva Reservoir in southern Portugal as it is the chief beneficiary (Cowx and Collares-Pereira 2000). This mechanism creates a way for recovering the full costs of any damage created. The difficulty is valuing the damage, but this should be overcome by sound economic analysis early in the planning phase.  The aquatic resource management planning strat-egy offers a harmonized approach to sustainable development, an objective that is crucial in the face of ever-increasing demands on resources. Without such an approach, which involves all the stake-holders, and where the true value of the fisheries can be integrated into the overall management of the water resources, it is likely recreational fisheries will be lost in the face in the race for development of water resources.  References  Anon. (1989). The economic importance of salmon fishing and meeting in Scotland. Special Report for the Scottish Tour-ist Board and Highlands and Islands Development Board, 129 pp. Anon. (1997) BRIEFS, the newsletter of the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists. 26(5), 5. Baker, D.L. and Pierce, B.E. (1997). Does fisheries management reflect societal values? Contingent valuation evidence for the River Murray. Fisheries Management and Ecology 4, 1-16. Churchward, A.S. and Hickley, P. (1991) The Atlantic salmon fishery in the River Severn (UK). In: I.G. Cowx (ed.) Catch effort sampling strategies: their application in freshwater fisheries management. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 1-14. Bunt, D.A. (1991) Use of rod catch effort data to monitor migra-tory salmonids in Wales. In: I.G. Cowx (ed.) Catch effort sampling strategies: their application in freshwater fisher-ies management. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 15-32. Cowx, I.G. (1992) River Ouse Augmentation Scheme, Environ-mental Impact Assessment, Fisheries Investigations. Na-tional Rivers Authority Report, Leeds, 68pp. Cowx, I.G. (1994) Strategic approach to fishery rehabilitation Rehabilitation of freshwater fisheries. Oxford: Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science. pp 1-9. Cowx, I.G. (1996a) The integration of fish stock assessment into fisheries management. In: I.G. Cowx (ed.) Stock assess-ment in inland fisheries. Oxford: Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, pp. 495-506. Cowx, I.G. (ed.) (1996b) Stock assessment in inland fisheries. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 513 pp. Cowx, I.G. (ed.) (1998a) Stocking and introduction of fish. Fish-ing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 456 pp. Cowx, I.G. (1998b) Aquatic resource management planning for resolution of fisheries management issues. In: P. Hickley and H. Tompkins (Eds.) (1996) Recreational fisheries: so-cial, economic and management aspects. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 97-105. Cowx, I.G. (1999) Potential impact of groundwater augmenta-tion of river flows on fisheries: a case study from the River Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 21   Ouse Yorkshire, England, Fisheries Management and Ecology 6, in press. Cowx, I.G. and Collares-Pereira, M.J. (2000) Conservation of endangered fish species in the face of water resource de-velopment schemes in the Guadiana River, Portugal: harmony of the incompatible. In: I.G. Cowx (ed.) Man-agement and Ecology of River Fisheries. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford (In press). FAO (1995). Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: FAO, 41 pp. Fisheries Statistics Division (1997) Fisheries of the United States, 1996. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. Current Fishery Statistics No. 9600, 169 pp. Kennedy, G.J.A. and Crozier, W.W. (1997) What is the value of a wild salmon (Salmo salar L.) smolt? Fisheries Manage-ment and Ecology 4, 103-110. Postle, M. and Moore L. (1998). Economic valuation of recrea-tional fisheries in the UK. In: P. Hickley and H. Tompkins (Eds.) (1996) Recreational fisheries: social, economic and management aspects. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Sci-ence, Oxford, pp. 184-199. Radford, A.F., 1984. The economics and values of recreational salmon fisheries in England and Wales: an analysis of the rivers Wye, Mawddach, Tamar and Lune. Portsmouth: CEMARE Report No 8, 105 pp. Sambrook, H.T. and Cowx, I.G. (2000) Wimbleball Pumped Storage Scheme: integration of water resource manage-ment, engineering design and operational control to com-pliment the needs of the salmonid fisheries in the River Exe. In: I.G. Cowx (ed.) Management and Ecology of River Fisheries. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford (In press). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1997) 1996 National survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation. Na-tional overview. Preliminary findings. U.S. Department of the Interior, 17 pp. Whelan, B.J. and Whelan, K.F., 1986. The economics of salmon fishing in the Republic of Ireland, present and potential. In: W.W. Crozier (Ed.) Proceedings of the Institute of Fisheries Management (NI Branch) 17th Annual Study Course. University of Ulster, Coleraine, pp. 191-208.     Questions and Discussion  Jim Lyons: At the organisation level recreational fisher-ies are poorly represented.  Ian Cowx: Bigger federations are possible but these can’t always stop the development. If  the recreational fishers work together then they might be able to halt development, or work with development, or even make development work for them.  But for optimal manage-ment, you need a planning process. In Asia and Africa they use various methods, and there is one coming up in Europe.  Gordon Gislason: I assume those individuals represent-ing the House of Lords had property rights and they were acting as a cohesive group.  Ian Cowx: They were in a powerful position, but they could have been over-ridden if the demand for water was there. My key point is they were able to have both, both the water scheme and the fish. Through educating the engineers they were able to change the flow re-gimes.  Gordon Gislason: If it would have gone through as planned, would they have received compensation?  Ian Cowx: There was no compensation at all; in fact there was only one pool where they could have sought compensation, but overall the project did not obstruct the river. Rather, it was completed on a diversion so it did not impact on the river directly.   Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 22  Maintaining quality in recreational fisheries: how success breeds  failure in the management of  open-access sport fisheries  Carl Walters and Sean Cox Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada    Abstract  Where recreational fisheries are open to public access, there is a basic pathology in which success breeds failure: development of a quality fishing situation leads to increased fishing effort until quality is reduced to be no better than other situa-tions with comparable costs and difficulties of access. Impacts of increased fishing effort on an-gling quality can be greatly exaggerated by fish behaviours that limit the proportion of total stock vulnerable to capture at any moment. In open access fisheries, managers mainly react to the quality deterioration problem by trying to pro-duce more fish and by using simple regulations such as bag and size limits; these tactics have never worked and as a result, high quality fishing is found only where fishing effort is severely re-stricted. There are three situations where high quality/ low fishing effort occurs : (1) high cost/time required to access the fishery (e.g., very remote lakes and ocean coastal areas far from ma-jor tourist routes); (2) control of access by private or local interests, such as guiding camps, fishing clubs, and lakeshore owners; or (3) some equita-ble strategy of limited access via a lottery system, as has been used routinely in big game manage-ment for decades. It is time to start facing the harsh reality of too many people wanting to catch too few fish. Hopefully, we will see a spread of lottery access systems rather than privatisation of access rights in North America; a key scientific challenge will be to recommend wise access rates.    Introduction  Most sport fisheries in North America remain open to public access, without effort or license limitation.  In such situations, fishery managers need to contend with two potentially conflicting dynamics: response of fish populations to fishing and enhancement (production), and response of fishers to changes in the abundance of fish (con-sumption).  Fisheries science has mainly concen-trated on the “production-side” of this dynamic relationship, with a tacit assumption that the “consumption-side” will somehow take care of itself.  Consumption-side dynamics are usually ignored because we assume that recreational fish-ers are not efficient (or persistent) enough to gen-erate severe production impacts (biological over fishing), at least in part because we expect them to give up before depleting most stocks to biologi-cally dangerous levels.   Management activities aimed at sustaining quality of recreational fishing are usually targeted on production-side measures such as habitat en-hancement, stocking, and regulation of per-angler impacts via season, bag, and size limits. In man-agement planning we rarely account for the po-tential impacts of these measures on the dynamics of fishing effort (i.e., consumption-side) and the subsequent impact of effort responses on angling quality and harvest. In the fisheries literature, this myopia leads to some peculiar arguments. For example, (Shaner et al., 1996) complained that it was impossible to define an optimum stocking rate for channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) be-cause harvest increased linearly with stocking rate. Their results showed quite strongly that in-creasing stocking rates just led to more effort without an improvement in quality of fishing as measured by catch per effort.  The central argument of this paper is that produc-tion-side management in open access settings will almost inevitably lead to increased fishing effort but not to increased quality of fishing as perceived by the “average” angler.  While angling “quality” obviously has many dimensions, we suspect that most anglers would agree that it really means “lots of big fish” (i.e., high catch per effort of the largest possible fish).  Not all anglers are equally concerned about these attributes, but it is clear from sociological studies that catch-related mo-tives are the most important determinants of an-gling quality (Holland and Ditton, 1992). Further, diversity of angling opportunity is also a key qual-ity measure, as noted eloquently by a University of Wisconsin limnologist at the end of a day spent harassing 5cm. bluegills: “sometimes you need to give your wrist a rest from cranking in those lunkers”. In the discussion below, it does not really matter whether quality is defined and rec-ognized by anglers in terms of catch per effort, fish size, or diversity: we contend that provided there is freedom of movement via open access, anglers will concentrate wherever they see higher quality, until they no longer see it.  We suggest that effort dynamics are particularly important considering that in most populations, relatively few fish are behaviourally reactive or accessible to Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 23   fishing gear at any moment, so that anglers “see” and compete for much smaller numbers of fish than we measure in biological sampling.  If we are correct in asserting that management aimed at improving angling quality must take as careful account of consumption-side (fishing ef-fort) dynamics as production-side dynamics, then recreational fisheries managers will have to start thinking much harder about how to directly, fairly, and effectively limit fishing effort for those places where quality of fishing is a high priority.  There has been bitter opposition to effort limita-tion programs in North America.  Should this op-position continue to dominate in management planning, what we will very likely see is continued erosion in quality of fishing combined with grad-ual privatisation of fishing opportunities.  While myopic anglers clamour for their “rights” to fish and for more production to keep up with demand, the smart money will move to acquire exclusive fishing rights of various sorts, from control of ac-cess via riparian land purchases to development of resort opportunities in inaccessible places.  Abundance-effort relationships and de-pression of catch rates  Generally our empirical experience in recrea-tional fisheries is that fishing effort is roughly proportional to abun-dance as measured by indices like stocking rates (Fig. 1; Moring, 1993; Fraley, 1996; Shaner et al., 1996). Generally we do not see clear relationships be-tween abundance and catch per effort except across regional gradi-ents of accessibility (lower effort, higher catch rates, and some-times higher abundance in less accessible places).  In this section, we argue that quality of fishing is more sensitive to effort than often sup-posed due to (1) compe-tition among anglers for a limited stock of vul-nerable fish; (2) produc-tion limitation mecha-nisms like density-dependence in growth/ survival rates that limit numbers of quality fish; and (3) cumulative impacts of fishing pressure that also limit numbers of quality size fish.   At any particular time in a recreational fishery (or any other for that matter), not all fish are ex-pected to be available to the fishing gear for vari-ous reasons. Some fish will be within the effective depth range of the gear and will react to it (a “vul-nerable” state) while others are simply not behav-iourally reactive or else remain in sites/habitats where angling gear cannot reach (an “invulner-able” state). Exchange between these two states likely occurs on a variety of time scales due to a variety of processes, ranging from hours-days for diurnal movements and feeding rhythms to weeks-months for recovery from previous hooking (i.e., catch and release). Fish exchanging between vulnerable and invulnerable states results in a vulnerable “stock” seen by anglers that is gener-ally much smaller than the stock seen by biologi-cal sampling (Fig. 2).   Exchange of individuals between vulnerability states, and removals by fishing (including fish released but not immediately vulnerable) imply a strong inverse relationship between density of 02004006008001000120014000 200 400 600 800 1000Initial Fish Density (#/ha)Effort Density (boat days/ha)02004006008001000120014000 200 400 600 800 1000Initial Fish Density (#/ha)Effort Density (boat days/ha)02004006008001000120014000 200 400 600 800 1000Initial Fish Density (#/ha)Effort Density (boat days/ha)Figure 1. Predicted (solid line) and observed (solid circles) fishing effort on British Columbia rainbow trout lakes for three management regions. Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 24  vulnerable fish and fishing effort.  If exchange between behavioural states is rapid compared to removal and addition of fish by population dy-namics processes (recruitment, mortality, growth),  a simple  “variable speed splitting”  (Walters and Korman 1999; Walters and Bonfil, 1999) model can be used to predict the form of the relationship between effort and abundance of available fish.  Suppose the total number of fish potentially available is N, and that V of these are vulnerable (accessible and reactive to gear) at any moment.  Suppose further that fish enter the vul-nerable pool at rate k1(N-V), and leave this pool at rates k2V (movement into invulnerable state) and qEV (catch, where q = catchability and E = fishing effort).  If we then write a rate equation for V (dV/dt=k1(N-V)-k2V-qEV) and set the rate equal to zero to represent rapid equilibration of the “in-stantaneous” number of fish actually available to anglers, it is easy to see that “fast” exchange com-pared to depletion (high k1, k2 exchange coeffi-cients compared to mortality rate for N as a whole) will result in V behaving as   V = k1N/(k1+k2+qE)    (1)    This model implies that catch per effort (qV) will decline sharply with increasing effort E (Fig. 3) even if the fishery has no impact on N.  Equation (1) has an important implication for prediction of how fishing effort will be distributed over a collection of fishing sites (e.g. lakes, stream reaches) that have similar access characteristics (travel time from population centres, etc.).  If site i has catch rate qiVi, we expect anglers to “detect” (by direct experience and word of mouth) differ-ences among sites and move about so that every site ends up displaying the same average fishing quality or catch rate, co.  That is, we expect qiVi = co for every site on average (an “ideal free distri-bution” prediction).  Substituting this expectation into equation (1) and solving for effort Ei on site i, we predict that effort will vary over sites as:   Ei = k1Ni/co – (k1+k2)/qi  (2)  That is, we expect efforts Ei to vary linearly among sites with variation in total abundance Ni, pro-vided catchabilities (qi) are not too variable among sites.  We expect lower effort Ei in any site when the regional average catch rate co is high (or conversely, that high regional average catch rate will occur only when efforts Ei are low in general, due to factors like high access cost).  Equations (1) and (2) represent “instantaneous” predictions of vulnerable abundance, catch rate, and effort density.  They can be integrated over time, with suitable assumptions about changes in regional “background” catch rate  co, so as to pre-dict annual total catches, efforts, and impact of fishing on particular sites.  The equation for total catch is similar to standard fisheries “catch equa-tions”, as used for example by (Engstrom-Heg, 1986), while the equation for total effort is com-plex and has to be solved numerically unless co is constant over time (unlikely).  For reasonable catchability, exchange, and co patterns, we usually find the predicted total effort to be roughly pro-portional to initial abundance (Ni at start of fish-ing season).    Total Stock (N)   Most individuals not accessible or reactive at any moment Vulnerable Stock (V)  Reactive/accessible fish Catch Releasesk1 k2 Figure 2. Schematic representation of dynamics for a typical recreational fishery. The total stock, N, is the abundance measured by most agency field surveys. The vulnerable stock, V, is the abundance detected by anglers. Exchange rates between the two stocks are given by k1 and k2.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 25    A simple test of the basic assumption that effort tends to move about so as to level catch rates among sites (at rate co in eq. 2) is to plot total catch and total effort against an independent in-dex of total abundance (N) or stocking rate, for a set of sites with strongly contrasting abundance.  If both catch and effort are on average propor-tional to abundance (straight line pattern with near zero intercept), then catch per effort must on average be independent of abundance (if catch = aN and effort = bN, catch/effort = a/b) and we can conclude that fishers have “succeeded” at de-tecting and eliminating any really outstanding fishing opportunities.  In such plots we expect to see considerable unexplained variation, due to site factors such as access (higher catch per efforts for relatively inaccessible sites), catchability, and behaviour/site differences in morphometry lead-ing to variation among sites in k1 and k2.  But if proportionality is observed as an average re-sponse despite variability among sites, then the central conclusion would be that increasing abundance is not a way to insure increasing qual-ity of fishing, at least as measured by catch per effort.  One might argue that equation (2) ignores poten-tial limits on regional fishing effort due to the size of the angler population available to generate ef-fort and to limits on how much time each angler can potentially spend fishing.  This is certainly a valid argument for “regions” that are very inac-cessible or costly to access (e.g. fly-in lakes, re-mote northern areas), but it is deeply incorrect for most angling situations, which are now within a few hours drive from at least one major urban centre.  In these situations, if we keep producing more fish,  we will keep attracting more effort.  For example, hundreds of B.C. trout lakes within a few hours drive of Vancouver are mainly sus-tained through annual stocking of finger-ling/yearling trout or natural reproduction; in these lakes we would consider a “high” effort level to be 80 angler days/ha/year. In the Sierra Ne-vada mountains of California where there are also many lakes, at considerably greater travel dis-tances from urban centres like Los Angeles and San Francisco, some lakes are stocked weekly or even bi-weekly with catchable trout. During the early 1960’s, when the senior author worked as a creel census clerk in California, such lakes com-monly received as much effort per day as we cur-rently see per year in B.C. lakes.  These effort dif-ferences are orders of magnitude larger than we would expect on the basis of differences in angler population size or number of lakes available for fishing.  Another objection to models like equation (2) might be that individual anglers are not necessar-ily good at detecting and responding to variation in fishing opportunity.  Certainly we do see some people who just keep going to the same places at the same times, year after year, apparently not the least concerned about quality of fishing.  But in our experience, a key thing that distinguishes really good anglers (and these are the individuals with the most influence on catch rate and fish available to other anglers) is that they constantly test new methods and sites, while listening care-fully to various information sources for hints about good fishing spots.  Information sources for anglers are very well developed in most regions (indeed, providing fishing information is a signifi-cant business—newspapers, magazines, tackle shops), and may improve still further through channels like the Internet.  In short, it is just silly to hope that anglers will fail to notice new quality fishing opportunities that managers might create.  Catch/release fishing does not prevent an inverse relationship between vulnerable fish density and fishing effort as predicted by equation (1) even where total abundance remains high. Released fish undoubtedly suffer a certain amount of  “handling trauma” after being caught and re-leased by anglers. There is also growing evidence to suggest that for some length of time after being released, they may behave differently from other fish that have either, never been caught, or have been caught and released in the distant past (Lewynsky and Bjornn, 1987). Depending upon the length of time to full recovery from capture (up to 3-4 weeks in some studies), equation (1) will still predict an inverse relationship between effort and catch per effort because released fish do not remain in the vulnerable state. These direct effects of angling pressure on catch rates  are par-ticularly evident in recreational fisheries that have closed seasons; catch rates are typically very high for a short period after opening (short enough to have little impact on N) and decline dramatically thereafter (Champeau and Denson, 1987). Fur-ther, catch/release fishing does not end all fish-ing-related mortality and incidental impacts of fishing activity (Barnhart and Roelofs, 1987; Fraley, 1996; Brett ,1996).    Effects of fishing effort on catch rates can be par-ticularly strong in situations where the vulnerable fish “pool” V is defined only in terms of larger, older “quality” fish (Brett, 1996).  In such cases, there are severe limits on the potential total num-ber (N) of quality fish that can be produced by aquatic environments, for at least two reasons.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 26  First, the rearing environment must support and grow many small fish for every quality one that is ultimately produced.  In places lacking natural reproduction, low stocking rates may be necessary to insure good growth and survival to large sizes, and reduction in stocking rates causes a direct reduction in V.   Second, in most sport fisheries there is considerable “incidental” and cumulative impact on small fish by anglers attempting to catch the larger ones.  Even a low annual mortal-ity rate on smaller fish can have a very large cu-mulative impact on the number of fish reaching quality sizes, especially if these smaller fish are subject to the annual rate for several years before reaching quality size.  The bottom line of this section is quite simple: success at producing more vulnerable fish (in-creasing V in equation 1, by producing higher N) is no guarantee of producing higher quality of fishing as measured by catch rate or fish size.  Rather, in open access situations we expect an-glers to detect unusually good fishing opportuni-ties and to respond by adding and redistributing effort (Ei in equation 2) so as to “flatten” the qual-ity of fishing across sites or opportunities.  This flattening can only be prevented by somehow pre-venting the “ideal free distribution” process of fishing effort redistribution (i.e., by directly limit-ing fishing effort for at least some angling sites).  This admonition is particularly important for situations where large fish size is considered a key element of quality, since there are severe ecologi-cal limits on the total number of large fish that can be produced.  Conflicting stakeholder interests and management paralysis  Most management jurisdictions can reasonably claim to provide a diversity of opportunities in terms of fishing quality.  But in most cases, the quality opportunities are created mainly by high access costs and/or direct access limitation by private landowners, so that high quality opportu-nities are used mainly by fishers willing to spend more time and money.  A key option for manage-ment is to create more opportunities for quality fishing at relatively low access cost (for less wealthy anglers), by directly limiting fishing effort on some sites using a lottery process that gives every angler a “fair” chance at these opportunities.  But in our experience, managers have been loath to adopt this approach because of the bitter oppo-sition they see whenever it is suggested.  Here we point out that this opposition reflects real and fundamental conflicts of interest among angling stakeholders, and these conflicts almost inevitably result in management paralysis (inaction).   One of the surest ways to elicit screams of outrage from anglers at public meetings or talks to angling groups is simply to mention the idea of “limited entry” fishing (most North American anglers rec-ognize this terminology because of its widespread use in big game harvest management).  In roughly increasing order of sophistication, the arguments go something like this:  (1) Fish are not like large mammals - there are mil-lions of fish; (2) I have a fundamental right to go fishing wher-ever I want, in public waters; (3) If there are not enough fish, it is your job to pro-duce more; (4) Anglers are not responsible for low catch rates, it is the [substitute your favourite from the fol-lowing list: commercial fishers, habitat damage by loggers, natives, poachers, biologists with nets, loons, seals, pollutants, El Niño]; (5) The good old days are gone forever and there are just too many people now.  Probably the most pervasive and difficult for fish-eries managers to deal with is argument (2); there really is no answer to an angler who either denies that there is a quality problem in the first place or else denies that public agencies have any right to deal with it even if it does exist.  Argument (3) is one that biologists have obviously responded to far too often in the past.  Arguments of type (4) serve mainly to waste time and deflect attention from the real quality management issues, and it is our impression that most of the people who bring them forth are very well aware of this.  In our ex-perience, “fatalistic” arguments (5) come mainly from the very best anglers, who in fact are feeling relatively little personal impact from competition and are most likely to have benefited considerably from (made the best use of) recent improvements in sport fishing technology.  Experience with limited entry hunting, and a very few tests of limited entry fishing (e.g., Atlantic salmon on the St. John River, New Brunswick), indicate that opposition by anglers dies away very quickly if quality benefits become evident.  But that is little comfort to the fishery manager who must deal with the initial opposition, particularly if it is in a small community setting where the most outraged anglers are liable to be the man-ager’s neighbours.  There are also conflicting interests and viewpoints among the economic stakeholders who depend on recreational fishing (tackle shops, lodges, guides, etc.).  In particular, one type of business is best Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 27   served by policies that maximize total fishing ef-fort (tackle shops, boat sales and service) without regard for whether anglers are satisfied by the quality of fishing (so long as they keep spending money).  Still other businesses (some lodges, guides) are best served by insuring that regional fishing quality is low enough to drive enough an-glers to pay for the special opportunities that these businesses provide.  Still others would be very well served by local effort limitation; for ex-ample, some lodges in British Columbia are lo-cated on trout lakes with public access, and their effective operating seasons (ability to attract late summer guests) can be severely curtailed by early season impacts of non-lodge anglers on abun-dance.  Hence, fishery managers are typically hit from all sides when they suggest effort limitation.  Support for limitation comes mainly from a relatively small community of thoughtful anglers (who have carefully considered how much time and effort they are already having to waste to access good fishing, and would prefer to have fewer but better fishing trips under a lottery system), and from a small subset of economic stakeholders (mainly lodge owners, some guides).  The easiest and most common way for managers to react to these conflicts is to adopt a “minimum whinge” approach, which basically involves taking no more action than is needed to quiet the most vocal stakeholders.  This leads to a “fire-fighting” mentality (take decisive action only where/when complaints are loudest), to “shifting baselines” over time (Pauly 1996) where progressively poorer overall quality of fishing is accepted pro-vided stakeholders do not notice it, and to empha-sis on less controversial measures like produc-tion-side enhancement and stocking programs.  Some fishery managers may simply be so incom-petent as to not recognize potential benefits from direct effort limitation, but we suspect that most are well aware of this option and have made cal-culated decisions that it is just not worth the trouble.  Alternative paths to effort limitation  Access and effort limitation is in fact happening across North America, but not as a planned and deliberate management strategy.  While myopic anglers and economic stakeholders compete for too few fish while bickering about their “rights” and demanding more fish production, the smart money is finding various ways to acquire access rights and prevent general public access to good fishing sites.  These ways range from purchase of stream bank properties to acquisition of fishing rights on large private properties to development of cheap and efficient schemes for accessing re-mote regions.    If this trend continues, it will not be long before some parts of North America look much like Aus-tria, where most of the good fishing waters are tightly controlled (and generally very well man-aged) by relatively exclusive fishing clubs and pri-vate interests.  The trend may be limited in west-ern North America by the presence of large public land areas (e.g. National Forests and parks), but many of these areas are extremely inaccessible and there are considerable areas of private ripar-ian land embedded in the public holdings as a legacy from the early days of settlement (river bottom and lakeside properties were prized by ranchers and other early settlers).  Further, as in Austria we will likely see growth in angling clubs as “corporate buyers” of land, to make access ac-quisition and limitation more affordable for groups of anglers with moderate incomes.  So North American fishery managers have two basic choices.  They can sit back and watch both the quality of fishing and access to public waters decline, or they can begin taking active steps to limit effort in enough places to make it not worthwhile for wealthier anglers to bother with the expense of excluding the competition entirely.  It is not clear yet whether the active approach is really worth the trouble that it will bring to those managers who first attempt it, especially considering how easy it is to argue that myopic anglers deserve what they will get, and should be allowed to have it.  Should the idea begin to gain popularity of pro-viding at least some fishing locations where effort is severely limited, a critical policy issue will be 0.00.51.01.52.02.50 100 200 300Effort (angler days)Catch per dayPartialHarvest Catch-and-releaseFigure 3. Predicted relationship between fishing effort and catch per effort for fixed population size. Curves are shown for a.) partial harvest fishery with a 50% retention rate and b.) catch-and–release fishery with zero retention. Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 28  how many of such locations to provide.  Limiting access to all locations could severely impact busi-nesses that depend on maintaining high total an-gling effort (tackle shops, boat sales and service), even if the majority of anglers come to prefer far fewer but much better fishing days each.  For typical B.C. trout lakes, we estimate that effort reduction of roughly 90% would be needed to substantially improve catch per unit effort (see Fig. 3). Such a drastic reduction in fishing oppor-tunity would not likely be acceptable (or economi-cally wise) for more than a small percentage of lakes. A further complication in B.C. is whether to deliberately target lakes with both fishing lodges and public access as sites for effort limitation, with the dual objective of improving angling qual-ity and protecting the economic interests of lodge owners.  Further, we do not understand the dynamics of angling effort well enough to confidently predict whether or not limiting effort for a large number of locations would cause anglers to redistribute their activity onto the remaining locations, inten-sifying quality impacts in those locations.  That is, would anglers still spend as much time fishing if they were even more crowded into fewer open access locations?  Would they redistribute their activity differentially into less accessible locations where fishing quality is presently higher, so as to differentially impact those locations?  So there is severe uncertainty about both the op-timum socio-economic mix of open access versus limited entry locations, and about possible large-scale side effects of effort limitation on remaining open access areas.  Considering these uncertain-ties, the best management approach may be to gradually increase the number of limited-access locations while monitoring regional impact on angling quality and quantity.   Such an adaptive management approach could be viewed as a “ti-tration experiment” (J. Kitchell, U. Wisconsin, pers. comm.), where limited entry locations are added over time until some desirable balance or endpoint is detected.  Along the way, we would learn a great deal about the dynamics of fish vul-nerability and about how anglers respond to changes in quality fishing opportunities. Acknowledgements  We particularly thank Eric Parkinson, Jim Kitchell, and Steve Carpenter for stimulating discussions about the behaviour of fish and fishers.  References  Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(10):430. Walters, C., and R. Bonfil. 1999. Multispecies spatial assess-ment models for the B.C. groundfish trawl fishery. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56:1-29. Walters, C., and J. Korman. 1999. Cross-scale modelling of riparian ecosystem responses to hydrologic management. Ecosystems (in press). Barnhart, R. A. and Roelofs, T. D. 1987. Catch-and-release fishing: a decade of experience. Humboldt State Univer-sity.Arcata, CA Champeau, T. R. and Denson, K. W. 1987. Effectiveness of a catch-and-release regulation for largemouth bass in a Florida lake. in R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roelefs, eds. Catch-and-release fishing: a decade of experience. Hum-boldt State University, Arcata, CA.  Engstrom-Heg, R. 1986. Prediction of wild brown trout catch rates from estimated yearling population density and fish-ing intensity. N. Am. J. Fish. Man. 6: 410-417. Fraley, J. 1996. Cooperation and controversy in wilderness fisheries management. Fisheries 21(5): 16-21. Holland, S. M. and Ditton, R. B. 1992. Fishing trip satisfac-tion: a typology of anglers. N. Am. J. Fish. Man. 12: 28-33. Lewynsky, V. A. and Bjornn, T. C. 1987. Response of cutthroat and rainbow trout to experimental catch-and-release fish-ing. in R. A. Barnhart and T. D. Roelofs, eds. Catch-and release sport fishing: a decade of experience. Humbolt State University, Arcata, CA.  Moring, J. R. 1993. Effect of angling effort on catch rate of wild salmonids in streams stocked with catchable trout. N. Am. J. Fish. Man. 13: 234-237. Shaner, B. L., Maceina, M. J., McHugh, J. J. and Cook, S. F. 1996. Assessment of catfish stocking in public fishing lakes in Alabama. N. Am. J. Fish. Man. 16: 880-887. Walters, C. J. and Bonfil, R. 1999. Multispecies spatial as-sessment models for the B.C. groundfish trawl fishery. Can. J. of Fish. Aquat. Sci. (in press).   Questions and Discussion  Bill Romberg: In terms of using different regulations, why do you have such a small number of fish?  Sean Cox: Whether you have a two fish limit or a 6 fish limit, it has to do with limiting access and managing for quality. There are 2 catch-release lakes.  Mainly, the management of the lakes depends on access and habits of the fishers.  Bill Romberg: When political perceptions are the real-ity, how do you deal with the public trust doctrine which in the United States, usually takes precedence in fishing privatization battles?  Carl Walters: The legal authority in North America ex-ists for access limitations, it has been established in big game hunting. There is no legal problem, the critical step is the change in perceptions and demonstration projects that can show anglers the benefits of effort control. In St. John’s (New Brunswick), when the salmon came in to spawn, everybody was out on the river until the DFO instituted some lottery system, stat-ing that 15 boats can go out at a time and they all placed their names in a hat. The initial outrage was overcome. After days they loved it, as they would rather have 2 days of good  fishing  than 30 days of bad fishing. With high demand technology and the internet , we can Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 29   deal with large scale lottery systems, if there are no formal institutional battles.  Bill Otway: Whose definition of quality are you talking about? We need to manage for various types of defini-tions. Are you advocating closing all lakes?  Carl Walters: No! I’m suggesting that we set up some demonstration lakes. A good manager should try to provide diversity of opportunity, not quality.  When you go to get quality fishing, you either pay in money, or you pay in hours travelled.  The average angler without excessive money doesn’t have a great choice in where they fish: we want to make this situation better by giv-ing them a choice. Direct access limitation would just be one tool amongst many.  Nick Baccante: If one considers quality support and managing fish directly, in open access, space is limited and then when its privatised it becomes political. What about certain groups?  Carl Walters: This is one way where every citizen has a chance in the lottery. Everyone has the basic right to fish – we’re not taking that away.  Nick Baccante: But how does one deal with “trophy” fishing as compared to those fisheries which focus on maximizing fish caught?  Carl Walters:  If you set a quality objective and stocking rate, fishing effort will respond.  The attempt to im-prove quality is thwarted by not recognising the effort side of the situation.  This is not about conservation or ecology:  this is about fish behaviour, and the way the fish are behaving, only a small portion of the popula-tion is accessible to the recreational angler.  Nick Baccante: When you say production, do you mean natural or hatchery quality?  Carl Walters: I’m not going to get into the hatchery versus natural production issue.  Our problem is not the preferences of anglers.  We must provide for oppor-tunity; thus, if it’s hatchery produced it’s okay.  Chuck Hollingworth: I grew up in Quebec, where there are 20,000 lakes.  What is the  cost of enforcement and poaching on such large systems?  Carl Walters: We want to reduce cost and you don’t need to implement the lottery system in inaccessible lakes anyway. To enforce it, you can use people with a strong interest in maintaining the integrity of the sys-tem; lodge owners, for instance.  You can also use video monitoring.  In addition, the guy who pays, and now has less fishing opportunities by using the lottery sys-tem, won’t let someone else get away with poaching on the fish that he’s waited to access.  Murray MacDonald: I presume your proposal for rec-reational fishing effort limitation is based on experi-ences with salmonid fisheries, primarily inland waters. Can you comment on the applicability of your model to marine and estuarine recreational fisheries, where an-gler access may be more difficult to control and where availability of target fish stocks may be less amenable to manipulation through artificial production processes?  Carl Walters: The same principles apply in both fresh and salt waters, including in Victoria (Australia). A good example is the recreational whiting fisheries in Victoria’s bays and inlets where there is sea-grass. Only a portion of the total whiting population (mainly juve-niles) is accessible in bays and inlets, and I believe that under these circumstances increased fishing effort de-presses catch.  We need to think about limiting the ef-fort which is having an impact on other units of effort. This is not about biology or over-fishing, this is about the direct effects of fishing effort on catch rates and catches.  In this respect I think Victoria has some of the world’s worst sport-fishing. Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 30  An economic model of recreational and commercial fishers  Ussif Rashid Sumaila Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway     Abstract  In most cases recreational fishers compete with their commercial counterparts for a limited amount of fishery resources. In such a competi-tive setting, a regulator is faced with the question of how best to accommodate the preferences of the two class of users: What is the optimal alloca-tion of the resource to the two groups that meets the stated objectives of the fishery? What are the likely outcomes in terms of economic, social and environmental concerns if regulation were to fail? This paper presents a modelling framework with the potential to address these and other relevant questions.     Introduction  It is increasingly being recognized that marine recreational fisheries are significant in many countries in terms of the number of people par-ticipating in them, the total catch they take, and their economic and social impacts (Kirkegaard and Gartside, 1998). This implies that in most cases recreational fisheries compete with com-mercial ones in the use of the resource, and the provision of economic and social benefits. In this paper, we present a modelling framework with the potential to help us predict possible biological, social and economic outcomes in a well-managed and regulated fishery with commercial and rec-reational participants. The results obtained under this scenario are then contrasted with those ob-tained under the assumption that management and control in the fishery are weak or non-existent.   Generally, the management goal of a fishery can be categorized into the following three groups. First, there is a biological goal of conservation of the resource. Second, there are equity and distri-butional concerns of who catches how much of the available resource. Third, there is the objective that seeks to optimize economic utilization of the resource. It is not difficult to see that in most situations these three goals conflict with each other. It is therefore important to have a frame-work that can handle the inherent trade-offs be-tween these goals, and come out with an overall best outcome. This is what we seek to do in this paper. We therefore propose in this paper to de-velop a model for the determination of the desir-able allocation of a given fishery resource between recreational and commercial users, taking into account the stated management objectives of the fishery. The proposed model can be used to: (i) determine the effects of exploitation by commer-cial and recreational users on the sustainability of the fishery resource; (ii) isolate the benefits to each participant individually and collectively; (iii) identify resource cum socio-economic outcomes that may support joint rather than separate man-agement.  The next section presents the regulator’s model. Section 3 presents a non-cooperative model to analyze the situation in which management is weak or non-existent. In section 4, a numerical example is presented. This is then followed by a brief discussion of what is needed to carry out an empirical application of the model. Finally, sec-tion 5 concludes.  The regulator’s model  It is assumed that a certain body regulates the fishery, this can be a government authority, a community-based management body or sole owner of the resource. This body or regulator is assumed to be concerned with maximizing overall benefits from the use of the resource, without de-stroying the resource base. Elements of the overall benefit may include private economic benefits, social benefits, e.g., the need to preserve regional settlement, right previous wrongs, and environ-mental benefits not traded in the market, e.g. benefits derived from keeping the diversity of the marine habitat. The regulator faces two broad challenges. First, the optimal harvest for the two groups of users in each period must be deter-mined to ensure that the stated objectives are met. Second, the regulator has to put in place a management plan to implement the desired har-vests determined.   Let the net private benefits to the commercial and recreational users be Bc and Br, respectively. In-troduce an additional benefit function denoted by Bo to capture non-private benefits such as social and environmental benefits. The first two benefits depend, among other things, on the quantity of fish the two users harvest, Hc and Hr, respectively. Social benefits may depend in some way on the harvest taken by one of the groups, say commer-cial users, for social, cultural or other reasons. Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 31   And environmental benefits will depend on the amount of standing stock of fish, (N- Hc – Hr), where N is the total biomass at a given time. Al-ternatively, environmental benefits can be mod-elled to depend on the total harvest taken, that is, (Hc + Hr). Formally, we have,   )(  or  )( );( );(rrccorrccorrccHHBHHNBHBHBθθθθθθ+−− (1) Where,  0)(/ or 0)(/ ;0/ ;0/<+>−−>>rrccorrccorrccHHBHHNBHBHBθθ∂∂θθ∂∂∂∂∂∂  It may be argued that benefits to the users depend on variables other than just harvest, especially, with regards to recreational fisheries benefits. This may well be true, but this is probably not a bad assumption if the aim is to determine sus-tainable harvest levels, and the benefits that ac-crue to the users as a result of their harvest. In any event the model is flexible enough to accom-modate other variables if deemed necessary.  Following Lopez, Shah and Altobello (1994), we define θ, θc and θr > 0 to be indicator parameters to reflect the extent to which social and environ-mental concerns are explicitly incorporated into the decision making process. The following inter-pretations are given to different θ values:  In the third case above, when θ θc r<  it means that society strictly prefers a unit of harvest by the commercial users than a unit of harvest by recrea-tional fishers.  It is assumed that the regulator’s problem is to maximize total net benefits Bt through the choice of Hc,t and Hr,t for t=1.T, where T is the last (ter-minal) period:  [ ]H HttTth cB,max=−∑11ρ  (2) subject to  N N H Ht t c t r t+ = − −1 , , ;      N  given0   totrtct BBBB ,,, θ−+=   and the obvious non-negativity constraints. where   ρ ρt tr t T− −= + = =1 1 0111 1( ), , ,..., .    The parameter ρ is the discount factor, and r is the discount rate; Nt is the standing biomass in period t. Note that the above formulation assumes that the stock of fish in the previous period de-termines the availability of fish for current use.  The Lagrangian for this problem is:    [ ][ ]L B H B H B H HN N H HttTc c t r r t c c t r r tt t t c t r ttT= + −+ − − −−=+=∑∑ρ θ θ θλ1111( ) ( ) ( , ), , , , ,, ,        (3)  And the first order conditions for optimization are:  [ ] 0// ,,,,1,=−−=− ttctotctcttcHBHBHL λ∂θ∂∂∂ρ∂∂ (4) [ ] 0// ,,,,1,=−−=− ttrtotrtrttrHBHBHL λ∂θ∂∂∂ρ∂∂ (5)  ∂∂λL N N H Htt t c t r t= − − − =+1 0, , (6)  In the above system of equations, λ is defined as the Lagrangian multiplier or the shadow price of the resource. Equation (4) tells us that in any given period the net present value of the marginal harvest by commercial users minus the net mar-edincorporat concerns ecological and s0>edincorporat concerns ecologicalonly =0>ignoredconcern  socials and ecological0ocialrcrc⇒≠⇒⇒=θθθθθθθEvaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 32  ginal effect of their exploitation activities on envi-ronmental and social concerns must equal the shadow price of the fishery resource. A similar interpretation stems from equation (5) with re-spect to the harvesting activities of the recrea-tional users. Combining the two equations, we deduce that the optimal allocation of harvest to the two groups of users must be such that the marginal net benefit to the commercial users must equal that to the recreational users. Note that equation (6) is simply a re-statement of the constraint equation in equation (2). Solving these equations for the unknown variables tells us the optimal harvest to each user and the optimal stock levels in each fishing period.  The non-cooperative game model  Once the optimal stock size and harvest are de-termined the remaining task of the regulator is to ensure by some means that the user’s harvest pre-cisely the optimal quantities determined by the model. Due to various reasons, it is well known that implementation is a big problem. Even if we were to succeed in specifying an accurate model for the fishery and obtain flawless data, there are still great obstacles in the way of the regulator that can block the successful implementation of the optimal harvest (see for instance, Clark 1997, Sumaila, 1998). To help us determine the conse-quences of implementation failure, I present a non-cooperative game model in the next section.  By a game we mean “any activity involving two or more participants, each of whom recognizes that the outcome for himself depends not only on his own actions, but also those of other participants” (Cowell, 1986, chap. 11, pp. 234). A non-cooperative game is one in which there is no “good” communication between the players in the game; no binding contracts can be entered into; and players take the actions of the others in the game as given, and then decide their own actions unilaterally. A commonly applied non-cooperative equilibrium concept in game theory is the Nash equilibrium. A formal definition of which is:   Definition: A Nash equilibrium of a strategic game I Aii, ( ),( )~! is a profile of a A* ∈  ac-tions with the property that for every player Zi∈  we have (7) ( , ) ( , )* *~*a a a a a Ai iii i i i− − ∀ ∈!    The above equation implies that for a*  to be a Nash equilibrium it must be that no player has an action yielding an outcome that he prefers to that generated when he chooses ai* , given that every other player chooses his equilibrium action a j* .  In the present context, the non-cooperative man-agement problem facing commercial users can be stated as:    [ ]Hcc t c ttTBmax , ,ρ −=∑ 11  subject to N N H Ht t c t h t+ = − −1 , ,  (8) and the obvious non-negativity constraints.  Similarly, the non-cooperative management prob-lem facing recreational users can be stated as:    [ ]Hr t r ttTrBmax , ,ρ −=∑ 11  subject to N N H Ht t c t r t+ = − −1 , ,  (9) and the obvious non-negativity constraints.  The key difference between the regulator’s and non-cooperative models are, (i) that the users do not care about social and environmental benefits – they care only about the private benefits that accrue to them, and (ii) users race for the fish, as each one of them unilaterally decides how much to take.  The theoretic solution to each user’s non-cooperative equilibrium prediction can be work out by setting up the relevant Lagrangian and solving it as in the case of the regulator’s model. The outcome then looks like this - In any given period, the net present value of the marginal har-vest by commercial user’s is set equal to the shadow price of the fishery resource, and similarly for the recreational users. Thus, in contrast to the outcome in the regulator’s model no considera-tion is given to social and environmental concerns in the optimal rule for harvesting the resource.  A numerical example  The aim in this section is to use a purely hypo-thetical numerical example to illustrate the possi-ble outcomes under the regulator’s and non-cooperative models discussed above. All functions and parameters are assumed without any basis in any fishery. To use the framework to analyze a given fishery, thorough empirical work is needed Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 33   to determine appropriate functions and parame-ters that best describe the fishery under consid-eration.  Specific functional forms  The stock dynamics of our illustrative fishery is assumed to be single cohort, for simplicity. This is captured by the following equations:  R NNttt=+1 ϕ (10) N sN R H Ht t t c t r t+ = + − −1 , ,  (11) gtt= +α βλ/ 1  (12)  Equation (8) is a simple Beverton Holt recruit-ment function, where ϕ is a biological parameter. The equation implies that in each year a certain number of fish, Rt, are recruited into the fishery depending on the existing number of fish (spawn-ers, to be more precise). Equation (9) says that the number of fish in the system next period, Nt+1, is determined by the number in this period, Nt, the survival rate, s, the recruitment this period, Rt, and the harvest this period by the commercial and recreational users, respectively. This equation allows the accounting aspect of the stock dynam-ics to be monitored in numbers. Equation (10) tells us how a given number of fish grows with time, it may be taken as the weight of fish at a given age.    For illustrative purposes only, the benefits func-tions mentioned above are given the following specific functional forms:  B H N e C e p q Ne k ec c c c c c c c c c( ) ( , ) ( ) :=  p Hc c − = −2 (13)  B  :=  p Hr rr r r r r r r r r rH N e C e p q Ne k e( ) ( , ) ( )− = −2 0, ,        ),()( rc >+=+ θθθθθθθ rrccrco HHHHB  (14)  Where q is the catchability coefficient and e is the effort level. Equation (11) and (12) stipulate that the net value to the two users is given by a benefit part, which depends on the size of their catch and the unit value (p) of catch. And a cost part, which is made up of the amount of effort they employ and the unit cost (k) to them for employing this amount of effort. Clearly, the challenge in an em-pirical study is to determine appropriate p and k values. Depending on the values assigned to θ, θc, and θr in equation (13), both the social and eco-logical concerns can be incorporated into the model.  It should be noted that the model specification is deliberately designed to be simple. However, it can easily be extended to include multi-cohort age structure, a multi-species system, and the special features of the two fisheries (see Argue et al., 1983).  The parameters used in the computations  Once again I stress that these are all made up data, with no capacity to capture any real fishery. They are chosen for illustrative purposes only. To start with, the two groups are assumed to be symmetric in all respects: (i) economically, in the sense that they receive the same price for the fish they catch, and it costs them the same amount to employ a unit of fishing effort:  p=10 and k=5 for both groups; (ii) biologically, because they harvest a common stock, and (iii) technologically because they are assumed to have the same catchability coefficient (q=0.1). It should be noted that these are only to make the illustration simple. In a real application, asymmetry is bound to exist and this must be taken care of through an empirically based estimation of these parameters. The sur-vival rate, s, is set equal to 0.95, ϕ=1.5, α= 84.2, λ=0.82, β= 28.76. The initial number is set equal to 1. The discount factor is given a value of 0.952 implying a discount rate of 5%. The environ-mental parameter, θ, is given a value of 1. This means that a unit of total harvest negatively im-pacts environmental benefits by 1. The social pa-rameters, θc and θr are given values of 1 and 5, respectively, implying that harvests by the com-Figure 1: Biomass profiles in regulator's ( thick line) and non-cooperative (thin line) models.00.511.522.50 5 10 15 20 25 30YearsStanding stock sizeEvaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 34  mercial group are valued higher to those by the recreational.   The results  Average combined annual standing biomass, ef-fort employed and discounted economic benefits to the two groups are given in table 1. We see from this table that, the regulators model produces good outcomes relative to the non-cooperative: it generates an average annual total discounted economic rent of about 8.62 units compared to 2.68 in the case of the non-cooperative scenario. The equivalent numbers for the average annual standing biomass (effort level) are 1.61 and 2.15 (0.69 and 1.22), respectively. The regulator’s model is able to deliver this win-win results (higher average biomass, higher economic bene-fits and more average effort employed over the 25 year time horizon of the model) because the regu-lator’s model is much better at allowing the stock to grow to its potential size than the non-cooperative case. This becomes clear when one looks at the average level of effort employed in the two cases during the first ten periods in the time horizon of the model. For this period, the non-cooperative players use over 200% more effort than what is employed in the regulator’s model, thereby undermining the potential of the biomass to grow. Socially, the preference for commercial fishing activities, expressed by giving a value of 1 to θ, 5 to θr and only 1 to θc. This implies that in the regulator’s model, the commercial fishers employ more effort, in our example, about 45% more than the recreational users, and make higher profits of about 5%.   Figures 1 and 2 illustrate graphically the main results presented in the preceding paragraph. Figure 1 presents the stock profile, while figure 2 displays the effort profile. As mentioned earlier, the key reason for the superior outcome achieved under the regulator’s model is the low effort em-ployed during the early period of the simulation.  Concluding remarks  The first challenge facing regulators of any fishery is how to determine the appropriate total harvest (fishing effort) to take from a given system that will meet the biological, social and economic goals of fisheries management. The second challenge relates to the allocation of the total harvest to competing users in such a way and manner that the goals are met. This paper has presented a theoretical framework to help determine both the total harvest and the allocation of this to the commercial and recreational users. Having de-termined a reasonable estimate of the optimal harvest that meets the goals stated by manage-ment, the next challenge is implementation. The regulator needs to put in place a feasible imple-mentation plan to make sure that the ‘right’ amount of harvest is taken from period to period.   It is well known that the challenges outlined above are not easy to deal with. For instance, models such us this one are not perfect in telling us the correct level of harvest or fishing effort to employ to ensure sustainable fishing. Successful implementation has also proved to be difficult. In almost all instances, exploitation by different us-ers ends up being in a non-cooperative environ-ment, unfortunately. To reveal the consequences of implementation failure, a non-cooperative fish-ery model is developed. The results from which shows, as expected, that non-cooperative behav-iour is detrimental to the achievement of biologi-cal, social and economic goals of fisheries man-agement.   Reference list  Argue, A.W., R. Hilborn, R.M. Peterman, M.J. Staley and C.J. Walters, 1983. Strait of Georgia Chinnok and Coho Fishery Regulator’s Benefits    Biomass     Effort Non-cooperative Benefits    Biomass     Effort Commercial    4.44            1.61          1.21    1.34            0.69         0.61 Recreational    4.18               -             0.95    1.34               -              0.61 Total    8.62            1.61          2.16    2.68             0.69         1.22  Table 1: Average annual standing biomass, effort and discounted economic benefits under the regulator’s and non-cooperative models. Figure 2: Effort profiles in the regulator's (thick line) and non-cooperative (thin line) models.00.511.522.533.544.50 5 10 15 20 25 30YearsEffort Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 35   Fishery. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci-ences. Fisheries and Oceans, Bulletin 211, Ottawa. Clark, C. W., 1996. Marine reserves and the precautionary management of fisheries. Ecological Applications, 6: 369-370. Cowell, F. A., 1986. Microeconomic principles. Philip Allan, New York. Kirkegaard, I.R. and D.F. Gartside, 1998. Performance indica-tors for management of marine recreational fisheries. Marine Policy, 22, 4-5, pp. 413-422. Lopez, R. F.A. Shah and M.A. Altobello, 1994. Amenity bene-fits and the optimal allocation of land. Land Economics, 70, 53-62. Sumaila, U. R., 1998c. Protected marine reserves as hedge against uncertainty: an economist's perspective. pp. 303-309. In: T. J. Pitcher, D. Pauly, and P. Hart, eds., Reinventing fisheries management, Chapman and Hall, London, England, Vancouver, BC, Canada.   Questions  Margaret Merritt: This is a theoretical model; are there other functions you can plug into the equation, for ex-ample, trip frequency as a measure of public welfare or willingness to pay as a measure of economic value, etc.?  Ussif Rashid Sumaila:  We need a group of scientists who know what they’re doing and get them to decide which functions are important; it’s difficult for me to just pick a function and declare it important.  Bill Romberg:  Your two models logically make sense, but the basis for the non-cooperative model is the race for the resource. I can see this happening commercial fisheries but how would this occur in recreational fish-eries ?  Ussif Rashid Sumaila:  There are recreational fishers that are already in this race, and if fishing gets good, you might get an influx of new entrants who will also race to get the good fish while they can.Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 36  Discussion  &  Perspectives  This section presents the issues raised by the evaluation of the benefits and costs of recreational fisheries by reporting three general discussion sessions held at the conference, followed by per-spectives delivered at the end of meeting by the four keynote speakers.     Allocation Issues: A Discussion  Material based on a discussion session at the con-fernce, Ttuesday, June 1st 1999.   Chair:  Joelle Row    Roland Griffin: Joell Row said that recreational fishers get their own data used against them, but I see it differ-ently.  Joelle Row: It’s different in other places.  We’ve col-lected data for species only to see restrictions put in place.  Roland Griffin:  Does that cause people to change the data that they report?  Joelle Row:  No, they would just not give it.  They’re not required to take a survey; it’s all voluntary.  Murray MacDonald: When it comes to shar-ing/allocation of fish resources, all interest groups, in-cluding recreational fishing groups, want to be involved in the decision-making process. In my experience most allocation processes to date have consisted of the lodg-ment of claims by competing interest groups, followed by allocation decisions based primarily on which inter-est group has the most political influence. The out-comes of such processes are almost inevitably resisted or challenged by those groups who “didn’t get what they wanted” because there is no clear economic of so-cial rationale for the decision. We need resource alloca-tion mechanisms which incorporate transparent deci-sion-making processes, involve all competing interest groups, and provide clear economic or social benefit rationales for outcomes, if we wish to achieve general community acceptance of resource allocation decisions.  Bill Otway:  The allocation policy in BC is to give prior-ity access to recreational fishers for coho and chinook salmon.  There has been conflict between the groups for over 25 years, but it has got worse over the last 3 or 4 years as the resources have become scarce. Ninety per-cent of the commercial representatives are in lockstep with recreationists:  both see benefits and opportunities for getting access to other stock.  I’ve worked in the commercial sector for over 40 years, as well as being a lobbyist and a consultant, and I’ve worked on a lot of issues where the commercial and recreational sectors have worked together to fend off the ecologists.  But when it comes down to it, each sector wants more for itself.  It takes time and education of the government, managers, and community to be informed. Studies can show the economic benefits, but we need to use caution with those.  In most cases, there is room for both sec-tors, but it takes effort and information.  Marty Golden:  Scientists are not in a position to have a say about allocation; it’s a political decision.  If anglers are concerned about allocation issues, they must go through the political process.  Fisheries management plans are proposed by the Fisheries Management Councils and most council members are appointed by the governor of states represented by a particular coun-cil.  In the past, most council members represented commercial fishing interests.  Margaret Merritt:  I’m with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the department is separate from the allocation process.  Allocation is decided by a board with representatives from different sectors appointed by the Governor, and they take public and scientific testimonies into consideration.  The public should speak up if they want a voice in allocation. Non-market estimation is quite new in Alaska. Economic informa-tion such as market estimates commonly comes up in testimony regarding allocation decisions. Non-market estimation is new in Alaska and its role in the allocation decision-making has yet to be defined. A caution to note is that traditionally, economists strive for market efficiency. However, those involved in allocation must consider trade-offs between social importance (such as the right of people to earn a living and form a commu-nity) and economic efficiencies.  Ussif Rashid Sumaila:  This is a great introduction, and as an economist I would like to  note that this is exactly what I’ll be talking about tomorrow!  Eric Thunberg: I’m an economist.  Like in all other poli-tics, resources are allocated to whoever shouts the loud-est. However, the management process responds well to information that is sensible, defensible, and peer reviewed .  In the short run, the recreational fishers might lose out, but if they’re willing to invest in data collection, the management might respond.  It is true that  sometimes they won’t be heard or their data could be used against them.   Gordon Gislason: Allocation is about vested interests in property rights and its public ownership, not “common property”. Limited entry is a weak form of property rights as allocation is left to political masters and bu-reaucrats. Users have little no control over their future. As a result, in the commercial sector many people are pushing for ITQs. Firstly, it gives the industry greater influence on policy although the government still has the most influence on policy making although partici-pants attempt to have a greater influence on the deci-sion-making as they pay license fees. Secondly, these systems have built in transfer mechanisms: that is, Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 37   market transactions. Thirdly, participants accept these systems as they have a greater claim to compensation if rights are eroded. I’m interested in hearing comments as to the wisest way to establish the rights for the dif-ferent sectors.  Terry Gjernes:  Recreational and commercial fisheries are very different in how they are run.  Commercial fishing is about landing the most pounds for the least cost and recreational fishing is about the experience of fishing. For recreational fishers, you cannot use fixed numbers in the allocation process; it’s anathema to what they’re about.  If you put a limit on the number of fish they are allowed to catch, everyone will be out there in the early summer, and there will be no fish to catch come mid-July; that’s bad for the tourism industry, where the lodges will have to shut down in mid-July. It’s the allocation of opportunity that’s important, not pounds of fish.  Tor Hundloe:  In commercial fisheries the initial alloca-tion is critical and it’s a controversial political decision. It’s an exercise in political power:  those who get their feet in the door first can have their say.  What happens after the initial allocation is a moral and philosophical decision.  Marty Golden:  With respect to allocation by purchas-ing shares of the fisheries, that might create some prob-lems.  If such a system is set up, then commercial fish-eries could buy up the recreational fishers’ shares. Ad-ditionally, since conservation groups often have more money at their disposal, they could also be at an advan-tage to purchase shares from both the commercial and recreational fisheries.  Karen Culham:  In BC it is compounded by problems with confidence levels in the reports.  You can’t com-pare recreational and commercial fishing because they’re not on the same scale, one is on the demand side and the other one is on the other side of the equa-tion.  When it comes to money and willingness to pay, the real thoughts of the fishers are different from what they write on the survey. We have to be cautious about what we are basing our information on.  Bill Otway:  The feeling with the managers and the gov-ernment is that recreational fishing is all fun and games.  The recreational community must repeat, over and over, that there are jobs involved and that they’re just as important as the jobs in the commercial indus-try.  It’s esoteric until you put a limit on fishers – that extra fish is going to cost a lot. A second chinook can cost $4000 as folk have cancelled trips because of such limits.  You need to put things in context.  Joelle Row:  Recreational fishing in South Africa wasn’t taken seriously.  To try to convince people that there are jobs at stake is difficult without papers to put on a desk, and that is extremely hard to do.  Recreational fishers do this for their own enjoyment; going to con-ferences like these, taking time off time from our own businesses, all the costs come out of our own pockets. Information costs money.  Monde Mayekiso:  I don’t agree that recreational fish-ers are not taken seriously.  You underestimate the power and authority that they have as they are often referred to as the public.  You must recall what hap-pened last year when the minister attempted to reduce the share to the recreational sector.   Joelle Row:  Things have changed, not quickly enough for some, but they have changed.  Maybe I should say that input from non-academic fishermen is not taken seriously, but it’s just as meaningful.  Margaret Merritt:  With respect to using such methods as contingent valuation to estimate “willingness to pay” and accepting this as a valid method, the real test of acceptance for valuing a non-market commodity is in a court of law with test cases.  For example, in death and damage cases, the methods and values are judged in a court of law.  Contingent valuation is being validated in courts of law where a price tag has to be placed on damage to award compensation.  Collecting informa-tion is wonderful, but decision analyses studies show that information is coloured by the values and past ex-periences of the decision makers.  I once had an experi-ence where I thought I gave the facts, but somehow they were filtered by a decision-maker so that the in-formation presented was not used in arriving at the decision.  Andy Cockcroft:  When they’re weighing the value of recreational and commercial fishing for comparison against subsistence fishers, what kind of units are they using?  Tor Hundloe:  There’s a major study going on right now in Australia to undertake such a task.  To put a value on the commercial fisheries is quite easy.  Indigenous and cultural fishing is a bit more involved as there are cul-tural differences and they don’t use the same units of property rights.   Tony Pitcher:  In the Canadian constitution, Aboriginal fisheries have priority on fishing allocation.  I think this is the same in the USA.  Margaret Merritt:  There’s a distinction between US Legislation and the Alaskan Constitution regarding subsistence priority in Alaska: the former gives priority to rural residents and manages for use, while the latter maintains that all Alaskans have the right to engage in subsistence and manages for sustained yield.  The two have been going head to head on some occasions, and some more state versus federal debates regarding sub-sistence rights in Alaska will be coming up.  Anne Coleman:  There is a court case in the Northern Territories where the Aboriginal political body is taking the fisheries to court, saying that the Director of Fisher-ies has no right to give out licenses in the intertidal zone.  Tony Pitcher:  Is there anyone from an angling associa-tion present?  What are your perspectives?  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 38  John Harrison:  You were looking at me, weren’t you, Tony?  The basic problem is the communication issue.  Fisheries have people working full time for them, who know the lingo.  My job is to take the message of this conference back to anglers.  If you’re trying to breach the gap and discuss allocation issues, please follow the KISS principle:  Keep It Simple, Stupid.  The anglers are laymen.  If you want to convince recreational fishers of whatever, you have to keep it simple.  Marty Golden:  With respect to funding studies on eco-nomics and recreational issues, keep in mind how agencies are funded.  The US Congress decides how much money is allocated to an agency, and often how the money is to be spent.  If Congress doesn’t authorize an agency to do a specific study, then often they can’t do it because they don’t have the funds for it. If you want a particular study to be done you often have to lobby congressional representatives for it.  John Harrison: How does that then fit in with the po-litical cycle?  If you can’t go to the director of the de-partment do you then bypass him and go to your local senator and say, “Senator, I want Congress to allocate money for this research”?  So you end up having a po-litical solution to an allocation or research issue?  Marty Golden:  That’s a very astute observation.  John Harrison: It comes back to the political wheel.  This research information is vital if we want to prevent the squeaky door.  We must get your research informa-tion into the argument and attempt to stop the political decision process.  If you want to argue for long-term fishing sustainability, you have to get your argument into the door, and the decision will go to the one that shouts the loudest.  Eric Parkinson:  Is the line between commercial and recreational fishing more blurry rather than sharp?  For example, people who gillnet 7 days a week, or commercial fishers who continue fishing after they re-tire, do it because they like it.  Sometimes the reasons for fishing are very similar, it’s just the numbers of fish caught that are different.  Gordon Gislason:  I have a comment on allocation.  In commercial fishing, the value is concentrated on the business side, the producer surplus; while in recrea-tional fishing, the value is concentrated on the intangi-ble side, the so-called consumer surplus.  Producers are a lot better at advocacy that consumers. Consumer as-sociations are generally weak while businesses are or-ganised, so there’s an asymmetry there.  Because you have fragmented consumers, it’s tough to get their points across.  Joelle Row:  Australia has someone who takes care of recreational fishers, works full-time for the Association, but most countries don’t have someone whose job is to do that, so you do get a fragmented voice from the rec-reational fishers.  Roland Griffin:  We started with a fisheries in poor health in 1979, but that’s turned around.  Now, it’s a  commercial versus recreational fisheries issue, and people are seeing both sides.  Without the commercial fisheries, tourism would be affected.  Some people want to catch barramundi, sure, but more people want to eat barramundi.  We need to get the right information to the right people in the right way.  I’ve got a story to tell to make a point about “willingness to pay”:  At one point, fishing licenses were being bought back by the government for $120, 000, one was advertised for $150, 000, and the recreational anglers were guaran-teed $120, 000 from the government and all they had to do was find $30, 000 but they didn’t.  So they were not prepared to pay $1 per head.  We needed to find the balance of $25, 000. There are 25, 000 recreational fishes, but the recreational fishers were not willing to pay $1/ head.  John Harrison:  I must respond to that.  Yes, there are about 40, 000 anglers in the Northern Territories but getting access to them is impossible.  There is no licens-ing system and therefore no records of addresses, etc.  If we could have that information, then we would be able to do such a thing, but right now it is a major logis-tical problem.  Robert Hicks:  An answer on how to compare recrea-tion and commercial fisheries:  You can compare by: 1. Hypothetical questions (for example, actual exam-ples on where anglers want to fish, given a choice). 2. Using models.  Tony Pitcher:  I don’t think the real currency is money, it’s votes. When in Canada the fisheries minister was reducing the allocation of chinook from two to one, he  saw a sign that read, “One fish-no votes, two fish-one vote”.  Roland Griffin:  In the Northern Territories, we have a slogan:  “I fish and I vote”; now it’s been warped to “I fish and I fish”  Monde Mayekiso:  How would allocation be made to enable fishing when dealing with the control of TAC-based fisheries? The recreational sector is open - ended and they are growing in number, there is no fixed num-ber of permits.  Bill Romberg:  In the last several years, there have been efforts by the commercial halibut fishing sector to set a TAC in Alaska for recreational halibut fishing, since they see it as an actively growing sector.  Gordon Gislason:  In theory, you can measure the bene-fits for each sector. The challenge in practice is: how would you go about measuring these in a logical and formal way when there are differences between prod-ucts, tangible business values versus intangible angler values?  Roland Griffin:  The recreational sector has every right to go fishing.  If the commercial fishery gets a lot of the allocation, the recreational fishers can still go fishing.  They just won’t catch any fish.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 39   Calvin Blood:  The allocation process doesn’t end at the recreational or commercial sectors.  What about sports fishing?  The impacts on that sector can ripple down to every community.  Each community has its own unique traits.  Allocation is not a simple process; it would take years to go through.  Murray MacDonald:  If there is to be any progress on the issue of fish resource allocation, we need to be much clearer about the principles and mechanisms used to make allocation decisions. If we accept the cur-rent “default” situation (no decisions are made or deci-sions favouring those with the most political influence are made), then I don’s see the point of any further dis-cussion.  Margaret Merritt:  Allocation should be political debate conducted in a political public forum so people can talk, that’s why we’re having this discussion. It’s a complex process - that’s why we are having this discussion.  Murray MacDonald: I agree that fish resource alloca-tion is a complex and sensitive issue, and that ulti-mately politicians have to make the allocation deci-sions. But can I ask, which criteria should be used to decide what constitutes an appropriate allocation of fish resources, and which interest/user groups have a right to participate in the allocation process?  Margaret Merritt: The burden of conservation can be shared equally among users. You also have to keep other groups in mind, like subsistence fishers.     Components of Value in  Recreational Fisheries:  a Discussion  Material based on a discussion session at the conference, Ttuesday, June 2nd  1999.   Chair:  Ian Cowx     Ian Cowx:  This is not the first conference on the bene-fits of recreational fishing. In fact, I have a book in front of me: “Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic and Management Aspects”. The editors are Hickley and Tomkins, and it was published by Fishing News Books and the Inland Fisheries Commission of the FAO.  The conference in Dublin, Ireland held a few years ago was excellent, and was more orientated towards Europe and recreational fisheries. At the conference the compo-nents of value, that being social, economic, environ-mental, ecological and human were recognised. There are useful tools for evaluating, but are they compatible, and is it feasible to compare social and economic fac-tors? The mechanisms for determining value that are becoming accepted are ones such as contingent valua-tion, travel cost, contingent behaviour and preference studies. However, what are they being used for, setting regulations? I used these methods in Portugal, to con-sider the conservation of an endangered fish, as they were constructing a dam. Some body has to pay now for the re-building of its habitat, and it may be the end users, as the dam was built for irrigation for golfers. So how do you pass the information up to the end user?  You know I advocate education and the importance of it and consultation if we can get it right.  Nigel Haggen:  Where is the cultural value for a particular people included, for example, the indigenous people?  Ian Cowx:  We’ve been looking at component values.  The cultural aspect is very important.  Monde Mayekiso:  What is the difference between the use of concepts such as social and human dimension?  Len Hunt:  Human dimension is the term for social and economic research.  Jim Lyons:  There’s a communication issue:  the models look great, but is there any point to them?  What use are they if you need to give information to managers or politicians, who don’t have a great statistical back-ground?  Bill Otway:  If the model is communicated well, then we can get the community involved.  There’s a difference between giving them something you created, and some-thing that you create with them.  Joelle Row:  There is a need for communication.  If you can’t communicate what all those models mean, then you have to re-examine your models. By saying educa-tion, do you mean awareness?  Jim Lyons:  Once a model has been developed, it’s too late  Ian Cowx:  Education means getting the message out.  But how to get that message out to the anglers is a much wider issue.  Werner Steffans said that in the Lower Eastern Block countries, anglers must pass an exam before they can get their angling licenses.  Have you ever taken one of those exams?  They’re hard!  But this means that the anglers are educated and they know about ecosystems and the biology of the rivers.  Leah Carlson: I have a comment about the culture and intrinsic value of angling.  They’ve been talked about a lot, but it’s hard to put a measurable economic value on some things.  Nigel Haggen:  When you talk about communication and education of the value of angling, you can’t just talk about, say, the value of sports fishing, or it won’t go far.  Unless you can get through to politicians or voters, it’s just another sector conflict.  Ian Cowx:  You’ve touched on something very dear to my heart:  in the UK, the reintroduction of salmon to the River Thames is very valuable to a lot of people.  It’s Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 40  not that there’s fish in the river to catch or to watch, but it’s the perception that the Thames is not polluted anymore, that it’s clean enough to support fish life again.  That’s very valuable!  Of course, it’s a struggle to keep those fish alive day to day, but that public percep-tion is very important.  The question now is how to build up public perception with regards to angling.  Marty Golden:  The existence of large numbers of an-glers is very important.  Anglers are one of the few groups with a vested interest in quality fisheries; the general public doesn’t care much.  When you talk about limiting angling activity, you should also consider the potential for the reduction of your support base.  Bob Kearney: In Australia, the general public is not fully aware of the importance of fish as indicators of the health of ecosystems.  While fish are not classical char-ismatic megafauna, they are better than some other organisms, particularly invertebrates.  It has been diffi-cult to use angler tournament results as indicators of resources because the rules of tournaments have changed too often to enable comparisons over time.  We are working to find other ways of using recreational fisheries as indicators.  Hopefully this will help balance some of the negative perceptions of harvesting fish by angling   Ussif Rashid Sumaila:  My model deals with social and ecological issues.  The trick is not just pricing the social benefit or the ecological.  Ecological benefit is depend-ent on the number of fish in the sea. We want to see more fish in there.  When choosing a harvest, sustain-ability is a good thing.  Therefore, for ecological benefit, increased harvest is a bad thing.  So, you penalise them for taking more than the ecological limits.  Ian Cowx:  I still have a slight problem with it:  I’m more environmentally-inclined than recreationally. You can set more dollars on the catch, but you cannot do the same for the environment, unless it’s like the example of this endangered species, where the end users, the golfers, paid for the conservation effort.  You can’t put a monetary value on the environment.  Tony Pitcher:  I’ll just pick up on Bob’s point about evaluating information. How do you put an economic value on information? I’m reminded of a paper on gamefish, done by a colleague in East Africa, Kenya.  For the last thirty years his father kept data on every fish that he caught – size, weight, location, weather condition.  You can use that data to see changes in cli-mate or fish community or the changes in the top predators in the Indian Ocean.  The value of that data is immense when looking at long term trends.  What is the value of that?  Ian Cowx:  Does this not fit into our understanding of resource base?  Tony Pitcher:  It’s more than that – it shows our impact on the fish community.  Ann Coleman:  Here’s something that’s more difficult to put a value on the environment:  a totemic animal, one with cultural significance.  Of what value is that?  Ratana (Ying) Chuenpagdee:  We can measure it, but we’d need a tool, one that’s not monetary.  What the people want, ultimately, is the bottom line, something simple.  Can we use a relative unit that would take into account the cultural importance that would give people an idea of the importance?  Wolfgang Haider:  It is an elusive endeavour.  Manag-ers and advocate groups often need to prove value in absolute dollars. Margaret’s presentation is a good ex-ample of this point.  Yet one may not necessarily re-quire dollar values in all situations. Basically, the ques-tion is, how do I make decisions when there are contra-dicting opinions on a matter?  Different user groups take different trade-offs, and they put different values on things.  For a number of issues, you can use prefer-ence data to get values, but they are not absolute.  Tony Pitcher:  Preference methods are much better for those understanding the decision-making. Politicians want votes, so decisions should be based on number of votes.  If decisions are supported, then politicians will have no problem making decisions.  Wolfgang Haider:  Depending on the design of our de-cision support systems, you may use a maximising util-ity for specific user groups.  You may also trade off maximum economic value versus ecologically sound measures.  Tony Pitcher:  I think the trade-off idea is critical.  You can get people to make positive decisions.  Politicians might actually be prompted to do something.  The me-dia makes us believe that people are dumb, but that’s not the case.  People are educated about trade-offs.  If a decision is made by a community, you’ll find people supporting it.  John Harrison:  The angling community took the issues one step further before.  If you provide the angling community with cold, hard facts – good information – they can even make the decisions for you.  Nigel Haggen:  How do you get politicians to assess the value of things?  Before, there was lots of influence by the commercial sector, but now recreational fishers and aboriginal people are also competing for their attention.  All of them have their own take on things.  How do you make politicians see all the benefits? Or the collective benefit rather than the benefit of one?  John Willow: The question of value is hard, but there are two issues involved.  The first is the one of money:  we need to do a better job on putting a value on the environment, and quantifying the benefits– we need to package the information, target our audience, and get our message across.  The second is one of the social and human aspects.  Anglers know this aspect, and it’s this aspect that will get them to make contributions to help the environment.  You would never come across such a high percentage of people willing to put their own Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 41   money into the benefit of a public resource.  Don’t try to put a monetary value on an intrinsic social and family value, just make people aware that there are two sides to this, but we haven’t done a good job of doing that yet.  John Harrison:  To add to that:  commercial fisheries evaluate by catch value and processing value; the rec-reational fishers evaluate the social, environmental, and cultural package and don’t place a dollar sign on it.  Chuck Hollingworth:  Maybe we should think laterally about this.  They say that the best defence is a strong offence.  So far, we’ve tried to fit ourselves into the sys-tem set by the dam builders or the construction com-panies.  What if we turn the tables and set everything on its ear?  We can run surveys that ask the general public the question:  “What do you think is more valu-able for maintaining your father-son relationship – fishing, or building dams?” We set the values this time, not the dam builders.  Ian Cowx:  I have to agree.  We try to advocate a lot.  Real dollars don’t work in this situation and that’s what consultation is for: to get all the viewpoints out on the table and to have a public debate over them.  You usu-ally can’t put the human aspect of things into monetary value, and the consultation process is important to it, to hear other opinions.  Bob Otway:  Ah, but you can put a value on it.  If people say that they don’t want a dam – that they want a river instead – then they have put a value on it; they value the river over the dam.  Ian Cowx:  Well…maybe using the dam is a bad exam-ple, because the dam is important.  If you were to ask the people, “What would you rather have, fishing, or water to drink, to shower, etc?” I think you’d see that there’s a big social issue from the other side.  Bob Otway:  If it comes down to the thrust of it: fishing or water for drinking, there’s no question what they’d choose.  Tony Pitcher:  Fishing!  Ratana (Ying) Chuenpagdee:  But usually, the public opinion doesn’t come into a decision to build a dam, the dam will be built. Once the dam is built and the fisher-ies do decline, then you can ask people how they would like to change things.  For example, increase water flow to increase the fish population.   You’ll see that people will be willing to pay higher utility bills if it means that there would be fish.  Bob Kearney:  Conservation, restoration, or at least cessation of mass destruction are more important, as the world has become a bit greener.  In Australia, the people agreed to help the environment, rather than consuming a great deal of water, and the angler com-munity was at the forefront of this.  Murray MacDonald:  In the last few examples dis-cussed, resource allocation negotiations were based either explicitly or de facto on economic measures of benefit to society. Increasingly people are perceiving that there are also non-economic benefits to consider. Therefore unless we can come up with resource alloca-tion decision-making processes which can compare economic versus non-economic valuations of alterna-tive uses, then either all competing uses will have to be valued in economic terms, or they will all have to be valued in non-economic terms.  Gordon Gislason:  I think you need to be careful about how you assign a value.  In BC, they might place a value on something, but they’re not necessarily willing to demonstrate this value by putting out their money for it.  The best demonstration of value is paying more.  If you want more access but you’re unwilling to pay for it, that doesn’t go over well with policy makers.  Bob Otway: Pay more to what end, though?  Does the extra money go to the politicians, or does it actually go toward improving fishing quality?  In animal resource use, there’s always the constant cry for more from all users, but in non-renewable resources such as coal or oil mining, it’s about how to get at the resources with-out having to pay compensation.  Nigel Haggen: There’s about 100 million dollars worth of oil under the Hecate Strait. There is a call for mora-torium on Island gas exploration. The indigenous peo-ple have been living there for a thousand years, and they sure don’t want to move, but there’s so much money involved.  Fred Fortier: Fish can be value added, at the ocean or inland. However, once you deplete a stock, there’s a tendency to move on to the next stock, and then the next, and then the next, and so on.  After depleting the coho salmon stock, the fishers move to other species, fishing down the food web.  So it’s more of a biological diversity versus production trade-off, and there’s no willingness to do that right now.  Jim Lyons:  In recreational fishing, there is a non-economic and an economic value.  In Europe, non-anglers hold the majority of the vote, so if it comes down to votes, the non-anglers win.  Ian Cowx:  There was a paper from someone in Ger-many given not too long ago.  They’re banning angling in the Netherlands, and in 5 years there will be no an-gling allowed.  That sort of attitude is likely to spread, first throughout Europe, then over to Australia and North America.  We need to clean up the angling com-munities’ public image, or anglers will be blamed for whatever ills befall the fish. I predict that by 2010 an-gling will be banned in the EU.   Jim Lyons:  And the problem is, the recreational an-gling community has only just begun to wake up to this, and usually by the time they do, it’s too late.  They’re being picked off one by one.  Ian Cowx:  There was a TV debate on this a few years ago.  Welfare people were supposed to be represented, but they were not well-represented.  One of the spokes-Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 42  persons for angling happened to be in prison at that time.  Anne Coleman: We want fish to take on the role as charismatic mega-fauna so that there is conservation, but it is a double edged sword which is leading to a slip-pery slope, as it also increases the problem if fishing is banned.  Monde Mayekiso:  Everyone has an attitude toward the decision-makers, except politicians.  If anglers think angling is important and should be passed on, they shouldn’t be afraid of politicians.  If the cause is good, we can get society on our side, and this will force politi-cians to make favourable decisions.  Ian Cowx:  Well, it was quite a different experience in Portugal.     Evaluating Recreational Fisheries:  a Discussion  Material based on a discussion session at the con-fernce, Ttuesday, June 3nd  1999.   Chair:  Tony Pitcher    Tony Pitcher:  We will have now have a discussion ses-sion and at the end of the discussion session, our four keynote speakers will present a summary of what they thought the main points were in the conference. Well, no discussion is without a topic, and we have several topics. I wish to introduce two topics, and I will present the first of the two now. Several people during the course of the conference, and I can think of three names (Barbara Calvert, Marty Golden and Werner Steffens), mentioned a code of angler ethics. I would suggest that we consider establishing a code of ethics for anglers.  I have recently completed some work at FAO in Rome and undertaken an analysis whereby we scored fisheries on compliance to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries which was published in 1995. It is suppose to guide countries in their code of conduct in all fisheries including recreational fisheries. It is a document which countries can subscribe to on a volun-tary basis, but it is not binding.  Now if you look inside the actual document, you only find a little about recrea-tional fishing, but there is not very much. You find a lot about commercial fisheries, artisanal fisheries and sub-sistence fisheries, but the code has only brief references to recreational fisheries. What you find is that the code itself has been expanded out to several parts, actually each part dealing with different technical guidelines, one on aqua-culture, one on inland fisheries and as part of the code a section that deals with the integration of fisheries and coastal management.  So you can find at least eight guidelines, but only two make reference to recreational fisheries and where they mention recrea-tional fisheries, they mention it in terms of conflict with the commercial sector.  It is not mentioned in terms of its benefits to the human side, in terms of what we have discussed at this conference.   In fact, while I was in Rome, I spoke to a number of people and I asked them how the FAO regards recrea-tional fishing, and it seems to me that there is quite a lot of support for the development of an internationally agreed voluntary code of ethics for recreational fisher-ies. So I thought that it would be a good opportunity for me to say to you here that this is a suggestion, and one thing that a group like this might be able to do, in communication, post conference, is develop the text for a code of ethics for responsible recreational fisheries. There are huge differences in what we have seen from experiences in North America, Germany, and even South Africa and Australia where in some places people don’t need licenses. So around the world we have a huge diversity of different kind of issues, yet that kind of diversity does not mean that we have greater prob-lems than we already have. So I would very much like to hear from you what you think about this suggestion for the development of the text for a code of ethics for re-sponsible recreational fishing. So, any comments on that or any suggestions?  John Harrison: As a representative of a recreational fishing body in Australia we presented a National Code of Practice in 1996 at the Second World Fisheries Con-gress in Brisbane. I would like to present it and we still have it on a web-site in Australia (see http://www.sunfish.org.au/recfish and http:// www.dpie.gov.au/resources.energy/fisheries/recfish/ pamphlet/index.html).  I did also send a copy to the UN in 1996 when they were developing their code of prac-tice, but it was probably shelved somewhere as we did not hear back from anyone.  Joelle Row: The organised sport’s angling associations, whether it be a national or an international gamefish association, normally have a constitution that includes some form of code of conduct, so amongst these consti-tutions, codes do exist.  Tony Pitcher: Yes, we wish to support the idea that they all embody some form of code of ethics in their prac-tices.  Carl Walters: If you are talking about recreational fish-eries, I don’t necessarily agree, so what exactly are we trying to do?  Tony Pitcher: Well the trouble is that, as with commer-cial fisheries, some form of conduct is needed, but I think I will let someone else answer that.   John Harrison: Yes, it’s a tool you can use if you have young individuals coming into recreational fisheries. Its guideline so people can say this is what we expect. It will demonstrate to new fishermen what practices we accept.  Marty Golden: I have attached “A Code of Angling Eth-ics” (published by the NMFS) to the paper I submitted. Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 43   If anyone wants a copy of it right away, I can e-mail it to them (also see WEB site http:// www.nmfs.gov /irf/irf.html).  Tony Pitcher: Yes, I would like you to think about the fact that there is already some form of draft if we incor-porate what we have learnt from everyone.  Jim Lyons: In the UK we also have a code of conduct, although it’s slightly different in that it’s reflected in the way we fish; we catch and release.  So it’s largely based on what people do.   Murray MacDonald: Are we talking about a code which specifically defines responsible recreational  fishing practices, or are we talking about  a code in the broader sense, such as the FAO Code for Responsible Fishing which embodies the principles for fisheries manage-ment, as well has codes of practice for fishers?  Tony Pitcher: Yes, well, in that code they have various guidelines as to how a vessel must operate in interna-tional waters. I was thinking more of general principles which appear in article 2 and 3 where management is just a sub-set of a larger set of principles, which are very conservation-minded. I think if the same set of principles is adapted for recreational fisheries that would be useful.  Carl Walters: We definitely need a code of conduct for responsibility for fisheries managers and especially middle managers which is taken on by as many agen-cies as possible, so they can be accountable for their mistakes, as around the world this is the principle problem. A code of conduct which focuses on managers would do a whole lot more than one that focuses on individual recreational fishers.  Tony Pitcher: Yes, that is a very good point, and for the commercial fisheries there is a section that sets out very clearly the responsibility of the member states and their management authorities for the kind of way they should operate, and so I agree.  Mike Sullivan: I wonder exactly how we are going to do this. I was on a program where one of the managers was considering eliminating a pest species, and with such a code we could not do that, under our Federal code or a code of responsible fisheries. How would this code be binding?  Tony Pitcher: It is not meant to be binding, although it’s a detailed document; in fact, it’s meant to be a mov-ing goal post. The aim of such codes is to improve con-servation practices to influence member states to in-clude these principles into their national legislation, which many have already done. It’s not appropriate for details for each state.  Mike Sullivan: So can I use it directly in criticizing that program and can we use such a code for our means?  Tony Pitcher: One has to consider the detailed sub-sections.  Mike Sullivan: In Alberta we have been frustrated by programs that have been driven by public perceptions, yet we must be accountable. Politicians are influenced by public perceptions, yet at the same time we have to be responsible and accountable to everybody else.   Michael Walker: How is a code of practice going to in-fluence the use of live bait?  Ian Cowx: The use of live bait is not considered good practice for many reasons, including the possibility of spreading diseases.  It is not just about animal welfare. It is going to become an undesirable practice.   Monde Mayekiso: My impression is that the code is not really a useful concept unless it is incorporated into national legislation. For the code to really work it has to be in local legislation so that those responsible for fish-eries management and those fishing have some guide-lines to adhere too.  Tony Pitcher: Yes, you are quite right, and the intention of the code of conduct was to encourage states and na-tions to include it, or elements thereof, within their national legislation, as many have done. In fact, we heard this week that there are about 10 nations which have incorporated such principles within national legis-lation. I would like someone to introduce a new topic.  John Harrison: In one of yesterday’s sessions we heard about the history of fisheries management in Alberta and how in 1907 regulations were being imposed for reducing over-fishing . Within the context of this con-ference we should consider how far we have come and the fact that we had a conference back in 1996, and we have an opportunity to make this a regular event. It is disappointing that industries or the International Gamefish Fishing Association are not better repre-sented. I present to the group that we meet again; that is, every three years.  The next would be in 2002, and I would be delighted to be play host to the meeting in Darwin.  Another thing is that it would perhaps be a good idea to set up a small group of people from differ-ent parts of the world who can email each other and send out information in their own countries to people, particularly the industry, who may be interested in at-tending the next meeting we have in Australia.  Tony Pitcher: I think that is a good idea and if anybody would like to be a part of that group, please give your names to either Trevor or Gunna, so we can stay in con-tact. We have been a small group although there are people from many different parts of the world. We promoted the inclusion of industry. The next meeting it will be a great idea to set up an international steering committee. Before we go through the final wrap up, are there any burning issues that people may wish to raise?  Roland Griffin: I have thought about the “willingness to pay for one more fish” factor and what seems to be more important than this factor and average catch rate is the fact that people compare their success against their colleagues. If he caught one fish and you caught two, you have had a great day. Average catch rate does not always capture how good a day it was.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 44   Mike Sullivan: Another point to consider is the conclu-sions one can draw from angler response curves in Al-berta, is that it’s not total catch rate that is important but ranked catch rate, and this requires fuzzy logic methodology, in that fishing is either good or bad.  Barbara Calvert: It is a bit disappointing that there were no lodge owners at this conference or people rep-resenting tourism.  Tony Pitcher: Well, we tried.  We had Velma McColl, who headed the BC Recreational Sector interests, on our planning steering committee for this conference, but unfortunately she changed jobs and we did not get the support we needed.   Eric Thunberg: When collecting data I think it is impor-tant for researchers not to ask just questions about trip success and focus on typical creel survey type ques-tions, but to also collect information on age and gender and other social information along the way. It does not take a lot more time to obtain other social and cultural information which can be integrated into the results, and this information can be collected at the same time.      Perspectives on Evaluating  Recreational Fisheries from the  Keynote Speakers  At the end of the conference, the four keynote speakers were asked to state what they felt we achieved at this conference or did not achieve on the subject of evaluat-ing the benefits of recreational fishing.    Ian Cowx  After a bit of reflection, I admit I am a bit disap-pointed, as I think we could have had a greater representation from the Europeans. This would have provided a more balanced perspective. There seem to be a lot of differences between recrea-tional fishers in Europe, North America, and Aus-tralia. There are a lot of lessons to be learned both ways. Here you focus on catch whereas in Europe the focus has been on integrated resources and the links between them and the methodology re-quired to understand these systems. There are differences, but at the same time there are simi-larities in the links, the biological, social and eco-nomic aspects. The methodology is the same and all of these need some fine tuning. The same top-ics were discussed in Dublin, and I don’t think we have developed that much in three years. Are we going to make progress in the next three years? We may have the opportunity of observing the results from the study on recreational fishing in the north-east United Sates. There is a lot to learn as we biologists, sociologists, managers and economists talk amongst ourselves. I think the only equation that matters in this area of research is “E=mc2”, where the E stands for exploitation rate and m stands for number of anglers and the c stands for chaos. I believe we cannot treat fisher-ies as an single entity.  We have to deal with other players in the system, as this is extremely impor-tant. We have to deal with factors such as educa-tion, communication and consultation. I would like to go back to one thing: the big issue of ani-mal welfare is going to happen. I have watched it happen in Britain, Holland and other places in Europe.  I think a code of practice is a good way to go, to show them that something is being done to protect the fish. On the river Trent, there are many dead fish around June 16th, as fishers en-gage in poor practices such as keeping fish all day in the nets and only releasing them in the after-noon. We need to teach them that this is not how it is done.   Bob Kearney  We have all learnt a lot and that there are many factors that we agree on, but the take home mes-sage for me is that there is still much that we need to debate.  We have been able to quantify a few important factors relating to recreational fishing, such as expenditure, but we have not been able to quantify others, such as the social benefits.  Many of the examples that have been given at this conference relate to North America’s wonderful Salmonid fisheries.  I am not convinced of the universal applicability of these examples to other fisheries, particularly to those in the South Pa-cific.  Much of the debate was on the benefits of restrict-ing access in order to improve the quality of fish-eries.  This very restriction raises serious cultural issues in many places.  Access was really dis-cussed only in terms of remoteness and the rela-tive high quality of fisheries that are difficult to get to.  We did not focus much discussion on ac-cess rights and property rights.  It is clear there is still confusion over the common property nature of the resources and the role of Government as the custodian on behalf of the people.  I believe we need further debate on this subject before we can progress resource allocation issues.  The conclusions from the models presented here strongly support the need for effort control in the Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 45   interests of maintaining quality fisheries.  Other models also showed that maximum economic benefits, at least in terms of expenditure, are de-rived from fisheries that have more tourists than locals.  For Australians, there is also the impor-tant issue of the high percentage of angling ex-penditure which is on imports.  As much Austra-lian legislation on fisheries espouses economic efficiency as the goal we need to be careful that one does not conclude from the economic model that maximum benefit would come from stopping Australians angling in Australia in order to mini-mise expenditure on imports and to maximise tourist dollars.  Such is the folly of taking eco-nomic models to their extreme and ignoring the social importance of recreational fisheries.  The German experience where catch and release fisheries are illegal, is most enlightening.  We were also informed that in Germany and Holland there is a strong move to ban angling totally.  If we are not careful the animal rights movement will threaten the very existence of recreational fishing, at least in some places and at some times.  The targeting and subsequent catch and release of spawning runs is one area that could be threat-ened.  The animal rights movement will increas-ingly question why fish that are not being targeted for human consumption should be allowed to be tormented.  Ussif Rashid Sumaila  For me this has been a great learning opportunity, especially because recreational fisheries have not been my main area of research interest - I come from the commercial sector. I think there are two key issues that the conference participants seem to agree upon. First, we agree that there are three broad fisheries management objectives: (i) eco-logical, (ii) social (including cultural) and (iii) economic. Second, we also seem to agree that some form of valuation of the benefits of recrea-tional fisheries is needed. But when it comes to how to do such valuations, there appears that there is little agreement. The main point is that we have to develop convincing ways to value these benefits not because we want to, but because we have to in order to protect our interests vis-à-vis other sectors in the economy - we do not have the luxury not to.  Carl Walters  I have learnt an enormous amount at this conference about evaluation methodology and research that focuses on recreational fisheries.  It seems to me, however that there is much naïveté. Most of the discussion at this conference considered economics and the promotion and development of recreational fisheries, whether it be by reducing pollution or improving water quality and/or reducing competition with commercial sectors. This attitude implies we think that we can promote recreational fisheries assuming that we can focus on supply-side management; that is, grow more in hatcheries. I will leave you with a thought, and it is a re-iteration of what I said the other day and it is, that this approach that some are advocating is doomed in the long term. I suggest that we all read Mike Sullivan’s paper over and over again and see where those predictions end up. Alberta is the norm and the same roots to the problems are evident in both papers he presented.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 46  Contributed Papers   Status and Trends in Kenyan  Recreational Marine Fisheries  Pamela Abuodha Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, Mombasa, Kenya    Abstract  The paper provides recent figures, from 1988 on-wards, on Kenya’s recreational marine fisheries based on official data from the Kenya Association of Sea Angling Clubs (KASAC), estimates and pri-vate information from people involved in the business. It includes the monsoon seasons, fishing areas, fish types and the tag -and –release pro-gram, mainly of the billfish. Recreational fishing is practiced mainly by foreign tourists and chiefly as a sport, not as a means of procuring food, or for sale. The economic value of this fisheries is rela-tively small and mainly comes from licensing of the sport by the Fisheries Department.    Introduction  Kenya is located on the Eastern African coast astride the equator between latitudes 50 40’ north and 40 4’ south and between longitudes 330 50’ and 410 45’ east, and border the Indian Ocean to the east. The country has an area of 590,000 km2 with Coast Province occupying 14.7 % of this. In 1996, the population was estimated at 28,267,000 and is expected to increase to over 31 million by the year 2000 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 1995). The Coast Province accounts for 8.5 % of this population and about 20 % of the national popu-lation depend on fisheries. The main fishery along the Kenya coast is artisanal and recreational fish-ery form less than 5 % of the total marine fishery. Kenya has a 574-km coastline running from Ki-unga in the north to Vanga in the south (see Fig. 1). The continental shelf is narrow with depths dropping below 200 meters within less than 4 km in most places, however, it widens significantly at the mouths of rivers Tana and Sabaki exceeding 15 km off the northern end of Ungwana Bay. Coral rocks characterize the coastline and sandy beaches protected from the open ocean by patch and fringing reefs. Except for the interruption of the reefs at the creeks by outflow of fresh water from rivers, the reefs run parallel to the entire shoreline at a distance of 1-2 km (Abuodha, 1992). Between the reef and the beaches and coral cliffs lie the lagoons that are a home to seagrass and algal beds. The area of the territorial waters is ap-proximately 9,000 km2 (Kinyanjui, 1984).  The monsoon seasons  Climatic patterns are important factors influenc-ing the Kenyan coastal environments and have a bearing in the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the ocean. The changing weather patterns significantly affect the produc-tivity, distribution and composition of marine target organisms. The Kenyan coast experiences semi-diurnal tides. The spring tides are up to 4 meters and neap tides up to about 1.8 meters. Along the coast, temperatures range from 22-34° C during the northeast monsoon season, reducing to about 19- 29° C in the rainy months of June- August, during southwest monsoon.  Kenya has two distinct monsoon seasons; north-east monsoon (December to March) and south-west monsoon (May to October). In between oc-curs the transition period from northeast to southwest and vice versa. During the northeast monsoons the flow is southward along the coast to about 20 south (off Lamu) and the velocity of the current is reduced to about 2 knots resulting Figure 1. Map of Kenyan coast showing location of fishing areas and some fishing clubs. Inset- location in Africa. Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 47   in a calm sea. At this time the Somali Current and the East African Coastal Current (EACC) converge off Kenya, enhancing the fisheries due to in-creased productivity associated with oceanic fronts (Wakwabi & Nguli, 1995). The high fish catches at this time are due to the arrival of the Somali Current water, which has high nutrient concentrations. The other reason is that of upwelling favorable conditions which are created by the tendency of the northeast winds to drive surface water off the shelf. As the surface water moves away from the coast, subsurface water rises to replace it. Since this water comes from below the photosynthetic zone, it is rich in nutrients. We can envisage the coastal boundary being en-hanced by localized upwelling along the Kenyan coast during the northeast monsoon. However, during the southwest monsoon season, a swift northern current, the East African Coastal Cur-rent (EACC) flows along the entire Kenyan coast. The current is enhanced by momentum from local winds and reaches velocities of up to 4 knots and the sea is rough.   Status of recreational marine fisheries  Kenya offers a huge variety of different species in deep sea fishing to anglers who come to enjoy the beautiful beaches, calm sea conditions and tropi-cal sunshine among others. These fisheries de-pend directly on foreign tourists and any negative effects on the tourism industry affect it. For ex-ample, the number of visitors arriving in Kenya dropped from 863,400 to 690,500 from 1994 to 1995. Correspondingly, the number of fish caught by anglers also dropped from 14,295 to 11,536 from 1994/95 to 1995/96 seasons.   This decline was blamed on negative international publicity on the local security situation, decline in tourist infrastructure like roads, water and power and competition from newly emerging destina-tions like South Africa. This has led to private in-dividuals operating sport fishing laying off the sport for other leisure activities and others with more boats selling some. Various measures were taken to arrest this decline, including: formation of Kenya Tourism Board, establishment of a Tour-ist Police Unit and the initiation of a Beach Man-agement Program (Odido, 1997). The sector has shown signs of recovery since 1996.   Kinds of fishing  The method used in recreational fishing is hook and line. The lines (tackle) range from light (2kg) to heavy (38 kg). Of this method, trolling accounts for 72 %; drifting 16 %; spinning 8 % and ground fishing 4 %. The accepted way of fishing for bill-fish is to troll a spread of lures baited with fish strips and teasers behind the boat at a speed of about 8 knots. Ground fishing (including drift fishing) outside the reef produces a large variety of edible fish. A number of game fish including marlin, sailfish, shark and kingfish are caught in this way.   Bottom fishing is done, in 150 m of water. A whole new technique for catching broadbill has been discovered in Kenya. Instead of drifting at night with natural squid baits, it has now been found that night trolling with lures can be even more effective. On dark nights, the fish seem to take best.  There is an almost infinite variety of craft avail-able for recreational fisheries in Kenya, including canoes intended for spin casting or bottom fish-ing. The boats are maintained to the highest stan-dards. Sesse canoes powered by outboard engines are ideal for inshore and spin fishing and also game fishing, especially with light tackle. The crafts are fast, have built in floatation and are very stable in rough seas. Most of the deep water fish-ing craft are twin engine and in touch with each other and the shore base by radio link. Most boats carry lifesaving and fire fighting equipment on board. Some boats though, go out fishing without radio on board and have been lucky to be rescued. There have not been reports of anglers dying while fishing. Figure 2. Annual recreational catches of fish along the Kenyan coast. Sailfish are the most numerous followed by tuna.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 48   Fishing areas  Fishing baits are trolled in areas likely to hold fish and these are the rips off Watamu, the north Kenya banks,  the Sabaki river mouth at Malindi and the seamounts at Shimoni in southcoast. The rips and the banks are areas of bottom feature both well offshore which create powerful currents. A large number of striped marlin are caught in the Pemba Channel along the south coast (Rainbow Runner magazine, 1997). Malindi is probably well known in Africa for its sailfish catches and in re-cent years-large marlin have been landed at Wa-tamu, Malindi and Mtwapa areas to the north of the country. The Sabaki River attracts baitfish, which the fish follow. The offshore banks over 80-km northeast of Watamu are areas rich in tunas, marlins and broadbill at night.  Fishing season and fish type  The species below (see Fig. 2) are seasonally common outside the reef. These include barra-cuda (Sphyraena barracuda), kingfish (Scomberomorus commerson), black marlin (Makaira indica), blue marlin (Makaira nigri-cans), striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax), sail-fish (Istiophorus platypterus), hammerhead shark (Sphyma spp.), mako shark (Isurus oxy-rinchus), tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri), yellow-fin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and wahoo (Acan-thocybium solandri) among others. The composi-tion of the catches varies throughout the year due to seasonal variation in hydrographic conditions, supply of food, life cycles, migration patterns etc.  There are two main seasons in the Kenyan sport fishing calendar and a very wide variety of top sporting game fish to be caught. Most of the fish caught are pelagic. Low season occurs from April to August with the high season starting from De-cember to March. A mid season occurs between September and November. The fishing seasons relate directly to the weather patterns and to the tourist volume. Sailfish are by far the most nu-merous of the billfish caught at Malindi (see Fig. 3 & 4). August to November provides really good sport for big yellowfin tuna amongst, which are often found the marlins. Many fish are also taken at other times. The main billfish (sailfish and mar-lin) season runs from November to mid/late March but sailfish are often substantial in August. There is usually a run of sailfish at Watamu, north coast, between August and September, while the main season off Malindi, north coast, runs from November to February (Rainbow Runner Maga-zine, 1997).   Striped marlin tends to be found offshore in cleaner water and can travel in schools. It is the smallest of the three species. Large blue marlins are found usually in the deep water in mid Febru-ary to mid March, whereas black marlin, the big-gest of all, are often encountered in shallow wa-ters. The sharks are often caught while fishing for tuna but they also take marlin baits. Broadbill is mostly caught at night.  Boat fishing days  In the 1997/98 season, 84 boat fishing days were reported in Lamu, 945 in Malindi, 887 in Wa-tamu, 215 in Kilifi, 514 in Mtwapa and 607 in Shimoni. A boat day is the number of days a boat goes fishing in one fishing season. During this season, Malindi had the highest average sailfish catch per boat day of 1.1 and Watamu had 0.8. At Shimoni the sailfish average catch was 0.7. per boat day, while that of marlin was 0.2 which was the highest. Average marlin catch per boat fishing day at Watamu and Malindi was the same both had 0.1. At Watamu the average broadbill per boat night was 2.3, at Malindi, 2.2 while at Shi-moni it was 0.8. Trends in recreational marine fisheries  Figure 3.  Percentage catches from 1988 to 1998 atseven sites along the Kenyan coast. From left, Lamu,Malindi, Kitifi, Mombasa, Diani, Shimoni.  Figure 4.  Percentage total catches (left) and weights (right) 1988-1998 of seven fish types. From left: barracuda, kingfish, marlin, sailfish, shark, wa-hoo.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 49    In the 1994/95 season, Kenya had the best year for sailfish (see Fig. 2). Most of these were caught from Malindi (see Fig. 3). In the Shimoni area alone, some 380 marlin were caught in 1996/97 season. This season also saw a welcome return of sailfish off Mtwapa, Mombasa. There were very few fish close to the reef with the majority being caught beyond 5 km unfortunately there was a big drop off in black marlin, but this was made for by an increase in the striped marlin catch. The fish-ing off the northern part of the Kenyan coast was badly affected in January and the first half of Feb-ruary in 1996/97 by a number of cyclones in Madagascar which caused a reverse current and consequent green water for kilometres out.   Within a ten-year period from 1988 to 1998, the best catches occurred in 1991/92  (13 %) and 1994/95 (14 %) seasons (see Fig. 2), with a total catch of 104,858 fish. From 1995 onwards, there has been a general decrease in the catches. The low catches in 1997/98 were mainly due to bad weather. Heavy and torrential rains, whipped up by the strongest El Niño ever experienced in Kenya lashed the Kenya coast from mid October  onwards. Bridges were destroyed, roads and houses washed away and the resulting floods swept thousands of tons of mud and sludge out to sea where the water became turbid as far as 25 kilometres out. Debris of all sorts including whole trees floated around in the sea for weeks making fishing not only difficult but hazardous too, as damage to propellers was a very real possibility. In the middle of December the current, which normally flows north along the coastline, reversed and proceeded to go south fast (Kenya fishing re-cords, 1998). The result of all these was that catches were low (8 % of the total).  Between 1988 to 1998, Malindi accounted for 31,500 of the total catches from Kenyan waters, which was 43 % (see Fig. 3). Watamu followed with over 30 % (23,300); Mombasa and south coast together accounted for over 20 % while Lamu and Kilifi accounted for only 2 % of the catches each. Sailfish accounted for about 45 % of the catch (see Fig. 4); tuna, 25 %; barracuda and kingfish, 10 % each while marlin and wahoo, 5 % each. Sharks had the least, only one- percent. The total number of catch of these seven species was 106,152.  Tag-and-release program  Yamaha Motors are the main sponsor of the tag and release program, introduced by the African Billfish Foundation (ABF) in 1987. The program which aims at helping the stressed fish population recover requires anglers to release their catch, instead of killing it as was previously the case. A card is filled out and returned to the ABF, estimating the weight of the ‘catch’ as accurately as possible and its place of capture. The data thus collected is vital for estimating billfish age, growth, and migration patterns, distributions and stock structures.   The tagging procedure uses thin plastic tags ap-proximately 4 inches long that do not in any way hinder the normal activities of the tagged fish. Ideally the tagging area is the middle shoulder, well above the lateral line and away from the head, gills, gill plates and other vital organs. The return of the tags is encouraged through financial rewards, as the information provided by those returning tags i.e. location of the catch, and its estimated length and weight, is invaluable to ABF’s research program. Knowledge gained from the program is essential to the development and maintenance of international management plan for the billfish that may help ensure the world-wide future of these important fish.  The change from killing to tagging and releasing has been a self-imposed effort by visiting anglers and local captains. Both realize the value of a bill-fish both as a predator and a sustainable  natural resource, without which many of them would be out of business and no one would have the pleas-ure of baffling the great fish of  the Kenyan wa-ters. The number of fish tagged and released dou-bled from the 1995/96 season. A number of tagged fish have been recaptured on the Kenyan coastline especially in the Malindi and Watamu areas. There has also been a distinct rise in the number of species being tagged and released. For example in 87/88 season, the number of sailfish and marlins tagged and released were 246 and 15 respectively. In the 97/98 season, however sailfish and marlins tagged and released were 1189 and 107 respectively (Rainbow Runner Magazine, 1997). This shows an increase of over 400 to 700 percent. Since 1987/88 to 1997/98  seasons, total number of billfish tagged and released were; sailfish, 13045; black marlin, 215; blue marlin, 102; striped marlin 1337 and 301 broadbill. Of these 212 recoveries have been made (Kenya fishing records, 1998).  Factors constraining fishery development  Ranges of factors that constrain the further devel-opment of recreational fisheries include decline in tourism industry, increasing costs of angling, poaching and  increased diversity of leisure activi-ties. There is still some aggravation between com-Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 50  mercial fishermen and recreational anglers, some-thing that will always exist, whereby two different user groups target the same resource. The Spanish and Japanese commercial fleets are having a very serious effect on the tuna stocks because the nets that they use catch more than they intend to and they take up, they scoop up everything, rather than just the primary target.  Recommendations and Conclusion  Appropriate data collection system needs to be es-tablished and implemented. It is recommended to increase efforts to promote and educate young per-sons and adults in the field of recreational fisheries, to improve the image of recreational fisheries and participation in the activity. There are many factors (social, economic, cultural and originating from multi year tradition) characterizing recreational fisheries and to evaluate the status and prospects requires the co-ordination and collaboration of ba-sic information of different types, catches and management activities. The tag and release pro-gram is good and more sponsors should be sought.  Acknowledgments  The author wishes to acknowledge both Mr. Wanyoike and Mr. Muriithi of Fisheries Department Mombasa for providing initial guideline. Much thanks goes to James Adcock and his captain Joseph Ngila of James Adcock sport fishing at Mtwapa who provided material forming the backbone of this paper; to Tony Cullen, Ken Adcock and Hesabu Bakari all of Hemingways Re-sort, Watamu for providing the same. I am grateful to my col-leagues Pamela, Kamau, Samuel, Polycarp, Priscilla, Nguli and Maria for their invaluable assistance; to Shaban who proofread this manuscript; to Gunna, conference organizer, for being there for me. Much thanks also to the Carls Duisberg Gesellschaft e. V. (CDG) Germany for providing funding. All the raw data synthe-sized and used in this paper is courtesy of the Kenya Association of Sea Angling Clubs (KASAC). Tag and release data is courtesy of the African Billfish Foundation (ABF).  References  Abuodha, P. A. W., 1992. The geomorphology and sedimentol-ogy of the Mombasa-Diani area; Implications to Coastal Zone Management. M. Sc. Thesis. University of Nairobi. P. 155. Central Bureau of statistics (CBS), 1995. Statistical Abstract 1995. Kenya Fishing Records, 1998. Produced by Kenya Association of Sea Angling Clubs (KASAC). Printed by Tamarind Restau-rant, Nairobi. Kinyanjui D., 1984. Kenya National Report, Marine and Coastal Conservation in East African Region UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies no. 50. Odido, M., 1997. Marine science country profiles, Kenya. IOCINCWIO-IV/Inf.5. Mombasa, Kenya 6-10 May, 1997. Restricted distribution. Rainbow runner magazine, 1997. Official journal of the Kenya association of sea Angling Clubs (KASAC). Published by Coastweek Newspapers Limited, Mombasa, Kenya.      Questions  Calvin Blood: Is there a large scale commercial sector associated with the local fisheries?  Pamela Aboudha:  No, the local fishery is small-scale in nature - it is a subsistence fishery.  There are no storage facilities and this is a problem as the temperatures are high.  Murray MacDonald: It seems that the local fishers and the visiting recreational sector are targeting different fish, with the recreational fishers using sophisticated equipment to target tuna and sailfish which are further offshore, whereas the locals target inshore species along the coral reefs.  If this is so, what is the purpose of en-couraging locals to target offshore species too?  Pamela Aboudha: Local fishers are being encouraged to target offshore species in order to take advantage of a national resource. There is a lot or pressure on the in-shore fishery and thus on the coral reefs. Offshore stocks are not well documented.  Ussif Rashid Sumaila: Are the recreational fishers charged fees for their exploitation?  Pamela Aboudha: Within the Fisheries Act, the issuing of licences is covered. The licences go to clubs and op-erators on an annual basis. Part of the permit requires that the vessels are sea-worthy and maintained, thus an inspection takes place.   Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 51   Relationships between  Recreational Angling and  Native Salmonids in Alberta: a Historical Perspective   M. Kerry Brewin Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Canada    Introduction  Even before Alberta became a province in 1905, the evolution of fisheries management and recrea-tional angling in the province had already begun. For example, concerns were being expressed by 1890 about how native stream fisheries in south-western Alberta were declining and about the in-effectiveness of the October 1st to January 1st stream closure for trout (McIllree and White-Fraser, 1983).  Similar to many other North American jurisdic-tions, as concerns about declining trends contin-ued, fisheries managers and recreational anglers focused attention towards maximizing recrea-tional angling opportunities, as opposed to con-serving native fish stocks. Some of these efforts (e.g., introducing non-native species) have had serious impacts on Alberta’s native fish stocks.  This paper is part of an on-going literature review to compile and summarize historical information about how anglers, fishery managers, and other stakeholders have managed, and affected, Al-berta’s native salmonid fishery resources. This paper discusses how recreational angling and fisheries management have evolved during the last 100 years and how this evolution has affected native salmonid fish stocks in Alberta. Bibliogra-phies of several references (e.g., Colpitts, 1993, 1997; Brewin, 1994) describing the history of an-gling, angling organizations, and fisheries man-agement in Alberta were reviewed to help locate additional reference materials. Information and photographs in archives at the National Archives of Canada, Provincial Archives (Alberta), and se-lected museums (e.g., Glenbow Museum, Calgary, and Whyte Museum of the Rockies, Banff) were also reviewed to further develop a database of his-torical reference materials.  The topics discussed in this paper include:  • The 1910-1911 Alberta and Saskatchewan Fisheries Commission; • Early attitudes of anglers towards native fish stocks; • Post-1980 initiatives to protect and restore Alberta’s bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) stocks;  • Summary of how past actions has impacted native salmonid fisheries in Alberta. • Other chapters being developed as companion chapters to this manuscript include: • Early fishery protection efforts by anglers and the creation of early sportsmen groups; • Salmonid fish culture in Alberta; • Existing policies regarding stocking fish in flowing waters within Alberta; • Attitudes and practices affecting native sal-monids (1930s - 1970s);  • Existing status of Alberta’s native salmonids; and • Distribution of non-native salmonids in Al-berta.  The 1910-1911 Alberta and Saskatchewan Fisheries Commission  The Department of Marine and Fisheries’s re-sponsibility for Alberta’s fisheries began with the Canadian government’s purchase of Rupert’s Land from the Hudson Bay Company in 1870. However, the Department never implemented a conservation policy until well after the turn of century and instead used regulations written for Manitoba to control fisheries in the Northwest Territories (Colpitts, 1993) which originally in-cluded Alberta and Saskatchewan.  Although Alberta did not become a province until 1905, complaints about rivers and streams in south-western Alberta becoming ‘fished out’ had become common by the turn of the century (Col-pitts, 1993, 1997; Prince et al. 1912; McIllree and White-Fraser, 1983). Anglers blamed new angling practices for these declines (e.g., improving access and increasing use of fisheries from non-locals). For example, from the 1890s to 1910, anglers had largely been confined to fishing near their home-towns. By the early 1910s, the use of automobiles and pack horses on fishing trips was contributing to increased fishing pressure and harvest in the foothills and mountains of southern Alberta (Col-pitts, 1993). In addition to fishermen employing rod and reel, other more destructive methods of capturing fish were also utilized in Alberta’s early history (i.e., netting, trapping, liming, shooting and explosives (D. Mayhood, Freshwater Re-search Ltd., Calgary, AB, pers. comm.).   Pollution events were also documented during Alberta’s early history. Fish kills from dumping municipal sewage and industrial refuse were re-ported by the Northwest Mounted Police as early as 1889 (i.e., sawdust from a sawmill was found in Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 52  the gills and insides of many dead fish) (McIllree and White-Fraser, 1983). There are also several other reports of early pollution events (e.g., Prince et al., 1912; Colpitts, 1993, 1997; D. Mayhood, pers. comm.), as well as concerns about habitat degradation caused by dam construction, irriga-tion diversions and forestry practices (e.g., Prince et al. 1912; Colpitts 1993, 1997).  The rush of land settlement in the early 1900's, coupled with Alberta becoming a province and petitions from anglers asking the government to correct declining fish stocks, led to the creation of the Alberta and Saskatchewan Fisheries Commis-sion. This three person Commission travelled throughout Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1910 and 1911 to investigate fisheries resources and recommend appropriate conservation actions (Prince et al., 1912). The Chairman of the Com-mission, E.E. Prince was a professor and the De-partment’s fisheries specialist. The other two members, Dr. E. Sisley and T.H. McGuire, were non-scientists (i.e., a physician and judge, respec-tively). This structure, and the Commission’s vis-its to selected locations to hear the views of an-glers, commercial fishermen, Fishery Guardians, and other stakeholders, allowed the Commission to solicit the views of common citizens as well as fisheries specialists. This was done to help the Fisheries Branch develop a comprehensive under-standing about the state of fishery resources and a list of recommended fisheries conservation efforts (Colpitts, 1993).  Among other things, the Commission’s report (i.e., Prince et al., 1912) discussed preferences among anglers for different species and how spe-cies like westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), rainbow trout (O. mykiss) (only native to the Athabasca River system), and Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) were highly re-garded by anglers. It also discussed how preda-tory species like bull trout and northern pike were despised by some anglers. For example, the report discussed anglers requesting angling closures to protect spawning runs, particularly for preferred species; however, when both spring and fall spawning species were present, the Commission stated -  It is impracticable to have a close season covering both spawning periods. As a choice must be made, the best course to take is to protect the fish re-garded as the most valuable, viz: the Salmo clarkii.  After hearing that many of Alberta’s fish stocks, particularly in south-western Alberta, had become depleted, the Commission listed the following causes:  We regretted to find that the valuable fish native to them have become sadly depleted, and we now proceed to enumerate and explain the causes:  (a) Overfishing,     (b)  Illegal fishing (dynamite, nets, & c.), (c) Infraction of Irrigation Regulations,  (d) Improper close seasons, (e) Lack of fisheries officers to enforce regulations, (f) Sewage and other pollutants, (g) Drought,      (h) Fishing through the ice.  The Commission’s recommendations included a $2/year angling license and minimum daily catch limits of 15 fish/day for cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, grayling and mountain whitefish (Pro-sopium williamsoni) and six lake trout/day (Salvelinus namaycush).  Bull trout were not in-cluded in the daily limit recommendation. It was also recommended that some streams be com-pletely closed to fishing for three consecutive years to give them a “much needed rest”.  Other recommendations involved expanding ex-isting Forestry Reserves along the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains into Fishery Reserves (i.e., closing headwater streams to fishing) and the creation of hatcheries to bolster fish produc-tion. It was proposed that the hatcheries be used to raise native fish for restocking depleted fish stocks (i.e., first priority spring spawning trout species and Arctic grayling, and then fall spawn-ing lake trout and mountain whitefish if the hatchery could be winterized).   Although brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) from Lake Nipigon had already been stocked in the Bow River within BNP (Prince et al., 1912; Col-pitts, 1993), it was barely mentioned in the Com-mission’s report. Several anglers also made re-quests to stock other non-native fish species (e.g., bass spp.); however, with respect to the stocking non-native fish the Commission stated (Prince et al., 1912):  We are of the opinion that there should be strin-gent prohibition against the introduction and planting of new species of fish not native to the waters of the two provinces. Great harm has re-sulted in many cases from the planting of foreign species of fish, which have become a nuisance. Should there be grounds for introducing fish not indigenous to these provinces, such steps should be taken only with permission of the Honourable the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 53   Despite early recommendations made by fisheries commissions (Prince et al., 1912) and experts (e.g., Prince et al., 1912 and Rawson, 1939) to avoid introducing non-native species into waters containing native sportfish, non-native sportfish were stocked into many watersheds in Alberta, particularly within the national parks.  The lack of attention given to recommendations not to stock non-native species is highlighted by the number of non-native fish which were intro-duced2 into the upper Bow River system in BNP (Brewin 1994). This list of sportfish includes: lake trout, brook trout, rainbow trout, golden trout (O. aguabonita), Yellowstone (O.c. bouvieri) and coastal (O.c. clarki) cutthroat trout, brown trout (Salmo trutta), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), lake herring (Coregonus artedii), Quebec red trout (Salvelinus alpinus marstoni), splake (brook trout X lake trout hybrids); bull trout X brook trout hybrids; rainbow trout X cutthroat trout hybrids; and possibly even lake trout X bull trout hybrids. In addition to these species or hy-brids, Northern Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) were introduced into Chester Lake (Nelson and Paetz, 1992) and have moved downstream in the upper Spray River system3 [J. Stelfox, Fisheries Management Division, Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP) pers. comm.], and bass spp. were introduced into Lake Minnewanka, BNP, in 1908 (Nelson and Paetz, 1992).   Early Attitudes of Anglers Towards Native Fish Stocks  Early records reveal native cutthroat trout were highly regarded by anglers in southern Alberta. For example, Prince et al., (1912) states the fol-lowing:  - This fine game fish is the trout par excellence of the Rocky Mountain streams. - Of all the indigenous fish of the western streams, none are more worthy of preservation and of in-crease by artificial culture than this highly es-teemed and beautiful trout. - It is a bold fighter and takes a fly with great readiness and vigour. A small Cut Throat say 7 in. and only 6 oz. in weight will give more sport that a Salvelinus of five times the size. - They are, on three grounds, worthy of the fullest protection, viz: because of their non-predatory                                        2Although these species, sub-species and hybrids were intro-duced, information regarding whether they became estab-lished does not exist. 3  Mouth of the Spray River into Bow River is located inside BNP immediately below Bow Falls. character, their excellent food qualities, and their fine game qualities. - Some want bull trout exterminated in favour of the Cut Throat (attributed to witnesses at Calgary meeting).  In more northern waters where cutthroat trout were absent, Athabasca rainbow trout were highly regarded. For example, Prince et al., (1912) indi-cated:  Very much the same remarks as have been used in describing the Cut Throat trout could be properly used in describing this fish.  The high regard for rainbow trout was also evi-dent in W.F. Whitcher’s 1887 report to the De-partment of Interior. Whitcher, a former Fisheries Commissioner, apparently ranked the Athabasca rainbow trout highest due to their form, size, col-our, flavour and gaminess. His second ranked species was the eastern brook trout, then cut-throat trout, and at the bottom of the hierarchy were bull trout which were declared “...an awk-ward country cousin... of insipid flesh” (Whitcher, 1987 in Colpitts, 1997).  With respect to Arctic grayling, Prince et al. (1912) wrote:  - All alike are fine game and food fish, indeed, Dr. Henshall, the veteran fish authority in Montana declares that ‘as a game fish the Grayling is fully the equal of the trout, though its way of taking the artificial fly is quite different’. - It bites at the artificial fly with eagerness, and deriving great power from its dorsal fin, affords much sport to the angler. - Where the western waters are well stocked with these fine game fish just named they afford an-gling sport not to be surpassed anywhere.  Mountain whitefish were less regarded, but still valued as a game fish (Prince et al., 1912):  - The readiness which they take the fly gives this fish an interest and importance, which confers on them a special claim to protection and increase in western streams.  Predatory species, like bull trout and lake trout, were placed at the bottom of the hierarchy. For example, the 1910-1912 Commission recom-mended size limits and daily harvest limits for cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, mountain white-fish and grayling, but left bull trout out of this recommendation. Statements from Prince et al., (1912) reveal the disdain of some anglers towards bull trout:  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 54  - The bull trout has not largely increased in most of the Albertan waters while the superior Cut Throat trout has been decreasing. The former has been partly regarded as the cause of the decrease for it is a predacious species and indeed a canni-bal. It is a charr and though often handsomely coloured externally, it has not the fine shape, ac-tive behaviour, determined gaminess and fine ta-ble qualities of the Salmo clarkii. It is most vora-cious, feeding greedily on its own and other spe-cies, and usually skulks at the bottom of pools or behind a stone ready to pounce upon any passing fish. It will not rise to the fly but takes bait such as a small fish, a piece of beef or other course lure, and has no fighting qualities. - It requires no skill to secure and on that account has some popularity amongst anglers of little am-bition or experience. - It is not an attractive fish on the table. The flesh is very pale pink as a rule. Tastes however differ, and an eminent authority has pronounced it a ‘good fool fish’ but he also states that it is much more voracious than the true trout and most freely takes the hook, and ‘to the trout hog the Dolly Varden can be strongly recommended as it swarms in the millions’.... - In evidence at some of the Commission’s sittings its voracity and ease of capture were held favour-able features, ‘tourists,’ said one witness, ‘are pleased with bull trout as nine out of ten don’t know the difference between it and a good game fish.’ - Get rid of pike and bull trout  (attributed to wit-nesses at Fort MacLeod meeting). - I would suggest the removal of any limit to the size of bull-trout which may be caught, but would not like to suggest removal of protection as it might lead to other trout being killed out of sea-son. (Quote from an appended letter sent to the Commission)  Similarly, lake trout, were also not highly re-garded (Prince et al., 1912):  -It is not usually regarded as a game fish but in Minnewanka Lake, near Banff, the Waterton Lakes and some other lakes near the Rockies it is fished by troll and from its sheer weight and size gives the fishermen some labour to land. The lake trout has no real game qualities although on rare occasions it has been taken by the fly, and ranges from 2 or 3 lbs. up to 60 or 70 lbs. -  Colpitts (1993) also summarized information about preferences anglers in southern Alberta for different fish species for the period 1902 -1930 (Figure 1).  It indicates cutthroat trout and bull trout were the highest and lowest ranked species, respectively.  Post-1980 initiatives to protect and  restore Alberta’s bull trout stocks  By the 1980's attitudes among some anglers and fisheries managers towards native species, par-ticularly bull trout, had begun to change. In 1983 a special resolution was passed at the Al-berta Fish and Game Association’s Annual Con-vention that called for ‘no-kill regulations’ for bull trout, except where harvestable surpluses exist (Roberts, 1982). Although this resolution for pro-tective regulations was supported by several stakeholder groups [i.e., Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Trout Unlimited Canada (TUC) and the Edmonton Trout Club], all the requested changes were not implemented by Alberta Fish and Wildlife (Roberts, 1987).  By 1985 angler’s harvest and possession limits for bull trout were limited to two fish/day and to two bull trout (respectively); by this time Alberta also had a draft management plan for bull trout that called for the province to “regulate fishing in line with the production surplus” (Carl, 1985). How-ever, this plan was never implemented and at the end of the 1994-1995 fishing season Alberta’s general regulations still allowed anglers to harvest two bull trout/day over 40 cm (total length) (NRS, 1994). Although these regulations stayed in effect until the 1995-1996 fishing season, the Bull Trout Task Force - Alberta (BTTF), which Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division was a part of, initiated a Save the bull trout poster campaign which en-couraged anglers to release all bull trout they cap-tured (Brewin, 1997).  Although stakeholder groups made it clear in the 1980's that they supported protection for bull trout, it is less clear whether the angling public Figure 1. Rankings of sportfish attributed by Al-berta anglers: 1902-1930. (Found in Colpitts 1993) Golden BrownCutthroat  RainbowEastern brookMountain whitefishBull troutEvaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 55   saw bull trout as being worthy of special protec-tion. A survey conducted in 1991 of southern Al-berta households indicates anglers had no prefer-ences between recreational fisheries with an all native fish assemblage (bull trout, cutthroat trout and mountain whitefish) or with a mixed fish as-semblage (mountain whitefish and introduced rainbow trout and brown trout) (Thompson, 1997).  These results are particularly noteworthy because Thompson (1997) targeted users of the Highwood River sub-basin. Colpitts (1993, 1997) revealed early anglers in this sub-basin were intimately involved in native trout issues (i.e., during 1900 to 1920 these anglers held cutthroat trout in high regard and resisted attempts to introduce non-native species into the Highwood River). Thomp-son (1997) suggested one reason why modern an-glers did not display preferences between native and non-native fish assemblages could be because most anglers can not discriminate between native and non-native species. An alternative could be that by 1992 non-natives had been the dominant sportfish for so long that recreational anglers had little knowledge about, or experience with, the native fish species.   Stakeholder groups continued to champion native trout awareness efforts in the 1990's due to con-cerns about their plight in the province. The most high profile of these efforts were centred on bull trout. In 1992, TUC resolved to sponsor the des-ignation of the bull trout as Alberta’s official pro-vincial fish emblem (Blake 1997).  In 1993, TUC and other groups (i.e., provincial and federal regulatory agencies, other conserva-tion organizations, industry, and private and aca-demic biologists) joined to form the Bull Trout Task Force - Alberta (BTTF). The BTTF was formed to facilitate the recovery of Alberta’s bull trout populations. After completing all of their original objectives, the BTTF disbanded in 1997. The objectives, history and undertakings of the BTTF are described in Brewin (1997). Some of the BTTF’s more significant accomplishments were:   • - hosting a major, international conference in Calgary in 1994 on the biology and manage-ment at which bull trout status reports for various regions of the province were presented (Mackay et al. 1997); • - facilitating the provincial government’s des-ignation of bull trout as Alberta’s official fish emblem in 1995; • - facilitating the provincial government’s im-plementation of a province-wide recovery pro-gram for bull trout; • - raising support for the implementation of province-wide angling regulations (including the National Parks) which prohibit anglers from harvesting bull trout anywhere in the province; • - developing and implementing numerous initiatives aimed at raising public awareness about the plight of the Alberta’s bull trout and public support for recovery efforts; and • - developing province-wide priorities for bull trout inventory, research and education needs (BTTF, 1995).  Prior to the implementation of many of the BTTF’s awareness initiatives, TUC commissioned a survey in 1993 to document the attitudes of Al-berta anglers towards bull trout and fisheries management (Boxall and LeFrancois, 1997). They reported that only 20% of TUC members and 6% the general angling public were aware of the bull trout’s vulnerable status. They also found, ap-proximately 100 years after some of the first re-ports regarding streams and river being ‘fished out’ began to surface (Colpitts, 1993, 1997), only 10.5% and 5.6% of TUC and non-TUC members, respectively, believed that foothill and mountain streams were ‘fished out’.  Although only 6% of the angling public surveyed by Boxall and LeFrancois (1997) in 1993 were aware of the bull trout vulnerable status, Baaynes and Brewin’s (1998) 1996-1997 survey indicated anglers supported the need for bull trout conser-vation programs (average score of 9.0 of 10).  Discussion  Among the sportfish known to early anglers and fishery managers, the highest ranked were native cutthroat trout, and “none were considered more worthy of preservation” (Prince et al., 1912). However, despite being held in the highest es-teem, within their native range Alberta’s pure westslope cutthroat appear to be at serious risk of extinction and should be listed as a ‘threatened’ or ‘endangered’ (D. Mayhood, pers. comm.). The causes of their decline include: on-going habitat degradation; angler overharvest; competition and predation from introduced salmonids; and intro-gressive hybridization with introduced black-spotted trout stocks (D. Mayhood, pers. comm.). Although bull trout were Alberta’s most abundant and widely distributed trout or char, they have experienced severe declines in their abundance and distribution during the last 100 years and are now considered a ‘species of special concern’ (Berry, 1997). Factors which have contributed to this decline include: overharvest by anglers; in-troduction of non-native salmonids (i.e., dis-Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 56  placement and/or replacement by introduced stocks, and hybridization with brook trout); and habitat degradation (e.g., various papers in Mac-kay et al., 1997).  Both recreational anglers and fisheries managers throughout much of the last 100 years persecuted Bull trout. Since 1980 efforts have been taken to reverse the bull trout’s decline in Alberta. Al-though recovery efforts are still in their infancy in Alberta, bull trout have become a high profile spe-cies (Brewin, 1997) and support for conservation efforts has grown (Baayens and Brewin, !998). It will take many years before the success of recov-ery efforts can be properly evaluated, but the out-look for Alberta’s bull trout is improving.  Alberta’s other native salmonids have also experi-enced severe declines in their distribution and abundance during the last 100 years (i.e., lake trout, Arctic grayling, and Athabasca rainbow trout). For example, Arctic grayling are consid-ered ‘vulnerable’ by AEP and a range-wide man-agement and recovery plan for them was imple-mented in 1998 (Berry, 1998). Native lake trout stocks are also at risk and a provincial manage-ment plan and recovery plan may be required for them as well (D. Radford, Fisheries Management Division, AEP, pers. comm.).  The factors that have contributed to the declines of Alberta’s native lake trout, Arctic grayling, and rainbow trout are similar to those that have caused the decline of native cutthroat trout and bull trout. Although some exceptions exist which prevents the lists of factors from being completely universal (e.g., commercial fishing has been a fac-tor in the declines of some lake trout stocks, hy-bridization with introduced salmonids has not led to declines of Arctic grayling), large  similarities in the causes of the declines exist between species. Another factor that has contributed to the decline of Alberta’s native salmonids, but is seldom listed, is the lack of basic fisheries inventory information (e.g., population dynamics data, locations of criti-cal habitats, and angler pressure and harvest). Basic inventory information is needed to allow fisheries managers and regulatory agencies to make informed decisions so that they can protect critical habitats and implement protective angling regulations.  In this regard, it is noteworthy that 83 years after the 1910-1911 Alberta and Saskatchewan Fisheries Commission held a series of meetings to solicit ‘state-of-the-art’ information about the status and distribution of native fish stocks, fisheries manag-ers in Alberta were still relying on similar collec-tion methods as their principle method of collect-ing basic fisheries information. Walty and Smith (1997) lacked basic inventory information regard-ing the status and distribution of bull trout in the Peace River basin and solicited input from local anglers to supplement the knowledge of fisheries managers. Consequently, input from local anglers, rather than fisheries inventory information, was used to conclude that ‘no surplus bull trout were available for harvest’ within the Fisheries Man-agement Area.  While these fisheries managers are applauded for incorporating the knowledge and concerns of an-glers into management decisions, management decisions need to be based on the best available science. Historical evidence clearly demonstrates the consequences of not basing management deci-sions on good science. As fisheries management in Alberta enters its second century, it is essential that fisheries management decisions be based on a solid foundation of good science, particularly if native fish stocks are going to be part of Alberta’s future.   References  NRS. 1994. Alberta Guide to Sportfishing. Natural Resources Service, Alberta Environmental Protection, Edmonton, AB. Baayens, D.M. and M.K. Brewin. 1998. Identification of Medi-ums for Delivering Bull Trout Messages Using the ‘No Black, Put It Back’ Education Contest. Human Dimen-sions in Wildlife 3(1): 69-71. Berry, D.K. 1997. Alberta’s bull trout management and recovery plan. Pages 89-98 In: Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita, (Eds.). Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Pro-ceedings, Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), Trout Unlim-ited Canada (TUC), Calgary, AB. Berry, D.K. 1998. Alberta’s Arctic Grayling Management and Recovery Plan. Fisheries Management Division, Natural Resources Service, Alberta Environmental Protection, Edmonton, AB. Blake, T. 1997. Reclaiming a legacy: Trout Unlimited Canada and bull trout. Pages 21-24 In: Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita, (Eds.). Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings, Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), TUC, Calgary, AB. Boxall, P.C. and R. LeFrancois. 1997. A survey of Alberta anglers’ attitudes towards bull trout and fisheries management. Pages 45-52 In: Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita, (Eds.). Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Pro-ceedings, Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), TUC, Calgary, AB. Brewin, M.K. 1994. 1993 Fishery Investigations in the upper Bow River system, Banff National Park, Alberta. Prepared for Ecosystem Management, Banff National Park Warden Service, Banff, AB, by Trutta Environments and Manage-ment, Cochrane, AB. Brewin, M.K. 1997. The Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta). Pages 1-14 In: Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita, (Eds.) Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings, Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), TUC, Calgary, AB. Carl, L. 1985. Management plan for bull trout in Alberta. Pages 71-80 In MacDonald, D.D., (Ed.). Flathead basin bull trout biology and population dynamics modelling infor-Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 57   mation exchange. BC Ministry of Environment, Cran-brook, BC. Colpitts, G.W. 1993. Sciences, streams, and sport: trout conser-vation in southern Alberta. 1900-1930. Master’s Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Colpitts, G.W. 1997. Historical perspectives of good versus evil: stream eugenics and the plight of Alberta’s bull trout: 1900-1900. Pages 31-36 in Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita, (Eds.). Friends of the Bull Trout Confer-ence Proceedings, Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), TUC, Calgary, AB. Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita. 1997. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), TUC, Calgary, AB. McIllree, J.H. and M.H. White-Fraser. 1983. Fishing in southern Alberta. Alberta History 1983(Spring): 36-38. Prince, E.E., T.H. McGuire and E. Sisley. 1912. Dominion Al-berta and Saskatchewan Fisheries Commission 1910-1911. Reports with recommendations and appendices. Govern-ment Printing Bureau, Ottawa, ON. Rawson, D.S. 1939. A biological survey and recommendations for fisheries management in waters of Banff National Park. Prepared by University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, for Parks Bureau, Department of Mines and Resources, Ottawa, ON. Roberts, W.E. 1982. Help the bull trout. Unpublished MS and resolution to the 1983 Alberta Fish and Game Convention. TUC, Edmonton, AB. Roberts, W.E. 1987. The bull trout - endangered in Alberta. In: Holroyd, G.L., W.B. McGillvary, P.H.R. Stepney, D.M. Ealey, G.C. Trottier and K.E. Eberhart, (Eds.). Proceed-ings of the workshop on the endangered species in the Prairie provinces. Historical Resources Division, Alberta Culture, Edmonton. Occasional Paper No. 9.   Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 58  Low Consumptive Angler  Behaviour and Preferred  Management Strategies:  the Case of Sport Fishing in British Columbia’s Tidal Waters  Barbara Calvert and Peter Williams The University of New England, Armidale, Australia Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada    Introduction  Tidal or saltwater sport fishing is a popular rec-reational activity for both residents and non-residents of British Columbia and is economically significant as a component of the British Colum-bia tourism industry. During 1997, anglers in Brit-ish Columbia’s tidal sport fishery spent circa $485 million. Between 1981 and 1995, non-resident anglers created most of the growth in tidal sport fishing license sales in British Columbia (GSGis-lason and Associates Limited, 1998). The growth in popularity of tidal sport fishing has been ac-companied by overfishing of British Columbia’s tidal waters. This has resulted in fish stock deple-tion and consequential decline in the quality of sport fishing opportunities (ARA Consulting Group Incorporated, 1991).   The growing demand for further tidal sport fish-ing opportunities and the concurrent decline in fish stocks have resulted in an urgent need for innovative management strategies which encour-age conservation, while simultaneously accom-modating angler preferences in order to enhance the sport fishing experience. Management of the British Columbia tidal sport fishery is the respon-sibility of the Government of Canada. That re-sponsibility is administered by means of the De-partment of Fisheries and Oceans (Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia, 1992; ARA Consult-ing Group Incorporated, 1996; Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1997a). The Department of Fish-eries and Oceans is challenged in its attempts to address the pressures of overfishing and increas-ing demand for further sport fishing opportuni-ties. This is evident by the continual depletion of salmon stocks, and the resultant decline in the quality of sport fishing opportunities in the Brit-ish Columbia tidal sport fishery.  Management strategies which promote low con-sumptive sport fishing are needed in the British Columbia tidal sport fishery. Low consumptive sport fishing comprises voluntary catch and re-lease practices, and shifts the angler’s focus to-wards the non-consumptive components of the experience. These low consumptive management strategies may help to facilitate the sustainability of the British Columbia tidal sport fishing indus-try, and at the same time enhance the quality of the sport fishing experience.   Purpose of study and research questions  The purpose of this study was to identify the key characteristics of low consumptive anglers, and to suggest ways of promoting increased participation in low consumptive sport fishing in the British Columbia tidal fishery. The central research ques-tions related to this study were:  • What are the characteristics of low consump-tive anglers? • What management strategies are needed to promote greater participation in low consumptive fishing experiences in British Co-lumbia’s tidal waters?  Methods  Data used for analysis in this study were derived from the British Columbia non-resident compo-nent of a Department of Fisheries and Oceans survey of recreational fishing in Canada. The sur-vey was conducted during 1990 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1994a). This survey investigated management preferences and social, economic and behavioural characteristics of non-resident tidal anglers. More specifically, the survey ex-plored the following traits of anglers:  • geographic origin;  • age and gender;  • personal income;  • participation patterns;  • catch and release information;  • motivations;  • satisfaction;  • management options;  • trip characteristics;  • angler expenditures.   The Department of Fisheries and Oceans supplied this angler data to the Centre for Tourism and Policy Research at Simon Fraser University for statistical analyses. During 1997, researchers at the Centre for Tourism Policy and Research per-formed a range of statistical analyses on the sur-vey data by means of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).   In the present study, interpretations of these data were carried out in order to determine the differ-ences in characteristics and management prefer-ences of low consumptive and consumptive an-Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 59   glers. Graphical representations of data, which had been previously analyzed by the Centre for Tourism Policy and Research, were prepared to detect distinctive activity patterns and response tendencies between the two groups. The average numbers of fish caught and kept per day by both groups were calculated for all species for the whole of British Columbia’s tidal waters. This method was used to determine significant differ-ences in the daily consumptive patterns between the two groups.  F-values for motivations, environmental factors and management options were used to determine where the greatest differences in mean responses between the two angler groups existed. This method was employed to identify the features of low consumptive anglers that could be used to weight management strategies suited to their  preferences and behaviour.   Results  On average, the low consumptive anglers were younger than their consumptive counterparts. A greater percentage of low consumptive anglers than consumptive anglers were expert or experi-enced at sport fishing, and rated their tidal sport fishing experiences in British Columbia during 1990 as excellent or very good.   Compared to the consumptive group, the low con-sumptive group spent a higher average number of days in 1990, and a higher average number of years sport fishing in British Columbia’s tidal wa-ters. During 1990, the average number of trips for which sport fishing was the main or secondary reason for visiting British Columbia, or for which sport fishing was decided upon after arrival, was greater for the low consumptive anglers than for their consumptive counterparts. The low con-sumptive anglers went on a greater average num-ber of outdoor and resort trips in conjunction with their sport fishing trips, and spent a greater average number of nights in different types of ac-commodation, than did the consumptive anglers. On average, the low consumptive anglers also spent more money on goods and services whilst on their tidal sport fishing holidays in British Co-lumbia than did their consumptive counterparts. This was the case with respect to all categories of spending investigated except for the category of lodge and resort accommodation.  Surprisingly, the average numbers of fish per spe-cies caught on a daily basis were greater for the low consumptive group than for the consumptive cohort. However, the consumptive group kept greater average numbers of fish per day than did the low consumptive group. Both angler groups placed a high value on non-consumptive trip mo-tivations. However, the low consumptive anglers valued non-consumptive motivations more highly than did the consumptive anglers. Not surpris-ingly, catching fish for consumption was more important to the consumptive anglers than it was for the low consumptive anglers. The greatest dif-ferences in mean responses were most pro-nounced with respect to the enjoyment of nature, followed by family togetherness, challenge and excitement, catch trophy fish, companionship, relaxation, opportunities to get away, improve fishing skills, and sense of achievement.   Environmental factors which played a role in the decision by anglers to fish in British Columbia’s tidal waters were of greater importance to the low consumptive group than the consumptive group. The greatest differences in responses with respect to environmental factors were related to catching trophy fish. This was followed by variety of spe-cies available, lack of pollutants in fish, catch rate of all fish, absence of other recreationists, natural beauty of area, water quality, presence of favour-ite species, presence of wildlife in area, places to fish from shore, lack of angler crowding and size of fish. The greatest differences in responses with respect to preferred management options were in the categories of more catch and release regula-tions and reduced bag limits.   Conclusions  Voluntary catch and release  The literature review revealed that despite the increasing number of anglers practicing voluntary catch and release of non-restricted fish in British Columbia’s tidal sport fishery, managers are cur-rently not encouraging this practice on a wider basis. This is the case despite the growing aware-ness of the need to conserve fish stocks. Findings from the survey suggest that compared to con-sumptive anglers, low consumptive anglers con-tribute more significantly to the conservation of fish stocks by practicing voluntary catch and re-lease of non-restricted fish. The low consumptive anglers kept lower average numbers of fish per day than did their consumptive counterparts. This indicates that the low consumptive group was more interested in fishing for sport than for con-sumption.  Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 60  Promotional campaigns should be carried out to educate all anglers on the need for voluntary catch and release of non-restricted fish as a con-servation measure, and to teach anglers the cor-rect release techniques in order to ensure the maximum survival of released fish. As well, a code of ethics for anglers should be established and promoted (Table 1).  Angling organizations, the federal and provincial governments, and the sport fishing industry should cooperatively participate in this educa-tional process. Methods to deliver information to anglers should include the use of brochures, post-ers, leaflets, media advertisements, videos, public information meetings and presentations, and sporting/outdoor magazines. These strategies may increase angler participation in the practice of voluntary catch and release that in turn may reduce fish consumption in the sport fishery.    Regulations  Catch restrictions that require mandatory catch and release practices currently comprise the main conservation strategy of the Department of Fish-eries and Oceans. Anglers are required to release fish when bag limits have been exceeded, in areas of species depletion, and when undersized fish are caught. This approach to conservation may not be an adequate means to successfully manage the growing demand for further sport fishing oppor-tunities and the concurrent decline in fish stocks.  Results of the survey indicate that management options of significantly greater importance to low consumptive anglers than consumptive anglers were reduced bag limits and more catch and re-lease regulations. Management strategies should require the inclusion of catch and release of non-restricted fish in bag limits. In addition, regula-tions should reduce bag limits for all species (Ta-ble 1). The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be responsible for implementation and promotion of these regulations. The imposition of Objectives Strategies Means  Increase angler participation in voluntary catch and release of non-restricted fish.   Institute promotional campaigns to edu-cate anglers on the need for conservation. Institute promotional campaigns to teach anglers the correct release techniques.  Establish and promote a code of ethics for anglers.  Public-private partnerships for education between governments, angling organisa-tions and the sport fishing industry.   Use of educational tools such as bro-chures, posters, leaflets, media adver-tisements, videos, public information meetings/presentations and sport-ing/outdoor magazines.   Lessen angler emphasis on preferred species.   Prevent depletion of preferred species.  Increase catch rates and sizes for all spe-cies.  Include catch and release of non-restricted fish in daily bag/retention lim-its.  Reduce bag limits for all species.  Severely curtail bag limits for depleted species.  Promotion and implementation of these stricter regulations through the federal government’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans.  Promotion of these stricter regulations by angling organisations.  Attract more low consumptive anglers who are primarily interested in the non-consumptive benefits of sport fishing.   Accommodate the desires of low con-sumptive anglers.  Further angler emphasis towards the non-consumptive aspects of sport fishing.  Promote enjoyment of nature, family togetherness and challenge and excite-ment as the main components of a sport fishing experience.  Promote sport fishing holiday packages offering a variety of recreational activities in conjunction with fishing.  Promotions by the sport fishing industry, angling organisations and the provincial government.  Attract more low consumptive anglers who are primarily interested in the sport-ing aspect of fishing.  Attract non-anglers who are interested in adventure tourism.  Promote the British Columbia tidal sport fishery as a catch and release trophy-fishing destination.  Promotion by all sport fishing sectors.  Use of promotional tools such as awards, trophy alternatives and tag and release fishing.   Table 1. Objectives for recreational fisheries and the means of realising them.   Evaluating Recreational Fisheries, Page 61   these regulations may result in increased catch rates and sizes for all species. This may lessen an-gler emphasis on depleted species, such as Coho and Chinook salmon, and bring about an im-provement in trophy fishing.  Non-Consumptive Benefits  Managers in the British Columbia tidal sport fish-ery are not actively taking into account the value that is placed upon the non-consumptive aspects of the sport fishing experience by low consump-tive anglers. Findings indicate that the low con-sumptive anglers went on a greater average num-ber of outdoors and resort trips in conjunction with their sport fishing trips than did the con-sumptive anglers. They were most different from their consumptive counterparts with respect to the importance they placed on such fishing ex-perience attributes as enjoyment of nature, family togetherness and challenge and excitement.  These motivations should be promoted to anglers as the main appeal of the sport fishing experience. Managers should promote sport fishing holiday packages that offer a variety of recreational activi-ties in conjunction with fishing (Table 1). This approach may better accommodate the desires of low consumptive anglers, and further angling ef-forts towards the non-consumptive aspects of the sport fishing experience. As well, cash flow bene-fits to the British Columbia economy may result. These promotions should be the responsibility of the sport fishing industry, angling organizations and the provincial government.Table 1. Manage-ment strategies to promote low-consumptive sport fishing in British Columbia’s tidal waters.  Trophy Fishing  The British Columbia tidal sport fishery should be promoted to anglers as a catch and release tro-phy-fishing destination, in order to encourage fishing for sport rather than for consumption (Ta-ble 1). All sport fishing sectors should take re-sponsibility for promotional efforts. Awards, tro-phy alternatives and tag and release of trophy fish are some of the ways to effect this promotion.  The current research has elucidated several stra-tegic management directions for the British Co-lumbia tidal sport fishery. If implemented, these management strategies will be valuable tools in effecting change towards sustainability of the tidal sport fishery.   References  ARA Consulting Group Incorporated. 1991. Marine Tourism in British Columbia: Opportunity Analysis. Ministry of Tour-ism, Victoria. ARA Consulting Group Incorporated. 1996. The Economic Value of Salmon: Chinook and Coho in British Columbia, Discussion Document. ARA Consulting Group Incorpo-rated, Vancouver.  Barnhart, R. A. 1989. Symposium review: Catch-and-release fishing, a decade of experience. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 9: 74-80. Barnhart, R. A., P. T. Higgins, R. H. May, and T. D. Roelofs. 1987. Foreword. In: Barnhart, R. A., and T. D. Roelofs (Eds.). 1987. Catch-and-Release Fishing A Decade of Ex-perience: A National Sport Fishing Symposium. Hum-boldt State University, Arcata. Barnhart, R. A., and T. D. Roelofs (Eds.). 1977. Catch-and-Release Fishing as a Management Tool: A National Sport Fishing Symposium. Humboldt State University, Arcata. Barnhart, R. A., and T. D. Roelofs (Eds.). 1987. Catch-and-Release Fishing A Decade of Experience: A National Sport Fishing Symposium. Humboldt State University, Arcata. Bielak, A. T. 1987. Promoting catch and release of Atlantic salmon. In: Barnhart, R. A., and T. D. Roelofs (Eds.). 1987. Catch-and-Release Fishing A Decade of Experience: A National Sport Fishing Symposium. Humboldt State University, Arcata. 126-142. Bielak, A. T. 1988. Promoting catch and release: The ultimate low consumption fishing technique. 57-69. In: Recrea-tional Fisheries Conference Proceedings 1986. Informa-tion and Publication Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Can-ada, Ottawa. Bielak, A. T., and B. Tufts. 1995. A revolution in Atlantic salmon management: From all-kill to no-kill. Wild Steelhead and Atlantic Salmon. 2(3): 8-15. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1997a. Canada-British Columbia Agreement on the Man-agement of Pacific Salmon Fishery Issues: April 1997. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Victoria. British Columbia Min