Do we need species-specific guidelines for catch-and-release recreational angling to effectively conserve diverse fishery resources?

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 1195-1209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. Cooke ◽  
Cory D. Suski

<i>Abstract</i> .—In recreational fisheries, catch and release is widespread and practiced under the assumption that released fish survive the capture event unharmed. To improve understanding about the lethal impacts of catch-and-release recreational angling, a quantitative meta-analysis of the literature on hooking mortality and its determinants was conducted focusing on freshwater fishes. Studies were initially selected based on the occurrence of the study species in European recreational fisheries. Because original studies from European freshwater or diadromous fish species were rare, studies from the same genus as native European species were also included in the meta-analysis. Mean hooking mortality ± SE across all species was 15.9 ± 1.3% (<i>n </i> = 252 hooking mortality estimates in <i>n </i> = 107 studies), with a median of 7.8% and a range from 0% to 88.5%. The distribution of hooking mortality estimates was highly skewed towards low values; about 60% of all hooking mortality values were below 10%. Average hooking mortality varied between fish families and was highest for Percidae (mean ± SE, 19.9 ± 5.3%) followed by Salmonidae (15.9 ± 1.4%), Esocidae (14.9 ± 7.0%), and Cyprinidae (5.7 ± 1.6%). Hooking mortality was positively related to water temperature and was significantly higher for natural baits and barbed hooks than for artificial baits and barbless hooks. Size of fish and type of hook were unrelated to the level of hooking mortality. To minimize hooking mortality on European fish species, we recommend the use of barbless hooks and artificial baits and we suggest avoiding catch and release of fish during high water temperatures. Further research on the impacts of catch and release on a number of European fishes is recommended because of the limited coverage of species-specific information in the contemporary literature.


2019 ◽  
Vol 211 ◽  
pp. 231-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon D. Bower ◽  
Neethi Mahesh ◽  
Rajeev Raghavan ◽  
Andy J. Danylchuk ◽  
Steven J. Cooke

<i>Abstract</i>.—Ever since fishing was called recreational fishing, a cruelty charge has hovered around somewhere in the background. In recent times, however, it has made it to the fore substantiated by anthropomorphic reasoning and fuelled by high-visibility papers claiming that fish can feel pain and suffer. Because some segments of the public perceive the infliction of these mental states to fish as abhorrent and not outweighing the costs imposed on the individual fish by appropriate benefits to the human, recreational fishing is coming under attack on moral grounds. Other challenges have also emerged that do not center on the issue of whether fish are sentient or not. In this paper, we describe five of the most prevalent moral challenges to recreational angling, two of which—animal welfare and wilderness-centered perspectives—can offer a constructive outlook by calling upon improved treatment of individual fish (animal welfare) and generally more sustainable management (wilderness perspective). In contrast, if one subscribes to animal liberation or animal rights philosophies, the outlook for recreational fishing is generally negative: it has to stop. A final challenge is associated with the motivations of anglers. The moral argument there is that the activity is carried out largely for angler pleasure rather than as a means of securing survival. The outlook of this ethical challenge sometimes leans towards only accepting one form of recreational fishing: catching, killing, and eating. Voluntary catch-and-release fishing and practices such as tournament fishing with a strict total catch-and-release policy would then not be ethically permissible. In this paper, we highlight the origin and background of each of the five ethical challenges and explain their implications for recreational fishing.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandria Trahan ◽  
Auston Chhor ◽  
Michael J. Lawrence ◽  
Jacob W. Brownscombe ◽  
Daniel Glassman ◽  
...  

AbstractThe premise of catch-and-release angling is that most fish survive fisheries interactions. Therefore, it is common for anglers, management agencies, and other organizations to share information on handling practices and other strategies that are believed to improve fish welfare and survival. Recent media coverage has sensationalized the use of carbonated beverages to treat bleeding fish, an intervention that is purported to stop bleeding but has yet to be validated scientifically. We captured Northern Pike (Esox lucius) via hook and line, experimentally injured their gills in a standardized manner, and treated them with either Mountain Dew, Coca Cola, or carbonated lake water and observed the duration and intensity of bleeding, as well as overall blood loss (using gill colour as a proxy) while the fish was held in a lake water bath. As a control, we had a group of experimentally injured fish that did not have liquid poured over their gills before the observation period. All treatments and the control were conducted at two different water temperatures (11-18 °C and 24-27 °C) to determine if the effects of pouring carbonated beverages over injured gills is temperature dependent. When compared to the control, we found that the duration and intensity of bleeding increased regardless of the type of carbonated beverages used in this study, and there was no effect of water temperature. Use of chilled versus ambient temperature beverages similarly had no influence on outcomes. As such, there is no scientific evidence to support the use of carbonated beverages for reducing or stopping blood loss for fish that have had their gills injured during recreational angling based on the context studied here. This study reinforced the need to scientifically test angler anecdotes and theories when it comes to best practices for catch-and-release fishing.


2017 ◽  
Vol 186 ◽  
pp. 625-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler O. Gagne ◽  
Kimberly L. Ovitz ◽  
Lucas P. Griffin ◽  
Jacob W. Brownscombe ◽  
Steven J. Cooke ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 65 (7) ◽  
pp. 1286-1296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica T. Jarvis ◽  
Christopher G. Lowe

Two experiments were used to assess the effects of barotrauma on initial capture survival and short-term postrecompression survival of line-caught (range 18–225 m) southern California rockfish ( Sebastes spp.). Occurrence of external and internal signs of barotrauma was characterized across all species. Despite species-specific differences in the extent of barotrauma observed, initial capture survival of rockfish held in a live well for a 10-min period following capture was 68% overall (19 species, n = 168). Overall 2-day survival of rockfish following recompression in cages was also 68% (17 species, n = 257). Short-term survival varied across species (range 36% to 82%), as did the occurrence of external signs of barotrauma. The degree of external signs of barotrauma was not a significant predictor of initial capture survival or short-term survival. The most significant predictor of short-term survival was surface holding time, with short-term survival increasing with decreasing surface holding time. These results suggest that rapid recompression of rockfish can significantly decrease discard mortality and could potentially enhance rockfish conservation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document