 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Recreational Fishing Alliance
Position Paper
Recreational Fishing Alliance
Position Paper
Too
Much Of A Good Thing
Catch & Release Fishing: Its application and implications for the future of the sport fishing.
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association January 2001 Newsletter)
It is the position of the
Recreational Fishing Alliance that the release of recreationally caught fish in marine
fisheries should be, in most cases, the ethical and moral prerogative of the angler and
that attempting to impose “catch and release” exclusivity is not an effective
fishery management tool. Voluntary catch and release of undersized fish or those fish not
being utilized by the angler has been firmly established as ethical behavior in books, the
outdoor media and well promoted by the sportfishing industry with extraordinary results.
Recent symposiums convened by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have exposed an undercurrent of feeling that
requiring total catch and release can be used to remedy management problems in fisheries
that actually require more stringent controls on, or in some cases, the total elimination
of commercial harvest. The RFA believes that mandating catch and release is a move in the
wrong direction and will further alienate recreational fishermen and decrease compliance
with existing regulations.
The RFA is concerned that the
management community might press ahead with the development of regulations that could
phase in total catch and release in some fisheries and recognizes that it would be
detrimental to recreational fishing participation and the industry at a time when
recreational fishermen are already releasing the majority of the fish they catch for
ethical reasons, due to current bag limits, size regulations or season closures, or for a
combination of these reasons.
This paper will explore the good
points of catch and release as practiced in the marine environment and the trap of
mandating catch and release as a management tool, especially in those fisheries with a
commercial and recreational component.
A Brief History:
Catch and release has been a part of
sport fishing, in one form or another, for most of the twentieth century. One hundred
years ago, members of the Tuna Club of Avalon located on Catalina Island off the coast of
California were developing rules for ethical angling, which began with promoting the use
of “light-tackle” to give the fish a sporting chance. One of the club’s
best known members, famed sportsman and author Zane Grey, was espousing the release of
prized gamefish as a way of further elevating sportfishing ethics and as a means of
helping protect fish stocks from depletion which, even in his day and age, was occurring
due to commercial overfishing. In his masterwork, Tales of Fishes, published in
1919, Grey wrote, “…if we are to develop as anglers who believe in conservation
and sportsmanship, we must consider the fish – his right to life and, especially, if
he must be killed, to do it without brutality.” Grey and other visionaries believed
conservation should be the individual angler’s ethical and moral imperative and they
did their best to teach that philosophy. The teaching continues today at a much elevated
pace.
It wasn’t until the 1952 that
regulated “catch and release” was first used as a management tool. The state of
Michigan, in an effort to reduce the cost of stocking hatchery-raised trout to satisfy a
growing number of anglers, classified certain trout streams as “Fish-for-Fun”
waters and prohibited retention of fish caught from them. With the precedent set, many
states quickly followed suit instituting similar programs under a variety of names. Not
everyone in the management community and the fishing public were thrilled with the
concept, but it stuck and “no-kill” zones became a commonly used tool in
freshwater fishery management.
The implementation of catch and release
regulations similar to those imposed in freshwater have occurred only rarely or in limited
areas in marine fisheries however, the latest trends in management are, in fact, creating de
facto catch and release regulations that must be carefully monitor. Marine
recreational fishing is a different state of affairs and does not lend itself to
regulations that mandate catch and release exclusivity.
A Simple Definition:
The term “catch and release”
refers to recreational fishing in which the angler hooks, fights and effectively “catches”
a fish, but does not kill and retain it for consumption, as a trophy or for other
purposes. Ideally, the fish is revived and released at the end of the encounter in good
condition to continue its life cycle. There are two forces that promote catch and release
for marine anglers. One encourages catch and release as a sportsmanlike practice while the
other dictates it.
Catch and Release As Ethical
Behavior:
Voluntary catch and release evolved
during the transition of recreational fishing into the sport we participate in today and
has become part and parcel of sportfishing’s guiding principles or ethics. Ethics
require a moral code and that code has been established over decades of promoting
sportsmanlike conduct and conservation. However, angling ethics are not applied in a
similar manner to all marine fish pursued by anglers. Certain species of fish are elevated
to the status of gamefish, while some are sought for their eating quality and still others
fall into a grey area somewhere in-between. It is important for conservationists and
fishery managers to recognize these differences because recreational fishing has a range
of meanings and perceived benefits to different segments of the fishing population. While
catch and release is considered ethical behavior to anglers who pursue highly regarded
gamefish, it is not acceptable, and even considered unfair, by anglers who pursue a
species of fish as much to eat as for the enjoyment. The position of the later becomes
even harder when the fishery he is participating in has a commercial component.
Prohibiting the retention of fish by anglers that may be caught and sold by commercial
interests is simply unsupportable. Each angler is right in his position, but should not
seek to impose his position on the other. Fishery managers must recognize these positions
when regulating harvest in any fishery and anglers who seek to impose their behavior on
their fellow anglers engaged in different fisheries should be more considerate of the
differences that exist.
Species perceived as gamefish are
elevated to such lofty status because of the difficulty in catching them or for the
fighting ability they exhibit. Gamefish are most likely to be released voluntarily by
anglers. Most notable are marlin and sailfish, which are revered for their acrobatic
display when challenged using appropriate tackle and which are, to some degree, prohibited
from commercial harvest. Bycatch mortality in commercial fisheries is still the leading
cause of fishing mortality among all billfish.
Killing these fish at the end of a
spirited fight is considered anathema by most anglers. The regard in which they are held
is evident in the percentage of billfish released by anglers prior to the implementation
of even the first regulations (size limits) placed on them by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 1988. In 1987, 60% of the blue marlin, 73% of the white marlin
and 94% of the sailfish caught recreationally in U.S. waters were released voluntarily. (Source:
1994/1995 Report of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center – Billfish Program)
The trend toward release has continued on a steady pace with the constant education
process undertaken by the sportfishing media and industry.
Today, anglers rarely retain billfish
except in the cases of a possible record fish, to have a special catch mounted, or those
caught in the course of a tournament, which requires the weighing of fish to determine the
winner. In recent years, even the number of marlin and sailfish killed in tournaments has
declined dramatically through efforts to improve communications while the contest is in
progress and by the institution of catch and release format contests. In recent years,
U.S. anglers have maintained a release rate well over 90% for marlin and sailfish and even
though there are federally regulated size limits in place aimed at reducing angler
harvest, they are not credited with impacting the practice of live release to any degree.
Only a few other species are held in
similar regard to billfish and experience similarly high voluntary release rate. Tarpon,
bonefish and Atlantic salmon are notables, while a host of other marine species benefit
from the gamefish perception to varying degree. More species are gaining greater
acceptance as gamefish and that perception combined with regulation has seen live release
soar to unprecedented levels.
Regulatory “Catch & Release”:
There is a second form of catch and
release that has evolved as a result of regulations imposed on anglers by federal and
state agencies. In this instance, the release of fish caught is in response to the
imposition of size limits, bag limits, seasonal closures or, in rare instances, a complete
moratorium on the harvest of a particular species (i.e. The current ban on the harvest of
jewfish due to the species’ once precariously overfished stock situation, which makes
any angler encounter exclusively catch and release). Fish that might have been retained
for consumption or other use must be released under penalty of law.
In recent years, regulatory catch and
release has become commonplace for saltwater anglers due to the decline in stock abundance
of almost all of the species that are recreationally popular. Yet most of the stock
declines come at the hands of commercial overfishing, habitat loss and regulatory
mismanagement. As part of the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) aimed at reversing the
declines and rebuilding sustainable fisheries, recreational fishermen have shouldered a
significant portion of the burden through regulations. Many of the species with strict
recreational regulations are not considered gamefish, but are pursued by anglers for their
food quality in addition to the enjoyment gained from fishing. In such cases, those fish
large enough to retain for consumption most likely would not be released voluntarily,
however, as part of an FMP, angler harvest is limited by size limits, bag limits and/or
seasonal closures and therefore release a significant percentage of the fish they catch.
In some cases, the percentage of catch released has reached levels that were unimaginable
just a few short years ago.
The most sought-after fish in the
Mid-Atlantic States is the summer flounder, with the number of anglers pursuing them
exceeding even the highly regarded striped bass. Summer flounder are by no means a
gamefish. They are pursued for their fine eating characteristics and, to a lesser extent,
because they are relatively easy and fun to catch. Since the implementation of the FMP to
rebuild their depleted stocks in 1993, which came with the imposition of strict size and
bag limits and seasonal closures on recreational anglers, the level of angler release grew
to 80% of the fish caught by 1999! During the ten years prior to the FMP, voluntary
release, mostly of undersized fish exclusively, averaged approximately 45%. (Source:
National Marine Fisheries Service - Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey)
Synthesis Improves Management
Effectiveness:
Somewhere between voluntary and
regulatory catch and release is a middle ground which anglers practice that is strongly
influenced by the status of the species being caught. For example, the live release of
striped bass today is well in excess of even the highly restrictive size and bag limits
imposed on anglers. In 1999, over 90% of the stripers caught were released. This is an
extraordinary percentage when you look back and realize that just 25 years ago almost
every striped bass caught by anglers was killed to eat or to sell (sale of angler caught
striped bass was legal in many states). The transition from an almost 100% kill to a 90%
release ratio is simply astounding. (Source: National Marine Fisheries Service - Marine
Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey) Could regulations alone influence anglers to
release such a high percentage of the stripers they catch? The answer is unquestionably,
no.
Striped bass have not always been
considered a gamefish due to their excellent food quality. However, the perception by
anglers has changed considerably in recent years. The near tragic loss of this species due
to decades of commercial and recreational overfishing gave way to an air of cooperation in
the efforts put forth by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to
reverse the stock decline and save the species from total collapse. Draconian regulations
and even periods of total harvest moratoriums (catch and release exclusively) were put in
place and, as the stocks slowly started to rebuild, the perception of anglers evolved from
one of a fish destined for someone’s table to a premiere inshore gamefish that must
be protected. Regulatory catch and release through size and bag limits and seasonal
closures were actually exceeded through voluntary catch and release of all stripers by an
amazing number of anglers who had come to believe that killing this fish for anything
short of a trophy was unconscionable. The shift in perception had a dramatic effect on the
rate of compliance with the harsh measures implemented in the FMP. It was the combination
of voluntary catch and release as ethical behavior with regulatory catch and release
imposed by the FMP that created the atmosphere for the plan to succeed. Today, striped
bass are rebuilding to remarkable levels of abundance and anglers are permitted to retain
a small percentage of their catch for personal consumption or as trophies, should they
desire to do so, yet many anglers continue to release far more striped bass than the law
compels them to.
Even in the case of summer flounder,
anglers comply with Draconian regulation not just because it is the law, but also because
they have been conditioned by their sense of ethical behavior. They comply with the
regulations believing it is their ethical responsibility and that releasing fish today
will result in improved stocks abundance and less regulation in the future.
It is imperative
that fishery managers realize that compliance with many regulations restricting
recreational harvest is the result of the ethical angling behavior, an adjunct to
voluntary catch and release, as much as it is in response to the letter of the law. Most
anglers understand, as do state and federal fishery managers and enforcement agencies,
that compliance with recreational regulations must be overwhelmingly voluntarily. Gaining
compliance through enforcement efforts is nearly impossible because of the number of
recreational fishermen involved in most fisheries and the limited resources available to
the enforcement agencies.
The Downside of Mandatory Catch &
Release:
While catch and release plays a role in
today’s recreational fisheries, if improperly applied as a management tool, it will
have dire consequences for fishermen, the industry and the management process. Those in
the management community who believe that regulating expanded catch and release as an
alternative to angler harvest risk the consequences of dramatic reductions in angler
participation and diminished economic benefit gained by their participation.
There is a
disturbing trend in the management community’s vision of recreational fishing in the
future as evidenced by the focus of recent meetings held by NMFS. In symposiums with
anglers, conservationists and industry representatives, it appears the agency is exploring
the possibility of replacing tradition recreational fishing with regulated harvest with
catch and release exclusively. Such a move is ill advised and evidence of the dramatic
disconnect between some managers and their understanding of what drives recreational
fishing.
While some
fisheries lend themselves to the catch and release scenario, they are overwhelming found
in freshwater. Even states that employ catch and release or no-kill streams or zones in
some fisheries do not completely prohibit the retention of recreationally caught fish
within their total jurisdictions. They merely pick and choose specific water to close to
harvest. The RFA is concerned that federal and state fisheries managers are seeking a
method by which to declare entire fisheries catch and release only, attempting to employ
an ethical principle as a management panacea rather than recognizing it as a tool to be
used with extreme care and only where absolutely needed. Once federal agencies have
embarked on such a course of action, they will reduce angler interest in some of the most
recreationally popular fisheries and cause the loss of economic benefits to the economy
generated by the sport. If reducing angler participation is being serious contemplated,
mandatory catch and release would accomplish that goal nicely.
Most species of
marine fish of interest to anglers currently benefit from a significant degree of catch
and release be it voluntary or associated with seasonal closures, bag and size limits. In
fact, fully 60% of the recreational catch of the ten most popular species in the Atlantic
region was release in the period between 1989 and 1998. (Source: NMFS - Marine
Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey) Of all the species sought by anglers, there
are few indeed that have not been regulated to reduce fishing mortality and anglers have
had to endure drastic regulation even though most fish stock depletion is the result of
commercial over-fishing and years of poor management by government agencies.
In Conclusion:
If the push for
additional regulations that result in excessive catch and release or if a move to make
certain species catch and release exclusively is overused, and it is reaching or has
reached that point in many FMPs already, angler compliance will be the first thing to
suffer. The majority of the angling community has given its wholehearted support to
rebuilding efforts and regulations they view as fair and balanced, even in fisheries where
the culprit was commercial overfishing. Their compliance has been key to successfully
reducing fishing mortality in many FMPs, especially those in which there is a strong
recreational component. The RFA feels the management community must strive to better
understand the importance of maintaining fairness in its management plans and recognize
the reasons the public participates in recreational fishing before continuing down the
slipper slope toward mandating catch and release practices to a greater degree than is
currently in use today.
Even in the case
of the highly regarded billfishes, which now have among the strictest controls on harvest
of any recreationally important species; to mandate total catch and release, or raise the
size limits further to effect that goal, will have serious consequences. It will reduce
participation by denying the angling public the ability to harvest even a tiny fraction of
the fish they catch in tournaments or as trophies. The loser will be the municipalities
and states where billfish tournaments provide a much-needed economic boost to their
economies. If catch and release is mandated in other fisheries, the consequences will be
even more far-reaching and dramatic.
Fishery
management is frequently a balancing act. Excluding recreational participation through
over-regulation; employing management practices that are patently unfair to one user
group; or mandating fishing behavior and ethics could bring about the demise of the
management system as it exists today and risk the rebuilding of many fisheries that are
finally responding to sensible management solutions.